Politics Desk

Reporting from Sacramento — The streets near the state Capitol emptied Monday after a man barricaded himself in his parked car near the building for more than two hours, prompting fears of a possible bomb attack.

Sacramento police and the California Highway Patrol cordoned off several city blocks as SWAT officers and hostage negotiators attempted to make contact with the man, who had scrawled “cops or criminals” and “I just want justice” on his Mazda sedan and plastered the car windows with paper signs.

He voluntarily surrendered without incident just over two hours after police were called to the scene at 1:47 p.m. The Sacramento Bee identified the man as Edgar Napoles-Rodriguez, 27, of Sacramento, though the suspect’s name has not yet been released by officials.

According to court records, the former roommate of Napoles-Rodriguez was granted a temporary restraining order against him last week. The roommate alleged in a legal filing with the Sacramento County Superior Court that Napoles-Rodriguez threatened her with a baseball bat and also threatened to burn down her house.

————

FOR THE RECORD

April 20, 11 a.m.: An earlier version of this post referred to Edgar Napoles-Rodriguez’s female former roommate as a man. It also misstated Napoles-Rodriguez’s age as 28; he is 27.

————

Law enforcement snipers were spotted on the roof of the Capitol during the standoff. A police robot was used when officers attempted to contact the suspect in his car, which was parked on L Street directly in front of the Capitol building. Before surrendering, the man exited the car and began shouting, “Want to shoot me? Shoot me!”

“He may have not had the best of intentions or be the clearest of mind,” said Officer Matthew McPhail, spokesman for the Sacramento Police Department.

The Capitol was not evacuated during the incident, but one entrance was closed.

The Assembly adjourned early Monday but was scheduled to vote on several big issues, including a ban on smoking on college campuses. It wrapped up the meeting abruptly before 3 p.m.

The Senate went through its full agenda as planned and wished Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Rafael) a happy birthday before adjourning after 3 p.m. without any announcement of the security situation going on outside the building.

Asked about the situation, Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for the Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said, “It’s our policy not to discuss Capitol security details.”

The state Capitol’s security has been ramped up considerably over the last decade.

The most significant incident came late on the night of Jan. 16, 2001, when a big-rig truck smashed into the south side of the historic building during a late-night legislative session on California’s energy crisis. The driver, a 37-year-old man with a history of prison time and mental health issues, slammed his tractor-trailer into the granite portico of the building, and it erupted in flames.

That, plus the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., that fall, sparked a slow but steady move toward increased security around the 142-year-old building.

Now, the perimeter is surrounded by barricades that rise up from the sidewalk, and all public visitors are routed through metal detectors and bag-scanning areas on the north and south sides of the building.

Times staff writers Liam Dillon and Patrick McGreevy contributed to this report.

phil.willon@latimes.com

Follow @philwillon on Twitter for the latest news on California politics

ALSO

Are you an independent voter? You aren’t if you checked this box

Los Angeles Times wins Pulitzer for San Bernardino terrorist attack coverage

California doesn’t have enough housing, and lawmakers aren’t doing much about it

Democrat Xavier Becerra’s rapid rise in California’s race for governor made him a ripe and constant target during a combative nationally televised debate Tuesday evening, his first real test in a high-stakes election that remains highly volatile.

Becerra was ripped throughout the two-hour CNN debate, primarily by his Democratic rivals, who accused him of dodging questions about his stance on single-payer healthcare, falling short as a Biden Cabinet secretary and pocketing a campaign donation from Chevron.

“I think everyone’s invoking my name. It’s nice to hear my name quite a bit,” said Becerra, who served as the U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. “I will tell you this: Distorting the facts in your quest to be governor is never good, but using Trump lies to try to damage your opponents is worse, and that’s what we see happening.”

As ballots land in California voters’ mailboxes, the state’s seven top gubernatorial candidates clashed over immigration, President Trump, tax policy, political temperament and a hodgepodge of scandals, mudslinging and other unsavory actions that have risen to the forefront of the hotly contested race.

The snarky, sometimes petulant exchanges reflect how unsettled the race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom is, as well as California’s outsize economic and political gravitas on the national and international stage.

Shortly after the debate began, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter chastised her fellow candidates for their unceasing attacks.

“I can’t believe [the] interrupting and bickering and name calling and shouting and disrespect for everyone up here who’s stepping into public service that anyone wants to talk about my temperament,” said the former Democratic Congress member from Irvine.

Here are the top takeaways from a two-hour debate that somehow seemed even longer:

Becerra takes his lumps

Beccera, who has surged in the weeks before the June 2 primary, faced a barrage of attacks from his Republican and Democratic rivals about his oversight of unaccompanied immigrant minors during his tenure at the Health and Human Services Department and his relationship with a longtime adviser who, along with other consultants, skimmed about $225,000 from one of Becerra’s dormant campaign accounts.

Becerra is not accused of wrongdoing and has been painted as a victim in the prosecutor’s court filings. Still, conservative commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican, suggested Becerra knew about the scheme, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, questioned why Becerra paid an unusually high fee to one of the consultants named in the indictment.

“It doesn’t pass the smell test,” Villaraigosa said.

Becerra also was accused of changing his position on single-payer healthcare, a top priority of liberal voters that aims to create a healthcare system run and funded by the federal government.

Though Becerra has long supported single-payer healthcare, he recently assured members of the California Medical Assn. — one of the most influential medical lobbyinggroups in California, which has endorsed him — that he would not support it as governor, according to a KQED report.

When asked directly about this, Becerra said “those reports were inaccurate. I continue to be for Medicare for all.”

Becerra sidestepped repeated questions from Porter about whether he supported a state-sponsored single-payer healthcare system in California, saying that he wants to cover “everyone with something like Medicare for all.”

“Covering everyone with something is not single-payer. It’s not even federal Medicare for all. But you won’t say whether you support California having its own state-run single-payer system,” Porter said.

Single-payer healthcare is a telling issue

Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer also has taken heat for changing his position on the issue. The hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior opposed single-payer healthcare during his 2020 presidential bid and now supports a statewide single-payer system called CalCare. He is endorsed by the California Nurses Assn., one of CalCare’s biggest supporters.

A recent analysis by UC researchers estimates CalCare would cost $731 billion to implement in 2027 — a price tag that’s $14 billion larger than all anticipated healthcare spending in California next year.

Villaraigosa said creating a state-sponsored single-payer healthcare system — with a price tag larger than the entire state budget — is a “pie in the sky” proposal. He said he considers healthcare a human right but said a system such as CalCare would require approval from the Trump administration — and that’s not going to happen.

As a former British citizen, Hilton said he is the only candidate who has experienced government-run healthcare.

“As a patient, it nearly killed me,” he said. “That’s another story we don’t have time for. As a policymaker, you end up with the worst patient satisfaction, costs that you can’t afford, taxes, sky-high to pay for it. It is a total disaster.”

Race remains a toss-up

The 2026 gubernatorial contest has been an undulating, unpredictable whirlwind. Unlike every governor’s race for more than a quarter of a century, there is no clear frontrunner, leading to a sprawling field of candidates with notable resumes but little recognition among California’s 23.1 million registered voters.

On Monday, the state Democratic Party released its latest voter survey, which found Hilton and Becerra tied at 18%, and Bianco with 14%. Steyer received the backing of 12%, while support for the other top Democrats in the race — Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, Villaraigosa and State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — was in the single digits. Thurmond did not meet the polling threshold to qualify for Tuesday’s debate or an NBC/Telemundo face-off taking place on Wednesday.

Tuesday’s debate with the leading candidates took place at East Los Angeles College and was hosted by CNN, the first time national media has paid such attention to a California statewide contest since 2010.

Partisan divide on immigration

On the debate stage in Los Angeles, a city that was targeted by Trump administration immigration raids, Bianco criticized California’s sanctuary state laws, which prevent local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement.

Villaraigosa defended the undocumented immigrants residing in California, saying they are vital to the economic success of the state. He also accused Bianco of not understanding how California’s sanctuary state policy works — with the former Los Angeles mayor telling him that California has turned over thousands of undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes to federal immigration officials.

Bianco dismissed Villaraigosa’s comment immediately.

“I want Mr. Villaraigosa to tell the mother of the 14-year-old in my county that is dead because of an illegal immigrant that had been deported three times because of DUIs that sanctuary state policy keeps us safe. I don’t think she’s going to agree with you,” Bianco said.

Democrats Porter, Steyer, Mahan and Becerra accused the Trump administration of “terrorizing” Latino communities and targeting people for deportation based on the color of their skin.

Steyer said he would prosecute ICE agents “and the people who send them,” including former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Trump advisor Stephen Miller, for illegal racial profiling.

Agreement on need for housing

On the issue of housing, the candidates agreed that California has fallen short of providing enough homes to make the state affordable. Mahan, the mayor of San José, said he has reduced the city’s homeless population by making it easier to build ADUs in people’s backyards, and by reducing red tape for additional types of housing.

Villaraigosa said he built more market-rate, affordable and workforce housing when he was mayor of Los Angeles than anyone else on the stage.

Hilton pressed for building single-family homes in areas of the state with space, rather than forcing more housing into places where residents don’t want them.

Steyer said, “Californians can’t afford to live here,” and there has to be a greater conversation about building more housing, and faster. He also said that cities and counties “do not want new housing” because they can’t afford to pay the health and education costs associated with more residents, and he will solve that issue by closing tax loopholes for big businesses.

Still, housing, homelessness and affordability — top-of-mind issues for California voters — overall received scant attention during the debate, even though CNN debate moderators Kaitlan Collins and Los Angeles-native Elex Michaelson pressed the candidates on the state’s incessant problems with affordability.

Steyer did use the affordability issue to criticize Becerra, currently his greatest political threat, for taking a campaign contribution from Chevron.

“Being in bed with oil companies is a mistake,” Steyer said. “Xavier Becerra has taken the max amount of money from Chevron, and he has said they’re good guys that we need. The truth of the matter is the oil companies are ripping us off at the pump. They’re polluting our air and they’re burning up the climate.”

Becerra responded that it was “a rich response from a guy who made his billions investing in fossil fuels and oil companies, in coal companies.”

“Now he makes the billions, and he has spent more than every other candidate combined in this campaign, using those profits to now try to buy his seat in the governor’s office,” Becerra said.

Where they stand on the proposed billionaire tax

A notable area of policy disagreement among Democrats is a proposal to levy a one-time 5% tax on the wealth and assets of billionaires. Supporters of the measure say they have gathered enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot.

If approved, the funds would mostly pay for healthcare cuts approved by the Trump administration last year.

Porter said that, although she wants to increase taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents, she doesn’t support the proposal because it is a “one-time tax” that won’t solve the state’s underlying budget issues.

“Yes to a progressive tax code, yes to the wealthy paying more, but this tax is about cheap political points,” Porter said.

Steyer said he would vote for the tax, but he agreed that state leaders ought to go further, including by taxing corporate interests more.

Bianco agreed with Porter that the billionaire tax is a bad idea.

Villaraigosa said California relies too much on the its wealthiest residents to fill state coffers, which leads to “feast and famine” in its budgets. He said businesses and high-earners are leaving the state, and that a plan to tax the wealthiest Americans needs to be enacted at the federal level.

Republican vs. Republican

The two Republicans on stage appeared content to spend their time blasting the Democrats rather than each other.

Bianco was asked if he thought that Republican voters could trust Hilton.

“You’ve called Hilton unethical and dishonest and said that he swindled his way into the Republican side,” Collins said, citing an article from the Atlantic.

“I would never use the word swindled, but the context — yes, I have said that,” Bianco said after some back-and-forth about the particulars of his criticisms. “Have Steve and I disagreed? Absolutely we have.”

He avoided directly criticizing Hilton but said he was the only person on the stage “that their entire existence in their job revolves around honesty, integrity.”

Hilton swerved, saying voters cannot keep voting for the same thing — Democratic leadership — if they want to see change in the state.”

Times staff writers Dakota Smith and Doug Smith contributed to this report.

One of the things journalism teaches you over and over again is that nothing ruins a good story quite like the facts.

Consider, for example, this week’s renewal of the chattering classes’ infatuation with the “tea party” movement, timed to coincide with the deadline to file federal income tax returns. The group is conventionally portrayed as a burgeoning populist expression of discontent that sprouted spontaneously from the grass-roots and cuts in new ways across sectional, class and gender lines.

Reams of analysis have proceeded from those assumptions, but like a great deal that’s based on anecdotal reporting, it turns out to be wrong. To their great credit, the New York Times and CBS undertook extensive, and expensive, polling that provides the first reliable look at the tea party supporters. Little that has been generally assumed survived the scrutiny.

As it turns out, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans “supports” the tea party movement in any respect, and just 4% of all adult Americans have contributed to it or attended one of its events or both. (On any given day, you probably could drum up twice as many people who think the Pentagon is hiding dead aliens in Area 51.)

Of the 18% of all adults who expressed support for the tea party, the overwhelming majority were white (89%), male (59%) Republicans over age 45 (75%) and significantly more affluent and better educated than the majority of Americans. One in five has an annual income greater than $100,000, and 37% have advanced degrees. More than 9 out of 10 think President Obama is pushing the country into “socialism.”

The survey also found that more than half of the tea party supporters say “the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11% of the general public.”

If all this is beginning to have a familiar ring, it’s because you’ve met these guys before: They’re the “angry white males” we’ve been reading about since political strategist-turned-analyst Kevin Phillips first identified them as an electoral presence during Richard Nixon’s successful presidential campaign in 1968.

They share many qualities with other Americans. For example, while 96% of tea party supporters say they disapprove of the current Congress, 40% think their own representative does a good job, a sentiment shared by 46% of all adults, 73% of whom disapprove of the performance of Congress as a whole.

They aren’t, however, implacable foes of “big government” or even of taxes. More than half (52%) told the pollsters they think their own “income taxes this year are fair,” just 10% less than all American adults. Moreover, a majority told follow-up interviewers that, though they wanted “smaller government,” they didn’t want cuts in our largest social programs, Social Security and Medicare.

So much for the surge of a new anti-government populism.

What the movement really amounts to is old wine in new skins, a re-branding of the old-fashioned angry white male in a camera-ready package tailored to the demands of the 24-hour cable news cycle.

Let’s return to this week, for example: There’s nothing harder for TV to cover than a tax-filing deadline — no conflict, no action pictures. By staging rallies on April 15, and particularly in Washington, the tea party’s strategists made themselves and their speakers the center of cable news coverage. This was true despite the fact that, as the poll demonstrates, a majority of the movement’s supporters think their taxes are fair.

As regular readers of this column will recall, the public packaging of the tea party movement — and particularly events that win it TV airtime, like cross-country bus tours, rallies and ads — is mainly the product of California Republican political consultants, foremost among them the Sacramento-based firm of Russo Marsh and Rogers. That company has not only promoted the movement but also used it to raise money for a political action committee, Our Country Deserves Better, founded to oppose Obama during the general election. This week, Politico reported that, according to federal filings, the Our Country PAC has raised $2.7 million since launching the Tea Party Express bus tours.

“That fundraising success,” Politico wrote, “has also meant a brisk business for Russo Marsh.” The website found that Russo Marsh and a sister firm received $1.9 million of the $4.1 million in payments made by the PAC; some of those funds would have gone for TV airtime and to vendors.

It’s good to see that all the creeping socialism in the nation hasn’t silenced traditional voices, like those of the angry white male, nor wrung the profit motive from our politics.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — The electoral college vote certification was interrupted when supporters of President Trump stormed the Capitol in Washington on Wednesday, capturing the nation’s attention and threatening its democratic process.

The rioters, fueled by Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, breached the building and ran freely through its historic halls before being forced out. The violence resulted in the death of one woman and an emergency district curfew that will last until Thursday morning. Here is how the situation unfolded:

Morning rally near the White House

(Swetha Kannan / Los Angeles Times)

10:53 a.m. Eastern Standard Time: Trump’s lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani incites the crowd at the “Save America Rally,” saying, “Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines are crooked, the ballots are fraudulent. And if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. So … let’s have trial by combat. I am willing to stake my reputation.”

Between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.: Trump supporters continue to gather to protest Congress’ formal counting and certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s electoral college win over President Trump.

1:00 p.m.: As Trump speaks at the rally outside the White House, his supporters advance on the Capitol building.

1:02 p.m.: Vice President Mike Pence issues a letter saying he can’t block election results.

1:13 p.m.: Trump ends his speech at the rally with a call to march down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Riots begin

Police in riot gear clear a hallway inside the Capitol.

(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

Around 1:20 p.m.: Mobs start to form outside the Capitol building, as Trump supporters try to break past police barriers.

2:13 p.m.: The Capitol is locked down, with no entry or exit.

(Swetha Kannan/Los Angeles Times)

2:16 p.m.: Rioters breach the Capitol building, while it is on lockdown.

Violence escalates

2:20 p.m.: Rioters bang on doors at the Capitol and break a window.

2:31 p.m.: D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announces curfew for 6 p.m. Wednesday to 6 a.m. Thursday.

2:47 p.m.: Guards draw their guns in the House chamber.

3:00 p.m.: Rioters storm in and cheer in the Capitol Rotunda.

3:03 p.m.: Rioters are on the Senate floor.

3:13 p.m.: Trump tweets asking for peace at the Capitol.

3:23 p.m.: A woman is shot in the Capitol.

Around 3:50 p.m.: An explosive device is reportedly found at the Republican National Committee building.

(Swetha Kannan/Los Angeles Times)

4:06 p.m.: President-elect Joe Biden makes a speech in Delaware, saying “our democracy is under unprecedented assault.”

President-elect Joe Biden called the violent protests on the U.S. Capitol “an assault on the most sacred of American undertakings: the doing of the people’s business.”

4:18 p.m.: Trump tweets a video repeating his false claims of election fraud and praising his supporters, although he encouraged them to go home. The tweet was later removed by Twitter.

5:34 p.m.: Capitol building is announced as secure.

5:49 p.m.: The woman who was shot is reported dead.

6:00 p.m.: Curfew starts in Washington. Former President George W. Bush issues a statement on the insurrection at the Capitol.

Around 7:00 p.m.: The process begins to resume for Congress to count and announce the electoral college results in favor of Biden.

For the third time in as many weeks, the leading candidates for California governor met on the debate stage Tuesday night.

The latest installment was a two-hour session, hosted and carried live from Monterey Park by CNN. The debate marked the first time the candidates appeared before a national audience and came as mail ballots have begun arriving in homes throughout the state.

Columnists Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria took in all 120 minutes, absorbed every zinger — scripted and otherwise — and dutifully observed each parry and thrust. Here’s what they took away:

Arellano: Antonio Villaraigosa finally rises above his gubernatorial rivals. Is it too late?

I wrote my thoughts about this debate while writing my next columna on … something, stopping to pay attention only when issues in my bailiwick like immigration and the failure of the Democratic Party were the subject of discussion. The rest of the time, what the candidates said came off as one giant shout-fest straight out of the studios of the late, great Wally George, with everyone playing true to form.

Chad Bianco raged, Steve Hilton tried to mask his MAGA-ness with his British accent. Katie Porter scolded, Tom Steyer channeled Bernie. Xavier Becerra did his best impression of the old Bunsen character from “The Muppet Show.” Matt Mahan was just … there.

You know who sounded the best? Antonio Villaraigosa.

Anyone who really knows the former L.A. mayor has always seen him as Chicano Prince Hal, someone who doesn’t take himself as seriously as he should. His infidelities effectively killed his political career after his mayoral years; his consulting for the nutritional supplement company Herbalife made Villaraigosa a walking joke among too many Latinos I know.

He has spent the last decade effectively embodying Marlon Brando’s famous quote in “On the Waterfront”: He coulda been a contender. Even his gubernatorial run, announced way before many of his opponents, has mostly had the air of a has-been — that’s one of the reasons why Villaraigosa has polled so low through most of the race to the point he was excluded from many of the early debates.

But that hangdog Villaraigosa was nowhere to be seen tonight.

His wisecracks were kept to a minimum. He stayed mostly within his time limits and didn’t interrupt much. He hammered Hilton over his refusal to admit that President Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and his dismissal of undocumented immigrants.

Villaraigosa especially went hard on his forever frenemy Xavier Becerra on everything from his time as President Biden’s health secretary to how former staffers have been charged with stealing millions of dollars from his campaign funds. (Becerra has not been accused of any wrongdoing.)

When CNN co-moderator Elex Michaelson asked Villaraigosa if he would cancel California’s much-maligned high-speed rail project, the candidate’s emphatic “No” thundered down like a Lebron James dunk. He called out the waste on the multibillion-dollar project, said he revived L.A.’s subway to the sea, and spoke with a passionate gravitas that Becerra could only dream of doing.

“When I make a mistake, I’m accountable,” Villaraigosa said at the end of the debate. This sounded like a candidate who can win — and now he has a month to make a comeback worthy of his political mentor, the late, great Gloria Molina.

Four weeks to prove them wrong, Antonio.

Barabak: It was a no-hitter.

No startling breakthrough. No game-changing moment. No candidate so irresistibly charming he or she knocked the race akimbo and stamped themselves as the far-and-away front-runner in the slowly consolidating contest.

By now, the candidates are plowing well-furrowed ground.

To anyone who has watched each of the debates — and there may not be a great many of those viewers out there — it was all quite familiar.

What is new, and what may have been the draw for those just tuning in, is a sense the race is finally taking a coherent shape, with Xavier Becerra unexpectedly emerging as the candidate to beat.

A month ago, Eric Swalwell was a leading contender in the dozy contest and Becerra was an afterthought, being urged to quit for the sake of his dignity and the good of the Democratic Party. (Fears of a Democratic shutout in the June 2 primary have greatly receded.)

When Swalwell left the race and vacated his congressional seat amid allegations of sexual assault and other potentially illegal misconduct, it was widely assumed much of his support would move to either Steyer or Porter, the two other leading Democratic contenders.

But Becerra has been the clear-cut beneficiary and his new status was evident Tuesday night as he faced repeated attacks. He didn’t particularly dazzle, but that’s not his appeal. It’s his steadiness and seeming unflappability in a time of great upheaval and stress, and that was again evident.

With less than four weeks to election day — and voting already underway — time is waning for another dramatic shake-up like the one that took place between Swalwell’s implosion in April and Becerra’s surge in May.

It seems, however, as though little to nothing will change, with Becerra steadily gaining ground, Hilton consolidating GOP support and the remainder of the field looking for something — or someone — to drastically shake up the race one more time.

Chabria: I don’t know about a winner, but the debate definitely had a biggest loser: Bianco. The Riverside County sheriff, to his credit I guess, didn’t try for a hot second to hide who he really is — a conspiracy-loving immigration hardliner with ties to an extremist group.

Bianco sort-of said he was a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right organization best known for some of its members participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol. He threw out election fraud theories, even suggesting state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta could be involved. He made it clear that undocumented folks are breaking the law by existing in the state.

Maybe some MAGA voters will stick by that shtick, but I’m guessing independents and more moderate Republicans will find Hilton, the Trump-endorsed Republican, even more appealing after Bianco’s ragey ramblings. Hilton may well be sending his opponent a thank-you note and a bottle of bubbly for that performance.

As for winners, a couple of the Democrats had their moments. Porter spoke with clarity and force on issues including single-payer healthcare (she supports it) and resisting Trump’s immigration policies in this state of immigrants.

But she also directly addressed the criticism of her having a bad temper in a way that I think may haunt her.

As her male opponents bickered back and forth, taking swipes at each other, Porter said that given all the “shouting” and “disrespect” onstage, she was shocked that “anyone wants to talk about my temperament.” It’s a pushback she tried out earlier in the week with a new advertisement that sought to make a punchline out of the criticism.

I get her point and I don’t think a male candidate would face the same scrutiny for yelling at a staffer as she has, but also — what’s more unappealing to voters than an angry woman? A complaining one. That moment of resistance against the narrative may not land the way she intends with voters.

I agree with Gustavo that Villaraigosa had a good night, and that Steyer had Bernie energy — which may be good.

Steyer was the most lively and direct he’s been in a debate, landing a few punches and making points with clarity (far less wonky than he’s been in the past). He’s owning his far-left politics, and labeling himself the “change-maker.”

Steyer has been trailing Becerra in the polls, but Becerra again had a steady if less-than-thrilling appearance. For fed-up Democrats, Steyer may be looking better all the time.

SACRAMENTO — State elections officials warned voters Tuesday to send their mail-in ballots in early following changes at the U.S. Postal Service that has led to slower mail service throughout California.

Atty. General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber said vote-by-mail ballots should be put in the mail at least a week before the June 2 election.

The officials also cast skepticism about social media posts that urges Democrats to vote “late” and to rally around one candidate in order to ensure a Republican doesn’t win. The posts are similar in wording and have spread on Facebook in the last week.

Bonta said the posts, which were brought up by the Times at a news conference in Sacramento, could be “misinformation” or “disinformation” and “potentially unlawful.”

“Get your ballot in the mail at least a week early,” he said. “You want to make sure your vote is counted. And the misinformation that you’re referencing is the misinformation we’re trying to combat.”

Voters using the postal service to mail their ballot within a week of the election should go inside the post office and ask that their ballot be postmarked, or can drop off their ballot at a secure voter box, officials said.

The new guidance follows sweeping changes made at the United States Postal Services last year that has reduced the number of trips to pick up mail at post offices in mostly rural areas in the country, including California.

A Times analysis of last year’s November special election found that there was a significantly higher number of mail-in ballots that arrived too late to be counted compared to the 2024 election.

Rural counties saw some of the biggest increase in rejected ballots because they came in too late, The Times found.

The changes to the postal service are nationwide, but are particularly relevant in California because the vast majority of people vote in the state using mail-in ballots.

Voters who mail a ballot on election day, or even two days before, may not see their vote counted because it will arrive too late, Bonta told reporters.

“You want your vote to be counted, I want your vote to be counted,” Bonta said. “If you vote earlier, you maximize that possibility that it will.”

Vote-by-mail ballots are considered late if they are not postmarked on or ahead of election day or if the postmarked ballots do not arrive within seven days of the election.

Weber’s office also said it would look into a recent trend of social posts that urge California Democrats to “vote late” in the June 2 election.

The posts, which have appeared on Facebook and Instagram, are similar in wording, and tell Democrats to hold off from voting early to ensure that two Republican don’t make the two top spots, and to rally around one Democrat.

California’s primary election system allows the two candidates who received the most votes to advance to the November election, regardless of party.

With many Democrats crowding the ballot this year, some Democratic leaders have expressed concern fear that two Republicans — businessman Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — will take the top two spots because Democratic voters will be splintered among the party’s top seven candidates.

The validity of the social media posts are under scrutiny.

One post on Facebook last week, for instance, purports to be written by historian Heather Cox Richardson. The post warned voters not to vote until after all the debates in California have concluded and the front-runner is clear.

Richardson told the Times she’s not connected to the post. “I didn’t write it and we can’t figure out who did,” she said in an email. “I haven’t— and won’t— take any position in a primary.”

The last statewide election in California was closely watched after the U.S. Department of Justice said would monitor polling sites in some California counties following a request by California Republican Party officials.

However, the election proceeded without any incident.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday sent a letter to elections officials in the state’s 58 counties that highlighted recent legislation mandating that California ballots be counted within 13 days, instead of 30 days. Newsom thanked the elections staff for their work and urged a speedy vote count.

“We must acknowledge that the longer the voting count takes,” Newsom wrote, “the more mis- and disinformation spreads.”

WASHINGTON — Debris from the demolition of the White House East Wing that was dumped at a nearby public golf course has tested positive for lead, chromium and other toxic metals, the National Park Service said.

An interim report by a Virginia engineering firm says the toxic metals, along with PCBs, pesticides, petroleum byproducts and other chemicals were detected at levels above laboratory reporting limits in soil at the East Potomac Golf Links, a historic golf course that President Trump plans to renovate.

The park service began dumping debris from the East Wing onto the golf course in October, and more than 810,000 cubic feet of excavated soil had been transported to the site as of last month, the report by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. said. The report was requested by the park service.

The nonprofit DC Preservation League has sued the Trump administration, arguing that the dumping was unlawful and possibly hazardous. The group also is challenging the Republican administration’s takeover of the golf course, about two miles southeast of the White House, and others in the city.

The suit is one of several legal battles challenging Trump’s extraordinary efforts to put his mark on public spaces in the nation’s capital, including renaming and shuttering the Kennedy Center and building a 250-foot-tall triumphal arch near the Lincoln Memorial.

At the end of last year, a separate group of preservationists filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the administration from demolishing the East Wing so it could build a ballroom, a project slated to cost $400 million.

A spokesperson for the Interior Department, which oversees the park service, said in an email Tuesday that the soil removed from the White House “was tested multiple times by multiple parties, and this project passed all standards set by law.”

Although the agency does not comment on litigation, “this thorough process was followed to ensure the transfer was safe for the public,’’ the email said.

The Preservation League’s executive director, Rebecca Miller, said Tuesday that experts were still analyzing the engineering report. The group also is concerned about whether the Trump administration is complying with federal laws including the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, she said.

Debris from the East Wing demolition is so prevalent that it causes golfers to detour around piles of it, Miller said. “If you Google you’ll see lots of photos of golfers walking past it,” she said in an interview.

The Trump administration’s plans to renovate the 105-year-old course to make it a professional-level course would permanently alter its historic character and layout, Miller said.

A federal judge told the government on Monday not to cut down more than 10 trees without first providing notice amid the legal dispute.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said during a remote hearing that she wasn’t going to issue a temporary restraining order just yet, but she indicated she would take a harsh view of any major alterations made without prior notice.

Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that is co-representing the Preservation League, said in a press release that “further scrutiny will be required related to potential toxins that were dumped at East Potomac Park by the administration as part of the destruction of the East Wing of the White House.”

Test results released by the government “suggest the Defendants dumped a cocktail of contaminants — and despite indications of the refuse’s contents, they continued dumping it,” the group said.

Kevin Griess, the superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks for the park service, said during Monday’s court hearing there was no immediate plan to begin tree removal but added that a safety assessment was underway.

Trump, an avid golfer, also plans on renovating a military golf course just outside Washington that has been used by past presidents going back decades.

In its statement, the Interior Department said it is “committed to continuing the relationships we have built with the local golf communities to ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable, accessible, and world-class for people living in and visiting the greatest capital city in the world.”

Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press.

HARARE, Zimbabwe — Zambia is accusing the United States of tying a $2-billion deal for critical health assistance to access to the southern African nation’s rich mineral assets, and calling the outgoing U.S. ambassador’s allegations of corruption “mischievous” and “undiplomatic.”

The comments by Zambia’s foreign affairs minister, Mulambo Haimbe, on Monday brought into the open simmering tensions over President Trump’s “America First” strategy, which is reshaping aid to Africa into transactional agreements.

Some African leaders and health experts have criticized the new U.S. stance and its demands for sensitive health data in exchange for badly needed support for health systems strained by the Trump administration’s dismantling of foreign aid. Some say they would not receive access to health innovations like vaccines in return.

The U.S. is also seeking to challenge China, a dominant player in Zambia and much of Africa, whose minerals are critical to the green energy transition, including inputs for solar panels, electric vehicle batteries and energy storage systems.

Zambia says talks stalled over data-sharing demands

In a statement, Haimbe described the accusations of Zambian graft and negotiation inertia by outgoing U.S. ambassador Michael Gonzales as “mischievous” and “deeply regrettable, undiplomatic and inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect.”

Haimbe also accused the U.S. of tying access to critical minerals to the conclusion of the health deal, which Gonzales earlier dismissed as “alarmist allegations” that he called “disgusting” and “absolutely and patently false.”

Negotiations have continued for months to conclude the deal, one of dozens the Trump administration is pursuing in some of the world’s most aid-dependent countries.

Gonzales in late April said Zambian leaders had “abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets.” He said Zambian authorities had “ignored” U.S. overtures to conclude a new deal.

But Haimbe said negotiations had stalled over “unacceptable” data-sharing demands “in violation of our citizens’ right to privacy” and “the insistence on preferential treatment of U.S companies over Zambia’s critical minerals.”

Zambia “takes the view, first and foremost, that Zambians must have a say on how her critical minerals are used, and second that no one strategic partner is to be treated preferentially to others,” he said.

The U.S. Embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. says its approach aims to reduce donor dependency

The U.S. approach replaces decades of engagement anchored in the now-dismantled United States Agency for International Development and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

In their place, U.S. officials are negotiating country-by-country agreements that recast aid as a transaction, tying funding to conditions including commercial provisions, domestic financing commitments, disease surveillance, pathogen sharing and even religion.

Since late last year, the U.S. has signed agreements with about 30 countries, many in Africa. Washington says the approach is meant to reduce donor dependency, promote local ownership and safeguard American interests, including against an aggressive China that dominates trade in Africa but contributes less aid.

There has been pushback.

Ghana last week said it had rejected a proposed deal over provisions granting broad access to sensitive health data without safeguards. Zimbabwe walked away from a $367-million package over similar concerns. In Kenya, a $2.5- billion agreement signed in December has been put on hold after a court challenge arguing it violates data protection laws.

In Lesotho, draft U.S. proposals sought 25 years of access to health data and biological samples before local officials secured a shorter five-year deal.

Health experts say data would largely flow one way

Critics say the data-sharing demands tilt toward U.S. interests and warn the information-sharing would largely go in just one direction: toward Washington.

The new agreements aim to ensure the flow of disease surveillance data and biological samples, but through bilateral channels, after the U.S withdrew from the World Health Organization in January, said Asia Russell, executive director of advocacy group Health GAP.

Countries currently report disease outbreaks primarily through the WHO, which coordinates responses and is negotiating new frameworks on pathogen-sharing and equitable access to vaccines.

The U.S., now outside those talks, is pursuing direct access instead.

“[The U.S. wants] to understand what’s actually happening,” said Jen Kates, a senior vice president at the Washington-based nonprofit KFF. “But they are trying to do it in a very different way.”

Health advocates say this risks creating a parallel global health system. In Zimbabwe, a government spokesperson in February said the government terminated negotiations because the U.S. was not offering a “corresponding guarantee of access to any medical innovations — such as vaccines, diagnostics or treatments — that might result from that shared data.”

“That raises serious concerns about who benefits,” said Atilla Kisla of the Southern Africa Litigation Center.

Advocates point to the harsh experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, when African countries contributed data and samples but were largely last in line for vaccines.

Experts warn against health as a ‘bargaining chip’

The agreements with the U.S. are drawing criticism for closed-door negotiations and limited public scrutiny.

“Secrecy is at the center of this. That puts accountability for results at risk,” said Health GAP’s Russell. “It’s impossible to evaluate these deals properly without seeing the full terms. Part of what made PEPFAR successful was transparency. Now that’s been taken away.”

The deals also come with tighter financial conditions. Many include reduced funding compared to previous levels of U.S. assistance, while requiring countries to increase domestic health spending, with aid at risk if targets are not met.

“These are going to be very heavy lifts,” said KFF’s Kates. “Countries are already under strain.”

Critics say some agreements also advance U.S. commercial and political interests, blurring the line between aid and transactional diplomacy.

“When health becomes a bargaining chip, everyone becomes less safe,” Russell warned.

Mutsaka and Imray write for the Associated Press. Keketso Phakela in Maseru, Lesotho, contributed to this report.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and the union that represents rank-and-file police officers offered a stinging rebuke of embattled City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto on Tuesday morning while endorsing one of her challengers in the upcoming election, county prosecutor John McKinney.

Hochman said he analyzed the field and decided the city attorney’s office “desperately needed” an experienced litigator like McKinney, who has been a prosecutor for 28 years and handled some of the city’s highest-profile trials.

“What we need in the L.A. city attorney’s office is someone who actually has courtroom experience, someone who understands how to win a trial,” Hochman said. “Someone who has actually not only talked the talk, but walked the walk.”

Hochman and leaders from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union which represents the majority of LAPD officers, stood shoulder to shoulder in endorsing McKinney. The league recently rescinded its endorsement of Feldstein Soto.

Feldstein Soto has been under fire for weeks, with her office accused of failing to properly inform other city officials about a hack of confidential files that saw 337,000 documents, videos and photographs leaked online. The documents amount to millions of pages, and appear to mostly come from civil lawsuits against the city that have been resolved in court. The files were not secured by a password, according to sources who spoke previously with The Times and requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation.

The city attorney’s office previously responded to questions from The Times by referring to a public report issued April 17, which said a preliminary investigation indicated that “the incident was contained to that third-party environment, and that no other City applications, systems, or department records were accessed or affected.”

While many of the documents dealt with relatively minor issues, others contained sensitive information about police officers. The Times used the leaked documents last month to reveal how the LAPD disciplined the officers who blew up a city block when they misjudged the weight of seized fireworks in South L.A. in 2021.

Sgt. Chris Wecker, vice president of the police union, said officers’ frustration with Feldstein Soto goes beyond the data breach. Wecker noted the city had paid out gargantuan sums in civil cases under Feldstein Soto’s administration, some of which the union believes she misplayed.

“Los Angeles has seen a dramatic rise in lawsuits, settlements and verdicts against the city costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. “The city attorney should not simply react to lawsuits after they’ve been filed. He must work proactively with city departments to identify legal risks before they turn into costly litigation.”

Feldstein Soto has also been accused of mismanaging her office and using the city’s prosecutorial powers for personal vendettas in multiple lawsuits, allegations she has repeatedly denied.

McKinney said he believes the city attorney’s office can do more work to reduce homelessness and criticized Feldstein Soto for her handling of an array of misdemeanor crimes including animal cruelty and trespassing. He said he is a proponent of “Broken Windows” policing — the idea that enforcing lesser laws will reduce felonies and deter criminals from committing worse crimes — and took a shot at Feldstein Soto’s handling of the data breach.

If such an incident happened under his watch, he said his “first call would be to the [Los Angeles Police] Department, the second to the FBI and the third to the people impacted.”

Feldstein Soto’s office has said senior LAPD officials and the city’s IT department were alerted as soon as the leak was discovered, and the FBI is investigating the matter.

Although it’s rare for the county district attorney to weigh in on the race for their city level counterpart — ex-Dist. Atty. George Gascón did not offer an endorsement in the 2022 contest which Feldstein Soto won — Hochman and McKinney are political allies who have aided each other before.

When Hochman emerged from a crowded 2024 primary field to challenge Gascón, McKinney endorsed him and functioned as a campaign surrogate.

A longtime trial prosecutor who oversaw a number of high-profile cases, including winning a conviction against the man who killed beloved L.A. rapper Nipsey Hussle, McKinney was promoted to oversee all special prosecutions in the office after Hochman’s election night victory.

Hochman said his endorsement was more about things McKinney had done right than anything the incumbent had done wrong.

Feldstein Soto still has the endorsements of U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) and Mayor Karen Bass, who is fighting her own difficult reelection battle.

Marissa Roy, a deputy attorney general with the California Department of Justice, is running to the left of the field and has the backing of the county’s Democratic party, the Democratic Socialists of America and her boss, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. Roy has said she wants to turn the office into “the largest public interest law firm in the city,” targeting wage theft, tenant harassment and other issues impacting working-class Angelenos.

A call to Roy’s campaign was not immediately returned Tuesday.

Los Feliz attorney Aida Ashouri is also running.

The announcement from Hochman and the LAPD union could jump-start McKinney’s flagging campaign. He’s raised only $78,000 since entering the field, far less than either Roy or Feldstein Soto.

McKinney is relying on some of Hochman’s past campaign resources, hiring both the man who managed Hochman’s victory in the 2024 district attorney’s race and fundraiser Trey Kozacik, who operates the Pluvious Group.

The group was successful in helping Hochman build a massive war chest during his 2024 run for office, but its work helping organize fundraisers for President Trump in Los Angeles has drawn scrutiny before. The city has often found itself in litigation against the Trump administration in recent years, efforts McKinney would likely have to lead if elected.

McKinney, a registered Democrat, previously told The Times he would protect the city’s residents in court, “regardless of who’s in the White House.”

“I have been very, very disturbed by the activities of some federal law enforcement agencies that have come into Los Angeles and intentionally attempted to terrorize our people,” he said.

Times Staff Writers David Zahniser and Libor Jany contributed to this report.

ATLANTA — The Department of Justice is seeking the names of every person who worked in the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold that Donald Trump has long accused of widespread voter fraud he falsely says cost him victory against Joe Biden in the state that year.

Lawyers for the county filed a motion on Monday night to quash a grand jury subpoena that asks for the names and personal contact information of county employees and volunteer poll workers. This latest action comes after the FBI in January went to a Fulton County elections warehouse and seized ballots and other documents from the 2020 election, which Georgia’s certified totals showed Trump lost in the state to Biden by 11,779 votes out of nearly 5 million cast. Trump, a Republican, still insists the election was stolen from him even though judges and his own attorney general concluded otherwise.

Monday’s court filing says the subpoena is meant to “target, harass and punish the President’s perceived political opponents.” The request is “grossly overbroad and untethered to any reasonable need,” the county’s lawyers argue. It “cannot yield any evidence that could result in a criminal prosecution,” they wrote, arguing that the statute of limitations on any federal crime related to the 2020 election has already expired.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Tuesday.

County Board of Commissioners Chairman Robb Pitts, in an emailed statement, called the subpoena “yet another act of outrageous federal overreach designed to intimidate and chill participation in elections.”

“Let me be crystal clear. Fulton County will not be intimidated,” said Pitts, a Democrat who’s running for reelection.

Since the 2020 election, Trump “has obsessively propagated the debunked conspiracy theory that Fulton County ‘stole’ the 2020 election from him,” the county’s lawyers wrote. “And he has made it clear that he seeks retribution against those who refuse to indulge his baseless claims.”

Trump has already targeted individual poll workers like Ruby Freeman, who was attacked by him and his supporters after the election. Freeman, who’s Black, has said she was forced to flee her home after false claims of election fraud against her led to racist threats and strangers showing up at her home.

The grand jury subpoena, dated April 17, was served on the county’s director of elections on April 20, the county’s court filing says. It seeks the “name, position/function, residential and email addresses, and personal telephone number(s)” for thousands of election workers “ranging from county employees who assisted on election day, to bus drivers who operated a mobile voting location, to volunteers and temporary poll workers,” the filing says.

The subpoena “is a chilling escalation in the campaign to terrorize Fulton County election workers,” the county’s lawyers wrote, adding that threats arising from the current political environment have caused election workers to “fear for their physical safety.” That and other stresses “including the likelihood of being scapegoated by public officials” are causing election workers to leave their jobs “in unprecedented numbers,” they wrote.

The county’s lawyers note that the subpoena directs the county to provide the records not to the grand jury but to an out-of-state Justice Department lawyer or to the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit used for the seizure of the county’s 2020 ballots in January.

The January seizure of the ballots and other records from Fulton County was one in a string of moves by Trump’s administration to obtain past election records from critical swing states. The FBI in March used a subpoena to get records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County in Arizona. And the Justice Department in April demanded that Michigan’s Wayne County turn over its ballots from the 2024 election, which Trump won against Biden’s vice president, Kamala Harris.

The Justice Department is also fighting numerous states in court for access to voter data that includes sensitive personal information. Election officials, including some Republicans, have said handing over the information would violate state and federal privacy laws.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans have added $1 billion in White House security upgrades to legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies, a proposed boost for President Trump’s ballroom project after a man was charged with trying to assassinate him at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last week.

The GOP bill released late Monday would designate the money for the U.S. Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the ballroom project, which Trump and Republicans have been pushing since Cole Tomas Allen allegedly stormed the April 25 media dinner at the Washington Hilton with guns and knives. The legislation says the money would support enhancements to the ballroom project, “including above-ground and below-ground security features,” but also specifies that the money may not be used for non-security elements.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle praised Republicans for including the money for the “long overdue” project, saying it would “provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS.”

The money is part of a larger bill to pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, as Democrats have been blocking funds for both agencies since mid-February. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to fund the rest of the Homeland Security Department on April 30 after a record-long shutdown, but Republicans are using a partisan budget maneuver to push through the ICE and Border Patrol dollars on their own. The House has not released its bill yet, but the Senate is expected to start voting on its version of the legislation next week.

It is unclear exactly how the $1 billion would be used, and the amount far exceeds the proposed $400 million for construction of the ballroom. The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. Trump has said it should include bulletproof glass and be able to repel drone attacks.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to block construction of the project, but a federal appeals court said last month that it can continue in the meantime.

The White House has said that private money would pay for the construction but public money would be used for security measures. Some Republicans have suggested that public money pay for all of it, arguing the security breach at the dinner shows the president needs a secure place to host events.

“It would be insane” to hold the dinner at a hotel again, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who introduced a bill to pay for the ballroom’s construction with Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.

Democrats have said they will oppose any efforts to pay for the ballroom.

“While Americans are struggling to make ends meet as a result of President Trump’s failed policies, Republicans are focused on providing tens of billions of dollars for the President’s vanity ballroom project and cruel mass deportation campaign,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the U.S. Secret Service.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — White House economists estimate that President Trump’s deals with pharmaceutical companies to drop some of their U.S. prescription drug prices to what they charge in other countries could save $529 billion over the next 10 years.

The analysis obtained by the Associated Press includes the first economy-wide projections behind a policy at the core of Trump’s pitch to voters going into November’s midterm elections for control of the House and Senate. Democratic lawmakers have been doubtful about the savings claimed by Trump and these new numbers are likely to trigger additional questions about the data.

Cost-of-living issues are at the forefront of voters’ concerns and higher energy prices tied to the Iran war have deepened the public’s anxiety. Trump has tried in part to address affordability concerns by focusing on his efforts to cut deals with companies so that the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. would no longer be dramatically higher than in other affluent nations.

“Now you have the lowest drug prices anywhere in the world,” Trump said at a Friday rally before a crowd of seniors in Florida. “And that alone should win us the midterms.”

The analysis was done by administration officials for the White House Council of Economic Advisers. They also estimated that federal and state governments could save a combined $64.3 billion on Medicaid during the next decade because of what Trump calls his “most favored nation” policy on drug prices.

Few of the details of the deals struck by the Trump administration and 17 leading pharmaceutical companies have been made public, making it hard to independently verify the projected savings. The White House analysis sought to estimate the prospective savings as more medications come onto the market and fall under Trump’s framework — with one model in the report tallying the possible savings at $733 billion over a decade.

Trump and his Department of Health and Human Services have touted his drug-pricing deals as transformative and urged Congress to codify their principles into law. Democratic lawmakers have challenged the administration’s claims of savings. Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 17 Senate Democrats in April proposed a measure requiring the administration to disclose the terms of the agreements signed by pharmaceutical companies.

“If these deals are so great, why is the Trump administration afraid of showing them to the public?” Wyden said when announcing the measure. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his team would share details that didn’t include proprietary information or trade secrets.

The White House said it has not shared the text of the agreements because they include highly sensitive data that could move financial markets.

The potential savings estimated by the Trump administration would be substantial as Americans spent $467 billion on prescription drugs in 2024, according to the most recent government data available. The analysis is premised on the idea that foreign countries would also pay more for their prescription drugs, which would diversify drugmakers’ sources of revenue and preserve their ability to innovate with new treatments.

Outside economists have caveated that any savings might not flow directly to patients, many of whom already pay discounted prices for their drugs through their insurance coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office in October 2024 estimated that a plan similar to what Trump ended up adopting could reduce prescription drug prices by more than 5%, though the decrease “would probably diminish over time as manufacturers adjusted to the new policy by altering prices or distribution of drugs in other countries.”

The scope of the savings claimed by the Trump administration are likely to intensify the scrutiny by Democrats, who counter that any price reductions would be offset by higher costs for prescription drugs not covered by the “most favored nation” framework. One of their main critiques is that pharmaceutical companies have increased their profit margins while working with the administration.

In April, staff working for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released an analysis that looked at 15 of the companies that have agreed to this drug-pricing plan and found that their combined profits jumped 66% over the past year to $177 billion. The report noted that the tax cuts Trump signed into law last year “exempted or delayed many of the most expensive drugs” from price negotiations with Medicare.

The Trump administration has countered that they consider Sanders’ critique to be flawed, saying that it’s based on the list prices for pharmaceutical drugs instead of the actual price that patients pay.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Department of Education opened an investigation Monday into Smith College, an all-women’s institution in Massachusetts, for admitting transgender women.

The probe by the department’s Office of Civil Rights will look at whether the college violated Title IX, a 1972 law forbidding discrimination based on sex in education.

The move is the latest by the Trump administration — whose rhetoric has frequently included attacks on trans people — to limit transgender rights in the U.S. The administration has said that Title IX prevents trans women from participating in women’s sports, suing several states and launching investigations into schools for not complying.

Smith College, a private liberal arts school founded in 1871, has admitted trans women since 2015, along with many other elite women’s colleges.

The school’s admission policies drew attention and sparked on-campus activism in 2013, when a trans high school senior was denied acceptance because her gender identity did not match the one on her financial aid forms.

Its website now says that “any applicants who self-identify as women; cis, trans, and nonbinary women” are eligible to apply to the school. Advocates have supported the shift over the years, saying that women’s colleges were founded to educate those marginalized because of their gender.

The number of women’s colleges in the U.S. has declined from more than 200 to just 30 as of fall of 2023, according to the Women’s College Coalition.

A college spokesperson did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

According to the Department of Education in a news release, Title IX contains an exception that allows colleges to be all-male or all-female, but it only applies “on the basis of biological sex difference, not subjective gender identity.”

The investigation into Smith College stems from a complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights in June 2025 by the conservative legal group Defending Education.

“DE and its members oppose, among other things, discrimination on the basis of sex in America’s K-12 schools and institutions of higher education,” the organization said in a news release.

During the Biden administration, new Title IX regulations were issued to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. However, those were struck down by a federal judge in January 2025 who decided the rules had legal shortcomings.

Ding writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The United States has launched a new military operation to ensure commercial shipping vessels can safely pass through the Strait of Hormuz, deploying scores of warships, fighter jets and drones to counter Iranian efforts that have threatened the narrow waterway that carries a fifth of the world’s oil.

At a news conference Tuesday at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the new initiative — dubbed “Project Freedom” — is a temporary and defensive operation meant to resume the flow of traffic through the international waterway as hostilities have continued in the region.

“We are not looking for a fight, but Iran cannot be allowed to block innocent countries and their goods from an international waterway,” Hegseth said, while calling Iran’s tactics “international extortion.”

The operation comes nearly a month after the United States reached a fragile ceasefire deal with Iran, a truce that Hegseth said remains in effect even though Tehran has continued to attack U.S. forces and commercial vessels.

“The ceasefire is not over,” Hegseth said.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that since the ceasefire took effect, Iran has fired at commercial vessels nine times, seized two container ships and attacked U.S. forces more than 10 times. All of these instances, he said, are “below the threshold of restarting major combat operations at this point.”

Those attacks have left more than 1,550 vessels trapped in the Arabian Gulf, unable to transit, disrupting global trade and pushing energy markets toward crisis, with fuel prices climbing and shipping costs surging.

The new U.S. mission was cast as separate from the broader military campaign over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As negotiations to denuclearize Iran continue, Caine said commercial vessels wanting to cross the strait will now “see, hear and frankly feel the U.S. combat power around them, on the sea, in the skies and on the radio.”

Two U.S. commercial vessels, escorted by Navy destroyers, have already moved through the Strait, Hegseth said.

“We know the Iranians are embarrassed by this fact,” Hegseth said. “They said they control the strait, they do not.”

Hegseth called the operation a “direct gift from the United States to the world,” aimed at resuming traffic through one of the world’s most vital waterways.

“To what remains of Iran’s forces: if you attack American troops or innocent commercial shipping, you will face overwhelming and devastating American firepower,” Hegseth said. “The president has been very clear about this.”

On Tuesday evening local time, the UAE’s defense ministry said in a statement on X that the country’s defensive systems “are actively engaging with missiles and UAV threats and that “sounds heard across the across the country are the result of ongoing engaging operations.”

Tuesday’s barrage marks the second consecutive day of attacks targeting the UAE since the U.S.-Iran ceasefire took hold on April 8. On Monday, the UAE said it engaged a total of 12 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles and four drones launched from Iran.

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos, in Beirut, contributed to this report.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has shown an ability to make a lot of noise at the government agency known in recent years to be a little sleepy.

But his April 28 announcement that the Walt Disney Co.’s eight ABC TV stations will undergo an early review of their broadcast licenses is his loudest action yet taken on behalf of President Trump, who repeatedly threatened media outlets that he believes are critical of him.

Carr is calling for the review two years before any of the station licenses are up, citing the agency’s inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

The timing of Carr’s move is raising eyebrows as it comes after First Lady Melania Trump’s call for the firing of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over his April 23 comedy bit on the White House correspondents’ dinner. A tuxedo-clad Kimmel called Melania Trump “beautiful,” saying she had “the glow of an expectant widow.”

The first lady’s remarks came after a man armed with a shotgun, handgun and several knives breached security at the Washington black-tie event on April 25. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, was arrested and faces three criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president.

Kimmel’s gag became ammunition for right-wing commentators, who claim the left is stoking political violence.

The host said the joke was about the age difference between the 79-year-old president and his wife. Kimmel denied it was a call for violence and has continued to mock the president on his show.

Carr insisted at a Washington news conference last week that his demand for a review is not related to Kimmel’s remarks.

Although many are skeptical, Carr, who was at the April 25 dinner, told The Times there would be an action related to ABC coming soon. The conversation occurred hours before the shots were fired.

The investigation into Disney’s practices began in March 2025, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reverse DEI initiatives across private companies, federal agencies, universities and other organizations.

After the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which spurred the Black Lives Matter movement, companies such as Disney and NBC-owned Comcast aggressively promoted their diversity efforts.

But experts believe Carr is acting on ABC at the behest of Trump, as the chairman has often expressed support on social media whenever the president criticizes one of the broadcast TV news outlets.

“It might be the case that Disney can get some early relief by saying this should be dismissed because this is really a 1st Amendment issue,” said James Speta, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. “We all know what’s going on here — the administration doesn’t like the speech that’s coming out of the talent on the broadcasting airwaves.”

Disney is not commenting on Carr’s DEI investigation, but it earlier defended the record of its TV stations, which are ratings leaders in most markets. “We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels,” the company said.

Here’s a primer on what to know and the challenges Disney may face.

Why are TV stations licensed by the government?

Government licensing regulates the spectrum allocated to broadcast channels, largely to prevent interference between TV signals. When renewals come up, the license holder must demonstrate that the station is serving the public interest by providing local news, program diversity and educational and informational shows for children. The procedure once occurred every three years, but deregulation efforts have extended that period to the current span of eight years.

When was the last time a TV station faced a significant license renewal challenge?

The most notable recent example was Fox Corp.’s Philadelphia station WTXF, which was up for a license renewal in October 2023. Activist groups filing the challenge said Fox was unfit to own the outlet after a judge ruled earlier that year that the company’s Fox News Channel had spread falsehoods about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Fox paid $787 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems that alleged the cable news channel damaged the company’s reputation.

Fox News, which operates on cable and satellite and is therefore not subject to FCC control, has a different management team than the parent company’s local TV stations, which mostly cover their communities and do not typically present political commentary. The FCC rejected the renewal challenge in January 2025, noting that none of the false information on Fox News was heard on the Philadelphia station. WTXF was not cited in Dominion’s lawsuit.

Are there any other examples?

Yes. Other White House administrations have threatened to pull TV station licenses in response to negative news coverage. At the height of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Richard Nixon’s allies unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the TV licenses of three stations then owned by the Washington Post.

Has a company ever lost its broadcast license?

RKO General, a unit of the General Tire and Rubber Co., was the last company to lose broadcast TV station licenses in 1987, including Los Angeles outlet KHJ. The case was related to corporate malfeasance and not broadcast content on the stations.

The process to revoke the RKO licenses took seven years from the moment the FCC voted in favor of the move.

But isn’t this case different?

Yes. Although the rule Carr mentioned is legitimate, the FCC has rarely if ever acted on it, according to one veteran TV executive who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. If Disney or any other company was found to violate the nondiscrimination rule, they would in previous eras probably be subjected to a just a fine, not the denial of a license, which would be viewed by many as government censorship.

What happens in the event that ABC licenses are not renewed?

Nothing immediately, as the licenses are in effect through 2028 to 2032, depending on the outlet. If Disney had to sell the stations, the price would probably be depressed due to pressure to unload the properties.

But public communications attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman told The Times last month that the bar for denying a renewal is high and any effort would be tied up in court on constitutional grounds.

“The law intentionally sets out a very steep burden for the FCC to deny a license renewal; the process takes many years, during which time the licensee continues to operate normally under ‘continuing operating authority,’” Schwartzman said.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court often resembles a feuding family where the same heated arguments go on for years.

The justices disagree over race, religion, abortion, guns and the environment, and more recently, presidential power and LGBTQ+ rights. And while they try to maintain a cordial working relationship, they don’t claim to be good friends.

“We are stuck with one another whether we like it or not,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote last year in her book, “Listening to the Law.”

And like it or not, the testy exchanges and simmering anger have been increasing, driven by the sharp ideological divide.

The three liberals had known since October the conservative majority was preparing to elevate partisan power over racial fairness.

By retreating from part of the Voting Rights Act, the court’s opinion last week by Justice Samuel A. Alito will allow Republicans across the South to dismantle voting districts that favor Black Democrats.

Justice Elena Kagan, who first came to the court as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, denounced the “demolition” of a historic civil rights law.

In dissent, she quoted Marshall’s warning that if all the voting districts in the South have white majorities, Black citizens will be left with a “right to cast meaningless ballots.”

But Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined the court 20 years ago believing the government may not make decisions based on race.

Their first major ruling was a 5-4 decision that struck down voluntary school integration policies in Seattle and Louisville. It was illegal to encourage some students to transfer based on their race, Roberts said.

When faced with a redistricting case from Texas, Roberts described it as the “sordid business … [of] divvying us up by race.”

With President Trump’s three appointees on the court, the conservatives had a solid majority to change the law on race. Three years ago, they struck down college affirmative action policies.

Watching closely were states such as Alabama and Louisiana.

They had been sued by voting rights advocates, and both had been required to draw a second congressional district with a Black majority.

Their state attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing these race-based districts were unconstitutional.

In a decision that surprised both sides, Alabama lost by a 5-4 vote in 2023.

Roberts said the Voting Rights Act as interpreted by past decisions suggests Alabama must draw a second congressional district that may well elect a Black candidate. The three liberals agreed entirely and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast a tentative fifth vote.

Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas filed strong dissents, joined by Barrett and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Last year, the justices agreed to decide a nearly identical appeal from Louisiana, and this time Roberts joined the conservative majority and assigned the opinion to Alito.

He argued the Voting Rights Act gave “minority voters” an equal right to vote but not a right to “elect a preferred candidate.”

The decision dealt a double blow to Black Democrats because an earlier 5-4 opinion by Roberts freed state lawmakers to draw voting districts for partisan advantage.

That ruling, combined with Wednesday’s decision, will bolster Republicans trying to maintain their narrow hold on Congress.

As if to highlight that point, the court’s six Republican appointees were guests of President Trump at Tuesday’s White House dinner for King Charles.

Just a few days before, Trump had slammed the court in another social media post.

“The Radical Left Democrats don’t need to ‘Pack the Court’. It’s already Packed,” he wrote. “Certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad.” They had struck down his sweeping tariffs, he said, “they probably will … rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship.”

That didn’t stop him from inviting them to the White House, nor did the partisan appearances dissuade them from attending.

Alito is enjoying his moment of acclaim as the voice of the conservative legal movement.

In March, the Federalist Society held a day-long conference in Philadelphia to celebrate the “Jurisprudence of Justice Alito.”

He is the subject of two new books. One, by journalist Mollie Hemingway, calls him “the justice who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution.”

The other, by author Peter S. Canellos, is “Revenge for the Sixties: Sam Alito and the Triumph of the Conservative Legal Movement.”

Alito attended Princeton during the Vietnam War and was put off “by very privileged people behaving irresponsibly,” as he later described his classmates.

He then went to the Yale Law School and, like Thomas, left with a lasting disdain for the left-leaning faculty and students.

Alito has a book of his own scheduled to be released in October. It is called “So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court and Our Country.”

Last month, rumors and speculation had it that Alito and perhaps Thomas planned to retire this year so Trump and the Senate Republicans could quickly fill their seats.

At age 76, Alito is at the peak of his influence and has no interest in stepping down, and he and Thomas confirmed to news organizations they had no plans to retire this year.

For 20 years, Alito has cast reliably conservative votes at the Supreme Court and regularly argued for moving the law farther to the right.

Most famously, he wrote the court’s 5-4 opinion in the Dobbs case that overturned Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion.

Roberts issued a partial dissent, arguing the court should uphold Mississippi’s 16-week limit on abortions and stop there.

Alito has called religion a “disfavored right,” and there too a change is underway.

In the decades before his arrival, the court had handed down steady rulings barring taxpayer funds for religious schools or religious ceremonies or symbols in public schools or city parks.

Then, the court viewed these official “endorsements” of religion as violations of the 1st Amendment’s ban on an “establishment” of religion or the principle of church-state separation.

Those decisions have faded into the background, however.

Instead, Alito, Roberts and the four other conservatives see today’s threat as one of discrimination against religion, not official favoritism for religion.

They ruled church schools and their students may not be denied state aid because of religion. Similarly, Catholic charities and other religious groups may not be excluded from publicly funded programs because they refuse to accept same-sex parents, the justices said.

They upheld a football coach’s right to pray on the field. And they ruled for a wedding cake maker in Colorado and other business owners who refused to serve same-sex couples in violation of a state civil rights law.

Religious liberty has now replaced separation of church and state as the winning formula at the Supreme Court.

The next test on that front may come from Louisiana, which calls for the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classes.

In the past, the court had ruled such religious displays violated the 1st Amendment, but it is not clear that the current majority will agree.

The court’s oral arguments for this term ended last week. Many of them were dominated by questions from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

A statistical tally by Adam Feldman for Scotusblog found that Jackson, the newest justice, had spoken twice as many words as the most talkative of the conservative justices.

Her arrival shifted the “center of verbal energy” to the liberal side, Feldman wrote. While Jackson “sits in a class of her own,” Sotomayor also presses the argument on the liberal side.

The court now has about eight weeks to hand down the decisions in 35 remaining cases. Usually, May and June can be a trying time because of intense disagreements over the opinions in close cases.

But for the liberal justices, it also may be a time mostly for writing dissents.

WASHINGTON — Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, citing concerns about his privacy and a lack of passion for political combat, on Wednesday proclaimed that he would not run for President in 1996.

For the first time, Powell declared that he was a Republican. And he seemed clearly to leave open the possibility of seeking political office in the future. But he categorically ruled out accepting the vice presidential nomination next year.

In a dramatic afternoon press conference in suburban Washington, Powell, 58, said that entering the political arena “requires a calling that I do not yet hear. And for me to pretend otherwise would not be honest to myself, it would not be honest to the American people.”

“And therefore I cannot go forward,” he said. “I will not be a candidate for President or for any other elective office in 1996.”

Powell’s wife, Alma, stood at his side as he ended months of suspense about his political intentions and disappointed millions of potential supporters. His adult children, Michael, Linda and Annemarie, looked on in the packed hotel ballroom where Powell delivered his fateful verdict.

“I have spent long hours talking with my wife and children, the most important people in my life, about the impact an entry into political life would have on us,” Powell said. “It would require sacrifices and changes in our lives that would be difficult for us to make at this time.”

With the September publication of his best-selling memoirs, “My American Journey,” Powell had become a four-star American icon, the repository of the hopes of millions who dreamed that he could bind up the nation’s racial and political wounds.

But in the end, that task proved too great even for the charismatic general, who braved unfriendly fire in Vietnam and survived the ordeals of bureaucratic combat in four presidential administrations.

Powell said Wednesday he hoped he could help restore civility to American political dialogue and a “sense of shame in our society.” He also said he hoped to bring blacks back into the party by broadening the GOP’s appeal and humanizing its attempts to reform social welfare programs.

“While we’re sending out block grants, while we’re dismantling programs that have not completely satisfied everything we hoped of them, we have to concern ourselves about those who may be cut loose, and we have to be prepared to help them,” Powell said. Over the past months, “I didn’t sense there was enough consideration of that.”

“I will continue to speak out forcefully in the future on the issues of the day, as I have been doing in recent weeks,” Powell said. “I believe I can help the party of Lincoln move once again close to the spirit of Lincoln.”

But–for now–he said he would do so from outside the realm of electoral politics.

Powell largely came to his decision over the weekend and formalized it in a meeting Monday night with two of his closest friends, former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage and former White House Chief of Staff Kenneth M. Duberstein. With a third aide, retired Col. Bill Smullen, joining in by phone, the three men sat in Powell’s formal office on the ground floor of his McLean, Va., mansion, a room dominated by his Medal of Freedom and three framed photographs of the presidents he has served–Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton.

Alma Powell joined the group about halfway through the 2 1/2-hour meeting, Armitage said in an interview Wednesday.

“By then, the decision was primarily made,” Armitage said. “Over these past weeks, he was up and down, he agonized. He’d go out and meet with crowds and they’d fire him up. Then he’d get back home and wonder, ‘Do I have the necessary fire in the stomach to be worthy of support of these people?’ And he found he did not,” Armitage said.

As it became clear that Powell would not run, the meeting moved quickly to a discussion of the logistics of the announcement. The four discussed various drafts of a statement, then decided that Powell should speak solely in his own words. On Wednesday afternoon, he did just that, speaking largely without reference to the note cards he had carried with him.

He had looked “deep into my own soul” before deciding not to run, Powell said, and had found that he could not summon up the “commitment and passion” he felt every day in his 35 years as a soldier.

Powell also pointedly refused to endorse any of the Republican candidates, or even the party’s eventual nominee. He answered a curt “yes” to the question of whether there were candidates in the current crop of GOP hopefuls who were unacceptable to him.

A close friend said later that Powell was referring specifically to Patrick J. Buchanan, who has harshly criticized Powell’s stands on social issues.

Powell’s decision reopens a presidential contest that had been largely frozen for the last two months as he flirted with running.

Within an hour of Powell’s announcement, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said that the former general’s withdrawal made it more likely that he would enter the race. Gingrich said he would think about it over the next several weeks and make a decision after the current federal budget deliberations are finished but before the Dec. 15 deadline for entering New Hampshire’s primary.

Powell’s withdrawal was particularly welcome news at the White House and at the headquarters of GOP presidential front-runner Sen. Bob Dole. In a statement, Dole praised Powell’s “outstanding character and leadership” and expressed pleasure that he had joined the Republican Party.

At the White House, aides showed unusual discipline in not admitting that they felt a huge sense of relief at not having to face Clinton’s worst nightmare–a black, centrist, Republican military hero–in the general election next year.

“Everyone wants some hook to say there was a sigh of relief at the White House–but you’ll have to do it on your own,” said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

He added that Clinton “understands the decision to run for President of the United States is one of the most difficult decisions any human can make. He respects the general and respects the general’s right to make that decision.”

Powell met with the press for 40 minutes at the Ramada Plaza hotel in Alexandria, Va., a few miles down the George Washington Parkway from the Pentagon, where Powell made history by becoming the first African American and youngest chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

His appearance was marked by the good humor, military carriage and unshakable poise he displayed in private meetings with presidents, kings and prime ministers and in public briefings on the American military operations he directed.

He expressed gratitude to the thousands of citizens who urged him to run. “It says more about America than it says about me. In one generation, we have moved from denying a black man service at a lunch counter to elevating one to the highest military office in the nation and to being a serious contender for the presidency,” he said.

Powell drew laughs when asked whether his wife shared his enthusiasm for the Republican Party. “Next!” he boomed. He also fended off a question about whether he had been bothered by published reports that his wife was under treatment for depression.

“It is not a family secret,” he said. “It is very easily controlled with proper medication, just as my blood pressure is sometimes under control with proper medication.”

For her part, Alma Powell made clear her concerns about her husband’s safety should he become a candidate. She and the general denied that fears of assassination were a factor in his decision not to run, but the final call was not made until Monday night, the day slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was buried in Jerusalem.

Had he been elected, Powell said, his priorities in office would have been: “Show leadership. Be a conciliator. Move the government forward toward less government. . . . Try to inspire people. And try to restore a sense of family, restore a sense of shame in our society, help bring more civility into our society.”

Powell said he regretted the disappointment he caused those who enthusiastically promoted his candidacy.

“I am deeply, deeply appreciative of that support, I’m deeply appreciative of the time and talent and energy you put into it. I’m sorry I disappointed you, but I hope you will see that in the next phase of my life I will continue to serve the country in a way that will justify the kind of inspiration and enthusiasm and support you sent my way this time around,” Powell said, addressing the several dozen supporters who attended the press conference and millions more watching on television.

He said he understood the “down and dirty” of American politics and said they were a proper test of a potential leader. He said he was not afraid of that “test of fire,” but that he was not yet ready to face it.

Among those watching on television were about half a dozen disheartened volunteers at the draft-Powell headquarters in the Crenshaw district in Los Angeles. The group, which had just opened the office last week, vowed to launch an effort to change Powell’s mind. Through letters, phone calls and other means, they hope to persuade the retired general “to report for duty as a candidate for the presidency,” said Powell backer Ron Weekly.

Times staff writers Sam Fulwood III in Washington and Erin Texeira in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

* LOCAL REACTION: General’s Orange County kin pleased with his decision. A17

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday shut down an inquiry by Democrats into whether the Bush administration acted illegally or inappropriately last year when it withheld from Congress its estimates of the true cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill.

At issue are allegations that then-Medicare Administrator Thomas A. Scully threatened to fire his top actuary if he gave lawmakers his analyses showing the costs would be much higher than administration officials were saying publicly.

Thursday’s conclusion of a Ways and Means Committee hearing all but ensured that two individuals central to the controversy — Scully and White House aide Doug Badger — would not testify before Congress.

Separately, the Health and Human Services Department is conducting an internal investigation into the matter, and Democratic lawmakers have requested civil and criminal inquiries.

Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee had asked Scully and Badger to answer questions about when President Bush and top-ranking officials were told that internal estimates of the Medicare bill’s cost were more than one-third higher than the $400 billion Bush had set aside, and why those analyses had not been shared with lawmakers.

But White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, in a letter to committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Bakersfield), cited “long-standing White House policy” against having White House staff members testify before Congress as the reason Badger would not appear.

And Scully, now a private consultant, said in a letter to Thomas that he was unable to appear before the committee because “unfortunately, for the past ten days I have been traveling.”

Committee Democrats rejected both explanations. In the case of Badger, they said at least 45 high-ranking Clinton administration officials had testified before Congress; in the case of Scully, they offered to let him appear at a later time. But Republicans quashed the Democrats’ attempts to subpoena the men.

Republican committee members accused the Democrats of trying to capitalize on the controversy, which erupted last month when Medicare actuary Richard S. Foster told reporters that Scully had threatened to fire him if he responded to Democratic requests for analyses of the pending legislation.

Thomas, the committee chairman, said that although he was willing to use “whatever tools are necessary to get to the bottom of a violation of law,” he was not willing to issue subpoenas to Badger and Scully “to satisfy someone’s whim or curiosity.”

As for preliminary estimates by Foster indicating that the Medicare bill could cost as much as $551 billion over 10 years, Thomas said the information “probably would not have enlightened Congress as much as confused Congress.” Thomas chaired the House-Senate conference committee that completed the legislation.

In January, the Bush administration revised the estimated cost of the Medicare overhaul to $534 billion.

Democrats, who noted the original Medicare bill passed the House in June by one vote, charged that a broader constitutional issue was at stake: How far can the executive branch go in withholding information from Congress that could affect the outcome of a vote?

In November, a narrowly divided Congress passed the Medicare bill, which created a new prescription drug benefit and gave private insurers and drug companies billions of dollars to lure seniors and the disabled into managed care plans.

Several conservative Republicans, who were concerned about the bill’s projected $400-billion cost, voted for the legislation only after high-pressure lobbying by Bush and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson.

“The main issue is who knew about the actuarial figure, and why wasn’t it disclosed in a timely fashion?” said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.). “There was a cover-up of this information and we want to know how high the cover-up went.”

Procedural maneuvering and partisan wrangling dominated much of Thursday’s hearing, which was more than half over before its two witnesses began their testimony.

Jeff Flick, regional administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in San Francisco, confirmed that while serving as Scully’s special assistant he composed an e-mail to Foster that reiterated Scully’s insistence that Foster withhold information requested by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward).

“The administrator emphasized that if Rick does not adhere to these instructions, it is outright insubordination and insubordination carries serious consequences,” Flick said, adding that Scully’s “actual language may have been more colorful.”

Scully, who has denied threatening to fire Foster, acknowledged in his letter to Thomas that “there is no question whatsoever that I made it very clear to Mr. Foster, both directly and indirectly, that I, as his supervisor, would decide when he would communicate with Congress.”

Leslie M. Norwalk, acting deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told committee members that she had advised an anguished Foster that although his office was not legally required to share information with Congress, the office was subject to Scully’s authority.

WASHINGTON — As states scramble to postpone presidential primaries, election workers abandon their posts and voters worry about the risk of contagion in crowded polling places, the question of how the nation is going to pull off a general election in November has generated increasing anxiety.

Some states are much better prepared than others.

In a significant swath of the nation, however, most voters still lack the one viable option for casting ballots that doesn’t put their health at risk in a time of pandemic: voting by mail.

Now the decades-long push by advocates and many lawmakers to make that alternative universally available has gained new momentum amid a public health crisis. Backers are racing to overcome longstanding political barriers so that states that have resisted can start confronting the huge logistical challenges involved in a quick shift away from in-person voting.

“Ohio, Louisiana, Georgia and other states are showing that without vote-by-mail, states might not be able to hold elections at all,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email, referring to states that have postponed scheduled primaries. He and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are rallying colleagues behind their bill that would require all states to allow citizens to vote absentee.

“I understand that standing up a new election system will be a heavy lift, but in the face of this pandemic, vote by mail is the best choice we have to keep our democracy running,” Wyden said.

Casting ballots by mail — or at drop-off locations on and before election day — is a familiar habit in the West. California has allowed any adult citizen who cares to vote absentee to do so for years. Washington, Oregon and Colorado have already moved over to 100% mail or drop-off voting, with California headed in that direction.

Deeply Republican states like Utah also allow anyone to vote absentee.

Yet in 16 states concentrated mostly in the Northeast and the South, voters are expected to show up on election day unless they can claim one of a set of excuses for an absentee ballot.

Some states have been reluctant to meddle with a tradition of civic engagement on election day. More recently, states governed by Republicans have resisted a change after President Trump repeatedly — and falsely — suggested that reforms that bring down barriers to ballot access had led to widespread voter fraud by Democrats.

The rapidly spreading pandemic has some rethinking their rules. Connecticut, for example, has temporarily changed its restrictions to make concerns about the virus a valid excuse for anyone who wants to vote absentee.

But in some states, election officials are powerless to act without changes in state law or a mandate from Congress, which has the power to set rules for federal elections.

“We need emergency action now,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law scholar at UC Irvine who advocates a temporary federal requirement that every voter in America have access to a mail-in ballot for the 2020 election.

“We cannot postpone the election because there are places under lockdown. We need to have a Plan B ready.”

Election experts stress that putting off the general election until things settle down is not an option. The Constitution does not allow a president to serve beyond four years without reelection. But some officials still see a conspiracy.

“No elected official or journalist should use a potential health concern to advance his or her own political agenda,” Alabama Secretary of State John H. Merrill said last week after a local columnist charged the state’s absentee voting restrictions invite an election-day meltdown. The state Legislature there has repeatedly rejected proposals for universal vote by mail.

A proposal passed by lawmakers in New Hampshire was vetoed in September by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who warned it would erode the state’s standing as a role model of civic engagement.

“Even if people agree this is an emergency and we may need to do this, it’s hard to just wash out of your mind thoughts you have had your entire life,” Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at MIT who focuses on voting, said of skeptical elections officials.

A voter survey he conducted recently found Democrats were far more heavily in favor of universal mail voting than were Republicans. The irony, he said, is that it was GOP public officials who played a key role a couple of decades ago in seeding the movement toward voting by mail.

These days, however, the pressure on election officials is coming mostly from Democrats, who are watching in dismay as their primary election has been disrupted in nearly half a dozen states.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Tuesday implored states that have not yet held their primaries to embrace voting by mail instead of postponing their elections to a later date.

By the fall, the coronavirus crisis could have passed — or it could just be getting a second wind. In 1918, the deadly influenza pandemic that hit in the final year of World War I first appeared in the winter, subsided in the summer, then roared back in the fall, disrupting that year’s presidential campaign.

The consequences of giving voters no alternative in November but to show up at polls could be dramatic in states that continue to resist. Most poll workers are over age 60, putting them at high risk if COVID-19 is still spreading. Many may just decide not to show up, as was the case in some of the primaries held this week.

The need to sanitize machines after every voter, possibly take the temperature of voters as they enter polling places and enforce social distancing — which could lead to historically long delays in both voting and tallying votes. That, in turn, could shake voter confidence in the integrity of the election.

“Are we going to say to people they can’t vote because they have a 100-degree temperature?” said Paul Gronke, director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Portland, Ore. “I think about all the complexities involved in trying to make polling places safe for people to cast ballots, and I get very nervous.”

Until this election cycle, Gronke had been reluctant to champion a federal mandate giving all voters access to absentee ballots, worrying it would be too heavy-handed. The outbreak has changed his thinking.

“We are in an emergency,” he said.

The prospects for the Wyden bill are uncertain. There are not yet any GOP co-sponsors for the proposal, which the senator has pushed in some fashion since 2006. But even if the Senate balks, election experts are hopeful more states will aim to expand mail-in voting for November on their own.

Time is fast running out. The logistical issues involved with shifting millions of voters over to mail-in ballots are monumental. Even many states that already encourage all residents to mail or drop off their ballots will probably struggle with the deluge, said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

“There is a huge amount that needs to be done to prepare for this,” Weiser said. She pointed to everything from the lack of vendors equipped to print so many ballots, to a potential shortage of the specific paper needed, to all the new equipment states would need to count and sort the votes.

There are other components for states to wrestle with: safeguards to ensure ballots are properly collected, finding and training large numbers of workers for what could prove a complicated undertaking, and putting in place backstops to avoid system malfunctions and clerical errors that can turn election day into a mess.

Even if the Wyden bill stalls again, lawmakers still may put money in the stimulus legislation moving through Congress to help states confront these logistical hurdles. Especially when the alternative could be a lot of Americans excluded from the ballot box come November.

“We don’t have flexibility on when this election is,” said Weiser. “There will be a very large number of people who will not be able to vote in person. It won’t be safe for them to do so. They need to have this option.”

Reporting from Sacramento — Few California Democrats have garnered more praise from the party’s various constituencies than Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who has led the state’s charge against the administration of President Trump with 47 lawsuits on issues including immigration and healthcare.

But in recent months, Becerra has come under criticism from progressives and civil rights leaders for his reticence to support legislative checks on police use of force. That blowback could have ramifications for an ambitious politician who seems primed for ever-higher offices.

On Tuesday, Becerra announced that his office would not seek criminal charges against two Sacramento police officers involved in the fatal shooting of Stephon Clark, an unarmed African American man.

While that decision was not unexpected, it built on another recent controversy in which Becerra was sued by civil rights groups for not releasing use-of-force records. He later outraged many progressive allies by threatening legal action over police misconduct records he said were improperly released to the media.

Becerra has long walked a line of presenting himself as both a civil rights defender and a friend of law enforcement. But has also disappointed some supporters for not taking a stand in support of legislation that would toughen use-of-force rules as well as a proposal that the state Department of Justice routinely provide independent investigation of police shootings.

“A Democratic attorney general, in particular, is kind of torn between two worlds — the law enforcement entities and officials with which he or she must work and build credibility with, and Democratic constituencies that are highly suspicious of, if not downright hostile to, law enforcement,” said Garry South, a Democratic political consultant.

“Becerra is now caught between these two constituencies in a pretty public way,” said South, who managed Gov. Gray Davis’ 1998 and 2002 campaigns that portrayed Davis as a law-and-order Democrat. Sen. Kamala Harris faced the same pressures when she was attorney general, South said.

Capitol watchers see Becerra as a possible contender some day for higher office, including governor or U.S. senator if one of those jobs opens up.

But Becerra risks alienating key voters by his handling of the Clark case and his refusal to take a position on legislation making it easier to prosecute police officers, said the Rev. Shane Harris, a civil rights activist who has long served as a delegate for the California Democratic Party.

“He needs to realize that if he wants to be governor someday, he is going to need black votes and brown votes,” said Harris, president of the People’s Alliance for Justice. “If he has any aspirations, they just went out the window for now. This right here really took him backwards when it comes to the black vote in the state of California.”

Harris said Becerra could regain ground with minority voters by supporting tough reform legislation and embracing calls for the attorney general’s office to independently investigate all fatal police shootings.

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Becerra as attorney general in 2017 after he served 12 terms in Congress — a perch that provided little opportunity to be involved in state discussions of law enforcement oversight. Many activists did not know where he would stand on policing matters.

He won election last year with strong support from police groups, including big campaign checks from the California Statewide Law Enforcement Assn. political action committee, the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Assn. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs PAC, the Long Beach Police Officers Assn. and the Oakland Police Officers Assn. PAC.

Becerra is too close to the law enforcement community, said Melina Abdullah, a professor of Pan-African Studies at Cal State L.A. and a member of the Black Lives Matter movement.

“I think the complete unwillingness of the attorney general to intervene in the murders of black people by law enforcement — even under the most extreme circumstances, like Stephon Clark — demonstrates either a completely failed moral compass or a shameful submission to political cowardice,” Abdullah said.

On Tuesday, Becerra defended his actions in police use-of-force cases as “by the book” and based on the evidence.

He resisted the idea that his office should routinely “parachute in,” as he calls it, and investigate officer-involved shootings that are now reviewed by prosecutors in each of the state’s 58 counties.

“I don’t have the capacity and the resources to try to take over the work of 58 different D.A.s in this one shop,” Becerra said.

He said local prosecutors are “far closer” to what is going on in their communities.

He said he knows the African American community feels hurt by the shooting of Clark, but added “I think there is a lot of hurt in the Police Department too, because they are under a microscope and two of their fellow officers are now under a microscope.”

The attorney general’s actions on law enforcement issues have frustrated some people who supported his election last year, including civil rights attorney John Burris, who represented Rodney King in his civil rights lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department.

“I’m disappointed,” Burris said after Becerra’s announcement in the Stephon Clark case. “I supported him wholeheartedly [during the election]. I think I had higher hopes for him in the beginning.”

Burris said he has asked Becerra in the last few years to look at other police shootings and the attorney general has always sided with the local district attorneys in not pursuing action against officers.

“At the end of the day, the attorney general is law enforcement, and they have to work with law enforcement throughout the state,” Burris said. “That’s what makes it very difficult for him and others to be very critical of the local police unless the evidence is overwhelming.”

The Clark decision was not the only action that concerned some Becerra allies.

Becerra is under criticism from groups including the First Amendment Coalition, which sued him last month after he refused to release records related to investigations of shootings or confirmed cases of sexual assault by officers.

The lawsuit alleges that Becerra is required to turn over the documents by a law — SB 1421 — that was approved last year. Police unions have sued to keep records from being released.

The ACLU of Southern California is “very disappointed” that Becerra is refusing to make public records ordered released by the state Legislature, said Melanie Ochoa, a staff attorney for the group.

“It is unfortunate that the state’s top cop is sending a message that it is OK for agencies to deny the public access to information about serious police misconduct and uses of deadly force — particularly when we already have numerous courts that have decided that agencies must release this information,” Ochoa said.

Becerra’s actions on the release of records are defended by Robert Harris, a director with the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Harris praised Becerra for withholding such records in the Justice Department’s possession while court cases deciding whether the law applied to investigations of incidents that occurred before this year were pending.

“I think that’s an appropriate decision until we have a definitive answer,” Harris said.

Becerra defended his actions on the release of police misconduct records, citing privacy laws.

“My progressive values are still there,” Becerra told The Times.

“If I have your Social Security numbers, and there’s a good chance I do in one of my databases … you would not want me to disclose it lightly,” Becerra added. “My job is to protect that privacy.”

In January, in response to a group of journalists in Berkeley, the state’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training released a list of 12,000 names of police officers and job applicants who had been convicted of crimes.

Becerra later said the state office made a mistake in releasing the names to reporters for the Investigative Reporting Program at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

In a letter, he told the reporters to destroy the records, arguing that possession of the data was a criminal offense.

Becerra said this week that his letter to Berkeley was part of due diligence to enforce the law.

“Someone needs to ask the folks that are in possession of information that they are unauthorized to possess or use, what don’t they understand about the law that says, ‘You are in possession of information that you shouldn’t have.’ It’s like stolen property,” he said.

The attorney general also finds himself in the center of a storm of controversy over possible legislative measures to reduce excessive force.

Becerra refused Tuesday to take a position on pending legislation by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) that would make it easier to criminally prosecute law enforcement officers who kill civilians.

Police unions and chiefs are supporting a separate measure that would instead focus on internal department policies and training.

Becerra said he has withheld taking a position on the two use-of-force bills because he has not read them yet and he wanted to first complete the investigation into the Clark shooting, which he wanted to be seen as independent and fair.

“I have not gone through the bills to the point of making decisions,” Becerra told reporters at a news conference on the Clark shooting.

“I will get involved because it’s important,” he said. “I don’t intend to be AWOL when it comes to the discussion of how we write this new chapter.”

Coverage of California politics »

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Twitter: @mcgreevy99

WASHINGTON — A federal magistrate judge on Monday pressed a jail official to explain why a man charged with trying to storm the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner and attempting to kill President Trump was placed on restrictive suicide watch after his arrest.

Officials at the city jail in Washington removed Cole Tomas Allen from its designated “suicide status” over the weekend after his attorneys complained that he had been unnecessarily confined in a padded room with constant lighting, repeatedly strip-searched and placed in restraints outside his cell.

But the relaxed conditions didn’t satisfy U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui’s concerns that Allen may have received disparate, punitive treatment in violation of his due process rights. Faruqui noted that the D.C. jail routinely houses convicted killers and others charged with violent crimes without placing them on 24-hour lockdown.

“It could drive a person crazy to be in that situation,” he said.

Faruqui apologized to Allen over his confinement conditions. In response to a news report on that apology, U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro criticized him in a social media post that said Faruqui “believes a defendant armed to the teeth and attempting to assassinate the president is entitled to preferential treatment in his confinement compared to every other defendant.”

Allen’s lawyers said he wasn’t showing any suicidal risk factors after his arrest. But a jail psychiatrist evaluated him and initially concluded that he posed a suicide risk, according to Tony Towns, acting general counsel for the city’s corrections department.

“Every case is different, your honor,” Towns said.

Allen was moved into protective custody after the jail lifted the suicide prevention measures. His attorneys didn’t object to his new confinement status. They had asked the magistrate to cancel Monday’s hearing, but Faruqui forged ahead with it due to his “grave concerns” about Allen’s treatment in jail.

Allen was injured but was not shot during the April 25 attack at the Washington Hilton, which disrupted one of the highest-profile annual events in the nation’s capital.

Allen was armed with guns and knives when he ran through a security checkpoint and pointed his weapon at a Secret Service agent, who fired back five times, authorities said. Pirro has said that Allen fired a shot that struck the agent’s bullet-resistant vest.

Allen later told FBI agents that he didn’t expect to survive the attack, which could help explain why he was deemed to be a possible suicide risk, said Justice Department prosecutor Jocelyn Ballantine.

Allen, 31, of Torrance, is charged with attempted assassination of the president and two additional firearms counts. He faces up to life in prison if convicted of the assassination count alone.

Defense attorney Eugene Ohm said Allen was prohibited from having anything in his cell. He asked for a Bible and a visit from a chaplain but hasn’t received either, according to Ohm.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.