Politics Desk

President Trump has signed a bill restoring federal funding to tech startups in California and elsewhere, money that had been held up for more than six months.

The Small Business Administration money, a key source of capital for new aerospace and defense firms in the Los Angeles region, ran out in October after a Congressional impasse.

The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act signed by Trump on Monday funds the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) and related programs.

They provide more than $4 billion in seed funding to commercial startups that provide valuable services to the government and public, stimulate the economy and help maintain the country’s competitive edge.

The money is awarded by multiple agencies, including the Health and Human Services and Energy departments and NASA, with the military distributing the largest portion.

The funding has helped launch defense and aerospace startups across Southern California, including Costa Mesa autonomous weapons maker Anduril Industries, now valued at more than $30 billion.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, held up reauthorization over concerns some startups had become reliant on the money instead of developing commercial businesses. She proposed a bill with a $75-million lifetime funding cap for individual companies.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the committee’s ranking Democrat, contended the bill would crimp innovation and hurt companies.

The reauthorization includes no lifetime caps but requires departments to set limits on how many times companies can apply each year for the SBA funding, prioritizing startups .

The bill also establishes a Strategic Breakthrough Allocation program that awards up to $30 million in SBA funding to a single company provided it can bring in matching funding.

The new program is intended to assist startups to become commercially viable after they run through their SBIR or STTR funding, which are intended to fund feasibility studies and prototypes. STTR requires a partnership with a research institution.

Other provisions in the bill include new due diligence standards to prevent any tech developed by the startups from falling into the hands of adversaries such as China .

“With a bipartisan, five-year reauthorization signed into law, small businesses are once again empowered to create these innovative technologies and tackle our nation’s most pressing challenges head-on,” Markey said in a statement.

The battlefield is narrowing and the timeline is tightening in a congressional redistricting contest among states seeking a partisan advantage ahead of the November midterm elections.

The end of Maryland’s legislative session this week marked the demise of Democratic efforts to reshape the state’s U.S. House districts. But Florida lawmakers are to begin a special session Monday for a Republican attempt at congressional redistricting. And Virginia voters are deciding Tuesday on a Democratic redistricting plan that could help the party win several additional House seats in this year’s election.

Voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade, after each census. But President Trump triggered an unusual round of mid-decade redistricting last year when he urged Texas Republicans to redraw House districts to give the GOP an edge in the midterm elections. California Democrats reciprocated, and redistricting efforts soon cascaded across states.

So far, Republicans believe they could win nine additional seats in states where they have redrawn congressional districts, while Democrats think they could gain six seats elsewhere because of redistricting. But that presumes past voting patterns hold in November. And that’s uncertain, especially since the party in power typically loses seats in the midterms and Trump faces negative approval ratings in polls.

Democrats need to gain just a few seats in November to wrest control of the House from Republicans, potentially allowing them to obstruct Trump’s agenda.

Where redistricting remains in play

Officials in more than a dozen states debated or floated redistricting proposals. The immediate focus is on two states — one led by Republicans, the other by Democrats.

Florida

Current map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans

Proposed map: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has called a special legislative session to begin Monday on congressional redistricting. Republicans haven’t yet publicly released a specific plan.

Challenges: The state constitution says districts cannot be drawn with intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.

Virginia

Current map: six Democrats, five Republicans

Proposed map: A new U.S. House map passed by the Democratic-led General Assembly could help Democrats win up to four additional seats. For the map to take effect, voters would have to approve a constitutional amendment allowing mid-decade redistricting. That amendment is on Tuesday’s ballot.

Challenges: The state Supreme Court ruled the referendum can proceed, but it has yet to rule whether the effort is legal. The court is considering an appeal of a Tazewell County judge’s ruling that the amendment is invalid because lawmakers violated their own rules while passing it.

Where new House districts were approved

New U.S. House districts have been adopted in six states since last summer. Four took up redistricting voluntarily, one was required to by its state constitution and another did so under court order.

Texas

Current map: 13 Democrats, 25 Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised House map into law last August that could help Republicans win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in December cleared the way for the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It put on hold a lower-court ruling that blocked the new map because it was “racially gerrymandered.”

California

Current map: 43 Democrats, nine Republicans

New map: Voters in November approved revised House districts drawn by the Democratic-led Legislature that could help Democrats win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in February allowed the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It denied an appeal from Republicans and the Department of Justice, which claimed the districts impermissibly favor Hispanic voters.

Missouri

Current map: two Democrats, six Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a revised House map into law last September that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A Cole County judge ruled the new map is in effect as election officials work to determine whether a referendum petition seeking a statewide vote complies with constitutional criteria and contains enough valid petition signatures. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit claiming mid-decade redistricting is illegal. It’s scheduled to hear arguments in May on claims the new districts violate compactness requirements and should be placed on hold pending the potential referendum.

North Carolina

Current map: four Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: The Republican-led General Assembly gave final approval in October to revised districts that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A federal court panel in November denied a request to block the revised districts from being used in the midterm elections.

Ohio

Current map: five Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: A bipartisan panel composed primarily of Republicans voted in October to approve revised House districts that improve Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats.

Challenges: None. The state constitution required new districts before the 2026 election, because Republicans had approved the prior map without sufficient Democratic support after the last census.

Utah

Current map: no Democrats, four Republicans

New map: A judge in November imposed revised House districts that could help Democrats win a seat. The court ruled that lawmakers had circumvented anti-gerrymandering standards passed by voters when adopting the prior map.

Challenges: A federal court panel and the state Supreme Court, in February, each rejected Republican challenges to the judicial map selection.

Where redistricting efforts were denied

Governors, lawmakers or partisan officials pushed for congressional redistricting in numerous states. In at least five states, those efforts gained some initial traction but ultimately fell short in either the legislature or court.

Maryland

Current map: seven Democrats, one Republican

Proposed map: The Democratic-led House in February passed a redistricting plan backed by Democratic Gov. Wes Moore that could help Democrats win an additional seat.

Challenges: The legislative session ended in April without the Democratic-led Senate voting on the redistricting plan. The state Senate president said there were concerns it could backfire on Democrats.

New York

Current map: 19 Democrats, seven Republicans

Proposed map: A judge in January ordered a state commission to draw new boundaries for the only congressional district in New York City represented by a Republican, ruling it unconstitutionally dilutes the votes of Black and Hispanic residents.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in March granted Republicans’ request to halt the judge’s order, leaving the existing district lines in place for the 2026 election.

Indiana

Current map: two Democrats, seven Republicans

Proposed map: The Republican-led House passed a redistricting plan in December that would have improved Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats.

Challenges: Despite pressure from Trump to adopt the new map, the Republican-led Senate rejected it in a bipartisan vote on Dec. 11.

Kansas

Current map: one Democrat, three Republicans

Proposed map: Some Republican lawmakers mounted an attempt to take up congressional redistricting.

Challenges: Lawmakers dropped a petition drive for a special session on congressional redistricting in November, after failing to gain enough support.

Illinois

Current map: 14 Democrats, three Republicans

Proposed map: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in October proposed a new U.S. House map that would improve Democrats’ chances of winning an additional seat.

Challenges: The Democratic-led General Assembly declined to take up redistricting, citing concerns about the effect on representation for Black residents.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration fired four Justice Department prosecutors involved in cases against anti-abortion activists, accusing the Biden administration on Tuesday of abusing a law designed to protect abortion clinics from obstruction and threats.

The firings are the latest wave of terminations of employees involved in cases criticized by conservatives or because they were perceived as insufficiently loyal to President Trump’s agenda. The terminations came before the release of a report accusing the Biden administration of biased prosecutions under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or FACE Act.

“This Department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, said in a statement. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”

The report is the first released from the Justice Department’s “Weaponization Working Group,” created by former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to scrutinize the federal prosecutions of Trump and other cases criticized by conservatives.

Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, and Jack Smith, the special counsel who prosecuted Trump, have said they followed only the facts, the evidence and the law in their decisions. Critics of the Trump administration say Bondi — who was fired by Trump this month — and Blanche are the ones who politicized the agency, with the norm-breaking actions that have stirred concern that the institution is being used as a tool to advance Trump’s personal and political agenda.

The Biden administration brought cases against dozens of defendants under the FACE Act, which makes it illegal to physically obstruct or use the threat of force to intimidate or interfere with a person seeking reproductive health services, and prohibits damaging property at abortion clinics and other centers. It was signed into law in 1994, when clinic protests and blockades were on the rise along with violence against abortion providers such as Dr. David Gunn, who was murdered.

The Trump administration alleges in the report that prosecutors under Biden often “ignored and downplayed” attacks against pregnancy resource centers or houses of worship, which are also protected under the law. It also claims that the Biden administration pushed for harsher sentences against anti-abortion activists than it did in cases against abortion-rights defendants. Trump last year pardoned anti-abortion activists convicted of blockading abortion clinic entrances, calling them “peaceful pro-life protesters.”

Kristen Clarke, who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under Biden, defended the prosecutions, saying the attorneys “enforced the law even-handedly and put public safety at the center of this work.”

“The Civil Rights Division brought law enforcement leaders, crisis pregnancy center representatives, faith leaders, and reproductive health care staff together to address the real violence, threats of violence, and obstruction that too many people face in our country when it comes to reproductive health care,” Clarke said in an emailed statement on Tuesday.

The firings are part of a broader personnel purge that has shaken career Justice Department lawyers generally insulated from changes in administrations thanks to long-recognized civil service protections.

Justice Connection, a network of former department employees, said the agency leadership’s “cruelty and hypocrisy are on full display in this report.”

“They insist on zealous advocacy by career staff in advancing the President’s priorities, while shaming and firing those who did just that in the prior administration,” Stacey Young, a former department lawyer who founded Justice Connection, said in a statement. “They’ve put career employees on notice: if they do their jobs, they face potential termination if future political leadership disagrees with the policy goals of prior leadership.”

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge must end his “intrusive” contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to comply with an order to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador last year, a divided appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.

Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion in forging ahead with criminal contempt proceedings over the March 2025 deportation flights, according to the majority opinion by a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

President Trump’s administration has a “clear and indisputable” right to the termination of the contempt proceedings, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote. “Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific. (Boasberg’s March 2025 order) did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.”

Rao was nominated by Trump, a Republican. Boasberg, chief judge of the district court in Washington, D.C., was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

On March 15, 2025, two planes transporting Venezuelan migrants from the U.S. to El Salvador were in the air when Boasberg ordered the administration to turn them around.

Administration officials claim Boasberg is biased and overstepped his authority.

Boasberg has said the Trump administration may have acted in bad faith by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order blocking their deportations to El Salvador. In an April 16, 2025 order, the judge said he gave the administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but concluded that “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”

Trump has called for impeaching Boasberg. Last year, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint accusing Boasberg of making improper public comments about Trump and his administration. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rejected calls for Boasberg’s impeachment.

The case is assigned to Rao and Circuit Judges Justin Walker and J. Michelle Childs. Walker, also a Trump nominee, wrote a separate opinion concurring with Roa’s. Childs, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented from the majority.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans still think their taxes are too high, according to recent polls, even after last year’s tax law fulfilled several of President Trump’s tax-related campaign promises.

In fact, a new Fox News poll indicates people are more upset about taxes than they were last year. The findings from the survey, which was conducted in late March, are another sign that Americans are on edge about their personal finances as the U.S. experiences a spike in inflation and sluggish economic growth. Other polling finds that frustration goes beyond personal tax obligations, with many believing that wealthy people and corporations are not paying their fair share, while others worry about government waste.

The surveys come after Trump and Republicans passed a massive tax and spending cut bill last year. The legislation enacted a range of tax breaks, including a boosted child tax credit and new tax deductions for tips and overtime. Tax refunds are up this season, and many households are expected to see more income from the Republicans’ tax legislation, but the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will ultimately give the largest benefits to the richest Americans.

Republicans have touted the law as evidence that they are making life more affordable for working families. But polling shows that many Americans may not be feeling the benefits, especially as their tax refunds get eaten up by higher prices.

Most say taxes are too high

About 7 in 10 registered voters say the taxes they pay are “too high,” according to the Fox News poll. That’s up from about 6 in 10 last year. The poll shows heightened concern among very liberal voters and Democratic men, but there has also been a sizable increase among groups that Republicans want to court ahead of the midterm elections, such as moderates, rural voters and white voters without a college degree.

Discontent about taxes has been rising for the past few years. Recent polling from Gallup, conducted in March, found about 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the amount of federal income tax they have to pay is “too high,” a finding that’s been largely consistent in the annual poll since 2023. That’s approaching the level of unhappiness found in Gallup’s polling from the 1980s through the 1990s, before President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Now, about half of Democrats and about 6 in 10 Republicans say their federal income taxes are too high. Republicans tend to view their tax bill more negatively than Democrats, but Gallup’s polling shows that this gap often shrinks when a Republican is president.

Many believe the rich aren’t paying enough in taxes

Most Americans are troubled by the belief that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January. About 6 in 10 Americans said each of those notions bothers them “a lot,” a measure that is largely unchanged in recent years.

By contrast, only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in that poll said the amount they personally pay in taxes bothers them a lot.

About 8 in 10 Democrats are bothered “a lot” by the feeling that some corporations and rich people aren’t paying their fair share, the Pew survey found, compared to about 4 in 10 Republicans. Government spending is a bigger issue for Republicans, according to the Fox News poll, which found that 75% of registered voters — and a similar share of Republican voters — say “almost all” or “a great deal” of government funding is wasteful and inefficient.

That points to a perception problem for many Americans. Even if their own tax bill is manageable, the idea that the wealthy are underpaying — or that the government is wasting their dollars — bothers many. About half of Americans, 49%, in the Gallup poll say the income tax they will pay this year is “not fair,” which is in line with the record high from 2023.

Broad unhappiness with Trump’s tax approach

Americans’ tax frustration was rising before Trump re-entered the White House, but it’s still a problem for the president’s party — especially if Americans are not feeling the relief that he promised.

The Fox News poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters, 64%, say they disapprove of how Trump is handling taxes, up from 53% last April. Disapproval has risen most sharply among independents, but also among Democrats and Republicans.

This aligns with a broader feeling that Trump isn’t doing enough to address inflation. Most Americans said Trump had hurt the cost of living “a lot” or “a little” in his second term, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents said Trump has had a negative impact on the cost of living.

Less than half of Republicans, 43%, said Trump had helped the cost of living, while 33% said he hadn’t made a difference and only 23% said he’d helped.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press. The Fox News poll was conducted among 1,001 registered voters from March 20-23. The Gallup poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults from March 2-18. The Pew Research Center poll was conducted among 8,512 U.S. adults from Jan. 20-26. The AP-NORC Poll was conducted among 1,203 U.S. adults from Jan 8-11.

Reporting from Washington — Some of President Obama’s most disputed judicial nominations — including UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu and San Francisco federal Magistrate Edward M. Chen — are about to expire without getting a vote in the Senate.

Dozens of Obama’s judicial nominees have languished, but in the past four days, the Senate has approved 12 of them without opposition. Another seven are expected to be confirmed before the lame-duck session of Congress ends. Four others, including Liu and Chen, aren’t expected to get a vote.

Their nominations will lapse after this congressional session. Although Obama could renominate them, their chances of confirmation would be even slimmer because Republicans will hold several more seats in the next Senate.

Liu, nominated to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is well-regarded among liberals and legal scholars and won a “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Assn. But several Republicans contend that his liberal views put him “outside the mainstream.”

They also criticize his 2006 testimony against Samuel A. Alito’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Judge Alito’s record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse … where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man,” Liu said then. “I humbly submit that this is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be.”

The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over California and eight other Western states.

Chen, nominated to be a U.S. district judge in San Francisco, also ran into solid Republican opposition. Some conservatives complain about his former affiliation with the American Civil Liberties Union. He was an ACLU attorney before becoming a magistrate.

Liberal activists pointed out that Republicans during the George W. Bush administration argued that the president’s nominees deserved an up-or-down vote.

“If Republicans kept to their old playbook and allowed the Senate to vote on Goodwin Liu, he’d be a shoo-in given his stellar qualifications,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice.

Two other district court nominees — Louis Butler of Wisconsin and Jack McConnell of Rhode Island — also face Republican opposition and are unlikely to be confirmed.

Obama will finish his first two years in office with far fewer judges confirmed than any recent chief executive.

As of Monday, the Senate had confirmed 53 of Obama’s 103 judicial nominees to the federal district or appeals courts in the last two years. Another seven approvals would bring the total to 60.

By contrast, President Clinton won approval for 126 lower court judges in his first two years, when his party controlled the Senate. One hundred judicial nominees were confirmed during George W. Bush’s first two years, even though Democrats narrowly controlled the Senate for most of that time.

Democrats have held a strong Senate majority in the last two years, and a judge can be confirmed with a simple majority vote. But a single senator can block a vote. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has done just that to prevent votes on nominees opposed by most Republicans.

Opponents also can filibuster nominees, and it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and set a final vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been reluctant to tie up the chamber in a prolonged debate over a lower-court judgeship.

Nominees confirmed in the last four days include Albert Diaz, a North Carolina state judge who won a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee in January. He will join the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.

Sacramento Magistrate Kimberly Mueller was confirmed to be a federal district judge there, and Chicago prosecutor Edmond E. Chang was confirmed as a federal district judge for northern Illinois.

david.savage@latimes.com

Closing a two-day Western trip, President Clinton on Tuesday pledged to Los Angeles audiences his special commitment to help the California economy, while asking state residents to do their part for the economic plan he is pushing through Congress.

Clinton, in mobbed campaign-style stops in South-Central Los Angeles and at Los Angeles Valley College in Van Nuys, asserted that the U.S. economy won’t recover until the nation’s largest state can pull itself out of its slump. “We can’t turn this economy around unless we’re going to lift California up,” Clinton told students at the community college.

The President also signaled his interest in California immigration problems, saying that he will soon pick a “compassionate but hard-headed” person to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He said he hopes to get Atty. Gen. Janet Reno’s recommendation for that post as early as this week.

Clinton, who has traveled out of Washington for part of the past two weeks trying to drum up support for his economic plan, visited a black-owned apparel store on South-Central’s Florence Avenue to illustrate his view that the riot-torn area can only be rebuilt through a joint effort of government and business. He used the community college stop to stress his advocacy of continually retraining workers to make them competitive in a world economy.

The Clinton road show has been part economics seminar and part campaign extravaganza, and his visit to Los Angeles was no exception.

At the community college, he sat on a wooden stool under flowering mimosa trees to field questions from students on education, jobs, immigration and other subjects. At the South-Central stop, he and Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown toured the store, then stripped off their suit jackets and ties and shot baskets for a few minutes with a group of youngsters.

The crowds were large and warm, but Clinton’s most impassioned defense of his program came when hecklers taunted him at the community college. To their chants “You broke your promise”–referring to his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class–and “No new taxes,” the President rejoined:

“You know what the ‘no new tax’ crowd did for 12 years? They cut taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the middle class and left the country in a ditch,” he said. “The free lunch crowd has had their chance.”

He cited as proof of his commitment to California the efforts of Commerce Secretary Brown, who has visited the state seven times since January to help coordinate the government’s effort to help the economy. He said he had asked Brown to “map a specific plan to turn this economy around.”

The President told the college students he would like to help the state’s economy through increased aid for laid off defense workers and their communities, additional community policing and financial aid to offset immigration-related costs.

He made again a pitch for the central idea of his economic plan, that the country needs to cut its deficit while increasing spending–”investment”–for other purposes that will strengthen the economy over the long term.

In South-Central Los Angeles, Clinton visited The Playground, a community center and sporting goods store on Florence Avenue just one mile west of where rioting erupted last year. It was founded by a business person, a lawyer, a doctor and ex-gang members from the Crips. A basketball court was established in back so youths could play as well as buy merchandise.

While the store has received no federal aid, Clinton used it to illustrate his Administration’s redevelopment strategy, which also calls for the use of tax-advantaged “empowerment zones” to bring commerce to distressed areas.

After touring the store and meeting its owners, Clinton headed for the basketball court. He shed his coat, removed his shoes and socks and deposited the contents of his pockets in a shoe box.

In front of a phalanx of several dozen photographers, Leonard Baylor, 8, presented Clinton with a gift of size 13 sneakers.

“Thank you, Mr. President, for coming,” Leonard told the President. “Here, take these shoes.” Then, the boy said to the President: “Shoot some hoops with us?”

Baylor broke into tears–because he was overcome with emotion, a store owner later said. The President pulled Baylor close to comfort him.

Clinton pulled off his tie and pulled on athletic socks and the sneakers. Brown did the same. They then joined 18 youths on the court ranging in age from 6 to 17.

The President captained one team and Brown led another while a friendly crowd of about 200 as well as reporters and camera crews looked on.

Clinton, with shirttails flapping from the back of his baggy suit pants, missed his first two shots, then saved face by hitting from 10 feet out. Brown, however, swished from 20 feet away.

Clinton also grabbed five rebounds. “I made some good passes,” he said, but seemed to acknowledge that his commerce secretary stole the show, declaring, “Can Ron Brown shoot a jump shot or what?”

After the game, Clinton told the crowd: “I want everybody in America to know that there are people here in Los Angeles who believe that we can bring business to this area, that we can put people to work, if you have the help you need.”

“I wanted to come here today not just to have a little fun with a basketball, but to say to you and all of America that we’re going to have to rebuild this country from the grass roots up,” Clinton said. “This is an incredible untapped resource for America. If everyone in this country who wanted a job had one, we wouldn’t have half the problems we’ve got.”

Clinton said that he and Brown planned to go back to Washington to try to pass an economic program that will put “you back to work.”

The crowd in South-Central was clearly with him. Dorothy Redmond, a nursery school owner in the neighborhood, said: “I’m very encouraged. I am an entrepreneur of a small business and I think this is a step in the right direction.”

“I’m just speechless,” said Flora Lane, who traveled to South-Central from her home in the Wilshire district. “He is a person who cares about all people. I am for him 100%, plus his wife.”

But all the reviews of Clinton’s program weren’t favorable.

In Washington, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) characterized Clinton’s trip as “heading West while his poll numbers go South.”

“His West Coast public relations blitz is just another political make-over to try to convince people he’s cutting spending when he’s really breaking all world records for tax increases,” Dole said.

In Sacramento, the Wilson Administration released a report contending that Clinton’s five-year plan would cost Californians $11.6 billion more than their “fair share” of spending cuts and tax increases.

The state Department of Finance said it drew its figures from Clinton’s proposals for defense cuts, defense conversion and retraining, tax increases on personal income and energy, and tax credits for investment. The analysis also included estimates of the indirect effect of changes in spending and tax policy and a possible reduction in interest rates.

The study said it was assumed that “California will receive a disproportionate share of benefits included in the Clinton proposals–tax credits, investment spending and defense conversion spending.”

But those benefits, it said, will only partially offset the “dampening effect” of the defense cuts. Although California’s population is about 12% of the nation, the study said it appeared the state would absorb at least 25% of the cuts.

Overall, the report said, the plan would cost Californians $68.7 billion, or 14.6% of the total. Based on the state’s 12% share of the nation’s population, the “fair share” of the deficit-cutting burden would cost the state and its residents $57 billion, the report said.

Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub contributed to this story from Sacramento.

* RELATED STORIES: A3, B1

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (“Intelligence Bill Slipping Away, but Foe Won’t Budge,” Dec. 1) is a hero in my book. The Senate and Bush administration want a sham “intelligence reform” bill that does little more than shuffle around boxes on an organization chart, in order to make it look as if they are doing something in response to 9/11.

Any provisions that actually might do something to protect the lives of American citizens are “too controversial” and therefore must be kept out of the bill. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) refuses to be a party to the charade. He is to be congratulated for his integrity.

Lance B. Sjogren

San Pedro

*

There are more than enough votes in both houses of Congress to pass the bill in its present form. However, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert has refused to bring it to a vote unless it receives more Republican votes. Apparently a partisan win is more important than the safety of the United States.

Can someone explain to me how the GOP is better at protecting the United States than the Democrats?

Michael Stark

Santa Monica

“I’m not afraid.”

With these three words Sunday morning, Pope Leo XIV offered as powerful a rebuke of President Trump and everything he has wrought on the world as anyone ever has.

Three words that mocked Trump for being the bully that he is.

Three words that undercut Trump’s self-hyped aura of invincibility.

Three words to inspire all good people to fight against Trump — because if a mild-mannered man of God such as Leo isn’t afraid, no one should be.

Pope Leo’s words thrilled me as an American but especially as a Catholic. His quiet, confident witness since becoming pontiff in May had already reignited a spiritual light in me to adhere closer to the faith I was brought up in.

Trump’s actions during his second term — war, deportations, nasty rhetoric and a love of himself above all else — have been like fuel to that fire. They stand against everything I was ever taught was good and holy.

Hearing Leo’s simple smackdown of the president, at a time when too many people insist we must sink to Trump’s lows to beat him, is like receiving a sacrament I never knew I needed.

Leo spoke a few hours after Trump trashed him on social media, calling him “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” — all because of the pope’s critiques of perpetual wars and this country’s vile treatment of undocumented immigrants, while never mentioning anyone by name.

Until now.

“I’m not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what the church works for,” he told reporters while traveling to Algeria to kick off a 10-day African mission. He repeated the message later, stating: “I have no fear.”

In response, Trump melted down like the Nazis at the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” critiquing the pope to reporters and then posting an image on social media of himself as a robed savior healing a sick man, light emanating from his hands.

This pathetic fusillade offended even Catholic League President Bill Donohue, who has made a career of trashing liberal Catholics and who defended Trump last year after the president shared an image of himself in papal robes and mitre after the death of Pope Francis. This time, Donohue deemed Trump’s Christ-like imagery “offensive and immature.”

President Trump waves as he returns to the White House on Sunday. During a short interaction with reporters, he blasted Pope Leo XI as “very liberal.”

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

The president has a lot to fear these days, and not just because he violated most of the Ten Commandments with his bonkers Jesus post, which quickly disappeared. One of the few sane adults left in his administration must have reminded him that antagonizing Catholics is a terrible political move. About 55% of them voted for him in the 2024 election, many in swing states such as Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that had sided with Joe Biden — a Catholic — four years before.

A Fox News poll released last week found that only 48% of Catholics nationwide approve of Trump’s overall performance. While 57% of white Catholics still support Trump, a majority of them aren’t happy with his actions in Iran — the issue that’s turning out to be a millstone around his neck.

Trump’s second term has been a nightmare that seems to worsen every day. Yet not only is this country still standing, but more and more people are waking up to the mockery he’s made of American values. One of the new warriors is Leo, who told reporters he spoke out not to sway politics in his home country, but to offer, in his role as head of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, a reminder of what Jesus practiced and preached.

No wonder Trump, who wants to erect idols to himself like a Canaanite king, is so upset.

May Leo’s words wake up more good people, regardless of their faith, to rise against Trump — and especially stir lapsed Catholics to return to Mother Church.

U.S. Catholics have long served as a barometer of acceptance for newcomers and the working class. But only about 20% of Americans identify as Catholic, per a Pew Research Center study released last year. And only 30% of those Catholics attend Mass weekly. Many more leave the faith than adopt it, at rates that far exceed other Christian denominations. This collapse has allowed the Catholic church’s conservative wing to take over, departing from the historic mission and instead leading us to Trump.

My lifelong commitment to social justice and my eternal skepticism of power and avarice comes from what I learned growing up at St. Boniface in Anaheim. I even had aspirations to become a priest, because I find few things more noble than dedicating your life to helping others.

I stopped attending Mass once I began covering the church’s sex abuse scandals as a journalist. I was outraged that men who held themselves up to be the custodians of God on Earth not only allowed such crimes to happen but usually covered them up and shunted off the offenders to poor parishes like mine.

I never stopped praying or considering myself a Catholic — but I couldn’t bring myself to support institutions headed by men such as L.A. Archbishop José H. Gómez and Diocese of Orange Bishop Kevin Vann, who always seem to have sharp words for progressives but never for Trump.

It’s been a long road back for me to openly write about my faith with pride — but Trump’s continued heresies have made it necessary. I still don’t know when or if I’ll start attending Mass again regularly, but the fact that I’m even thinking about it shows Leo’s impact on me.

Recently, someone I was interviewing noticed my scapular of the Santo Niño de Atocha with the word “Amor” on the other side. Last year, I tucked this simple necklace that’s a sign of devotion inside the plastic sleeve holding my Los Angeles Times badge, along with a few religious medals.

Pope Leo caused that. Trump caused that. Any chance to talk about my Catholic faith and why Trump is bad, I’m going to take.

I’m not afraid.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, opponents raised alarms about the severe and immediate harms that would surely occur if marriages between same-sex couples were recognized nationally. Afterward, when those harms failed to materialize, those voices grew quieter, but some have been returning with renewed vigor, in hopes that the current Supreme Court, after overturning Roe vs. Wade, may be willing to overturn the Obergefell decision as well — though the justices declined to do so in November.

To build public support for rolling back marriage rights, new campaigns have been repeating the claims that legal recognition of same-sex marriages may harm children or even the stability of different-sex marriages. These are some of the same concerns that were raised in the years prior to the Obergefell decision. They were groundless then, and, more than 10 years later, the data confirm these fears to be unfounded.

In 2024, for the 20th anniversary of the first legal marriages of same-sex couples (in Massachusetts), my lab at UCLA joined with a team of researchers at Rand Corp. to review what social scientists learned over those two decades about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

We addressed this question in two ways. First, we searched through the research literature to find every published study that had examined the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Prior to 2015, states legalized and prohibited same-sex marriage at different times, and social scientists tracked a wide range of outcomes, including the well-being of children, national trends in marriage and divorce, and the physical and mental health of same-sex couples. Opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage predicted, in the strongest terms, that people would suffer after same-sex couples were granted the right to marry.

After 20 years of legalized marriage for same-sex couples, 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted. Our review identified not a single study that observed significant negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, the research literature identified many significant positive consequences.

For same-sex couples, legal recognition of their marriages was followed by more stable relationships, increased mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger connections to family. For the children of those couples, our review found no documented negative outcomes, but legal recognition of their parents’ marriages did result in more children obtaining access to health insurance. And what about the rest of the country? States that recognized same-sex marriages prior to Obergefell experienced economic gains and considerable savings in healthcare costs relative to states that did not.

One of the most striking predictions of the opponents of same-sex marriage was that recognizing marriage among same-sex couples would weaken commitment to the institution of marriage among different-sex couples. That did not happen either.

To address this question, our report conducted new analyses, drawing on census data and other sources to determine whether state-level rates of marriage, cohabitation and divorce changed in the states that recognized same-sex marriage, compared with states that did not. No matter how we conducted the analyses, we could find no effects of recognizing same-sex marriage on any of these outcomes. It makes sense: When different-sex couples are making personal decisions about their own relationships, they are not paying much attention to what same-sex couples are doing.

If any harm resulted from allowing same-sex couples to marry, it ought to be well documented by now. The fact that there has been no evidence of harms despite considerable effort to find some suggests that the predictions made by opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage were unwarranted at the time. Now that we have 20 years of research and experience, those predictions remain unwarranted now.

Benjamin Karney is a professor of social psychology at UCLA.

SACRAMENTO — With coronavirus cases continuing to rise across much of California and many workers unemployed indefinitely, several major banks and other lenders have agreed to provide mortgage relief to homeowners struggling to make their monthly payments.

The assistance arrives as more than 1 million Californians applied for unemployment benefits over the course of just 12 days through Wednesday because of layoffs or reduced hours amid the pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday.

Eligible homeowners would be able to defer mortgage payments for at least three months and perhaps longer if they suffer hardship due to the pandemic. Late payments would not be reported to credit agencies.

Along with the mortgage assistance, Newsom is urging the lenders to extend financial relief to small businesses and student loan recipients “in the days and weeks to follow,” according to an email sent recently to financial institutions by state Department of Business Oversight Commissioner Manuel P. Alvarez.

The moves came as public health officials reported a continued increase in COVID-19 cases, including in Los Angeles County, where the county health officer on Wednesday ordered that all those who test positive for the coronavirus self-isolate, along with those in close contact with the infected.

Officials confirmed 138 new COVID-19 cases Wednesday in the state’s most populous county, for a total of more than 800. Three additional deaths brought the total in Los Angeles County to 13. Statewide, more than 3,100 of those tested have been confirmed to have infections, while 67 have died.

Public health officials emphasized that the actual number of people infected is almost certainly higher, but an accurate count is impossible because so few tests have been given.

The mortgage relief package that Newsom described at an afternoon news conference will come from four of the nation’s largest banks — Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase — as well as 200 state-chartered banks and credit unions.

“We still have people that are struggling to get back to where they were before the Great Recession,” Newsom said of the financial struggles Californians have experienced, now exacerbated by the coronavirus outbreak.

Newsom noted that another huge lender, Bank of America, agreed only to allow customers to defer mortgage payments for one month, but said he is hopeful the institution “will do the right thing” in the near future.

Bank of America disputed Newsom’s assertion that it resisted providing more generous mortgage relief to homeowners. “Bank of America is deferring mortgage payments on a monthly basis until the crisis is over,” spokesman Bill Halldin said.

The continued spread of the coronavirus and the resulting wreckage of the economy suggest the need for even greater financial relief for consumers, Alvarez said in his email.

“As we continue the battle on the public health front, we must also brace ourselves for a financial crisis that is only beginning,” Alvarez wrote. “Now is the time for all institutions, public and private, to do our part in staving off a tsunami of financial harm barreling toward California consumers.”

The governor’s announcement came a week after he ordered all California residents to stay home to help stem the spread of the virus, with limited exceptions for essential workers, including doctors, nurses, grocery store employees and truckers.

Thousands of Californians have lost their jobs or have seen their working hours dramatically reduced, particularly in the hospitality and service industries. And the hardships fall on millions in the state who already struggle to make mortgage and rent payments, given skyrocketing housing costs.

The federal government this month announced that Americans with loans backed by the government-sponsored agencies Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would be eligible to defer mortgage payments and be shielded from foreclosure if they could not afford to make payments because of the outbreak.

More than 30 state lawmakers on Wednesday sent a letter to Newsom asking for a statewide eviction moratorium. They say fewer than 50 local governments — out of the 539 cities and counties statewide — have passed moratoriums, as the governor urged last week.

Housing advocates called for an eviction ban statewide, particularly for those who aren’t working as a result of the coronavirus. Newsom has said he will take additional steps if he believes local jurisdictions are failing to protect their residents.

Officials warned that the worst days of the pandemic in California are yet to come.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city could be six to 12 days from seeing a spike in infections and hospitalizations like the one now afflicting New York City, where the death toll has dramatically increased in recent days.

“It’s coming,” Garcetti said. “The peak is not here yet. The peak will be bad. People will lose their lives.”

San Francisco leaders issued a similar warning, saying it was “plausible” the city could face a crisis similar to the one in New York and fall 1,500 ventilators and 5,000 hospital beds short of the numbers needed.

“It is not even a question as to whether we will need more,” Mayor London Breed said during an hourlong news conference. “Sadly, things are going to get worse.”

Anticipating a surge of patients in the coming days, government officials were working to find additional hospital beds. More than 1,000 beds will be provided by the Navy ship Mercy, which will arrive in Los Angeles on Friday, earlier than expected, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Alyssa Farah.

Officials in Los Angeles and San Francisco rejected suggestions from President Trump that there could be a quick easing of restrictions.

Garcetti said Angelenos should be “prepared for a couple months like this.”

“I know that everybody is hopeful, and some are putting out that hope of us being back in churches by Easter or synagogues by Passover or restarting the economy in a couple weeks,” Garcetti said. “I think we owe it to everybody to be straightforward and honest. We will not be back to … that level of normal in that short period of time.”

Dr. Grant Colfax, director of health for San Francisco, concurred.

“I know there are people out there who will lead you to believe our efforts are too aggressive,” Colfax said, “but I cannot stress enough just how vital they are.”

Los Angeles County Public Health Department Director Barbara Ferrer also said residents should not expect an immediate return to normality.

“We would be foolish to not prepare for a similar scenario in L.A. County,” she said. “We talk about numbers, but these aren’t numbers — these are people’s lives.”

Times staff writers Rong-Gong Lin II, Maura Dolan, Taryn Luna and Colleen Shalby contributed to this report.

Reporting from Washington — President Obama reassured India’s prime minister Tuesday that the partnership between their two countries would be “one of the defining relationships of the 21st century.”

Appearing with Manmohan Singh at the White House after two hours of talks, Obama said the United States and India have agreed to broaden cooperation in a variety of areas, including the economy, agriculture, technology, trade and counter-terrorism.

“The United States and India are natural allies,” the president said at a news conference.

Indian officials have worried recently that the Obama administration might be less committed than its predecessors to strengthening the U.S.-Indian relationship. Indians are anxious that their relationship is taking a back seat to growing U.S. ties with China and Pakistan. Obama returned last week from a trip to Asia that included a three-day stop in China.

But the administration made a special effort to dispel those perceptions: Singh is the first foreign leader invited to the Obama White House for a state visit, which included a state dinner Tuesday night.

The president emphasized that the U.S. is not looking solely to China for leadership in Asia.

“The United States welcomes and encourages India’s leadership role in helping to shape the rise of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Asia,” Obama said. He also accepted an invitation from Singh to visit India next year.

Ashley J. Tellis, who was a senior South Asia aide in George W. Bush’s administration, said Obama’s statements held valuable symbolism.

But the “real tests are yet to come,” said Tellis, now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

It remains to be seen whether the United States will devote the time needed to build a strategic relationship, and whether the two countries can work out their differences on such issues as climate change and nuclear nonproliferation, he said.

The Obama administration would like India to take aggressive steps to reduce carbon emissions, while India contends that the developed world should bear a larger share of that responsibility.

India, which has nuclear programs, has also been reluctant to impose tough economic sanctions on Iran, with which it has strong economic ties.

The United States and many other Western powers allege that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran says its nuclear development program is for civilian energy purposes.

Obama and Singh may have been closer on concerns about Taliban militants in Afghanistan, a subject that the prime minister raised repeatedly this week at a series of public meetings in Washington, and which the two leaders discussed at the White House.

Michael Hammer, a White House spokesman, said Singh and Obama “agreed that stabilizing Afghanistan and preventing a return of the Taliban to power are critically important.”

Hammer said that in their discussion of Iran, the two leaders “resolved to work together to make sure that all countries live up to their international obligations in the nuclear context.”

Teresita Schaffer, a former U.S. ambassador now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Indians don’t want the U.S. to fail in Afghanistan because they believe it would mean “a much bigger footprint for militant Islam.”

More broadly, she said, “they’ve bet their international role on ties to a United States strong enough to deliver the goods.”

paul.richter@latimes.com

cparsons@latimes.com

SACRAMENTO — Legislation to move the California presidential primary from early June to early March, in an effort to make the state a more important player in presidential politics, passed the Assembly on Wednesday.

The bill was sent to the Senate on a 43-22 vote. If approved there, it will go to Gov. Pete Wilson, who has said he favors moving up the primary date.

A March date would make California the first large-population state to hold a presidential primary or a caucus.

Assemblyman Jim Costa (D-Fresno), the measure’s author, said Californians have been “no more than onlookers” as presidential candidates have been selected in recent years. Costa said the California vote last affected the outcome of a Democratic primary in 1972, while the state has not played a major role in a Republican selection since the 1964 contest between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller.

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said California “has been treated like a 24-hour ATM machine,” with candidates raising large amounts of money in this state but spending it on primaries and caucuses elsewhere.

Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale) denounced the proposal as an “expensive boondoggle to allow people in this building to become kingmakers.” Nolan also said moving up the primary date would make it difficult for the Legislature or the courts to arrive at a reapportionment plan well in advance of the primary.

But Costa said a March primary would cost no more than an election in June and that “modern computers can draw reapportionment lines quickly.”

Forty Democrats were joined by three Republicans–Assemblymen Gerald N. Felando of San Pedro, David G. Kelley of Hemet and Charles W. Quackenbush of Saratoga–in supporting the bill. All 22 no votes were cast by Republicans.

PUSAN, South Korea — After President Bush lauded South Korea’s troop contribution to Iraq’s reconstruction as a “gesture of friendship,” White House officials sought to downplay reports today about that country’s intention to draw down its forces.

Published reports quoted South Korean government sources as saying the country intended to reduce its contingent of about 3,600 troops by one-third. But a U.S. spokesman said Bush administration officials were “unaware of any such formal announcement.”

The reports could prove particularly embarrassing for the U.S. president because they surfaced while he was in the country to take part in an annual gathering of Pacific Rim leaders at which cooperation on Iraq promised to be a major discussion point.

Bush stood beside South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun on Thursday and thanked him for his country’s participation in the reconstruction, but there was no mention of a possible South Korean troop reduction.

“We’re bound by our love of freedom,” Bush said. “And those commitments by your government indicate how close we are in terms of promoting the values of freedom and democracy.”

A White House spokesman, Frederick Jones, said today that the topic of a South Korean troop reduction had not come up during the leaders’ private discussions.

“President Roh was very proud of the accomplishments of Korean forces,” Jones said.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett later said the administration had received “guidance” that the South Korean government’s official stance had not yet changed, and that the debate was continuing in the parliament.

“I think it’s premature to say this is any indication of what’s going one way or the other,” Bartlett said.

There was no official comment from South Korea’s Defense Ministry. But Defense Minister Yoon Kwang Ung told ruling party legislators in a closed session of the National Assembly that changed conditions in Iraq made the reduction of troops possible, the semiofficial Yonhap news agency said.

Members of the ruling Uri Party have in recent months called for a troop reduction, citing reports of similar moves by Britain, Australia and Japan.

The war in Iraq has been extremely unpopular in South Korea, and even advocates of the troop deployment here have maintained it was done only out of an obligation to a long military alliance with the United States.

Oh Young Shik, a spokesman for the ruling party, said that those South Korean troops brought home first would be doctors, nurses and construction workers.

Losing about 1,000 South Korean troops, which focus primarily on peacekeeping, would not be a setback from a military standpoint. But South Korea’s contingent is the third-largest in the coalition, behind the United States and Britain.

And coming as Japan is also set to consider its own drawdown of troops and with Congress growing increasingly wary of U.S. policy in Iraq, the announcement was the latest in a series of setbacks for the Bush administration’s effort to maintain support for the war.

This week, the Republican-led Senate rejected calls for a timetable of troop reductions but voted to require the administration to provide more detailed reports on Iraq.

The White House has stepped up its defense of Iraq policy, firing off a scathing statement Thursday accusing U.S. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) of espousing views held by the “extreme liberal wing” of the Democratic Party because he called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn.

Bush kicked off his participation in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit by sitting down for the fifth time this year with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, another Iraq war critic.

The two were expected to discuss a proposed law in Russia that would force numerous nongovernmental organizations, including international heavyweights such as Human Rights Watch and the Ford Foundation, to face government examinations of their operations. Russian officials would ensure that the groups are not pursuing political activities funded by other countries.

Groups have warned that the law could force them to close their doors in Moscow, and the law underscores broader concerns on the part of the White House and human rights groups that Putin is rolling back post-Soviet democratic reforms.

The two leaders were also expected to discuss nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Russia is building a nuclear reactor in Iran, despite U.S. objections, and Putin has resisted calls by Bush to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

However, Moscow does support efforts to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear arms programs and prevent Iran from acquiring atomic weapons.

Unlike at some of their past meetings, the two leaders did not take questions or offer details of their conversation.

“You going to say something to the press?” Bush asked as the two settled into their meeting in a hotel suite. Putin shook his head, and Bush said, “OK, me neither.”

Wallsten reported from Pusan and Demick from Seoul.

WASHINGTON — President Trump was propelled into office in large part by support from evangelicals and Catholics, at times framing his political rise in divine terms.

But that relationship is now fraying, and, in some corners of the Catholic Church, breaking, after Trump spent the weekend maligning Pope Leo XIV — “Leo is WEAK on Crime” — and circulating a widely condemned social media post depicting himself as Jesus Christ.

Leo, meanwhile, on Monday repeated his calls for an end of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. “I have no fear of neither the Trump administration nor of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel,” Leo told reporters. “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Trump had lashed out at the pontiff in a Truth Social post on Sunday night and repeated those criticisms Monday. “I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo,” he said. “He’s a very liberal person, and he’s a man that doesn’t believe in stopping crime. He’s a man that doesn’t think we should be toying with a country that wants a nuclear weapon so they can blow up the world.”

The tirade drew swift backlash from Catholic leaders and rank-and-file believers alike, who have increasingly withdrawn support from the president since he and Israel launched attacks on Iran, according to recent polls.

Also fueling backlash was the artificial-intelligence-generated image of Trump, in a white robe and a red stole, placing his hand on the forehead of a man in a hospital bed. Trump confirmed he had posted the image but insisted he thought it portrayed him as a doctor, not Jesus healing the sick.

That’s not how many people viewed it.

“In the Christian faith, this is considered blasphemy: depicting yourself as Christ, elevating yourself to the level of Christ,” conservative commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin said on “The View.” “Our faith is bigger than our politics. That is one thing that will always trump politics for people who are practicing in their faith. He clearly doesn’t understand that.”

The Rev. Thomas Reese, who also works as an analyst at Religious News Service, called Trump’s AI-generated image “an absolute disaster and blasphemous,” adding that it appeared to unsettle even some of the president’s religious supporters. The post was later removed from Truth Social.

More broadly, Reese said the war itself, and the way it has been framed, is colliding with core church teaching.

“To invoke God for a war of choice is just wrong,” he said, noting that Catholic leaders have increasingly emphasized diplomacy and reconciliation over military action.

“The Catholics who voted for him feel betrayed,” Reese said. “I think they’re beginning to say, ‘This is not what we voted for,’ especially when you tie the war to higher gasoline prices, higher food prices.”

In his Truth Social post, Trump also took some credit for Leo’s election as pontiff last year after the death of Pope Francis, writing that Leo was chosen “because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.”

Tensions had been simmering between the two leaders for months, but boiled over after Trump issued a threat to use the U.S. military to wipe out all of Iranian civilization.

At a peace vigil at St. Peter’s Basilica on Saturday, Leo said that a “delusion of omnipotence” is fueling the war that has left thousands dead. Though he did not name Trump, the pope has repeatedly cautioned against invoking religion to justify violence.

Many Trump supporters have claimed he had a divine mandate, and Trump himself has repeatedly asserted that God saved him in the July 2024 assassination attempt so that he could lead the United States.

His administration has undertaken extraordinary efforts to infuse Christianity into government functions — establishing a White House Faith Office and holding prayer services at the Pentagon and the Labor Department.

After Iran shot down a U.S. fighter jet on April 3, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth compared the rescue of one of the aviators to Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection: “Shot down on a Friday, Good Friday. Hidden in a cave, a crevice, all of Saturday and rescued on Sunday. Flown out of Iran as the sun was rising on Easter Sunday. A pilot reborn, all home and accounted for, a nation rejoicing.”

A military watchdog group last month said it had received more than 200 complaints from U.S. service members reporting that military commanders were telling troops that the Iran war was part of a divine plan by God to trigger Armageddon. A group of Democratic lawmakers called for an investigation into whether military operations were being guided by “end-times prophecy.”

Catholics rallied for Trump in 2024, when 55% of voting Catholics cast their ballots for Trump, clocking in at 12 points higher than his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris.

But he’s steadily lost their support since the onset of the war, according to new bipartisan polling. Some 52% of Catholics say they disapprove of the president’s job performance, according to one survey by Republican pollster Shaw & Co. Research and Democratic pollster Beacon Research. Another 23% say they strongly approve of the job he is doing and another 25% somewhat approve.

Consisting of about a quarter of the U.S. population, the Catholic voting bloc has long been regarded as the bellwether demographic, having historically chosen the winner of the popular vote in nearly every presidential election for the last 50 years.

Since ascending to the throne of St. Peter, Leo has frequently clashed with the administration on issues ranging from immigration to foreign policy, emphasizing humanitarian concerns and diplomacy over force.

That attitude appears to be resonating in the pews. Reese, the commentator and priest, pointed to growing frustration among Catholic voters, including some who backed Trump in 2024 expecting an end to prolonged Middle East conflicts.

Reflecting on church history, he said: “The papacy survived Attila the Hun. They survived Napoleon, they survived Mussolini and they survived Hitler. They will survive Trump.”

In AD 452, when Attila the Hun sacked city after city in his conquest of the known world, it was the Catholic Church, not the Roman military, that met him in a show of diplomacy. The pontiff of the time, who persuaded Attila to turn his army back and spare Rome, was called Pope Leo I.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — A Minnesota county is investigating the arrest of a Hmong American man by federal officers that was captured on video as a potential case of kidnapping, burglary and false imprisonment, officials announced Monday.

Ramsey County Atty. John Choi and Sheriff Bob Fletcher said at a news conference they will pursue information from the Department of Homeland Security that they need for their investigation into the arrest of ChongLy “Scott” Thao in January. Ramsey County includes the state capital of St. Paul.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers bashed open the front door of Thao’s St. Paul home at gunpoint without a warrant, then led him outside in just his underwear and a blanket in freezing conditions.

“There are many facts we don’t know yet, but there’s one that we do know. And that is that Mr. Thao is and has been an American citizen. There’s not a dispute over that,” Fletcher said. “There’s no dispute that he was taken out of his house, forcibly taken out of his home and driven around.”

He continued: “Is that good law enforcement, to take an American citizen out of their home and drive them around aimlessly, trying to determine what they can tell them?’”

Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, has refused so far to cooperate with other state and local investigations into the killings by federal officers of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Choi said they’re trying to determine whether any crimes were committed that they could prosecute under state or federal law.

“This is not about, any type of predetermined agenda other than to seek the truth and to investigate the facts,” he said.

Agents eventually realized Thao was a longtime U.S. citizen with no criminal record, Thao said in an interview with the Associated Press in January. They returned him to his home after a couple of hours.

Homeland Security later said ICE officers had been seeking two convicted sex offenders. Thao told the AP he had never seen the two men before and that they did not live with him.

Videos captured the scene, which included people blowing whistles and horns, and neighbors screaming at more than a dozen gun-toting agents to leave Thao’s family alone.

The state and the chief prosecutor in Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis, sued the Trump administration last month to gain access to evidence they say they need to independently investigate three shootings by federal officers in Minneapolis, including the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

The lawsuit accuses the federal government of reneging on its promise to cooperate with state investigations after the surge of around 3,000 federal law enforcement officers into Minnesota.

Minnesota and Hennepin County have also appealed to the public to share information about federal officers’ potentially illegal activities, given the refusal by federal authorities to provide evidence.

The Trump administration has suggested Minnesota officials don’t have jurisdiction to investigate those cases. State and county prosecutors say they need to conduct their own inquiries because they don’t trust the federal government.

The Justice Department in January said it was opening a federal civil rights investigation into Pretti’s killing, and two officers have been placed on leave, but the agency said a similar federal probe was not warranted in Good’s death.

Vancleave and Karnowski write for the Associated Press. Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.

WASHINGTON — California Rep. Eric Swalwell resigned his congressional seat on Monday under intense pressure from lawmakers of both parties after several women accused him of sexual misconduct, including a former staffer who alleged rape.

Swalwell, a Dublin Democrat who suspended his campaign for California governor on Sunday, said in a statement that he was stepping down from the House, where he has served since 2013, and planned to continue fighting what he called “serious, false” allegations made against him.

“However, I must take responsibility and ownership of the mistakes I did make,” Swalwell wrote without specifying which mistakes those were.

His resignation came hours after the House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against him and as lawmakers from both parties threatened to expel him from the House if he did not leave his post. He said he was aware of the expulsion efforts underway and said that it was “wrong” to expel a member of Congress “without due process, within days of an allegation being made.”

“But it is also wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties. Therefore, I plan to resign my seat in Congress,” he said.

Asked about replacing Swalwell, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said in a statement that it is “reviewing the matter. Once the seat is officially vacant, our office will make an official announcement.”

The allegations, detailed in reports by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN last week, drew swift bipartisan condemnation, with lawmakers from both parties calling the accusations “disgusting” and demanding that he either resign or be removed from office.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) intended to lead the charge to expel Swalwell. In an interview Monday, Luna said she planned to file a motion as early as Tuesday on the grounds that he violated House rules over an alleged inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate. A House floor vote could have been held as early as Wednesday, she said.

Following Swalwell’s resignation, Luna said the Northern California lawmaker did “the right thing.” But she took issue with him saying that the allegations were not grounds for expulsion, noting that he was under criminal investigation.

In New York, the Manhattan district attorney’s office opened an investigation into sexual assault allegations against Swalwell by a former staffer and issued a statement over the weekend that urged “survivors and anyone with knowledge of these allegations to contact our Special Victims Division.”

After the sexual allegations came to light, Democrats called on Swalwell to resign, but when it comes to expulsion, they said they would not move against Swalwell alone. They were also pushing to expel Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who last month admitted to a sexual relationship with a staffer who later died by suicide.

Late Monday, Gonzales said he too was stepping down. “When Congress returns tomorrow, I will file my retirement from office,” he wrote on X.

The push to get Swalwell expelled had gained traction even among his friends.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) wrote on X on Monday that Swalwell should be kicked out of Congress, saying he “trusted someone who I believed was a friend, but is now clear that he is not the person I thought I knew.” Gallego said the woman “deserves to be believed, to be supported, and to see justice served.”

Had Swalwell been expelled, it would have been the first such removal in congressional history on the grounds of sexual misconduct, and among the rare instances in the House’s 237-year history in which members ousted one of their own.

Only six members have been expelled from the House. Three were fighting for the Confederacy, two were convicted of bribery and one was the fraudster George Santos, whose sentence was later commuted by President Trump.

Now that Swalwell has resigned, he is still eligible for his pension and for a number of other perks extended to other former members, including the ability to enter the House floor and access to the congressional gym.

Swalwell said Monday that he is working with his staff to “ensure they are able, in my absence, to serve the needs of the good people of the 14th congressional district.”

While many of Swalwell’s staffers have already quit, remaining staffers not involved in constituent services would lose their jobs and receive no severance pay.

Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, which is focused on congressional reform, argues that the practice is unfair.

“I think the House owes them a duty for what they’ve had to go through,” Schuman said.

Longtime ethics expert Meredith McGehee said that members have been reluctant to expel their colleagues in recent years because of the razor-thin majorities in the House, but that not doing so hurts the credibility of the institution.

“It’s really important at this moment that the House act to expel these men who have been seriously and credibly accused of wrongdoing,” said McGehee, a former executive director of the ethics watchdog Issue One. “To allow either one of them to stay in office and serve out their term would be a farce.”

The Swalwell scandal could still prompt an ever larger surge of expulsion calls. Some lawmakers called for two additional members to be swept into any expulsion vote: Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), who has been accused of sexual assault, and Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.), who was indicted on charges that she laundered $5 million of federal disaster money and used it to fund a political campaign.

“Reps. Swalwell, Gonzales, Cherfilus-McCormick, and Mills should resign. If they refuse, they should be expelled,” Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) wrote on X on Monday. “Americans deserve better and Congress must hold our members accountable.”

Any expulsion would require a two-thirds majority vote, or 290 of 435 votes if every House member participates. The Senate would not be required to concur with the House vote to make the expulsion effective, but it remains to be seen whether the House could meet the two-thirds threshold.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez in Sacramento contributed to this report.

L.A. County officials want to put $2.7 million toward beefing up the team of people investigating fraud within a deluge of recent sex abuse lawsuits, suggesting a broadening probe at the district attorney’s office.

The funding allocation, part of the county’s $48.8-billion budget proposal unveiled Monday, would bring on 10 new people to the small team prosecuting alleged fraud within the county’s historic $4-billion sex abuse settlement. L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman announced the probe last November following a Times investigation that found nine people who said they were paid to sue.

The county has agreed to pay billions to settle more than 11,000 claims of sex abuse in juvenile halls and foster homes, a flood of lawsuits spurred by a 2020 law changing the statute of limitations. Since those settlements, more than 5,000 new lawsuits have been filed with an average of 150 new claims coming in per month, according to the county, raising the prospect of future costly payouts.

Acting Chief Executive Joseph Nicchitta said Monday the new filings would continue to be an “anchor” around the county’s finances.

“It is something that’s going to weigh on us going forward,” he said at a news conference announcing the new spending plan.

Hochman said in a statement that the investigation was a priority for his office and the money would be used to “pursue every credible lead and hold fraudsters accountable.”

“It is our pledge to the real survivors of childhood sexual abuse that we will root out and prosecute those who manufactured false claims and profited or tried to profit from those lies,” Hochman said. “As for those who filed fraudulent claims of sex abuse, the time is growing short for you to turn yourselves in before you are arrested, prosecuted and punished.”

Nicchitta made a pitch for legislative change, noting the county was looking to Sacramento to “eliminate loopholes allowing abusive practices by attorneys that inject weak and potentially fraudulent claims into settlement pools.”

The push by the county to change the law has been hotly criticized by some advocates who accuse government officials of trampling on victims’ rights.

“These reforms that we are seeking are anti-fraud,” said Nicchitta. “They are not anti-survivor.”

The payouts are yet another cloud looming over the budget proposal, along with rising labor costs and federal funding cuts. The recommended budget represents a 7% decrease in spending compared to the current plan.

But Nicchitta said Monday it wasn’t all doom and gloom, with the county managing to stave off layoffs and program cuts.

The upcoming budget proposal, he said, represented the calm before the next big wave of potential rollbacks.

“Remember, we’re in the eye of the hurricane,” he said.

The budget forecast was notably rosier than last year’s, in which the county was saddled with $2 billion in new wildfire costs and had made the first round of slashes to finance the sex abuse payouts. The county froze hiring at the time and made most departments shrink their budgets by 3%.

Those cuts, Nicchitta said, went deep enough that they can avoid major slashes this upcoming fiscal year, though he warned the fallout from the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” will soon wreak fresh havoc on the county’s finances. Health officials say they expect more than $2 billion to be cut from the budget for health services over the next three years.

Costs from wildfire will also continue to weigh on the county’s coffers. Officials say the federal government has yet to respond to a February request for rebuilding aid. Nicchitta said he was “optimistic” the money would soon be made available.

Growth from property taxes has given the county a small new pot of funds, which will be used largely to pay for increased salaries for county workers. An additional $12 million will go to public defenders, who say they’re buckling under untenably heavy caseloads, while the Office of Emergency Management will get roughly $10 million to add 44 positions, according to the proposal.

The office, which is responsible for coordinating during emergencies, was under scrutiny following the alert failures of the Eaton fire, and officials had promised in the aftermath to revamp the small office.

The supervisors will be briefed on the budget plan Tuesday.

SACRAMENTO — The big-money backers and Democratic heavyweights who tried to crown Rep. Eric Swalwell as California’s next governor before his scandal-plagued exit from the political arena are now scrambling to find a new favorite among the candidates they either spurned or actively tried to undercut.

Swalwell (D-Dublin) announced Monday he would resign his seat in Congress. He faced potential expulsion and an ongoing criminal investigation after reports were made public Friday alleging he sexually assaulted a young female staff member and engaged in inappropriate behavior with three other women, including sending them nude photographs. Swalwell denied the allegations and, in his announcement Sunday that he was dropping out of the governor’s race, vowed to fight to clear his name.

The immediate beneficiaries of Swalwell’s fall are likely former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire financier Tom Steyer. Both were challenging Swalwell to be the top Democrat in the race even though each has faced attacks from within the party on various issues.

This new round of chaos only feeds the anxiety that has enveloped the California Democratic Party for months, stirred by fears that the lack of a singular party front-runner might lead to two Republicans winding up on the November ballot. Swalwell’s exit from the race also may revive candidates who have been languishing in the midsection of recent opinion polls — former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan — adding to the uncertainty.

“What happens now depends on what campaigns do to take advantage of this,” said Andrew Acosta, a Democratic political consultant who is not involved in any of the campaigns. The other candidates, he said, “can use this as an opportunity to make their case.”

They wasted no time.

Porter’s campaign on Sunday circulated internal polling showing that nearly half of Swalwell’s supporters listed her as their second choice. Steyer announced endorsements from lawmakers including Northern California Rep. Jared Huffman, who was among the first House Democrats to call on Swalwell to resign from Congress.

Others quickly used Swalwell’s departure as a fundraising tool.

“This changes the race,” Mahan’s fundraiser Stephanie Daily Smith wrote in an email blast to supporters on Sunday, adding that Swalwell “had been gaining real traction in the Bay Area media market and now that vote share is up for grabs.”

Former state Controller Betty Yee told her email list on Monday that “we can forget the polls” that showed Swalwell as a front-runner, suggesting he led because of an “obsession with who looks the part.”

“I’m not flashy, and I don’t ‘look the part’ of what the talking heads think wins,” she said.

Swalwell’s campaign had been gathering momentum over the last month. A poll released in mid-March by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed that Swalwell and Porter were both supported by 13% of likely voters, with Steyer not too far behind. The top Republicans in the race, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, led with 17% and 16% support, respectively.

Elected officials, labor unions and other groups that had endorsed Swalwell abandoned him en masse after the allegations against him were publicized. But it’s unclear which candidate those influential voices will lend their support to next.

While many Democrats see Steyer and Porter as the next-most viable candidates, they each have their own baggage. Steyer has faced criticism on the campaign trail over his former hedge fund’s investments in a private prison company that is now housing people detained by federal immigration authorities, while Porter’s campaign is still haunted by embarrassing videos in which she berated a staffer and belittled a television reporter.

Primary election ballots will begin hitting California voters’ mailboxes in just a few weeks, and Swalwell’s campaign had been gaining steam and financial support that may now be up for grabs by other candidates.

Powerful organizations including the California Medical Assn. and SEIU California have poured millions into independent expenditure committees supporting Swalwell. But as the scandal unfolded, their leaders called emergency meetings to withdraw their support and pulled the plug on ads supporting him. Neither has indicated whether they would re-endorse in the race.

Over the weekend, Democratic members of the Legislative Women’s Caucus hastily organized calls with Porter and Yee — the only women left in the field of top candidates — according to two people familiar with the conversations. Though several of the lawmakers had not planned on backing either candidate, they’re reconsidering, driven by anger at Swalwell and frustration that other qualified women, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, previously dropped out of the race.

“Epstein files keep coming, Cesar Chavez rocked California and now this,” one lawmaker on the calls said. “If we cannot elect a woman to the state’s highest office in 2026, what is wrong with us?”

Swalwell reported raising more than $7.4 million in direct donations through April 9, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance data. About 60% of the contributions were from California donors.

Stephen Cloobeck, another Swalwell benefactor and longtime Democratic donor, said he is changing his party registration and is considering endorsing Hilton for governor.

“Don’t be surprised,” Cloobeck said in an interview on Monday.

“We agree on probably 90% of the issues,” he said, adding that he had met Hilton about a half-dozen times and appreciated his campaign message. “We are friends. I’m for unity. I come from old-school unity. I don’t cast aspersions.”

A protege of the late Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Cloobeck entered the gubernatorial contest but dropped out once Swalwell, with whom he had a long-term friendship, jumped into the contest. Cloobeck endorsed the congressman and put about $1 million into an independent expenditure committee backing him. Swalwell stayed at Cloobeck’s Beverly Hills mansion after the news of the allegations against him broke — until Cloobeck kicked him out.

Cloobeck said he knows all of the seven prominent Democrats who remain in the governor’s race and has long said he isn’t impressed by any of them. He said he wished the California Legislature would amend the state Constitution so he could file to reenter the race.

Donna Bojarsky, a longtime Democratic political insider in Los Angeles, attended Swalwell fundraisers this year thrown by Hollywood business leaders.

“People are horrified,” Bojarsky said. She said there have been rumors about sexual indiscretions, but nobody suggested allegations of sexual assault.

Swalwell has close ties to the industry and was set to be an executive producer on a film about the nation’s gun crisis before pulling his name over a labor dispute. He also maintains a real estate investment firm and media company geared toward producing television, film and online content.

Actors Sean Penn, Robert De Niro and Jon Hamm are among several Hollywood figures who donated to Swalwell’s campaign for governor.

Bojarsky hopes the silver lining of the scandal is that there “might be more of a race” as people scrutinize the field of candidates.

“People are paying attention,” she said.

WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas said Monday he will retire from Congress amid bipartisan calls to expel him.

Gonzales had already said he would not seek reelection after admitting to an affair with a staff member who later died by suicide. His announcement came just hours after Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California said he would be resigning from Congress as he also confronted allegations of sexual misconduct.

House Republican leaders had already called on the three-term Gonzales to not seek reelection. And the House Ethics Committee had initiated an investigation. Under House ethics rules, lawmakers may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House under their supervision.

“There is a season for everything and God has a plan for us all,” Gonzales said in a social media post. “When Congress returns tomorrow, I will file my retirement from office.”

He said it has been a privilege “to serve the great people of Texas.” He gave no further details on his plans to step down.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

The general consensus is that President Trump’s social media post of himself dressed in robes, after a busy weekend in which he blasted Pope Leo and attended a prizefight while an Iran peace plan fell apart, was an attempt to cast himself as a Jesus-like figure.

But Trump says we have it wrong.

“It’s supposed to be me as a doctor, making people better,” he said.

As a graduate of St. Peter Martyr grade school in the San Francisco East Bay area, and as someone who has seen a lot of doctors for various ailments, I feel uniquely qualified to weigh in.

In Catholic school, holy cards are a big deal. You’ve seen a couple hundred of them by the time you hit second or third grade, so you become familiar with the muted ethereal glow, the heavenly gaze and the look of piety. A standard feature is the halo, a clearly defined sphere that sits like a buttered bonnet on the head of the saint.

Let the record show that in his post on his very own Truth Social, which is not always truthful, Trump does not have a halo.

So in total fairness, it’s possible the president was not lying when he said he was supposed to be a doctor.

On the other hand, having seen a good number of cardiologists and surgeons and orthopedic specialists, I don’t recall any doctors who wore flowing robes while bathed in heavenly light, with a flock of eagles coming out of their ears and a team of Navy SEALs busting through the hospital ceiling.

And then there’s the fireball emanating from Trump’s right hand. All of which begs the question: If Trump thinks this is what a doctor looks like, what ailment is he being treated for, and shouldn’t the public be advised?

There’s also the question of creation — not of human life, but of the very existence of a social media post like this from the president of the United States in wartime. It was described as an AI-generated image, but who was at the computer?

Did the president sit down at the end of a long day and churn out an image of himself playing doctor, if not Jesus Christ? Or does he have a team of staffers who do this sort of thing, and if so, how could Elon Musk have missed them when he said the government was bloated and set out to fire half the federal workforce?

You’d at least hope the president would have the courage of his convictions. But as criticism of his post mounted, Trump deleted it Monday morning.

I think he should have stuck with the story — he was portraying himself a doctor because he’s a healer. The next day, he could have been in a New York Jets uniform and told us he’s a quarterback. Then he could have released an image of himself in the Artemis space capsule and told us he’s an astronaut, and he’s thinking of building a string of Trump hotels on the moon. Ask yourself this: Would anyone have been surprised?

A guy who only knows how to go for broke, and always doubles down when things go wrong, has to stick to his guns or the whole shtick unravels. I’d have respected Trump more if he had traipsed around the White House with a stethoscope for a week or two, or maybe performed brain surgery on Pete Hegseth, just to see what’s going on in there.

What’s going on in Trump’s head, if I might volunteer a bit of armchair psychoanalysis, is that failure triggers a sense of grandeur rather than humility.

Things are not going well at the moment, so he’s lashing out. The price of things was supposed to come down on Day One, but thanks to his upheaval of the world economy, prices went up, and now they’re soaring because he helped start a war that made no sense.

A war that has been criticized by Pope Leo, who has pointed out that while the Trump administration has ascribed a religious imperative to the assault on Iran, and Trump promised to blow the country all the way back to the “Stone Ages,” Jesus would probably not be on board.

Trump, who said last year that he wants to “try and get to heaven, if possible,” now realizes he’s not going to get an endorsement from the pontiff.

And so the man who once issued a national call to prayer, said the Bible was his favorite book, joked after the death of Pope Francis that he wanted to be the next pontiff, and has now issued his own holy card, has attacked Pope Leo for being too liberal as well as “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy.” He has, in effect, anointed himself as holier than the pope himself.

Even staunch supporters of Trump have worked themselves into a lather over this. They’re lashing out at Trump, as if his criticism of the pope and depiction of himself as Jesus Christ are shocking.

My fellow Americans, certain words have been rendered meaningless in describing the current state of affairs. Among them are shocking, surreal, unbelievable, unprecedented and unexpected.

If indeed Trump thinks he’s Jesus, let his penance begin with 100 Our Fathers, 500 Hail Marys and 1,000 Acts of Contrition.

If indeed he thinks he’s a doctor:

Physician, heal thyself.

steve.lopez@latimes.com