Politics Desk

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of President Trump’s closest allies in Congress who traveled the globe to advocate for a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy, has died after a “brief and sudden illness,” his office said. He was 71.

The statement posted on social media late Saturday did not provide any additional details about the South Carolina Republican, a former Air Force lawyer, and said his family “appreciates prayers at this time and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period.”

“Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the greatest people and Senators I have ever known, is dead!” Trump posted on social media early Sunday. “He was always working, and was a true American Patriot. Lindsey will be greatly missed!!! DETAILS AND ARRANGEMENTS TO FOLLOW. So sad!”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said, “My heart is heavy this morning to learn of the passing of my friend and colleague.”

Thune described Graham as “a strong advocate for the United States and a strong ally to freedom-loving countries across the globe. He believed in the might of America to achieve good in the world and dedicated his life to advancing that cause.”

Graham was one of the most influential figures in Washington on foreign policy, and he advised Trump on matters such as Iran and Russia. The senator had just returned from Ukraine and announced an agreement Friday with the Trump administration to move forward on a package of Russia sanctions. He had been scheduled to appear Sunday morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Graham had a central role during Trump’s second term as Republicans pushed major legislation on party-line votes while holding a narrow 53-47 majority in the chamber.

Under South Carolina law, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster will appoint a temporary replacement for Graham, who was seeking a fifth term in November.

Graham was close with Trump

Graham, who was elected to the Senate in 2002 after serving in the House, long promoted a policy of robust U.S. military interventionism and strong national defense that in later years would put him at odds with the growing isolationist wing of the Republican Party.

More recently, Graham had become well-known for his close ties with Trump, whom the senator briefly ran against for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016.

Their relationship would begin on a rough note, with Graham calling the New York businessman and TV reality show figure “unfit for office.” Graham also used profanity to describe him after Trump made disparaging comments about Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, Graham’s best friend in the Senate and a Vietnam War veteran. McCain and Graham, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat turned independent from Connecticut, were known as the “Three Amigos” and frequently traveled together to push their hawkish foreign policy views around the globe.

During a campaign rally in South Carolina, Trump read out Graham’s personal cellphone number and continued to belittle him throughout the 2016 campaign as Graham made it clear he would not support Trump even though he was the GOP nominee.

But Graham shifted significantly once Trump won the White House. He emerged as one of Trump’s top allies — speaking with him frequently and becoming a regular presence on the golf course alongside the president — even as McCain remained a critic and foe of Trump.

In a 2018 interview with the Associated Press, Graham explained his pivot by saying McCain taught him that the country must move forward after elections and that meant “you have an obligation” to help the president. McCain ran twice for the White House.

“And I’ve tried to be helpful where I could because I think he needs all the help he can get,” Graham said of Trump. “You can be a better critic when people understand that you’re trying to help them be successful.”

Graham appeared to break with Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, saying before the delayed congressional vote to certify Joe Biden’s election victory over Trump, “Count me out. Enough is enough.” But the senator returned to the fold and remained close with the president during his second term.

Foreign policy was a focus

Graham had been in Ukraine to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who said that the senator visited his country 10 times during the years since Russia’s full-scale invasion.

“Lindsey was a true defender of freedom and the values that make our world safer,” Zelensky said.

Graham’s travels made him a familiar face to dozens of world leaders.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mourned Graham’s death, calling him “a great friend of Israel” and “a cherished friend of mine.”

Netanyahu said Graham understood that the security of Israel and the United States was inseparable and devoted his life to defending America, strengthening the U.S.-Israel alliance and standing up for the free world.

“Israel has lost one of its greatest friends. America has lost a great patriot. I have lost a beloved friend,” Netanyahu said.

Chairman of key committees

As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Graham oversaw a process called reconciliation, a Senate procedure that allowed Republicans to pass significant policies such as last year’s tax law without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.

He had previously led the Judiciary Committee when Republicans confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in late 2020, and was in line to regain that gavel if the party kept control of the Senate after this year’s midterm elections.

“In 2027, I’ll be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee once again,” Graham posted on X on June 30. “And I’ll wake up every single day with one goal: confirming as many conservative judges as possible.”

Graham was a key player in the Senate’s efforts to craft a massive immigration overhaul in 2013 as a member of a bipartisan group that wrote a sweeping measure that would have altered virtually every part of U.S. immigration law. It passed the Senate with 68 votes but was never taken up by the House, so it did not become law.

But Graham’s views on immigration, particularly an endorsement of a path to citizenship for people in the U.S. without legal status, put him at odds with some Republican factions.

He sometimes faced primary challenges in his home state of South Carolina, but he won the nomination outright in June.

The senator addressed the president in his victory speech last month, saying, “I’m going to help you change this world and change this country.”

Special election

Graham won 57% of the GOP vote in the primary and was up against Democrat Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, and several minor party and independent candidates in November.

After McMaster appoints a replacement, South Carolina law requires a special primary for voters to select a new nominee within weeks of a vacancy. The general election winner will take office January, beginning a full six-year term.

McMaster’s office did not immediately return messages seeking comment on who would take Graham’s seat or when the machinations for the primary would begin. State party officials said early Sunday they would release more information when they could.

The sparse statement by Graham’s office, which did not explain his death, comes during a stretch of concern about a lack of transparency about lawmakers’ health.

Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-N.J.) was absent without explanation for months before returning to Congress and disclosing that he had been diagnosed with depression.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former longtime Republican leader, was hospitalized weeks ago for undisclosed health reasons.

McMaster said in a statement that Graham was “irreplaceable.”

“The fiercest of fighters for South Carolina and America — and a loyal and steadfast friend,” McMaster said. He added: “We shall not see his likes again.”

Graham was not married and did not have children. His closest living relative is sister Darline Graham Nordone, whom he helped raise after both their parents died.

Weissert writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Christopher Megerian in Washington, Meg Kinnard in Columbia, S.C., Brian P. D. Hannon in Bangkok and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — After the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had finally had enough of the man who was championed by the mob that stormed the pillar of American democracy: President Trump.

“Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh, my God, I hate it. From my point of view, he’s been a consequential president,” an emotional Graham said once authorities cleared the rioters and allowed senators to reclaim their chamber to certify Joe Biden’s election win. “All I can say is count me out. Enough is enough.”

It wasn’t, of course.

Graham, the South Carolina Republican who died unexpectedly Saturday night at 71, realized that his party’s future was inextricably tied to Trump and quickly reverted back to being a staunch defender. The shift made what had once seemed like a final rupture into just another twist in the topsy-turvy relationship between the powerful senator and the president who came to dominate their party.

“Can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no,” Graham said in May 2021, just four months after the Jan. 6 insurrection. “I’ve determined we can’t grow without him.”

Trump, who called Graham a “true American Patriot” in a social media post Sunday, appeared shocked by the senator’s sudden death.

“I just can’t believe it,” the president said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “He was like a member of the family.”

Graham often advised Trump on foreign affairs, particularly on matters pertaining to Israel, Ukraine and Iran. He was a frequent visitor at the White House.

“At the end of a particularly thrilling and rollicking meeting in the Oval Office, Lindsey Graham turned to the room and said: ‘I’ve never had this much fun in my life,’” Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller wrote on X. He said such gatherings “were filled with camaraderie, kinship and uproarious laughter.”

Trump recalled that during his last conversation with Graham, he told his friend, “We’ll see you soon, come over anytime you want.”

‘Unfit for office’

The senator and Trump first clashed while competing for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Graham described Trump as “unfit for office,” and was angered when Trump denigrated the military service of Graham’s close friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Trump, while talking about McCain’s years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said, “I like people that weren’t captured.”

Trump got mad enough at Graham to release the senator’s personal cellphone number. That prompted a viral video in which the senator dramatically destroyed a series of flip phones. He smashed one with a meat cleaver and another with a golf club, then used lighter fluid, a blender and toaster oven to pulverize others before tossing one off the roof.

Graham eventually likened Trump’s winning the nomination to “being shot in the head” and said he refused to vote for Trump that November. But the pair later bonded over golf and what Graham described as a mutual and irreverent sense of humor.

Trump and Graham began so frequently hitting the links together that the senator started seeing it as something of a career builder, leaning heavily into the kind of over-the-top flattery Trump relishes. In 2017, Graham joked that Trump had beaten him “like a drum” on the course, even worse than in the presidential primary.

“Their true friendship could only be seen behind the curtain,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said on ABC’s “This Week.” Scott said that relationship was forged as political adversaries but was strengthened by spending 100-plus hours golfing together.

During Trump’s first term, Graham helped advance Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court, lent credibility to the White House’s legislative agenda and even at times became part of the president’s inner circle. He frequently said Trump was maturing in politics and growing on the job.

Graham’s political divergence with McCain, who died in 2018, was never more clear than in 2017, when McCain voted against a Trump-backed plan to overturn the Affordable Care Act, former President Obama’s signature healthcare law. The effort had been co-sponsored by Graham.

A short-lived split, an alliance reignited

In his floor speech after the Capitol attack, Graham said that “he’d never been so humiliated and embarrassed for the country.” But the break with Trump ended quickly.

Weeks later, Trump invited Graham for golf and dinner at the president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, reigniting their alliance. During Trump’s 2024 campaign, Graham was a frequent Trump surrogate on television, promoting U.S. military strength that he said would advance “America first” policies.

Graham never shed his more traditional Republican foreign policy views, including outspoken support for Ukraine after the Russian invasion — even as Trump frequently wavered in supporting Kyiv, sometimes castigating Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and praising Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

The senator was also a leading voice pushing the White House to more fully embrace Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and take a harder line against Iran, and he was a leading advocate of Trump’s ongoing war with Iran. After the U.S. and Israel attacked in February, Graham staunchly defended the action and working to counter many among Trump’s “Make America Great Again” base who supported the president’s longtime assertions that “America first” meant avoiding such military conflicts.

“To those who say Iran is stronger now than before, that is an insult to the American military and it is delusional thinking because the Iranian economy is in shambles,” Graham posted on social media June 19.

Graham’s admiration for Trump went far beyond Iran. When the senator clinched the South Carolina Republican primary last month, he suggested the president was just short of a deity.

“I want to start with a bunch of thank yous. I want to thank the big guy, God. Trump comes later,” Graham laughed. “Mr. President, you’re not far behind God, but we’re gonna start with him.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

The largest single piece of federal housing legislation to come out of Congress in at least a generation is is now law.

It happened in the middle of night early Saturday, without fanfare — or even President Trump’s signature — and it might be a while before many Californians notice its effects.

That’s because the bill, though politically monumental — both chambers approved it overwhelmingly — doesn’t do one big thing. Instead, it does a lot of little things. Individually, none of the bill’s 56 regulatory tweaks, pilot programs and low-cost loans and grants are likely to move the needle on the nation’s housing affordability woes, nor on California’s specifically.

Supporters hope that collectively, they just might.

Even the law’s path to enactment had an under-the-radar quality to it. The White House abruptly canceled a planned signing ceremony late last month, with Trump vowing not to sign the bill until Congress first passed his restrictive national voter ID proposal. That bill has stalled out in the Senate.

Still, Trump did not veto the housing package, so it automatically became law Saturday just after midnight, as per the Constitution.

For all that, supporters say this is still a big deal: a major, bipartisan piece of legislation aimed at boosting housing construction from a hyperpartisan legislative body that doesn’t typically touch the topic.

“We don’t often gather to celebrate federal housing legislation,” Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation, said at a news conference Thursday. “I think the last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you were not even alive. … It is almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

That’s thanks in part to a growing caucus of lawmakers aligned with the “Yes In My Backyard” movement that helped push the bill into law. Many hail from California, a state that has had more experience than most contending with wildly unaffordable housing. But the cause of making housing more affordable, and attributing high housing costs to a lack of sufficient supply, has become a national and bipartisan concern. Case in point: The bill originated as a joint proposal by Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), an ardent conservative, and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), among the most liberal members of the Senate.

While the constituent parts of the bill are relatively narrow and none is specifically focused on California, experts highlight a few provisions that could leave a notable imprint on the state.

Build now (or else)

For high-cost cities that don’t build much housing, as in much of urban California, the federal bill includes a novel carrot and stick.

This portion of the bill would change the Community Development Block Grant, one of the largest sources of federal funding for affordable housing and local economic development. Pricey cities — defined through a variety of data benchmarks like median prices and vacancy rates — with a track record of under-building that continue to see below-average housing construction will have their grant funds cut by 10%. The savings will go to their municipal counterparts that build at a faster clip.

That’s likely to have “real implications for cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that have traditionally lagged behind” in adding housing supply, said David Garcia, the deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

The city of Los Angeles received $48.4 million in its last award from the block grant program in 2024, according to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data. San Francisco received $18.9 million.

Those numbers aren’t enough to make or break the budget of either city.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, in an email. “Which taken across the country could still have a good impact! Little nudges add up.”

More dramatic than the number of dollars involved may be the precedent the policy sets. Even in California, where the state government has aggressively incentivized cities to plan for more housing development and penalized those that don’t, lawmakers have never punished municipalities for failing to actually grow — an outcome that may not always be under a city government’s control.

Such an idea would have been “inconceivable in previous congresses,” Garcia said.

Despite that, the provision hasn’t engendered much public opposition from local government groups yet. In an online summary, Michael Wallace, a lobbyist with the National League of Cities, applauded the overall housing bill as an example of the federal government “choosing partnership with local governments over preemptions.” He singled out other provisions of the bill that provide expanded flexibility for Community Development Block Grant spending, new incentive programs for adding supply, and new supports for local urban planning.

Chassis change

Manufactured housing units are often colloquially referred to as mobile homes, but they don’t tend to move around much. Built on assembly lines and shipped to where they’re needed, these naturally affordable houses — the likes of which lawmakers across California and the United States claim we need in droves — are often placed upon permanent foundations where a fewer than 1 in 10 ever move again.

Even so, the federal building code applied to manufactured housing includes a costly, vestigial reference to its mobile origins: a permanent chassis.

A giant steel frame with removable axles and wheels, the chassis ostensibly exists to make it easier to pick up and move a manufactured house by truck. In practice, it serves as a 10- to 12-inch-thick floor beneath the floor. Because it cannot be removed upon delivery, it just serves as “dead space and wasted money,” said Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute, the industry’s trade group. Aside from adding thousands of dollars in added costs per unit, it also makes it harder for manufactured units to be stacked into double story homes or multifamily apartment buildings.

The federal housing bill removes the permanent chassis requirement, something that manufacturers and some housing policy experts have been pushing for since the mid-1980s.

“That relatively minor change will expand access to one of the most affordable forms of home ownership available,” Rep. Scott Peters (D-San Diego) said at the Thursday news conference.
Maxcy said he doesn’t expect the end of the chassis requirement to trigger an overnight building boom in the manufactured home industry. But especially in California, where, due to the high price of land, new single-family homes are more likely to be built stacked on small lots, the regulatory change “provides more opportunities and helps us reduce the price.”

Recovering after disaster

In the months after a natural disaster, long after emergency federal dollars have come and gone, Congress has provided communities with long-term rebuilding grants through the Community Development Block Grant—Disaster Recovery program. Over the last three decades, the program has spent more than $100 billion on the long-term work of recovery, like home construction, infrastructure repair and rental and relocation assistance. That money tends to be reserved for low-income people and communities “who are not going to bounce back without the funds,” said Marion McFadden, who used to run the program under the Biden administration and now works at the disaster preparation and recovery consulting company IEM.

Unfortunately for California, the program only kind of exists. Since the mid-1990s, it’s been stood up and funded on an ad hoc basis, one appropriation bill at a time. That presents a challenge for communities planning in the middle of post-disaster planning. It also means the rules that govern the program — when the money goes out, to whom, under what conditions and for what purposes — are redrafted with each political administration. That’s had the effect of slowing things down considerably. No program funding has gone to Los Angeles in the wake of the 2025 fire storms, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Congress has yet to appropriate any.

The new housing bill would officially write the program into law for at least three years.

“It creates the ability for HUD to have money on hand before a disaster and then make a decision within 15 days about whether they’re going to provide funding,” McFadden said.

What the housing bill doesn’t do: provide fresh funding. Disaster-prone communities will need to wait for Congress to take that up later.

A ‘bottleneck’ removed

For the last two decades, public housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area have been turning to the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration program to help repair and upgrade their aging stock of increasingly dilapidated public housing. The program works by switching up funding sources in a way that gives locals more flexibility to borrow money and attract private investment dollars.

Until the new law took effect this weekend, the federal government was only authorized to permit 455,000 of these conversions. The law raises the cap by an additional 100,000.

“This has been a bottleneck in California for years and that bottleneck just got removed,” said Russell with the San Diego Housing Federation.
Not all affordable housing advocates are cheering the development. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has consistently opposed expansion of the program on the grounds that the change in funding source could weaken existing tenant protections. It’s unclear whether and to what extent that might be true. A study from last year found no evidence that conversions under the program lead to more evictions.

Wall Street out of suburbia

If you’ve heard only one thing about this housing bill, it’s that it bans “large institutional investors” from buying up more single family homes.

Caveats apply in the final version of the law. The bill defines “large” as any of a number of business structures with control over more than 350 single-family homes. It doesn’t apply retrospectively, so current investors with portfolios brimming with houses need not divest. Exemptions exist for new construction, renovations and senior housing. In California specifically, where corporations and other major investors do not play a significant role in the housing market, the effect is likely to be muted.

The measure “takes a hyper-salient issue for lots of people across the country and does a pretty modest intervention to address it,” said Chad Maisel, a fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress and a former housing policy advisor to President Biden.

Even so, the provision has plenty of bipartisan appeal. Earlier this year, Trump called for an even stricter crackdown on so-called corporate landlords. Gov. Gavin Newsom followed suit the same week.

The anti-investor language was considerably watered down from earlier this year, when a related provision threatened to undermine “build-to-rent” projects: well-financed subdevelopments of single-family homes reserved for renters. That prompted a revolt by many developers and YIMBY activists who had otherwise enthusiastically supported the bill, who argued that such communities are one of the fastest growing sources of the U.S. housing stock and provide some of the few opportunities for renters to live in suburban-style, family-sized housing.

After the build-to-rent provision was left on the cutting room floor of Congress, state Sen. Aisha Wahab, a Fremont Democrat who is now running for Congress, introduced a bill that picked it back up again. SB 880 would have banned the bundled sale of multiple single-family homes, striking at the heart of the build-to-rent business model. That bill died in the Assembly Judiciary committee in late June.

Christopher writes for CalMatters.

As the fight for control of the U.S. Senate grows increasingly competitive, eyes are turning north to Alaska and a contest pitting, among its contestants, Dan Sullivan vs. Dan Sullivan — and, no, it’s not about a candidate living a double life or wrestling demons within himself.

Confused?

That may be the point.

Daniel S. Sullivan is Alaska’s two-term Republican senator. He’s seeking reelection in November.

Daniel J. Sullivan is a retired school teacher and political novice. He calls himself an independent Republican cut from the same polar-fleece lining as the state’s maverick GOP senator, Lisa Murkowski.

Political handicappers give Daniel J. Sullivan little chance of winning the highly competitive race. So is there some other reason he’s running? Is his presence on the ballot intended to draw enough befuddled voters away from the incumbent to elect his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola?

That’s what Republicans think. And you don’t have to be standing on the banks of the Kenai River to smell something fishy.

When Daniel J. Sullivan launched his campaign in May, he did so as plain old “Dan Sullivan,” with a website closely resembling that of the incumbent. The press release announcing his candidacy was written by one “Amber Lee.” There is an Alaska political strategist named Amber Lee who has supported Peltola in the past.

(For such a sparsely populated state, there sure are a lot of doppelgangers in this political saga.)

Election officials say Daniel J. Sullivan asked to appear on the ballot as a Republican, even though he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the party. In fact, over the years he’d contributed money to Democrats, including Peltola. He also asked to be identified on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” before changing his mind, an attorney for the state told Alaska’s Supreme Court, which took up the matter late last month.

“That’s not an innocent mistake, or random mistake,” Chris Murray told the justices. “There’s a lot of other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo.”

The political consultant Amber Lee declined to comment when reached by the Anchorage Daily News. She did not respond to an email from your friendly political columnist.

For his part, Daniel J. Sullivan denied any malice or mischievous intent.

“This is my choice,” he told the Associated Press. He said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign — “zero, none, zilch” — and denied anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operatives had contacted him to run.

Peltola’s campaign has adamantly denied any involvement. So, too, have the Alaska Democratic Party and the Democrat’s national Senate campaign committee.

After an investigation, Daniel J. Sullivan was removed from the Aug. 18 primary ballot. Carol Beecher, head of Alaska’s Division of Elections, said his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attends meetings at the U.S. Capitol in 2025.

(Francis Chung / Politico via Associated Press)

But the state’s high court overturned that decision, instructing elections officials to figure out a way to keep Daniel J. Sullivan’s name on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

It’s been nearly 20 years since the state sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, but this election looks to offer the party its best shot in years, thanks to Peltola.

Jessica Taylor, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, called her “the ideal recruit,” given Peltola’s fundraising prowess and her ability to outperform other Democrats by avoiding the toxic taint of the national party. (Peltola’s slogan —”Fish, family and freedom” — is about as far removed from the Whole Foods-shopping, Prius-driving Democratic image as it gets.)

Democrats need to win four seats in November to take control of the Senate, from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas while, at the same time, hanging on to contested Senate seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska as one of the few toss-up races in the bunch.

The state has a ranked-choice election system in which the top four vote-getters advance to November. Ivan Moore, who does nonpartisan polling in Alaska, said that system virtually ensures Sullivan and Sullivan will face off against each other in a runoff that includes Peltola. At that point, Moore suggested, the choice to most voters will be clear.

Under the solution devised by state election officials, the senator will be listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and as “(Registered Republican) Incumbent.” His challenger will be identified as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no party affiliation.

“I imagine there’s some people out there who don’t know what the word ‘incumbent’ means,” Moore said. “But I find it pretty hard to believe that people who are dead set on voting for Dan S. Sullivan, the senator, are going to go in the voting booth and vote for the wrong person when Dan S. has the word ‘incumbent’ next to his name and Dan J. doesn’t have any party affiliation.”

Political hijinks are nothing new. But the level of partisan gamesmanship seems to be growing as the old saying about all being far in love and war is increasingly applied to campaigns and elections.

It was something of a novelty in 2002 when Democrats meddled in the California Republican primary to promote their preferred candidate. Now it’s common practice.

Redistricting, or redrawing the nation’s congressional lines to reflect changes in population, used to occur once a decade following the national census. But spurred by President Trump, the last year has seen an arms race among states, including California, which gerrymandered their political maps to boost a preferred party and, essentially, decide House races before a single ballot is cast.

Politics, another old saying goes, ain’t beanbag.

But it doesn’t have to be this slanted and cynical. There’s no need for fishy-smelling candidates like Daniel J. Sullivan.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices say they decide cases based on the words and original history of the Constitution — and not on their personal or political views.

Following the lead set by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, they say they see history and “originalism” as a guiding principle to prevent judges from changing the Constitution to adjust to new and changing times.

This text-and-history approach is said to contrast with an evolving or “living Constitution” favored by progressives and liberal activists.

But this year saw a flip of sorts on birthright citizenship.

The foremost conservatives agreed with President Trump that the surge of illegal immigration called for reconsidering the promise of citizenship at birth set out in the 14th Amendment of 1868.

“The number of illegal immigrants in this country exploded” in recent years, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent. The rule of citizenship at birth provides “a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally,” he added.

“The Constitution is an enduring document,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, but its rules and meaning must adjust to “modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers.”

In a concurring opinion, he said that “significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868.”

There were no federal immigration laws in the mid-19th century, but it was an era when a surge of Irish immigrants had settled on the East Coast and large numbers of Chinese immigrants came to California.

Under the law, their children were deemed to be citizens at birth.

Among the conservative originalists, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed the majority opinion that was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the three liberals.

The opening words of the 14th Amendment of 1868 say: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the rule of citizenship at birth in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.

In an executive order, Trump proposed to end birthright citizenship for the newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.

Writing for the court, the chief justice said the words of the 14th Amendment were clear and were clearly understood at the time. He dismissed the “dramatically revisionist view” that has been cited recently.

Kavanaugh voted with the majority to block Trump’s order from taking effect. He did so because Congress had adopted birthright citizenship in a 1952 law.

“Consistent with the 14th Amendment, Congress could … enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship,” he wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito wrote long dissents arguing that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not or would not have favored birthright citizenship.

They pointed to recent scholarship by law professors that raised questions about the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment and the citizenship rule.

Thomas said citizenship of the child should turn on whether the parents were “domiciled” in this country. Black people who were enslaved were undoubtedly domiciled here, but the same is not true of temporary visitors.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch agreed in part with Thomas and questioned whether the newborns of temporary visitors should be deemed as citizens at birth.

Many court commentators were surprised by the close 5-4 divide on the constitutional issue.

“Given how clear the language was, I expected it to be 7 to 2,” said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor. “I really gasped when I saw it was 5-4. This is not settled. We’re not done with this debate.”

Sarah Isgur, a podcaster and SCOTUSblog analyst, said that “originalism is getting more and more muddled. Either the history matters or it doesn’t.”

However, she agreed with Kavanaugh’s approach of leaving it to Congress to reconsider the issue.

Not all originalists are conservative.

Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a constitutional historian, argued that the history of birthright citizenship is clear and not subject to revisionist thinking. He said the Reconstruction Congress adopted this principle of citizenship at birth and stated their intent in clear words in the 14th Amendment.

“When a baby is born on American soil and an American flag flies above, that baby is a birthright citizen, as the Reconstruction Republicans across the land understood,” he wrote in February. This rule “has virtually nothing to do with the baby’s parents.”

Last week, he was mostly cheered by the court’s ruling.

“It’s a triumph, but it should have been 9-0,” Amar said on a review of the court term sponsored by SCOTUSblog. “Shame on the dissenters. They didn’t even the address the statute” and its wording.

But the majority led by Roberts “clearly affirmed the plain meaning of the constitutional text and its history. And that’s a win,” he said.

History has a recurring role at the Supreme Court.

Isgur noted the court will hear arguments in the fall on whether the 2nd Amendment of 1791 gives gun owners a right to have “assault weapons” like AR-15 rifles.

She said the court will decide then between history and changed circumstances.

At issue is whether these modern rapid-fire rifles fit within the history of the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment or instead represent a new and dangerous threat to public safety that was unknown in 1791.

Scalia’s opinion upholding gun rights in 2008 is often cited as a model of originalism, but it too emerged from a court divided 5-4.

The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For decades, the Supreme Court had all but ignored the 2nd Amendment, viewing it as a somewhat outdated provision involving militias, akin to the 3rd Amendment. It forbids having soldiers “quartered in any house … in time of peace.”

Four liberal dissenters in 2008 said the court should stand by that understanding of history.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect state militias from federal interference. Moreover, the reference to “bear arms” suggests it was about militias, he said.

But Scalia’s opinion stands as the landmark precedent, and he said the dissenters had the history all wrong.

The right to have guns for self-defense arose in England and came to the American colonies. “By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects,” he wrote.

The 2nd Amendment did not establish a new right, he said. Rather, it “codified a pre-existing right [of] having and using arms for self-preservation and [defense],” he wrote.

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history,” Scalia wrote, “that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the remnants of the government’s landmark case against far-right Proud Boys members who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep President Trump in the White House after he lost his reelection bid more than five years ago.

The case’s dismissal late Friday became a foregone conclusion when Trump last year used his pardon powers to erase every case that the government prosecuted after a mob of his supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge who presided over the Proud Boys leaders’ trial saw no basis to preserve the convictions after Trump’s sweeping act of clemency last year.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump nominated during his first term, said there is “little mystery” about why the second Trump administration decided to abandon this case and every other Jan. 6 riot case.

“President Trump’s views about the prosecution of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6 — whether those views are based on fact or fiction — are well known, as is his intention to extend clemency to them,” Kelly wrote.

The judge stressed that his order should not be mistaken as an endorsement of the Department of Justice’s decision to abandon the case. He referred to the Capitol riot as “a perilous event” and an assault on the constitutional imperative for a peaceful transfer of power between presidents.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

Juries in the nation’s capital separately convicted leaders of the Proud Boys and another extremist group, the antigovernment Oath Keepers, of orchestrating violent plots to keep Trump in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

A different judge has not ruled yet on the Justice Department’s related request to throw out Oath Keepers’ seditious conspiracy convictions.

Friday’s ruling applied to four of five Proud Boys members who were convicted after a jury trial: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola. Trump commuted their prison sentences, but they were not covered by the president’s mass pardons.

Former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio was convicted at the same trial but received a pardon from Trump. Kelly had sentenced Tarrio to 22 years, the longest prison term in any Capitol riot case.

Kunzelman and Durkin Richer write for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration finalized a rollback of the Endangered Species Act on Friday, paving the way for drilling, mining and other human development across protected wildlife habitats.

The move redefines “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, the landmark conservation law that protects threatened and endangered plants and animals. For years, “harm” meant actions that injure or kill wildlife, as well as actions that destroy protected habitats.

Under the new rule, destroying those habitats is no longer illegal.

The decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to slash regulations in the name of economic growth. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department finalized the move, said the prior definition of harm “interfered with private property rights” and “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap.”

Environmental groups called the decision a disaster, saying it puts protected species on a path to extinction.

The move seems especially poised to hit California, the most biodiverse state in the country, where more than 6,700 species are spread across mountains, forests, deserts and oceans. Of the roughly 2,300 species protected by the Endangered Species Act, nearly 300 are found in California.

These species include amphibians such as tiger salamanders and Yosemite toads; birds such as California condors and northern spotted owls; fish such as Little Kern golden trout and Santa Ana suckers; insects such as Franklin’s bumble bees and Mission blue butterflies; mammals such as gray wolves and Santa Catalina Island foxes; and reptiles such as desert tortoises and green sea turtles.

The Endangered Species Act is widely credited with saving the California condor, which almost went extinct in the 1980s due to several factors, including habitat destruction. Thanks to a recovery program under the act, the condor population has since soared to several hundred. But under the new law, the logging and human development that led to their near demise is now allowed.

A handful of California species recoveries have been championed as success stories under the Endangered Species Act, including southern sea otters, peregrine falcons, humpback whales, bald eagles and green sea turtles.

According to a report from the Center for Biological Diversity, the El Segundo blue butterfly lost 90% of its oceanside habitat due to the construction of LAX and beachfront housing developments. The population dwindled to about 1,000 butterflies in the 1970s, when it was named an endangered species. Now, the population has climbed above 120,000.

In California, the rollback could pave the way for more farming, mining, logging and drilling in areas that were once forbidden due to the potential for wildlife habitat destruction. A report from Earthjustice estimates that expanded oil drilling in California could threaten five marine species including humpback whales, sea otters, leatherback sea turtles, marbled murrelets and wild salmon.

Several environmental groups are planning legal challenges to the ruling.

“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Kristen Boyles, attorney for the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”

Ben Greuel, wildlife campaign manager at the Sierra Club, called the decision “an unlawful attempt to open the door for corporate polluters to degrade vitally important habitats.”

“For more than four decades, the definition of ‘harm’ recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction,” Greuel said in a statement.

It’s not the first time Trump has taken aim at California environmental regulation.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, along with the governors of Washington and Oregon, submitted a formal opposition to the Trump administration’s plans to expand drilling off the Pacific Coast, with Newsom saying it leads to “dead wildlife.” In June, the Trump administration ordered a review of the California Coastal Commission, claiming the state’s “environmental extremism” obstructs spaceport development and offshore oil production.

A day before the Endangered Species Act decision, the Trump administration signed off on a controversial plan to use an old oil pipeline to pump water from the Mojave Desert into cities. Environmental groups said the plan threatens springs and local wildlife, since six pumps would need to be built in desert tortoise habitats.

The builder got up every morning long before dawn, left home to pick up his construction crew and then headed out to work on yet another house somewhere across the sprawl of Houston.

Fourteen hours later, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo would return to the wife he’d met as a teenager in Mexico and the modest house he’d built for his family on the city’s east side.

It’s what he’d done for decades, according to Ronaldo Salgado, his oldest son. He said his father built hundreds of houses over 35 years, creating a life for his family and watching as his three sons headed off to college.

On Tuesday, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Salgado Araujo, 52, after he was pursued by federal agents driving unmarked vehicles while he was taking his crew to their latest job site. The shooting has outraged Houston leaders and renewed public scrutiny over ICE and Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Four Democratic members of Congress who represent the Houston area said at a vigil Saturday that they would push for an independent investigation into the shooting.

“We are never going to forget that his blood is on Donald Trump’s hands,” Rep. Christian Menefee said. “We are not at war. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was not a casualty. He was a human being who was murdered by our government.”

ICE was looking for someone else

Federal agents were looking for someone else when they tried to stop Salgado Araujo’s white van, Garcia said, citing a briefing she received from ICE’s acting director. The Department of Homeland Security has said an ICE officer fired at the van in self-defense after Salgado Araujo, whom officials described as an “illegal alien,” rammed an ICE vehicle. They have provided no evidence.

After some previous shootings by federal immigration agents, Homeland Security authorities have given accounts that were contradicted by video evidence. No video showing the moment of the shooting this time has emerged, and the agents at the scene were not wearing body cameras.

The three men that Salgado Araujo was driving said he was shot through a passenger window and that the ICE officer who fired was not in front of the van or even in danger, a lawyer who has spoken with them said Friday.

His family has also disputed the account from ICE. They said lawyers, who were helping him apply for a work permit, had explained how he should behave if immigration agents stopped him. Salgado Araujo was close to obtaining legal status when he was killed, they said.

“He knew what to do,” Ronaldo Salgado told reporters this week. “He knew not to sign anything. He knew that the first phone call he should make should be either to myself or to my mom. So that way we can get the process started of getting him out.”

He believes his father may have been scared that he was being followed by unmarked vehicles, worried someone was planning to steal his van or his tools.

The shooting in the largely Latino neighborhood is at least the eighth death connected to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign.

A kind, present husband and father

Salgado Araujo entered the U.S. more than 30 years ago, settling in Houston with his wife where they raised their three children.

Education was a constant focus in the house, said Ronaldo Salgado, who is now a teacher. One of his brothers is an engineer. The other is in college studying engineering.

Several childhood friends of Salgado recalled that his father was kind and soft-spoken, always inquiring after a long workday about his wife’s day and how his sons’ friends were doing.

“We didn’t really see him until the end of the day when he came home to have dinner, but that just shows how much of a hard worker he was,” said neighbor Jessica Alanis Magdaleno. “Everything they have now is thanks to the dedication to that.”

Josué Flores, a friend of Ronaldo Salgado since their freshman year of high school, said he first saw Lorenzo Salgado Araujo at his son’s football game.

“I think it speaks volumes of the kind of person that he was,” Flores said, recalling how Salgado Araujo showed up for his son even after an arduous day of work.

Salgado Araujo’s wife, a relative said, is “inconsolable.”

“She is very upset … angry, sad, disoriented,” Jose Torres Ramon, a nephew who lives in Mexico, told the Associated Press in a Facebook message.

Ronald Salgado, his oldest son, said at the Saturday vigil that he hoped he was making his father proud.

“I’ll keep fighting for him,” he said.

His brother Lorenzo Salgado Jr. said the shooting of his father was “a hard moment to be an American.”

“Even though my government, my federal government took away my father, we the people will bring justice,” he said. “We the people are America.”

After coming home in the evening, Salgado Araujo liked to listen to music on the porch and pet the family dog. His family has described him as a simple man of routine.

“He did not deserve to die,” Ronaldo Salgado said. “He dedicated his life in the United States to giving his family the American dream.”

Sullivan writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Jack Brook in New Orleans, Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Times journalists after they reported on security concerns involving the new, Qatari-gifted Air Force One, marking a dramatic escalation of President Trump’s campaign against the media that has drawn condemnation for eroding a fundamental freedom of American democracy.

The new jet, a present from the U.S. ally on which the administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, entered service this month. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey and later referenced threats against him made by Iran.

The subpoenas seek to force the reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan next week, the New York Times said, adding that federal agents delivered some subpoenas to the reporters at their homes.

They were issued after FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials met at the White House on Friday to talk about the matter, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The journalists subpoenaed included Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt, the Times reported.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times, said in a statement.

Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Trump’s “war on the press is looking for another victim.”

He said in a statement that the subpoenas “break from long-standing Justice Department practice to protect the public interest and press independence by requiring prosecutors to only seek information from reporters as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.”

The department said that “to be clear, reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

Its statement said that “we value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but DOJ also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information, which means not sharing classified information.”

While recognizing “there may always be natural tension there,” the department said, “we are not going to ignore the law and stop investigating the people who work in the administration and think it’s OK to leak classified information impacting national security.”

Pattern of anti-press actions

Issuing subpoenas represents a further ramping up of Trump’s effort to threaten independent new organizations by leveraging the power of the federal government against them. It is also part of a systematic pattern by the Republican president to attempt to undermine press freedom in order to shield him from negative coverage.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas seeking to compel testimony from reporters at the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the department later withdrew the subpoenas.

In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who has been covering Trump’s transformation of the federal government, as part of a leak investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.

Adam Steinbaugh, senior attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said Friday’s subpoenas and the prospect of “hauling reporters before grand juries sends a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers alike: Watch what you say, or expect a knock on the door.”

“These tactics are becoming more common,” Steinbaugh said in a statement. “That doesn’t make them normal.”

During his first term, Trump suggested that the press constituted an “enemy” of the American people. Since returning to the White House, he has waged an aggressive campaign against the media unlike any in modern U.S. history.

Trump’s attacks against news outlets and media figures he believes are overly critical of him has included filing lawsuits against outlets whose coverage he dislikes, threatening to revoke TV broadcast licenses and seeking to bend news organizations and social media companies to his will.

The Justice Department over the years has developed and revised internal policies governing how it will respond to news media leaks.

Though the department across presidential administrations has periodically seized the phone records of individual journalists in hopes of identifying sources for national security stories, it is extremely rare for the government to attempt to compel reporters to reveal their sources before a grand jury.

In April 2025, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

Doing so again gave prosecutors the authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

A memo Bondi issued said members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo stated.

Security issues with new Air Force One

The president flew the new Air Force One to Turkey during this week’s visit. But he departed Wednesday on one of the older-model Air Force One jets for Mildenhall, a Royal Air Force base in Suffolk, England.

The newer plane also flew to Mildenhall. Trump then switched to that plane for the flight home to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

The abrupt swap came as a shaky ceasefire with Iran had collapsed, with the U.S. launching airstrikes on Iran and Tehran attacking three gulf Arab states. Iran and Turkey share a border, sparking speculation that the new jet lacked certain sophisticated security and countermeasure systems.

The New York Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service, and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older aircraft, including antimissile capabilities.

Trump denied any security concerns, posting on social media that the stop in Mildenhall was so that service members there could view the new jet. During the flight, Trump denied to the reporters accompanying him that security concerns involving Iran were a factor in flying two planes home.

Still, asked if he was aware of any credible threats against Air Force One by Iran, Trump responded, “I have a threat all the time. I’m No. 1 on their list.”

The White House did not answer messages seeking comment about the subpoenas of the Times journalists.

Weissert and Khalil write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Michelle L. Price and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

Private militias, skinheads, neo-Nazis, homophobes, gun zealots, xenophobes, jingoists, anti-Semites and the whole sorry lot who advocate violence against minorities–which party will they vote for in this year’s national elections? In spite of sanctimonious and pious distancing from these groups, Republican candidates will reap their overwhelming support.

A powerful magnetism has existed between extremist right-wing groups in America and the Republican Party for more than six decades, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. During the Great Depression, fringe leaders included William Dudley Pelley and his brigades of anti-Semitic Silver Shirts, radio preacher Father Charles Coughlin and his Christian Front, Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee, Fritz Kuhn and the German-American Bund. In the early 1950s, Sen. Joe McCarthy initiated witch-hunting that revived the dormant bigotries of the 1930s and sustained the GOP majorities in Congress. In the 1960s, the John Birch Society, protagonists of the antifluoridation hysteria and other extreme right-wing groups stepped forward to buttress Barry Goldwater’s candidacy. Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children (from homosexuals) and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority followed on their heels in the 1970s.

Now, a host of other organizations led by the Christian Coalition have replaced communists with homosexuals as the leading enemy of “all we hold dear” and as a potent fund-raising tool.

The naked hatreds of the past have become more sophisticated in the last three decades, but they are still alive behind the rhetoric of religious leaders, conservative think tanks and radio commentators.

The Republican Party has been the target of insurgency by such groups and, in times of political difficulty, has even courted them. Their increasing influence over the years has discouraged and driven out many in the GOP with more moderate stances. Some, including me, never took too seriously the party’s complicity in the ascent of the extremists. Over the years, the Republican Party has fostered such groups, often covertly, sometimes even publicly denouncing them in a mutually understood act of pragmatic politics.

This dynamic has spawned the continuing battle in the GOP between the forces of intolerance, isolationism and extremism and the “moderate” defenders of inclusivity. Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole are now re-creating this decades-old pantomime.

This battle was brought into the living rooms of America with the TV coverage of the 1992 Republican convention in Houston. It was there that Buchanan, as spokesman for the extremists, urged delegates to choose sides in a “cultural” and “religious war” to change the very definition of America. His speech, while met by an enthusiastic throng at the convention, triggered concern in much of the viewing audience. The GOP’s long flirtation with its radical-right fringe, an open secret in the sanctums of Republican decision makers, became the subject of debate across the nation.

Two years later, a somewhat softened rhetoric was successful in sweeping the GOP into power by emphasizing Americans’ deep disaffection with the status quo. Interpreting the 1994 election results as a mandate, both the GOP right and the lunatic fringe now demand more influence in the party and the leadership seems happy to oblige.

This struggle for power has helped polarize American politics, exacerbating religious antipathies, stigmatizing minorities and heightening mistrust between citizen and government. The present danger of extremism to American democracy proves that the United States is not immune to the life-and-death evil of bigotry and intolerance that has afflicted other nations.

The Republican Party’s much touted “big tent” has provided a haven for bigotry for more than six decades; the party has never dared break the ties between itself and the intolerant right. As the extremists become stronger, the moderates become weaker. It is too late.

Recently, Buchanan lashed out at the GOP’s “lords and barons” and called on his followers to hoist their “pitchforks” to oust them from the party. For those of us who are neither lords and barons nor pitchfork brandishers, but who want a country better for all of us tomorrow than it is today, the “big tent” is one that we’ve been forced to abandon by those who fill it now.

WASHINGTON — Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.

It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.

Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.

Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.

Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.

At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.

Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday.

(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.

Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.

A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”

“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.

“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”

Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.

“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”

The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”

The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.

The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.

Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.

But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.

“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”

“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”

The L.A. Zoo’s elephants are now in Tulsa, and the zoo’s longtime nonprofit partner is now in bankruptcy court.

The litany of woes at the L.A. Zoo grew longer last month as the city’s nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoological Association, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing “incessant litigation” from the city of Los Angeles as the cause.

The city sued GLAZA — its partner for more than half a century — in 2024 over a $50 million endowment that each side argued was theirs to steward.

The city won a preliminary injunction in Los Angeles Superior Court that barred GLAZA from keeping the money when its contract with the zoo ended last year. Following the split and lawsuit, GLAZA dwindled in size from 42 full-time employees to just four part-time employees.

Now GLAZA says it owes its creditors, including more than $300,000 that it needs to pay a law firm that has represented the nonprofit in its legal battle with the city.

“The City has designated an army of eight attorneys to overwhelm GLAZA with endless discovery, depositions, and court filings all to run up GLAZA’s legal fees,” the nonprofit said in a statement shared with The Times. “As a result, GLAZA has been left with no options other than to seek protection from the bankruptcy court to ensure the survival of GLAZA and the protection of its donors.”

Following its separation from the city, GLAZA executives hope the nonprofit can work in the animal conservation efforts in Southern California.

On July 1, the City Council approved $250,000 in outside lawyers related to the bankruptcy case.

The zoo is facing headwinds as membership has declined precipitously and facilities have deteriorated, according to an Los Angeles County civil grand jury report.

The city attorney’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on GLAZA’s bankruptcy.

Pratt’s new frontier

Former mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt was far from Los Angeles as he took a meeting with President Trump in Washington, D.C., a few days ago.

Pratt, who came up short of the Nov. 2 runoff by a few percentage points, met with the president in the Oval Office, posting a photo of the rendezvous to social media Tuesday.

“I will never stop fighting for my community,” he wrote.

Pratt paired the visit with an announcement of a new media endeavor he plans to launch called “WAR.” He said the foundation will fight against political corruption, advocate for transparency in government and “restore common sense.”

The website for the foundation doesn’t have additional details, just a link to contribute and a link to a website selling Pratt merch.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Pratt also posted a 9-minute video Wednesday calling out California’s election system, claiming that the results of the June 2 primary were skewed by fraud.

Representatives for Pratt’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Phoning it in

After the flag salute and brief comments, L.A. City Council meetings kick off with a public comment period, during which crusading citizens often let loose on city officials as the council members quietly listen, leave the room or chat among themselves.

It’s not always L.A.’s finest hour, as certain commenters often resort to slurs and ad hominem attacks about the council members’ race, ethnicity and even physical appearance.

On July 1, public comment expanded as new state law, SB 707, went into effect, requiring the council to take telephonic public comment.

The council also had to verbally state the amendments they make to motions due to the new law, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson noted. Historically, the council has affixed amendments to a bulletin board in council chambers.

After frequent speaker Armando Herman used the N-word at the July 1 meeting, Harris-Dawson noted that the state legislature had done nothing about offensive comments at public meetings.

“Our friends in the state legislature made the decision to require us to have telephonic public comment. They did nothing, zero, about what we just heard. Since they want to intervene in our meetings, I’d call on them to do something about what they just heard,” he said.

The council did ban commenters from using the N-word and C-word last year. Speakers who use those words receive a warning and are booted from the meeting if they do it again.

Harris-Dawson said the new state law was “problematic” and noted another issue.

“We can’t verify if calls are bots or foreign agents, which poses a security risk,” he said in a statement to The Times.

State of play

— BOYLE-ING OVER: Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado and County Supervisor Hilda Solis were roundly booed and heckled by Boyle Heights residents during a town hall Thursday about the Boyle Heights fire. The three officials struggled to speak over the irate audience.

— SOLAR FLARE: Before the Boyle Heights warehouse fire, Lineage representatives lobbied City Hall over the rooftop solar array. The company says it was seeking a safer alternative to rapid shutdown devices.

— FISCAL EDUCATION: The Los Angeles Unified School District is facing “severe” indications it could be insolvent as soon as next year and has 45 days to fix its budget or risk an outside takeover. The Los Angeles County Office of Education has projected a $231 million cash shortfall by 2027.

— HIT THE STREETS: The LAPD is considering shutting down its police academy for part of 2028 to allow hundreds of officers to hit the streets for the Olympics, according to department sources. The move could lead to a drop in police hiring.

— LEGEND GONE: Billy G. Mills, one of the first Black men elected to L.A.’s City Council, died June 27. Mills was a civil rights leader before being elected to the legislative body in 1963, the same year Tom Bradley was elected to be a council member.

— IT TAKES A VILLAGE: Billionaire developer Rick Caruso’s Palisades Village will reopen in August after more than $100 million in renovations following the January 2025 wildfire.

— EVICTION BENEDICTION: Thousands of formerly homeless people whose housing subsidies will expire in December are no longer at risk of eviction, local housing officials announced Thursday. An infusion of new funds approved by Congress this year and a waiver of eligibility procedures have staved off a potential crisis that would have left 4,200 back on the street.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program had no operations this week.
• On the docket next week: The City Council remains on recess until Aug. 4.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Reporting from Sacramento — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday pardoned seven former felons, including two Cambodian refugees the Trump administration wants to deport, in his first acts of clemency since the Democrat took office in January.

Newsom adopted a policy of his predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown, to use his state constitutional authority to issue pardons to shield immigrants targeted by federal immigration officials.

The pardons are an unmistakable rebuke to President Trump, whose fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric and demands for a giant wall along the U.S.-Mexico border have been central to the escalating political feud between Newsom and the White House.

Newsom took another shot at Trump just hours before announcing the pardons while speaking to members of the Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Assn., a national nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization based in Sacramento. Newsom compared Trump to the anti-immigrant “demagogues” in San Francisco who championed the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — the nation’s first immigration ban on a specific group of people.

“I’m constantly trying to understand the moment we’re living in, the xenophobia, the nativism that marks the populism of this moment,” Newsom said. “Any of us who are students of history know that it’s not without precedent. It’s not novel. It’s hardly new. It’s very familiar.”

Trump restricts asylum further but faces legal and financial limits »

One of the Cambodian refugees pardoned by Newsom, Hay Hov of Oakland, was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in March. He has since been released.

Hov, a naturalized citizen who arrived in the United States in 1985 as a legal refugee when he was 6, was convicted of solicitation to commit murder and participation in a criminal street gang in 2001, when he was 21, according to the Newsom administration.

The other refugee, Kang Hen of San Francisco, like Hov, fled to the Bay Area with his family to escape the Cambodian genocide in the 1980s. Hen was convicted of grand theft in 1994 when he was 18. Hen, who has a 4-year-old son and a partner with kidney and heart problems, was taken into custody by ICE in April.

Both Hov and Hen are being processed for deportation to Cambodia. The pardons do not automatically end a deportation effort but remove the underlying criminal offense that triggered the federal removal actions.

The pardons come as the federal government continues a crackdown on the Cambodian community that began in 2017 when Trump forced Cambodia to agree to take back more deportees. Many of the Cambodians facing deportation were refugees from the brutal Khmer Rouge regime that killed thousands, and came to the United States legally as children. They have few memories or ties to the country. But because they committed crimes, even if convicted decades ago, they can be deported.

In the 2016 fiscal year, ICE reported removing 74 Cambodians. In 2017, 29 Cambodians were removed. In 2018, that number has jumped to 110 thus far.

ICE reported that, as of March 26, there were 1,784 non-detained Cambodians nationals in the United States with a final order of removal. Of those, 1,294 had criminal records.

All seven of the people Newsom pardoned on Monday had completed their prison sentences.

“By granting these pardons to people who are transforming their lives, the Governor is seeking to remove barriers to employment and public service, restore civic rights and responsibilities and prevent unjust collateral consequences of conviction,” the governor’s office said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

The other five people pardoned committed offenses that varied from selling or possessing drugs to forgery.

Brown granted a historic 1,332 pardons and 283 commutations during his last two terms as governor. However, the California Supreme Court rejected 10 grants of clemency issued by Brown, the first time the high court has blocked a pardon or commutation in more than 50 years.

The court did not issue an explanation for the action. Under the California Constitution, the governor cannot grant a pardon or commute a sentence of anyone convicted of two separate felonies without the approval of the state Supreme Court.

None of the people whom Newsom pardoned on Monday had multiple felonies, according to a governor’s office spokesperson.

phil.willon@latimes.com

Twitter: @philwillon

A guy who owns a beach resort on the coast of Florida, where hundreds of miles of overdeveloped shores are threatened by increasingly severe storms driven by global warming, is trying to tell Californians how best to manage our coast.

Guess who.

It’s not that we needed the help. If there’s any thought to adding an eighth wonder of the world to the current lineup of seven, I’d nominate the 1,100-mile treasure that kisses Oregon on one end and Mexico on the other. And it’s not by accident that coastal habitats are aggressively protected and most of the shoreline is free of mega resorts and architectural clutter.

A half century ago, Californians rose up against the threat of over-development. By the will of the people, the coast was enshrined in state law as a precious public asset accessible to the many, not a private playground fenced off for the few.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, and just as we begin the party, President Trump and his minions are scheming to pump some crude oil into the punch bowl.

And here’s how:

Going back to the 1970s, under the Coastal Zone Management Act, California has gotten high marks from the feds for the way in which its coastal regulatory agencies work with D.C. to manage federal projects. But now the state is under attack, which could mean that millions in federal dollars will be clawed back and the state’s voice muted.

So what horrible sins have we committed?

Sit down and take a deep breath.

We’re being accused of “environmental extremism.”

It’s just been far too many years of paying attention to water quality and vehicle and industrial emissions and all the rest. Imagine how that comes across to a president who wouldn’t admit to climate change if his putter melted in his hands or Mar-a-Lago became a swim-up hotel.

As penance for our crimes, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (the one who labeled us environmental extremists) ordered the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to conduct “a full, formal review” of the state’s coastal management program.

“California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development,” Lutnick declared, referencing a dispute over how many rockets Elon Musk’s Space X can launch from the U.S. military’s Vandenberg base. (Per the California Coastal Commission, many of the launches are for private interests rather than military purposes, and even the federal government has noted that the thunderous sonic booms take a toll on sea life and humans.)

We’re also allegedly blind to basic economics and the preferences of the Trump administration when it comes to “offshore oil production, maintenance of pipelines and desalination.” And we need to fall into line in “removing regulatory barriers that hinder U.S. technological and economic leadership while responsibly stewarding coastal resources.”

Where to begin?

I thought California had the world’s fourth-largest economy, with technology as a primary driver. In fact, it’s just been reported that we drew 10 times more venture capital than any other state this year, with AI leading the way. If one or two other states matched our output, imagine the boasting Trump could do, legitimately, about the economy.

And while the administration seems intent on tapping more offshore oil, it’s toppling the nation’s offshore wind projects while the planet suffers through blistering, deadly heat waves directly related to greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

If the president’s blowtorch buddies want to call us “environmental extremists” for not burying our heads in the sand, it’s a badge of honor.

And another thing.

If Trump is so intent on keeping the world’s oil supply flowing, maybe he shouldn’t have bungled his way into a senseless war that has handed Iran the keys to the global gas pump, spiking prices for everyone.

By the way, it’s not as if the primary coastal regulatory agency in the state — the California Coastal Commission — has said nothing but “no” over the years to oil projects and desalination plants.

“When you look at the Coastal Act, it doesn’t prohibit offshore oil and gas production and we approved a lot of it,” said Susan Hansch, who retired from a top administrative position in 2021 after 47 years at the Coastal Commission. “It just has to be done correctly.”

The commission has also approved multiple desalination plants, but four years ago rejected one proposed for Huntington Beach, despite support for it from Gov. Gavin Newsom. I thought the rejection was the right call, because the proposal struck me as a private boondoggle, with no designated customer for the water and a slurry of environmental hazards.

A Falcon 9 rocket is launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base on Jan. 25.

(2nd Lt. Andrew Taller / U.S. Space Force)

Not that the Coastal Commission has been infallible over the years. It has worked many a critic into a lather, with complaints that the agency has stood in the way of housing development during the state’s mounting shortage, and that its permitting process is the equivalent of a years-long root canal.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the Coastal Act into law in 1976, once called the commissioners “bureaucratic thugs.”

And Trump has feuded with the agency over, among other things, a 70-foot-tall flagpole erected on his Rancho Palos Verdes golf course without a permit. Last year, Trump envoy Ric Grenell said the Coastal Commission was a “disaster” and must “absolutely be defunded,” calling commissioners unelected and “crazy woke left.”

Getting rid of the commission, he said, “is going to make California better.”

I don’t think so.

Ten years ago, I had the privilege of traveling the length of the state and meeting some of the heroes of the coast going back to the 1960s.

They were there when the devastating Santa Barbara oil spill blackened beaches, turned the shoreline into a wildlife graveyard, and galvanized grassroots defense of the coast.

When plans by PG&E to build a nuclear power plant at heavenly Bodega Head triggered an uprising.

When a massive Sonoma Coast residential development pitch sparked fears that beach access would be lost.

In 1972, ordinary Californians circulated petitions, knocked on doors, and rode bicycles down the coast, rallying support for Proposition 20, which aimed to regulate coastal development. It passed despite a massive opposition campaign from corporate, industrial and real estate interests.

That victory led, four years later, to the Coastal Act and creation of the Coastal Commission, whose job was to balance sensible development, habitat protection and conservation, and equitable public access.

Richard Charter, an Ocean Foundation senior fellow, told me in Bodega a decade ago that the California coast is “a public miracle” that was protected by ordinary people who saw it as “a global treasure.”

The Coastal Act has led to the creation of 2,500 public beach access points in the state, and its greatest achievements include wetlands not plowed, habitats not destroyed, and the preservation of countless mesmerizing vistas where land meets sea and California leaves you in speechless, grateful awe.

At Tuesday’s Coastal Commission meeting, Jennifer Savage of the Surfrider Foundation stepped to the microphone and said to commissioners:

“Surfrider sees this federal review as a politically motivated attempt to strip California of the coastal protections that our communities and our marine ecosystems depend on, and Surfrider stands with you, and we will fight this every step of the way.”

If you’d like to join that fight, you can speak in person or remotely when NOAA hosts public hearings Aug. 10-12 in Santa Monica. You can find more details on the Surfrider Foundation website.

One of the early leaders of the Coastal Commission, the late Peter Douglas, anticipated these trials and uttered a phrase I’ve repeated many times over the years. In the year of the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, it’s worth repeating once more, and you should think of it as a a clarion call:

“The coast is never saved,” Douglas said. “It’s always being saved.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com

PORTLAND, Maine — Graham Platner on Friday submitted his paperwork to formally withdraw from Maine’s U.S. Senate race, officially ending an upstart yet troubled campaign, the dissolution of which threatens Democrats’ pursuit of chamber control.

Platner’s paperwork was received by the Maine secretary of state’s office and reflected shortly thereafter in its online withdrawal list.

In a letter to the secretary of state’s office, which Platner also posted on social media, he wrote that the Mainers who had nominated him “voted for a new kind of politics” that is “representative of people down here in the real world — not billionaires, oligarchs, or the political establishment.”

It was the same outsider chord that had been a trademark of his tumultuous campaign, in which Platner drew backing from progressive leaders including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California. Both are among many who have since withdrawn their endorsements.

“I seek to further the movement we have built together and the future we believe in,” he went on, without elaborating.

Maine is considered a key state for control of the narrowly divided Senate, and Democrats were desperate for a candidate capable of defeating Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

The formal withdrawal comes two days after Platner said he would quit the race, facing an allegation of sexual assault that he has denied. Maine Democrats are seeking a new nominee, and several candidates have already begun jockeying for position.

State law includes a provision for Democrats to replace Platner before the general election, but the replacement must by named by July 27.

Just before Platner’s Wednesday announcement, more than 100 state Democratic Party committee members signed off on holding a nominating convention, in the event of his withdrawal, to choose the nominee. The state party has not publicly released details of when the convention will be held. Officials with the party did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Several Democrats have announced plans to run for the Senate nomination this week. They include three candidates who lost the June primary for governor — former Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention director Nirav Shah, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson.

Others who have announced runs include Maine Beer Co. co-founder Dan Kleban; former 2nd Congressional District candidates Jordan Wood and Paige Loud; and former Maine Senate candidates David Costello and Andrea LaFlamme. State Rep. Valli Geiger has also expressed interest in the post but has not formally announced.

Kinnard and Whittle write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Senate is often a stuffy and self-serving institution enlivened mainly by the unintended gaffe, but senior Republicans Bob Dole of Kansas and Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming are standout exceptions.

As Gerald R. Ford’s vice presidential candidate in 1976, Dole delivered tart one-liners and showed a slashing political style that was partly blamed for the defeat of the ticket. After the campaign, Dole reflected on his image and admitted that he had been “going after the jugular–my own.”

“Many people come in and say, ‘I hated you in ‘76,’ ” Dole reflected. “These are generally Democrats. But that was my job; go out and feed them the raw meat. Now they say, ‘Boy, you’ve really changed.’ ”

As the Senate Republican leader and a likely presidential candidate, Dole restrains himself.

“I don’t say you soften, but you understand that certain things work, certain things don’t work,” he said. “I think sometimes you have to say, ‘Don’t say it, let it pass.’ I’ve probably missed some great lines that way.”

His forte is one-liners. He has the delivery of an expert fly-caster and a poker player’s deadpan.

“You don’t hurt people,” Dole said. “Even though people might laugh, and hurt, they think, ‘That was kind of mean.’ And I haven’t done many roasts; they get pretty tough.”

Dole’s material is topical, drawing from events around him.

“I was speaking at the Outlaw Inn at a Republican meeting in Kalispell, Mont.,” Dole said. “I thought, ‘There’s got to be a joke there somewhere.’

“My question (to a Republican audience) was: ‘Why are we having this meeting in Democratic headquarters?”

Simpson’s mere appearance inspires jokes–he is 6-foot-7, nearly bald and rail-thin–and he first developed his humor as a shield against pain.

“Humor for me came from the fact I weighed 185 pounds in the seventh grade and was 5-7 or so,” he said. “I had knock-knees and . . . I couldn’t outrun anybody or outfight anybody or outdo anybody.

“That’s where you’ve got two choices–go and suck your thumb, or learn humor.”

He still debunks his physique. His shiny pate is “the solar panel for a sex machine.”

“Humor is very good for me,” he said. “Especially when you begin to think you are the great potentate of powers and prowess, the high this, the chairman of that. It’s good to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning and say, ‘Al, you are full of it.’ ”

He is frequently ribald in private, but careful not to hurt.

“There’s a fine line between good humor and smart-ass, and I sometimes cross it,” he said. “You know when you’re doing something unseemly. There is a misuse of humor around town, like roasts.

“There’s nothing funny about how close you can get to sticking it in some guy. I’ve watched those roasts. The guy goes home and he’s in pain.

“I don’t like ethnic humor. Somebody will come up, say with some story about some minority and I don’t laugh.

“I know that if I laugh . . . or use that kind of humor, that means I have a seed of that stuff cooking in me.”

Satirist Mark Russell has used political humor for years, and the wit of Rep. Morris K. Udall (D-Ariz.) has entertained the nation for a generation. They admire the two senators.

“At his height in ‘76, when he had the hatchet man label, a reporter asked him what he thought of his image of a gut fighter,” Russell joked. “Dole smiled and kicked him in the gut.

“But he’s mellowed. It isn’t as damaging now; he is reflective.

‘Healthy Cynicism’

“Simpson epitomizes the Western disdain for ‘inside-the-beltway’ (Washington know-it-alls),” Russell said. “As did (former Interior Secretary James G.) Watt. But Watt was mean-spirited. Simpson has a healthy cynicism.”

Udall has watched Dole grow as a person and a humorist.

“People like a presidential candidate or majority leader to have a sense of humor and resent it if he is too cruel. He’s taken that to heart.”

Udall compares Simpson to “an old Abe Lincoln around a cracker barrel, always, ‘Let me tell you a story.’

“In the South and West, before television and radio, you had to be an entertainer. You had to go into town and exhort, to inspire folks, but do it in an interesting way and get a few laughs. He’s in this political tradition.

The Wit and Wisdom of Dole and Simpson

Sen. Bob Dole

“On election night in 1976, even at the point where we were 80 electoral votes behind, I went to bed and slept like a baby. Every two hours, I woke up and cried.”

After a congressional battle over banking legislation: “Not that I am unpopular with bankers, but just before I left home tonight, mine came by and picked up his toaster and set of dishes.”

“I was seated next to (Secretary of State) George Shultz and asked him what he thought about the Caribbean Basin. He said, ‘It’s OK, but personally, I like a shower better.’ ”

Of former Interior Secretary James G. Watt: “What can you say about a man whose dream is to have a parking lot named in his honor?”

Sen. Alan K. Simpson

Of former Sen. Howard Baker: “He dresses so loosely, he has to stay inside on trash pickup day.”

On a dubious nominee for appointive office: “He filled out an application form and in the blank where it said, church preference, he wrote, ‘red brick.’ ”

“They were doing a movie on Congress and when they got to the part where the congressman refused the bribe, they had to use a stunt man.”

“The rich are indeed different. Among the Republicans in Beverly Hills, the Internal Revenue Service is known as a terrorist organization.”

“I have come to know the difference between a horse race and a political race. In a horse race, the entire horse runs.”

John H. Rousselot, the conservative Republican who represented part of the San Gabriel Valley in Congress for 14 years, was an officer of the John Birch Society and who tried to buy Charles H. Keating Jr.’s failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Assn., died Sunday. He was 75.

Rousselot, of Mission Viejo, died at Irvine Medical Center of congestive heart failure, said his son, Craig. He said his father had suffered a heart attack a year ago.

A glad-hander and energetic campaigner, Rousselot was controversial and colorful as he surfed the changing waves of political power as public relations expert, legislator or lobbyist.

He first gained office in 1960 when he ousted incumbent Democratic Rep. George Kasem in the 25th District. But he was so outspoken in defending the right-wing Birch Society, which he had just joined, that he failed to win reelection. In 1970, he was returned to Washington for half a dozen two-year terms in the 26th District, which included his native San Marino.

The congressman’s elective status ended in 1982 after redistricting threw him into a new 30th District, stretching from Bell Gardens to Azusa. Too long out of office and tainted by his association with Keating, Rousselot failed in a 1992 comeback campaign for the 25th District.

In Congress, Rousselot became active on the Banking and Currency Committee, and later the Economic and Budget and Ways and Means committees, where he staunchly opposed spending and tax increases, proposed cuts in the food stamp program, and worked for deregulation of the savings and loan industry. He also advocated U.S. military occupation of Cuba two years before the Cuban missile crisis.

As then-Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy and others criticized the Birch Society in the early 1960s, freshman Congressman Rousselot defended the group: “They are calm, firm, dedicated people who are merely trying to inform themselves about communism.”

If Kennedy read the group’s “blue book,” Rousselot told The Times in 1961, he’d know that “one of the main purposes of each chapter is to keep its members and guests who attend fully informed as to the nature, purpose and intent of the Communist conspiracy in this country.”

First turned out of Congress in 1963, Rousselot was named regional director of the Birch Society — heading the group in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada and Idaho from an office in San Marino. He also served as national Birch Society public relations chairman. In both positions, he continued to insist that the organization’s purpose was to educate rather than advocate or indoctrinate.

But Rousselot resigned from the Birch Society with characteristic drama on April 17, 1979, when he was contemplating running for the U.S. Senate [he didn’t], “to demonstrate to the citizens of California that I am my own man, controlled by no organization or individual.” He also said that he had become disillusioned because Birch Society founder Robert Welch had besmirched President Eisenhower as a Communist agent and Winston Churchill as a traitor.

After Rousselot left Congress, he was in the Reagan White House as special assistant for business matters, then served as Western states coordinator for Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign.

From 1985 to 1988, Rousselot was president of the National Council of Savings Institutions, a Washington-based lobbying group for banks and savings and loans. In addition to deregulation he worked to enable savings institutions to expand their business beyond mortgage lending.

In 1989, after lobbying for Keating, Rousselot was named the final chairman and chief executive of Lincoln Savings and Loan. With four others, he tried to buy the institution shortly before it was shut down by federal regulators who said that its assets were dissipated. Critics alleged that the attempted purchase was a scheme to delay the federal shutdown in the largest thrift collapse in U.S. history.

“I did nothing illegal, improper or unwarranted,” Rousselot told The Times a few years later.

Nevertheless, in 1993 his former association with the scandal-plagued thrift forced Gov. Pete Wilson to withdraw his appointment to the California Board of Prison Terms when legislators refused to confirm him.

John Harbin Rousselot was born Nov. 1, 1927, in San Marino and majored in political science and business administration at Principia College in Elsah, Ill.

In the 1950s, he established a public relations firm in Los Angeles and became president of the California Young Republicans.

From 1958 to 1960, when he resigned to run for Congress, he was national director of public information for the Federal Housing Administration.

Twice divorced, Rousselot is survived by his son, Craig of Irvine; two daughters, Robin Edwards of Lake Forest and Wendy Sirugo of San Dimas; a brother, Norman of Sonora, Texas; and five granddaughters.

A public memorial service will be planned at a later date.

The Trump administration has signed off on a company’s plan to convert an oil and gas pipeline to pump groundwater from the Mojave Desert to thirsty California cities for the first time, a lucrative venture that critics say threatens natural springs and wildlife.

The federal Bureau of Land Management released documents Thursday saying that Cadiz Inc.’s plan to repurpose 162 miles of the pipeline to transport water “will not significantly affect” the environment.

“We’re excited to achieve this pivotal milestone. After many years of planning and environmental review, the project has now reached the construction stage,” said Susan Kennedy, chair and chief executive of Cadiz.

Environmental advocates and leaders of Native tribes, who have been fighting the project, criticized the decision.

“This groundwater mining proposal would drain the desert and rob the Mojave of its rare springs and wildlife habitat,” said Chance Wilcox, California desert associate director of the National Parks Conservation Assn. “It’s indefensible that the Trump administration would once again try to revive the pointless Cadiz project, by defying decades of scientific warnings and refusing to conduct an environmental review of the groundwater mining.”

The application for the federal authorization was filed by the Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co. The documents say the company plans to build seven pump stations, three of them located on federal land managed by the agency.

The 30-inch steel pipeline runs underground from Cadiz’s desert property, near the town of Amboy, northward to the town of Mojave.

The BLM said in its authorization that repurposing the pipeline for water “would comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.” The agency said it has “reasonably determined that the impacts of groundwater withdrawal associated with Cadiz’s groundwater extraction project are outside the scope of analysis.”

Cadiz’s attempts to export water from its property 200 miles east of Los Angeles have drawn controversy for decades.

In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that requires the project to undergo scientific study and gain approval from the State Lands Commission before it can take water from the Mojave and sell it to California cities.

Activists opposing the company’s plans include civil rights leader Dolores Huerta.

“Cadiz spells destruction for water, sacred lands, and the desert economy,” Huerta said in a statement. “It is exactly this type of greed and injustice that I have dedicated my life to oppose.”

Leaders of nearby tribes have also objected to Cadiz’s plans to pump from the desert aquifer near the Mojave Trails National Monument and Mojave National Preserve.

“It is the living heart of the desert,” said Daniel Leivas, chairman of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe. “To drain it would be to drain the life out of the entire desert. No profit is worth such desecration.”

Chairman Timothy Williams of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe said the company’s plan “to pump and sell 25 times more groundwater each year than the aquifer can replenish would desecrate our traditional territories.”

“Pumping more groundwater than is sustainably replenished is not only negligent, but dangerous to the American Desert Southwest,” he said in the joint statement with other opponents of the project.

For years, while pursuing its plan to sell water far away, the company has been using wells on its property to irrigate nearly 2,000 acres of farmland growing lemons, grapes and other crops. It has drilled more wells in anticipation of being able to export water once the government approved its pipeline.

The company intends to pipe water to communities in San Bernardino County and says it’s “expected to provide one of the lowest-cost sources of new water in the drought-plagued Southwest.” It says the federal permit “marks a key milestone as we finalize project financing with prospective investors.”

Cadiz bought the 220-mile pipeline from El Paso Natural Gas in 2020. Once construction is completed, the company says the pipeline will be able to transport up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year — about 5% of what Los Angeles uses each year.

The Los Angeles-based corporation is also seeking to build a new pipeline along a railroad right-of-way to transport water to the south.

Environmental groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits challenging the project.

Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Trump administration’s decision “a green light for environmental destruction.”

She said six of the proposed pumping stations slated to be built are in the habitat of desert tortoises, a species in decline.

“We’ve successfully fended off this project before and we’ll continue to fight to stop this zombie from coming back,” Anderson said.

In 2021, the Biden administration reversed a Trump administration decision that had cleared the way for Cadiz to pipe water across public land. In 2022, a federal judge scrapped the pipeline permit that the Trump administration had issued.

But during President Trump’s second term, the company has again made headway on its plans. In February, Cadiz announced that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had invited it to submit an application for a $194-million low-interest loan for the northern pipeline project.

The company said in May that it reached an agreement with the federal Bureau of Reclamation to provide funding for a review of its potential role in “augmenting water supplies” along the shrinking Colorado River.

The company has also been lobbying the Trump administration. The group Public Citizen said in a recent report that Cadiz, through its nonprofit Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co., enlisted former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s new lobbying firm, the Bernhardt Group, and has spent at least $330,000 on lobbying in 2025 and 2026.

Records show lobbyist Luke Johnson has repeatedly accompanied Kennedy at meetings with Interior Department officials.

“The extensive influence of David Bernhardt’s boutique lobbying firm on the agency he formerly led highlights how insider firms staffed with former Trump officials have grown in recent years,” said Alan Zibel, a research director with Public Citizen. He said Bernhardt and his lobbyists “have learned how to master influence-peddling in the anything-goes era of Trump 2.0.”

Earlier this month, an Arizona water agency announced it signed an initial “memorandum of understanding” agreement to buy up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year from Cadiz’s Mojave Groundwater Bank. The Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District provides water to farmlands in Pinal County, where growers are dealing with water cutbacks.

The company said that for this to happen, it would need to build pipelines and reach deals to exchange water across state lines.

Members of California’s congressional delegation have raised concerns. In a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla called for a thorough environmental review, saying that federal agencies and peer-reviewed scientific analyses have “warned of the significant and irreversible impacts that Cadiz’s project could have on federal lands and surrounding communities.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) said in a letter to Burgum that he is concerned about the company’s long-standing effort to extract and export groundwater.

“The area I represent cannot afford to absorb the long-term costs of a commercially driven groundwater export scheme,” Ruiz said.

MINNEAPOLIS — Somali and Muslim communities in Minnesota are once again condemning a social media post by President Trump, alleging it communicates “anti-Muslim bigotry” toward children.

Trump posted a 14-second video clip showing children singing in graduation outfits, with girls also wearing hijabs. The children had sashes that read “kindergarten” on one side and “graduate” on the other. The video posted Monday appears to be from a Somali TV Minnesota news clip filming a ceremony at a charter school in St. Paul.

Included in Trump’s TruthSocial post is a screenshot of a caption from an X account that first posted the video in June. The caption said, “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”

The post drew statements from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Somali American Partnership and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

“By using his global platform to amplify anti-Muslim bigotry and target Muslim children at this elementary school, President Trump is putting lives at risk,” said a statement from the national and Minnesota chapter of CAIR.

Trump and other Republican leaders have repeatedly been accused of making xenophobic and racist attacks against Muslim Americans in recent months. Trump has specifically singled out the Somali community in Minnesota numerous times, calling them “garbage” in December.

“Somali Americans are an integral part of Minnesota’s past, present, and future,” the Somali American Partnership said in a statement. “Our children deserve to be recognized for their potential — not used to fuel fear, division, or anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant narratives.

“Those with public platforms have a responsibility to protect children, not endanger them.”

In a statement on X, Walz accused Trump of “attacking a group of kindergarteners because of the clothes they wore to school.”

The Somali American Partnership, a collection of Minnesota-based nonprofit organizations that assist the Somali community, plans to hold a news conference Wednesday to address “the growing climate of anti-Somali and anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

Members of the Muslim community in Minnesota have expressed fear for their safety numerous times in recent months, citing such rhetoric. In May, community members tied the rhetoric to a disturbance at a mosque in Lakeville, days after three people were killed at a San Diego mosque.

Last fall, Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, said there had been more than 40 instances of vandalism, arson or other disturbances at mosques in the last three years, higher than any other state. Damage totaled more than $3 million, Hussein said.

He said at the time that Islamophobic comments directed at Muslim institutions in Minnesota were “completely on a new level.”

Hughes writes for the Minnesota Star Tribune.

On Friday, a group of retired judges stepped off a tour bus in a ritzy Michigan suburb after three days of barnstorming through corn fields, cities and coal towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania. They carried with them a message.

In courthouses and public squares, they marked the nation’s 250th anniversary with a dire warning: The rule of law in America is in grave danger. They delivered a similar message at a library in Grosse Pointe just outside Detroit — the last stop on an extraordinary tour to defend judicial independence and bolster trust in courts.

Americans’ confidence in the court system and democracy has dipped in recent years. The country is more polarized, and President Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the fairness of the judicial system.

Some judges on the tour said in phone interviews this week that the United States was at a precipice.

“Looking back in history, we have teetered,” former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly said. “This is a moment where we can decide to reinstill those beliefs that we are a country of laws and not of men.”

Judges step off the bench

The four-day tour through the Rust Belt is a sharp departure for a typically reserved and insular branch of government. Federal judges in particular largely limit their comments to the courtroom and written decisions, focusing on the facts of individual cases.

But that restraint is loosening amid a barrage of attacks by Trump and other White House officials, the administration’s rampant defiance of U.S. district court orders and its expansive view of executive power. Trump has called a district judge who ruled against one of his immigration moves “crooked” and suggested with no evidence that Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs were motivated by foreign interests.

More federal judges have recently begun talking about receiving death threats and profane messages, though they have not blamed Trump or any other officials. Some have blasted administration policies in sharply worded opinions that strayed beyond the legal dispute before them. Even U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has weighed in.

In an appearance in March, Roberts said personal criticism of federal judges was dangerous and had to stop. The rare rebuke from the head of the nation’s top court came two days after Trump’s remark about a “crooked” judge, though Roberts didn’t mention Trump or anyone else by name.

The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats against federal judges in the government fiscal year that ended in September, up from 509 the year before.

“I don’t want to say we have moved into an era of lawlessness, but it sometimes feels that way,” said former U.S. District Court Judge Victoria Roberts, who joined the bus tour in Michigan.

Timothy Lewis, another former federal judge on the tour, said his concerns about the politicization of the judicial branch reached a tipping point a decade ago, when Senate Republicans thwarted President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Today, the rule of law is facing an “existential threat” from an ongoing breakdown of norms, according to Lewis, who spent seven years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I have fundamental concerns,” he said, “about where we are headed as a nation.”

Their route has been varied

The tour started Tuesday in the western Pennsylvania town of Greensburg — once the hub of a thriving coal industry that now lures visitors from nearby Pittsburgh for highland recreation and a historic downtown.

Judges mingled with customers at a coffee shop before speaking at the domed, ornate Westmoreland County Courthouse. Then it was off to Washington, also in western Pennsylvania. The town of 13,000 people, where about 15% of the population is Black, was a key stop on the Underground Railroad and a regional base for the civil rights movement.

From there, the bus headed west for events Wednesday in Columbus, Ohio, and the city of Wooster in Amish country. The judges stopped at a Cracker Barrel restaurant on the way. They spent Thursday in Cleveland before circling Lake Erie north to Michigan.

The two groups that planned the tour — dubbed “Justice in Motion” — say they were inspired by a similar campaign in Poland in 2021 after that country’s governing party took control of key judicial institutions.

Independent Polish judges visited scores of towns to promote the rule of law and teach voters about the country’s constitution. The U.S. tour also aims to educate people.

An effort to combat misinformation about what they do

Maureen O’Connor, a former chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, said judges risk ceding the narrative about their roles and motives to “voices of misinformation” if they don’t speak up.

A letter she received years ago, and still keeps, reminds her of that danger. The writer accused O’Connor, a Republican, of betraying her party when she repeatedly struck down Republican-drawn legislative maps as illegal gerrymanders. “There was just a basic misunderstanding of what my role was as a judge,” O’Connor said.

O’Connor is among roughly 30 judges, including two former federal judges and two current federal judges, who participated in the tour. One of the federal judges was nominated by a Democrat, the other three by Republicans. The state judges, some of whom are also still on the bench, represented both parties.

They were joined by former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, former Ohio attorneys general and a few lawyers. The event was put together by the Democracy Rising Collaborative and Keep Our Republic, nonpartisan advocacy groups.

Organizers say they chose stops that would get the judges in front of as many people as possible to build connections and trust. The judges embraced that mission.

“The lifeblood of the judiciary is public confidence,” Donnelly, the former Ohio Supreme Court justice, said. “If you lose that, it’s very difficult to get it back.”

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Crews are again draining the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool as President Trump’s problem-plagued efforts to revamp the waterway pushes well past his initial goal of having it ready by July 4 to mark the nation’s 250th birthday.

The president at first suggested his renovations would last a century. But within weeks of the project originally reaching completion last month, the water was beset by an algae bloom and pieces of the new coating appeared to be peeling off the bottom.

Trump has blamed the peeling on vandals, though critics allege it’s from shoddy repair work.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose agency oversees the National Park Service, told conservative podcaster Katie Miller in an interview released earlier this week that the new round of draining was planned. He also said that the water might still contain debris from an extensive Independence Day fireworks display over the National Mall.

“Drain the water, clean up the fireworks stuff,” Burgum told Miller, who is the wife of deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller. “Repair the vandalism that was done. Fill it back up again.”

The work on the Reflecting Pool is just one of a number of projects Trump has spearheaded across the nation’s capital. Most prominently, he demolished the White House’s East Wing to build a $400-million ballroom and plans to build a towering arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

He initially announced his intentions to beautify the Reflecting Pool this spring, saying he wanted it completed before the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations.

Water was drained and Trump directed that the bottom be painted what he called “American flag blue.” In May, the president posted on his social media site of the pool: “The goal is to have it done, at this higher level, prior to July 4th — We are ahead of schedule!”

But problems began quickly after the initial work was finished. Trump blamed vandals, and court documents later showed that the National Park Service reported to the U.S. Park Police a June 9 incident in which a sharp knife or razor cut the pool’s new liner.

On Thursday, former Olympic canoe racer David Hearn pleaded not guilty in D.C. Superior Court to deliberately damaging the Reflecting Pool. Hearn has said he reached inside the pool to examine the peeled sealant and let go of a chunk when he was told to by a park worker.

His attorneys and other Trump administration critics have derided the case as an abuse of prosecutorial power and maintain he is being scapegoated for the poor job done fixing up the Reflecting Pool.

At least three other people have been charged in the same court with misdemeanors for allegedly removing pieces of paint from the Reflecting Pool, according to online court records. All three pleaded not guilty during their initial court appearances Wednesday.

The pool was closed for the Independence Day celebration, which featured what Trump said was the largest fireworks display in the world. The president had said that the pool would have to be drained anew as part of the new round of repairs.

Burgum has also said that the Trump administration won’t seek bids for the new rounds of repairs. He told CNN’s “State of the Union” last weekend: “We’ll use the same company because they did a fantastic job.”

Ohio-based Green Water Solutions, also known as Greenwater Services, was given a $1.7-million contract to install a water-purification system in the Reflecting Pool, while Virginia-based Atlantic Industrial Coatings was awarded $14.7 million to repaint and waterproof the pool’s concrete floor.

Democratic senators and House members are investigating the pool project, including seeking answers about how much taxpayer funding is involved.

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump dismissed all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission this week, his latest move to assert control over national elections in the final months before midterm voting.

The White House defended the move as justified by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision handing the president greater authority to reshape independent government agencies, including by replacing appointed leaders.

Democrats and some independent elections experts blasted it as politically motivated, counter to the interests of voters and foolhardy with the November election so close.

“Purging commissioners just months before the midterm elections and further gutting support for our state and local elections officials is a blatant part of his plan to politicize our elections and enable more unlawful and dangerous election interference,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections.

Padilla alleged the dismissals are an attempt by Trump “to dismantle yet another independent guardrail of our democracy designed to keep elections fair and secure.”

A White House official framed the dismissals in starkly different terms, saying the departing commissioners were “not totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted.” It did not say when the president planned to appoint new commissioners.

The four-member commission was created by Congress in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act to help states improve their voting systems and voter access. By law, no more than two commissioners may belong to the same political party.

Historically, it has provided voluntary guidance and best practices for voting systems, and served as a sort of clearinghouse for election performance around the country — so that states and localities can learn from each other.

Since 2018, the panel has also disbursed more than $1 billion in election security grants, according to a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Those grants are then used to protect IT systems from foreign and domestic cyberattacks, update voting systems, ensure the accuracy of voter rolls and protect the integrity of ballots after they are cast.

Without leadership, the panel cannot take any official action until new members are nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

Benjamin W. Hovland, one of the Democratic commissioners removed by Trump, told NBC News that taking away a key federal agency designed to help state and local election administrators will have a negative effect on already strained elections officials.

“When you’re asking more and more of people without giving them the necessary resources, you know, mistakes happen,” he said.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, in a statement to The Times, said Trump was “injecting unnecessary chaos, confusion and instability into the very systems that Americans rely on to make their voices heard,” but that California “will not be intimidated or deterred” from maintaining elections “in which everyone can fairly and securely participate.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said on X that “Newsom’s election protection efforts become more important by the day” — a reference to his recent push for state legislation that would make it a felony in California for anyone to seize ballots before a vote has been certified.

Newsom had said Thursday that Trump’s efforts to seize control over elections represented a “five-alarm fire” that must be confronted.

“We will lose this country unless we are vigilant about what’s going on in terms of election security,” he said.

Trump’s dismantling of the commission comes as he wages a much broader campaign to rewrite voting rules. He has sought to place new restrictions on mail ballots, to enhance voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements for voters, to subject state voter rolls to federal oversight and purges, and to assert federal control over how and whether the U.S. Postal Service delivers mail ballots.

Much of that agenda, pushed through executive orders and other administrative actions, has been stymied by the courts, while stalling out in Congress, where it lacks support.

Whether Trump’s move to dismantle and reconstitute the commission will prove an effective path to instituting his election agenda — or will face its own court challenges — remains unclear, experts said.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, wrote that Trump could try to illegally direct the commission to “do his bidding” by amending the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship.

“If he tries anything like this, it will be high profile and very important litigation that will end up at the Supreme Court on the emergency docket over the summer,” Hasen wrote.

Michael Waldman, president and chief executive of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said in a statement that Trump’s terminations were “deeply concerning” in light of his “relentless efforts to try to interfere in elections.”

But he also said that the “guardrails” Congress put on the commission remain intact, require it to be made up of a bipartisan group and preclude Trump from directing it to enforce his voting agenda.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Trump’s firing of the commissioners was part of a broader effort by the president to “sow distrust in our voting system so he can contest the results if they are not to his liking.”

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the very name of the commission makes it clear that it was “designed to assist states and localities, not dictate what states and localities must do” with elections. She said California has “the most robust standards” for elections in the country, which won’t change with the removal of the commissioners.

Still, she said word of the firings rocketed around a conference of county elections officials in San Diego on Thursday — with some wondering whether the dismissals would threaten federal funding for election administration moving forward, and others lamenting the loss of the current commissioners’ deep experience.

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said in a statement to The Times that “any sudden change to the support structure for elections in the middle of an election cycle is concerning,” but that California “has a strong local and state foundation for election administration and voting systems support, and that will minimize any potential disruption caused by this action.”

In recent months, Trump has leveraged federal agencies to overhaul the nation’s voting rules in ways no previous president has attempted. He has repeatedly pressured Republican lawmakers to pass a federal law that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, show identification when casting a ballot and force states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security.

Republican leaders have said the proposed SAVE America Act does not have enough votes to pass in the Senate. The GOP resistance has angered Trump, who on Friday said he was refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill in protest.

The housing bill, which Trump called a “yawn” this month, would become law at midnight Friday without Trump’s signature.