In California, fuel prices often are higher than anywhere else in the country, a reflection of the state’s high cost of living that voters want their next governor to address.
The two candidates running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom — Democratic former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra and Republican former Fox News host Steve Hilton — have vastly different views on climate and energy policy.
Here is where they stand on gas prices, electric vehicle mandates and California’s long-delayed high-speed rail project.
Gas prices and California’s refineries
California is the most expensive gasoline market in the nation, according to AAA, with an average price of $6.01 per gallon. Nationally, the average price was $4.28 per gallon, and this month was expected to become the most expensive for gas prices on record, according to AAA.
Becerra and Hilton both blame the high costs on the opposing political party — Becerra says President Trump’s war in Iran has increased prices by $2 per gallon, while Hilton blames California’s prices on policies pushed by Newsom and Democratic lawmakers.
Hilton has made the promise of $3 a gallon gasoline at California’s pumps a central plank of his affordability campaign. He argues he can achieve the target by repealing “outdated” environmental regulations and issuing more drilling permits in California.
Pumps in the McKittrick oil field, just north of the town of McKittrick on State Route 33.
(Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times)
“We could be producing most of it here in California, [in] Kern County, and sending it to the refineries in a nice clean pipeline,” Hilton said during an August town hall in Modesto. “Instead of that, we’re shipping it halfway across the world, and giant super tankers spewing out carbon emissions. It’s insane.”
While he has expressed a desire to lower costs, Becerra has released scant details about how he would do it.
He took heat from fellow Democrats during the primary for defending Chevron after the oil producer donated half a million dollars to a committee supporting his campaign. He clarified that his statements were about keeping oil refineries in California, especially since several have shut down in recent years.
“We need to continue to have refineries so that we can process the petroleum, so we can have gasoline, so we don’t have prices that are even higher than what they are right now,” Becerra said during an August event with Politico.
EVs and car regulations
The next governor will decide whether to continue Newsom’s ambitious plan to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicles by banning the sale of new gas cars in California by 2035.
While Becerra supports transitioning away from gas-powered vehicles, along with California’s broader carbon neutrality goals, he has raised concerns about costs.
“The goal is great. What we have to do is make sure that goal matches the reality of our families,” he told CalMatters this year. “And if our families can’t afford to keep pace with the goal, then what good is the goal?”
Becerra would be open to revising or delaying the goals to prioritize affordability.
Hilton would end the state’s climate goals, which he blames for driving up energy and other costs.
A car charges at an EV station.
(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
“I’m not against reducing carbon emissions,” Hilton said during a town hall with The Times and LAist this month. “I just want to do it in a way that both helps with the fight against climate change, but doesn’t hurt working people and small businesses.”
He argued that increasing domestic oil production and overhauling vegetation management to reduce the risk of megafires would reduce emissions more effectively than decades of heavy-handed climate rules.
“We are gonna shut it all down, rein it in, merge all of these regulators so we have common-sense regulation instead of this out of control, costly bureaucracy,” he said, standing outside a state office building in August to protest the tire regulations. He also has pledged to abolish the Department of Motor Vehicles and reduce registration fees to $73.
High-speed rail
The Tied Arch Bridge construction site, which will take high-speed trains over State Route 43 in Fresno County.
(Godofredo A. Vásquez / Associated Press)
Hilton would “cancel” all high-speed rail funding, which he said would save more than $3.7 billion per year.
While supportive of high-speed rail, Becerra is concerned by the project’s delays and cost overruns. He would “clean shop” at the authority, which signed off on hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel expenses that should not have been approved, according to a recent audit.
“If we build, it’s gonna be because we can get this done the right way. We’re not gonna have this overspending, we’re not gonna have this misspending,” he said during a recent campaign stop in Sacramento. “California is the fourth-largest economy, with the most innovation. We can get it done too, but it won’t be done this way.”
MINNEAPOLIS — Conservative activists James O’Keefe and Cam Higby were charged Wednesday with unlawful voting and identity theft after a Minnesota prosecutor said they gave false names to poll workers during the state’s primary election. The men recorded the exchanges for a video to expose what they say are vulnerabilities in the state’s voting laws.
Hennepin County Atty. Mary Moriarty announced the felony charges at a news conference. She said O’Keefe, 42, of West Palm Beach, Fla., and Higby, 26, of Covington, Wash., wore costumes and used the names of registered state voters while starting the “vouching” process in the Aug. 11 primary. The process provides a way for unregistered voters who lack proof of their current address to register and vote after signing an oath of eligibility.
Poll workers were suspicious and reported their behavior. Moriarty said the situation shows that “the system for identifying misconduct and responding to it functioned well during the primary.”
O’Keefe, who founded and later was ousted as leader of Project Veritas, gained notoriety by publishing undercover sting-style videos such as the one made at the Minnesota polling places. He was not immediately available for comment, and court records do not name an attorney to comment on his behalf.
Higby did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment and did not have an attorney in court records. Neither of them has had an opportunity to enter a plea.
Minnesota allows registered voters to “vouch” for another voter in the same precinct by signing an oath attesting to the second person’s identity and that they live in the precinct. The person being vouched for also must sign an oath attesting to their identity and eligibility to vote, and must also provide their Minnesota driver’s license or identification card number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.
The process is rarely used but is most commonly done by older adults who have not updated their address on a driver’s license because they no longer drive. In the November 2024 election, fewer than 0.6% of votes cast used the process, according to the Minnesota secretary of state’s office website.
Workers flag ‘strange behavior’
In their video that was posted to YouTube on Aug. 13, O’Keefe, Higby and others dressed in costumes similar to attire worn by some Muslims and used fake accents while asking about the vouching process at multiple Minneapolis voting sites. Higby’s face was covered, and when talking to poll workers, O’Keefe referred to him as his wife.
Moriarty said both men “identified themselves using names of registered voters in the precinct without those voters’ knowledge or permission.”
The poll workers noticed the “strange behavior” and flagged it to election officials, who asked police to investigate, Moriarty said. The men stopped short of signing the oath required for vouching, but Moriarty said that giving false names and starting the process was enough to justify the felony charges.
“Free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy, and their protection is one of our highest priorities,” Moriarty said.
O’Keefe’s organization, O’Keefe Media Group, posted a statement and the video on its website and said the men presented “an intentionally extreme scenario to expose what they see as the lunacy of the state’s ‘vouching’ system.”
“The team wanted to determine how election workers would respond, what safeguards they would describe, and how far they would allow the vouching process to proceed,” the statement said. “Not every election worker reacted the same way. While several workers explained how the undercover team could proceed under the vouching rules, others became suspicious of the group and took issue with the investigation. Some workers communicated concerns about the team over their radios.”
David Becker, a former Justice Department official and the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said he wasn’t aware of any examples of vouching leading to organized or widespread fraud. But he said there have been more efforts recently by those pushing voter fraud claims to commit questionable acts themselves.
“Impersonating another voter is a very serious crime,” Becker said.
Voter ID laws vary
Voter identification laws vary from state to state. Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but that identification can range from a photo ID to documents such as a utility bill or bank statement.
In the remaining 14 states and Washington, D.C., voters can cast a ballot without showing ID. They must verify their identity in various other ways, such as signing an affidavit or providing personal information such as birth date, name or address.
Some states, such as Minnesota, allow election officials or other registered voters to vouch for people without a current ID. Alaska and New Hampshire, for instance, allow officials including a clerk or a supervisor to verify a voter’s identity if they know the voter personally. North Dakota allows people who lack ID cards because of a disability to have an attester certify that they are a qualified voter. West Virginia allows an adult who has known a voter for at least six months to sign a sworn statement verifying the voter’s identity.
Vancleave and Boone write for the Associated Press.Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. AP writer Ali Swenson contributed to this report.
A federal judge in Los Angeles denied a Trump administration request Wednesday to immediately block California elections officials from counting the ballots of 20,000 voters whose citizenship the administration questions in a blistering opinion.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled that the administration’s allegations were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.
“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”
Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”
“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.
Carter’s ruling was the second to deny the Trump administration a temporary restraining order against the state and Los Angeles County this week, after a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s emergency request in a separate order Monday.
Carter ruled following a 3½-hour hearing Tuesday, where a slew of attorneys for the state, county and independent voting rights groups argued against the administration’s demands.
First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — who is the top federal prosecutor in L.A. and argued for the Trump administration at Tuesday’s hearing — did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling Wednesday. After Tuesday’s hearing, he suggested the administration was likely to appeal Carter’s ruling if it didn’t immediately halt the counting of the flagged ballots.
The race for mayor of Los Angeles is a dead heat as the campaign draws to a close, with a new poll showing incumbent Karen Bass erasing the double-digit lead previously held by Councilmember Nithya Raman.
Raman and Bass now each have 40% of likely L.A. voters in their camps, with 19% still undecided ahead of the Nov. 3 election, according to the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, co-sponsored by The Times.
The neck-and-neck contest is a big change from September, when Raman jumped out to an 11-percentage-point lead with support from 39% of likely voters compared with Bass at 28%.
It follows weeks of relentless attacks on Raman by Bass, whom some analysts had predicted would need to campaign more aggressively to close the gap with her challenger.
“It’s certainly a breath of fresh air for Bass to see the race close. She’ll probably feel the campaign is having the effect she wants it to have, which is to put more focus on Raman and put Raman on the defensive,” said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the Berkeley IGS Poll.
Mayor Karen Bass greets phone banking volunteers at her South L.A. campaign headquarters.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
The survey released Wednesday was conducted online in English and Spanish with a sample of 2,197 likely city voters between Oct. 19 and Oct. 25. It has a margin of error of about three percentage points.
“The momentum in this race is with Karen Bass,” said Alex Stack, a spokesperson for Bass’ campaign. “Ever since Angelenos got their ballots, Nithya Raman has made headlines for all the wrong reasons — voters know they can’t trust her on public safety and other key issues.”
The Raman campaign cited high unfavorable numbers for Bass in the poll, and noted that the mayor “still can’t get ahead” in voter surveys.
“Bass hasn’t led a poll since August and an aggregate of all publicly available polls continues to show Nithya in the lead,” the Raman campaign said in a news release.
The leveling off of the race, along with the sharp decline in undecided voters, was spurred largely by conservative voters who chose Republican Spencer Pratt in the primary deciding to vote for the mayor in the runoff, said DiCamillo.
In the September Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll, 22% of Pratt voters said they planned to support Bass, while 16% said they favored Raman. That left a whopping 63% of Pratt voters undecided still.
In the new poll, Bass shot up to 41% of the Pratt vote, while Raman dropped to 14% and 45% were still undecided. Pratt hasn’t endorsed either candidate in the race and continues to bash both Raman and Bass on social media.
“The Pratt voters are the biggest insertion,” DiCamillo said. “The question remains, since we’re looking at Pratt voters, 45% remain undecided. Will they vote?”
Raman trailed Bass in every poll during the primary campaign. Neither candidate had ever cleared 40% in any of the polls conducted by Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times.
In the June 2 primary election, Bass received 34% of the vote while Raman received 29%. Pratt placed third with 26%.
In the new poll, Raman shed support in key areas, including among groups that previously appeared to be leaning toward her.
Councilmember and mayoral hopeful Nithya Raman, center, with supporters at Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
In the September poll, Raman led among Latinos by 24 percentage points, 45% to Bass’ 21%. In the October poll, Bass was up to 40% and Raman fell to 43%, leaving the two within the margin of error for that key constituency.
DiCamillo said part of that change had to do with the likely voter population becoming more clear as the election neared, and older Latinos appeared to be a larger portion of the electorate.
“The Latino likely electorate now includes more older Latinos; that benefits Bass,” he said.
Black voters, long considered the backbone of Bass’ coalition, solidified behind the mayor, with 71% of likely Black voters supporting her compared with 13% supporting Raman. While Bass led among Black likely voters in the September poll, the already wide margin was much slimmer at that time, at 48% to 20%.
The poll also affirmed a widely held belief among the Bass camp that the San Fernando Valley would tilt toward the mayor over Raman.
Raman was leading in the Valley in the September poll 34% to 26%, but that number flipped on its head over the past month, with Bass now in front of Raman 44% to 33%.
Bass’ surge in the poll was more notable because the mayor’s favorable ratings — which have been in the tank since the January 2025 wildfires — remained underwater, with 65% of Angelenos viewing her unfavorably compared to 64% in the last poll. Only 32% had a positive view of the mayor, up four percentage points from September.
Bass’ attacks on Raman appeared to be having a significant effect on voters’ opinions of the challenger.
For the first time in a poll by Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times this cycle, Raman posted a higher unfavorable rating than favorable, with 49% of likely voters saying they viewed her unfavorably compared to 42% who had positive views of her.
The mayor, her campaign team and her surrogates have stepped up their offensive toward Raman, seizing on any opportunity to hammer the council member over remarks she has made on the campaign trail that they argue make the her unfit for the mayoralty and “not ready for prime time” — a slogan the mayor and her allies have deployed against their rival.
In early October, the Bass campaign slammed Raman over a video she posted with a leftist influencer in which she urged viewers to “stop fascist liars” as a photo of Bass flashed on the screen. Raman criticized both Bass and LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell in the video.
Bass accused the council member of calling the city’s police officers fascists. A Raman spokesperson said she was referring to the “Trump administration’s violent kidnappings” as fascist, not the mayor or police chief or officers. The story dominated headlines for days.
The Bass camp also needled Raman that week after photos surfaced of the council member attending a happy hour on the day federal immigration authorities began raids in Los Angeles last summer, though Raman said she attended a protest that same day.
The Bass campaign sent out a news release calling it “Nithya Raman’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week.”
The attacks continued the next week after Raman said during the mayoral debate that the “gold standard” for LAPD’s noncooperation with immigration enforcement took place during the tenure of former LAPD Police Chief Daryl F. Gates.
Gates, a controversial chief accused of racist remarks during his tenure, headed the department during the 1991 videotaped beating of Rodney King and Bass said Raman’s comments showed she was “not really familiar with L.A., especially the Black community.”
Raman retorted that Bass was twisting her words, but later apologized, saying that mentioning Gates was painful for people across L.A.
The poll also asked respondents for the top priorities for the next mayor to address. Reducing the number of homeless encampments was by far the top answer, chosen by 43% of likely voters.
Tied for second place among top concerns was ensuring public safety and building more affordable housing, selected by 29% each.
Protecting immigrant communities was the third-most cited concern, with 21%, followed by balancing the city budget at 17%.
In the race for Los Angeles mayor, incumbent Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman will need to win over a substantial portion of the 218,000 Angelenos who voted for Spencer Pratt in the primary and who are concentrated in certain neighborhoods.
In the June 2 primary, Bass earned more than a third of the vote, while Raman was close with 29%. Reality television personality Pratt finished third with 25.5%. The votes for him are nearly five times the 44,800-vote gap between Bass and Raman. This voting bloc could be key to either candidate securing the mayoral race.
Spencer Pratt
Share of votes in the primary
Pratt did well in wealthy Pacific Palisades and Bel-Air precincts.
Karen Bass
Bass had strong support in South L.A.
Nithya Raman
Raman won Los Feliz, where Bass led in the 2022 primary.
Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES
Pratt carried 20% of the city’s 739 precincts, mainly in the West Valley — Woodland Hills, Encino, Granada Hills, West Hills, Chatsworth, Northridge and Tarzana — along with Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and San Pedro, according to a Times analysis of certified election results. In comparison, Bass had the most votes in 49% of the precincts, while Raman had 30%.
According to the latest Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies/Los Angeles Times poll, Raman and Bass are in a dead heat, each with the support of 40% of likely voters. Polls show 45% of Pratt voters are undecided.
In the primary, Pratt had the most votes in 24 of the city’s 113 neighborhoods. All but three of those 24 neighborhoods heavily favored developer Rick Caruso over Bass in the 2022 mayoral race.
Voters in precincts that voted heavily for Pratt also turned out more than others. Turnout there was 46%, compared with 37% in the rest of the city, more than in past mayoral primaries.
There is a large pool of potential voters for Bass and Raman to cast ballots through Election Day Tuesday. Pratt’s support stretched well beyond the places he won. About 125,000 of his votes came from precincts that Bass or Raman won.
Pratt had his weakest showing in the city’s 43 majority-Latino neighborhoods, where he got 22% of the vote. Bass did well in 35 of them. The only one Pratt did well in was San Pedro, where Latinos make up just over half the population.
Pratt’s stronghold neighborhoods
Sandhya Kambhampati LOS ANGELES TIMES
Pratt’s largest base stretched across the west and north San Fernando Valley, from Chatsworth and Porter Ranch in the northwest corner through Woodland Hills, Tarzana and Encino. He was the leader in 76 precincts there, which together cast about 120,000 votes.
Pratt got 40.5% of the vote in those precincts. Bass finished second in all but one of those areas. Raman got 19%.
This month, Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath endorsed Raman, giving her a strong ally on the Westside and in the Valley and possibly new inroads in those areas.
Sandhya Kambhampati LOS ANGELES TIMES
On the Westside, Pratt swept the wealthy neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades, Brentwood and Bel-Air. Pratt’s home in the Palisades was destroyed in the January 2025 fire. His strongest showings were in the Palisades and Bel-Air, where he got about 50% of the vote.
Raman ran ahead of Bass in some of Pratt’s precincts, including ones in Pico-Robertson, Brentwood and Beverly Grove.
Sandhya Kambhampati LOS ANGELES TIMES
In the northeast Valley, Pratt did well in the foothill communities of Sunland, Tujunga and Shadow Hills. It’s a small part of the city’s electorate, with 38,000 registered voters. He got 44% of the vote, Bass 28% and Raman 18%.
At the city’s southern tip, Pratt did well in 11 precincts in San Pedro and parts of Harbor City with 42% of the vote. Raman had her weakest showing, with 16%.
Raman came within 5 percentage points of Pratt in only a handful of his precincts, including ones in Valley Village, Pico-Robertson and West Los Angeles.
You have until 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 3, to cast your vote in California’s general election. The Times has answers to last-minute questions about the voting process.
Here’s what you need to know:
What are the key races to watch?
The California governor’s race has narrowed down from six contenders to two top candidates: Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who has a long résumé in California electoral politics and received an endorsement from outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom. Steve Hilton is a Republican immigrant, an ally of President Trump and a former senior advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron. Your guide to the race for California governor can be found here.
In the Los Angeles mayoral race, incumbent Karen Bass faces a reelection challenge from Councilmember Nithya Raman, who was, until recently, a close ally of the mayor. In October during the only televised debate between the candidates, Bass portrayed Raman as someone who wasn’t ready to lead the city; Raman continues to allege the mayor is “missing in action” and that a vote for Bass would put the city in a position of further decline. Your guide to the L.A. mayor’s race can be found here.
What is on the ballot?
There are several races, ballot measures, local district seats and statewide races that Southern Californians must decide on.
Most of the attention will be on the races for California governor and mayor of Los Angeles.
Residents of the city of Los Angeles have several other items to consider, including:
Los Angeles County residents will be asked to vote on:
On the ballot are 14 statewide propositions including:
Voters will decide on six local congressional district seats and other statewide races including:
Six state congressional district seats are on the ballot including:
Is it too late to vote by mail?
No. You can return your vote-by-mail ballot by:
Dropping it off in the return envelope at a secure official drop box now through the close of polls on Nov. 3.
Dropping it off in person at a polling place, vote center or county elections office by 8 p.m. on Nov. 3.
Dropping it off at the post office. To ensure your ballot is postmarked by election day, mail it at least by Thursday — five days before Tuesday’s election. If mailing on election day, get a hand-stamped postmark from a postal employee at a United States post office.
What is the deadline to return a vote-by-mail ballot?
To be counted, vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before election day, Nov. 3, and received by your county elections office by Nov. 10.
How do I check if I’m registered to vote?
To find out if you’re registered to vote, visit the secretary of state’s website. You’ll need to enter a California driver’s license or identification number or the last four digits of your Social Security number.
How do I register to vote? Can I register on election day?
Eligible citizens who need to register or re-register to vote within 14 days of an election can complete this process at county elections offices, polling places or vote centers and fill out their ballot the same day.
To find an early voting location, use the secretary of state search tool here. You can find your local polling places here.
Your submitted ballot will be processed and counted once the county elections office has completed the voter registration verification process.
Where is the closest drop box?
Secure ballot drop-off locations opened Oct. 5. You can visit the Los Angeles County Office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s website here to find a ballot box near you.
MINNEAPOLIS — The parents of intensive care nurse Alex Pretti said the federal government is shielding the immigration enforcement officers involved in their son’s killing, and no one from the government has reached out with any substantive information for nine months.
Michael and Susan Pretti on Tuesday called for the Department of Justice to hold accountable those who shot their 37-year-old son during President Trump’s ramp up in deportations targeting Minnesota. Federal prosecutors disclosed in recent court filings they had stopped sharing evidence with Minnesota authorities who are investigating the January killings of Pretti and Renee Good by federal officers.
“The federal government went on TV and lied about Alex,” said Susan Pretti, his mother. “They tried to slander his memory to cover up their crime. Not only was it wrong, it was shameful.”
Within moments of his Jan. 24 death, Trump administration officials sought to portray Pretti, a U.S. citizen and nurse at a veterans hospital, as an armed disruptor intent on doing harm to federal agents when he brought his own gun to a Minneapolis street where officers clashed with protesters. Kristi Noem, the then-Homeland Security secretary, painted the Veterans Administration hospital nurse as a domestic terrorist who violently resisted federal agents. Court records show he had no criminal record.
Video shot by bystanders that day showed Pretti only had a mobile phone in his hand. No footage has since emerged showing him brandishing a weapon or attacking federal agents in the moments before he was killed.
The Prettis spoke Tuesday at a news conference organized by an attorney representing the family, calling their treatment by the Trump administration “cruelty.” They said they decided to speak out after being “stonewalled” by U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and the top federal prosecutor in Minnesota, U.S. Atty. Dan Rosen.
“At every turn, they have ignored us, misled us, and shielded Alex’s killers,” said Michael Pretti, his father. “We are a family who love this country. We trust in the institutions of this country. We believe in the rule of law — and that people should be held accountable through that law.”
After months of reaching out to Rosen’s office, the federal prosecutor agreed to meet with them in July. But the family and their attorney, Steve Schleicher, said that meeting raised more questions than answers, with Rosen refusing to provide even basic information about the status of the federal investigation into Pretti’s death.
A spokesman for Rosen’s office had no comment when reached by the Associated Press on Tuesday. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Pretti family’s remarks.
Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration in March for access to materials they said they needed to independently investigate the shootings of Pretti and Good. The Trump administration has suggested that state prosecutors don’t have jurisdiction to investigate federal officers, while Minnesota officials have said they don’t trust the federal government to investigate itself.
The state is still seeking the cellphones of the officers involved in both shootings and recordings of key interviews.
Pretti’s parents recounted how they first learned of his death when they were called by a reporter for the Associated Press.
“We learned about his death from the media as we saw him being shot repeatedly in the back after helping a woman from his community, a fellow Minnesotan, who had been shoved to the ground viciously,” Michael Pretti said. “No one from the federal government called us on that horrible day, but they did go on TV to tell lies about Alex. No one from the federal government has called us since.”
He said the videos of his son’s killing haunt his family every day.
“I think it haunts many Americans to see a U.S. citizen who was peaceful and in his community shot multiple times on the back, in the back, while on the ground,” the father said, calling his family heartbroken.
“We wish we didn’t have to be here,” he said. “We wish Alex was alive. We wish we were simply in Minneapolis to visit with Alex. For he and I to chat about cars, hiking, biking or anything that came to our mind. This administration has taken that away from us forever.”
Biesecker and Vancleave write for the Associated Press. Biesecker reported from Pittsburgh.
ATLANTA — Keisha Lance Bottoms talks a lot about the policies she would pursue as Georgia governor. The Democratic nominee is less likely to talk about the history she would make by winning the job.
Never has a Black woman been elected governor in any state. The former Atlanta mayor and onetime White House adviser to Democratic President Biden is trying to do it in a Deep South state where her lineage extends back to antebellum enslavement.
“I am at least a fifth-generation Georgian,” Bottoms, 56, says as she campaigns. “I say ‘at least’ because we can only trace our family back five generations to a plantation in Crawfordville.”
Bottoms rarely if ever mentions slavery, Jim Crow segregation or even race explicitly. But that story — hers, Georgia’s and the nation’s — shadows her battle with Republican nominee Rick Jackson.
The billionaire, a 72-year-old white man who grew up in Atlanta but now lives on a sprawling suburban estate, has hammered the former mayor as a failure, painting her four-year tenure as a crime-ridden decline. Other Republicans, up to Donald Trump, have joined in, with the president accusing Bottoms of ruining a once-great city.
“It’s a long-standing playbook to paint Atlanta as this big bad place,” Bottoms said, dismissing the Republican frame as ridiculous for a town that once hosted the Olympics and recently staged eight World Cup soccer matches.
One of her most recent ads pushes back by featuring clips of the news conference she held with the city’s law enforcement leaders during the peak of 2020 street protests of police violence in Atlanta and nationwide against Black men. “If you care about this city, then go home,” she said. “We are better than this.”
Bottoms would have her chance to answer Trump and Republicans at a rally Wednesday headlined by Barack Obama, the first Black U.S. president.
Some Black women see the attacks as loaded
Republican coalitions in most states, and certainly in Georgia, are overwhelmingly white and anchored in suburbs, smaller cities and small towns. Those are places where many voters look skeptically, even scornfully, upon big cities and the people who run them. But some of the rhetoric directed against Bottoms is steeped in the specter of race and gender in a state where all 83 governors since 1776 have been white men.
Jackson’s TV ads, a deluge funded by more than $200 million of his own money, feature footage of the demonstrations and violence in Atlanta in 2020, along with grainy images of Bottoms. The protests followed the police killing of Rayshard Brooks, an unarmed Black man, by a white Atlanta police officer.
The Republican campaign effort has not gone unnoticed among some Bottoms supporters, especially other Black women.
“It’s easy for people to attack Atlanta and Mayor Bottoms based on their own biases,” said retired educator Beverly Rice, a Bottoms supporter.
Bottoms’ bid marks the third consecutive time that Georgia Democrats have nominated a Black woman for governor. Stacey Abrams lost in 2018 and 2022 to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who is leaving office in 2027 after eight years due to term limits. Abrams came as close to winning a governor’s race as any Black woman before her.
In an interview, Abrams was reluctant to assign race and gender as the deciding factor in her defeats. But she said Black women running for governor face a higher bar because there is no example yet for voters who place a special emphasis on executive experience. Abrams, also an Atlantan, had served previously as state House minority leader, a role Republicans minimized as insufficient experience.
Abrams said that executive standard “does not apply equally across candidates” in politics. She said Bottoms “has a sound argument” because she has held the executive’s role. Before that, Bottoms was a City Council member, magistrate judge and prosecutor. That resume, Abrams and others said, is why Republicans have so aggressively criticized Bottoms’ experience.
“Bad mayors don’t make good governors,” Jackson has said over and over in the closing stretch of the campaign.
He has taken special notice of her decision not to run for a second term as mayor, instead joining Biden’s White House as a senior adviser – a move Bottoms said she deliberately put off to finish her four-year term. In Jackson’s telling, Bottoms “turned her back on Atlanta.”
Republicans say Atlanta ‘burned’ in Bottoms’ tenure
Other conservatives have gone further than Jackson.
“Keisha Lance Bottoms let Atlanta burn,” top Jackson surrogate John King, a former Atlanta police officer and now state insurance commissioner, sometimes says at the candidate’s rallies.
That is a reference to protesters setting fire to a Wendy’s fast food restaurant close to where Brooks was killed. The reference carries an extra weight in a city whose symbol is a phoenix rising from the ashes — a symbol adopted because Union forces burned parts of a young Atlanta during the Civil War.
At a Trump rally last weekend in Macon, a smaller city in middle Georgia, the president hammered away, too. Bottoms “destroyed Atlanta with her crime and filth and constant riots,” Trump said, echoing the kind of sometimes profane attacks he has leveled against many places with large or majority Black populations.
“I always viewed Atlanta as a great city,” he insisted. “It’s not considered that anymore.”
In a 2017 dispute with then-U.S. Rep. John Lewis, Trump called the civil rights icon’s district, which includes Delta Airlines’ and Coca-Cola’s world headquarters and the Georgia Institute of Technology, “crime-infested” and said it was “falling apart.”
Bottoms counters with a more complicated reality
Atlanta did see a crime spike during Bottoms’ tenure, but it was not an outlier alongside the COVID-19 pandemic surge across the country, according to federal statistics. After the pandemic waned, U.S. and Atlanta crime rates dropped significantly. Bottoms did sign an executive order blocking the Atlanta jail from holding federal immigration detainees.
Republicans have exaggerated her action on bail. Bottoms signed a city ordinance that eliminated cash bail for certain nonviolent crimes, intending to reduce the jail’s population and what she and other city officials deemed excessive punishment for low-grade offenses.
Her latest advertising retort follows a surge of fundraising that she did not have throughout Jackson’s summer advertising onslaught. “When a national crisis poured into Atlanta, Keisha Lance Bottoms stood up,” a voice-over says.
Besides her exhortation for people to leave the streets, the mother of four said, “Above everything else, I am a mother, so you are not going to out-concern me and out-care about where we are.”
Her aides see the ad — and the reality of how she handled the matter in real time — as depicting a political figure who is tough and empathetic, aware of public safety concerns and the realities for Black Americans.
But Bottoms’ advisers, and the candidate herself, also say they want Georgians to make their decisions on tangible policy distinctions, most notably her emphasis on addressing economic struggles and expanding Medicaid insurance eligibility — a move that would reach urban and rural populations across racial lines.
That is the point of the governor’s office, said Rice, the retired educator.
“I have 100% faith that she can win if people just judge her with their values,” she said. “I don’t look at her and see a ‘Black governor.’ I see a governor for all the people.”
MINNEAPOLIS — A man who played a major role in defrauding a federal food program in Minnesota was sentenced Wednesday to 30 years in prison, the latest punishment in a sprawling scheme to collect millions of dollars during the COVID-19 pandemic by claiming to have fed needy children.
The depth of fraud in Minnesota — dozens of people have been convicted — has repeatedly drawn the attention of President Trump, who ridiculed the Democratic governor for failing to stop it and partly cited it as grounds for an extraordinary immigration crackdown in the state’s largest cities.
Salim Said operated Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, which specialized in dishes from Somalia. He was accused of vastly overstating the number of meals when seeking payment for providing food. The government said he was responsible for $44 million in fraud, some of which was committed by others he recruited.
Said was claiming a “ridiculous daily distribution of 6,000 meals” while FBI cameras showed 40 people a day collecting food, prosecutors said in a court filing.
“The defendant and his sites did not serve thousands of children; he served a calculated, lucrative lie,” prosecutors said in court documents.
Said, a native of Somalia, denied the allegations while testifying at trial in 2025. He described his restaurant as a go-to spot for Somali immigrants in “Little Mogadishu” and said many meals were delivered.
“If you’re making good food,” Said told the jury, “people will come to you.”
Said’s attorney didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment on the decades-long sentence ordered by U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel. A sentencing memo filed ahead of the hearing by his lawyer, Samuel Savage, was unavailable to the public.
COVID-19 brought changes to a federal program that typically fed children through schools. Restaurants could participate, and food distribution was extended to places outside schools.
“For 21 consecutive months, Said made thousands of fraudulent reimbursement claims, day after day, month after month,” prosecutors said. “Each submission represented meals purportedly provided to underprivileged children, yet the listed children themselves were entirely fictitious.”
The government said Said hit the jackpot: He bought a $1.2-million home, commercial real estate and an $87,000 pickup truck.
Said was convicted of a raft of charges in 2025, along with Aimee Bock, the leader of a Minnesota nonprofit, Feeding Our Future. She is serving a 42-year prison sentence for devising the overall plan to recruit Said and others to join the federal food program during the pandemic.
State auditors found that the Minnesota Department of Education received numerous complaints about Feeding Our Future, but often told the group to police itself. In January, Gov. Tim Walz said he would not run for reelection after being pounded by Trump about theft in programs that rely on federal cash.
JUNEAU, Alaska — The Democratic campaign for Alaska’s U.S. Senate seat was involved in efforts to place on the ballot a candidate with the same name as Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan in a bid to confuse voters in a race that could determine which party controls the chamber, the New York Times reported Wednesday.
The newspaper obtained text messages between members of Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign discussing recruiting other people with the same name as the two-term Republican their candidate was running against. They eventually landed on a retired schoolteacher in the small fishing community of Petersburg named Dan J. Sullivan. He made it through the state’s August open primary and is one of four candidates on the ranked vote ballot for Tuesday’s general election.
Dan J. Sullivan has long denied he was running at Democrats’ behest and said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign: “Zero, none, zilch,” he said in June after announcing his run.
He did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment from the Associated Press.
A top state elections official ruled Dan J. Sullivan ineligible for the ballot after he declared his candidacy, claiming it was “filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”
The case went to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled he was qualified to run. The U.S. Constitution sets out only age, citizenship and residency requirements to run for the Senate.
“Alaskans deserve the truth,” said Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan’s campaign. “Mary Peltola, her campaign and her senior advisers colluded with the DSCC, national Democrat lawyers and Alaska Democrat operatives to recruit candidates to deliberately confuse and deceive voters.”
The campaign for Peltola, a former congresswoman, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Democrats, including the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, repeatedly have denied they were involved in any campaign trick.
“The DSCC is not involved with Dan J. Sullivan,” the organization said in a statement Wednesday. The Times report said DSCC staffers were on texts with the Peltola campaign discussing the second Sullivan.
Legal experts said the report about Democrats appearing to recruit Dan J. Sullivan as a way to potentially confuse voters will have no impact on a lawsuit filed recently by the U.S. Department of Justice. President Trump directed the department to file a lawsuit seeking to halt certification of a possible Peltola win, citing the presence of the second Dan Sullivan on the ballot.
“It’s a dirty campaign trick, and it’s good reason the Alaska Supreme Court should have permitted the candidate to have been removed from the ballot,” said Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor. “But now it’s in the hands of the voters, not litigation.”
It’s not the first time a candidate’s appearance on the Alaska ballot has been questioned. In 2024, the state Democratic Party sued to keep off the U.S. House ballot a man with no apparent ties to the state who is serving time in a federal prison in New York. A divided state Supreme Court allowed him to remain on the ballot. The man is running again, also in the House race, and is on the Nov. 3 ranked vote general election ballot.
The Times story about the recruitment of Dan J. Sullivan is based partly on interviews with Peltola’s former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, who was fired in August amid a campaign shake-up. The newspaper said she tried to retract her comments last week.
As of Monday, 46,204 ballots had been cast in Alaska, according to AP data. Sen. Sullivan is marked on the ballot as the Republican incumbent. The other Sullivan is listed as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., with no party affiliation.
Bohrher and Riccardi write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver.
Groups that provide legal services to immigrants filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to stop the Trump administration’s new policy of hiding the locations of tens of thousands of detainees with final deportation orders.
The policy, adopted suddenly last month to expedite deportations, interferes with immigration lawyers’ rights by making it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to locate their clients, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston. It asks a judge to issue an order blocking the “unlawful and inhumane” change.
“No one should be denied a meaningful opportunity to defend their rights because the government has made it impossible for their lawyer to find them,” said Jacquelynne Bowman, executive director of Greater Boston Legal Services, one of the four groups listed as plaintiffs. “This arbitrary new administrative change leaves hundreds of thousands of people at risk of potentially life-altering consequences without essential legal help.”
The lawsuit challenges U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s decision, first reported by the Associated Press, to remove the locations of people facing final removal orders from its Online Detainee Locator System and to instruct staff not to reveal their whereabouts. As of last month, the move affected more than 16,000 of the nearly 69,000 detainees who were in ICE custody.
ICE and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, didn’t immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the lawsuit.
The agencies have not publicly confirmed the change, but have said they are prioritizing people with final removal orders for deportation. They have also said they are facing a “historic number of injunctions” from courts blocking their efforts. The agencies have denied that they are disappearing detainees, saying they remain free to make phone calls.
Since 2010, lawyers and family members have used the online system to track detainees as they get moved from facility to facility through ICE’s sprawling detention network.
Approximately 1.4 million people living in the U.S. are subject to final orders of removal, which means an immigration judge has ruled they should be deported and the decision has been upheld on appeal or not appealed.
Those individuals still have several options to challenge the conditions of their detention and looming deportations, including asking to reopen proceedings, seeking relief from removal to third countries and challenging violations of their rights. Federal judges have ruled thousands of times that detainees should be released or granted bond hearings.
Since the change went into effect, lawyers have been unable to find clients and potential clients and have spent “significantly more time” tracking down others, the lawsuit says. Calls to ICE, including to its Detention and Removal Information Line, “lead to long wait times on hold, sudden hang-ups, a general lack of information or no answer at all,” it says.
As a workaround, some lawyers have tried to find their clients through an ICE program that schedules legal calls, but only a small percentage of detention centers use it, the lawsuit says. The result has been delayed or missed legal filings and fewer cases taken, according to the organizations.
The lawsuit argues the change violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it was adopted without explanation and the First Amendment, which protects lawyers’ ability to advise people of their legal rights and seek prospective clients.
Dolores Huerta, the fiery and resolute activist who helped launch and guide the nation’s first enduring labor union for poor farmworkers and later became an inspiration to women and liberal true believers, has died. She was 96.
Erik Olvera, a spokesman for Huerta’s family, told The Times on Wednesday that Huerta died in Bakersfield, surrounded by members of her “huge family.” The cause, he said, was cancer.
“It’s a tough time,” Olvera said. “She was incredibly beloved, and not only was she beloved, but she was an icon to so many people around the country and around the world, really. If anything, her family is clinging to memories and clinging to each other as they mourn.”
Huerta never gave up on her dream of a more equitable distribution of wealth in America, campaigning for working people for years beyond standard retirement age.
The emotional compass of the United Farm Workers of America for decades, the petitemother of 13 attained singular stature as a rule-breaking proto-feminist, godmother of the Chicano power movement and doyenne of American labor.
Huerta’s fervent crusading for the dispossessed made her the potent alter ego to her union co-founder, the soft-spoken and methodical César Chávez, though the full complexity and pathology of their relationship only became apparent late in her life.
The duo’s history took an unexpected and dark turn in March 2026, when two women came forward to say they had been sexually assaulted by Chávez when they were teenage girls, with Huerta telling the New York Times that the venerated labor leader also had twice forced sex on her, resulting in a pair of pregnancies.
Nearly 96 at the time, Huerta said she had remained silent for six decades to protect the farmworker movement. But she added: “I now understand that I am a survivor — of violence, of sexual abuse, of domineering men who saw me, and other women, as property, or things to control.”
Some wished Huerta had spoken out earlier, at least within the insular union, in order to prevent others from being victimized. But her many champions insisted the late-life revelation reflected badly only on Chávez, who for decades before his fall from grace had been an American civil rights icon and a virtual secular saint to the political left.
Some historians insist that Huerta be given full recognition for teaming with Chávez during much of the early foundational work that produced the UFW, from its founding in 1962 in the San Joaquin Valley farm town of Delano through her leave from full-time work with the union in the late 1980s.
It was Huerta who hurried from pickup truck to back stoop to pool hall, to recruit many of the union’s first members; Huerta who stormed up and down the picket lines to keep striking workers out of the fields; Huerta who helped negotiate one of the first contracts ever for farmworkers in North America; and Huerta who struggled to keep the union relevant, as its membership and clout faded. She turned the phrase “Sí, se puede!” into a chant that animated rallies and marches well into a new century.
Complications and byzantine controversies helped stymie the union in its adolescence, with Huerta usually supporting Chávez, even as he became distracted from the union’s central work and demanded absolute power. Their obsession with loyalty and often-imagined conspiracies ended with purges of some of the UFW’s most dynamic leaders and organizing stagnation, even as field hands continued to labor under abysmal conditions.
Huerta later devoted much of her time to women’s rights, Democratic Party politics and community organizing.
In 1999, the 69-year-old great-grandmother helped obtain extra government benefits for workers who lost their jobs in a citrus freeze and stared across the contract bargaining table at lawyers for the giant Gallo wine company. Even late in life she still toured the nation as a public speaker and used her foundation to register voters and campaign for progressive causes. Liberal groups clamored to have Huerta at the front of their marches. Often sporting a jaunt red beret, she locked arms with activists one-quarter her age.
Her Dolores C. Huerta Foundation supported endeavors as diverse as a performing arts camp for children, higher education mentoring for high school students and food distribution to victims of floods that inundated the Central Valley in 2023. The foundation became something of a family business — headed by her daughter, Camila Chávez, and supported by legal advice from her son, Emilio Huerta, while four other relatives served on the board.
In another step to cement Huerta’s legacy, one of her nonprofits broke ground in 2025 for the Dolores Huerta Peace & Justice Cultural Center in Bakersfield, the San Joaquin Valley city she called home. The $35-million project, paid for largely by the state of California, will include an academy to teach future generations how to become community organizers. “They are the ones who are going to guide us forward,” the 95-year-old told a crowd, which stood under a scorching sun for the groundbreaking.
Through it all, Huerta insisted her primary loyalty remained la causa — the struggle to win better wages, working and living conditions for poor people, particularly farmworkers.
Beginning with the early organizing days in the 1960s, Huerta inspired passions almost as intense as her own. She won almost breathless admiration from followers for the way she faced down sometimes violent anti-union forces, worked for days with little rest and negotiated late into the night, while others faded. She alienated others with a waspish temper, an unwillingness to forgive even small slights and inattention to some of the details that make a union work.
To the union faithful, she was the “Madonna of the Fields.” Some said Huerta reminded them of the soldaderas, a handful of women warriors who followed Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa into battle during the Mexican Revolution. The growers, whom she almost always scorned, had another name for her: “the dragon lady.”
A woman of frenetic energy who lived in a world of myriad contradictions, Huerta was one of the only women in many board rooms and union halls full of men. She was a jet-setting, president-schmoozing pragmatist, who in unguarded moments spoke mystically about her two youthful encounters with UFOs. She was the devout Catholic who had the last four of her children with a man she never married, Richard Chávez, Cesar’s younger brother. (Only in 2026 did she acknowledge having two other daughters, given to others to raise, fathered by César Chávez.)
Her relationship with Cesar Chávez was as complex as it was volatile — a fact acknowleged by UFW regulars long before Huerta’s charges about his sexual misconduct.
The two met through their work for the Community Service Organization (CSO), a progressive group that sought better government services and equal rights for poor and minority people. Both were called to the cause by the organization’s founder Fred Ross Sr. — Huerta in Stockton and Chávez in San Jose — and later united over their common concern for farmworkers. But even when he became statewide leader of the CSO, Chávez could not persuade the group to focus its energies on organizing field workers.
It was 1961 and Chávez was living in East Los Angeles when he called Huerta to his home one day and said, “We have got to start the union. If we don’t do it, nobody else will,” Huerta once recalled. He left the CSO, and Huerta followed.
Both soon moved their families to the Kern County farm town of Delano. Chávez relied on Huerta for nearly everything. When she wasn’t going door-to-door to recruit new members, Huerta negotiated with growers and created union hiring halls. She formed farmworker ranch committees and moved to the East Coast for months to promote the union’s national grape boycott.
But Chávez and his right hand also clashed routinely during their decades-long collaboration. The two would explode in shouting matches over strategy, while other union leaders shrank from the room. In audio recordings of one 1979 confrontation reviewed by the New York Times, Huerta fought back and demanded respect as Chávez called her a “stupid bitch” and accused her of stealing. Huerta might quit, or be fired. Inevitably, she would be back in the fold within a few days or weeks.
“Their commitment to the cause trumped all else and grew into a mutual dependence that survived decades of discord,” wrote Miriam Pawel, a former Los Angeles Times editor, in the biography “The Crusades of Cesar Chávez.” Asked by ABC News if she tried to protect Chávez, Huerta replied, “Always. Always.”
During a wine grape strike in the Central Valley, Huerta and other UFW women once locked arms in a human blockade between the union’s male picketers and replacement workers wielding two-by-fours. She blocked one worker’s car with her own, to prevent him from going to work and breaking a 1965 strike against rose growers in McFarland.
Chávez never doubted Huerta’s resolve. He once called her “totally fearless, both mentally and physically.”
Her years of community organizing in Stockton taught Huerta how to inspire even the most humble of her poor constituents.
In the union’s founding days, Huerta helped recruit a 19-year-old grape picker named Eliseo Medina to perform a one-man picket at the Port of Los Angeles — supposedly to stop the loading of a shipment of non-union grapes. The grapes never materialized. But Medina recalled how Huerta’s spirit and determination galvanized him.
“Dolores had a gift for making you believe in yourself,” Medina said. “She has an ability to inspire you and urge you to do things you could not think were possible. She is one of those life-changers.”
An Echo Park mural features Dolores Huerta alongside artist Frida Kahlo.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Medina left the Chávez-Huerta led union, believing it had strayed from its core work. He went on to become the international secretary treasurer of the more than 2-million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — just one of many UFW acolytes who fueled the labor movement as it staged a modest resurgence in the 21st century.
Huerta was at the center of many of the union’s landmark achievements, including the negotiation of a contract in 1966 with the Schenley Wine Co. It was the first labor agreement obtained by farmworkers themselves with an agricultural company, according to the union’s history.
But the UFW’s fortunes would rise and fall. One low ebb came in 1973 with the loss of many contracts to the Teamsters Union, which struck sweetheart deals with growers. But some union insiders also complained that the UFW had failed by not winning enough concessions for the workers it represented. The union’s membership plummeted.
Two years later, momentum swung again, as the union helped persuade California Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr. to impose the toughest farm labor regulations in the nation.
The union’s membership would spiral downward until Chávez’s death, at 66, in 1993. There was a sense among many insiders that the union became overly insular, with repeated purges designed to promote absolute fealty to Chávez.
In one incident, students graduating from English classes at the union’s headquarters, La Paz, ended a slide show with the words: “The Union is not César Chávez, the Union is not La Paz, the Union is the farmworkers.” Huerta, fuming, demanded to know which of the teachers had planted this message, which she viewed as an act of treason against Chávez — an episode detailed by one of the teachers, Jeffrey W. Rubin, who went on to become a history professor at Boston University.
“Confronted there by Huerta, Richard Chavez, and Cesar Chavez himself, we were accused of being part of a subversive plot, railed at, called ‘chicken s—’ by Cesar, and thrown out of La Paz and the union,” wrote Rubin, who kept the episode quiet for years.
At the same time, the UFW lost contracts and sometimes failed to provide the benefits it promised to workers. Huerta was one of many union leaders unable to set Chávez, and the UFW, on a better path.
Dolores Huerta at rosary, standing next to the body of labor leader and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez (1927 – 1993) at rest in the pine coffin in Delano, Calif., on Wednesday, April 28, 1993.
(Jose Galvez/Los Angeles Times)
As Chávez’ son-in-law Arturo Rodriguez took control of the union in 1993 and began clawing to regain members and clout, Huerta remained the UFW’s most public persona.
At hundreds of marches across the nation that she attended with regularity throughout her life, parents would push forward, telling their children they were witnessing a historic figure. Asked for an autograph, she would boldly scrawl: “Sí, se puede.”
The phrase — “Yes, it can be done” — had been part of the union’s fabric since 1972, when some doubters suggested the union would fail in its campaign against an anti-union law in Arizona. Huerta responded, “Sí, se puede,” creating a mantra for the American left.
Born April 10, 1930, in Dawson, a small mining town in the mountains of northern New Mexico, Dolores Clara Fernandez moved to Stockton when she was 3, along with her mother, two brothers and two sisters. Her father and mother had divorced, but Juan Fernandez’s legend had been fixed — a brawling union leader and New Mexico state legislator. Her mother, a hotel operator, believed in public service and would not let the poorest guests go hungry.
Dolores thrived on a middle-class upbringing of Girl Scouts, violin lessons and tap dancing, describing her mother’s generosity as a guiding force. She was bright and popular and even founded a teen center where she and other kids hung out.
But Dolores would recall her high school years as a time of slights and rewards not received — injustices she linked to her Mexican American heritage. When police ordered her teen center shut down, it became clear it was because they did not like whites socializing with Mexican American, Black and Filipino kids.
Those setbacks would not be forgotten.
Dolores Huerta in Santa Fe, N.M., in 2019.
(Associated Press)
After community college in Stockton, Huerta became a teacher. But she left after just a year, because, she said: “I thought I could do more by organizing farmworkers than by trying to teach their hungry children.”
Soon she met Ross and Chávez and her life’s path would be set. Even her name seemed to brand her for the work. When she divorced her second husband, Chávez advised her to hold on to her last name. Dolores Huerta means Sorrows of the Orchard.
Along the way, there would be great personal heartache.
In 1968, she was at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on the night Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was shot. The Democratic presidential front-runner had just finished his California primary victory speech — thanking Chávez and Huerta — when an assassin gunned him down.
Twenty years later, her politics thrust Huerta even more directly in the path of violence. A television camera captured the images of a San Francisco police officer clubbing her as she and others peacefully picketed an appearance by Vice President George H.W. Bush. The blows ruptured Huerta’s spleen and nearly killed her.
She later won an $850,000 settlement from the city for the attack. Some in the union said that Chávez‘s insistence that Huerta give the money up to the UFW created another rift that caused her to leave the union.
Huerta would struggle, as well, to find time for her expansive family — which in the end included 13 children, counting the two fathered by César Chávez.
Among her greatest heartaches grew out of the struggles of her oldest daughter, Celeste, a schizophrenic who, on occasion, would leave the institutions where she lived and wander the streets.
Huerta’s union zealotry would inspire a range of emotions from her other children.
“We understood very quickly she wasn’t ours to have,” said son Emilio, the lawyer, a Central Valley activist.“She sort of belonged to the farmworker movement. And it was our job to support her.”
He and several other of the Huerta offspring devoted their lives to the UFW and related causes, basking in a sense that their family played a part in history. That did not always make up for the personal slights — the times their mother would fob them off on union allies or neighbors, or miss a birthday.
In a bittersweet essay, Dolores’ daughter Juanita once recalled how her mother forgot to pick her up from junior high school. She compared Huerta to a train “rattling all the windows behind me, blaring out its horn, announcing its simultaneous arrival and departure with an incredible clamor, but rushing constantly forward.”
At a 69th birthday party in 1999, Huerta told a large dinner gathering that her own sacrifices had been overblown.
“It was our families who sacrificed,” she said. She then told a story about driving a carload of children to school one day in an automobile limping along because a tire had been slashed by union opponents. “That,” she said, “was kind of how we made it through life.”
Approaching her 90th birthday in 2020, Huerta spent a day that might have been more typical for someone half her age. She protested at the Fresno County Board of Supervisors for increased pay for home healthcare workers, who made just $12 an hour. Huerta hadn’t planned on being arrested that day, but when she felt police used excessive force on one of the protest leaders, she changed her mind. Take me too, she said, according to USA Today. Officers cinched a plastic zip-tie around her wrists and led her away.
More typically in her later years, she supported her foundation. In one moment, she might be campaigning for a bond measure for a middle school gym in the poor San Joaquin Valley community of Weedpatch; in seemingly the next, she would be stumping via Zoom for Joe Biden, during his fight to take the White House from President Trump.
In 2020, USA Today named Huerta one of the 100 women “who’ve made a substantial impact on our country or our lives over the past 100 years.” By then, at least half a dozen schools across America bore her name. Others considered taking her name after they removed Chávez’s following the sexual abuse revelations.
President Obama presented Huerta with the country’s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in 2012; the one-time community organizer, who made his way to the White House, honoring a woman still doing the work.
“The great social justice changes in our country have happened when people came together, organized and took direct action,” Huerta said in accepting the honor. “It is this right that sustains and nurtures our democracy today.”
Olvera, the family spokesman, said Wednesday that Huerta’s relatives would be announcing the details of a public memorial in the coming days.
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Tuesday failed to secure a grand jury indictment against a former White House staffer who provided dramatic but disputed testimony against President Trump before a House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection, according to two people familiar with the matter.
A grand jury in Washington rejected prosecutors’ request to return an indictment against Cassidy Hutchinson, said the people, who spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case. It’s the latest setback in the Justice Department’s efforts to persuade grand jurors in the nation’s capital to bring politically sensitive cases.
Details of prosecutors’ allegations against Hutchinson were not immediately clear, but Republican lawmakers had accused her of lying under oath in her explosive testimony in 2022 about Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol to halt the congressional certification of his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
The effort to indict Hutchinson was hardly isolated. It is part of a surge in politically sensitive actions by the Justice Department in the run-up to next week’s midterm elections targeting perceived adversaries of the president, including a new attempt to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and a search by federal agents of the home of outspoken Trump critic and Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
It’s highly unusual for grand juries to decline to return indictments, but the Justice Department under Trump has been rebuked by citizens in the nation’s capital in a number of high-profile cases. A grand jury in Washington earlier this year declined to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video they recorded urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful.
Hutchinson declined to comment through her lawyer on Tuesday.
Hutchinson said Trump was angry and defiant on Jan. 6
Hutchinson’s testimony, at a surprise hearing announced just 24 hours earlier, was seen at the time as particularly compelling given her proximity to power as special assistant to Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff.
She described an angry, defiant president who was trying to let armed protesters avoid security screenings at a rally that morning to protest his 2020 election defeat and who later grabbed at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when the Secret Service refused to let him go to the Capitol. And when the events at the Capitol spiraled toward violence, with the crowd chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” she testified that Trump declined to intervene.
Trump at the time denied on his social media platform, Truth Social, much of what Hutchinson said. He called her a “total phony” and “bad news.”
Hutchinson’s description of the altercation inside the presidential SUV was regarded as particularly explosive, even as she acknowledged during her testimony that she was relaying what she had heard from a White House security official and did not have firsthand knowledge of the episode because she was not there.
Her account was quickly disputed.
In March 2024, House Republicans released a previously undisclosed transcript of the Select Committee’s interview with a Secret Service officer who drove the presidential SUV. That transcript of the presidential limo driver contradicted some of Hutchinson’s testimony but corroborated other aspects of her account, including Trump’s attempt to join the mob scene at the Capitol.
The driver described the president as insistent on going to the Capitol but said he did not see the altercation that Hutchinson described. The driver said Trump “never grabbed the steering wheel” and also said: “I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all.”
Hutchinson has alleged that members of Trump’s inner circle dangled job opportunities and financial assistance while she was cooperating with the committee. She also testified in a closed-door interview released by the committee that a former lawyer of hers — a former ethics counsel in the Trump White House — told her “the less you remember, the better.”
“It feels ridiculous, because in my heart I knew where my loyalties lied, and my loyalties lied with the truth,” she told the committee. “And I never wanted to diverge from that.” The former attorney has disputed that account.
The U.S. House of Representatives impeached Trump in 2021 on allegations that he incited the mob that attacked the Capitol, but he was later acquitted by the Senate. The Justice Department under Biden charged Trump with felony offenses, accusing him of illegally working to overturn his 2020 election loss in the run-up to the Capitol attack, but then-special counsel Jack Smith abandoned the case after Trump’s 2024 presidential victory. Longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution.
Hutchinson, a native of Pennington, New Jersey, previously worked in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs and interned for Republicans, including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
California Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy has nearly doubled her lead in the race to replace Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, even as the mayor’s race has narrowed dramatically since September, new polling showed.
Both Roy and her rival, Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney, made significant inroads among likely Los Angeles voters in October, winnowing the number of undecideds down to 45% from 70% last month, according to a poll released this week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.
But while the race for mayor is now a dead heat, the contest for the city’s second-most-powerful elected position has widened, with Roy leading McKinney by 17 points in the final days of voting ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
Some 36% of likely voters say they’ve marked their ballot for Roy or will soon, versus 19% who say they’ve bubbled in for McKinney or plan to. About 45% remain undecided — far more than are still mulling the mayor’s race, but far fewer than were on the fence a month ago.
Experts said it’s not uncommon for voters to have uncertainty about city attorney races, since few people realize the question of who should fill the office will be on their ballot and many elect not to answer. About 15% fewer Angelenos voted in the last city attorney’s contest than voted for mayor, data show. Other cities saw a similar slump in returns.
The Los Angeles city attorney controls a budget of nearly $200 million and a staff of 1,000, serving as lawyer for L.A.’s City Council and general counsel for its myriad municipal agencies.
Increasingly, city attorneys around the state also pursue so-called “affirmative litigation” against exploitative corporations or punitive federal policy — a role Los Angeles pioneered, but which Feldstein Soto largely eschewed during her tenure at City Hall.
Roy has built her career on affirmative litigation, making it a centerpiece of her campaign. McKinney has characterized it as grandstanding and “out of alignment” with voters.
The two have also knocked heads over how the city attorney should charge and prosecute misdemeanors, work that accounts for about a third of the job.
Polls show voters split on who is best to address what 43% named as their top issue: street homelessness. Both McKinney and Roy have vowed to use the office to stem encampments — Roy by keeping more Angelenos housed through attacks on wage theft and renter harassment, McKinney by inducing more chronically homeless residents into treatment through individual prosecutions.
On runner-up concerns — building more affordable housing and ensuring public safety — similar percentages of likely voters trust Roy and McKinney, respectively.
McKinney, who has taken pains to highlight himself as a Democrat, retains a commanding lead among registered Republicans and self-identified MAGA voters, as well as the much-sought-after supporters of former mayoral hopeful Spencer Pratt, who will likely decide the contest between Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman.
Roy was way ahead among renters, who make up nearly two-thirds of the electorate, as well as progressives and self-described Democratic Socialists.
Independent expenditure groups behind both continue to pump money into the race, with Roy’s supporters seeking to paint McKinney as closely aligned with President Trump, and McKinney’s boosters looking to tar Roy as the second coming of former Los Angeles Dist. Atty. George Gascón.
So where do things stand less than a week from election day?
With the usual caveats, about no certainties in life or politics …
Of course …
…. it seems pretty darned certain that Democrats are going to take control of the House next week, notwithstanding the delusions (or professed confidence) of Speaker Mike Johnson and his Republican allies. The only question is the margin.
Democrats need to flip just three seats, and even the most conservative handicappers (in terms of circumspection, not political views) see them netting more than half a dozen, at a minimum. From there, forecasts climb into the double digits.
“In the best-case scenario,” Erin Covey wrote in a recent analysis for the Cook Political Report, Democrats “could enter the new Congress with more seats than they had after successfully flipping control of the House in 2006 and 2018.”
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Expert columnists cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Didn’t Republicans gerrymander several states to boost their chances?
That helped precipitate a nationwide redistricting war which, once the haze cleared, resulted in a third of the nation’s 435 House districts being redrawn to at least some extent. But that only marginally increased Republicans’ advantage. And there are signs the rejiggering of political lines may have backfired, or boomeranged, on the GOP.
How so?
By spreading their reliable voters thin and counting on support from 2024 Trump backers who’ve since soured on the president. In particular Latinos. In doing so, Republicans have put several House seats into play, most notably in Texas and Florida.
That’s what’s known in the business as a “dummymander.”
A knife’s edge
What about the Senate?
That remains a toss-up, which few would have imagined at the start of this election season.
Virtually all the contests that will decide control of the Senate are being fought in states that President Trump carried — several by landslide margins — making them not exactly friendly Democratic territory. But war, inflation and Trump’s wretched approval rating have dragged GOP candidates down in states such as Kansas, Mississippi and Texas, which, a year ago, would have required hallucinogens to appear remotely competitive.
So what’s the math?
Democrats need to hold on to all of their seats and gain four to flip the Senate.
While incumbent Jon Ossoff seems certain to win in Georgia, Democratic-held seats in Minnesota, New Hampshire and, especially, Michigan are more problematic. In terms of pickup opportunities, the aforementioned Kansas and Texas are toss-ups, along with Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Maine. North Carolina seems ready to flip Democrats’ way.
And, who knows, there might be a surprise or two — which, obviously, wouldn’t be a surprise if we’re talking about it here.
One thing to bear in mind: Close races all tend to break in favor of one party or the other. Think of dominoes falling, not checkers hopscotching across the board.
Polls look good for Democrats.
They do. But as both of my faithful readers know, your friendly political columnist can’t stand the constant chattering about polls.
It’s not just how surveys understated Trump’s support the two times he won the White House. (In their defense, pollsters did pretty well in the last two midterm elections, in 2018 and 2022.)
It’s that too many people — including folks who should know better — ascribe a false precision to polls, which at best offer nothing more than an educated guess.
Are the polls again overstating Democratic support?
Could be.
In a recent analysis, the Economist found that polls tend to underestimate a party’s strength in states they dominate. That could mean surveys showing toss-up races in red states such as Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas could be overstating Democratic strength.
(Research also has shown that dispirited voters are less likely to participate in a poll, which could mean an oversampling of Democratic sentiments despite quite conscious attempts to adjust and weight the data.)
All of which is to say, ignore the polls and don’t let your hopes get too high, or your mood too low. We’ll have election results soon enough.
What does the early voting tell us?
Nothing dispositive. (That’s a fancy way of saying, again, don’t read too much into those numbers.)
Democrats are evidently way more enthused about voting this election than Republicans. And there have been some eye-popping turnout numbers among Black and Latino voters. But maybe Republicans are holding back to cast their ballots closer to or on election day.
Things will be abundantly clear after the fact, as they always are.
Table stakes
How about all the money Republicans — and Elon Musk — are pouring into the election?
It’s gross. But money alone is not determinative.
Just ask Tom Steyer, who spent the GDP of a small country on his failed run for California governor. Or Trump, who was outspent by Hillary Clinton nearly 2-to-1 when he was elected in 2016.
A certain amount of money is necessary to compete; it’s like the table stakes required for a serious competitor to get into the race. Beyond that, factors like candidate performance, external events and, especially, the overall political climate matter a good deal more.
The big Republican money advantage can help drive turnout, which is no small thing, especially if it helps coax reluctant GOP voters to the polls. But elections aren’t like vending machines, where the more money you put in, the more you take out.
Thankfully, we haven’t reached a point where public office can be purchased automatically like soda or a candy bar. At least not yet.
So get out and vote, or make a plan to, if you haven’t already.
Nithya Raman slowly recited the start of her handwritten message to Angelenos.
Llegué de la India con mi madre a los seis años. Sé lo que cuesta empezar de nuevo.
I came from India with my mother when I was 6. I know what it takes to start over.
The mayoral hopeful was in the green room of Univision’s Westchester studios on Thursday, waiting for an interview with anchor Guad Venegas. He would ask each question in both English and Spanish, and Raman could respond in English.
But she hoped to do better than that.
Since the start of her campaign, Raman has sprinkled Spanglish into her speeches and sometimes offered whole sentences in softly accented, lightly stilted Spanish. It’s part of an effort to win over Latinos, nearly half the city’s population and a crucial swing vote , with less than a week to go before election day.
“Can you say the whole thing for me?” Raman asked Lauren Perez-Rangel, her Latino outreach senior director, who read the full message in effortless Spanish. Raman repeated it word for word, accent for accent, with no flubs or pauses.
“You got it!” Perez-Rangel told her boss.
“I hope,” Raman replied.
It was showtime.
Raman, who serves on the L.A. City Council, grinned when someone said “me vale madre” — I don’t give a damn — on the walk to the studio. She cracked in English, “I doubt that’s true!” when I told an Univision producer in Spanish that no one likes my work.
A cameraman proclaimed “¡Muy bien!” when Raman rattled off an “uno, dos, tres” mic check. Venegas responded in English, “It’s always like that” to Raman’s comment in Spanish that her pronunciation is better than her comprehension.
During the interview, Raman raised her eyebrows when Venegas talked about streets filled with “basura,” the word for “trash” that became an insulting pun on Bass’ name hurled by then-candidate Spencer Pratt during the primary. Raman answered questions in English even when Venegas only asked them in Spanish, fully understanding what he said. And she kept saying “sí” to acknowledge Venegas’ points, as a native speaker would.
She never got a chance to read her Spanish-language statement, but that was OK. I saw enough to know that while she isn’t going to write the next “Don Quixote,” she isn’t limited to ordering at Casa Vega.
Supporters have praised her efforts en español. Critics dismiss them as pandering. I see something more interesting at work.
Raman spoke Tamil and Malayalam in India before moving to the U.S. as a child. If she wins, she would be the first immigrant mayor since Canadian-born Frank Shaw in the 1930s. She’d also be the first mayor whose native tongue wasn’t English since Bernard Cohn, who grew up speaking German in Prussia and served as mayor for two weeks in 1878.
Having a non-native English speaker in charge of a world capital such as L.A. — and one who wants to express herself in the city’s second tongue — wouldn’t just be symbolic. A person who’s earnest about learning a language is forever trying to decipher something new, failing far more often than succeeding in the early going — yet always working to master the task.
Isn’t that what we want from any politician, especially in a city where 56% of residents live in a household that speaks a language other than English?
Los Angeles mayoral candidate and city councilmember Nithya Raman prepares to speak at a “Latinos Con Raman” rally at La Cita Bar in downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 18.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Familiarity with Spanish has become a prerequisite for L.A. mayors. Antonio Villaraigosa famously took classes to improve his assimilated Spanish. Eric Garcetti described his fluency as “good community meeting Spanish” and often delivered remarks in Spanish. Bass, who was married to a Chicano and treats her ex-husband’s children as her own, isn’t fluent but has a robust Spanish-language outreach for her campaign, complete with ads, mailers and websites.
For Raman, though, learning Spanish isn’t just a way to reach out to constituents. It’s a reminder of “what it means to grapple with a bureaucracy that wasn’t intended for you.”
We spoke outside Univision’s studios after her interview. I asked to speak about her experience with Spanish as a way to show a private side of her to Angelenos. (I had asked Bass to sit down with me and talk about food. The interview was initially scheduled, then campaign spokesperson Alex Stack said it was canceled so Bass could attend a news conference assailing Raman for saying that former LAPD Police Chief Daryl Gates was a “gold standard” in protecting immigrants. Bass’ campaign didn’t reschedule the interview and didn’t provide comment on her Spanish skills in time for publication.)
In 2022, Raman co-authored a motion that introduced live Spanish translation services at city council committee meetings. She wants the city to research whether it can provide the information that’s being lost as the Trump administration increasingly deletes Spanish-language versions of federal websites.
“You have to show them that you’re trying,” Raman told me. “And even if you go out there, and you speak broken Spanish, and you mess it up, and you don’t conjugate it properly, and you get all the endings wrong — ‘a’ versus ‘o’ — the fact that you show up and you say it, and you try it in Spanish, means something to the people that I’ve been talking to.”
Her Spanish journey began with four years of classes at a suburban Boston high school. She chose Spanish instead of French because she felt it “would be more useful for me in the world.”
Raman forgot most of it while attending Harvard and MIT but started practicing with her brother, a Spanish major at UCLA, when she moved to L.A. 13 years ago. She read bilingual books for beginners and streamed shows such asNetflix’s dark comedy “La Casa de las Flores” (“The House of Flowers”) and podcasts such as “Chill Spanish.”
Those lessons have happened “pretty regularly” since she joined the city council in 2020, Raman said, although she scaled back once the mayoral campaign intensified.
I wondered what languages are spoken in her household. Her husband, whose Tamil-speaking parents are immigrants from India, only speaks English. Her twin 10-year-olds “can kind of follow along” when she speaks to her parents in Tamil, but she is no longer fluent in Malayalam.
“I have friends like who speak a different language, and they’re, like, religious about speaking it to their children,” Raman said. While she would love for her children to learn other languages, “life is too stressful trying to make every moment of your time with your family into almost a chore.”
I asked about the pandering charge. Throwing out Spanish phrases in an effort to appeal to Latinos is a political cliché as weak salsa as eating tacos in East L.A. or cruising in a lowrider.
Raman shook her head.
“To try and communicate to people in the language that they speak doesn’t feel like pandering. It feels like what the city should do,” she said. “Why shouldn’t elected representatives here also speak Spanish, or do their best to communicate to people in their language?
“If there was a lot of Tamil speakers here,” Raman continued, “I would appreciate that for me and for my family and for my grandparents.”
Mayor Karen Bass speaks during the “Latinos Con Bass” campaign at Ernest E. Debs Regional Park on Sunday, Sept. 20, 2026 in Los Angeles.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)
Then I tested her Spanish.
Had she heard of one of my favorite words: convenenciero? Someone who goes with what will help them and doesn’t stand for anything but themselves. Haters have never outright called Raman a convenenciera, I said, but that’s what they’re insinuating in almost every other sentence.
In fairness, most politicians have a bit of convenenciero in them.
“People say, ‘She doesn’t stand for anything,’ but people also criticize me for being ideological, so which is it?” Raman calmly responded. “I try and learn. And I don’t come and say, ‘I know what you want.’ I say, ‘I’m trying to learn what you want, and I want to make the city work for you. How can I make it work?’”
So you’re not a convenenciera?
“I don’t feel that,” Raman said, repeating the phrase two more times.
I told her I’d ask three questions in Spanish. First: how was she doing?
“Bien. Un poco nervioso.”
“Poca nerviosa,” I corrected. A bit nervous. She thanked me for correcting her and said, “Sí, sí, nerviosa.”
What was she doing to try and relax during this campaign?
“Yo quiero estar con mi familia. Mis hijos …” I want to be with my family. My children …
She thought about the right phrase.
“… son mi vida.” Are my life.
What’s a word she loves in Spanish?
Perez-Rangel suggested chisme — gossip.
“I do like chisme!” Raman said with a laugh. But that wasn’t it.
“I like the word tomar [to take] and how many different meanings it has,” she said in English, then rattled off definitions and tenses in Spanish. Tomar bebidas. Tomar su tiempo.
“Tomar City Hall?” I asked.
She laughed again and said something that needs no translation: “Yes.”
Buried in the language of Proposition 45, the initiative that would overhaul California’s powerful law on environmental review, are provisions that would mean government agencies have to consult only with certain tribes in the state, and not others when they develop major projects.
Tribes that are federally recognized would be consulted; those without recognition would not.
This effort mirrors similar ones supported by tribes that have federal recognition to limit the say of tribes without it in recent years. Non-recognized tribes see it as another move by economically powerful tribes to protect their own interests and avoid having to negotiate with other local tribes over territorial disputes and how to best protect important sites.
“Our concern is that wealthy casino interests and political influence are being allowed to outweigh ancestral connections,” Andrew Salas, chairperson of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, said in a statement to The Times.
Proposition 45 on the Nov. 3 California ballot would create a streamlined environmental review process for projects deemed “essential” — including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, education, internet access and clean energy projects. The streamlining would mean stricter deadlines for review and court challenges, would bar local governments from requesting repeated analyses and allow developers to propose a single alternative with less environmental impact rather than several.
One of the largest contributors to the Yes on Prop 45 committee is a federally recognized tribe, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, which contributed $750,000.
“Federal recognition is the legal and constitutional foundation of tribal sovereignty and establishes a government-to-government framework for consultation,” Amelia Matier, spokesperson for Yes on Prop 45, said, noting tribes without recognition still can still meaningfully participate alongside members of the public.
The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation reaffirmed its support for the measure in a statement to The Times but did not respond to specific questions.
Critics, meanwhile, say moves such as this would give federally recognized tribes the power to consult on development projects hundreds of miles outside their homelands, overriding local tribes.
“Proposition 45 is part of a much longer struggle over whose voices California chooses to hear,” Salas said. “For decades, non-federally recognized ancestral tribes in Southern California have fought to protect our homelands while facing pressure to accept a ‘lesser role’ than federally recognized tribes.”
“Our rivers, habitats, and the animals that depend on them lose their protection when the people who know these places are removed from the table,” he said.
None of the Gabrieleno and Tataviam tribes within the greater L.A. area have federal recognition.
Last year, three tribes with federal recognition championed a bill that would have significantly limited how tribes without it could participate in the consultation process for all projects — not just the ones deemed “essential” ones under Proposition 45. A few months later, the small state agency that maintains the official list of tribal contacts unveiled a proposal that some non-recognized tribes argued would effectively exclude them. Multiple federally recognized tribes supported the effort.
The environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act, better known as CEQA, is one of the primary ways that tribes have a say over how the state and local governments develop land within their ancestral territories. It allows tribes to comment on how a proposed housing or infrastructure project might harm graves, ceremonial grounds or ancient villages. A separate law lets tribes comment on general plans that outline where developers can propose housing, and commercial and industrial facilities.
Tribal consultation differs from general public comment. It allows Indigenous leaders to discuss the location and details of sensitive information — such as burial sites — confidentially, before draft environmental reviews are published.
The Kizh Nation has used the CEQA process to consult on hundreds of land development projects a year around the Los Angeles Basin. In one instance, the process generated extra protections for one of the oldest living plants in the world, a more-than 13,000 year-old oak tree in the Inland Empire, that Indigenous people have taken care of for millennia. It also resulted in the Kizh Nation winning one of the largest land returns in Southern California history for a tribe without federal recognition — while still creating a development of nearly 1,700 homes and industrial and business parks.
There are over 100 tribes in the state with federal recognition, a status that brings protections, funds and services from the federal government, including funding for Indigenous elementary and secondary schools, access to healthcare and the potential for a reservation. Yet dozens more remain unrecognized.
Federal agents negotiated treaties in the 1850s with more than 130 Indigenous communities in the new state of California, setting aside roughly 7% of the state for reservations. But Congress refused to ratify the very treaties it had ordered and failed to notify tribes of its decision.
The federal recognition process today is long and grueling. Only 18 tribes have successfully achieved recognition through it since it was created in 1978. Only one was in California — Death Valley’s Timbisha Shoshone Tribe.
Tribes along the coast who were coerced into building the missions, including the Gabrielino, have had an especially hard time gaining recognition. They endured three waves of settlers: the Spanish, Mexican, and American. With these came death, forced displacement and cultural suppression. When the federal government sent agents to create reservations for California’s mission-affected tribes in the 1890s following reports of dire circumstance, the agents inexplicably overlooked the Gabrieleno.
At least one-third of tribal cultural resources protected under CEQA are in the homelands of tribes without federal recognition, Jonathan Cordero, executive director of the Assn. of Ramaytush Ohlone, estimates.
If Proposition 45 passes, “that means that hundreds of sacred sites and thousands of invaluable and irreplaceable tribal cultural resources would be destroyed in subsequent years,” he said in a statement.
Donald Trump could be in the White House for as long as another 26 interminable months, which is beyond depressing. But Democrats are mobilizing to use that time wisely if they win at least one congressional majority in midterm elections next week.
The odds are good that as of January 2027, they will be in charge of the House, and they’re slight favorites to run the Senate. If voters punish Republicans with a thumping (George W. Bush’s description in 2006) or a shellacking (Barack Obama in 2010), a few GOP lawmakers might even decide to help Democrats undo some of the damage inflicted by their president and party.
Steep cuts in federal healthcare money, price-hiking tariffs across the globe and Trump’s inflationary war on Iran are among the targets ripe for rapid action in the first 100 hours of a Democratic House, and potentially in a Democratic Senate as well.
Who knows what Trump would do or say if an actual bill were to land on his desk. When Congress passed a major bipartisan bill to lower housing costs this year, he called it a yawn and let it become law without his signature. But in 2019, he refused to work with Democrats on an infrastructure bill — purportedly one of his own priorities — unless they stopped their “phony investigations” of him. They did not stop, and we did not get an infrastructure package until the Biden administration.
If those first-term investigations annoyed Trump, he’ll be livid at what’s on tap for the next two years. Constant reports of corruption and profiteering are a hallmark of his second term, and Democrats are readying literally countless investigations of him and his family, and their businesses and associates. Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Robert Garcia of California know each other well (Garcia says he sees Raskin as a mentor) and are discussing their plans in the likely event they become chairs, respectively, of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.
The to-do list is daunting, starting with Trump’s scandalous and seemingly pay-to-play pardons, his foreign gifts, and the Trump family’s government contracts and cryptocurrency cash haul. Other areas of interest include vindictive government prosecutions, penalties and threats; foreign influence-buying; rising authoritarianism; civil liberties; abusive immigration enforcement; corporate corruption; unfinished inquiries involving Jeffrey Epstein associates; and suspect tariff deals, conflicts and profits.
Former Republican Kurt Bardella was a senior House Oversight Committee advisor and communications specialist from 2009 to 2013, during California Republican Darrell Issa’s tenure as chair. A Democrat since 2017, these days Bardella is closely following Trump-era corruption and how Democrats are handling it in his newsletters, “The Watchdog Report” and “The Agenda.”
“The success of these investigations really comes down to how you message and communicate to the American people,” Bardella said in a weekend interview. “You have to spend the first part of this building the case. Telling the story.” The story, he said, is “the level of corruption we’re seeing” and its cost to every American. As one of his newsletter headlines reads, “Every Trump investigation needs a price tag.”
Bardella has suggested that House committee chairs report to an “oversight czar” to avoid chaos and competition. He has also prescribed a “Special Select Committee to Investigate Trump Family Finances” to coordinate the many committees that would need to be involved in addition to Oversight or Judiciary — for instance, Armed Services (sweetheart defense contracts), Ways and Means (Trump’s IRS slush fund and other tax shenanigans), and let’s not forget Don Jr.’s Bahamas wedding, bankrolled by a Russian oligarch (Foreign Affairs, or maybe Intelligence?).
Democrats should also hire former special counsel Jack Smith as top investigator for the Oversight or Judiciary panels, or for both as a joint employee, Bardella wrote in July: “Let him assemble an anti-corruption mod squad that’ll shake up the status quo, send MAGA media into a nervous breakdown, and restore checks and balances to our government.”
That may remain a Never-Trump fantasy, but Democrats are taking appropriate steps for a complex mission. They are organizing their work through a House Litigation Task Force formed to fight unlawful or unconstitutional Trump actions, demanding answers as new corruption issues arise, and preparing to build cases based on information from whistleblowers, private-sector players and other sources.
The investigations will unfold as the 2028 presidential race takes shape. It seems inevitable that, like the Jan. 6 investigation, they will generate revealing hearings and a stream of viral moments. “We are going to hold the crooks accountable,” likely Speaker Hakeem Jeffries pledged last summer in Pennsylvania.
Democrats can also pass message bills that put their legislative priorities on blast — ICE restrictions, a stock trading ban, a higher minimum wage — even if they can’t yet become law. Depending on results Tuesday, the messaging could extend to a Democratic Senate that can block Trump judicial nominees, Supreme Court justices included, and tell America exactly why they’re nonstarters.
Ideally, what happens on Capitol Hill for the next two years will give Democratic White House hopefuls bragging rights on programs and policies most people actually want, as well as a foundation — and launchpad — for the sweeping, urgently needed accountability that has been such a long time coming.
I’m itching to conclude here with “bring it on.” It’s too soon, but in a week or so it might not be.
Jill Lawrence is a journalist and the author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” Bluesky: @jilldlawrence
A federal judge on Tuesday seemed skeptical of a Trump administration request to immediately block California officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the administration questions, but said he would not issue a ruling until Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter questioned how the administration had derived its list of suspect voters, worried about disenfranchising eligible voters, said the demands would represent a “monumental change” to California elections and suggested federal prosecutors bringing the case had other means of holding illegal voters accountable.
But just one day after a federal appeals court rejected the same request, Carter said at the conclusion of a 3½-hour hearing in Los Angeles that he needed more time to rule — except on one related issue.
“This court believes it would be wise — that it would be wise — that any threats to state and county elected employees cease immediately,” he said — a clear reference to federal authorities threatening elections officials with criminal penalties if they count any of the flagged ballots.
After the hearing, First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, said he had made it “abundantly clear that American voters are being disenfranchised in real time,” and that the administration will wait to see what Carter says Wednesday but was likely to appeal the matter back up to the appellate court.
He also denied threatening state officials, despite the Justice Department having sent formal letters to election officials statewide last week warning them of criminal punishments, and Essayli reiterated that position Tuesday.
Carter’s hearing came after Monday’s decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — the reverse of what’s normal — because Justice Department attorneys had tried to go over Carter’s head after he didn’t acquiesce to a deadline they’d set for him to rule on their request for a temporary restraining order against the state last week.
However, when the three-judge appellate panel — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 Monday that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case given Carter hadn’t yet had the chance, the case returned to Carter’s courtroom.
And there, Carter — an appointee of President Clinton — seemed loath to rush to judgment, despite the Trump administration’s claims of urgency. He said the administration’s method for arriving at its list of potential noncitizen voters was unclear and that he would like to develop the record further, including by bringing in an expert for the court.
“What are these systems? What are the algorithms? How was this derived?” he said.
He also seemed unmoved by the Justice Department’s argument that the ballots must be segregated immediately to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted, and more focused on whether noncitizens who illegally vote can be identified and held accountable while avoiding disenfranchising legitimate voters in the process.
For those who do vote illegally, “you’ve got a remedy, for goodness sakes,” he told Essayli. “Go out and indict.”
The Justice Department sued California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter gave Weber and Logan 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters, whom McCotter described as “likely noncitizens.”
During the hearing, Essayli argued on behalf of the Trump administration that its demands on California and L.A. County were not onerous, could be complied with easily and did not call for ballots to go uncounted. Essayli said the federal government was in court “on a very narrow request for an injunction to separate ballots of those suspected of being noncitizens” only until the state can prove their citizenship.
He argued that the “reliability and credibility” of the federal government process for flagging the 20,000 voters is unquestionable — while also telling Carter, “We’re never going to stand here and tell you that everything is 100%.” He said every vote counts, as some elections “are decided by a handful of votes,” and that the federal government is simply asking California not to break existing federal law barring noncitizens from voting.
“We’re not telling California what they have to do. We’re telling them what they can’t do, which is just count these ballots without doing more to ensure whether they’re citizens or not,” Essayli said.
Essayli — who has aggressively sparred with California officials on social media for weeks — also argued to the court that the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since first asking the state to segregate the ballots, and that he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials have been on the issue.
Attorneys for Weber and the state said the Trump administration’s demand on the state “distorts several legal doctrines beyond recognition” and is clearly illegal, particularly during an ongoing election. They said the administration has provided no evidence that the 20,000 voters aren’t citizens, and has used “data and methods known to be unreliable.”
Michael Cohen, a deputy attorney general for the state, said the Trump administration questions California law that allows voters to attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, while ignoring the fact that standard was set not by the state but by Congress.
Anne Bellows, another deputy attorney general, said California has an established framework for running elections, and the Trump administration is trying to “sweep it off the table and replace it with a new, unclear procedure in which the federal government can issue a list and require California to change the way a subset of its voters’ ballots are received, and whether or not they are tabulated,” which she said was illegal and a “recipe for disenfranchisement” of thousands of legitimate voters.
“The stakes here are enormous,” she said.
Attorneys for Logan said the Trump administration has made its demands “without any credible argument” as to how it is legal, that the “proposed remedy” it is demanding from the state is “vague and unworkable,” and that if it wants to question California’s existing processes, “the proper audience for that argument” is Congress — not the federal court.
Several attorneys for voting and civil rights groups also argued against the Trump administration during the hearing, including by arguing that its reliance on third-party data sets — including from Lexis Nexis — was not a trustworthy way of identifying whether voters are citizens.
The litigation is just one part of a much wider battle by the Trump administration to intervene in state-run elections nationwide, and particularly in California, including on the notion that state elections have insufficient guardrails to prevent noncitizens from voting. Elections experts say such fraud occurs, but is exceedingly rare.
While the 9th Circuit panel’s unsigned ruling Monday rejected the Trump administration’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, both judges in the majority — Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — wrote independently to make clear that they would have rejected the case on its merits too.
They said it ran afoul of federal law barring interventions in voting in the immediate lead-up to elections, and the U.S. Constitution, which reserves control of elections for the states and oversight for Congress, not the executive branch.
Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, also wrote independently in dissent — arguing the federal government must “have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections.”
Carter previously rejected an administration lawsuit demanding California’s unredacted voter rolls as “unprecedented and illegal” — a decision similar to those made by dozens of other federal judges in other states. Federal prosecutors recently charged 28 lawful permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote. Some of those charged expressed confusion, said they had no recollection of registering or had never voted.
There are more than 23 million registered voters in California.
Last week, Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials in counties across California demanding they sequester any flagged ballots in their jurisdictions, and warning them that they could face criminal penalties if they don’t. State officials denounced the letters as a legally baseless intimidation tactic.
Federal judges also have slapped back executive orders in which President Trump demanded new nationwide voter ID and citizenship requirements, and blocked a Trump administration plan to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots for the first time.
Beyond the courts, Democrats and voting rights groups have been strategizing for months on how to prevent the Trump administration from interfering in the midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. The Trump administration has said it is merely trying to enforce the law and ensure that noncitizens do not illegally vote and negate the ballots of U.S. citizen voters.
ByEric Tucker, Michael Kunzelman and Alanna Durkin Richer
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday scolded the Justice Department for its unorthodox handling of a criminal case against two former FBI officials accused of making false statements to Congress about their knowledge of a laptop the Justice Department says belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of former President Biden.
U.S. Magistrate Zia Faruqui struck from the record an amended criminal complaint filed in the middle of the night by the Justice Department that added a new obstruction charge against the two former officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides. Such charging documents require sign-off from a judge that probable cause exists that a crime was committed by a defendant, and this complaint lacked that.
“It is not our court’s practice — and I think it is appropriately not our practice — that unsigned complaints are filed on the docket,” Faruqui said.
He later added: “I want to know why the United States is reticent or averse to putting before a probable cause determination that you must believe is righteous. Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?”
The dismissal of the superseding complaint was an embarrassing setback for a Justice Department that has undertaken a series of splashy and politically charged investigative actions in the run-up to next week’s midterm elections. But the original false statements case against the former officials, announced Friday, remained intact as Faruqui proceeded Tuesday with a preliminary hearing.
The case says officials falsely minimized what they knew
The case accuses the former officials of falsely playing down their knowledge about a laptop the Justice Department says Hunter Biden abandoned at a computer repair shop in 2019.
But beyond that, it represents a Trump administration broadside against a since-disbanded FBI task force that was set up to monitor foreign influence. Congressional Republicans have long criticized the task force, saying it tried to discredit their own investigations into the Biden family.
Defense lawyers were set to challenge the case at the preliminary hearing Tuesday in Washington’s federal court, including by highlighting the unusual fact that the ex-FBI officials were charged via a criminal complaint signed by a magistrate judge rather than an indictment voted on by a grand jury. The Justice Department repeatedly has struggled in high-profile cases to persuade grand juries in the nation’s capital to return indictments.
Hours before the hearing, the Justice Department added a new obstruction charge that said the former officials’ alleged false statements allowed them to avoid questioning about their knowledge of Hunter Biden and impeded an investigation by House lawmakers into the Bidens.
“What is going on at the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office?” lawyers for Floris asked in a statement early Tuesday. “In the middle of the night, the government filed an unsigned and unsworn complaint attempting to fix the issues with their original charge against Ms. Floris and adding a new charge just as meritless as the first one.”
“In our combined decades of DOJ service,” the lawyers said, “we have never seen or even heard of something like this being filed.”
It is a very intricate saga
The prosecution, a rare Justice Department criminal case against a former employee, revisits a tangled saga that roiled the final weeks of the 2020 race after the New York Post revealed the existence of a laptop it said had been dropped off by the younger Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop about a year earlier.
The Post said it obtained a hard drive of the laptop from Rudy Giuliani, a close ally of President Trump, and reported on some of the contents of the computer, including emails that appeared to show some of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.
The curious circumstances of the laptop’s discovery raised concerns among Democrats and former intelligence officials about the possibility of Russian involvement, particularly when the Trump administration’s own intelligence community had assessed that Moscow was attempting to undermine the candidacy of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who went on to defeat Trump in 2020, and as Giuliani had traveled abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens.
But Trump’s then-national intelligence director, John Ratcliffe, quickly sought to quell speculation about the laptop’s provenance by saying there were no signs it had anything to do with Russian actors. The FBI said it had nothing to add to Ratcliffe’s statement and investigated the younger Biden on gun and tax charges that later resulted in felony convictions. President Biden pardoned his son in late 2024.
The accused led the Foreign Influence Task Force
The FBI officials under scrutiny, Floris and Benavides, were leaders of the Foreign Influence Task Force, which was established in the first Trump administration to police influence campaigns staged by Russia and other nations aimed at sowing discord, undermining democracy and spreading disinformation.
In that capacity, the FBI officials briefed Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson in August 2020 as the lawmakers were doing their own investigation into Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine. News of the briefing leaked, and the senators lashed out at the FBI, saying their efforts to scrutinize the Biden family had been discredited and falsely linked to Russian disinformation.
The criminal complaint accuses them of lying to lawmakers in 2023 by denying contemporaneous knowledge of the Biden laptop or participating in internal FBI conversations about it. Their lawyers have denied any allegations of wrongdoing.
The task force was disbanded in February 2025 by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Tucker, Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is attempting to prosecute James Comey for what it calls a decade-old leak of classified information, an effort the former FBI director’s lawyers immediately dismissed as legally invalid and outside the legal time limit for when the Justice Department can file a criminal indictment.
The allegations from the Justice Department were revealed Monday in newly unsealed court documents that shed light on a closed-door fight that represents an unmistakable escalation in the administration’s targeting of Comey, a longtime critic and foe of President Trump who has faced two other criminal cases since the Republican returned to the White House last year.
The effort to prosecute Comey is also part of a series of politically charged investigative actions the department has undertaken in the run-up to next week’s midterm elections.
“Well, they’re back — again,” Comey said in a video statement Monday. “It would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice — one that we cannot become numb to. Nothing’s changed with me; I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid of these people — and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”
The Justice Department said it had filed what’s known as a “criminal information” to extend the statute of limitations for charges in the case.
“Filing a criminal information to toll the statute of limitations is a widely recognized practice in federal court and has been approved by multiple Circuit Courts of Appeals. This is an ongoing criminal investigation, and we will not comment further,” a department spokesperson said.
Asked about the Comey case, Trump told reporters upon arriving back to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland late Monday following his rally in Mississippi that “I don’t know much about it. I just heard about it.”
He added, “He’s a dirty cop, James Comey. But I know nothing about it.”
An information can be filed without the approval of a judge or a grand jury’s finding of probable cause to a court. Comey’s lawyers made clear that they intend to fight the charges as invalid because the Justice Department did not file an indictment, which must be voted on by a grand jury, inside the 10-year statute of limitations required under the law.
“For the third time in little more than one year, the Department of Justice has attempted to charge Mr. Comey with a federal crime. Mr. Comey steadfastly maintains his innocence,” his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said in a statement.
The allegation was previously investigated
The latest allegation concerns an October 2016 New York Times story related to a secret court order that required Yahoo to scan emails for messages potentially linked to a foreign terrorist organization. The story cited two government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the order from a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that Yahoo was barred from publicly disclosing.
Federal authorities, including prosecutor John Durham, began investigating the disclosure in early 2017. Durham, who later investigated the FBI’s conduct as it scrutinized potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, wrote a classified memo in December 2018 recommending no criminal charges against anyone in connection with the disclosure, Comey’s attorneys said in a recent court filing.
In January 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia opened a second investigation of the same matter under the code name “Tropical Vortex.” But that investigation was closed without any charges filed in February 2020.
“Both times the Government determined that no charges should be brought against anyone. Now, ten years after the article was published, the Government filed an “Information” against Mr. Comey that was not approved by a judge nor issued by a grand jury. It purports to charge Mr. Comey with crimes that he did not commit,” Fitzgerald said.
Prosecutors in a newly unsealed filing said investigators found evidence that Comey “sought to correct misinformation which had appeared in the press by way of Reuters the day before” that New York Times story was published, directed his staff to speak to a journalist at the newspaper related to accuracy concerns “and thereby illegally transferred classified information.”
The criminal information was filed under seal on Oct. 5, 10 years after the 2016 story was published. “But,” Comey’s lawyers said, “the applicable statute of limitations explicitly demands an indictment within 10 years of the offense; an information does not suffice.”
They have asked a judge to dismiss the information, a request that is still pending.
Trump and Comey have a long and uneasy history
The first criminal case against Comey, filed in federal court in Virginia, accused him of having lied to Congress in 2020 but was dismissed by a judge who concluded that the prosecutor who brought the charges was illegally appointed. A separate pending indictment charges the former FBI director with threatening Trump through an Instagram photo of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47,” a case Comey has sought to dismiss.
The prosecutions are part of a Trump retribution campaign that has even extended to Comey’s daughter, Maurene, who was fired from her job as a Justice Department prosecutor in New York last year in a termination that a federal judge on Monday ruled was illegal.
Comey was the FBI director when Trump took office in 2017, having been appointed by then-President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and serving before that as a senior Justice Department official in President George W. Bush’s Republican administration.
But the relationship was strained from the start, including after Comey resisted a request by Trump at a private dinner to pledge his personal loyalty to the president — an overture that so unnerved the FBI director that he documented it in a contemporaneous memorandum.
Trump fired Comey in May 2017 amid an FBI investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s campaign. That inquiry, later taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller, found that while Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the Trump team welcomed the help, there was insufficient evidence to prove a criminal collaboration.
The two men have been bitterly at odds ever since Comey’s firing.
Comey in 2018 published a memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” that painted Trump in deeply unflattering ways, likening him to a mafia don and characterizing him as “untethered to truth.” Trump, for his part, has repeatedly claimed that Comey should face charges for “treason” — an accusation Comey dismissed as “dumb lies” — and called him an “untruthful slime ball.”
The Justice Department has made a series of splashy moves in recent weeks , including a criminal complaint last Friday charging two former FBI officials with lying to Congress about their participation in investigations concerning Hunter Biden, and the search by federal agents of the Washington home of Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Will Weissert contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — An immigrant detainee died Saturday morning at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, marking the 61st such death under the Trump administration.
In an emailed statement, an unnamed spokesperson with CoreCivic, the Tennessee-based private prison company that operates the facility, confirmed the death. Per the spokesperson, a staff member at the Otay Mesa facility called in a medical emergency around 11:36 a.m. Saturday after finding an unresponsive person in their assigned living area.
Medical staff arrived quickly, began lifesaving measures and called for emergency medical services, the spokesperson said. EMS arrived and continued those efforts, but the person was pronounced dead at the facility.
“We are deeply saddened by the loss of anyone in our care,” the spokesperson wrote, adding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was immediately notified.
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment. CoreCivic did not provide information about the person’s identity.
San Diego County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, in a statement Tuesday, wrote that ICE and CoreCivic must quickly reach the person’s family, cooperate with a thorough investigation and share what they find with the public. Aguirre said she asked the county public health officer to determine what kind of follow-up is possible under a state law that allows local public health authorities to inspect ICE facilities.
“Somewhere, a family is waiting for a phone call, and my heart is with them,” she wrote.
This is the seventh person to die while in ICE custody in California under this administration, and the first to die at the Otay Mesa facility since 2023.
Deaths have increased as the Trump administration detained record numbers of people, with the population at one point ballooning past 70,000 nationwide.
The most recent death reported by ICE was that of Luis Sandoval, 48, a Salvadoran immigrant who died of apparent suicide Friday. Staff at the Folkston D. Ray ICE Processing Center in Georgia found Sandoval with a ligature around his neck, according to an ICE news release.
ICE policy is to notify the public and Congress within two business days of a detainee’s death. More extensive reports about each death, which were typically three pages, must be released within 90 days, though those have been reduced to a few paragraphs.
