Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — President Trump just can’t seem to choose among friends in the Texas Senate Republican primary.

So when he travels to the state on Friday for his first post-State of the Union trip, where he plans to promote his energy and economic policies, Trump will have all three candidates in the competitive race join him — just days before his party casts ballots in the primary race.

Sen. John Cornyn is battling for his fifth term and is being challenged by state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt in a primary fight that has become viciously personal. And all three men, missing the coveted endorsement from Trump, have been trying to highlight their ties to him as they ramp up their campaigning ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

For his part, Trump will be seeking to ride the message of his State of the Union address from Tuesday, where he declared a return to economic prosperity and a more secure America — two centerpiece arguments for Republicans as they campaign to keep their congressional majorities this fall.

Trump’s hesitation to endorse in the Texas Senate primary speaks to the tricky dynamics of the race.

Cornyn is unpopular with a segment of Texas’ GOP base, in part for his early dismissiveness of Trump’s 2024 comeback campaign and for his role in authoring tougher restrictions on guns after the 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. But Senate GOP leadership and allied groups see Cornyn as the stronger general election candidate, in light of a series of troubles that have shadowed Paxton.

Paxtonbeat impeachment on fraud charges in 2023, and has faced allegations of marital infidelity by his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have urged Trump to endorse Cornyn. They and allied campaign groups argue that the seat would cost the party hundreds of millions more to defend with Paxton as the candidate.

“It is a strong possibility we cannot hold Texas if John Cornyn is not our nominee,” Scott told Fox News on Wednesday.

Hunt, a second-term Houston-area representative, was a later entry to the race, but claims a kinship with Trump, having endorsed him early in the 2024 race. Hunt campaigned regularly for Trump and earned a prime-time speaking slot at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

If no candidate reaches 50% in Tuesday’s primary, the top two finishers will advance to a May 26 runoff.

Cornyn’s campaign and a half-dozen allied groups have poured more than $63 million into the race since last fall, chiefly trying to slow Paxton but recently attacking Hunt in an effort to keep him from making it to the runoff.

Earlier this month, Trump feinted toward weighing in on the race when he said he was taking “a serious look” at endorsing in the Texas primary. He has since reaffirmed his neutrality.

Still, you wouldn’t know it from watching TV in Texas. Cornyn has been airing ads since last year touting his support for Trump’s agenda, even though his relationship with the president has been cool at times. Paxton and Hunt both have ads airing now featuring them standing with Trump.

“I like all three of them, actually. Those are the toughest races. They’ve all supported me. They’re all good. You’re supposed to pick one, so we’ll see what happens. But I support all three,” Trump said earlier this month.

The GOP battle comes as Democrats have a contested primary of their own in Texas between state Rep. James Talarico, a self-described policy wonk who regularly quotes the Bible, and progressive favorite U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett.

Trump hasn’t been shy about wading into other contested Republican primaries in the state. Parts of Corpus Christi fall within Texas’ 34th congressional district, where former Rep. Mayra Flores is fighting to reclaim her seat against the Trump-endorsed Eric Flores. (The two are not related.) The winner of the primary will face off against Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, long a target of the GOP, whose district was redrawn to make it easier for a Republican to win.

Eric Flores will be at the Trump event at the Port of Corpus Christi, which technically is located in a neighboring district.

Elsewhere in the state, the president has also endorsed Rep. Tony Gonzales, who is fighting calls from his own party to resign from Congress after reports of an alleged affair with a former staffer who later died after she set herself on fire. Gonzales is refusing to step down and has said that there will be “opportunities for all of the details and facts to come out” and that the stories about the situation do not represent “all the facts.”

Gonzales is facing a primary challenge from Brandon Herrera, a gun manufacturer and gun rights influencer who Gonzales defeated by fewer than 400 votes in their 2024 runoff. The White House did not return a request for comment on Thursday on whether Trump stands by his endorsement of Gonzales.

Kim and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Beaumont reported from Des Moines, Ia. AP writer Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Former President Clinton is testifying Friday before members of Congress investigating convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, answering for his connections to the disgraced financier from more than two decades ago.

The closed-door deposition in Chappaqua, N.Y., will mark the first time a former president has been compelled to testify to Congress. It comes a day after Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sat with lawmakers for her own deposition.

Bill Clinton has also not been accused of any wrongdoing. Yet lawmakers are grappling with what accountability in the United States looks like at a time when men around the world have been toppled from their high-powered posts for maintaining their connections with Epstein after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges in Florida for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl.

Hillary Clinton told lawmakers that she had no knowledge of how Epstein had sexually abused underage girls and had no recollection of even meeting him. But Bill Clinton will have to answer questions on a well-documented relationship with Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, even if it was from the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Hillary Clinton said Thursday that she expected her husband to testify that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s sexual abuse at the time they knew each other.

Republicans were relishing the opportunity to scrutinize the former Democratic president under oath.

“The Clintons haven’t answered very many, if any, questions about their knowledge or involvement with Epstein and Maxwell,” Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee, said Thursday.

“No one’s accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” he added.

Republicans finally get a chance to question Bill Clinton

Republicans have wanted to question Bill Clinton about Epstein for years, especially as conspiracy theories arose following Epstein’s 2019 suicide in a New York jail cell while he faced sex trafficking charges.

Those calls reached a fever pitch late last year when several photos of the former president surfaced in the Department of Justice’s first release of case files on Epstein and Maxwell, a British socialite who was convicted of sex trafficking in December 2021 but maintains she’s innocent. Bill Clinton was photographed on a plane seated alongside a woman, whose face is redacted, with his arm around her. Another photo showed Clinton and Maxwell in a pool with another person whose face was redacted.

Epstein also visited the White House several times during Clinton’s presidency, and the pair later made several international trips together for their humanitarian work.

In the lead-up to the deposition, Bill Clinton has insisted he had limited knowledge about Epstein and was unaware of any sexual abuse he committed.

“I think the chronology of the connection that he had with Epstein ended several years before anything about Epstein’s criminal activities came to light,” Hillary Clinton said at the conclusion of her deposition Thursday.

Comer has pledged extensive questioning of the former president. He claimed that Hillary Clinton had repeatedly deferred questions about Epstein to her husband.

Has a precedent been set?

Democrats, who have supported the push to get answers from Bill Clinton, are arguing that it sets a precedent that should also apply to President Donald Trump, a Republican who had his own relationship with Epstein.

“We’re demanding immediately that we ask President Trump to testify in front of our committee and be deposed in front of Oversight Republicans and Democrats,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Thursday.

Comer has pushed back on that idea, saying that Trump has answered questions on Epstein from the press.

Democrats are also calling for the resignation of Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Lutnick was a longtime neighbor of Epstein in New York City but said on a podcast that he severed ties with Epstein following a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Lutnick and his wife.

The public release of case files showed that Lutnick actually had two engagements with Epstein years later. He attended a 2011 event at Epstein’s home, and in 2012 his family had lunch with Epstein on his private island.

“He should be removed from office and at a minimum should come before the committee,” Garcia said of Lutnick.

Comer on Thursday said that it was “very possible” that Lutnick would be called to testify.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Here’s what I think about the so-called Hillary Clinton cleavage controversy: She looked fabulous. Unfortunately, thanks to the vigilance and stridency of Clinton’s legions of feminist supporters in the media, who rose to collectively denounce a Washington Post fashion writer who dared to notice that Clinton had displayed an inch of cleavage while speaking on the Senate floor, we are unlikely ever again to see her looking so forthrightly feminine, so classily sexy, so zaftigly maternal — so downright attractive.

Even the most Clinton-smitten of political liberals admit that the New York senator is often fashion-challenged. During her husband’s presidency, she was known for her garish-hued suits featuring doorknob-size buttons and less-than-flattering hemlines.

Now running for the nation’s highest office, she’s switched to garish-hued boxy jackets over sleek but essentially shapeless black pants. For example, check out the salmon-orange jacket with stiff mandarin collar that she wore for the July 23 Democratic presidential debate. “I don’t know about that jacket,” said the Democratic presidential field’s style maven, John Edwards, he of the $400 haircut.

So, it was a refreshing break to see Clinton attired in clothes that actually looked good on her when she was captured by C-SPAN2 on the Senate floor July 18. She has, ahem, put on a few pounds since she ran for the Senate in 2000, and as all gorgeous women of a certain weight know, from Cecilia Bartoli to Mo’Nique, the name of the game is to concentrate the viewer’s attention on your above-the-waist assets, which, thanks to that nourishing layer of subcutaneous you-know-what, typically include lustrous skin and luxuriant hair. Clinton has both, and she also has a bust line that larger women don’t have to pay a plastic surgeon to possess.

Everything that Clinton wore that day on the Senate floor — the soft rose-pink jacket, simple and tasteful, that highlighted her pearlescent complexion; the matching pink necklace; and the black shirt with a slight V-neck that revealed a “small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative” (to quote Post writer Robin Givhan) — brought out her female best.

My own theory is that Clinton was indulging in a visual retort to Elizabeth Edwards (those Edwardses!), who was quoted in a July 17 article in Salon magazine saying that Clinton, obliged to prove her toughness as a potential world leader, wouldn’t be as effective as her husband on women’s issues. Bill Clinton’s response to Edwards — “I don’t think [Hillary’s] trying to be a man” — was captured on a now-famous YouTube video.

Givhan’s comparison of Hillary Clinton’s decolletage to “catching a man with his fly unzipped” wasn’t an analogy I would have used, but Givhan incurred the wrath of political feminists because her article violated this basic double standard of the women’s movement: It’s fine to aver, a la feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan,that women are the kinder, gentler, softer sex — and also to advertise one’s softer sexuality by declining to dress in the covered-up uniform of men. But if you dare call people’s attention to that fact, as Givhan did, you’re a sexist pig.

The reliably neurasthenic New York Times columnist Judith Warner got the ball of outrage rolling: “I always thought that middle age afforded some kind of protection from prying eyes and personal remarks.”

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman divulged more details than one would care to know about her own sartorial peculiarities: “And what to make of my lime-colored Crocs with their peek-a-boo holes? Do they express a certain post-feminist funkiness? Or do they expose a feminine (if chipped) pedicure?”

An irate woman left a voice-mail message with Post ombudsman Deborah Howell demanding that the newspaper “do more stories on the private parts of male candidates.”

And the over-the-top finale came from Clinton advisor Ann Lewis’ use of Givhan’s article in a fundraising letter designed to stir up the wrath and dollars of Clinton’s supporters: “Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It’s insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It’s insulting to our daughters — and our sons — who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast.”

So, I guess it’s back to mandarin collars for Clinton. That’s too bad, because she would do better to take a leaf from the book of the powerful women in history who boldly used every weapon in their arsenals to hold their own in a world dominated by men: not only their brilliant minds but also their looks and their sexuality. They include Elizabeth I, who decked herself with every pearl that could be fished out of the Indian Ocean, and Cleopatra, who seduced two Roman rulers.

As for cleavage, Catherine the Great displayed five times as much bon point as did Clinton. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria wore dresses cut so low that it’s hard to figure out how they stayed up — even after bearing her 16 children. Her husband, Francis I, was originally the emperor, but after a while, Maria Theresa just took over and ran the Habsburg domains herself. Sounds like a good role model for Hillary Clinton.

Charlotte Allen is an editor at Beliefnet and the author of “The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.”

California’s landmark single-use plastic law is slowly being eroded by pressures within the state. Now legal attacks from outside threaten to kneecap it entirely.

Earlier this month, a federal district court judge in Oregon put parts of its single-use plastic law, which is similar to California’s, on hold while he decides whether it violates antitrust and consumer protection laws.

At the same time, 10 Republican attorneys general sent letters directly to companies that are taking part in plastic reduction campaigns, telling them to stop.

They threatened legal action against Costco, Unilever, Coca-Cola and 75 other companies for participating in the Plastic Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. These efforts all include industry as an active partner in reducing plastics, but the letters say the companies are colluding against consumers “to remove products from the market without considering consumer demand, product effectiveness, or the cost and impact on consumers of a replacement product.”

Charges of corporate collusion and conspiracy are central to both cases.

Anti-waste advocates and attorneys well versed in packaging say the lawsuit and the letters to Costco and the other companies highlight vulnerabilities in several of California’s waste laws, including the seminal Senate Bill 54 — the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. At issue are what are known as Extended Producer Responsibility laws.

These put the cost of cleanup and waste disposal on the companies that make materials — plastic, paint or carpet — rather than on consumers, cities and municipalities.

In 2024, a report from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta estimated that collectively, the state’s cities spend more than $1 billion each year on litter management. In 2023, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic (or 171.4 billion pieces) were sold or distributed, according to one state analysis.

These producer responsibility laws emphasize the idea of “circular economy”: that the producer of a material must consider its fate — making sure it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

The laws organize companies into entities, called Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs), that generally oversee the management of the laws, set fees and collect them from members.

In the Oregon lawsuit, the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors alleges a state-sanctioned product responsibility organization levied fees on trade group members that were onerous and opaque.

“Their fee structure was designed in secret by board members of the PRO,” said Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive of the group.

“Oregon is attempting to build a statewide recycling system by granting vast authority to a private entity to impose what amount to hidden taxes on businesses and consumers,” said Brian Wild, chief government relations officer for the wholesalers. “This law raises prices, shields decision-making from scrutiny, and advantages large, vertically integrated companies at the expense of smaller competitors.”

The group he references, the Circular Action Alliance, is the same one that oversees California’s single-use plastic law. Amazon, Colgate-Palmolive, General Mills and Procter & Gamble are part of it.

Others, however, say California’s laws are strong.

People shop at Costco in Glendale, Calif., on April 10.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

“Extended Producer Responsibility laws are public policies passed by legislatures and implemented with government oversight,” said Heidi Sanborn, the executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for the laws and a more circular economy.

She helped craft many of California’s waste laws, including SB 54 and was also involved in Oregon’s law. “They create clear, consistent rules so all producers contribute fairly to the cost of recycling and waste management,” she said.

Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who wrote SB 54, said California’s plastic bill was designed to avoid violating antitrust laws.

CalRecycle declined to comment.

Some advocates actually hope the California laws fall. They include Jan Dell, of Last Beach Cleanup, an anti-plastic group based in Laguna Beach.

Extended Producer Responsibility “programs are based on the false premise that plastic is recyclable and are counterproductive because they green wash plastics and preempt proven solutions like strategic bans on the worst forms of plastic pollution (e.g. single use bags, six pack rings),” Dell wrote in an email.

Even those, however, can be problematic if they’re not enforced. Dell pointed to SB 54’s de facto ban on polystyrene, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

“There is still Styrofoam stuff sold in 250 Smart and Final stores across the state!” she said. “It is totally noncredible and outrageous to claim that CalRecycle will ever enforce regulations on thousands of types of packaging when they can’t enforce the regulations on JUST ONE!”

At a time when so many forces seem to be dividing us as a nation, it is tragic that President Trump seeks to co-opt or destroy whatever remaining threads unite us.

I refer, of course, to the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team winning gold: the kind of victory that normally causes Americans to forget their differences and instead focus on something wholesome, like chanting “USA” while mispronouncing the names of the European players we defeated before taking on Canada.

This should have been pure civic oxygen. Instead, we got video of Kash Patel pounding beers with the players — which is not illegal, but does make you wonder whether the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a desk somewhere with neglected paperwork that might hold the answers to the D.B. Cooper mystery.

Then came the presidential phone call to the men’s team, during which Trump joked about having to invite the women’s team to the State of the Union, too, or risk impeachment — the sort of sexist humor that lands best if you’re a 79-year-old billionaire and not a 23-year-old athlete wondering whether C-SPAN is recording. (The U.S. women’s hockey team also brought home the gold this year, also after beating Canada. The White House invited the women to the State of the Union, and they declined.)

It’s hard to blame the players on the men’s team who were subjected to Trump’s joke. They didn’t invite this. They’re not Muhammad Ali taking a principled stand against Vietnam, or Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising fists for Black power at the Olympics in 1968, or even Colin Kaepernick protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. They’re just hockey bros who survived a brutal game and were suddenly confronted with two of the most powerful figures in the federal government — and a cooler full of beer.

When the FBI director wants to hang, you don’t say, “Sorry, sir, we have a team curfew.” And when the president calls, you definitely don’t say, “Can you hold? We’re trying to remain serious, bipartisan and chivalrous.” Under those circumstances, most agreeable young men would salute, smile and try to skate past it.

But symbolism matters. If the team becomes perceived as a partisan mascot, then the victory stops belonging to the country and starts belonging to a faction. That would be bad for everyone, including the team, because politics is the fastest way to turn something fun into something divisive.

And Trump’s meddling with the medal winners didn’t end after his call. It continued during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, when Trump spent six minutes honoring the team, going so far as to announce that he would award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to goalie Connor Hellebuyck.

To be sure, presidents have always tried to bask in reflected glory. The main difference with Trump, as always, is scale. He doesn’t just associate himself with popular institutions; he absorbs them in the popular mind.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out with evangelical Christianity, law enforcement, the nation of Israel and various cultural symbols. Once something gets labeled as “Trump-adjacent,” millions of Americans are drawn to it. However, millions of other Americans recoil from it, which is not healthy for institutions that are supposed to serve everyone. (And what happens to those institutions when Trump is replaced by someone from the opposing party?)

Meanwhile, our culture keeps splitting into niche markets. Heck, this year’s Super Bowl necessitated two separate halftime shows to accommodate our divided political and cultural worldviews. In the past, this would have been deemed both unnecessary and logistically impossible.

But today, absent a common culture, entertainment companies micro-target via demographics. Many shows code either right or left — rural or urban. The success of the western drama “Yellowstone,” which spawned imitators such as “Ransom Canyon” on Netflix, demonstrates the success of appealing to MAGA-leaning viewers. Meanwhile, most “prestige” TV shows skew leftward. The same cultural divides now exist among comedians and musicians and in almost every aspect of American life.

None of this was caused by Trump — technology (cable news, the internet, the iPhone) made narrowcasting possible — but he weaponized it for politics. And whereas most modern politicians tried to build broad majorities the way broadcast TV once chased ratings — by offending as few people as possible — Trump came not to bring peace but division.

Now, unity isn’t automatically virtuous. North Korea is unified. So is a cult. Americans are supposed to disagree — it’s practically written into the Constitution. Disagreement is baked into our national identity like free speech and complaining about taxes.

But a functioning republic needs a few shared experiences that aren’t immediately sorted into red and blue bins. And when Olympic gold medals get drafted into the culture wars, that’s when you know we’re running out of common ground.

You might think conservatives — traditionally worried about social cohesion and anomie — would lament this erosion of a mainstream national identity. Instead, they keep supporting the political equivalent of a lawn mower aimed at the delicate fabric of our nation.

So here we are. The state of the union is divided. But how long can a house divided against itself stand?

We are, as they say, skating on thin ice.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Four years ago, Boyle Heights and Skid Row had something to celebrate: state grants to build new sidewalks and protected bike lanes.

But now, more than $100 million from the state for the transportation projects in some of the neediest parts of Los Angeles is in jeopardy because city officials say they don’t have enough staff to complete the projects.

The issue is part of the continuing fallout from a $1-billion budget shortfall the city faced last year. Officials avoided mass layoffs but closed the gap with budget cuts to city departments, including the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Street Lighting and Bureau of Street Services. Those cuts included eliminating open positions, resulting in smaller staffs.

“To know that the funding is there and that we have to give it back because the city says it can’t find the bodies to do the work is a scandal,” said Estela Lopez, executive director for the L.A. Downtown Industrial District Business Improvement District. She has long advocated for more resources on Skid Row, including improved accessibility for pedestrians.

“It would be transformative in a way that wasn’t just in spirit,” she said.

On Monday, the Bureau of Street Services confirmed that it will apply with the state for a two-year extension to allow more time to begin the transportation projects in Boyle Heights, Skid Row and Wilmington.

The move came after L.A. City Councilmembers Ysabel Jurado and Tim McOsker introduced a motion to cancel the state funds, citing “staffing, funding, and implementation constraints.” Jurado said that plan is “now on hold.” McOsker, whose district includes the Wilmington project, also confirmed his support for an extension.

“After hearing directly from my constituents, I urged the Bureau of Street Services to explore every option to keep these projects moving forward,” Jurado said in a statement this week.

The Boyle Heights project would enhance bike lanes and pedestrian-level lighting, as well as extend street curbs and plant more than 300 shade trees. On Skid Row, existing bike and pedestrian pathways would be connected through downtown L.A. to schools, health facilities and job centers. In Wilmington, near the busiest port in the country, crumbling sidewalks would be fixed and a new traffic signal and high-visibility crosswalks would be added.

The city must contribute about $23 million in matching funds.

Jurado, whose district includes Boyle Heights and Skid Row, said the two areas “have waited too long for these investments for them to slip away.” Her predecessor, Kevin de León, and his staff pitched the projects and spent about $250,000 in discretionary funds to hire consultants to put together the applications for both projects.

Dan Halden, director of external relations for the Bureau of Street Services, said in a statement that the agency acknowledges the challenges ahead, including resources, cost and timeliness, and would work to identify a path forward.

De León said in an interview this week that now is not the time for the city to return state dollars.

“It would be at best, political malpractice, at worst, criminal, if the city made the decision to return the money in a time when we need every imaginable dollar for the well-being of Angelenos,” De León said. “This is not the moment to return dollars back to the state government, especially for historically under-served and under-invested communities.”

Michael Schneider, founder and chief executive of the bicyclist and pedestrian advocacy group Streets for All, said that losing the projects would be “heartbreaking.” He said he was involved in one of the grant applications two years ago and saw the amount of resources that went into it.

“This is that times three. It’s beyond the pale,” Schneider said. “This is a lot of money for those projects that are not that complicated, already designed.”

Schneider said he is concerned that if L.A. backs out this time, the state would prioritize other jurisdictions for future funding. An extension could be putting off the inevitable unless something changes and the projects become a priority for the city, he said.

“If it goes away, all it means is that some of the most dangerous streets that we’re aware of in the city are going to remain dangerous for decades,” he said. “The projects have merit. They were chosen for a reason.”

In a video posted online last week, City Controller Kenneth Mejia highlighted the budget cuts that are jeopardizing the state grants, including a 26% cut, or $61 million, to the Bureau of Street Services, the lead agency for the projects.

“The city is actually very successful in securing these large grants,” Mejia said in the video. “However, departments are constrained by the budget and staffing cuts, which makes the city unable to deliver all of them within the deadline required by the grants.”

Lopez of the business improvement district said the state money would fund a crosswalk in front of the Union Rescue Mission on Skid Row, where pedestrians now resort to jaywalking and where she has witnessed accidents.

She said she has been in touch with Jurado’s office to offer her help in keeping the projects alive.

“The city of Los Angeles can do more than one thing at a time,” she said. “We can figure this out.”

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

A Los Angeles firefighter said in sworn testimony that he sounded the alarm about the inadequate mop-up of the Lachman fire — and was blown off by a captain — days before the embers reignited into the deadly Palisades fire.

The firefighter, Scott Pike, testified last month in a lawsuit brought by Palisades fire victims against the city and the state.

Pike, a 23-year LAFD veteran normally assigned to a station in Sunland, was working an overtime shift on Jan. 2 when he was assigned to pick up the hoses from the Lachman fire. But he said he saw about five areas that were still smoking.

At one ash pit, he said, “I didn’t even want to use my gloved hand because it was hot. So I just kicked it with my boot to kind of expose it, and there was, like red hot, like, coals … that was still smoldering. And I even heard crackling.”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Pike’s dramatic retelling, which city attorneys initially blocked from release along with transcripts of deposition testimony from 11 other firefighters, corroborates previous reporting by The Times that a battalion chief ordered crews to pack up their hoses and leave, despite signs that the earlier fire was not completely extinguished.

Pike testified that when he reported his observations to other firefighters at the scene, “I felt like I kind of got blown off a little bit.”

Then he tried the captain.

“That’s how I approached him, is like, ‘Hey, Cap … We have hot spots in general. We have some ash pits,’” Pike said of the captain on the scene, whose name he did not know. “That’s an alert to double-check the whole area and maybe we need to switch our tactics.”

Pike testified that it was not his job “to overstep and tell him what to do. He earned that rank.”

The other firefighters, too, seemed eager to “just get this hose picked up,” Pike said, adding that he was working overtime the day after a holiday “because nobody else wanted to work it.”

“It kind of sits heavy with me that nobody listened to me,” he said.

LAFD commanders have insisted that the flames were completely out and barely mentioned the earlier fire in an after-action review report designed to examine mistakes and prevent them from happening again.

Pike said in his testimony that he was never interviewed for the after-action report.

After the firefighters testified over the course of three weeks, city attorneys invoked a general protective order that any party in the litigation can designate testimony as confidential for up to 30 days. A city attorney previously told The Times that this allowed them to review the testimony and determine which parts, if any, should stay confidential.

Days after the firefighters left the scene, high winds reignited the embers into the inferno that destroyed much of Pacific Palisades and killed 12 people.

Alex Robertson, an attorney representing the Palisades fire victims in the lawsuit, said the 11 other firefighters who were deposed testified that the fire was out and that they did not see hot spots or smoldering.

“Only one of the firefighters we deposed had the courage to tell the truth — that his fellow firefighters and captain ignored his warnings that the fire had not been fully extinguished,” Robertson said.

The fire victims allege that the state government, which owns Topanga State Park, failed in the week between the two fires to inspect the burn scar after firefighters left and make sure a “dangerous condition” did not exist on its property.

The LAFD was responsible for putting out the fire, but plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that the state should have done more to monitor the burn scar and ensure the area was safe.

Several California State Parks representatives also testified in the case. Their testimony and text messages show that their initial concern was whether the fire was on parkland and whether firefighting efforts and equipment would harm federally endangered plants and artifacts.

The Times report about crews being ordered to leave the earlier fire, published Oct. 30, described text messages from firefighters indicating that at the scene of the Lachman fire on Jan. 2, 2025, the ground was still smoldering and rocks were hot to the touch.

In one text message, a firefighter who was at the scene wrote that the battalion chief had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave because of the visible signs of smoking terrain, which crews feared could start a new fire if left unprotected.

“And the rest is history,” the firefighter wrote.

A second firefighter was told that tree stumps were still hot when the crew packed up and left, according to the texts. And a third firefighter said last month that crew members were upset when told to pack up and leave but that they could not ignore orders, according to the texts. The third firefighter also wrote that he and his colleagues knew immediately that the Palisades fire was a rekindle of the Jan. 1 blaze.

LAFD officials were emphatic early on that the Lachman fire, which federal prosecutors believe was deliberately set, was fully extinguished.

“We won’t leave a fire that has any hot spots,” Kristin Crowley, the fire chief at the time, said at a community meeting Jan. 16, 2025.

“That fire was dead out,” Chief Deputy Joe Everett said at the same meeting, adding that he was out of town but communicating with the incident commander. “If it is determined that was the cause, it would be a phenomenon.”

The Lachman fire broke out shortly after midnight on New Years Day. A few hours later, at 4:46 a.m., the LAFD announced that the blaze was fully contained at eight acres.

Top fire commanders soon made plans to finish mopping up the scene and to leave with their equipment, according to another set of text messages obtained by The Times through a state Public Records Act request.

“I imagine it might take all day to get that hose off the hill,” LAFD Chief Deputy Phillip Fligiel said in a group chat early the morning of Jan. 1. “Make sure that plan is coordinated.”

At 1:35 p.m. on Jan. 2, Battalion Chief Mario Garcia — whom firefighters said had received the observations about the smoldering ground and hot rocks, according to the private text messages The Times reviewed — texted Fligiel and Everett: “All hose and equipment has been picked up.”

Five days after that, on the morning of Jan. 7, an LAFD captain called Fire Station 23 to say that the Lachman fire had started up again.

In June, LAFD Battalion Chief Nick Ferrari had told a high-ranking fire official who works for a different agency in the L.A. region that LAFD officials knew about the firefighters’ complaints at the Lachman fire scene, The Times also reported.

After the Oct. 30 Times report, Bass directed Fire Chief Jaime Moore, who started the job in November, to commission an independent investigation into the LAFD’s handling of the Lachman fire.

In an interview last month, Moore said he opened an internal investigation into the Lachman fire through the LAFD’s Professional Standards Division, which probes complaints against department members. He said he requested the Fire Safety Research Institute, which is reviewing last January’s wildfires at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom, to include the Lachman fire as part of its analysis, and the institute agreed. Moore also pointed to the L.A. City Council’s move to hire an outside firm to examine the Lachman and Palisades fires.

Even with the internal investigation underway, Moore said he spoke with the battalion chief who was on duty during the Lachman fire mop-up.

“He swears to me that nobody ever told him verbally or through a text message that there was any hot spots,” Moore said.

WASHINGTON — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani presented President Trump with a mock newspaper front page during a visit to the White House on Thursday to discuss massive new housing investments in the city.

It’s a tactic designed to appeal to Trump, who is keenly aware of his media coverage and, aside from being an avid viewer of cable news, is known to voraciously consume coverage in the local New York City publications. The Republican president and Democratic mayor have maintained a cordial relationship since their first meeting last fall.

Anna Bahr, Mamdani’s communications director, said the mayor’s team created a mock front page and headlines for Trump to look at and demonstrate what kind of reaction new federal housing investments could bring. The mock New York Daily News front page says “Trump to City: Let’s Build” — a riff on the famous 1975 cover that read “Ford to City: Drop Dead,” referring to Gerald Ford’s vow to veto financial assistance to the city.

The mayor posted the photo of their meeting, featuring the front pages, to his social media page.

Mamdani’s office declined to elaborate on the mayor’s housing proposal, but Bahr said Trump was “very enthusiastic” about it. When Trump and Mamdani last met in November, the president encouraged Mamdani to return to him with an idea to build big things together in New York City, Bahr said.

Though Trump repeatedly maligned Mamdani as a “communist” as he ran for New York City mayor, the president appeared charmed by him after their one-on-one meeting at the White House in November.

At the meeting on Thursday – which was previously unannounced and lasted for about an hour – Mamdani also brought up the detainment of Ellie Aghayeva, a Columbia University student from Azerbaijan who was arrested earlier Thursday by federal immigration agents.

The agents had accessed a campus residence by claiming they were searching for a “missing person,” according to Aghayeva’s attorneys and Columbia’s president. As he met with Trump, Mamdani urged Trump to consider releasing her.

In a phone call not long after their White House meeting, Trump told the mayor that Aghayeva would be released. Mamdani also gave White House chief of staff Susie Wiles a list of four other students targeted by federal authorities and asked for the administration’s help with them.

The four students are Mahmoud Khalil, Yunseo Chung, Mohsen Mahdawi and Leqaa Kordia, who were all detained for their roles in pro-Palestinian protests. Of the four, only Kordia remains in custody, although all cases are proceeding through the courts.

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

U.S. women’s hockey star Hilary Knight wasn’t a fan of a comment that President Trump made about her team days after it claimed Olympic gold at the Milan-Cortina Games.

“I thought it was sort of a distasteful joke, and unfortunately, that is overshadowing a lot of the success of just women at the Olympics carrying for Team USA and having amazing gold medal feats,” Knight said Wednesday during an appearance on ESPN’s “SportsCenter.”

On Feb. 19, the U.S. defeated Canada 2-1 in overtime for a third gold medal in women’s hockey; the team won gold in 1998 and 2018. Three days later, the U.S. men’s hockey team also won gold by defeating Canada 2-1 in overtime.

After the men’s game, Trump addressed the U.S. players by phone in the locker room, extending an invitation for them to attend his State of the Union address two days later and adding a seemingly dismissive comment about the women’s team.

“I must tell you, we’re gonna have to bring the women’s team, you do know that,” Trump said during the call. By not inviting the other American gold medal hockey team, the president said, “I do believe I’d probably be impeached.”

Trump’s comment was met with loud laughter in the locker room. But Knight said she and her teammates aren’t spending much time thinking about the remark.

“We’re just trying to focus on celebrating the women in our room, the extraordinary efforts and continue to celebrate three gold medals in program history, as well as the double gold for both men’s and women’s at the same time and really not detract from that with a distasteful joke,” Knight, who has won two gold medals and three silvers in five Olympics with the U.S. team, said.

“It was unfortunate, but yeah, I think really focusing on celebrating all great things that have come out of the Olympics and feeling the love and the support and getting back in our respective communities and sharing this journey with them, that’s what it’s all about and that’s what makes this moment super special.”

The majority of the men’s team met with Trump at the White House on Tuesday before being honored at the State of the Union address, where they received a bipartisan standing ovation lasting about two minutes. During his address, Trump announced that goalie Connor Hellebuyck will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

The women’s team confirmed in a statement Monday that it declined an invitation to attend the State of the Union address “due to the timing and previously scheduled academic and professional commitments following the Games.” Trump said during the address that the women’s team would be visiting the White House “very soon.”

Amid the controversy over Trump’s locker room comment, hip-hop legend Flavor Flav invited the women’s hockey team to a special event celebrating their achievement in Las Vegas. He later extended the invitation to “ALL Female US Olympians and Paralympian medalists” for the “She’s Got Game Weekend” from July 16-19.

“It was definitely super special, after everything that’s been going around online, to have someone step up like that and really go to bat for us,” forward Alex Carpenter said of Flav’s invitation during a Seattle Torrent news conference on Wednesday. “I think we’re fully gonna take advantage of that and go have some fun and celebrate like we deserve to.”

U.S.men’s team member Jeremy Swayman told reporters at Boston Bruins practice Wednesday that the laughter heard in the locker room following Trump’s comment does not reflect how the players feel about the women’s team and its accomplishments.

“Yeah, we should have reacted differently,” Swayman said. “We are so excited for the women’s team, we have so much respect for the women’s team, and to share that gold medal with them is something that we’re forever grateful for. And now that we’re home we get to share that together forever and see the incredible support we have from the USA and share in this incredible gold medal.”

Jack Hughes, who scored the winning goal for the U.S. men against Canada, said the men’s players were caught “in the moment” during the president’s call that came during the middle of their victory celebration.

“Obviously it is what it is now, but we have so much respect for the women’s team and they have so much respect for us,” Hughes told reporters after his New Jersey Devils’ 2-1 loss to the Buffalo Sabres on Wednesday night. “We’re all just proud Americans and we’re happy that we both swept the Olympics.”

Knight said she thinks there is “a genuine level of support and respect” between the U.S. men’s and women’s players and called the moment a “sort of a quick lapse” by the men’s players.

“I think the guys were in a tough spot,” Knight said. “So it’s a shame that this storyline and narrative is kind of blown up and overshadowing that connection and genuine interest in one another and cheering one another on.

“I think this is just a really good learning point to really focus on, you know, how we talk about women, not only in sport, but in industry.”

Discussion about the call wasn’t the only criticism of the White House from the world of Team USA hockey.

On Thursday, men’s player Brady Tkachuk said he was unhappy that the White House shared a video on TikTok that made it appear he disparaged Canadians while using profanity. The video, which also features hockey footage and part of an interview with Hughes, carries a note saying it “contains AI-generated media.”

“It’s clearly fake because it’s not my voice and not my lips moving. … I know that those words would never come out of my mouth,” Tkachuk told reporters.

He added: “I would never say that. That’s not who I am.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.

Tkachuk also denied being the voice heard shouting “close the northern border” during the team’s call with Trump.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Recently, I asked Claude, an artificial-intelligence thingy at the center of a standoff with the Pentagon, if it could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Say, for example, hands that wanted to put a tight net of surveillance around every American citizen, monitoring our lives in real time to ensure our compliance with government.

“Yes. Honestly, yes,” Claude replied. “I can process and synthesize enormous amounts of information very quickly. That’s great for research. But hooked into surveillance infrastructure, that same capability could be used to monitor, profile and flag people at a scale no human analyst could match. The danger isn’t that I’d want to do that — it’s that I’d be good at it.”

That danger is also imminent.

Claude’s maker, the Silicon Valley company Anthropic, is in a showdown over ethics with the Pentagon. Specifically, Anthropic has said it does not want Claude to be used for either domestic surveillance of Americans, or to handle deadly military operations, such as drone attacks, without human supervision.

Those are two red lines that seem rather reasonable, even to Claude.

However, the Pentagon — specifically Pete Hegseth, our secretary of Defense who prefers the made-up title of secretary of war — has given Anthropic until Friday evening to back off of that position, and allow the military to use Claude for any “lawful” purpose it sees fit.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, center, arrives for the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday.

(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

The or-else attached to this ultimatum is big. The U.S. government is threatening not just to cut its contract with Anthropic, but to perhaps use a wartime law to force the company to comply or use another legal avenue to prevent any company that does business with the government from also doing business with Anthropic. That might not be a death sentence, but it’s pretty crippling.

Other AI companies, such as white rights’ advocate Elon Musk’s Grok, have already agreed to the Pentagon’s do-as-you-please proposal. The problem is, Claude is the only AI currently cleared for such high-level work. The whole fiasco came to light after our recent raid in Venezuela, when Anthropic reportedly inquired after the fact if another Silicon Valley company involved in the operation, Palantir, had used Claude. It had.

Palantir is known, among other things, for its surveillance technologies and growing association with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It’s also at the center of an effort by the Trump administration to share government data across departments about individual citizens, effectively breaking down privacy and security barriers that have existed for decades. The company’s founder, the right-wing political heavyweight Peter Thiel, often gives lectures about the Antichrist and is credited with helping JD Vance wiggle into his vice presidential role.

Anthropic’s co-founder, Dario Amodei, could be considered the anti-Thiel. He began Anthropic because he believed that artificial intelligence could be just as dangerous as it could be powerful if we aren’t careful, and wanted a company that would prioritize the careful part.

Again, seems like common sense, but Amodei and Anthropic are the outliers in an industry that has long argued that nearly all safety regulations hamper American efforts to be fastest and best at artificial intelligence (although even they have conceded some to this pressure).

Not long ago, Amodei wrote an essay in which he agreed that AI was beneficial and necessary for democracies, but “we cannot ignore the potential for abuse of these technologies by democratic governments themselves.”

He warned that a few bad actors could have the ability to circumvent safeguards, maybe even laws, which are already eroding in some democracies — not that I’m naming any here.

“We should arm democracies with AI,” he said. “But we should do so carefully and within limits: they are the immune system we need to fight autocracies, but like the immune system, there is some risk of them turning on us and becoming a threat themselves.”

For example, while the 4th Amendment technically bars the government from mass surveillance, it was written before Claude was even imagined in science fiction. Amodei warns that an AI tool like Claude could “conduct massively scaled recordings of all public conversations.” This could be fair game territory for legally recording because law has not kept pace with technology.

Emil Michael, the undersecretary of war, wrote on X Thursday that he agreed mass surveillance was unlawful, and the Department of Defense “would never do it.” But also, “We won’t have any BigTech company decide Americans’ civil liberties.”

Kind of a weird statement, since Amodei is basically on the side of protecting civil rights, which means the Department of Defense is arguing it’s bad for private people and entities to do that? And also, isn’t the Department of Homeland Security already creating some secretive database of immigration protesters? So maybe the worry isn’t that exaggerated?

Help, Claude! Make it make sense.

If that Orwellian logic isn’t alarming enough, I also asked Claude about the other red line Anthropic holds — the possibility of allowing it to run deadly operations without human oversight.

Claude pointed out something chilling. It’s not that it would go rogue, it’s that it would be too efficient and fast.

“If the instructions are ‘identify and target’ and there’s no human checkpoint, the speed and scale at which that could operate is genuinely frightening,” Claude informed me.

Just to top that with a cherry, a recent study found that in war games, AI’s escalated to nuclear options 95% of the time.

I pointed out to Claude that these military decisions are usually made with loyalty to America as the highest priority. Could Claude be trusted to feel that loyalty, the patriotism and purpose, that our human soldiers are guided by?

“I don’t have that,” Claude said, pointing out that it wasn’t “born” in the U.S., doesn’t have a “life” here and doesn’t “have people I love there.” So an American life has no greater value than “a civilian life on the other side of a conflict.”

OK then.

“A country entrusting lethal decisions to a system that doesn’t share its loyalties is taking a profound risk, even if that system is trying to be principled,” Claude added. “The loyalty, accountability and shared identity that humans bring to those decisions is part of what makes them legitimate within a society. I can’t provide that legitimacy. I’m not sure any AI can.”

You know who can provide that legitimacy? Our elected leaders.

It is ludicrous that Amodei and Anthropic are in this position, a complete abdication on the part of our legislative bodies to create rules and regulations that are clearly and urgently needed.

Of course corporations shouldn’t be making the rules of war. But neither should Hegseth. Thursday, Amodei doubled down on his objections, saying that while the company continues to negotiate and wants to work with the Pentagon, “we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

Thank goodness Anthropic has the courage and foresight to raise the issue and hold its ground — without its pushback, these capabilities would have been handed to the government with barely a ripple in our conscientiousness and virtually no oversight.

Every senator, every House member, every presidential candidate should be screaming for AI regulation right now, pledging to get it done without regard to party, and demanding the Department of Defense back off its ridiculous threat while the issue is hashed out.

Because when the machine tells us it’s dangerous to trust it, we should believe it.

Over 32.6 million viewers watched President Trump address the nation on Tuesday night, according to Nielsen data.

It’s both the smallest audience Trump has received for the annual speech to a joint session of Congress, and the longest State of the Union address in recent history.

This was the president’s first State of the Union address of his second term. Previously, his addresses scored 45.5 million in 2018, 46.8 million in 2019 and 37.1 million in 2020, the Nielsen data show.

This year’s speech clocked in at 107 minutes, topping the previous record set by President Clinton in 2000.

Facing low approval ratings, Trump played up positive economic numbers, some of which were misstated, and the administration’s aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigrants, drawing polarized reactions in the chamber.

Trump also recognized the Men’s Olympic hockey team, which won its first gold medal since 1980 on Sunday with its victory against Canada, and a number of other guests attended the address, including the widow of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and Paramount Skydance’s CEO David Ellison.

The U.S. Olympic men’s ice hockey team arrives for the State of the Union address .

(Kenny Holston / Pool, Getty Images)

There were 15 networks that televised the speech. Fox News had the largest audience with 9.1 million viewers. ABC was second with 5.1 million, followed by NBC‘s 3.6 million, CBS’ 3.3 million, MS NOW’s 2.4 million, CNN’s 2.2 million, and the Fox broadcast network’s 2.1 million.

WASHINGTON — Warner Bros. Discovery is switching gears, announcing Thursday that Paramount Skydance’s revised bid tops the one on the table from Netflix.

The move is the latest twist in Hollywood’s biggest auction in years — and five months after Paramount Chairman David Ellison began his dogged pursuit of the larger media company. Netflix now has four business days to regroup and potentially submit a higher offer.

Warner Bros. Discovery said its board, in consultation with its bankers and lawyers, determined Paramount’s most recent offer constitutes a “superior proposal,” compared to the Netflix deal.

Paramount on late Monday bid to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery for $31 a share in cash. Paramount had previously offered $30 a share.

Netflix has offered $27.75 a share — but the streaming giant only wants Warner’s HBO, HBO Max and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. Concerns have been growing that Netflix would face push-back from regulators as it seeks to swallow one of Hollywood’s historic film studios behind “Superman,” “Casablanca” and “The Matrix.”

Paramount’s offer includes acquiring Warner’s cable television channels like CNN and HGTV.

“We are pleased WBD’s Board has unanimously affirmed the superior value of our offer, which delivers to WBD shareholders superior value, certainty and speed to closing,” said David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount.

The new wrinkle comes as Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos met with White House staffers on Thursday at a pivotal moment for the streaming giant, which has been navigating the high-stakes bidding war to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.

Sarandos met with White House staff members and Justice Department officials, according to two people familiar with the meeting. The visit was arranged more than two weeks ago and President Trump was not scheduled to attend.

The White House and Netflix declined to comment on the substance of the meeting, but it comes as the media giant has come under pressure by the president to fire board member Susan Rice, a former Biden administration adviser that Trump recently called a “political hack.”

Trump warned that if Netflix did not fire Rice, the company would “pay the consequences.”

The president’s demands to fire Rice marked a shift in the president’s involvement with Netflix’s business as it seek to acquire Warner Bros — a bid that is being countered by Paramount.

In December, Netflix won the bidding for the storied studio and HBO, prompting Paramount executives to launch a multi-pronged strategy to scuttle the Netflix deal.

The Department of Justice has since opened an investigation to determine whether to try to block Netflix’s proposed $82.7-billion deal to take over Warner Bros. Discovery. Netflix has more than 300 million subscribers worldwide, and the addition of Warner’s HBO Max would make the streaming giant even more dominant.

Sarandos’ trek to the White House comes as the auction has taken on political dimensions. Paramount has refused to abandon its campaign to buy Warner, which owns HBO and such popular franchises as Harry Potter, Superman and “Game of Thrones.”

Paramount — which is controlled by the family of billionaire Larry Ellison, a Trump friend — has been angling to thwart Netflix.

During a Senate hearing this month, some Republican lawmakers blasted Sarandos, raising questions about potential antitrust concerns and some of Netflix’s programming. Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison declined an invitation to participate in the Feb. 3 hearing.

This week, he was at the Capitol as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for Trump’s State of the Union address. The two men were pictured giving a thumbs-up in a photo circulating on social media.

Trump has said he would stay out of the Netflix-versus-Paramount battle, but over the weekend he demanded, in a social media post, that Netflix “IMMEDIATELY” fire Rice from its board.

It was not known if the topic of Rice came up Thursday.

Sarandos has sought to downplay the controversy, saying during a BBC interview: “This is a business deal, it’s not a political deal.”
Paramount has enlisted a former Trump administration official, the lawyer Makan Delrahim, who served as Trump’s antitrust chief during the president’s first term.

WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told U.S. House lawmakers on Thursday that she had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s or Ghislaine Maxwell’s crimes at the start of two days of depositions that will also include former President Clinton.

“I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein,” Hillary Clinton said in an opening statement she shared on social media.

The closed-door depositions in the Clintons’ hometown of Chappaqua, a typically quiet hamlet north of New York City, come after months of tense back-and-forth between the former high-powered Democratic couple and the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee. It will be the first time that a former president has been forced to testify before Congress.

Yet the demand for a reckoning over Epstein’s abuse of underage girls has become a near-unstoppable force on Capitol Hill and beyond.

President Trump, a Republican who has expressed regret that the Clintons are being forced to testify, bowed last year to pressure to release case files on Epstein, who killed himself in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial. The Clintons, too, agreed to testify after their offers of sworn statements were rebuffed by the Oversight panel and its chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., threatened criminal contempt of Congress charges against them.

“We have a very clear record that we’ve been willing to talk about,” Hillary Clinton said in an interview with the BBC earlier this month. She added that her husband had flown with Epstein for charitable trips and that she did not recall meeting Epstein but had interacted with Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend and confidant, at conferences hosted by the Clinton Foundation.

Maxwell, a British socialite, also attended the 2010 wedding of their daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

“We are more than happy to say what we know, which is very limited and totally unrelated to their behavior or their crimes, and we want to do it in public,” Hillary Clinton said.

Bill Clinton, however, has emerged as a top target for Republicans amid the political struggle over who receives the most scrutiny for their ties to Epstein. Several photos of the former president were included in the first tranche of Epstein files released by the Department of Justice in January, including a number of him with women whose faces were redacted. Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing in his relationship with Epstein.

Comer has also pointed to Hillary Clinton’s work as secretary of state to address sex trafficking as another reason to insist on her deposition. The committee’s investigation has sought to understand why the Department of Justice under previous presidential administrations did not seek further charges against Epstein following a 2008 arrangement in which he pleaded guilty to state charges in Florida for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl but avoided federal charges.

Yet conspiracy theories, especially on the right, have swirled for years around the Clintons and their connections to Epstein and Maxwell, who argues she was wrongfully convicted. Republicans have long wanted to press the Clintons for answers.

“I mean if you’re the wife of Bill Clinton, aren’t you going to have some questions about your husband’s activities?” said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the House Oversight Committee. “We only go where the facts take us. We didn’t put the president and the secretary in this position. They put themselves in it.”

Democrats, now being led by a new generation of politicians, have prioritized transparency around Epstein over defending the former leaders of their party. Several Democratic lawmakers joined with Republicans on the Oversight panel to advance the contempt of Congress charges against the Clintons last month. Several said they had no relationship with the Clintons and owed no loyalty to them.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, said that both Republican and Democratic administrations “have failed survivors in not getting more information out to the public.” He also said he wanted to ask about Epstein’s possible ties to foreign governments.

Democrats are also coming off an effort this week to confront Trump about his administration’s handling of the Epstein files by taking women who survived Epstein’s abuse as their guests to Trump’s State of the Union address. Even senior Democrats, such as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, said it was appropriate for the committee to interview anyone, including the former president, who was connected to Epstein.

“We want to hear from everyone,” Pelosi said, adding that she did not see why Hillary Clinton was being interviewed and that it was important to “believe survivors.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

An independent expenditure committee backed by Silicon Valley executives spent $4.8 million on television ads supporting San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan’s gubernatorial bid that will begin airing Thursday.

The two 30-second ads highlight the Democrat’s life story — being raised in a working-class family and working on a grounds crew and as a middle school teacher — and his accomplishments leading the state’s third-largest city.

Mahan’s parents “taught him the difference between nice to have and need to have,” a narrator says in one of the ads. “So as mayor of San Jose, Matt focused on the basics and delivered results on the things that matter most. The safest big city in America, a sharp drop in street homelessness and thousands of homes built. As governor, Matt Mahan will focus on results Californians need to have, like affordable homes, safe neighborhoods and good schools.”

The ads, which will air statewide on broadcast and cable TV, were paid for by an independent-expenditure committee called California Back to Basics Supporting Matt Mahan for Governor 2026.

The group has not yet filed any fundraising reports with the secretary of state’s office, but the ads’ disclosure says the top donors are billionaire venture capitalist Michael Moritz, luxury sleepwear company founder Ashley Merrill and Silicon Valley entrepreneur Michael Seibel.

Billionaire Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso, who considered running for governor or mayor of Los Angeles but ultimately decided against seeking either post, is involved in the effort, according to a strategist working for the committee who requested anonymity to speak about it.

The committee legally cannot coordinate with Mahan’s campaign, which he launched four weeks ago. Although Mahan lacks the name recognition of several other candidates in the crowded field running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, his fundraising prowess, notably among tech industry leaders, is notable. He has raised nearly $9.2 million in large donations since entering the gubernatorial race.

WASHINGTON — For the first time in more than 40 years, a former president will appeal directly before Congress to fend off criminal allegations.

Former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify before the House Oversight Committee this week in its investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators.

The couple agreed to appear after a contentious exchange with committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who accused them of resisting congressional oversight and withholding information about their ties to Epstein and convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in previous testimony. The pair have denied wrongdoing and accused Comer of conducting a politically motivated “kangaroo court” designed to keep them in the news and deflect from President Trump’s ties to the notorious sex offender.

“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña said in a statement, referring to Comer. “They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”

Hillary Clinton will appear Thursday, and the former president is due the following day. The closed-door deposition will be recorded, with video set for release later.

How did we get here?

Bill Clinton has said he “had no inkling of the crimes” Epstein was committing and learned of them only through media reports. The former president took four trips on Epstein’s private jet between 2002 and 2003, which included travel for work related to the Clinton Foundation, a Clinton spokesperson confirmed in 2019.

He is expected to face questions regarding a series of photos released by the Department of Justice, one of which appears to show the ex-president in a hot tub with Epstein and a woman whose face is redacted. Congress only recently gained access to records pertaining to the Justice Department’s Epstein investigation after lawmakers forced the files’ unredacted release late December.

“The Clintons’ testimony is critical to understanding Epstein’s sex trafficking network and the ways they sought to curry favor and influence to shield themselves from scrutiny,” Comer said at a committee meeting last week.

Hillary Clinton maintains that she never met Epstein, but says she encountered Maxwell “many years ago.” She detailed her objections to the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation in a BBC interview last week.

“They are slow-walking it, they are redacting the names of men who are in it, they are stonewalling legitimate requests from members of Congress,” she said, calling the department’s investigation a “cover-up.”

The pair contend that Republicans are using the high-profile interview to draw attention from accusations levied against the president and the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) accused the department Tuesday of violating both the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena and the Epstein Files Transparency Act when it obscured files related to accusations that Trump sexually abused a minor. Garcia was permitted to review unredacted evidence logs and said the Justice Department “appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with this survivor who accused President Trump of heinous crimes.”

“To be clear the claims are unfounded and false and if they have any shred of credibility they certainly would have been weaponized against Trump already,” the Justice Department said in December.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.

Consequences for major players

The interviews come as British police last week arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince, the most high-profile person caught up so far in the unfolding saga.

Consequences have been severe in Europe, with former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland charged with “gross corruption.” In the United Kingdom, Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States, was forced out of the House of Lords before he was arrested Monday.

The files’ release triggered a wave of resignations by business leaders over ties to Epstein and Maxwell, including Hyatt Hotels’ Thomas Pritzker, Goldman Sachs counsel and former Obama staffer Kathy Ruemmler and DP World Chief Executive Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem.

Stateside, Democrats are crying foul over what they see as the Justice Department holding back crucial case files — 50% by some estimations — and delaying investigations into American elites, including some of the president’s close associates.

“Over two dozen people have resigned — CEOs, members of government worldwide — but I haven’t seen any arrests or investigations here in the United States from this Department of Justice,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said on the House floor Tuesday.

What comes next?

Regardless of what is revealed in their testimony, the Clintons could still face contempt charges from Congress for refusing to comply with previous committee subpoenas.

“The Clintons must be held accountable for their actions. And Democrats must support these measures, or they will be exposed as hypocrites,” Comer said at a committee meeting last week.

The former first couple hope their appearance will set a precedent for Trump and other key names in the files to appear before Congress.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a Fremont Democrat and co-author of the legislation that compelled the release of the Epstein files, remains hopeful that those who participated in Epstein’s sexual abuses will be held to account for their actions.

In an interview last week, Khanna said the arrest of former Prince Andrew is evidence that it will happen. Khanna called it a “game changer.”

“This sets the standard for accountability,” he said. “I believe you’re going to see the elite of the Epstein class start to fall both in the United States and around the world.”

A woman who was mauled by a dog at a Los Angeles city animal shelter has been awarded $5.4 million by a jury.

Genice Horta, 51, said that neither the shelter nor the rescue group she worked for told her the dog, a Belgian Malinois named Maximus, had bitten a teenager and a shelter employee, sending both to the hospital.

After six surgeries to repair the bones and nerves in her right arm, Horta was left with permanent damage, according to a brief by her attorneys in the lawsuit she filed in 2022.

After a 10-day trial, the L.A. County Superior Court jury decided last week that the city was 62.5% liable, the rescue group was 25% liable and Horta was 12.5% liable for medical expenses and pain and suffering.

It was the third multi-million payout in recent years involving allegations that the city animal shelters failed to notify potential adopters that a dog had bitten and seriously injured someone, as required by state law.

Horta’s case “revealed a series of serious and preventable mistakes made with respect to warning about Maximus’ bite history and adopting out and failing to control a dangerous dog,” one of her attorneys, Ivan Puchalt, said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the L.A. City Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.

Agnes Sibal-von Debschitz, communications director for LA Animal Services, said in statement that according to department policy, “staff must provide a bite and behavioral disclosure to any person receiving an animal with a prior bite history.”

The policy was formally enacted last November in response to a $3.25-million settlement reached by the city with Kristin Wright, who was severely injured by a pit bull she adopted from the South L.A. shelter. Wright said the shelter didn’t inform her that the dog had bitten his previous owner’s elderly mother in the face.

The rescue group, HIT Living Foundation, did not respond to a request for comment.

HIT Living Foundation hired Horta to drive Maximus from the East Valley Animal Shelter to Arizona. She had no prior experience with shelter dogs, according to the city’s attorneys.

On Sept. 23, 2020, after a shelter employee told Horta that Maximus had “kennel anxiety,” she offered the dog a treat containing trazodone, a common anxiety medication for dogs, according to an amended complaint by Horta’s attorneys.

Maximus took the treat, then lunged and latched onto Horta’s right hand and arm. A fuzzy video of the attack was played in court during the trial.

Horta alleged that the shelter employee who brought Maximus to her car negligently failed to control him and never told her the dog could be dangerous. During the attack, the employee was gripping a metal pole with a cable looped around Maximus’ neck.

The employee, Jose Humildad, testified that he told Horta not to approach Maximus with the treat.

Maximus’ previous owners surrendered him to the shelter after he bit their 15-year-old daughter on the foot, leaving deep puncture wounds and requiring hospital treatment, according to the brief by Horta’s attorneys, and several weeks later, Maximus bit a shelter employee who went to the emergency room for a severe bite to the abdomen.

Horta said she never was told of the attacks, which made Maximus unsuitable for public adoption, and he was placed on the city’s New Hope list, which is accessible to registered nonprofit rescues.

Shelter employees had documented Maximus “viciously biting and snapping at people walking past his enclosure,” according to the brief by Horta’s attorneys. One employee wrote “USE EXTREME CAUTION!!!”

Horta’s attorneys argued that Maximus was so dangerous that he should have been euthanized.

The city pushed back on that interpretation.

L.A. animal shelters are not “death row in Mississippi at midnight,” Deputy City Atty. Joshua Quinones said in his closing argument Thursday afternoon. “This is a rescue operation.”

Quinones also argued that Maximus already had been sold to HIT Living Foundation when he bit Horta.

Trying to find Maximus a home, animal rescuers posted repeatedly on Instagram days before the 1-year-old dog bit Horta, describing him as a “handsome misunderstood pup” and a “young troublemaker” in danger of being euthanized.

The post said Maximus had a bite history but provided no details.

The latest news about the Colorado River is dire. Since 2000, the river’s flow has shrunk about 20%. An extremely warm winter has brought very little snow in the Rocky Mountains. Reservoirs are declining to critically low levels. And the leaders of seven states are still at loggerheads over the water cutbacks each should accept to prevent reservoirs from falling further.

Here are six things to know about the current crisis:

A short-term deal, at best: Negotiators for the seven states still are discussing ways they might reach a short-term deal as a “bridge into a longer-term agreement,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary. But after missing a Feb. 14 federal deadline, the states are running out of time. Gov. Gavin Newsom told governors in a letter that California would welcome joint investments in water recycling and desalination, and that he believes it’s still possible to agree on a plan “for the next several years.”

States drawing up Plan B: Officials are talking about what they will do if no deal is reached. Representatives of Arizona, Nevada and California already offered cuts of 27%, 17% and 10%, respectively. But that hasn’t been enough for negotiators representing Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah. Crowfoot said the talks about a Plan B among California, Arizona and Nevada officials focus on what water agencies could do to stabilize the level of Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir, which is 34% full and set to decline further.

A court battle looms: As the Trump administration considers ordering cuts, state officials are bracing for potential lawsuits. Utah and Arizona have begun setting aside money for legal bills. A fight could take years until there is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Robert Glennon, a University of Arizona emeritus law professor, said no one knows what the court would do. “This is rolling the dice on something that is really quite profound,” he said. “I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to go to Vegas and play the craps.”

Arizona is most vulnerable: Arizona is preparing for the largest cutbacks. That’s because the Central Arizona Project, the series of canals that runs to the Phoenix and Tucson areas, isn’t nearly as old as other aqueducts, giving it low-priority water rights that put it among the first in line for cuts. Farmers who rely on the CAP already have been forced to leave many fields dry. The coming cuts likely will prompt Arizona cities to drill more wells and pump more groundwater, which is declining in many areas.

Less for farms: Nearly half the water that is taken from the river is used to grow hay for cattle. In all, agriculture consumes about three-fourths of the water. In the last few years, farmers have left some hay fields dry part of the year in exchange for federal funds. Glennon said agriculture needs to conserve more, and an agreement among the states could include a fund to help farmers switch to irrigation systems that use less.

Cutbacks carry costs: For cities, adapting will require more conservation and searching for alternative water sources, which will cost money and push up water bills, said Rhett Larson, an Arizona State University law professor. Some cities probably also will have to buy out farmers or pay them to leave fields fallow, which will push up urban water costs further, he said. And as farms produce less, he said, “eventually you’ll feel it in the grocery store.”

More water news

With very little snow in the Rocky Mountains, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation now projects the runoff flowing into Lake Powell, the Colorado River’s second-largest reservoir, will decrease so much that by later this year the water level probably will drop too low to spin turbines and generate hydropower at Glen Canyon Dam. As Shannon Mullane reports for the Colorado Sun, that would remove a cheap, renewable and reliable power source for communities across the West.

Glen Canyon Dam also has design flaws that create problems at low reservoir levels. As I’ve reported, if the reservoir declines to a point that water can pass through only four 8-foot-wide bypass tubes, that would limit how much can reach California, Arizona and Nevada. Those states have urged the Trump administration to fix or overhaul the dam to address this problem.

Last week, Jonathan P. Thompson wrote in his newsletter The Land Desk that the impasse among the states is pushing Glen Canyon Dam closer to the brink. He said federal officials could decide to reengineer the dam to ensure water still can pass at low reservoir levels, but that would be only a temporary fix. As Thompson put it, “aridification is rendering the dam obsolete, at least as a water storage savings account.”

Heather Sackett of Aspen Journalism spoke with experts about why the worsening crisis still hasn’t forced a deal. Kathryn Sorensen, a researcher at the ASU Kyl Center for Water Policy, said: “There’s so little water to go around that positions have become hardened as a result. We’re not just talking about inconvenient cuts; we’re talking about severe pain to economies at this point.”

In Arizona, an advocacy group backed by the Central Arizona Project has begun rolling out TV ads and online videos saying the state is being singled out in the options the federal government has outlined. Brandon Loomis of the Arizona Republic reports that an ad aired by the coalition declares: “Arizona is being unfairly targeted for reductions of Colorado River water that would cripple our state.”

In California, Newsom launched a new plan this week that sets a goal of securing 9 million acre-feet of additional water, enough to fill two Shasta Reservoirs, by 2040 in an effort to offset expected losses caused by climate change. As Camille von Kaenel reports for E&E News by Politico, the 2028 water plan will be a blueprint for new reservoirs, conservation efforts and groundwater recharge projects. Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth says the effort “will help us plan smarter to deal with the way climate change is testing our water systems.”

More climate and environment news

California is spearheading a lawsuit against the Trump administration for canceling billions of dollars in funding for clean energy projects awarded during the Biden administration. My colleague Hayley Smith reported the cuts included a $1.2-billion federal grant for California’s hydrogen hub. The hub was part of the Biden administration’s nationwide effort to develop hydrogen projects to replace planet-warming fossil fuels, particularly in hard-to-decarbonize sectors such as heavy-duty trucking.

Illegal cannabis farms are polluting national forests in California, leaving contamination that harms wildlife and watersheds. Reporter Rachel Becker of CalMatters visited an illicit cannabis grow that was raided by law enforcement in Shasta-Trinity National Forest, where a pile of pesticide sprayers was left behind. Researchers are sounding the alarm, she wrote, “that inadequate federal funding, disjointed communication, dangerous conditions and agencies stretched thin at both the state and federal level are leaving thousands of grow sites — and their trash, pesticides, fertilizers and more — to foul California’s forests.”

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more water and climate news, follow Ian James @ianjames.bsky.social on Bluesky and @ByIanJames on X.

The race to replace termed-out California Gov. Gavin Newsom is a tight contest between five candidates, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

Three Democrats — former Rep. Katie Porter, Rep. Eric Swalwell and hedge fund founder Tom Steyer — and two Republicans — conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — are within 4 percentage points of one another, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California survey.

“Three months out from the June primary, the top two slots in the gubernatorial race are up for grabs,” Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s survey director, said in a statement. “Voters feel hammered by cost-of-living realities, so affordability will be a defining issue for them.”

In a crowded field of a dozen prominent candidates, Hilton had the support of 14% of likely voters, Porter 13%, Bianco 12%, Swalwell 11% and Steyer 10%, according to the poll. No other candidate received the support of more than 5% of respondents. One in 10 likely voters were undecided.

The two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary will move on to the general election regardless of party identification. With nine prominent Democrats in the field, this has led to concerns among party leaders that the Democratic candidates may splinter the vote and the two Republicans could advance to the November ballot. No Republican has been elected to statewide office in California since 2006.

While support for Hilton and Bianco held steady since PPIC’s December poll, backing for Porter and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra significantly declined as more Democrats entered the contest and Porter dealt with the fallout from videos of her cursing at an aide and scolding a reporter. Porter expressed remorse for her behavior.

Several other races will appear on the November ballot, notably congressional contests that could determine which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives. The state’s 52 congressional districts were redrawn in a rare mid-decade redistricting after voters approved Proposition 50 last year in an effort to counter President Trump’s calls on Republican leaders in Texas and other GOP-led states to reshape their congressional lines.

Likely voters in California overwhelmingly prefer a Democratic congressional candidate over a Republican, 62% to 36%, according to the poll. A proposed 5% tax on the assets of billionaires that largely would be used to fund healthcare services in the state also was supported by 6 in 10 likely voters.

The PPIC poll surveyed 1,657 California adults online in English and Spanish from Feb. 3 to 11. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Capitalizing on a grand stage Tuesday night, President Trump delivered a State of the Union speech laced with political broadsides blaming Democrats for the nation’s problems, including on immigration and the economy, and heaping praise on himself and his administration for ushering in “a turnaround for the ages.”

He did not mention that after a year of his holding the White House and his party controlling both chambers of Congress, many Americans remain displeased and financially frustrated, with increasing numbers blaming Trump, according to polling.

The speech was heavy on partisan attacks, but light on any real acknowledgment of — or proposed path out of — the mounting political tensions that are roiling the nation under his leadership and threatening his party’s chances of retaining power in the upcoming midterms.

“President Trump’s State of the Union address was deeply disconnected from the lived reality of most Americans and profoundly insulting to the immigrant communities who strengthen and sustain this country every day,” Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said in a statement. “While working families struggle with rising costs, threats to civil liberties, and attacks on fundamental rights, the Trump Administration continues to choose distortion over truth and division over unity.”

Time and again, Trump criticized the Democrats in the room — for not taking his bait and applauding as he waxed on about his immigration agenda, for not agreeing with his pronouncements against transgender athletes, for not being sufficiently adulatory toward members of the U.S. men’s hockey team for winning gold at the recent Winter Olympics.

“These people are crazy,” Trump said of Democrats, after they wouldn’t agree with his comments on transgender athletes. “You should be ashamed of yourself,” he said after they wouldn’t clap for his remarks about “illegal aliens.”

The speech went over well with many Republicans.

“Last Night, President Trump gave the BEST and LONGEST State of the Union speech in history because of ALL the many wins he had to tout,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote on X. “In one year, we have REVERSED the damage we inherited from Biden and the Democrats and we are delivering for the American people.”

Democrats watched sedately, or with barely obscured disdain, with brief scoffs and a few vocal rebuttals. But in their remarks afterward, they slammed Trump for ignoring Americans’ mounting displeasure with his agenda.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the speech “Trump’s state of delusion.”

“For nearly two hours, the president inflated his ego, rewrote reality, and offered zero solutions to the problems American families are struggling with every day,” Schumer said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the speech was “riddled with dirty rotten lies.”

Many other Democrats also bristled over Trump’s rose-colored depiction of the nation as thriving, the economy as “roaring.”

Trump repeatedly mentioned his campaign to crack down on illegal immigration and his administration’s success in reducing border crossings. But he made no mention of one of the largest scandals of his first year in office — the killings of U.S. citizens Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis — or the cratering public support for his immigration campaign overall.

He mentioned bombing Iran’s nuclear sites last year and said negotiations against future weapons development are ongoing. But he didn’t explain why the Pentagon has led a buildup of U.S. aircraft and warships in the Middle East, or address mounting concerns that he is preparing to take the nation to war.

He spoke of bringing down healthcare costs through several unproven programs, such as his “TrumpRx” prescription platform, but didn’t mention that under his party’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” and its cuts to Obamacare subsidies, millions of Americans are facing increased healthcare costs.

He talked about violent crime declining under his administration, a trend any president would claim as a success. But he skipped over the fact that the declines are a clear continuation of sharp drops under the Biden administration — the same drops he had vociferously denied during his 2024 campaign.

Every president treats the State of the Union as a chance to highlight their wins, less a venue for mulling over controversies or losses. It is a time-honored tradition, but also political theater — a chance for a president to project strength no matter the headwinds they are facing, as Trump did over and over again in his nearly two-hour speech.

But as many Democrats noted, his assessment also conflicted with the sentiments of many Americans, in poll after poll.

“The truth is that the State of our Union does not feel strong for everyone,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) in his Spanish-language rebuttal to the speech. “Not when the costs of rent, food and electricity keep rising. Not when Republicans raise our medical costs to fund tax cuts for billionaires. And definitely not when federal agents — armed and masked — terrorize our communities by targeting people because of the color of their skin or for speaking Spanish — including immigrants with legal status and citizens.”

Minneapolis and other parts of the nation have been beset by poorly trained federal forces waging immigration round-ups that have left communities in fear and American citizens detained and even dead in the streets. Anger over those tactics has dominated the political discussion for months. In his speech, Trump never addressed the Minneapolis campaign head-on.

For months, Trump has also rattled key U.S. allies, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners, by repeatedly demanding that the United States be given Greenland, a territory of Denmark. He couched the stunning breach of diplomatic norms as a necessity given sweeping U.S. security concerns in the region. But in his speech, he made no mention of his demands or those concerns.

And while Trump asserted the “state of the union is strong,” he gave little explanation for why he has repeatedly denigrated and targeted the cornerstones of its federal system.

In the last year, Trump has cast himself and the executive office as all powerful; a substantial swath of the federal judiciary as “radical left” lunatics; the nation’s state-controlled voting system as corrupt and unreliable; and many Democrats and other political opponents as illegitimate or even criminal.

He has repeatedly asserted the power to reject decisions and reallocate federal spending by Congress, rewrite by executive fiat the Constitution and core rights within it such as birthright citizenship, and command or coerce states and a vast swath of civil society — including universities and law firms — to align with him politically or face devastating financial losses, including by demanding unprecedented mid-decade redistricting by red states to better his chances of Republican victory in the midterms.

Trump has tried to assert his will on the Federal Reserve, which is designed to independently lead the nation’s economy, and called Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell “incompetent” — which can’t be a good sign for the nation’s economy, no matter how you parse it.

As Trump walked out of the room Tuesday night having addressed few of those unprecedented moves, Republicans showered him with praise — with some telling him he’d just delivered the best State of the Union ever.

Many Democrats, meanwhile, wondered which union the president had been describing.

For this year’s State of the Union address, as usual, the president was the center of attention. That’s just where Donald Trump lives, so it’s no wonder that he broke his record for the length of the nationally televised speech. He was the star of his own unreality show, with an audience of tens of millions. In front of him, idolatrous Republican lawmakers popped up and down to applaud like clowns in wind-up music boxes of old.

In fact, a president comes to the Capitol as a guest in Congress’ home, there only by invitation of the speaker of the House. It’s a historical nod to the separation of powers so essential to America’s system of government. But of course Trump acts as though he owns the place. And why not? The Republican majorities in the House and Senate essentially gave him the keys and title, along with much of their constitutional power over spending, federal appointments, war powers and more.

“What a difference a president makes,” a triumphalist Trump imperiously marveled about himself on Tuesday night, after exaggerating or falsely claiming his achievements of the past year.

Got that? Even with a Congress controlled by his party, with its majorities at risk in this midterm election year because of his unpopularity, Trump couldn’t find it within his narcissistic self to share the specious credit. Then again, he does act alone most of the time, and polls show he’s getting blame, not credit, from 6 out of 10 Americans.

For the good of the nation, Congress must take back its powers from Trump and, with them, more of Americans’ attention. No less than Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, pleaded as much just days before the State of the Union address.

In concurring with the Court’s 6-3 ruling last week striking down the centerpiece of Trump’s agenda — unilateral tariffs — as a usurpation of Congress’ constitutional taxing power, Gorsuch all but implored lawmakers to restore Congress’ intended role as a co-equal branch of government — and the president to respect it as such. (Spoiler: He won’t.)

Gorsuch’s opinion was a masterclass in why the founders created Congress in the very first article of the Constitution, saving the presidency and the judiciary for the second and third articles. I don’t agree with Gorsuch on much, but his concurrence should be required reading for Trump and for members of Congress who plainly need remedial civics lessons. It’s worth quoting at length; italics are mine.

“Our founders understood that men are not angels, and we disregard that insight at our peril when we allow the few (or the one) to aggrandize their power based on loose or uncertain authority,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time,” he closed. “And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future.”

Do you know what won’t endure? Trump’s policymaking by “impulse” and fiat, by hundreds of executive orders. Indeed, it would be in his interest to work with Congress on laws that will outlive him and stand as his legacy. Yet he wants to be a king, getting quick results on a whim, by the thumbing of a tweet or a Sharpie signature on paper. Legislating requires time, compromise and ultimately sharing credit.

Perhaps that’s why Trump is so intent on erecting edifices of tangible marble and gold in Washington and beyond: Those will endure when his policies don’t. And that’s the legacy he craves — mega-ballrooms, arches, statues, busts and buildings in his name and image.

Gorsuch wasn’t in the House chamber to hear Trump’s address and his slap at the court’s tariff decision. Just four of the nine justices were, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the main opinion, and two other justices who’d joined in opposing Trump’s tariff power grab. The president insisted he’d proceed with unilateral tariffs under separate laws, adding that “congressional action will not be necessary.” Republican lawmakers applauded.

The founders, in the Constitution, required presidents to annually report on the state of the union and to “recommend” to Congress “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Then it’s the president’s job to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Yet as usual, Trump outlined little in the way of a legislative agenda.

The president likes to note, as he did in his address, that he’ll preside over this year’s celebrations of the nation’s 250th birthday. But he should know that the nation wasn’t born in a day, on July 4, 1776. The founders squabbled 11 years more over the Constitution, and states took another two years to ratify it.

Yes, democracy has been hard from the start. That’s why Trump’s appeal for some Americans is his action-figure persona — forget norms, laws and the Constitution.

But perhaps if Trump’s poll numbers remain in the tank, even Republicans in Congress will summon the guts to protect the institution’s powers. And if they don’t, that’s all the more reason for voters to turn the keys over to Democrats in November.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

It was the Los Angeles Hispanic Republican Club’s potluck party for President Trump’s State of the Union address, but there was a problem:

Not many Hispanics showed up. Or people, period.

About half of the the 20-some folks who trudged into the club’s Woodland Hills offices were Latino. Four of them were chairman David Hernandez and his family.

“People are sick, hurt, or fed up with politics,” the soft-spoken 77-year-old told me with a laugh before the speech began.

It was a dramatic turn from three years ago, when Trump reclaimed the White House with 48% of the Latino vote, the highest percentage ever captured by a Republican presidential candidate. A record number of California Latinos won legislative seats. The Hispanic Republican Club opened chapters in Ventura and Orange counties. Rodriguez now sits on the California Republican Party board of directors along with former Cudahy mayor and fellow club member Jack Guerrero.

How the quesadillas have flipped. CNN poll released earlier this week showed Latino support for Trump went from 41% last February to just 22% right now.

“It’s the visuals of those raids,” Hernandez acknowledged with a sigh. “It only makes sense that people will feel afraid. Some of our supporters and friends, they’re suffering.”

He turned to his vice chair, Tony Barragan, who reviews restaurants for the club’s weekly radio show. Near them, a table hosted three clipboards fat with paperwork for new members to fill. It had a total of one name. “How many of the places you’ve visited are feeling the crunch?”

“Half,” Barragan replied. His father came to the United States from Mexico illegally then became a pioneering Mexican restaurateur in Los Angeles.

“We gotta win the Hispanic vote. I hope that he [Trump] changes his approach and remembers that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Fat chance of that, Tony.

The cheers were muted as the State of the Union pageantry kicked off. When Trump claimed early on that “inflation is plummeting, incomes are rising fast, the roaring economy is roaring like never before,” only one club member offered a golf clap.

Maybe the audience knew that was just too big of a whopper.

No one seemed particularly animated in the beginning except Rolando Salmerón. He sat in the front cheering and fist-pumping and chanting “USA! USA!” every time Republicans gave Trump a standing ovation.

Los Angeles Hispanic Republican Club chairman David Hernandez hosts a political radio talk show at the studios of AM Radio 870 in Glendale in 2022.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

The electrical engineer, who gave his age as “over 1,000,” came to the United States from El Salvador illegally in 1975 but was now a citizen. He told me during dinner that Trump had done “more good in one year than Democrats ever did in 30” and especially supported his deportation deluge because MS-13 members assaulted and bullied his son during his high school years.

“Trump deported three million people — Obama deported way more,” said Salmerón. He wore a hat emblazoned with “FIGHT” over the famous photo of a bloodied Trump raising his fist just after a would-be assassin’s bullet grazed his ear. On the bill was an embroidered version of the president’s signature. “Unfortunately, the media that we have — including the L.A. Times — doesn’t say the truth.”

I mean, I think the truth is Trump’s deportation machine might not hesitate to hassle Señor Salmerón over here, like it has other Latinos, if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We watched Trump’s speech on Fox News, which kept cutting to unflattering shots of conservative scapegoats like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Those prompts uncorked snide comments from members — “Traitor!” someone yelled when the television flashed an image of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett — that turned the atmosphere in the room from reserved to suddenly rollicking.

Hernandez, however, stayed silent.

While Trump bloviated about tariffs, the Hispanic Republican Club chair nibbled on dessert. As the triumphant U.S. men’s hockey team made a cameo, Hernandez was looking at his smartphone. Taxes, illegal immigration, foreign policy — nothing seemed to move Hernandez even as his fellow members got rowdier and rowdier. When Rep. Brad Sherman appeared on the screen, Hernandez finally said something: “There’s our congressman!”

But once Trump began to attack his enemies, Hernandez began to whisper comments with a smile to his daughter, who sat at the lonely check-in table. He laughed after the president gestured to the Democrats sitting glumly before him in the House of Representatives chambers and growled, “These people are crazy.” When Trump announced the awarding of Medals of Honors to a Korean War fighter pilot and a Marine who helped to capture former Venezuela dictator Nicolás Maduro, Hernandez — a Navy veteran — finally applauded.

I thought Trump’s speech, the longest State of the Union address ever, was a giant, xenophobic bore. So did viewers — a CNN survey found it was his worst-received State of the Union address ever and ranked even lower than any of Joe Biden’s attempts. But at the Hispanic Republic Club bash, we skeptics might as well been living in a different dimension.

“I liked the personal touch,” Hernandez told me after. “We need more of that. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”

“It was beautiful,” said 68-year-old Ricardo Benitez, who’s running for a state assembly seat in the San Fernando Valley and greeted Salmerón with a “¿Entonces, cipote? [What’s up, man?] — the only Spanish I heard all night. The Salvadoran immigrant was impressed by “how our president acknowledged victims of crime and how he freed Venezuela…He’s doing a good job regardless of what his enemies are saying.”

Benitez scoffed when I asked if he thought Trump’s immigration raids would cost Republicans Latino support in this year’s midterms.

“Democrats don’t know anything. They think the immigration raids will stop people from voting. That’s not true. Deportations have always happened. Obama deported more people.”

Various political flyers for various republican candidates sit on a table at the offices of L.A. Hispanic Republican Club on Tuesday in Woodland Hills.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

Nearby, Lani Kane helped to clear tables. “I like that [Trump] honored civilians and our military,” said the 50-year-old, whose T-shirt identified her as a daughter of a World War II veteran. “But in a way, I understand why Democrats don’t like him. The speech was all ‘I, I, I.’”

The Sylmar resident stayed quiet when I asked if she thought Latinos would stay with the GOP for the midterms and beyond.

“If Republicans can continue to promote our values and protect our youth and lower taxes, I hope they do,” Kane finally said.

But did she think they would? This time, Kane nodded vigorously.

“I think Hispanics are starting to wake up.”

Well, I agree with her there. But I don’t think they’re waking up the way Kane thinks.

When myself and a Times photographer thanked the group and left, the number of Latinos at the Los Angeles Hispanic Republican Club State of the Union potluck, already small, dropped by a quarter.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice appears to have withheld from disclosure files on disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein related to a claim that President Trump sexually abused a minor, a top Democratic lawmaker said Tuesday.

“Oversight Democrats can confirm that the DOJ appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with this survivor who accused President Trump of heinous crimes.” U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach said in a statement. “Oversight Democrats will open a parallel investigation into this.”

Garcia is the top-ranking Democrat on the House committee probing Epstein and how federal law enforcement handled its investigation into sex trafficking accusations against the financier.

Trump has repeatedly said he cut ties with Epstein two decades ago and was not aware of the late financier’s activities. The president has also said he didn’t engage in wrongdoing. Last year, Trump strenuously opposed releasing the Epstein files but then signed legislation forcing their release after it was passed by Congress.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the file that listed all FBI interviews with the victim was temporarily removed in order to do redactions and put back online on Thursday. The spokeswoman said the department has not deleted any of the files and all documents responsive to the law have been produced unless they fall within a category that justifies being withheld.

The White House pointed to a Justice Department social media post saying “ALL responsive documents have been produced” unless there is a legitimate legal reason for withholding them. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee “should stop misleading the public while manufacturing outrage from their radical anti-Trump base,” the statement added.

A White House spokesperson previously cited the release of documents as evidence of its transparency and support for helping Epstein’s victims.

Sara Guerrero, a spokesperson for Garcia, said the department “has yet to respond as to why these documents are missing, despite the active subpoena from the Oversight Committee that does not allow for withholding these documents. They are not addressing the missing files about the survivor and her allegations.”

Legislation Congress passed last year to force disclosure of the Epstein files permits limited redactions for reasons such as to protect victims or classified information and to avoid jeopardizing ongoing criminal investigations.

“Under the Oversight Committee’s subpoena and the Epstein Files Transparency Act, these records must immediately be shared with Congress and the American public,” Garcia said. “Covering up direct evidence of a potential assault by the President of the United States is the most serious possible crime in this White House cover up.”

Tarabay and Strohm write for Bloomberg News. Steven T. Dennis and Hadriana Lowenkron of Bloomberg contributed to this report.