Politics Desk

Love or hate him, it must be said: Donald Trump is the most extraordinary politician of our time.

He’s survived twin impeachments, a felony conviction, innumerable scandals, moral and ethical lapses, dunderheaded policies and countless exhibitions of heartlessness and bad taste, allowing him to reign over American life like no other figure in decades.

His political superpower has never been his breadth of knowledge, intelligence, compassion or his empathy. Rather, it’s Trump’s ability to overcome outrages that would buckle mere mortals, and that’s a function of sheer velocity. One offense is almost immediately superseded by the next, leaving little time to react, much less absorb their individual meaning and consequence.

“Flood the zone with s—” is how strategist Steve Bannon described the approach, a tactic employed by the red-baiting Joseph McCarthy, whose Cold War consigliere, Roy Cohn, went on to mentor Trump in the art of parry and thrust.

Recently, our president engaged in yet another of his unseemly acts, which quickly passed like so many other indecencies once fresh provocations arrived. (The banishment of disfavored news media from the White House; threats to tear down the Kennedy Center.) This one, though, is worth revisiting and examining as the country careens toward an election now less than six weeks away.

Cheat, Trump urged his supporters. Cheat like hell.

The setting was the recent Republican midterm convention in Dallas, a pageant of Trump’s ego and insecurities in full-parade dress. On the final night, in the second of two keynote speeches, Trump asked those in attendance to raise their right hands and swear to the following:

“I pledge, to the greatest president in the history of the United States, that loves us so much he can’t even breathe, that I will go out with my family, my friends, I’ll do it any way, I don’t care if I’m registered or not, I’m gonna try and cheat like hell like [Democrats] do” — here supplicants regaled Trump with laughter — “I am gonna go out and I’m going to get my friends and family and we are going to vote on November 3rd, or we are going to vote before that!”

Breaking new ground

A brief programming note: This is not normal.

As Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law, put it: “Trump framed his comments as though he were making a joke. But it’s a deadly serious thing to be joking about.”

Trump’s performance as president has always been layered with a certain amount of shtick, especially when he’s placed in his preferred setting, which is standing before a microphone in front of a rapturous crowd. Lest it be forgotten, Trump stepped into the political arena from the world of reality television, which supposedly made him more authentic. His violation of norms and trampling of protocols has come to be known — and celebrated by acolytes — as simply “Trump being Trump.”

Still, it’s a remarkable thing when the president of the United States urges people to cheat.

Richard M. Nixon, in the throes of Watergate, famously declared, “I am not a crook.” Donald Trump, his approval rating slumping toward Nixonian levels, is urging Americans to act like crooks.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, can’t recall any president ever saying anything remotely similar.

“It’s an example of how manifestly unfit [Trump] is to serve as the chief executive with a constitutional imperative to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” Levitt, who worked on voting rights in the Biden administration, wrote in an email. “Exhorting your own followers to break the law is pretty directly inconsistent with his own oath of office.”

And it is, as Levitt noted, not the first time Trump transgressed his sworn vow to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

A history of election denial

What’s rich — and telling — about the latest breach is Trump urging supporters to cheat even as he pretends to fight to protect the sanctity of our voting process.

From the time he was defeated in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, Trump has consistently sought to undermine the will of voters and cast doubt on elections he didn’t like — a petulant pattern that culminated in the violent attempt to overturn his beyond-doubt loss in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Since returning to the White House — felonies, impeachments and all — Trump has continued his attempts to vandalize our election system, using the powers of the presidency to harass election workers, pursue phantom fraudsters, gerrymander House seats, undermine faith in our democracy and seek to prevent Americans from voting by mail, as Trump himself prefers.

As the subversive Dallas “pledge” makes clear, Trump’s exertions have never been about ensuring free and fair elections. Instead, he’s trying to rig the system to avoid what could be a midterm nightmare for the beleaguered president and his fellow Republicans.

Levitt said there’s no reason to think Trump supporters will cheat en masse, any more than one should believe Trump when, as seems inevitable, he cries fraud if results fail to go his way on Nov. 3. “For him, it’s all just vibes,” Levitt said, “with no factual content.”

Elections have consequences. Words matter.

Especially when they’re coming from the mouth of a president who’s abundantly shown his willingness to lie, cheat and steal to get his way.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: California Republicans walk a tightrope as Trump jumps into midterms campaigning
The deep dive: Despite court wins, California election war with Trump rages on
The L.A. Times Special: Three ballot measures on housing, medical research but only one no-brainer
Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Los Angeles Councilmember Nithya Raman has taken a wide lead over incumbent Karen Bass in the L.A. mayor’s race, according to a new poll released Wednesday, although a high percentage of voters remain undecided less than two weeks before mail-in ballots are sent out for the Nov. 3 election.

Raman is favored by 39% of likely L.A. voters, compared with 28% for Bass, according to the poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which was co-sponsored by The Times. The poll found that 33% of voters were undecided.

“Raman clearly has the advantage. Her task is a little less onerous than Bass’,” said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the Berkeley IGS Poll.

Adding to Bass’ low poll numbers are high unfavorability ratings.

The mayor had 63% unfavorable ratings, the poll found, with 28% favorable and 9% having no opinion. By comparison, 40% had a favorable view of Raman, according to the poll, while 39% said they had an unfavorable view of her and 21% had no opinion.

The survey released Wednesday was conducted online with a sample of 2,150 likely city voters between Sept. 15 and Sept. 20. It has a margin of error of about 3 percentage points.

The poll represented the strongest showing yet for Raman, who trailed Bass in almost every poll during the primary campaign and who came in second to Bass in the primary election, with 29% of the vote compared with Bass’ 34%.

Mayoral candidate and Councilmember Nithya Raman, center, enjoys a light moment with Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action members at La Cita Bar in downtown Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Even so, DiCamillo said the large number of undecided voters means the race is far from over.

“It’s extraordinarily unusual to see this many undecided voters at this point in the race,” he said. Mail-in ballots will be sent out beginning Oct. 1, local elections officials say.

The large number of undecided voters can be linked to the elimination of mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt in the June 2 primary, according to DiCamillo. The former reality TV star received 26% of the vote in the primary, and most of the voters who cast ballots for him — 63% — say they haven’t decided whom to vote for in the runoff, the poll found.

Among those Pratt voters who have decided, 22% favored Bass compared with 16% for Raman.

One of the most significant findings in the poll was a massive “generational divide” among L.A. voters, DiCamillo said.

Raman, 45, dominated the 72-year-old Bass among younger voters, with 66% of likely voters ages 18 to 29 choosing the council member while just 4% chose Bass, according to the poll.

Raman also had 64% of likely voters ages 30 to 39 compared with Bass’ 12%, and the council member had 50% of likely voters ages 40 to 49 compared with Bass’ 18%. Raman also was leading among voters 50 to 64 years old by a slim margin of 35% to 33%.

Bass, meanwhile, led among the oldest set of voters — those 65 and up — but not by the same margins. Bass had 41% of likely voters in that group compared with Raman’s 21%.

The mayor has had negative favorability ratings since the 2025 Palisades fire.

According to the poll, 56% of likely voters thought Bass did a poor or very poor job responding to the disaster, which killed 12 people and destroyed more than 4,000 homes, including Pratt’s.

Fourteen percent of the likely voters thought Bass had done either an excellent or a good job and 17% thought she had done a fair job.

Mayor Karen Bass campaigns at Ernest E. Debs Regional Park on Sunday.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The most important issues to likely voters were fixing city infrastructure, moving homeless people indoors, crime and public safety, and building more affordable housing, the poll found.

The poll shows Raman leading in nearly every geographic area of the city. Bass was leading in South Los Angeles and the Harbor region, 37% to 34%, but central Los Angeles as well as northeast and the east side of Los Angeles broke strongly for Raman.

The San Fernando Valley went 34% to Raman and 26% to Bass with 40% still undecided. The Westside favored Raman by a single percentage point, at 35% to 34%.

Raman has led in other polls recently, though none by as wide a margin as in the Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll. Shortly before the primary, a separate Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll showed Raman leading Bass in a potential head-to-head matchup by just four percentage points, with 32% support compared with the mayor’s 28%.

But the gap between the two has widened since then, the latest poll found, as Bass weathered a difficult news cycle, including rising homelessness numbers citywide as well as the fallout from the Lineage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights that burned for nearly a week, leaving rotting food and a rancid stench in the neighborhood for more than a month.

Raman, meanwhile, picked up largely positive headlines this summer. She gained key endorsements from the carpenters’ union and Unite Here Local 11, the union representing hospitality workers at hotels and the airport, as well as an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America. Street homelessness also dropped in her district, which she said was due to her office’s strong outreach, though the Bass campaign credited the mayor’s Inside Safe program for the reduction in Raman’s district.

On the negative side, Raman was booted from her position in the council as chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee, a move she said was politically motivated.

In an internal Raman campaign poll from early September, the council member was ahead, 44% to 39%, with 17% undecided. She was also leading, 38% to 32%, in a poll commissioned by the group Streets for All, which is backing Raman.

In an early August poll commissioned by an independent expenditure group supporting Bass, the mayor had the edge, 41% to 35%, with 24% undecided.

Reporting from Washington — FBI Director James B. Comey said Wednesday he has suffered anguish but does not regret his decision to inform Congress in late October that the bureau would reopen its inquiry into whether Hillary Clinton had mishandled classified emails, a disclosure that roiled the presidential race in its final days.

In his most detailed public comments on the explosive episode, the FBI director told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his decision to disclose the preliminary investigation into newly discovered Clinton emails 11 days before the election was “one of the world’s most painful experiences,” but that he would do it again.

“It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election, but honestly, it wouldn’t change the decision,” Comey said.

“I’ve gotten all kinds of rocks thrown at me, and this has been really hard, but I think I’ve done the right thing at every turn,” he added.

Comey testified a day after the unsuccessful Democratic presidential nominee said that she believed Comey’s unusual letter to Congress on Oct. 28 had essentially tilted the close race to her rival, Donald Trump.

“If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your president,” Clinton said in a CNN interview at a women’s conference in New York. She blamed her loss on Comey’s disclosure, Russian hacking of Democratic Party emails and her own flaws as a candidate.

In response, President Trump said on Twitter that Comey “was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!”

“The phony Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election,” Trump tweeted.

Comey repeatedly rebuffed questions Wednesday about the ongoing FBI counterintelligence investigation into whether any of Trump’s current or former aides cooperated with Russian intelligence agencies during the presidential race.

Comey only disclosed that investigation to a House hearing in March and said it had begun last July, during the heat of the campaign. After the election, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had deliberately sought to interfere in the race to aid Trump and to undermine Clinton.

On Wednesday, Comey said he did not think he was inconsistent last fall when he disclosed that the FBI had obtained new evidence that might lead it to reopen its investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State — but did not disclose a separate FBI investigation into whether members of Trump’s inner circle colluded with a foreign intelligence service.

He said he only announced the Clinton email inquiry, which the FBI had code named Midyear Exam, when it was formally closed in July. He said he felt obliged to inform Congress in October when new Clinton emails were found in an unrelated investigation.

Comey sent a follow-up letter two days before the election to say the additional emails did not change his earlier conclusion that charges against Clinton were not warranted.

Comey’s many critics say his news conference in July — when he called Clinton’s handling of classified material “extremely careless” but said that she would not be charged — and then his disclosures to Congress at the end of a bitter national election campaign were improper since the FBI is not supposed to discuss cases unless charges are filed.

In January, the Justice Department’s inspector general said he would investigate whether Comey violated department guidelines in his handling of the case.

Comey said Wednesday that he welcomes the internal inquiry. “If I did something wrong, I want to hear that,” he said.

He specifically declined to say whether the White House is cooperating with the Russia investigation, or whether the FBI has sought to examine Trump’s tax returns for evidence of ties to Russia. Trump has refused to release his tax returns to the public.

The FBI chief said Russia is still interested in trying to affect U.S. politics, and he believes it “a certainty” that Moscow will try to influence the elections in 2018 and 2020.

In a detailed, at times emotional explanation of his actions, Comey laid out the sequence of events that he said led to his July 5 news conference, his Oct. 28 letter to Congress and a follow-up letter three days before the election.

Comey said he decided the Justice Department was too compromised in July to publicly explain why Clinton would not be charged without “grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the justice system.”

A big reason, he said, was because Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch had met privately with former President Clinton in June in what both later described as a social visit because they were both at the same airport.

Under heavy criticism for meeting the former president while his wife was under an FBI investigation, Lynch recused herself from a direct role in the case. That gave Comey the authority to hold the politically sensitive news conference on his own, he said.

He said he sent the Oct. 28 letter after FBI agents found emails from Hillary Clinton on a laptop computer used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and thought they might include what he called “golden missing emails” from Clinton’s first months at the State Department. The FBI had seized Weiner’s laptop in an investigation of sexual texts he had exchanged with a teenage girl.

Agents found evidence that Abedin had passed classified emails to Weiner, who would print out emails for her to read, Comey said. But no charges were filed because the FBI could not “prove any sort of criminal intent,” he said.

Comey said he and his top staff debated whether to go public, mindful of long-standing Justice Department policies that seek to avoid actions that could sway elections.

Breaking that policy would be “really bad,” Comey said. But he said the only other choice, “concealment,” would have been “catastrophic.”

“We’ve got to walk into the world of really bad,” he said he concluded. “We’ve got to tell Congress we are restarting this.”

He said he made the decision even though a deputy said that might help elect Trump. Comey said he couldn’t consider that when making the call.

“Down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent institution in America,” he said.

joseph.tanfani@latimes.com

Twitter: @jtanfani

The Fair Political Practices Commission is suing California’s largest poker casino, the Commerce Club, over political contributions the club allegedly made last year to defeat a ballot measure that would have established a rival casino just a few miles away in Pico Rivera.

The lawsuit alleges that the club failed to report “independent expenditures” on a campaign and that it was late in disclosing other contributions to two committees.

Southern California’s card clubs have dabbled in local and state politics for years, typically with campaign contributions to an array of candidates involved with regulation of the gambling industry.

But rarely have the clubs faced such a dangerous political climate as they did last year. Five Southern California cities considered ballot measures that would have established competing card parlors–and a possible loss of market share for the dominant clubs, the Commerce Club in Commerce and the Bicycle Club in Bell Gardens.

The two southeast Los Angeles card casinos poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into efforts to defeat the measures. After a series of bitter campaigns, the only measure to win approval was in Hawaiian Gardens. The Pico Rivera measure was defeated by 267 votes out of 8,475 cast.

State officials and attorneys for the Commerce Club are in settlement talks, according to the commission. Club President George Tumanjan did not return repeated phone calls, but club attorney Andy Schneiderman said: “We deny that we violated [the Political Reform Act]. We’re trying to resolve this with the FPPC.” He would not discuss the specific allegations in the state’s complaint.

The Commerce Club’s local political campaign last was spearheaded by its own committee, the Southern California Voter Education Project, run by Don Wilcox, the club president’s son-in-law. Campaign documents filed last year showed the committee spent $296,000 to battle ballot measures in Azusa, Irwindale and Hawaiian Gardens.

But in documents filed months after the elections–and, the commission alleges, in apparent violation of its filing deadlines–that the Commerce Club disclosed that it made $39,120 in “nonmonetary” contributions to a Pico Rivera committee run by Richard Ochoa, a local pastor who scorned the supporters of a new club as “up to their necks in deception.” Nonmonetary contributions can include a range of materials and services, such as printed signs or legal work.

The committee, Just Say No to Casinos, organized citizens to staff a phone bank and handed out literature (“Don’t let the casino promoters deceive us any more,” one flier read).

But the committee did not report any contributions from the club, and its founder denies any affiliation with the casino.

“Just to set the record straight, I have never had any dealings with the Commerce Club or any other card club,” Ochoa said in an interview. “For me to receive contributions would be hypocritical.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the Commerce Club did not disclose that it contributed to another Pico Rivera committee, Save Our City, which sent mailers warning of the “wicked web” of narcotics traffic and loan-sharking that would ensnare the city if a casino was approved. Commerce Club documents don’t show any contributions were made to the committee, and Save Our City’s documents don’t show that any money was received from the club.

However, Hal Mintz, who has worked as a consultant for the Commerce casino, contributed $3,000 to Save Our City. After inquiries from The Times, the committee filed an amended statement showing that Mintz’s firm, Stateside Communications, actually contributed a total of $19,360 to the campaign, most of it in nonmonetary forms.

Mintz, citing advice from his attorney, declined to comment on the case. Save Our City officials were not available.

Supporters of the Pico Rivera casino measure have said they were puzzled by the fact that the Commerce Club reported spending so little to defeat the initiative, while the Bicycle Club of nearby Bell Gardens spent more than $97,000 through two committees.

Real estate developer Michael E. Macke, who planned to develop a Pico Rivera casino, has sued the Bicycle Club over alleged unfair political practices in the campaign. Because the commission has filed suit against the Commerce Club, Macke is precluded from suing it for campaign-reporting violations.

The club paid tens of thousands of dollars to organizations that warned voters that gambling was a sin. Records show the club spent $43,202 on legal services for Bell United to Regulate Card Clubs, a committee that fought unsuccessfully to pass a city ordinance that would limit the number of casinos allowed in Bell. The Rev. Martin Garcia, who ran the committee, said he did not know his lawyer was paid by the Commerce Club, and wouldn’t have accepted legal assistance had he known.

The club also paid $20,000 to the Rex Company, a political consulting firm that helped defeat a casino ballot measure in Irwindale. The Rex Company is owned by Stephen R. Sheldon, the son of the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition.

The Commerce casino was first thrust into controversy in 1984, just one year after it opened. Four officials from the city of Commerce pleaded guilty to charges that they granted the license to open the club to a Las Vegas executive who had bribed them with secret shares of the business.

In 1993, an internal audit by the club found that board members received kickbacks, and employees said they had been reimbursed by the casino for contributions they had made to the campaigns of Gov. Pete Wilson and Lt. Gov. Gray Davis.

Today, with a Sacramento lobbyist on its payroll and tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to candidates from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to county Supervisor-elect Don L. Knabe, the Commerce Club has built a name as a powerhouse in casino politics.

In Sacramento, its focus has been on issues such as which card games should be allowed and whether to fund a state gambling commission.

WASHINGTON — Lorenzo Salgado Araujo’s wife used to spend her evenings cooking a big meal for her husband and waiting for him to return home from his job as a home builder. Now, his son told members of Congress, Salgado Araujo’s wife spends those evenings visiting her husband’s grave at the cemetery.

In a packed Senate hearing room, a rapt audience of dozens listened to the sons of Salgado Araujo, the mothers of Ruben Ray Martinez and Renee Good, as well as the woman who video-recorded the death of Alex Pretti and the lawyer for the family of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero.

Salgado Araujo, Martinez, Good, Pretti and Durán Guerrero were shot and killed by federal agents since the start of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants. Some were U.S. citizens; others were immigrants.

“We still have so many questions,” said Lorenzo Salgado, one of Salgado Araujo’s sons. “What are the names of the ICE agents who killed our dad? Why do they get to be protected behind anonymity, while my brother and I stand before cameras, showing our faces, proudly saying our first and last name?”

The forum on Tuesday was led by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). It was the fifth such event that the two lawmakers have hosted since December, forums aimed at shedding light on what the lawmakers call the “lawless and abusive tactics” by immigration agents.

The forums are not official hearings because they have been organized without Republican support. Nothing has changed since the first forum, the lawmakers said, accusing the Department of Homeland Security of failing to fully investigate the deaths and prevent further ones.

Blumenthal noted that two days prior in Austin, Texas, another man was shot by ICE agents. Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, a Venezuelan who was making a DoorDash delivery when ICE agents sideswiped his car, was seriously injured and placed in ICE custody with a bullet still lodged in his back.

Garcia said that, as of this month, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have verified more than 1,000 instances of abuse by immigration agents under this administration.

“Every community in America should be asking itself: How long will it be until ICE is in our city?” Blumenthal said. “How long will it be until we have a grieving family, until another loss of life?”

Rachel Reyes sobbed as she recounted the moments leading up to the death of her son, Martinez. She said his death came nearly a year before Good’s and Pretti’s “yet far fewer people know his name” because the family was denied access to investigative reports and video evidence showing he had been shot by an immigration officer.

“It’s deeply distressing to know that Ruben’s final moments were consumed by confusion, fear, pain and disregard for his life,” she said. “Though the circumstances surrounding his death and these other victims are distinctly different, the pattern is the same: lives cut short by the same agency, agents without body cameras, no warnings, no attempt to de-escalate, excessive force followed by deflection, and a lack of accountability after the fact.”

Donna Ganger, the mother of Good, said her daughter should still be alive. Ganger described herself as a Republican and a Christian. While Jesus teaches forgiveness, she said, she deserves accountability too.

“I voted for President Trump under the impression that these agents were here to protect the citizens of the United States,” she said.

“This is madness,” Ganger added.

Stella Carlson said that when she saw Pretti, she decided to become “his backup.” Instead, she watched him die and then watched the agents who shot him flee. Two masked agents returned “and began to manipulate his dead body, ripping open his clothes as if to provide aid, but instead moving him around like a rag doll.”

Later, Carlson said, she witnessed top government officials lie about Pretti, calling him a domestic terrorist who wanted to “massacre law enforcement.”

“I am just a regular person, but I care deeply about my community, my state and my country,” she said. “I believe there is power in ordinary people speaking the truth.”

Good and Pretti were killed within weeks of each other in January during a period of increased immigration enforcement in Minneapolis.

Sean Murphy, who represents the family of Durán Guerrero, said he and Durán Guerrero’s widow recently attended a meeting with representatives of the Maine attorney general’s office to retrieve some of his property that isn’t considered evidence.

One item that wasn’t returned was his 3-year-old daughter’s car seat, which had been pierced by a bullet.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) asked each speaker what they think justice would look like.

Reyes said an independent investigation. Brent Ganger said that true justice isn’t possible because his sister can’t come back, but that accountability is possible if federal agents are held to the same accountability standards as local law enforcement.

To Carlson, justice would mean getting ICE off the streets and letting detainees return home. Murphy called for prosecution for the agent who killed Durán Guerrero.

For Lorenzo Salgado, justice would take another form: getting to see his mom heal and finally getting a full eight hours of sleep.

The forum came as congressional Democrats are seeking to edge out Republicans in the Nov. 3 election, and at times the Democrats seized it as a way to criticize the other party.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) asked members of the audience to stand up if they’ve been affected detrimentally by ICE. Ronaldo Salgado looked around the room as about a dozen people stood.

“The reality is that there are so many more stories. There are so many more names that you will never hear,” she said. Later, referring to Republicans, she added, “It’s time to vote them out.”

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) noted that Reyes voted for Trump and asked her to say anything she would want him to hear now. Reyes said that, like many Latinos, she deeply regrets her vote.

“I haven’t heard anything from any Republican whatsoever,” she said. “I’m very disappointed, and he lied.”

Good’s brother Brent Ganger said his family has waited long enough for accountability for the damage caused by ICE. As a moderate, he said, he hoped that all members of Congress — even those not in attendance — were listening.

“We will not be quiet, and we will not go away,” he said.

Sept. 22, 2026 6:30 PM PT

AUSTIN, Texas — A Venezuelan man shot by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Texas was back in a federal detention center Tuesday after being taken to a hospital for a second time with a bullet still lodged in his back, according to his attorney.

A federal judge also ordered Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, who was shot Sunday in Austin, to appear in court next week following a lawsuit that sought to stop his removal from the U.S.

Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, Perez’s attorney, said in a video posted to social media Tuesday that the 28-year-old man was “still in a lot of pain.”

Perez was being held at a federal detention facility in the remote South Texas town of Pearsall, according to Texas Democratic U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, who has joined others in his party in sharply criticizing the shooting that occurred amid a surge in ICE enforcement during President Trump’s second term. The violent encounter has also sparked protests in Austin, including a gathering outside the Texas Capitol on Monday night.

Perez was making a DoorDash delivery Sunday afternoon when ICE officers in an unmarked truck sideswiped his car twice, Lincoln-Goldfinch has said. He was shot and taken to a hospital, then released into ICE custody with a bullet still in his back. Perez went back to the hospital Monday evening after complaining of pain and was taken back into ICE custody around midnight, Lincoln-Goldfinch said.

Court filings from Perez’s lawyers indicated he was forced to sleep on a cement floor at an ICE temporary processing center, and then at 4 a.m. Monday, ICE transferred him to the Pearsall facility. A temporary restraining order from his attorneys said he was also subject to interrogation without legal representation present.

Lincoln-Goldfinch wrote on social media that he was taken back to the hospital around 5 p.m. Monday after he began experiencing a loss of sensation in his arm.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not immediately respond to email messages Tuesday. The agency has released little information and has not said what prompted the shooting. In a statement early Monday, the department said it was investigating the shooting of a Venezuelan man in the U.S. illegally who “had a final order of removal.”

On Tuesday, the department responded on social media to a video of Texas Democratic U.S. Rep. Greg Casar saying Austin will be safer once ICE leaves, calling it a “ludicrous statement.”

“No amount of smears and false narratives will slow down ICE from doing its job by removing dangerous illegal aliens from our communities,” the agency posted.

On Monday, Perez called into a news conference and told reporters he had received no pain medication and slept on the floor.

Castro posted on social media that he planned to visit Perez on Wednesday to “check on his condition and demand his release.”

In response to the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ordered Perez to appear in person at a hearing Sept. 30 in San Antonio.

Wilder writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 22, 2026 6:37 PM PT

NEW YORK — Earlier in the month, President Trump warned voters that democratic socialists — extreme, crazed, lunatics, he called them — were threatening to transform America into “a communist country.”

This week, a smiling Trump patted on the shoulder one of the nation’s best known democratic socialists, shook his hand, and said he was “off to a start” to being a great mayor of the country’s largest city.

Trump’s cozy relationship with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, which began last year, has confounded people across the political spectrum. But with the midterms approaching, Republicans are increasingly frustrated by the unexpected bromance, which threatens the party’s message about Democratic radicalism.

“You’re trying to say, ‘Here’s how extreme they are,’ and the president’s saying, ’I love this guy,’” said veteran Republican strategist Doug Heye. “It doesn’t help.”

It’s hard to overstate the extent to which Republicans are focused on the rise of democratic socialism in the midterm season. At a moment when the party is saddled with Trump’s weak approval ratings on virtually every major issue — the economy and the war in Iran chief among them — Republicans from Georgia and Texas to New York and Michigan are working to scare voters away from Democratic candidates by warning that the party is controlled by far-left extremists.

At Trump’s unusual midterm convention in Texas earlier in the month, Mamdani’s name was evoked over and over again.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called the New York Mayor “Comrade Mamdani.” Rep. Tom Emmer, the No. 3 House Republican, called him “Mamdani the commie.”

Trump sent a similar message although he didn’t mention Mamdani.

“They call themselves democrat socialists, but actually they’re communists,” he said in his keynote address. “They’re crazy.”

In all, the words socialist or socialism were referenced dozens of times during the convention.

Trump did not mention those words while standing alongside Mamdani in New York on Monday, however. The president was in town for the United Nations General Assembly and made time to swing by Gracie Mansion.

Instead, the president highlighted efforts underway to work together, noting that he’s worked with numerous mayors over the years — “some great ones and some not so great ones.”

“Hopefully you’re going to be a great one,” Trump said while looking at Mamdani. “I’ll be able to say you’re going to be a great one. And you’re off to a start.”

Trump grew up in Queens, which Mamdani represented in the New York Assembly before running for mayor and winning a startling upset. He has since expanded his political power in the city, helping to push three candidates to victory in Democratic congressional primaries earlier this year.

It’s possible that Trump’s tone on Mamdani will shift again. After they had two surprisingly convivial meetings in the Oval Office, Trump started criticizing the mayor again.

“Sadly, Mayor Mamdani is DESTROYING New York! It has no chance!,” Trump wrote on social media in April in apparent response to a plan to create a new tax on luxury second homes in the city. “The United States of America should not contribute to its failure. It will only get WORSE. The TAX, TAX, TAX Policies are SO WRONG.”

Republicans in New York were quick to downplay the latest example of Trump’s friendliness with Mamdani.

David Laska, a spokesperson for the New York Republican Party, said, “President Trump is the greatest dealmaker in history, and he has proven repeatedly that he can deal from a position of strength with America’s enemies, be they foreign dictators or the mayor of New York City.”

Mamdani faced his own questions about why he was playing nice with a president that he’s previously described as a fascist.

“The president and I have both been very frank about the many disagreements that we have,” he said Monday. “I will continue to have conversations with the president, and frankly, anyone who can deliver relief to the people of this city.”

Peoples and Izaguirre write for the Associated Press.

Sept. 22, 2026 6:56 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to limit the number of refugees admitted to the country to 17,500 mostly white South Africans, the administration told Congress on Tuesday, as it continues to transform a program that at one point served as a pathway to safety for people fleeing war and strife from countries around the world.

In a notice to Congress obtained by the Associated Press, the administration said the white South Africans faced seizures of their land and other forms of persecution and would be likely to assimilate when they come to America. The South African government has repeatedly rejected the idea that the white South Africans, who are Afrikaners, are a persecuted minority in the home country.

The Trump administration has dramatically altered a refugee program that historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support as it welcomed tens of thousands of refugees from countries around the world to new lives in America, and instead the administration has transformed it into a vehicle to resettle white South Africans in America.

The administration told Congress in the announcement that it intended to spend about $500 million to resettle the new arrivals to the U.S.

Presidents set the cap on how many refugees the U.S. will approve through the program each year, and historically, they’ve allocated those numbers across various geographic regions while factoring in wars or conflicts that spark humanitarian needs around the globe.

Santana and Kim write for the Associated Press.

Sept. 22, 2026 3:42 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a custody dispute over a 5-week-old child who was born in Texas after a surrogate refused a California couple’s wishes to have an abortion.

Justice Elena Kagan denied the request from McKenna West, who was seeking conservatorship over a baby boy she gave birth to in Dallas.

The brief order did not detail the legal reasoning, as is typical in emergency appeals. The decision came from Kagan because she handles appeals of cases out of California.

West had previously been rejected by other courts in her efforts to have a say in the treatment of the child, who was born with a life-threatening heart condition. She gave birth to the boy in Dallas, where most abortions are banned, after she refused the couple’s wishes to end the pregnancy.

West had asked the Supreme Court to halt a California court order that recognizes Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the parents of the child whom she calls Gabriel and they call Rumi.

Lawyers for the couple had urged the court to reject the request, questioning what an intervention would do for medical decision-making at an already chaotic time. They also accused West of overstating the prognosis for children born with the heart condition.

“Such chaos would be devastating for Respondents and, most importantly, their child,” the couple told the court.

The legal battle over surrogacy and abortion has attracted the attention and support of Republican officeholders and anti-abortion groups. West has said she believes the couple will not provide life-saving care, citing their request for an abortion at 23 weeks. Gilkar and Ahmed have denied those claims.

The boy was born Aug. 12 with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening condition that prevents normal blood flow to the organ. He underwent surgery soon after he was born. The couple’s attorney said in August that the newborn had been in critical condition and appeared to be “suffering from potential complications.”

Without treatment, children affected by the heart defect can die within days or weeks. Surgical repairs are not necessarily cures, and additional surgeries or heart transplants may be needed, according to the CDC.

Wilder and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

Under a policy set to take effect Sunday, the U.S. government could strip young immigrants of their status as unaccompanied minors, causing them to lose special protections when they apply for asylum and making them more likely to be deported.

The plan is laid out in an internal memorandum sent May 31 by John Lafferty, chief of the asylum division at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and detailed in subsequent guidance, both obtained by The Times. The shift in policy involves when federal officials determine whether a young migrant is an unaccompanied minor.

According to the memos, an asylum officer with USCIS will have to assess whether the individual at the time of filing for asylum lacked lawful immigration status, was younger than 18 and had no parent or legal guardian in the United States available to provide care and physical custody.

Unaccompanied minors who are in federal custody are often released to sponsors in the United States such as a parent or close relative and could be living with them at the time they file their application — meaning that many may not be considered to be unaccompanied minors under this new policy. From October 2018 to May 2019, more than 46,000 minors were released to sponsors, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

If the children are found no longer to be unaccompanied minors, they will not be entitled to certain special protections, including an asylum interview with a USCIS officer instead of having to make their case in an immigration court setting.

“USCIS continues to take actions to ensure that we carry out our duties in a manner that is fully in line with the letter of the law,” agency spokeswoman Jessica Collins said in a statement. “Ultimately, Congress must reform the law to address the underlying issues fueling the border crisis and encouraging unaccompanied minors to make the dangerous journey to the United States.”

In recent years, USCIS officers have considered an asylum applicant to be an unaccompanied minor if that was what Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection agents had determined when they first had contact with the migrant.

Under this new policy, which rescinds an Obama-era memorandum, USCIS officers will independently determine whether an individual was an unaccompanied minor when they filed their application.

USCIS is “basically relitigating whether or not a child at the time of filing was an unaccompanied minor or not,” said John Amaya, who served as the counselor to the director of USCIS from 2014 to 2015.

Judge Ashley Tabaddor, the president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, said that the new policy could potentially have “a profound effect on the children’s ability to seek asylum.”

“The asylum officer interview is a much less adversarial process that is thought to give the child a better and more comfortable setting,” she said.

U.S. border patrol agents attend to a minor who had just swam across the Rio Grande River from Mexico to Del Rio, Texas.

(Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)

Federal asylum officers have been rushing to process as many unaccompanied minor applications as possible before the change takes effect Sunday, USCIS personnel told The Times, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect against professional retaliation.

The change is the latest in the Trump administration’s efforts to make it more difficult for immigrants, including children, to seek asylum.

It comes during a week in which the acting head of CBP announced his resignation amid reports that his agency held some 300 children in unsanitary conditions in a remote Border Patrol station in Clint, Texas. A photograph showing the bodies of a father and his nearly 2-year-old daughter lying face down in the Rio Grande along the border also has gone viral in recent days.

Migrant deaths have continued along the border this year with the number crossing illegally surging to nearly 600,000, more than half of them families.

Federal asylum officers themselves have criticized Trump, saying his policies are putting people, including children, at risk.

On Wednesday, a union representing officers filed a brief in support of a lawsuit against a Trump policy forcing asylum seekers back to Mexico to await their court proceedings in the United States. The policy “abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted and violates our international and domestic legal obligations,” the brief states.

USCIS acting Director Ken Cuccinelli, an anti-immigration hard-liner who often casts doubt on asylum seekers as engaging in fraud, slammed his own employees, saying the brief was “an attempt by the union to score short-term political points.”

Michael Knowles, president of the union, told The Times his members were “taking the risk” because “we’re being asked to do things that are wrong, as a matter of conscience, and our training as federal employees.”

The policy taking effect Sunday reverts to procedures implemented under the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. At that time, asylum officers made “independent factual inquiries” to determine whether individuals filing applications met the criteria to be designated as unaccompanied minors and were thus under the jurisdiction of USCIS.

Ur Jaddou, a chief counsel to USCIS under President Obama, said that new procedures in 2013 allowing USCIS to adopt prior determinations made by ICE and CBP were implemented because “it was a waste of time and confusing” for USCIS to make a decision on unaccompanied minor status after one was made by other DHS branches.

“This new memo goes backward,” Jaddou said.

Lafferty, who wrote the memo, presented the change as one in keeping with a October 2018 decision by the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals. The decision dealt with whether USCIS or an immigration judge has initial jurisdiction over the asylum application of an individual who was previously determined to be an unaccompanied minor but had turned 18 before filing their application. The board held that the immigration judge has jurisdiction to determine that the individual no longer qualified as a minor at the time of filing.

The new procedures may put legal clinics that work with these minors in a tough position. Patricia Ortiz, program director for the Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, said some of their clients are released from federal custody very close to their 18th birthday, and attorneys may not have enough time to file their application before they become adults.

Unaccompanied minors are currently exempt from the standing one-year deadline to file asylum applications. Ortiz worries that if her clients are no longer considered to be unaccompanied minors, the fact they have not applied within one year would jeopardize their applications. She said some don’t apply within a year because they don’t have the support necessary to complete an application or may only be comfortable disclosing asylum facts after months of therapy.

Once they are no longer able to have their cases heard by asylum officers, she said, children could be kept in legal limbo with the rest of those whose cases are backlogged in immigration court. This wait could make it more difficult for them to give testimony that helps their cases.

“Children forget,” she said. “They forget details; they forget what happened.”

Miller reported from Los Angeles and O’Toole from Washington.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas and law professor Anita Faye Hill gave sworn testimony Friday so starkly irreconcilable that members of the Senate–and millions of other Americans–could not avoid a simple but devastatingly difficult question: Who is lying?

Thomas, eloquent in his injured defiance, “categorically denied” that he ever had asked Hill for a date or talked to her about sex. “I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to Anita Hill that could have been mistaken for sexual harassment,” he said.

An hour later, Hill delivered a prepared statement that was staggering in its specificity. Among other things, she said, Thomas “spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes.”

After such testimony, there seemed no way to finesse the allegations with a compromise. This could not be put down to differing interpretations of events or a regrettable misunderstanding. Thomas’ nomination could survive only if Hill’s seeming credibility did not.

As a result, members of the committee–almost all of them lawyers–quickly turned the hearing into the highly adversarial “trial” that they had vowed to avoid.

They bombarded Hill with the kinds of questions lawyers use to impeach, confuse and trip up witnesses in criminal trials. And, like the complaining witness in a rape trial, she became a defendant–called on to explain and justify her motives and her conduct in minute detail.

The Republicans, serving as the defense attorneys for Thomas, tried to shake Hill’s testimony by suggesting that she had “fantasies” about a more personal relationship with the fast-rising chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

They suggested that she had had such fantasies before, about at least one other associate.

Why did she wait so long to go public with her accusations? Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) asked. Why did she follow Thomas from the Department of Education to the EEOC? she was asked again and again in different ways?

Because she feared retaliation, Hill said in response to the first question. And because, as a special assistant to Thomas, she might not have been kept on by his successor at the Education Department, she replied to the second.

Did she not understand that, under civil service rules, she was protected? No, she said, and President Reagan at that time was trying to abolish the entire Education Department.

Why did she maintain a “cordial” relationship with Thomas after years of allegedly abusive treatment? Because she was afraid he would retaliate, she answered.

Back and forth, through the day and into the evening, the interrogation and the answers continued. The Democrats, apparently afraid of appearing partisan, only occasionally rose to Hill’s defense.

As an explosive face-to-face clash over who was telling the truth, the scene recalled the 1948 hearing in which Whittaker Chambers charged ex-State Department official Alger Hiss with being a closet communist.

But times have certainly changed. If a person’s communist sympathies were the most personal of secrets in the politics of the late 1940s, even sex was not entirely private in the politics of the 1990s.

Later Friday night, it was Thomas’ turn to answer questions, and he immediately went on the offensive, calling the hearing a “travesty” that “should never occur in America.” And he suggested that his attackers were motivated by racism. “From my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks,” he said.

Under solicitous questioning by Republican Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Thomas repeated his unqualified denial of Hill’s allegations. And, although professing himself baffled as to her motives, he gently suggested that she may have been disgruntled at failing to win a promotion while on his staff, that she sometimes had temper tantrums and that an aide had once warned him she was his “enemy”–a suggestion that, he said, he had loyally dismissed out of hand.

Faced with such testimony, how could the senators, or the millions watching on television, decide who was telling the truth?

Congressional committees rarely face such directly contradictory testimony, but judges and jurors do in courtrooms every day. And criminal law experts say that jurors rely on three means of judging the truth: the demeanor of the witnesses, the detail of their testimony and their motivations for telling the truth.

Both Thomas and Hill spoke with the demeanor of truthful witnesses. Both described themselves as the real victims of the bitter controversy.

During his five days of testimony in mid-September, Thomas often seemed hesitant and uncertain as he discussed his legal views. But, in his opening statement Friday, he spoke with force and emotion as he angrily denied Hill’s allegations.

“I have been racking my brains and eating my insides out trying to think of what I could have said or done to Anita Hill to lead her to allege . . . that I talked with her about pornographic or X-rated films,” he declared.

Thomas noted that he had written his own statement without the help of political handlers or advisers and said that he was “shocked, surprised, hurt and enormously saddened” by Hill’s accusations. “I have not been the same person since. I am a victim of this process.”

Hill, a 35-year-old University of Oklahoma law professor, seemed to be nervous and reluctant as the hearing began. But, as she testified, her confidence seemed to grow. She spoke in the quiet but firm manner of a person forced to recount painful incidents in her past.

“It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and a great number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends,” she said.

Hill gave far more detail than Thomas. She spoke of lunches in government cafeterias and meetings in Thomas’ office. She said that he once spoke of a pornographic film actor named “Long Dong Silver” and that he talked of his own anatomy. The explicit details surprised committee Republicans, because her account of Thomas’ sexual comments went beyond what FBI agents reported after interviewing her.

She recounted in some detail her humiliation and dismay at Thomas’ behavior. In 1983, she said, she entered a hospital for an acute stomach pain that she blamed on stress over sexual harassment.

Thomas spoke more generally, explaining how he hired Hill and how they had worked together. In his opening statement, Thomas said that he would not enter into specific discussions of strictly “private” matters.

Who had a motivation for not telling the truth?

Committee Republicans tried with increasing force as the hearing wore on to suggest that Hill might have reason for concocting a “fantasy” about Thomas. Specter, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, tried with little visible success to suggest that she came forward with her 11th-hour accusations because she wanted to derail Thomas’ confirmation to the Supreme Court.

“Are you a scorned woman?” asked Sen. Howard Heflin (D-Ala.) “Are you a zealot (sic) civil rights believer? Do you have a martyr complex? Are you interested in writing a book?”

Heflin’s questions, nominally critical, were a friendly ploy. They gave Hill an opportunity to attempt to convince her audience that she had no reason to lie and nothing to gain from making up such a story.

“I’m not given to fantasy,” Hill said. “I can only tell you what happened.”

Hill’s sexual harassment charges were especially powerful because her supervisor, Thomas, was then EEOC chairman. As such, he was the nation’s chief official with responsibility for enforcing federal laws against sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

By nightfall, Heflin, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, summed up the day’s proceedings–and how the contradictions might be resolved.

“I, and I suppose every member of this committee, have to come down to the ultimate question of who’s telling the truth,” Heflin said.

“My experience as a lawyer, a judge, is that you listen to all the testimony and then you try to determine the motivation for the one that is not telling the truth.”

Sept. 22, 2026 10:20 AM PT

DETROIT — Michigan U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed said Tuesday that he wants Kamala Harris’ midterm campaign stop in Detroit to unify Democrats in the key swing state where their party’s factions were on full display in a hotly contested primary earlier this year — and in Harris’ 2024 presidential defeat.

“We’re building an electoral coalition here,” El-Sayed said, speaking about the economy hours ahead of a planned appearance with the former vice president.

An unapologetic progressive, El-Sayed downplayed his differences with Harris over the Biden administration’s support for U.S. military aid to Israel. El-Sayed has called Israel’s military actions in Gaza a genocide against Palestinians. Israel rejects that position, but it aligns El-Sayed with many voters in Michigan’s large Arab American community and with progressives who withheld their votes from Harris in 2024, when the state tipped narrowly to Republican Donald Trump.

That election “ended where it did because we could not find the places of agreement to be able to bring people together or move in the direction that we need to move,” El-Sayed said, emphasizing that he and Harris both want to help voters who are struggling economically.

Harris, the first Black vice president, remains popular among Black voters who anchor the Democratic base in Detroit and who leaned in favor of El-Sayed’s primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, in the August primary. El-Sayed said Harris, who will attend a roundtable on Black maternal health with him and separately join an event hosted by the Detroit chapter of the NAACP, is a critical advocate in helping him close ranks as he tries to defeat Republican Mike Rogers.

“Her presence here speaking to communities that were really empowered by her voice throughout her political career, I think will help us to continue to bring our coalition together,” El-Sayed said.

El-Sayed vs. Rogers is a critical contest for Senate control

The Democrat’s matchup against Rogers, a former congressman, will help determine control of the Senate for the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If Democrats hold the seat, which was opened by Sen. Gary Peters’ announced retirement, they’d still need to win at least four more currently held by Republicans to flip the chamber. A Rogers victory would narrow Democrats’ path to a majority.

Rogers’ campaign framed Harris’ visit as a sign of weakness for both Democrats.

“Abdul is so desperate that he’s parachuting Kamala Harris into Michigan to save his flailing campaign,” said Alyssa Brouillet, Rogers’ spokesperson.

Rogers has been campaigning in Detroit, a predominantly Black city where his campaign is optimistic he can pick up support from voters hesitant to support El-Sayed.

Black voters could prove especially critical as El-Sayed also faces pressure among white Jewish voters who typically back Democrats.

“Jews in Michigan are currently scared” by their Senate options, said Barry Goodman, a Democratic National Committee member and major Michigan fundraiser in the party. Goodman backed Stevens in the primary.

The race is also seen as another referendum on progressives’ viability in battleground races. El-Sayed is running to the left of the Democratic Party establishment, including advocating for universal healthcare.

Goodman described himself and many other Jewish Democrats as “holding our noses and voting for Abdul” because they “believe in the Democratic ticket and they believe that one man can help win the Senate but can’t destroy the Senate.” Other moderates, Goodman said, are still deciding whether to back Rogers or sit out the Senate race.

El-Sayed has attempted to soften his approach on Israel and Gaza. He has apologized for some past controversial comments and said he is committed to Jewish safety.

Michigan will also be a key state for the 2028 Democratic presidential primary

For Harris, the trip comes as questions swirl about her intentions to run for president again. Under the Democratic National Committee’s recently revised nominating calendar, Michigan now will hold the fifth presidential preference primary in 2028.

It’s unclear whether Harris will use the trip to restate or recalibrate her past statements on Israel. But campaigning with El-Sayed is notable, nonetheless, given her past tensions with Democrats’ left flank.

“She probably figures she won’t lose her establishment folks, so maybe she makes gains to her left,” Goodman said.

Harris has said she’s in no rush to announce whether she will run in 2028. But ahead of Election Day this November, she also has campaign stops planned in Nevada and Georgia, two other important states on the political map.

Ganun and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance and other Trump administration officials said Tuesday they plan to remove 760,000 Affordable Care Act enrollees from public healthcare exchanges, alleging that the individuals were fraudulently enrolled in the program, or simply do not exist.

Vance said the discovery and canceled subsidy payments for hundreds of thousands of people from the exchanges would result in $2.2 billion in cost savings.

“We’re actually making sure that the people receiving Obamacare subsidies are actually entitled to receive them,” Vance, who leads a government-wide task force to eliminate fraud, said in a public address at the White House, Tuesday. He was flanked by Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and other administration officials.

The Trump administration also announced a six-month suspension on new brokers who sign up enrollees for healthcare coverage, who officials say commit a disproportionate amount of the fraud they uncovered.

Tuesday’s announcement is the latest in an administration-wide initiative to address fraud around the country, including in federal healthcare programs, which officials say is needed to rein in runaway spending and protect taxpayers.

The announcement comes as inflation and rising healthcare costs pressure the Trump administration to come up with a plan to bring down costs for Americans heading into the midterms.

The price of ACA insurance has skyrocketed for many Americans during Trump’s second term, after Republicans opposed extending COVID-era subsidies that had helped offset the costs of health insurance for most enrollees during Biden’s term.

Premiums doubled or tripled for many enrollees, prompting millions to downgrade their plans or exit the program entirely after the Republican-led Congress allowed the subsidies to expire this year.

Roughly 19.2 million Americans are actively enrolled in ACA marketplace health plans as of early 2026, according to the HHS website.

The White House referred The Associated Press to the Vice President’s team for additional comment on bigger plans to address healthcare affordability.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the news of the Trump administration’s plan to remove ACA enrollees from public exchanges.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle Price contributed to this report.

LAS VEGAS — Susan Gonzalez plans to pay off her credit card now that she no longer needs to pay taxes on the dollar bills that she stashes away at the end of long shifts pouring beers and mixing cocktails in a smoky sports bar.

Thanks to President Trump, “there’s more money in our pockets,” the registered Republican said. The Iran war might have spiked gas prices, but Gonzalez is still confident that the U.S. economy is getting stronger.

The Jackpot Bar & Grill, located about 4 miles from the Las Vegas Strip, is in the heart of Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, where Democratic Rep. Susie Lee is trying to fend off a challenge from Republican candidate Marty O’Donnell. The state has the highest concentration of tipped workers in the country because its economy is driven by the hospitality and tourism industries, making Trump’s “no tax on tips” policy a critical part of his party’s midterm pitch here.

The question for Nevada voters is whether they’re seeing more benefit from lower taxes or more pain from the country’s economic troubles, such as energy costs and declining tourism.

Lee’s district is a top target for the Republican Party in its fight to maintain control of the House. With a mix of working-class and high-income neighborhoods, it’s the most competitive of Nevada’s four congressional seats. In 2024, both Lee and Trump won the district.

Lee has held the seat since 2019, campaigning as a moderate and highlighting her bipartisan record. O’Donnell, a composer known for his work on the “Halo” video game series, became his party’s nominee this year with help from Trump and a $3 million personal loan.

The race has caught the attention of Trump-aligned super PACs. Safety and Affordability, an offshoot of MAGA Inc., committed this month to spending almost $3.2 million on advertising to help O’Donnell, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. The total effectively matches the $3.1 million O’Donnell’s campaign has already spent on advertising reservations through November.

The heavy commitment puts pro-O’Donnell forces ahead by more than $1 million in the ad spending race in the district, where Lee’s campaign has spent $2.9 million and the Democratic House leadership super PAC House Majority Fund has put in $2.3 million.

Nevada is the birthplace of ‘no tax on tips’

Trump first announced his policy proposal at a June 2024 campaign event in Nevada, and he has repeatedly said that he was inspired by a Las Vegas server who suggested the idea.

“So we’re eating, and this beautiful young lady walks over, and I said, ‘How are you doing, everything good?’” Trump said in August. “‘Sir, they’re taxing me to death.’ I said, ‘Really? What are they taxing?’ ‘They’re taxing my tips. Sir, they should have no tax on tips.’”

The proposal was included in a sweeping package of tax breaks, social-services cuts and immigration enforcement that Trump signed into law last year.

O’Donnell has centered his attack against Lee for her vote against that bill.

“When she had an opportunity to vote for things that would actually help the people of the district, she said no,” O’Donnell told The Associated Press.

Lee attributed her vote to what she says were harmful and unpopular policies in the package. She also noted that the “no tax on tips” part of the legislation expires at the end of 2028.

“More importantly, they came at the cost of cutting Medicaid and SNAP and healthcare,” Lee told the AP at a recent canvassing launch in Las Vegas.

She and other Nevada Democrats support a separate proposal that would make permanent “no tax on tips” while also fixing what they say are issues with the current policy.

Slump in tourism lessens ‘no tax on tips’ impact

Lee said the tax cut isn’t helping because tourism is falling off.

“When people are feeling the pinch at home all across this country, the first thing they cut is their trip to Vegas,” Lee said.

Nevada’s tourism fell 7.5% from 2024 to 2025, according to Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority CEO and President Steve Hill. Las Vegas hosted the Super Bowl and the second annual Formula 1 Grand Prix in 2024.

At a recent economic forum, Hill said high rollers are continuing to visit the city but lower-income visitors are not. The number of international visitors has also dropped significantly, especially Canadians who watched Trump feud with their country over trade and other issues.

O’Donnell said Las Vegas tourism is on the “comeback.” He said Trump’s tariffs served as a necessary way to negotiate with countries “that have been absolutely ripping us off.”

The composer blames the high cost of living on Democrats. He recently told a crowd at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas that one good job used to be enough to raise a family, buy a house and “live a comfortable, fulfilling life while getting ahead.”

“Somewhere along the way, that deal got broken,” he said. “Now many need two incomes just to tread water, and we’re still digging our way out of Biden’s inflation crisis.”

Nevada’s powerful labor unions are backing Lee

While O’Donnell has help from Republicans’ national war chest, Lee has the support of the political powerhouse that is the Culinary Workers Union, representing 60,000 hospitality workers in Nevada.

Secretary-Treasurer Ted Pappageorge said the current “no tax on tips” policy brings some relief but is “deeply flawed.” A married couple filing jointly can deduct only up to $25,000 of their tipped income, Pappageorge said. The policy also does not apply to automatic gratuities that are charged to large parties, he said. Lee and other Nevada Democrats want to fix that, he said.

“There’s a history of our Democrats here fighting for fair taxation,” Pappageorge said.

On a recent weekend in Lee’s district about 50 days before the election, members from the Culinary Union, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations knocked on voters’ doors, hoping to sway those still undecided.

Paul Peterman, president of the local chapter of the National Association of Letter Carriers, wearing a blue union T-shirt, a lanyard and shorts, walked to union households, carrying flyers supporting Lee and other Democrats. He asked a resident who he planned to vote for. “All Republican,” said the man, hidden behind his screen door. Peterman asked if he could leave a non-Republican flyer, and the man said, “No.”

“Sorry to bother you,” Peterman said as the door closed.

At the next door, the voter identified as an independent but said he’d vote for Lee. A voter at another house said who he plans to vote for was private. Nobody answered at the next few doors.

Peterman has been canvassing these neighborhoods for years, describing it as important union work.

“It sends a message that we’re all united, and you also need every hand on deck, too, to be successful in what you want to achieve,” Peterman said.

Hill and Beaumont write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — President Trump threatened to escalate the war with Iran by “annihilating” the Islamic Republic if it fails to negotiate a deal over its nuclear program, delivering a defensive speech justifying the mission at the United Nations on Tuesday.

His remarks come more than six months into a war that has grown increasingly unpopular at home, with fewer than a third of Americans approving of the president’s handling of the conflict, according to recent polls.

“I have a big decision to make,” he told world leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, with Iranian diplomats in attendance.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before — maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy again?

“Do I drive them into hell,” he continued, “with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness?”

The war has carried steep political costs for the president and his party ahead of the U.S. midterm elections in November, increasing inflation and energy prices due to disruptions in commercial shipping traffic through key waterways in the Middle East.

Defense officials say the conflict has also placed a huge burden on U.S. munitions stockpiles, as Iran continues firing ballistic missiles and drones at American assets and bases throughout the region.

But Trump denied that the war has depleted U.S. stocks. “That’s not true,” he said.

“I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election,” Trump said. “We must be equally united in maintaining pressure.”

The rise in global gas prices has sparked protests around the world. But Trump’s vow to ensure Tehran never acquires a nuclear weapon — an issue that for decades united the international community — generated applause throughout the chamber.

Launching Operation Epic Fury in February, Trump projected the campaign would last roughly six weeks, with the stated objective of disabling Iran’s ballistic missile program, its navy and its nuclear infrastructure. He also vowed a day would soon come when the Iranian people could rise up against their government and reclaim their country.

More than six months later, the Islamic Republic stands. Iran’s ballistic missiles continue to test U.S. air defenses across the Middle East, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains depressed, and talks over the future of Iran’s nuclear program have collapsed.

Explaining his decision to start the war, Trump said that he decided not to let the problem of Iran’s nuclear work “fester,” and warned that its ballistic missile program was being designed as a shield to protect its nuclear program from foreign attack.

“Iran’s goal was to complete their mad dash to a nuclear bomb from behind this conventional nuclear shield,” Trump said. “They were the bully of the Middle East, but they’re the bully no more.”

The United States has repeatedly offered a deal with Iran that would open up economic cooperation between the two nations in exchange for an end to their nuclear work, he said.

“They absolutely refused,” he added. “That was a big mistake.”

Sept. 22, 2026 7:23 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Donald Trump Jr. used his proximity to the presidency for financial benefit, after his recent wedding party was partially bankrolled by a Russian oligarch.

In a letter sent Tuesday, Curtis called on the committee to subpoena Trump Jr. over his business dealings, relationships with foreign individuals and entities, gifts or other benefits he has received and any instances in which his relationship to President Trump, a Republican, “was invoked or understood to provide value.” Curtis called for the same scrutiny of Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

“The country should not have to accept one standard for the family of a Republican president and another for the family of a Democratic president,” Curtis wrote in the letter addressed to GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the committee, and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee.

The letter comes as a few Republicans have shown a growing willingness to criticize Trump after largely avoiding public breaks with the president during much of his second term. The unpopular war in Iran, high gas prices and mounting concerns about the GOP’s prospects in November’s midterm elections have brought increased scrutiny of the president from within his own party.

The Trumps say it was a generous gift from a dear friend

ProPublica first reported last week that Umar Kremlev, who has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, helped pay to rent a private island and for a fireworks show when Trump Jr. and socialite Bettina Anderson were married in the Bahamas in May.

In a subsequent post on her Instagram page signed by the couple, Bettina Trump wrote that Kremlev, head of the International Boxing Association, was a “dear friend” who “very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us AFTER our wedding.”

The president, who did not attend his son’s wedding, defended Kremlev’s involvement but said the money would be paid back.

Curtis calls the funding ‘corruption’

Curtis, first elected to the Senate in 2024, vowed upon taking office not to shy away from disagreeing with Trump. He has publicly broken with the president several times since, including rejecting Trump’s calls to eliminate the Senate filibuster. In a July Wall Street Journal op-ed, Curtis wrote that “under no circumstance” would he support efforts to end or alter the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber.

Curtis’ criticism involving Trump’s son goes beyond those policy disagreements. Curtis last Friday called the gift “corruption” and vowed to say more in the coming days.

“A Russian oligarch paid for a lavish wedding after-party for Donald Trump Jr., which to me just stinks. It’s corruption. I don’t like it,” Curtis said in a video posted on social media.

On Tuesday, Curtis wrote on social media that Republicans “nearly wore out the subpoena machine investigating Hunter Biden’s foreign relationships” and that they “should not unplug it now.”

Any congressional committee can launch an investigation at any time. In 2017, Grassley led a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, including a meeting that Trump Jr. held with Russians in 2016. The panel has also conducted multiple investigations of Hunter Biden.

Clare Slattery, a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee, confirmed that the committee had received Curtis’ letter but indicated that a hearing before the end of the year would be difficult, citing the limited Senate schedule and the amount of time it takes to prepare for an investigative hearing. She did not say whether the committee will investigate.

Republicans investigated the Bidens

Grassley worked alongside House Republicans in 2023 and 2024 to investigate whether Hunter Biden used his father’s name and political position to benefit his business dealings with foreign interests. The Biden family dismissed the investigations as politically motivated and denied any wrongdoing.

The GOP effort culminated in a report accusing Joe Biden of participating in a conspiracy to use his public office to enrich his family. But the House never voted on articles of impeachment against him.

“‘Trust us’ was not enough then, and it is not enough now,” Curtis wrote.

Democrats have foreshadowed plans to investigate Trump and his family if they win control of Congress in November, with particular scrutiny on the family’s financial interests. Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement that the revelations surrounding Trump Jr.’s wedding “may be the most serious allegation against you to date.”

Cappelletti and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Imelda Marcos made a cash payment of $50,000 to then-Gov. George Ariyoshi of Hawaii when she visited Honolulu in 1982, three days after the Democrat announced that he was running for reelection, according to logs of the former Philippine first lady’s travel expenses.

A record of the previously undisclosed cash payment to Ariyoshi was found amid voluminous evidence recently introduced here by federal prosecutors in the fraud and racketeering trial of Mrs. Marcos.

It was unclear from the document whether the $50,000 cash payment was intended to aid the Ariyoshi campaign or was tendered for some other reason. Ariyoshi did not list it among his campaign contributions, which by law were limited to $2,000 from any one source in the primary election.

Although unrelated to any of the criminal charges pending against Mrs. Marcos, the Ariyoshi payment discovered in the Marcos expense logs raises new questions about how the former first lady spent what the U.S. Justice Department asserts were Philippine government funds.

No explanation for the $50,000 expenditure was listed in the court documents, and Ariyoshi did not respond to numerous requests by The Times for an interview.

In the past Ariyoshi has acknowledged receiving gifts from the Marcoses but has declined to describe the extent or nature of those offerings, calling gift giving “a private act of courtesy” that he would not discuss publicly.

The recently admitted court documents are notebooks in which a private secretary to Mrs. Marcos, identified in testimony as longtime aide Fe Roa Gimenez, maintained a running log of expenses incurred by the Philippine first lady and her entourage during trips abroad. Many of the handwritten entries record payments for art, jewelry and shopping trips that federal prosecutors contend were financed with money looted from the Philippine national treasury.

Prosecutors submitted the expense logs to support charges in the federal indictment that Mrs. Marcos spent great amounts of Philippine public money for non-governmental and other personal expenses. For instance, some of the recorded art and jewelry transactions have been confirmed by other documents and testimony.

Ariyoshi’s name appears in the log of a July, 1982, trip that Mrs. Marcos made to the Soviet Union, Morocco and the United States.

On a page listing “cash disbursements” for July 20, 1982, is the brief handwritten entry: “$50,000–Given to Gov. Ariyoshi.”

Also on July 20, Ariyoshi’s lieutenant governor, Jean King, announced that she would challenge him for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. It would be, according to local news accounts, the toughest campaign of Ariyoshi’s political career.

The Marcoses’ possible financial interest in U.S. political campaigns became the object of a federal investigation in 1986, soon after the deposed couple arrived in Honolulu after fleeing a popular revolt that February.

U.S. customs agents, going through more than 300 boxes and suitcases filled with cash, jewelry and documents, found a financial statement indicating that the Marcoses may have made illegal contributions in excess of $175,000 to 10 U.S. politicians, including then-President Ronald Reagan and former President Jimmy Carter. The document was dated 1982 and purported to recount spending of Philippine military intelligence money in the United States as approved by Fabian C. Ver and Irwin Ver, former leaders of military and security forces under Marcos.

Based in part on discovery of that document, the Federal Election Commission launched an inquiry into whether the Marcoses had secretly funneled intelligence funds into American political campaigns through a California company owned by a Philippine businessman.

The investigation was dropped in 1988 for lack of evidence, over the objection of one commission member who complained that investigative leads had not been thoroughly pursued. How the document came to be among Marcoses’ private papers was never established.

Although contributions from foreign sources are not permitted in federal elections, Hawaii state races were not subject to such restrictions in 1982. The names of contributors who gave more than $100 had to be reported to the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, however, and a limit of $2,000 from any single source in both the primary and general gubernatorial campaigns was set.

State records show that Ariyoshi, who was governor from 1974 to 1986, did not report the $50,000 payment from Mrs. Marcos as a campaign contribution.

The former governor and his wife, Jean Ariyoshi, are longtime friends of the Marcoses, and Mrs. Ariyoshi has been a regular shopping companion of Mrs. Marcos on the former Philippine first lady’s frequent stopovers in Hawaii.

When the Marcos regime fell in 1986 and the Marcoses were forced to go into exile, Ariyoshi invited them to make their new home in Hawaii.

When the Marcoses stepped from an American military aircraft at Hickham Air Force Base in Honolulu, the governor was the highest-ranking American official to meet them, offering a traditional red carpet and Hawaiian lei greeting.

Soon after the Marcoses arrival, reports surfaced that the Ariyoshis had received unspecified gifts from the Philippine leader over the years. Under pressure from local media, Ariyoshi issued a statement in which he called gift giving by officials “a custom which prevails among people as private citizens or formal representatives.”

“The govern engages in this custom with government officials and other dignitaries, national and international,” the statement continued. “This is done in a variety of settings and is an especially traditional custom in Asia and the Pacific.

“Because the governor regards the bestowing and receiving of gifts a very personal matter, it will remain a private act of courtesy between himself and others.”

Ariyoshi is now an attorney in private practice in Honolulu. A secretary said he was traveling on business in Japan but that she had forwarded The Times’ interview requests to him.

Honolulu freelance writer Susan Essoyan contributed to this story.

Marvin Reid can’t say how many pedestrians he’s seen get hit while trying to brave the North Hollywood intersection of Magnolia Boulevard and Tujunga Avenue. He gave up keeping count long ago.

One afternoon last spring, he watched a man get run over while walking toward a 7-Eleven on the corner. Fortunately, the man popped to his feet “like nothing ever happened” and hustled into the store, Reid said. A week or two prior, he said, an out-of-control motorist nearly plowed into the statue of Amelia Earhart that sits next to a library bearing the famous aviator’s name.

“This is really a bad spot,” said Reid, who has helped run a Jamaican food pop-up at the busy street corner for the past five years. “It doesn’t matter if it’s an old lady crossing the street with a walker.”

The number of Angelenos who die in traffic crashes now regularly outpaces those killed by homicide. From 2016 to 2023, the annual traffic death toll rose nearly 29% overall, and pedestrian deaths jumped roughly 54%. Fatal crashes fell slightly last year, but deaths still exceeded 300 in each of the last three years.

The city is rolling out 125 speed cameras in school zones, known street-racing corridors and places where speeding has contributed to a high rate of collisions — including Reid’s intersection.

But for him, the cameras aren’t a replacement for police traffic enforcement, which he said seems virtually nonexistent.

Even though LAPD squad cars are posted up outside the library “everyday,” he says, they rarely do anything about the drivers who come careening off the exit ramps from the nearby 170 Freeway.

Similar complaints are being echoed around the city. Historically, Los Angeles — like other places across the U.S. — has relied on police stops to produce road safety. But in recent years, public pressure has compelled city leaders to think more critically about whether enforcement can continue without the historical harms that has come along with it.

LAPD data show the department is far less proactive than it used to be.

In 2019, LAPD officers made about 713,000 stops across the city; by 2025, that number had decreased to roughly 308,000 — a roughly 57% decline. A Times analysis of police stop data found that the drop-off was especially pronounced in the Central, West Valley, 77th Street and Southeast police divisions.

In some ways, the decline in stops is unsurprising. Other large U.S. cities have seen similar changes in enforcement strategies by police since the pandemic. As the department continues to shrink, LAPD commanders say they have fewer resources to devote to traffic duty. Officials have been under pressure to curb the use of so-called “pretext stops,” in which officers use a minor violation — a broken turn signal, say, or a cracked windshield — as justification to stop someone in order to investigate whether a more serious crime has occurred.

Reform activists and some city leaders argue the stops are fishing expeditions that lead to police abuses — while failing to deliver safer streets.

The practice of pulling over random vehicles, often based on little more than a hunch, has been a cornerstone of the city’s crime-fighting strategy for decades. The tactic is especially prevalent among the department’s elite Metropolitan Division and anti-gang units, several of which have come under investigation in recent years for failing to document the stops and improper searches.

Since 2019, when a Times investigation found significant racial disparities in LAPD crime suppression tactics, officials have slowed — but never abandoned — the practice of flooding neighborhoods with tactical officers to pull people over and search their vehicles.

Four years later, stops for minor violations began dropping again after LAPD overhauled its policies to limit the circumstances under which officers can make pretext stops, joining law enforcement agencies in cities like Philadelphia, Seattle and Berkeley, Calif.

Yet a report published last year found that officers are still disproportionately targeting Black and Latino drivers.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell and other department leaders have fought against more restrictions, arguing they risk losing an essential weapon against serious crime.

But in May, the Los Angeles City Council passed a measure urging the Police Commission, the LAPD’s policy-making body, to further limit arbitrary pull-overs for non-moving traffic violations.

Commission officials said they would wait for the results of a pair of audits by the inspector general’s office before making any further policy changes. The first report suggested that problems with the department’s gang officers were far more widespread than the department has publicly let on.

While LAPD officials had acknowledged issues in a handful of police divisions, the latest audit found that gang units citywide routinely flouted the department’s rules on pretext stops, including by often failing to obtain proper consent to search the vehicles they stopped. The inspector general’s office also found that gang officers didn’t always turn on their body-worn or dashboard cameras as required during these encounters and at times failed to properly log who they were stopping — resulting in an undercount of “both the number of detentions and the enforcement actions taken,” the report said.

The review, based on a sample of 300 stops as well as interviews with current and former gang officers, also highlighted ongoing confusion about what the department expects its officers to do when pulling someone over.

The findings of the second report — which reviewed pretext stops by officers from other units in January — are expected to be presented at an upcoming commission meeting.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for rank-and-file officers, and other proponents of pretext stops argue that elected leaders don’t grasp the consequences of doing away with the tactic, which the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed lawful.

Reform advocates have fought to deploy unarmed civilians instead of LAPD officers for traffic enforcement — as the city has already started doing for certain mental health-related calls — but the union has warned that the work is too dangerous. A state bill that would have allowed trained civilian workers to make traffic stops failed to make it through the state assembly.

With the death toll from speeding on the rise, more enforcement is needed, not less, department leaders say. The city, they argue, can’t afford to wait on alternative programs that require study, money and public buy-in that could take years.

Amid the debate over how to proceed, LAPD enforcement hasn’t vanished completely.

Even though the department no longer dispatches officers to the scenes of minor accidents, LAPD statistics show that enforcement the department’s 308-member traffic bureau has gone up. As of July, the number of traffic tickets issued had climbed 44% from the same time last year — increasing to more than 14,600 from around 10,100. Citations for impaired driving have also risen, and the department continues to crack down on street takeovers.

Still, progress toward new, non-police approaches to traffic enforcement has been frustratingly slow in Los Angeles, advocates say.

Advocates have pointed to mounting research in other cities that showed road improvements along high-injury street corridors were more effective than police at changing driver behaviors, ultimately reducing the number of traffic-related deaths and serious injuries more than the threat of being ticketed.

Supporters of so-called “self-enforcing” roads say narrowing lanes can lead to a considerable decline in crashes as drivers reduce their speed and move more cautiously than when the road is less wide. Such changes also reclaim space for protected bike lanes, public transit lines, or safer walkways — after long prioritizing convenience for cars, advocates say.

Car accidents are dangerous for everyone involved, but they have become even more hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists.

Experts cite speeding and cellphone distractions as two of the biggest problems.

Another factor is the proliferation of larger vehicles — a phenomenon known as “autobesity” — which have bigger blind spots and more likely to seriously injure a pedestrian or bicyclist.

Andres Ramirez, executive director for the transportation advocacy nonprofit People for Mobility Justice, said he’s cautiously optimism that the mayor’s promise of a “No Car” 2028 Olympic Games will help fast-track some of the most pressing road safety projects.

“The streets needs to be a lot safer for pedestrians, for bicyclists, different modes,” Ramirez said. “The most obvious way is ensuring that infrastructure projects are prioritized in communities that have long been ignored.”

Did California come out a winner when Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta settled a multi-state lawsuit against Paramount Skydance on Monday, allowing its $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery to move forward?

That’s the question everyone is trying to figure out, as the 32-page agreement is parsed, with pundits pouring over minutiae of cable streaming and tax credits. I’ll leave that to the business experts, but I’m here to give you a big picture of politics, power and possibilities — and one short but unsatisfying answer about whether this deal is good for the Golden State: Yes and no.

I’ll start with this: Did California win is the wrong question. There was always something bigger at play here that was lost behind the fear of further decimation to an industry so central and crucial to the state. The question the lawsuit asked is, “Do we live in an America where government institutions are so broken that power makes its own rules?”

The settlement might not give the entertainment industry all it hoped for but it was “a fight worth fighting,” said George Hay, a professor at Cornell Law School and a former attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, because it sought to answer that question in favor of consumers, and showed that states like California can and will step up to fill a dangerous void.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Justice hasn’t so much abdicated its responsibility to enforce antitrust laws — it has embraced an oligarchic ethos that seems happy to feed the American economy into the mouths of behemoths, allowing companies such as Paramount free reign to gobble up whatever lies in their paths like an old-school Pac-Man.

Our president personally invests in industries he’s supposed to regulate (I’m looking at you, Silicon Valley). Corporations dump money into elections that average people can never hope to match. The free press is under increasing attack with multiple outlets banned from the White House — including CNN, which Paramount hopes to own along with CBS and whose editorial independence is at least addressed in this settlement, albeit weakly.

States, even powerful states such as New York and California, don’t have the muscle or money of the federal apparatus, and were never meant to play the role of national enforcer on issues such as these.

The fact that Bonta and the 11 other states involved in the antitrust litigation pulled together not just a credible, but effective team is a victory for all American consumers, and a message to other Pac-Man companies out there that even if federal regulation is on life support, there are still rules.

The states “showed that they could quickly and effectively put together a formidable litigation team, and achieve significant initial success. That’s a big deal. That that changes the role of the states for a long time into the future,” said William Kovacic. He’s a law professor at George Washington University and a former chair of the Federal Trade Commission, so like Hay, he knows a bit about antitrust enforcement.

“This has a ripple effect that goes through the entire federal enforcement system because they showed they could do something that was very difficult,” Kovacic said. “That’s a big institutional win for the states.”

To hear Bonta describe it, California is absolutely a winner in its own right, though, and this will be “very good” for the state. Which to be fair, is exactly what any decent politician would say.

“It will be good for consumers, good for prices, good for jobs, good for choice, quality, competition,” Bonta told me Monday afternoon.

Kovacic is a bit more measured, calling it a “modest win.”

The deal has many parts, but it covers a five-year period in which the new Paramount mega-studio must release between 30 to 32 films each year, many in theaters and some independent. It also has to keep open and running both the Paramount and Warner Bros. lots, a not-insignificant source of L.A. jobs — and maybe one of the most visible wins for the city.

The new company also must spend at least $1.5 billion over the five years on production in the U.S., and increase that figure if there are certain, uncapped federal or state tax credits available to them.

In California, where the budget deficit is in the billions, creating uncapped credits may be a hard sell, but Bonta told me he’s making it a priority in the next legislative session and will push the next governor — likely Xavier Becerra, who once held his job — to back them.

“I think we’re going to get it in California,” he said. It’s somewhat important because the settlement doesn’t specifically address production in California — and tax credits from other states have been drawing production away for years.

We’ll see how successful Bonta is on that endeavor — he hasn’t always gotten what he wants from governors.

Much has been made about the recent threats from Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison to move business operations out of California. That pressure has been cited as one of the factors pushing the state to settle, and it probably was — but not just because of Ellison.

Gov. Gavin Newsom made it clear that he preferred a settlement to a drawn-out court case, especially after that threat.

You may recall our governor has presidential aspirations, and is in a long-running battle with Trump over whether California is a wasteland for business beset by fraud and regulation, or a utopia of economic activity fueling the world’s fourth largest economy. Paramount reupping its threat to leave, or even worse, decamping for someplace such as Nashville, is not a great look.

So this case, which was never going to be a slam-dunk to win in court and which could easily have run into 2028 if it proceeded, was never a winning issue for Newsom.

Newsom Monday called the deal “a practical path forward,” which it definitely is — for him.

Hay, of Cornell, said it was a “big blow” when the governor failed to back Bonta and go all-in on litigation.

“Once [Newsom] once came out on the other side, it made things really, really difficult,” Hay said.

So there was pressure on Bonta to make a deal even from his friends, though Bonta told me that “what you call pressure was just noise to me. I never felt pressured in this process.”

But of course, nearly everything that happens in politics and litigation is about pressure — who has the power to apply it and who has the power to withstand it. Bonta, to his credit, applied pressure where Paramount never expected it.

“If I were in California, I’d be proud of the attorney general. At the end of the day, he got the best he could,” Hay said. “I’m glad they were there when the government bailed out because it made Paramount tow the line, and maybe that’s all that we could hope for.”

The Paramount settlement is more about possible than perfect, but it proved that states — and consumers — are not powerless, and every brawl that proves that is, as Hay said, a fight worth fighting.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday headed into a week full of high-stake meetings with world leaders after spending a 72-hour period banning reporters from the White House, mulling whether it was time to “blow … up” Iran, and proposing to house military drones and snipers in his triumphal arch in the nation’s capital.

The weekend — which also included the announcement of a security deal over Greenland and the creation of a new “A.I. Force” — captured an American president operating unpredictably across multiple fronts even as each one drew friction. The actions now stand to color the backdrop of a week that will feature meetings with world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in New York and a state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington.

Each of those moves carries its own political weight ahead of the diplomatic talks, but also ahead of the midterm elections, where these topics are front and center in key races.

Trump’s handling of the Iran war, its subsequent shocks to the global economy, his push to fast-track the development of artificial intelligence and the Greenland agreement are likely to come up in meetings with world leaders. His deal with Denmark to bolster U.S. military presence in Greenland, a territory Trump has repeatedly tried to annex, is expected to be signed Tuesday in New York, though action is still needed by the Danish and Greenland governments before it can be enforced.

While all the details of the Greenland deal are not public yet, Trump has said it is a “dream come true for the United States of America.”

“This solution is a great one for the United States of America, Denmark, Greenland and all of our Allies,” Trump wrote on social media Friday. “We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land. We will be very protective of it.”

In an interview Sunday, Trump also indicated that he was trying to make a decision on Iran as the war stretches into its eighth month. The president said he would “probably be open” to meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian during the U.N. General Assembly.

“My question is, if and when do I blow the entire nation up?” Trump told Fox News. “They better behave.”

Of all the actions Trump took, the press dispute has become the most contentious and drawn an immediate legal response. Three major news outlets — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — sued the Trump administration Monday for banning their reporters from the White House grounds, and major television networks suspended their pool coverage of the president’s activities.

In a joint statement, the organizations said the White House has acted “without notice or process” and called the arbitrary decision a “blatant violation” of the 1st Amendment.

Trump, meanwhile, argued Monday that the banned news outlets are “corrupt” and a “threat to our national security.”

Vice President JD Vance defended the press ban.

“He’s not banning media outlets. What he’s doing is saying we’re not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda,” Vance said Monday, arguing that the three outlets push out “negative” coverage of Trump.

The tense showdown between Trump and the White House press corps led to audio problems during the president’s ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new helipad on the South Lawn. Without television cameras and microphones set up by the major TV networks, it was impossible to hear what Trump was saying through the White House’s official YouTube stream, signaling further technical difficulties in the week ahead.

Behind the public displays of control, news reports have painted a picture of a president increasingly frustrated by the lack of credit he feels he is owed. At a recent closed-door meeting, reported by the Wall Street Journal, Trump told advisors he was aggravated that his allies hadn’t lauded him enough for his efforts to take over the Kennedy Center or other accomplishments made during his second term.

Trump has tried to put his name on the building’s facade and run into resistance from Democrats, arts patrons and a federal judge who blocked the move last week. Trump was then photographed aboard Air Force One looking at a large printout appearing to show demolition plans for the center.

Over the weekend, Trump posted on social media a link to a news article that claimed he was seeking to fix “safety hazards” at the performance center. He then posted an image of him watching the Western Hemisphere with the words, “His Hemisphere,” and wrote that his proposed triumphal arch near the National Mall would be used as a military complex for drones and snipers.

Trump also announced that he would be creating the “A.I. force,” modeled after the Space Force he launched during his first term, to ensure the country does not “in any way hinder or stifle the growth of the industry.” The announcement came amid growing backlash to data centers and the fast-paced development of artificial intelligence, an issue that in recent weeks has prompted stark warnings about the technology’s power and its threats to humanity.

Tech executives, including Dario Amodei and Sam Altman, have even called for a slowdown on the technology’s advancement and last week, four leading AI companies — Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google — faced a lawsuit claiming they made an illegal deal to slow the pace of their respective AI development.

Trump’s announcement over the weekend comes as lawmakers, including congressional Republicans in tight races, have called for new guardrails on the technology.

Despite technology becoming a political flashpoint during the midterms, Trump has dismissed concerns about AI as a hoax and asserted that those who oppose data centers are intent on being “backwards and poor.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) is among the lawmakers who have called for action on regulating the technology, and he has warned that not doing so could come at a cost on Nov. 3.

“We really need to send a memo around explaining we’ve got midterm elections coming,” Kennedy told Politico. “I may send that out.”

Sept. 21, 2026 12:45 PM PT

AUSTIN, Texas — A Venezuelan man shot by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer was in custody Monday at an ICE detention center in Texas after he was released from a hospital with a bullet still lodged in his back, according to a spokesperson for the man’s attorney.

Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, 28, was making a DoorDash delivery in Austin, the state capital, on Sunday before he was shot during a traffic stop, said Fabiana Meléndez Ruiz, a spokesperson for immigration attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch.

Ruiz said Perez called his wife around 12:30 p.m. Sunday to tell her that he had been shot. She said Perez’s wife hasn’t spoken with him since then.

Perez was being detained at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, about 130 miles southwest of Austin, Ruiz told the Associated Press. She said Lincoln-Goldfinch spoke by phone with Perez, who told her that he was being interrogated while a bullet remained in his back. Perez also said he had no pain medication, according to Ruiz.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, has released little information and has not said what prompted the shooting. In a statement early Monday, the department said it was investigating the shooting of a Venezuelan man in the U.S. illegally who “had a final order of removal.”

Perez is an asylum seeker and entered the United States through a parole program, and he has no criminal history, Ruiz said.

“Regardless of his status, the use of force was unwarranted,” Ruiz said. “As far as we understand, he was here legally.”

The shooting occurred amid a surge in ICE enforcement across the U.S. during President Trump’s second term. During the summer, it reported more than 50,000 monthly arrests in July and August — a first for the agency.

Immigration officers have come under intense scrutiny amid a series of shootings during the crackdown. At least four people have been fatally shot by federal officers during immigration enforcement operations this year.

Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis told reporters Sunday that the shooting occurred after a traffic stop. She said local police were not involved. Local officials said the man was shot once in the torso and had been hospitalized in serious but stable condition.

Perez’s wife and attorney were unable to get information on his condition from the hospital Sunday until hospital attorneys told them about 6 p.m. that he had been discharged 90 minutes earlier, Ruiz said.

She said ICE had not confirmed any information to Lincoln-Goldfinch, who used legal databases and other means to discover where he was being detained.

Austin Mayor Kirk Watson said Sunday he wants local police to have a role in investigating the shooting. Watson said it wouldn’t be appropriate for ICE to investigate on its own.

At the scene of the shooting, a dark blue Toyota Corolla was parked under an overpass with damage to its passenger-side door and what appeared to be bullet holes before it was towed away Sunday evening.

About 100 anti-ICE protesters gathered Sunday in the shooting’s aftermath.

Wilder and Bedayn write for the Associated Press. AP writer Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — California’s growing data center industry will have more oversight after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed seven bills to regulate the industry’s electricity costs and track water consumption.

The new laws come amid growing public concerns about environmental and economic impacts of the massive facilities, and are aimed at protecting consumers from growing electricity costs and tracking the centers’ immense energy and water consumption.

Newsom on Monday criticized President Trump for dismissing calls to curtail or regulate the facilities and heralding them as “money machines,” even as states and communities across the nation take action to ban or regulate the centers.

“While the Trump administration moves toward deregulation, communities are left to deal with the consequences — higher electricity demand, grid constraints, water use, and pollution,” Newsom said in a written statement Monday. “With these laws, we are ensuring that Californians remain in the driver’s seat — and that those profiting from data centers aren’t doing so at our expense.”

Senate Bill 886 by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) and Assembly Bill 2383 by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles) establish special rules for data centers’ electrical use. The law orders California Public Utilities Commission to create special requirements and rates for data centers’ use of electricity, including the costs for new power and for infrastructure upgrades.

Scores of other states have already passed similar legislation, according to utility groups.

Two bills by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) will require oversight of data center water consumption. One measure will require data center operators, when applying for a business license or permit, to disclose an estimate of their water use and the expected source of water. Another will bar cities and counties from approving a new or expanded data center unless the developer submits a water assessment and a water scarcity plan, and will require developers to cover the cost of any water system upgrade that is necessary.

Newsom vetoed a similar Papan bill last year that would have required new data centers to disclose their expected water use. The governor said he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” on “this critically important digital infrastructure” without understanding the full impact on the businesses.

But over the past year, a wave of data center pushback has swept the nation, including California, where dozens of cities and counties have proposed or adopted moratoriums on the facilities. While California lawmakers have hesitated to pursue outright moratoriums and bans that the public is calling for, the political tide has nevertheless turned against the facilities.

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly expanding because of the rise of artificial intelligence, or AI. The centers help power everything from streaming services to videoconferencing calls.

Data centers in California are typically smaller than the mammoth, 500+-megawatt AI facilities making headlines in other parts of the country. Electricity costs and state regulations on gas-powered generators limit the vast majority of them to under 100 megawatts.

But as proposals increase in number, opposition has been fierce and growing. A Public Policy Institute of California poll from July showed that 73% of residents oppose the construction of data centers in their communities.