Politics Desk

I was on a road trip to visit a friend late in March when my phone started lighting up. The Trump administration had just announced a sweeping reorganization of the U.S. Forest Service. People — among them current and former agency staffers — had thoughts.

Under the overhaul, the Forest Service will move from a regional to a state-based leadership structure, relocate its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and close nearly three-quarters of its research stations. A news release described this as a much-needed shift to streamline the agency and bring its leadership closer to the forests and grasslands it manages, which are primarily west of the Mississippi.

But a common refrain emerged among the sources I spoke with: The Trump administration is trying to break the Forest Service, they claimed, to pave the way for privatizing or even selling off the 193 million acres of land it oversees.

On a recent podcast, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said this is false, that the reorganization is about prudently stewarding taxpayer dollars, not dismantling the agency. Trump officials have also said that a public lands sell-off is not part of the president’s agenda.

I figured the controversy would die down a bit by the time I wrote this newsletter. But nearly a month later, it’s still top of mind for most of the former firefighters and recreation and environment advocates I speak with.

“I worry that I sound paranoid like a conspiracy theorist — why would anybody want to break a federal agency?” said Rich Fairbanks, a former Forest Service firefighter and board member of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology. “But that’s exactly what they appear to be trying to do.”

To him, the reorganization smacks of an attempt to sow chaos and drive experienced employees out the door. He described the decision to move the headquarters to Salt Lake City as a red flag. Not only is it likely to prompt more staff departures, he said, but Utah is widely seen as the epicenter of an ongoing movement for states to take over federal public lands. It’s also home to Sen. Mike Lee, who last year proposed selling off millions of acres of public lands.

Max Alonzo, a former Forest Service firefighter who now works as national secretary treasurer for the National Federation of Federal Employees, similarly believes the administration is setting the agency up to fail. He noted the president has also proposed deep cuts that would slash the USFS operations budget by 44% and eliminate funding for forest and rangeland research to refocus the agency’s mission primarily on timber sales.

The administration plans to replace its nine regional offices with 15 state directors. These changes to leadership structure make little sense to Alonzo unless the intention is to lay the groundwork for an eventual state takeover of the agency and its lands, he said.

“They’re putting the chess pieces in place to get rid of our national forests,” he said. He believes the goal is to open the door to more mineral extraction, logging and drilling.

“It’s all about breaking the government so people decide the government doesn’t work,” echoed Hugh Safford, a UC Davis researcher who worked for the Forest Service for over two decades.

Safford is concerned that the move to shutter dozens of research stations will prevent Forest Service scientists from doing on-the-ground work on issues affecting local lands, like seeing how different ecosystems respond to wildfire, pests and drought. This research has driven some of the most important global advancements in fire planning and forest management, he said. He would know: Until 2021, he managed a staff of ecologists that provided science support to Forest Service leadership.

“They are destroying the research part of the agency,” he said. “These plans are so draconian and so depressing my hair stands up when I even read about them.”

Dave Calkin worked for 23 years at the Forest Service, overseeing a team of scientists that researched wildfire management. He took an early retirement offer last April, just after the agency terminated thousands of probationary employees, including a young researcher in his office.

“The more you can demonstrate government isn’t working, the more you can argue to privatize and sell off public lands,” he said. “And that’s clearly one of the intentions of everything they’re doing.”

More recent land news

Although administration officials would later distance themselves from the effort, the Interior Department helped craft talking points that Sen. Lee used to pitch his controversial proposal to sell off federal public land last summer, Chris D’Angelo of Public Domain reports.

Trump has withdrawn hospitality executive Scott Socha as his nominee to lead the National Park Service, reports Jake Spring of the Washington Post. That comes as many parks face their peak seasons with a dramatically reduced staff and the agency braces for more potential cuts, my colleague Justine McDaniel writes.

It’s not just the Park Service: The president’s budget proposal also seeks to decrease staff at the Bureau of Land Management and eliminate its wilderness management funding in favor of focusing on energy production, reports Christine Peterson of Outdoor Life.

The Trump administration is again planning border wall-related construction inside Big Bend National Park, weeks after U.S. Customs and Border Protection backed away from such plans amid bipartisan backlash, according to Travis Bubenik of Marfa Public Radio, who cited an online map showing the planned construction.

A day after Bubenik’s report, the border wall map disappeared from the Customs and Border Protection website, leaving the public with no way to know where and when construction on the wall will take place, writes Mary Andino of Gear Junkie.

A few last things in climate news

Wildfire, insurance and the price of gas took center stage at the California governor’s debate on Tuesday night. My colleague Blanca Begert broke down each candidate’s defining statements.

In yet another escalation of President Trump’s efforts to obstruct clean energy projects in favor of fossil fuels, the administration said it will pay two energy companies to abandon their offshore wind projects in federal waters — including one off Morro Bay, according to The Times’ Hayley Smith.

Extreme drought is fueling wildfires in the southeastern U.S., Zachary Handlos writes for The Conversation, as concern also grows over intensifying drought conditions in Nevada and Northern California.

Winters have grown shorter in most places across the country, upending everything from tourism and recreation to the transmission season of certain diseases, report Ignacio Calderon, Ramon Padilla, Veronica Bravo and Janet Loehrke in this interactive USA Today project.

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

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

WEST MEMPHIS, Ark. — Dr. Susan Ward-Jones observed something remarkable not long after the East Arkansas Family Health Center opened a new clinic in this small city by the Mississippi River.

“People used to come in unkempt, sloppily dressed. They look better now,” said Ward-Jones, the clinic’s director. “I think people have a new pride in themselves. Maybe they see we’re doing better and they say, ‘I’ll try to do better, too.’”

With a two-story glass atrium and soaring brushed metal portico, the clinic — whose patients are mostly poor and African American — has nearly twice as many exam rooms as the health center’s old location in a cramped storefront down the road. Nine dental suites, a pharmacy and a state-of-the-art demonstration kitchen branch off the sun-dappled atrium. A shaded exercise track winds through a stand of tall oaks out back.

As nationwide protests highlight the continued impact of racism in criminal justice, the struggle to create and maintain health centers like this one — and over the law commonly known as Obamacare — offers a window into the tangled history of race and healthcare in the U.S., as well. The clinic opened in 2014, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which also helped thousands of its patients get health insurance.

The entrance of the East Arkansas Family Health Center.

(William DeShazer / For The Times)

“The Affordable Care Act empowered people who didn’t have power. It’s given people a measure of self-respect. That’s been very profound,” said Dr. David Satcher, the former U.S. surgeon general who grew up in the South when many hospitals didn’t allow black physicians like him to admit patients.

More darkly, the reaction to the law — whose passage in March 2010 was shadowed by racist outbursts from some opponents — also has revealed troubling fault lines that remain.

The 14 states that continue to oppose expansion of Medicaid insurance made possible by the law are concentrated in the South, effectively maintaining large racial disparities in access to care. Most of those same states are suing in federal court to have the law invalidated.

“It may be too simplistic to say that opposition to the Affordable Care Act in the South is just about race,” said Thomas J. Ward Jr., a historian who has written about healthcare and civil rights. “But you can’t look at opposition to expanding health services, and not see that some of that opposition is rooted in race in a significant way — not necessarily straight racial animosity, but fear of racial empowerment.”

Anita Earvin gets her teeth cleaned at East Arkansas Family Health Center.

(William DeShazer / For The Times)

Today, a new chapter in this complicated story is being written as the coronavirus outbreak disproportionately affects African American communities across the country, once again spotlighting the racial disparities that shadow American healthcare.

The connection between healthcare and race has been particularly resonant along the Mississippi River, where access to medical care was long a dividing line as rigid as separate schools and drinking fountains, and where federal healthcare initiatives half a century ago helped end segregation.

Clifton Collier, who ran a health center in Marianna, Ark., 50 miles south of West Memphis, lived a good part of this history.

Collier, 66, grew up in the heart of the Arkansas Delta, an expanse of dark, fertile earth stretching over bayous and through thick stands of cedar and live oak along the west bank of the Mississippi.

This was one of the last bastions of the Jim Crow South, a ferociously segregated place where former plantation homes still dot the landscape and a commanding statue of Robert E. Lee on the town square bears testimony to the persistence of the old system.

Collier’s was better off than most black families. His father ran a juke joint that did a brisk business, particularly on Sundays. And just outside town, in a place called Black Swamp, the family owned land it had bought after the Civil War. Some in the family say part of the money came from a white man who fathered one of Collier’s ancestors.

As children in the 1960s, Collier and his siblings worked the cotton fields around Black Swamp, lugging burlap sacks up and down long rows and pulling white bolls from between the plants’ needle-like stems.

If anyone got sick, they’d see a local black woman who practiced folk medicine. “We didn’t have money for a doctor,” Collier recalled. “Nobody did.”

None of the town’s four white doctors would see a black patient who didn’t have cash. “We just had to take care of ourselves,” Collier said.

Dr. Judy Ali, a pharmacist at East Arkansas Family Health Center, answers patient calls.

(William DeShazer / For The Times)

That didn’t seem to trouble the physicians, who told a CBS News crew that visited Marianna in 1969 that black patients got what they needed. “They get adequate medical care if they come seeking it,” one doctor said. “So many times, they’re sick, and they don’t seek it because of ignorance or laziness.”

Cracks in this system began to emerge following passage of the 1965 law that created Medicare, the government insurance plan for the elderly and disabled. The law barred federal money for segregated institutions, forcing hundreds of hospitals across the South to desegregate waiting rooms, patient floors and nurseries almost overnight.

A second federal initiative helped bring community health centers such as Collier’s clinic to many of the poorest quarters of America, offering reliable medical care to black patients in places like the Arkansas Delta for the first time.

These clinics weren’t universally welcomed. When volunteers tried to open the Lee County Cooperative Clinic in Marianna in 1968, white landlords refused to rent space.

The local medical society blocked the clinic’s first doctor, a young physician from St. Louis, from admitting patients to the hospital in Marianna, forcing them to travel to Memphis or Little Rock, more than an hour away. Several workers at the clinic were beaten up outside a local restaurant.

But the clinic endured. Such health centers were designed to empower the low-income patients they served, with federal money funneled directly to the clinics, bypassing white-controlled state governments. In Lee County, clinic volunteers helped develop a slate of black candidates for local office.

“The clinic turned out to be the opening chapter of the civil rights movement in Lee County,” recalled Dr. Dan Blumenthal, the clinic’s first doctor, who taught at Atlanta’s Morehouse School of Medicine until he died last year.

Pharmacy technician Precious Parker fills patient prescriptions.

(William DeShazer / For The Times)

The health centers — and federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid — had a profound impact on the lives of black Americans.

Across the Mississippi River from Marianna, a federally funded health center in Mound Bayou, Miss., helped cut the infant mortality rate among African Americans in the surrounding county by more than a third in just four years, researchers found.

Nationwide, access to care also improved dramatically. In 1964, white Americans were nearly 50% more likely than their black counterparts to have seen a doctor in the previous two years. Three decades later, that reversed, with African Americans more likely than whites to have been to a doctor recently.

Nevertheless, by the time President Obama and congressional Democrats began pushing for the Affordable Care Act, substantial racial inequalities in healthcare remained.

Black Americans were more likely to be uninsured, more likely to report financial barriers to getting care and more likely to die from treatable diseases.

Obama didn’t cite these disparities, focusing instead on the promise of guaranteed health coverage for all Americans.

“Race wasn’t the focus,” a former senior Obama aide recalled. “We didn’t go there.”

But race was never far in the background of the debate.

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other conservative commentators who vigorously opposed the health law repeatedly claimed it was part of Obama’s strategy to make the federal government compensate African Americans for slavery.

“This is a civil rights bill, this is reparations, whatever you want to call it,” Limbaugh told his listeners in 2009.

Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, deliberately linked their healthcare fight to past struggles for racial equity.

Before the critical March 2010 vote on the law, Georgia Rep. John Lewis, a civil rights icon who had participated in the famous 1965 march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., when marchers were beaten by police, walked arm-in-arm with other lawmakers to the Capitol to pass the bill.

Adding to the historical echoes that day, several black lawmakers reported hearing racial epithets as they walked through the crowd of protesters outside the Capitol, many from the then nascent tea party movement. One lawmaker was spit on.

“It was like going into a time machine with John Lewis,” Rep. Andre Carson, a black Democrat from Indiana, observed at the time.

A decade later, some of that vitriol has faded. And the health gains made possible by the law have been striking.

“I think people have a new pride in themselves,” says Dr. Susan Ward-Jones, director of the East Arkansas Family Health Center.

(William DeShazer / For The Times)

Between 2013 and 2015, the share of African Americans without health insurance dropped by nearly half, falling from almost 25% to less than 14%, according to data assembled by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

At the same time, African Americans reported skipping care less frequently because of concerns about cost, almost cutting the gap between blacks and whites in half.

And new research shows that inequalities in how quickly white and black patients start treatment for advanced cancers almost disappeared in states that fully expanded coverage through the health law.

“The law dramatically lessened disparities by race,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, an oncologist at Johns Hopkins University and former chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society.

In Arkansas, which was the first Southern state to expand Medicaid coverage through the law — Louisiana and Virginia have since followed — the impact has been particularly large.

The share of poor residents without health insurance tumbled from nearly 42% to just 19% between 2013 and 2014, researchers found.

The coverage gains allowed clinics like the ones in West Memphis and Marianna to expand services such as dentistry and behavioral health. They added more nurses, more case managers, more health educators and others to help the neediest patients.

Patients, in turn, are more frequently getting checkups and filling their prescriptions more regularly.

Mary Clarksenior gets an eye exam from Dr. Norman Denton.

(William DeShazer / For The Times)

“What we’ve experienced in the last few years has been nothing short of amazing,” said Terrence Aikens, who led efforts at the West Memphis clinic to enroll patients in health insurance through the 2010 health law.

And yet, even now, as the Affordable Care Act enters its second decade, the gains feel tenuous to many here. The law’s opponents — including Arkansas’ governor and the Trump administration — are working to get the Supreme Court to overturn it.

“It is such a difficult history, and we have come so far,” said Ward-Jones, the director of the West Memphis clinic. “Sometimes, though, it feels like we take two steps forward and one step back.”

Re “Obama prevails on arms treaty,” Dec. 22, and “Treaty vote is key for Obama,” Dec. 21

The Times’ Dec. 21 article quoted three people: an unnamed Senate Republican aide, the Nixon Center’s executive director and the chief obstructionist, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. None of them had anything positive to say. Might some Democrats have had something newsworthy to contribute?

Fortunately, reason prevailed and the treaty pulled enough votes later in the day to guarantee its passage. This was arguably the most important Senate vote, so far, in the 21st century.

The entire community of nations was watching to see if the U.S. would take this critical step toward world peace. And McConnell vowed to vote against it, and against the Joint Chiefs of Staff, citing the possibility of President Obama holding a news conference?

God help us.

John Stickler

Murrieta

The Times treats the vote on the New START treaty as one that is important primarily for the political agendas of President Obama and the Senate Republican leadership.

Is it not possible that this vote is more important for the American people? Must The Times add to the corrosive partisanship in Washington by treating such a serious subject as a political test? Is that really all that is at stake here?

Michael Byrne

Oxnard

::

After reading that 11 GOP senators joined Democrats in cutting off debate on the START treaty with Russia, my Republican despise-o-meter went down considerably.

It’s great to know that some of them are putting their country first. Maybe we can all dare to hope.

Ramona Salinas Saenz

Alhambra

—

Pro and con on the Expo Line

Re “The Expo Line’s noisemakers,” Opinion, Dec. 21

Do Karen Leonard and Sarah Hays really think homeowners, with orange and black signs on their property protesting the Expo Line light rail project, are in the minority? If these Light Rail for Cheviot co-chairs truly listen to their neighbors, they might learn why so many protest signs adorn our front lawns.

Unlike the Gold Line, which they point out is within a mile of 38 schools, the Expo Line would be only 50 feet from the Overland Avenue Elementary School. Our residents believe mass transit should be built where density is highest; the Expo right of way doesn’t conform to that standard. The light rail’s street crossings should be underground.

If Los Angeles wants to build light rail, it must do so correctly. Leonard and Hays can walk the neighborhood exhaustively, but it doesn’t change the facts about the Expo Line’s negative effects.

Lucie Bava

Cheviot Hills

The writer is secretary of the Cheviot Hills Traffic Safety Assn.

::

As a neighbor of the future Expo Line, I totally agree with the need for the line and applaud the authors’ efforts to really talk to the community.

The implication that L.A. can’t adjust to alternatives to the car, or that residents can’t do what millions around the country can, is a slight to our population. Light rail alone certainly won’t solve traffic problems, but it will give us an alternative and move us along the path to cleaner air and safer travel.

The signs made by the group Neighbors for Smart Rail that say “Think traffic can’t get any worse?” amuse me. Unfortunately, it will if we don’t build this line.

Annette Mercer

Los Angeles

::

The “quiet majority” noted in this piece is a chilling characterization.

In 1969, as “vocal zealots” protested the Vietnam war, Richard Nixon went on TV to appeal for the support of the “silent majority.” This is deja vu on a local level.

I guess all those protesters back then should have just shut up.

Darryl Rehr

Los Angeles

—

Mortgage tax deduction

Re “Mortgage deduction on the line,” Dec. 20

How appropriate that in this season of watching “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the idea of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction should come up. As a boon to the middle class and home ownership, this “third rail” can finally come up for consideration.

We have had a long period of easing the burdens on our overtaxed corporate “citizens,” the wealthy, the unfortunate inheritors of large estates and hedge fund managers. This policy move would continue this new American tradition of squeezing the middle class.

We are now ready for the sequel to the Jimmy Stewart movie: “It Is a Wonderful Life, Mr. Potter.”

Leif Regvall

Los Angeles

::

Please don’t scare your readers with reports that the sacred mortgage deduction might be taken away.

As long as the politically conservative National Assn. of Realtors and the National Assn. of Home Builders maintain their powerful lobbyists in Washington, the mortgage deduction will never go away, national deficit or no deficit, Republican majority or no Republican majority.

Martin A. Brower

Corona del Mar

::

For the last five years I have used my mortgage tax deduction to take vacations I would have been unable to afford otherwise. I also spend some of the money on other activities, food, drink and gas; this puts all of the money back into the economy.

I believe that most people, like myself, spend this money as soon as they get it.

Apparently, politicians want the people to pad their wallets further so they can continue their reckless spending.

Robert LePage

Long Beach

—

Deporting a young scholar

Re “Scrambling to avert his deportation,” Dec. 19

Nice work, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You nabbed your man. Mark Farrales is finally off the streets. The last thing this country needs is another illegal immigrant brought here as a 10-year-old by parents escaping tyranny.

Clearly, Farrales is one dangerous guy. Who else would have the nerve to become valedictorian of his high school, graduate magna cum laude from Harvard and continue on to get his master’s degree at UC San Diego?

I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate that Farrales was locked up before he could finish his doctorate.

Marley Sims

Valley Village

::

How sad that young people who were brought to this country by parents who came here illegally now face deportation to countries they barely know.

As for the senators who voted to end their dream, I am appalled by their complaint that being forced to stay in Washington to do the nation’s business might keep them from celebrating Christmas with their families, while at the same time punishing children for the sins of their fathers.

How Christian is that?

Joan Walston

Santa Monica

—

Policing Bell

Re “Deep cuts and unrest in store for Bell,” Dec. 20

The city of Bell may need to disband its Police Department and contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. But the head of the city’s police union says that a better move would be to put more police officers on the streets to fight crime.

The city is being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department for aggressively towing vehicles and charging residents exorbitant fees to get them back. If in fact the Bell police are implicated in this illegal practice, it follows that some reduction of crime would be accomplished if this police force were replaced.

Gary R. Levine

West Hills

Reporting from Washington — — After delivering a floor speech against the financial overhaul bill last week, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) walked out of the Capitol into the spring sunshine and spoke optimistically of getting back to raising money for his reelection campaign — never mind the looming ethics cloud stemming from his admitted affair with an aide.

Days earlier, the scene couldn’t have been more different when another member of Congress, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), stood grim-faced behind a lectern and resigned his seat after admitting to an affair with a part-time staff member.

Souder’s final day in Congress was Friday. But Ensign — who like Souder is a conservative Christian who stresses family values — soldiers on, determined to keep his seat in Congress.

The Nevadan has started organizing fundraisers and making calls to donors for help in winning a third term in 2012. Ensign, once a rising star in the Republican leadership, collected a mere $50 during the first quarter of this year, but he’s confident that is about to change.

“We just took some time off,” Ensign said as he walked back to his Senate office. “We’re getting it geared back up.”

The reasons why one member of Congress stays and one goes are as varied as the egos involved, the politics of the moment and the proximity of the next election.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio made it clear in a talk with Souder, who was seeking a ninth term this fall, that the best choice would be to resign. House Democrats similarly eased out one of their own, Rep. Eric Massa of New York, this year after he was accused of sexually harassing his staff.

In the Senate, Republicans may grumble over Ensign’s continued presence, and they do. But the Nevadan carries on, raising the question of just how effective can he be on behalf of his constituents?

One perk for those who give robustly to the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm is that they are routinely invited to chats with senators. Ensign headlined one such coffee talk this month.

Given the chance to hear Ensign speak, one GOP donor declined. “They offer Ensign and you think, ‘Who in the hell is going to want to sit through that?’ ” said the donor, who requested anonymity because of his continuing involvement in Republican politics.

“Senators want to keep their distance from the guy,” the donor said. “I don’t think you’re going to see Sen. Ensign championing any GOP initiatives.”

But others predict Ensign’s fundraising efforts will challenge such criticism. After all, he remains a sitting U.S. senator as well as a reliable 41st vote that his party needs in order to maintain its ability to filibuster the proposals of President Obama and Senate Democrats.

If Ensign can persuade his big-name donors to stay with him — namely, the Nevada gaming interests — others will follow, said a Republican strategist in the state, who also declined to speak on the record because of the sensitive political situation.

Ensign’s problems began almost a year ago, when he abruptly arrived in Las Vegas to disclose an eight-month affair with a staffer, Cynthia Hampton, the wife of one of his former top aides at the time, Doug Hampton.

As details of the affair unfolded, so did the story of Ensign’s wealthy parents making a $96,000 payment to the Hamptons as the couple left the senator’s employment. Efforts by the senator to find the husband a new job also surfaced.

Ethics watchdogs seized on Doug Hampton’s claim last year to the New York Times that he went on to lobby Ensign’s office, with the senator’s support, in violation of the ethics laws that require a one-year cooling-off period.

Ensign has said he has done nothing wrong and will comply with all official investigations.

The Justice Department began making preliminary inquires in January. One Las Vegas tech firm, Selling Source, confirmed being subpoenaed by the Justice Department this year for documents regarding a fundraising pitch Ensign made to its chief executive.

“The Senate Ethics Committee seems to be going full steam ahead and there’s no way that can come out well for Ensign,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noting then-Sen. Robert Packwood (R-Ore.) resigned in 1995 after a Senate investigation.

Many see Ensign as pursuing a strategy similar to that of Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who kept a low profile after being connected to a prostitute but is now seeking a second term this fall.

The Nevadan benefits from his own healthy ego, as well as a Senate culture that has not expelled a member since the Civil War. He also perseveres thanks to a weak Republican Party in Nevada that is not calling for his head.

“He’s been an AWOL senator for a long time,” said Chuck Muth, a conservative activist in Nevada who is among a handful of political commentators in the state who have called for Ensign to resign.

“Who among his colleagues would want to co-sponsor a bill not knowing when he would implode? His effectiveness has clearly been diminished.”

Yet colleagues have come forward to work with Ensign on several initiatives. Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) partnered with Ensign on an amendment during the healthcare debate and recently engaged in a colloquy on the Senate floor with Ensign and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) after they returned from a tour of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) teamed up with Ensign last month on legislation to establish a veterinary official in the Department of Homeland Security to protect against animal disease outbreaks or other similar disasters.

“It is unfortunate what has happened,” Akaka said about Ensign, a veterinarian, “but I continue to work with him as a good friend and a colleague.”

In a brief interview last week, Ensign displayed the confidence that has kept him in office. “I think we’ve been doing a lot of good things,” he said.

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Most presidents battling the perception of being too chummy with Russia might think twice about picking up the phone offering congratulations to the Russian leader on his election.

Most presidents, that is, except for President Trump.

TRUMP’S CALL TO PUTIN

On Tuesday, Trump recounted for reporters his “very good call” to congratulate newly reelected President Vladimir Putin, after Russian officials had already confirmed the two leaders had chatted.

“We had a very good call,” Trump said, “and I suspect that we’ll be meeting in the not-too-distant future to discuss the arms race, which is getting out of control.”

Not a fan of the call: Arizona Sen. John McCain. “An American president does not lead the Free World by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections,” McCain said in a statement and online.

COAST-TO-COAST LAWSUITS AGAINST TRUMP

There’s new legal and political jeopardy for Trump in both California and New York. A former Playboy Playmate is suing to break a confidentiality agreement that keeps her from discussing the president, at the same time that a judge in the Empire State has rejected his request to quash a lawsuit stemming from a charge of sexual assault.

Those legal challenges are on top of the ongoing battle over an adult film actress’ insistence that her own confidentiality agreement is invalid.

Sign up for the Essential Politics newsletter »

NATIONAL POLITICS LIGHTNING ROUND

— A California law that requires pregnancy centers — even those that are faith-based — to inform clients about abortion faced sharp, skeptical questions in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

— The nation’s election systems, targeted by Russian hacking in the 2016 presidential race, need stiffer defenses to block future cyber-assaults, a bipartisan group of senators said Tuesday.

— Trying to persuade Trump to back down from his increasingly public battle with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Republican leaders turned Tuesday to the approach that has worked for Fox network personalities: They talked to him through the television screen.

— Retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a longtime analyst for Fox News, told colleagues he is done with the network he says has become “a propaganda machine” for President Trump.

— Democrats see the tumultuous Trump presidency as the means to finally oust a five-term Republican congressman in Colorado, one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents in the November midterm election.

— Congressional negotiators laboring to write a trillion-dollar plan to fund the federal government are caught up in last-minute partisan disputes over abortion rights, healthcare costs and the fate of a Northeastern railway tunnel that Trump has sought to derail.

— Education Secretary Betsy DeVos faced blistering questioning from House Democrats on Tuesday as they confronted her on gun control, racism and LGBTQ rights.

— As the Trump administration barrels ahead with its plan to apply stiff tariffs on imported metals starting Friday, governments and businesses across the globe are in a fog as to what is happening and are bracing for at least a short-term hit.

— A study says the coalitions behind the nation’s two major political parties have grown steadily apart over the past decade. Democrats are increasingly racially diverse, younger and college educated. Republicans have remained overwhelmingly white and non-college-educated.

— A wall on which border? “We might need to build a wall between California and Arizona as well,” said Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) on Tuesday.

NO SANCTUARY HERE, SAYS ONE ORANGE COUNTY CITY

The small city of Los Alamitos is making big news for its rejection of California’s new “sanctuary state” law that limits the immigration assistance provided by local law enforcement officers.

Los Alamitos leaders on Monday approved an ordinance that exempts their city from Senate Bill 54, a state law that took effect Jan. 1. It marks a rare effort by a city to challenge the sanctuary movement, which has wide support among elected officials.

NO CASH FROM APPOINTEES TO STATE POSTS?

Californians appointed to state posts could soon be barred from writing checks to lawmakers who must vote on their nomination.

A Central Valley assemblyman has introduced legislation to outlaw contributions to state senators by political appointees for up to a year between the time they are chosen by the governor until their required confirmation.

“The state Legislature should safeguard the public’s confidence in our government institutions,” said Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced).

TODAY’S ESSENTIALS

— Here’s how California Republicans are responding to Trump’s attacks on Mueller and to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe‘s firing.

— The Los Angeles Police Department’s practice of keeping video from body cameras and patrol cars under wraps will end after the agency’s civilian bosses approved a policy Tuesday that requires the release of recordings in the future.

— New state legislation would end a city of Los Angeles policy giving council members veto power over proposed homeless housing projects in their districts.

— Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is on a two-week visit to the U.S. that will include a visit to Los Angeles to meet with entertainment and defense executives, and Silicon Valley to meet with tech leaders.

— Despite pleas from relatives of those killed in the 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, leaders of the state’s largest public sector pension fund have rejected a proposal to consider divesting from retailers who sell assault-style rifles.

— California privacy advocates are asking Facebook to stop opposing their proposed November ballot measure after the Cambridge Analytica debacle.

— Gov. Jerry Brown took aim at opponents of his signature high-speed rail project, cursing at those who argue that rising cost estimates threaten the effort’s viability.

LOGISTICS

Essential Politics is published Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

You can keep up with breaking news on our politics page throughout the day. And are you following us on Twitter at @latimespolitics?

Miss Monday’s newsletter? Here you go.

Please send thoughts, concerns and news tips to politics@latimes.com.

Did someone forward you this? Sign up here to get Essential Politics in your inbox.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday sharply limited a part of the Voting Rights Act that has forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress as well as state and local boards.

In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana vs. Callais, the court ruled that creating these majority-minority districts may amount to racial discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment.

When weighing what the Voting Rights Act requires, “we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the federal government or a state to discriminate on the basis of race,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court.

Alito said states may draw election districts for partisan advantage but may not use race as a basis for redistricting.

The ruling in a Louisiana case appears to clear the way for Republican-led states across the South to redraw their election maps and eliminate voting districts that favor Black or Latino candidates for Congress, state legislatures and county boards.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said, “It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” adding that the decision makes the Voting Rights Act a “much weaker, and potentially toothless law.”

Hasen said it’s unclear how the decision will affect the November election because in many states early voting has already started and primaries have already taken place.

But the ruling’s long-term consequences for minority representation in Congress, state legislatures and local government are almost “certainly” going to be felt in 2028, Hasen said.

Republican leaders in states across the South have already signaled they intend to move quickly to redraw congressional maps in the wake of the ruling.

Alabama Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall said the state will “act as quickly as possible” to ensure its congressional maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.” Marshall called the decision a recognition of how much the South has changed since the civil rights era.

“The court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” he said in a statement.

Florida was already in motion before the ruling came down. But Gov. Ron DeSantis celebrated the decision and said it was all the more reason for state lawmakers to redraw its congressional maps, in a manner that could give Republicans up to four more seats in Congress.

The proposed congressional maps, drawn by DeSantis’ office, were first unveiled to Fox News on Monday. On Wednesday, both chambers approved the maps, and readied them for DeSantis’ final approval.

In Mississippi, Gov. Tate Reeves had already called lawmakers into a special session at the end of May in anticipation of a court ruling on the Voting Rights Act. In a post on X, Reeves underscored the ideological underpinnings to the ruling’s potential implications.

“First Dobbs. Now Callais. Just Mississippi and Louisiana down here saving our country!” Reeves wrote.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol after the Supreme Court ruling.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call / Getty Images)

At issue was how to ensure equal representation for Black and Latino citizens.

About one-third of Louisiana’s voters are Black, but the state seeks an election map that will elect white Republicans to five of its six seats in the House of Representatives.

Lower courts said that map violated the Voting Rights Act because it denied fair representation to Black residents.

The state had one Black-majority district, in New Orleans.

Two years ago, judges upheld the creation of a second Black-majority district that stretched from Shreveport to Baton Rouge on the grounds that it was required under the law.

The state’s Republican leaders appealed and argued that race was the motivating factor in drawing the second district.

Alito and the conservatives agreed and called that district an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

The three liberals dissented. The consequences of the ruling “are likely to be far-reaching and grave,” said Justice Elena Kagan, adding that it will allow “racial vote dilution in its most classic form.”

She said the decision means “a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic.”

But she said states across the South may draw electoral districts that deprive Black voters of equal representation. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision was the latest example of a partisan political dispute in which the court’s six Republican appointees vote in favor of the Republican state plan, while the three Democratic appointees dissent.

The ruling is likely to have its greatest impact in the Southern states, where white Republicans are in control and Black Democrats are in the minority.

The court’s divide over redistricting is similar to the long dispute over affirmative action.

For decades, university officials said they needed to consider the race of applicants to achieve diversity and equal representation.

But in 2023, the court by a 6-3 vote struck down college affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina and ruled race may not be used to judge applicants.

The historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 succeeded in clearing the way for Black citizens to register and vote across the South, but it took longer for Black candidates to win elections.

The dispute was highlighted in a 1980 case from Mobile, Ala. Its three commissioners were elected to six-year terms, and each of them ran countywide.

Even though one-third of the county’s voters were Black, white candidates always won.

The Supreme Court upheld this arrangement as legal and constitutional. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said Black residents were left with the right to cast meaningless ballots.

In response, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to say states must give minorities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Four years later, the Supreme Court interpreted that to mean that states had a duty to draw voting districts that would elect a Black or Latino candidate if these minorities had a sufficiently large number of voters in a particular area.

In recent years, the court’s conservatives, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, have chafed at the rule on the grounds it sometimes required states to use race as a factor for drawing election districts.

Alito’s opinion adopted that view and said states are not required or permitted to use race as a basis for drawing districts.

Hours after the ruling came out, President Trump met with reporters in the Oval Office and said he had not yet seen the decision. He was visibly excited, however, when a reporter explained the decision favored Republicans.

“I love it!” he said. “This is very good.”

Former President Obama said in a statement that the court’s decision “effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit racial bias.”

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in Los Angeles, also denounced the decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision blesses racially discriminatory gerrymandering, and dismantles the legal protections for minority voters,” said Nina Perales, the group’s vice president for litigation. It “openly invites states to dilute minority voting strength, and undermines our democracy.”

Three seats — two contested — are on the June 2 primary ballot for the seven-member Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education.

The nation’s second-largest school system, with about 390,000 students, faces evolving challenges and uncertainties that could alter the direction of the district for years.

In mid-April L.A. Unified officials barely averted a strike by agreeing to significant employee raises, rescinding about 200 layoffs and agreeing to hundreds of new hires of counselors, school psychologists and other student support staff. The contracts with three district unions, including teachers, will cost nearly $1.2 billion a year, and board members now must find a way to pay for them amid budget pressures.

Standardized test scores have trended upward since the nadir of the COVID-19 pandemic, recovering faster than the state average, but the pace remains too incremental for critics.

The future of L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho is uncertain. He’s on paid administrative leave following FBI raids of his San Pedro home and downtown office. At least part of the investigation centers on a failed chatbot project that was supposed to revolutionize and individualize education.

Carvalho said he’s done nothing wrong and would like to return to work. If he does not return — and cannot serve out his new four-year contract — board members would select a superintendent.

L.A. Unified also faces declining enrollment — which reduces state funding and increases pressure to save money by closing many campuses.

Heightened federal immigration enforcement also has affected enrollment and attendance while creating anxiety that spills over into the classroom. Officials responded by declaring L.A. Unified a sanctuary district — both for immigrants and for the LGBTQ+ community, which also has been a target of some conservative groups.

Carvalho’s central focus on improving test scores has led to increased tutoring, repeated diagnostic measures and phonics training. In addition, the district put a successful school bond on the ballot to continue renovations, worked to lower student absenteeism and emphasized greener campuses.

The board majority consists of candidates elected with the endorsement of the powerful teachers union — United Teachers Los Angeles. This election will not change that balance because five seats are held by union-friendly incumbents. But the outcome will determine whether UTLA can further strengthen its hand or whether other constituencies will gain a measure of power at the union’s expense.

UTLA is the most reliable funder of school board campaigns — and the union’s spending is not controlled by candidates.

Also exerting influence in recent elections has been the district’s other largest union: Local 99 of Service Employees International Union. It represents some 30,000 bus drivers, teacher aides, custodians, gardeners, cafeteria workers and technical support staff. This union has yet to endorse candidates.

A potential but diminished source of election-funding firepower would be charter school advocates — who once routinely outspent the unions.
Retired businessman Bill Bloomfield — a charter school ally who makes his own calls about whom to support — has been a big spender inrecent elections, typically as a counter to teachers-union-endorsed candidates. He has not committed to being involved in this school board election cycle.

The material below was assembled through reporting and surveys provided to candidates. Some responses are paraphrased for clarity or condensed for brevity.

Three seats are on the June 2 primary ballot for the seven-member Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, but the District 6 race is essentially a foregone conclusion: The only name on the ballot is two-term incumbent Kelly Gonez.

The nation’s second-largest school system, with close to 400,000 students, faces evolving challenges and uncertainties that could alter the direction of the district for years.

In mid-April L.A. Unified officials barely averted a strike by agreeing to significant employee raises, rescinding about 200 layoffs and agreeing to hundreds of new hires of counselors, school psychologists and other student support staff. The contracts with three district unions, including teachers, will cost nearly $1.2 billion a year, and board members now must find a way to pay for them amid budget pressures.

Standardized test scores have trended upward since the nadir of the COVID-19 pandemic, recovering faster than the state average, but the pace remains too incremental for critics.

The future of L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho is uncertain. He’s on paid administrative leave following FBI raids of his San Pedro home and downtown office. At least part of the investigation centers on a failed chatbot project that was supposed to revolutionize and individualize education.

Carvalho said he’s done nothing wrong and would like to return to work. If he does not return — and cannot serve out his new four-year contract — board members would select a superintendent.

L.A. Unified also faces declining enrollment — which reduces state funding and increases pressure to save money by closing many campuses.

Heightened federal immigration enforcement also has affected enrollment and attendance while creating anxiety that spills over into the classroom. Officials responded by declaring L.A. Unified a sanctuary district — both for immigrants and for the LGBTQ+ community, which also has been a target of some conservative groups.

Carvalho’s central focus on improving test scores has led to increased tutoring, repeated diagnostic measures and phonics training. In addition, the district put a successful school bond on the ballot to continue renovations, worked to lower student absenteeism and emphasized greener campuses.

The board majority consists of candidates elected with the endorsement of the powerful teachers union — United Teachers Los Angeles. This election will not change that balance because five seats are held by union-friendly incumbents. But the outcome will determine whether UTLA can further strengthen its hand or whether other constituencies will gain a measure of power at that union’s expense.

The material below was assembled through reporting and a survey provided to Gonez. Some responses are paraphrased for clarity or condensed for brevity.

OMAHA, Neb. — Nebraska on Friday will become the first state to enforce work, volunteer or education requirements for new Medicaid applicants, eight months before the federally mandated requirements kick in.

Advocates worry that the state is launching so rapidly that key details remain unresolved and some people who are eligible for coverage will lose it.

State officials say they’re prepared, training staff and sending letters, emails and texts to people who could be impacted.

Health policy experts, advocates and other states will be watching closely.

“It can be used as a lesson for other states, both where things go well and where things don’t go well,” said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

The law is expected to leave some without insurance

The work requirement is part of a broad tax and policy law that President Trump signed last year. Nebraska Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced in December that the state would implement it eight months before it was required, saying the aim was “making sure we get every able-bodied Nebraskan to be a part of our community.”

The state had one of the lowest unemployment rates in the U.S. in February: 3.1%.

The federal policy won’t apply to all Medicaid beneficiaries, just those who are enrolled under an expansion that most states chose to make to allow more low-income people to get healthcare coverage.

Under the change, many Medicaid participants ages 19 through 64 will have to show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or are enrolled in school at least half-time. They’ll also have their eligibility reviewed every six months rather than annually, so they could lose coverage faster if their circumstances change.

Exceptions will be made for people who are too medically frail to work or in addiction treatment programs, among others.

An Urban Institute report from March estimated that the changes would mean about 5 million to 10 million fewer people nationally would be enrolled in Medicaid than would have been otherwise.

Choices states make about how to run their programs are expected to be a major factor in exactly how many people lose coverage.

“The higher the administrative burden, the more likely people are found noncompliant and disenrolled,” said Michael Karpman, who researches health policy at Urban.

Nebraska plans to use data to help determine who qualifies

Not everyone who has coverage will need to submit proof that they’re working.

The state says it will first match enrollees with other data it has to see if participants are working or exempt. The state says it has that information for most of the roughly 70,000 people enrolled in Medicaid through the expansion.

That leaves between 20,000 and 28,000 who would have to provide more information, plus an average of 3,000 to 4,000 new enrollees each month.

At first, they will just need to show that they met the requirements in just one month of the previous 12. The time frame will shift to six months in 2027.

There’s some flexibility. For instance, instead of showing they work 80 hours in a month, someone could instead provide records that demonstrate they earned at least $580, the amount someone earning minimum wage would make in 80 hours.

People who don’t submit requested information within 30 days of being asked could have their applications denied or lose coverage they already have.

The change is causing worry and confusion

Bridgette Annable, who lives in southwest Nebraska, received a letter saying she must meet the work requirements or lose the benefits that pay for her insulin and diabetic supplies.

The 21-year-old mother now has a part-time job, despite being advised against it to protect her mental health. She’s worried about her ability to keep working.

“I am working 30 to 25 hours a week — as much as my employer can provide,” Annable said. “Although I call out of work often due to fibromyalgia pain and bipolar episodes that leave me too tired to leave the house. I have enough energy to take care of my daughter and do some cleaning, but that’s about it.”

Amy Behnke, the chief executive officer of the Health Center Association of Nebraska, said that staff members who help people enroll with Medicaid and their clients have a lot of questions, including some that the state hasn’t yet answered.

Some examples: Apprenticeship programs are supposed to count for work requirements, but does that apply only to those certified by the state’s labor department? There’s an exemption for people who travel to a hospital for care, but there’s not clarity on how far the journey must be.

KFF’s Tolbert noted that the state issued its 295-page list last week of conditions that could qualify someone as medically frail. “We don’t know if it’s a comprehensive list,” she said.

“The speed at which we are choosing to implement work requirements hasn’t left a lot of space for really meaningful communication,” Behnke said.

And Nebraska could have to make changes after the federal government provides guidance that is expected in June.

Mulvihill and Beck write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.

The small Little Lake school district, which serves mainly low-income families in southeast Los Angeles County has become the setting for one of the longest teacher strikes in state history — reaching the the 10-day mark on Wednesday — as its 200-member union takes on significant issues straining districts throughout California.

The teachers have walked out over health costs increasing by $14,000 a year for some, crowded special education classes and proposed class size increases in a district grappling with declining enrollment and unsustainable past spending. The teachers aren’t asking for a pay raise — but their high-cost benefits are tantamount to a big pay cut.

While a settlement appeared close with negotiations to resume Wednesday afternoon, the dispute has taken a toll. Although schools are open with substitutes, the strike has consumed about 6% of the academic year. Most parents have kept children home, while scrambling to manage disrupted work and home routines — especially difficult in a school system where about 80% of students qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch because of family poverty. Teachers have typically lost several thousand dollars of pay that they are unlikely to get back.

“We’re trying to stay positive but every day feels like a punch to the gut,” Sabrina Ireland, a 6th grade math and science teacher, said on the picket line Wednesday in front of her campus, Lake Center Middle School. “I’m losing sleep… We have some teachers that both the husband and the wife teach here. They have no income right now.”

It’s hard for Little Lake to be noticed alongside the mammoth L.A. Unified School District, which has about 390,000 students. An L.A. Unified strike was dramatically averted with hours to spare on April 14 in a conflict that commanded local and national attention for weeks.

But this district — with seven elementary and two middle schools — is enduring a crippling strike, affecting about 3,400 students drawn from Santa Fe Springs and parts of Norwalk and Downey.

In terms of lost instructional days Little Lake ranks high. Earlier this school year, teachers went out for 12 days in the sizable Twin Rivers Unified School District in north Sacramento County. Teachers in New Haven Unified in Union City in Alameda County struck for 14 days in 2019. And an Oakland teachers strike in 1996 lasted about a month.

Teacher demands statewide

Numerous shorter walkouts and near strikes have unfolded throughout the state this year, part of a loosely coordinated effort by the California Teachers Assn. to align unions’ contract expiration dates and benefit from collective force. The union dubbed the effort as “We Can’t Wait.”

The issues surfacing in Little Lake echo the dynamic in L.A. Unified and elsewhere.

“Up and down the state, educators have won life-changing healthcare benefits and support for special education and have forced districts to create the safe and stable classrooms our students deserve,” said Gabriella Landeros, a spokesperson for the California Teachers Assn.

In the broad picture, district budgets throughout the state are likely to be a little larger, level or somewhat smaller — and schools could yet receive a big boost by the time the state’s budget is adopted in June.

Martin Gonzalez,13, left, a seventh-grade student at Lake Center Middle School, and Sebastian Escobedo, 11, a sixth-grade student at Lake Center Middle School, join striking Little Lake teachers at Lakeland Elementary School on Wednesday in Norwalk.

(Gary Coronado/For The Times)

But cost pressures have escalated quickly in many regions. In Little Lake, as in L.A. Unified, the cost of services for students with disabilities and percentage of students identified as having disabilities has risen sharply. Healthcare costs also have gone up fast.

Meanwhile, enrollment is declining, offsetting the benefit of state increases in spending per pupil. Inflation hit hard in recent years, while prompting employee groups, especially in urban areas, to fight for wage boosts to keep pace. This comes as one-time pandemic relief aid has expired.

Thousands more for healthcare

In Little Lake, strike supporters say they are fighting over issues that justify the sacrifice. Starting in January, the monthly premiums for the health plan used by many teachers rose from zero to $1,400 a month paid over 10 months each year — an enormous reduction in take-home pay.

To back off from that charge, district officials proposed raising average class sizes in kindergarten through fourth grade from 24-to-1 to 28-to-1, according to the district. Union negotiators want to keep class sizes where they are.

District officials acknowledge their proposals are painful, but said they face an unsustainable financial situation.

“We are at a point fiscally where the district can no longer support 100%,” of healthcare premiums, said Acting Supt. Monica Martinez-Johnson, a career district employee who started as a teacher.

A fact-finding report endorsed that account, but also noted that the district suddenly ended health subsidies on January 1, when a previous agreement expired. Employees were immediately forced to pay about 40% of the cost of their monthly premiums.

“This decision … has soured the relationship and [affects] all aspects of this reopened negotiations,” said Donald S. Raczka, who prepared a fact-finding report, issued April 12, as chair of a panel that included district and union representatives.

Jennifer Conforti, center, a teacher at Lake Center Elementary, pickets at Lake Center Middle School in Santa Fe Springs on Wednesday.

(Gary Coronado/For The Times)

Dollars and sensitivities

The financial implications of the strike are difficult to calculate at this juncture, but the district doesn’t necessarily lose money. Subs are making $500 a day, but there are fewer subs than teachers and striking teachers forfeit pay.

In-person student attendance has ranged from 18% to 31%, which will mean lost funding linked to student attendance. The annual operating budget of the district is $73 million, of which salaries and benefits are $53 million, according to the district.

Many parents and students have joined teachers on picket lines.

“We’ve stuck it out this long, we wouldn’t want them to fold on an agreement that doesn’t benefit them,” said Melissa Maggard, who has two daughters at Lakeland Elementary.

Therapist Sherry Gonzalez has kept her fourth-grade son at home, rescheduling work hours, hiring babysitters. Her son receives special services for a disability at Lake Center Elementary, and home routines are harder without this support.

“I don’t feel comfortable taking him in during a strike with subs who do not know my son’s needs,” Gonzalez said. “As a parent it’s just been hard. It’s been so frustrating. We feel worn down, tired, and we feel like we’re being ignored and unheard.

“To see this drive a wedge between the community, it feels hurtful,” she added. When asked how she’s been trying to cope, she responded: “Crying.”

What’s next?

The turmoil has included the sudden resignation of then-Supt. Jonathan Vasquez a week into the strike. After a 10-hour negotiating session on Monday, an altercation or a feared altercation — accounts vary — resulted in the district calling police.

A potential deal in the works includes employees paying zero to $630 a month in healthcare premiums — depending on their choice of health plan. Class size would not rise. Budget cuts would be necessary. On the chopping block are six intervention teachers serving students who need intensive academic help.

The union this week was pushing for a one-time $4,000 bonus for its members, but not a permanent increase. The pay scale for teachers ranges from $58,752 to $118,363.

Negotiations resumed Wednesday afternoon at a location considered more secure than district headquarters.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Legislature approved a new congressional map intended to maximize Republicans’ advantage in the state as part of the national redistricting battle that President Trump launched ahead of this year’s midterms.

The vote came just two days after Gov. Ron DeSantis unveiled his proposal and the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The decision could make it harder for Democrats to challenge Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts in ways that limit the influence of nonwhite voters.

DeSantis’ map could increase Republicans’ advantage in Florida’s House delegation to 24 to 4, up from the current split of 20 to 8. The potential four-seat gain is the same as what Virginia Democrats expect from a recent redistricting referendum, which is being challenged in state court there.

Florida’s new districts are certain to face lawsuits as well, especially because the state constitution prohibits redistricting for explicitly partisan purposes. DeSantis and his aides believe those provisions will not be a legal barrier because they have been weakened previously by the Florida Supreme Court and again by Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Florida Republicans, comfortable in their supermajority in both legislative chambers, said little about the new districts during the whirlwind special session. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka (R-Fort Myers), limited her remarks to careful answers about an “evolving legal landscape” as Democrats’ asked her about the redistricting effort.

“I believe that there is a likelihood that that map will be upheld against legal challenge,” Persons-Mulicka said.

Opposition was vocal but futile

Democrats, activists and some citizens to decried the process as a partisan power play to satisfy Trump, boost DeSantis’ future ambitions and hurt the majority of registered Florida voters who are not Republicans.

“Y’all are doing this because y’all’s daddy in the White House is injecting national political objectives into what should be a state-driven process,” Rep. Michele Rayner (D-St. Petersburg) told her Republican colleagues before an 83-28 vote in favor of the measure.

The Florida Senate later approved the plan in a 21-17 vote.

Rep. Angie Nixon, a Jacksonville Democrat, chided Republicans for yielding the redistricting process to DeSantis, whose second term expires in January.

“Last time I checked, we’re the ones who were supposed to be drawing the map,” she said, “and yet we are allowing y’all to continue to hold the water of the governor, who is a lame duck and just trying to figure out what his next job is going to be.”

Democrats diminished in metro areas

The new map reshapes districts in Democratic areas around Orlando, the Tampa-St. Petersburg area and in south Florida around Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. The changes could cost Reps. Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, among others, their seats.

DeSantis and his aides said before and during the session that new map is necessary to account for population growth in suburban and exurban areas since the 2020 census and to ensure Florida has a “race-neutral” congressional plan.

The proposal presumed the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision, which specifically struck down a Louisiana congressional district drawn for the electorate to be majority-Black. Historically, Black voters have aligned more with Democrats, while a majority of white voters lean toward Republicans.

The changes in Florida include the effective elimination of one nearly majority Black south Florida district that was represented by Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, a Black Democrat, until her resignation earlier this month.

Lawmakers fast-tracked the measures

From the session’s opening bell Tuesday morning, Republican leaders moved swiftly.

In one of just two committee hearings, Senate Rules Chair Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) said she wanted “everybody who has taken the time and effort to come to Capitol to have an opportunity to speak.” Then she declared each speaker would have 30 seconds.

“I know that doesn’t seem like a lot but it actually is, uh, if you’re concise,” she said.

Deborah Courtney drove more than two hours from from Jacksonville and noted that all citizen speakers expressed opposition.

“Why are you doing this redistricting now?” she asked senators. “I doubt that your phone have been ringing off the hook from your constituents going, hey, we need some new maps.”

Rob Woods came from the Tampa area, which under the new map could have no Democratic representation in the U.S. House. A Black man, Wood told senators he was a veteran who said he “bought in from elementary school” on notions of the U.S. as an equal-opportunity democracy.

Now, he said, “it seems as if we are back in that period of Reconstruction, moving back to Jim Crow.”

On the House floor, Persons-Mulicka sidestepped specifics about what factors went into the map. She repeatedly called it “race-neutral,” citing testimony from DeSantis aide Jason Poreda, who took sole credit for the map during the session and did not disclose the names of any architects. But asked about Poreda’s admission that he examined party affiliation and voting patterns, Persons-Mulicka balked.

“I cannot speak to the intent of the map drawer,” she said.

DeSantis unveiled the map on Fox News

Persons-Mulicka and Sen. Don Gaetz, who sponsored the map in the Senate, deflected questions about why DeSantis unveiled the plan on Fox News.

Gaetz, a Crestview Republican, confirmed he had no part in drafting the map and forwarded the governor’s proposal to other senators as soon as he received it late Monday morning.

There’s no guarantee that new maps across the country will play out the way two parties hope. For example, Texas based its revised lines largely on Trump’s performance in 2024, redistributing the president’s voters across more districts to pull them into the Republican column. But Trump’s popularity has waned since his reelection, including among Latino voters who figure prominently in the state.

Florida could face a similar conundrum. Creating more majority-Republican districts could leave margins thin enough to allow for Democratic victories, especially if there’s an anti-Trump backlash at the polls this year.

Some Republicans have expressed worry about that possibility, and a handful voted against the measure in the Florida Legislature.

The governor already took a hit because of the session. He had wanted lawmakers to adopt state regulations on artificial intelligence, ostensibly protecting minors from harmful material, while rolling back vaccine mandates for students in Florida’s public schools. House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican but not a DeSantis ally, spiked both ideas.

DeSantis called it “political shenanigans.”

House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell (D-Tampa) lamented that Republicans still delivered DeSantis the big-ticket item that he wanted.

“On destroying our democracy, they’ve been aligned,” she said, “and that’s what we did here today.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

HAVANA — Cubans hunched over tables this month to sign up for the socialist government’s campaign to support national sovereignty and defy the U.S. as tensions between the countries escalate.

They are endorsing “My signature for the Homeland” movement, which President Miguel Díaz-Canel launched earlier this month.

The initiative is mocked by some who question why people stood in line to sign when hunger and poverty are growing across the island, while supporters say it serves as a warning to the U.S. that civilians want peace but will not back down despite recent threats of invasion.

“Anything for the revolution,” said Rodolfo Ruiz, 64, who sells sunglasses and other items out of his home in Havana. He said he signed last week because of President Trump’s ongoing comments over Cuba, “so that he may hear and know that we are willing to defend our sovereignty.”

“Watch out, Trump. Think before you invade Cuba, think carefully. The people are prepared,” Ruiz said.

In January, Trump signed an executive order asserting that the “policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Cuba constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat,” something Cuban officials have repeatedly scoffed at.

Trump has referred to the island as a “failing nation” and suggested a “friendly takeover.”

“We may stop by Cuba after we’re finished with this,” he said in mid-April, referring to the war in Iran.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio — the son of Cuban immigrants who fled before the revolution — has called for “new people in charge” of Cuba.

“It is absurd for the State Department to claim that Cuba — a relatively small, developing country subjected to a brutal economic war — could pose a threat to the world’s greatest military, technological, and economic power,” Cuban Foreign Affairs Minister Bruno Rodríguez wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

Díaz-Canel has said he does not want military aggression, but noted that Cuba has a duty to prepare to avoid it, and if necessary, defeat it.

Havana resident Delfina Hernández said she would stand shoulder to shoulder with Cubans to fight a U.S. energy blockade, a sharpening of longtime U.S. sanctions and what many refer to as the “imperialist threat.”

For three days last week, the community center she runs in Havana with her husband received sheets of paper and opened its doors so people over age 16 could sign them. Hernández was the first to do so.

“Cuba is something very sacred to us,” she said. “We are well-armed, and the people of Cuba will fight to the very end. We are going to hit them — and with everything we’ve got.”

Criticism was swift on social media, though, with opponents of the campaign asserting that the “homeland” has not provided them with anything. Some said the government should allow people to sign in favor of things like the ability to choose their president.

The homeland initiative began on April 19 and comes as Cuba celebrates the 65th anniversary of its April 1961 Bay of Pigs victory over some 1,500 Cuban exiles backed by the CIA who failed in their attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s newly formed Communist government.

Alberto Olivera, a visual artist and Hernández’s husband, questioned how Cuba poses a threat to the U.S.

“If it’s a failed revolution, then leave us alone,” he said. “What do they care?” Hernández added.

Olivera recognized that Cubans have unmet needs, adding that he has been hungry at times, but asserted that the “pressure cooker” tactic by the U.S. would not work.

“If I’m a failed state, why are you seeking me out?” he asked.

The Trump administration has demanded that Cuba release political prisoners, implement major economic reforms and change its way of governance — all things Cuba has rejected, saying it’s open to dialogue and cooperation in certain areas as it pushes for the end of a U.S. energy blockade that has deepened the island’s crises.

Both countries have confirmed recent talks, although details remain secret.

As tensions persist, Cuba’s government is gathering signatures at workplaces and neighborhoods across the island of nearly 10 million people, remaining mum on how many it has collected.

It said in a statement that the signatures are meant to condemn “the U.S. blockade and economic war against Cuba,” which it called a “genocidal act,” and to repudiate threats of military aggression while upholding “the inalienable right of Cubans to live in peace.”

Coto writes for the Associated Press.

LONDON — In the world of diplomatic faux pas, it could have been a lot worse.

At Tuesday’s state dinner honoring King Charles III and Queen Camilla, President Trump said that during a private meeting earlier in the day the British monarch had agreed with him that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

“We’re doing a little Middle East work right now … and we’re doing very well,” Trump told the audience. “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me, even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

While many Britons would agree with the president’s sentiment, the comment triggered mild consternation among pundits in the U.K.

By convention, people aren’t supposed to relay private conversations with the monarch. That is partly because the king has to remain above the political fray, but also because the sovereign doesn’t have the ability to wade into a public debate and correct the record if he’s misquoted.

“Generally, as a matter of protocol, I think I would expect discussions between heads of state to be sort of behind the scenes, in those closed meetings, for those to be sort of kept private,” said Craig Prescott, an expert on constitutional law and the monarchy at Royal Holloway, University of London. “And, you know, this was something that the U.K. government wanted to avoid.”

There had been a fair amount of jitters before the king’s trip to the United States, which comes amid Trump’s very public frustration with U.K. Prime Minster Keir Starmer over his failure to support U.S. actions in the Iran war.

Like all royal visits, this is a carefully choreographed diplomatic event carried out at the request of the U.K. government, which hopes that warm relations between the king and Trump can help repair the rift.

But Trump is an unconventional leader who has a penchant for breaking protocol, and there were concerns about just what he might say or do.

At least in this case, the king’s comments seemed clearly within the bounds of existing U.K. government policy.

“The King is naturally mindful of his government’s long-standing and well-known position on the prevention of nuclear proliferation,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement designed to provide context to the president’s remarks.

Prescott said that “in a sense, this was always the issue, just what Trump would do or say — would he put the king in an embarrassing position?’’ Prescott said.

“You always had that sort of issue of what he would post on social media,” he said. “And I think, you know, this could have been much, much worse.”

Before the state dinner, Charles gave a speech to a joint session of U.S. Congress. The king received repeated standing ovations during the address, which celebrated the longstanding bonds between the U.S. and Britain while nodding to differences over NATO, support for Ukraine and the need to combat climate change.

Now, from the U.K. government’s point of view, the trip is shifting to safer ground as the king and queen leave Washington behind and head to New York, where the focus will be on the city’s creative industries, rather than politics.

The most difficult part of the trip may be over, Prescott said.

“If this is the only controversy arising out of this phase of the state visit, I think overall this has been an enormous success for the king and the British government, because the king was able to make some quite pointed remarks in Congress and it hasn’t really yielded any sort of negative reaction from the president.”

“In a sense,” he said, “you get the feeling that the king rather charmed Washington with his speech to Congress and, you know, his very witty speech at the state banquet.”

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Making his first appearance before Congress since the Trump administration went to war in Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced withering questioning from skeptical Democrats Wednesday over a costly conflict being waged without congressional approval.

The war has cost $25 billion so far, according to Pentagon numbers presented to the House Armed Services Committee during the contentious hearing, ostensibly focused on the administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which would boost defense spending to a historic $1.5 trillion.

While Republicans focused on the details of military budgeting and voiced support for the operation, Democrats pivoted to the ballooning costs of the war, the huge drawdown of critical U.S. munitions and the bombing of a school that killed children. Some lawmakers also questioned President Trump’s dealings with allies and his shifting justification for the conflict.

Hegseth dismissed the criticism as political and rebuked lawmakers who pushed him for answers.

“The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans,” Hegseth said.

Democrats press about reasons for war

Wednesday’s hearing stretched nearly six hours as Democrats and some Republicans questioned Hegseth over the war and his ouster of several top military leaders.

In one tense exchange, Hegseth told Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) that Iran’s nuclear facilities were obliterated in a 2025 attack by the U.S., prompting Smith to question the Trump administration’s reasoning for starting the Iran war less than a year later.

“We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat,” said Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee. “Now you’re saying that it was completely obliterated?”

Hegseth responded by saying that Iran “had not given up their nuclear ambitions” and still had thousands of missiles.

Smith said the war “left us at exactly the same place we were before.”

Democrats accused Hegseth of misleading Americans about the reasons for the conflict and said rising gas prices are now threatening the pocketbooks of millions of people in the U.S.

“Secretary Hegseth, you have been lying to the American public about this war from day one and so has the president,” said Rep. John Garamendi of Walnut Grove, who called the war “a geopolitical calamity,” a “strategic blunder” and a ”self-inflicted wound to America.”

Hegseth blasted Garamendi’s remarks.

“Who are you cheering for here?” he asked the lawmaker. ”Your hatred for President Trump blinds you” to the success of the war.

Hegseth defends firings of officers

The Defense secretary faced intense questions from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) about his decision to oust the Army’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George, one of several top military officers to be dismissed since Trump’s reelection.

Houlahan said George was deeply respected by both members of the military and Congress and asked why Hegseth fired him. Hegseth’s response that “new leadership” was needed failed to satisfy Houlahan.

“You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men —” Houlahan began before Hegseth interrupted her. “We needed new leadership,” he repeated.

The Pentagon announced this month that Navy Secretary John Phelan was stepping down. Hegseth previously removed Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy’s top uniformed officer, and Gen. Jim Slife, the Air Force’s No. 2 leader, while Trump fired Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said that while Hegseth is empowered to make personnel changes, he shares what he called “bipartisan concern” about the firings.

“We had a huge bipartisan majority here that had confidence in the Army chief of staff and the secretary of the navy,” Bacon said. “And I would just point out it may be constitutionally right … but it doesn’t make it right or wise.”

Hegseth has said the changes are part of building a “warrior culture” at the Pentagon.

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina defended Hegseth’s personnel moves, saying he is “trying to innovate and trying to change the way we do business.”

“I’m glad that you’re firing people,” Mace said. “There are people there that are getting in your way. They need to go.”

Republicans back Trump on Iran

During the extended hearing, Hegseth detailed plans to increase pay for service members and upgrade munitions while also announcing that, as of Tuesday, the Pentagon had authorized $400 million in military aid for Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

But the debate and the questions were dominated by the war in Iran.

While a fragile ceasefire is now in place, the U.S. and Israel launched the war Feb. 28 without congressional oversight. House and Senate Democrats have failed to pass multiple war power resolutions that would have required Trump to halt the conflict until Congress authorizes further action.

Republicans say they back Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear program, the potential for talks to resume and the high stakes of withdrawal. Still, GOP lawmakers are eager for the conflict to end, and some are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on.

Democrats questioned Hegseth over the war’s economic impact and rising gasoline costs, noting Trump’s promise to lower consumer costs. Hegseth responded by citing the threat posed by Iran.

“What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon that they wield?” he said.

Republicans expressed support for Trump’s decision to strike Iran, including Mace, who in late March had expressed concerns about the justification for the war. “The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people,” she wrote in a social media post.

On Wednesday, Mace noted her past concerns but said she is “impressed with where we are today.” She told Hegseth: “Everything I have seen, you have surpassed all of my expectations.”

Iran’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor for the world’s oil, has sent fuel prices skyrocketing and posed problems for Republicans ahead of the midterm elections. The U.S. has imposed a naval blockade of Iranian shipping and three American aircraft carriers are in the Middle East for the first time in more than 20 years.

The countries appear locked in a stalemate. Trump told Axios on Wednesday that he is rejecting Iran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the U.S. blockade.

Finley, Groves, Klepper and Toropin write for the Associated Press.

According to Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and other top administration officials, the U.S. Secret Service did a fine job protecting President Trump and Cabinet members from the gunman who breached the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner Saturday.

“That horrible act was stopped because of the courage and professionalism of law enforcement — the officers who responded without hesitation and did their jobs as they were trained to do,” Blanche said Monday.

However, according to a detailed accounting filed Wednesday by federal prosecutors in the criminal case against suspect Cole Tomas Allen, the performance of the nation’s preeminent protection agency was marred by inattentiveness and misfires and saved by “extraordinary good fortune” and the gunman falling to the ground.

“The defendant, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a .38 caliber pistol, two knives, four daggers, and enough ammunition to take dozens of lives, was apprehended by [Secret Service] officers mere feet away from the ballroom where his primary target was located, along with other members of the Cabinet,” prosecutors wrote Wednesday, in a filing arguing for Allen to be held in detention pending trial on one charge of trying to kill the president and two firearms charges.

Contradicting a prior claim by Blanche that officers had “promptly tackled and detained” Allen, prosecutors wrote that the 31-year-old tutor from Torrance simply “fell to the ground” after blowing past a team of agents just two open flights of stairs from the ballroom.

They wrote that one officer fired at Allen five times, but never hit him.

The same officer saw Allen fire his shotgun “in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom,” prosecutors wrote, and officers later discovered “one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired cartridges in the magazine tube.”

Prosecutors said nothing about the Secret Service officer who Blanche said was shot in his ballistic vest during the incident — adding to speculation that the officer may have been shot not by Allen, but by a fellow officer, or not at all.

Agency critiqued before

In all, the court filing brought further into focus a chaotic Secret Service response that appeared flawed from the start, including in a video Trump posted shortly after the incident in which agents appeared to be idling around an unobstructed entrance when Allen ran past them.

It added to concerns that law enforcement, security experts and members of Congress had raised about the performance of an agency that has been repeatedly called on to improve after previous attempts on Trump’s life. At a 2024 campaign rally in Butler, Pa., a gunman fired a bullet that grazed Trump’s ear, and that same year, another assailant prepared to shoot him from the unsecured perimeter of a Florida golf course.

Robert D’Amico, a former FBI deputy chief of operations for hostage rescue teams who is now a security consultant, said the security failures he saw in the Secret Service’s preparation for Saturday’s dinner — including its failure to set up basic barriers to prevent people from sprinting into the secured area — were stunning, especially given the past threats and the fact the nation is at war with Iran.

“It’s for a person like Trump, who’s had two assassination attempts before and is at war with Iran, which has terrorist training and proxies up, and you still don’t have the basics?” D’Amico said. “It’s unfathomable.”

Other concerns have been voiced by members of Congress, including Republicans.

The House Oversight Committee has requested a briefing from the Secret Service, and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has called for a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which also investigated the Butler incident.

In a letter urging the hearing, Hawley said the latest incident “raises questions about presidential security arrangements, potential resource needs, and the degree to which reforms previously proposed by Congress have been adopted.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told Fox News that from “a layman’s perspective,” event security “looked a little lax in terms of getting into the building,” and that it “doesn’t sound like it was sufficient.”

Sean M. Curran, director of the Secret Service, has been on Capitol Hill in recent days briefing lawmakers.

He told CBS News that agents did a “great job,” but also that the incident remains under review. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles would be leading discussions on potential updates to Secret Service plans for securing the president.

Fear of graver threats

Blanche has argued that proof of the Secret Service’s effectiveness at the press gala was in the result: Allen was stopped, Trump and other officials were unharmed and no one was killed, despite Allen’s alleged intent.

However, the concerns being raised have to do with the vulnerabilities that were exposed as much as those that were exploited.

Because the dinner was not designated a major “national special security event” — such as a political convention — there were no trained counterassault agents on standby to prevent a breach or to take down a person with a weapon, officials have said.

Law enforcement experts said that was clearly a mistake given so many top officials — Trump, Johnson, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, among others — were in the room.

Such a gathering could have been targeted by foreign adversaries or others with far more experience, less regard for human life and much greater firepower than Allen, experts said.

“Most of my military friends are all saying the same thing,” said D’Amico, who is also a former infantry platoon commander in the U.S. Marines. “If you had had a team of three or four [gunmen], they would have gotten to [Trump].’”

In the initial criminal complaint against Allen, prosecutors included the text of an email Allen sent to family just as he was preparing to rush the security perimeter, in which he allegedly wrote that he had chosen to use buckshot in order to “minimize casualties” and prevent bystanders from being wounded by more powerful bullets penetrating walls.

He also allegedly wrote that he was willing to “go through most everyone” at the event to get to top administration officials, but that guests and hotel staff were “not targets at all.”

In Wednesday’s filing, prosecutors describe Allen’s actions as “premeditated, violent, and calculated to cause death,” and say he was “laden with weapons” as he breached security. But none of those weapons included assault-style rifles that can fire multiple bullets rapidly and have been used to kill civilians in mass shootings across the country for years.

The filing described Allen — a Caltech graduate and high school tutor — not as some trained tactical expert, but as an ideologue who spent part of his Amtrak journey from California to Washington waxing poetic about the landscape around him, describing Pennsylvania’s woods as “vast fairy lands filled with tiny trickling creeks in spring.”

Could have been worse

D’Amico said he and other Marines learned early on in Iraq that entrances to secured locations have to be designed in a “serpentine” fashion, forcing anyone approaching to move more slowly through the area and giving security officers more time to assess their intentions. And at an event the size of the correspondents’ dinner, with so many top officials gathered in a public hotel, you would want to make entrances “even more difficult.”

And yet no barriers seemed to be in place at the event, he said — something anyone trained more than Allen could have capitalized on.

“If they just had come through in a team of three or four who were coordinated and trained, there absolutely would have been penetration into the ballroom,” D’Amico said. “It would have been a gunfight.”

Allen himself questioned the security at the event, according to court records, allegedly writing that he had walked into the Washington Hilton with multiple weapons and no one considered “the possibility that I could be a threat.”

He wrote that if he “was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen,” he “could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed” — referring to a powerful machine gun.

“It is fortunate he was only armed with what he had,” said Ed Obayashi, a California law enforcement expert on use of force.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded ready Wednesday to rule that the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that has been granted to more than 1.3 million immigrants from troubled countries.

Congress in 1990 authorized Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for noncitizens who could not safely return home because their native country was wracked by war, violence or natural disasters. If those people passed a strict background check, they could stay and work legally in this country.

But President Trump came to office believing too many immigrants had been granted permission to enter and stay indefinitely.

Last year, his Department of Homeland Security moved to cancel the temporary humanitarian protection for immigrants from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Honduras and Nicaragua. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians were consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices heard Wednesday.

Immigrant-rights advocates challenged those decisions as political and unjustified, and they won orders from federal judges that blocked the cancellations.

But Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing the judges had overstepped their authority. They pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that bars “judicial review” of the government’s decision to end temporary protection for a particular country.

The justices ruled for the administration and set aside the lower court rulings in a series of 6-3 orders.

Faced with criticism over its brief and unexplained orders, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the TPS issue on the last day of oral arguments for this term.

But the ideological divide appeared to be unchanged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Congress had prohibited “judicial micromanagement” of these decisions, and none of six conservatives disagreed.

UCLA law professor Ahilan T. Arulanantham, representing several thousand Syrians, said the Homeland Security secretary had failed to consult the State Department, which says it is unsafe to travel there.

He said the government “reads the statute like it’s a blank check … to give the secretary the power to expel people who have done nothing wrong.”

Chicago attorney Geoffrey Pipoply, representing more than 350,000 Haitians, said the cancellations were driven by “the president’s racial animus toward non-white immigrants.”

The court’s three liberals argued the administration failed to follow the procedural steps required under the law. But that argument failed to gain traction.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her husband adopted two children from Haiti who are citizens. Like most of the conservatives, she asked few questions during the argument.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey appeared in court on Wednesday, kick-starting a criminal case against him that legal experts say presents significant hurdles for the prosecution and will likely be a challenge for the Justice Department to win.

Comey, who didn’t enter a plea, was indicted in North Carolina on Tuesday on charges of making threats against President Trump related to a photograph he posted on social media last year of seashells arranged in the numbers “86 47.” The Justice Department contends those numbers amounted to a threat against Trump, the 47th president. Comey has said he assumed the numbers reflected a political message, not a call to violence against the Republican president, and removed the post as soon as he saw some people were interpreting it that way.

The indictment is the second against Comey, a longtime adversary of Trump dating back to his time as FBI director, over the past year. The first one, on unrelated false-statement and obstruction charges, was tossed out by a judge last year. Now prosecutors pursuing the threats case face their own challenge of proving that Comey intended to communicate a true threat or at least recklessly discounted the possibility that the statement could be understood as a threat.

The indictment accuses Comey of acting “knowingly and willfully,” but its sparse language offers no support for that assertion. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche declined to elaborate at a news conference on what evidence of intent the government has. But broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, Supreme Court precedent and Comey’s public statements indicating that he did not intend to convey a threat will likely impose a tall burden for the government.

“Here, ‘86’ is ambiguous — it doesn’t necessarily threaten violence and the fact that it was the FBI Director posting this openly and notoriously on a public social media site suggests that he didn’t intend to convey a threat of violence,” John Keller, a former senior Justice Department official who led a task force to prosecute violent threats against election workers, wrote in a text message.

The case was charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the location of the beach where Comey has said he found the shells. He is set to make his first court appearance Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., the state where he lives.

What the law says on threats

The Supreme Court has held that statements are not protected by the 1st Amendment if they meet the legal threshold of a “true threat.”

That requires prosecutors to prove, at a minimum, that a defendant recklessly disregarded the risk that a statement could be perceived as threatening violence. In a 2023 Supreme Court case, the majority held that prosecutors have to show that the “defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has found that hyperbolic political speech is protected. In a 1969 case, the justices held that a Vietnam War protester did not make a knowing and willful threat against the president when he remarked that “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J,” referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The court noted that laughter in the crowd when the protester made the statement, among other things, showed it wasn’t a serious threat of violence.

Regarding the current case, Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by the Associated Press, says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”

Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”

What the government will try to prove

John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia, said the government will likely try to prove that Comey should have known better as a former FBI director.

“I think they’re going to try to circumstantially say that you were head of the FBI, you knew what these terms meant and you said them out to the whole world as a threat to the president,” Fishwick said, though he noted that such an argument would be challenging in light of Comey’s obvious 1st Amendment defenses.

Comey was voluntarily interviewed by the Secret Service last year, and the fact that he was not charged with making a false statement suggests that prosecutors do not have evidence that he lied to agents, Fishwick said.

Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday that “despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

“If it did,” he added, “it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”

Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Kunzelman reported from Alexandria, Va.

WASHINGTON — The White House is warning Congress that funding to pay Department of Homeland Security personnel will “soon run out,” sparking new threats of airport disruptions and national security concerns as the House slow-walks legislation to end what has been the longest-ever lapse in agency funding.

In a memo late Tuesday to lawmakers, the Office of Management and Budget said money that President Trump tapped to pay Transportation Security Administration and other workers through executive actions will be exhausted by May. It called on the House to quickly approve the budget resolution senators approved in an all-night session last week that would pave the way for full funding for the department.

“DHS will soon run out of critical operating funds, placing essential personnel and operations at risk,” the memo said.

The pressure from the Trump administration could help House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose narrow Republican majority has been stalled out, tangled in internal party disputes on a range of pending issues, including the Homeland Security funding. They have left the chamber at a virtual standstill.

The House was expected to vote as soon as Wednesday on the Senate budget resolution that is designed to unlock a multistep process to eventually fund the department. But by midday, House action again screeched to a halt. The administration has warned GOP lawmakers off making changes that could prolong passage.

“Restoring funding for the Department of Homeland Security has never been more urgent, as demonstrated by recent events,” the memo said, a nod to the situation over the weekend when a man armed with guns and knives tried to storm the annual White House correspondents’ dinner that Trump, the vice president and top Cabinet officials were attending.

Homeland Security shutdown is longest ever

Homeland Security has been operating without regular funds for more than two months after Democrats refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol without changes to those operations after the deaths of Americans protesting Trump’s deportation agenda.

While immigration enforcement workers have largely been paid through the flush of new cash — some $170 billion — that Congress approved as part of Trump’s tax cuts bill last year, others, including TSA, have had to rely on Trump’s intervention through executive action to ensure their paychecks.

But with salaries topping $1.6 billion every two weeks, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said recently, those funds are drying up.

More than 1,000 TSA officers have quit since the shutdown began, according to Airlines for America, the U.S. airlines trade group that called Wednesday on Congress to fully fund the agency.

“The urgency to provide predictable and stable funding for TSA is growing stronger by the day,” the group said in a statement. “Time and time again, our nation’s aviation workers and customers have been the victim of Congress’ failure to do their jobs.”

Complicated budget strategy ahead

House and Senate Republicans have embarked on a go-it-alone strategy, attempting to approve funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol without Democrats. They want to provide $70 billion for those immigration operations for the remainder of Trump’s term to ensure no further interruptions.

It’s a cumbersome process, the same that was used last year to approve Trump’s tax cuts bill, that will play out over several weeks.

The Senate launched the process last week, and is now waiting on the House to act. Once that budget resolution is approved, both the House and Senate are expected to draft the actual funding bill, a process that can take weeks.

In the meantime, Johnson is next expected to quickly turn this week to legislation that would fund the other parts of Homeland Security, including TSA, the Coast Guard and other agencies.

That bipartisan bill has support from Democrats and already passed the Senate a month ago, when Republicans reluctantly agreed to carve out the immigration-related funds that Democrats had opposed. But it has been stalled out in the House, as Republicans in that chamber disagreed with the Senate’s approach.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate Banking Committee voted on party lines Wednesday to approve Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the Federal Reserve to replace Jerome Powell, a longtime target of President Trump’s insults for not cutting borrowing costs as far as the president wanted.

The vote was 13-11, with all Republican senators voting in favor and Democrats opposed.

Warsh is a former top Fed official but has also been a sharp critic of the institution and Powell’s leadership. He has called the inflation spike to 9.1% in 2022 the central bank’s biggest policy mistake in four decades. A vote on his nomination probably won’t take place until next month, but he could be confirmed by the time Powell’s term as chair ends May 15.

The Senate Banking vote is the first of two key events surrounding the future of the Fed’s leadership. Also Wednesday, Powell is presiding over what will probably be his last meeting of the Fed’s interest rate-setting committee. At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, Powell may indicate whether he will remain as a member of the central bank’s board of governors after his term as chair ends.

It would be unusual for Powell to stay, but doing so would deprive the Trump administration of an opportunity to appoint a new member to the board. Powell may choose to stay if he sees it as necessary to protect the Fed’s independence, which has become part of his legacy as its leader.

Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican and chair of the committee, said Warsh is “battle tested” and added that, “It is incredibly important that we break the bind of Bidenomics on households across this nation.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, criticized the banking panel for voting on Warsh’s nomination. Doing so “will bring the president one step closer to completing his illegal attempt to seize control of the Fed and artificially juice the economy,” she said, citing Trump’s effort to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook and investigate Powell.

The Fed on Wednesday is widely expected to leave its key rate unchanged at about 3.6% for its third straight meeting, defying Trump’s calls for lower rates.

Warsh has called for “regime change” at the Fed and could alter many of its practices, including the economics models it focuses on, how it communicates with the public, and how large its bondholdings will be in the long run.

Those changes could affect financial markets, but otherwise won’t necessarily be visible to the general public. But Warsh has also advocated for additional interest rate cuts, which could potentially lower borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and business loans. He will face barriers to implementing those cuts anytime soon, however, largely because the Iran war has caused a spike in gas prices, pushing inflation to a two-year high of 3.3%.

The Fed typically keeps rates elevated, or even raises them, to combat worsening inflation.

Most of the other 11 members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee have indicated they would prefer to wait and evaluate where inflation and the economy are headed before making any changes to rates. It could take time for Warsh to build up enough influence to push for rapid rate cuts. He will also replace Stephen Miran, a member of the Fed’s rate-setting committee who was appointed by Trump last September and is the most consistent advocate for rate reductions at the central bank.

Warsh also faces questions about his independence from the White House, a key issue that dogged him during a Senate Banking hearing last week. On Wednesday, Warren said, “Mr. Warsh is a Trump sock puppet who is so cowed by the president that he could not even say that Trump lost the 2020 election.”

Last December, Trump called for much lower interest rates in a social media post, and added that “anyone who does not agree with me will never be Fed chair!” And just last week he told Fox Business that he expects rates to head lower, “when Kevin gets in.”

Warsh denied at his hearing, however, that Trump had ever pressured him directly to cut rates.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

Eight candidates for California governor shared a stage for 90 minutes Tuesday night, their second of three scheduled debates before the June 2 primary.

My colleagues Gustavo Arellano and Mark Z. Barabak joined me to decide who the winner was, or if there was a winner at all.

Arellano: The real MVP in this debate? State Supt. Tony Thurmond.

He brought up his family story — child of a Panamanian immigrant who lost his parents young, someone familiar with “government cheese” as sustenance growing up — in a way that didn’t sound forced or pedantic.

He usually stayed within the time limits that were barely enforced by moderators. And he kept knocking down Chad Bianco again and again, drawing applause when he brought up the Riverside County sheriff’s takeover of hundreds of thousands of ballots.

Thurmond is the only gubernatorial candidate currently holding a statewide position, a former Richmond City Council member and Assembly member. “Elect someone with a lived experience,” he told the audience in his closing statement.

So why has Thurmond polled so low again and again to the point that he keeps not getting invited to debates and therefore not getting in front of California voters?

California has never elected a Black governor — in fact, the state is notorious for not voting in Tom Bradley in 1982 even though polls showed him leading George Deukmejian all the way to Election Day (the phenomenon of voters telling pollsters what they think they want to hear instead of what they actually feel is now known as the Bradley Effect).

As California’s Black population keeps shrinking, it would’ve been wonderful to see Thurmond do better than he has.

Chabria: Gustavo is spot on with his take on Thurmond. He came across as polished, capable and knowledgeable. But also, he’s just too far down in the polls for any kind of comeback.

In my mind, though, Xavier Becerra was the clear winner. No, he didn’t blow the other candidates away.

But he landed more than one punch that will almost certainly be on social media feeds for weeks to come, especially when he went at Republican Steve Hilton. Early on, he called President Trump “Hilton’s daddy.” Later, he quipped at Hilton, “We don’t need a talking head for Fox News to tell us how the government works.”

The debate was chaotic in more than one moment, but Becerra managed to get more than his share of airtime and use it wisely. Tom Steyer, the other Democratic front-runner, mired himself in wonk-talk. He wanted to get deep into policy, and got lost in complicated issues such as oil refineries.

Steyer didn’t have a single memorable line, though his closing statement did redeem him somewhat. He called himself the “change maker,” and promised, “if you want change, there is only one person on this stage they are afraid of” — they being tech titans, oil companies and other gods of industry.

It was the same for Katie Porter and Matt Mahan, who didn’t do anything wrong, but also, didn’t break out.

But those back-and-forths of Becerra and Hilton are priceless because they’re quick and shareable. I won’t be surprised to see voters drift Becerra’s way, even if only a bit.

Barabak: No runs, no hits, no errors. Seven men — and one woman — left standing.

I didn’t see, or hear, anything that seems very likely to drastically shake up or dramatically reorder the governor’s race. No breakout performance that will launch any of the candidates into clear-cut front-runner status. No major gaffes to leave any of the contestants sprawled on the killing floor.

So to that extent, I would score Becerra as the evening’s (modest) winner. He’s clearly having a moment, surging from political near-death to the top tier in polls. (Though, let’s be clear, it’s still a muddle, with several candidates bunched in the 15%-20% support range.)

There have been suggestions Becerra needs to show a bit more fight and he did so Tuesday, in particular taking on Hilton. Some of his jabs seemed a bit forced and stagy. (That line about Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”)

Better, as Anita noted, was the jab from the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden cabinet secretary about a Fox “talking head” explaining how government works.

I found Porter to be crisp and authoritative on policy; Steyer to be repetitive (I’m the only change agent on this stage, look how much money is being spent to stop me — though it’s a small fraction of the sum he’s sunk into his vanity-cruise campaign); Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa to be largely afterthoughts, and Bianco to have all the warmth and appeal of the grouchy old man telling kids in the neighborhood to get off his damn lawn!

The Riverside County sheriff seemed not to be running for governor of California, but rather mayor of MAGA-ville, a strategy apparently intended to nab one of two spots in the June primary, allowing him to go on to crushing defeat in November.

I agree that perhaps the night’s most surprising performance came from Thurmond. The state schools superintendent is mired in bare single digits in polls and only just made the debate stage after being left out of last week’s meetup in San Francisco.

His chances of being California’s next governor are somewhere between zero and nil, which is why he escaped serious scrutiny. That said, he made the most of the 90 minutes on stage, laying out his compelling up-from-poverty life story and seeming to relish taking on Bianco in particular.

Too little, too late. But Thurmond certainly acquitted himself well.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: ‘This is like the Russian mafia’: L.A. judge elections see unusual drama
The deep dive: Gavin Newsom wants to break up with Elon Musk. Tesla is making that difficult.
The L.A. Times Special: John Seymour, Anaheim mayor and U.S. senator, dies at 88

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Wildfire and insurance — issues amped by climate change — along with the price of gas, took center stage at the California governor’s debate on Tuesday night.

Here are some of the candidates’ defining statements, starting left of the stage:

Tony Thurmond

The Democratic State Superintendent of Public Instruction addressed the state’s wildfire insurance crisis, where private insurers have been dropping policies as climate changes fuels more frequent catastrophic fire. The state has allowed insurers to raise rates in return for writing more policies, but so far its backup FAIR Plan, meant to provide coverage when other companies will not, continues to grow.

Thurmond said he would withhold tax credits, subsidies and benefits from non-cooperative insurers, although moderators and other candidates raised questions about the legality of this strategy.

“The governor can certainly work with the Insurance Commissioner to say there should be no rate increase unless the insurance industry is actually writing policies. They have failed California in our greatest need. They’ve taken the money for premiums and then when people needed to have support to rebuild their homes, they said, ‘whoops, we’re not going to help you.’ Then they got a rate increase. I’m sorry, where I come from, when you do a bad job, you don’t get a raise.”

Chad Bianco

The Republican Riverside County Sheriff said insurers aren’t leaving California because of climate change, but because the state has failed to pass and enforce vegetation management and defensible space policies that would reduce wildfire risk.

“It wasn’t global warming, stop believing that. It was a failed environmental policy that doesn’t allow fire departments to prevent defensible space around our homes or clear out the brush for 30 years that are building in our mountains and in our hills that took out a city. [Insurers] specifically said we were going to lose a city, and our governor said ‘we don’t care.’ And so the insurance companies left.”

Inadequate brush clearance has contributed to other fires in the state, although it’s not a factor experts cite in the Los Angeles fires specifically.

Tom Steyer

The Democratic billionaire hedge fund founder who is positioning himself as the climate candidate in the race, touted his drive to make oil companies pay for damages from climate change, including rising insurance rates and homes lost to wildfires.

“In environmentalism, I have three real rules. Number one is polluter pays. It’s absolutely critical that if people are going to pollute and damage the environment and cause harm to their neighbors, they pay. Two, we have to include environmental justice in every single environmental rule. And third is we need to start to deploy all of the clean energy stuff that’s cheaper now and get us back to the front of the world in leading it.

“There is one person that the corporations are going after, including Big Oil, who is spending millions of dollars to stop me. The electric monopolies, PG&E, millions of dollars to stop me, because I’m the person on this stage who’s the change agent.”

Steve Hilton

The former Republican Fox News commentator said insurers should be allowed to raise rates consistent with actual wildfire risk. He also advocated for “modern forest management,” removing fuel from forests, as a way to protect against wildfires, reduce carbon emissions from fire, and revive the state’s timber industry.

“We can create jobs and opportunity in rural California and reduce carbon emissions in the process, because we won’t have the mega wildfires.”

Asked if he supports the transition to electrification, he promoted natural gas: “Yes, but let’s be sensible about electric. Right now, we have a fleet of gas fired power stations generating electricity that are running at 10 to 15% of their capacity, even though we have abundant natural gas in California that we could be using to generate affordable, reliable electricity that would lower the cost of electric bills for consumers and businesses.”

According to the U.S Energy Information Administration, California’s natural gas production provides less than one tenth of what the state consumes.

Xavier Becerra

The former Health and Human Services Secretary said he would call a state of emergency as governor to require wildfire insurers to freeze rates and come to the table.

“This affordability crisis is hitting every family, and we have to act as if this were a break glass moment … Rate payers have to understand what their risk is, so they understand why they are going to pay for what they’re going to pay for their home insurance. But an insurance company has to be open and transparent about how its pricing its policies so people can afford it.”

Moderator Julie Watts noted that California home insurance rates are below the national average and questioned the legality of a freeze.

Katie Porter

The former Democratic Orange County Congresswoman was asked whether California should keep its refineries. Two of them closed in the past year, reducing the state’s refining capacity by 20 percent and causing California to lean more heavily on imports.

She said the state should keep the remaining refineries open, but also rapidly scale up green energy to meet the state’s growing electricity demand: “Right now we need to keep all of our energy sources online. That’s just the reality that we’re in. … Right now those refineries, they’re up, they’re running, they’re creating good jobs. Let’s keep them there. But I want to be really clear … The people who work at those refineries, and the people who live in Kern County also face some of the worst pollution and lower life expectancies. Green energy gets us out of that.”

She also backed an idea to have state dollars cover insurance for insurers, known as reinsurance.

Matt Mahan

Democratic San Jose Mayor called to suspend the state’s 61 cent-per-gallon gas tax, used to fund road repairs, bridges, and public transport. The state is looking at a $216.4 billion revenue shortfall over the next decade due to increasing fuel economy and electric vehicles. The other Democratic candidates support keeping the tax; Mahan has instead proposed a flat fee on all vehicles.

He said: “I’m the only candidate on this stage who has pledged to suspend and then reform the gas tax. It is the most regressive tax in California. Working people, rural people, are spending three times as much maintaining our roads as wealthier EV owners.”

On the wildfire insurance crisis he said: “The government in Sacramento created so many restrictions, including taking over a year to approve any rate changes, prohibiting insurance companies from using climate data to project future costs, that they stopped writing new policies. The answer is bring them back, force them to compete, allow them to appropriately price risk, and then hold government accountable for maintaining our wildland, reducing all that vegetation and wildfire risk so that we don’t have these catastrophic fires.”

Antonio Villaraigosa

The former Democratic L.A. mayor expressed his concerns with the readiness of the state’s infrastructure to support a transition to electric vehicles.

“We need an all of the above strategy that understands we’ve got to transition from oil and gas to renewables. But here’s an example: the 2035 mandate [to ban gas-powered car sales]. We built 167,000 charging stations in the last 10 years. We need 2 million more to get to that mandate, and if we build them, we don’t have a grid. So we ought to build the grid instead of arguing about whether or not we need an all-of-the-above policy.”

WASHINGTON — The State Department said that it is preparing a limited release of commemorative U.S. passports celebrating America’s 250th birthday that feature a picture of President Trump, who would be the first living president to be featured in the travel document.

The concept for the special passport, including a rendering of Trump’s stern-looking visage, had been under consideration for months before finally being approved late Monday and publicly announced Tuesday. Between 25,000 and 30,000 of the new passports will be available to applicants at the Washington passport office beginning shortly before July 4.

It’s the latest instance of Trump having his name and likeness added to buildings, documents and other highly visible tributes. There are efforts to put Trump’s signature on all new U.S. paper currency, also a first for a sitting president, as well as to include his image on a gold commemorative coin to celebrate the country’s founding.

The commemorative passport will be the default document for people applying in person at the Washington office, although those who want a standard passport will be able to get one by applying online or outside Washington, officials said.

“As the United States celebrates America’s 250th anniversary in July, the State Department is preparing to release a limited number of specially designed U.S. passports to commemorate this historic occasion,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

“These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. passport the most secure documents in the world,” he said.

The limited release passport will feature Trump’s picture over a gold imprimatur of his signature to an interior page, while the cover will feature the words “United States of America” in bold gold print at the top and “Passport” at the bottom — a reversal of the standard cover.

In addition, a small gold laminate American flag, with the number 250 encircled by stars, will be at the bottom of the back cover.

The Bulwark reported earlier on the commemorative passports.

The only presidents featured in current U.S. passports are in a double-page depiction of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

Other depictions include the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and scenes of the Great Plains, mountains and islands. Current passports also contain quotations from Martin Luther King Jr. as well as Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower.

The addition of Trump’s picture and signature to the passport book is the newest step his aides have taken to increase the president’s visibility, including adding his name to the U.S. Institute of Peace building and the Kennedy Center performing arts venue.

Trump also has made waves with his plans for a new White House ballroom and a massive arch to be built at one of the entrances to Washington from Virginia.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.