Politics Desk

Nov. 6, 2026 2:09 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The top federal prosecutor in Miami who had been tasked with overseeing an investigation into foes of President Trump has resigned, joining other high-profile Justice Department officials departing in the wake of the midterm elections, officials said Friday.

Jason Reding Quiñones’ resignation follows frustrations among Washington officials with his management of the office assigned to lead the so-called grand conspiracy investigation, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel issues.

The Justice Department’s top national security official, John Eisenberg, also resigned Friday, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said. On Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who led a radical overhaul of the department’s Civil Rights Division, also announced her departure.

Quiñones was confirmed by the Senate last year as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, where the Justice Department had centered its meandering probe into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against the Republican president.

His departure comes as the investigation has shown signs of faltering amid a spate of staff turnovers and delays. Investigators in recent weeks have put off scheduled grand jury testimony of several witnesses, according to multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Blanche said in a social media post that the department is grateful for Quiñones’ “leadership in combating violent crime, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and transnational crime, including the indictment of Raúl Castro.”

Castro, the former Cuban president, was indicted by Quiñones’ office in May on charges related to the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.

Quiñones said Friday that he is leaving with “immense pride in what we accomplished together and profound gratitude for the opportunity to serve our great Nation.”

“I am grateful to President Trump for his trust and to the extraordinary men and women of the great Southern District of Florida for their dedication, friendship, and unwavering commitment to justice and the rule of law,” Quiñones wrote in a social media post.

The “grand conspiracy” investigation has proceeded in fits and starts for over a year with repeated setbacks and departures. Last April, a lead national security prosecutor in the investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan was replaced on the team after raising questions about the strength of the case.

Shortly afterward, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, took over the probe. DiGenova resigned from the Justice Department in September without bringing any criminal charges.

Eisenberg was sworn in as assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s National Security Division in June 2025 and oversaw cases involving espionage, terrorism, export control violations, cyber crimes and other matters.

Among the division’s most high-profile cases under his watch was the prosecution of former national security adviser John Bolton, who pleaded guilty this year to allegations of mishandling classified information and is awaiting sentencing.

“He has served with distinction, strengthening our nation’s ability to address threats, both foreign and domestic,” Blanche said in a statement.

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

PHOENIX — Democrats in Arizona won control of both legislative chambers and retained the governor’s office, giving the party its first trifecta in the state since 1966 as Democrats made major gains nationwide in this week’s elections and took control of both chambers of Congress.

In her first term, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs had vetoed more than 540 measures passed by the Republican-led Legislature on policies including taxes, immigration and voting laws. Hobbs has said she’s looking to address water issues and affordability, and take on fraud and abuse in the state’s school voucher program.

The Associated Press called enough legislative races to confirm that both chambers flipped on Friday. The news organization calls races individually and it can take several days after voting, depending on when election officials tally the votes and how close the elections are. There have not been major disputes or disruptions this year.

In Arizona, Republicans have held the House for 60 years and the Senate since the early 1990s.

Attendees during the Arizona Democratic Party election night event in Phoenix on Tuesday.

(Cassidy Araiza / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Overall, Democrats took full control — both statehouse chambers and governors’ offices — in at least six states where they previously shared power with Republicans. Besides Arizona, those wins were in the battleground states of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Wisconsin.

The flips weren’t just in states that are normally competitive. Democrats won control of the Texas House, which Republicans have held since 2003, and elected Gina Hinojosa as the state’s first Democratic governor since Ann Richards in the 1990s. Republicans held on to the state Senate.

Democrats also flipped the lower chambers of the legislatures in Maine and North Carolina and both chambers in New Hampshire, where Republican Kelly Ayotte was reelected. The count could grow as results are tallied in additional states.

The National Council of State Legislatures says it’s likely to end up as the election with the most legislative seats and chambers changing parties since the 2010 election, when Republicans took over governments across the country amid the Great Recession.

Democrats will also hold the governor’s office in at least 28 states. Results are still pending in Alaska and Kansas.

Public transit is expected to be a top priority for Los Angeles Mayor-elect Nithya Raman, an advocate for expanding bus lanes and making the city friendlier for bicycles — and who campaigned on getting the Los Angeles International Airport people mover back on track after years of squabbles, delays and cost overruns.

As mayor, Raman will oversee the city’s transportation department and will have the power to appoint new members to the city’s Airport Commission. What’s more, she will have regional clout through L.A. Metro, the transportation agency that runs the county’s light-rail and subway lines.

Raman will take over as chair of Metro’s board of 13 voting members, a job now held by Mayor Karen Bass, whom Raman defeated for reelection this week. She will also get three appointees on the board, and can replace the current mayoral appointees — Councilmembers Katy Yaraslovsky and Imelda Padilla and community advocate Jaqueline Dupont-Walker — who all backed Bass in this week’s election.

Metro is currently in need of millions of dollars to fund a massive bus network for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Raman said that she would push Los Angeles’ congressional delegation to make this a key priority. In a statement to The Times ahead of the election, she said she will also prioritize Metro projects that “give the most benefits to the most riders and help make our network more useful” and plans to reinstate a project team in the mayor’s office to eliminate city delays on major capital projects.

Transportation analysts believe Raman, who has a graduate degree in urban planning from MIT, will be more aggressive in addressing transit issues than Bass, whose background was in healthcare and community organizing.

“I do think we’ll see a considerable amount of action on transit and multimodal transportation in the short run on a timeline that puts this work in the context of preparation for the summer of 2028,” said Juan Matute, deputy director of UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies.

Los Angeles voters also approved a charter amendment that will allow the City Council to disband the Public Works Board, a move that Matute believes will allow the city to streamline infrastructure projects. The charter change, combined with Raman’s election, will lead to “a shift in the foundation of transportation decision-making,” Matute said.

Among the transportation plans Raman has cited as priorities are the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project, which was approved earlier this year to connect the Westside to the San Fernando Valley; the East San Fernando Transit Corridor project to extend service along the E Line from East Los Angeles to Whittier; expansions of the K Line, to connect multiple communities from South Bay, Inglewood, Mid-City and Hollywood, and the D Line beneath Wilshire Boulevard; a new light rail connection in southeast L.A. County; and the Vermont Transit Corridor project.

That last project to add dedicated bike lanes along Vermont Avenue between 120th Street and Sunset Boulevard recently broke ground. It is also the subject of a lawsuit under Measure HLA that claims it requires a designated bike lane. Raman said she supports compliance with the measure, while supporting shared bike and bus lanes along narrower portions of the route.

Ahead of the election, Raman told The Times via written statements that her transit priorities as mayor would focus on safety, affordability and reliability so that people did not have to be as reliant on cars. She advocated for protected bike lanes and expansion of bus lanes during her campaign.

Raman also criticized Bass and the Los Angeles World Airports board of commissioners for not staying on top of the $3.3-billion Skylink people mover at LAX, a 2.25-mile train that is supposed to whisk passengers between the terminal and ground transportation. The project is years behind schedule and more than $1 billion over budget.

The contractor, LAX Integrated Express Solutions, or LINXS, has blamed the repeated delays on unsigned agreements between the city’s Los Angeles World Airports and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power as one cause, along with nagging technical issues.

At a news conference near the airport last week, Raman told reporters that if elected, her first-week priority in office would be to convene airport and DWP officials and the contractor to determine who is responsible for each unresolved issue in an effort to break the logjam.

“Taxpayers deserve an advocate at the negotiating table, not another bill for someone else’s failure,” Raman said.

Michael Schneider of Streets for All, an advocacy nonprofit, said he expects Raman to convene a task force to address issues around the people mover project during her first 100 days in office.

He also foresees her consolidating some departments, such as the Street Services repaving division under the city’s transportation department, and directing city departments to implement Measure HLA. It’s also likely, he said, that she will initiate a bond or a tax hike to raise money for sidewalks repairs, curb updates and other street improvements.

“I think it’s the first election where safe streets has become a campaign issue, and real money has gone behind it to try to change the status quo,” Schneider said.

Streets for All’s political action committee took out ads to elect Raman and defeat Bass, powered largely by contributions from hedge fund manager and bike lane advocate Aaron Sosnick.

Over the summer, Raman slammed Bass for pausing a bike lane and street safety improvement project near two cemeteries along Forest Lawn Drive that had come under fire by some in Raman’s district. The debate became so heated that the state Legislature ultimately intervened and set a law that would require a public hearing and approval from the City Council and the mayor’s office before moving forward.

Raman has told The Times that she supported multiple bike lane and multimodal projects including the 710 North Mobility Improvement Program along Valley Boulevard, Huntington Drive and Eastern Avenue, plans to set priority bike lanes during peak hours along Sunset Boulevard and add bike lanes and reconfigure the intersection of Virgil Avenue and Sunset and Hollywood boulevards.

It’s unclear how she will balance the push toward these types of endeavors when faced with community pushback.

Nadine Levyfield has advocated for more transparency and answers from Metro over a bus lane project through the center of Eagle Rock. The agency recently agreed to more community meetings to address ongoing concerns over how a reduction in lanes on a bottlenecked portion of Colorado Boulevard will affect traffic and parking through the area’s business district and surrounding neighborhoods. Levyfield believes the community’s asks align with Raman’s campaign.

“Running on a platform of accountability, transparency, improving efficiency, and making sure government agencies are accountable, we really hope she can help us ensure that Metro is prioritizing public safety,” Levyfield said.

Raman has said she is also committed to the city’s goal to eliminate traffic deaths and said she will treat an initiative that began under Mayor Eric Garcetti’s administration and faced significant scrutiny under Bass as a mandate.

“Angelenos look around and see faded crosswalks, busted pavement and darkened streetlights and wonder why the City can’t even take care of our basic transportation infrastructure,” Raman said in a statement to The Times before her election. “Traffic deaths are preventable and I’ll make sure we’re enforcing laws against dangerous driving, providing actual protection for people who walk and bike, and get our street lights back on and our streets fixed.”

“My priority is to make transit safe, affordable, fast, and reliable, so more Angelenos can avoid the high cost of car payments, insurance, and gas,” she said in the statement.

President Trump on Friday announced his appointment of Stephen Miller as his chief of staff, to replace Susie Wiles.

Miller, the current deputy chief of staff, has helped design Trump’s immigration policies and spearhead his mass deportation campaign.

His appointment as chief of staff, a powerful position for driving the president’s policy agenda, managing his staff and twisting the arms of allies and opponents alike to bend to the executive’s will, ends speculation that Trump might ease back from his less popular policies or moderate following devastating losses for his party in the midterms. The losses were driven in part to losing Latino voters and many congressional seats along the southern border.

Miller is widely seen as among Trump’s more extreme advisors. But Trump on Friday called Miller one of his “most trusted advisors,” and said he would take over as chief of staff Monday.

Trump said Wiles “has done an outstanding job,” and will be moving to his political operation.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

HOUSTON — The mayor of Houston on Friday said the city would limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, heralding “a new model” of immigration enforcement after Democrats won power in Texas for the first time in decades.

Mayor John Whitmire said the city would go after immigrants “that pose a danger, not those that are going about their family business, work and education.”

A traffic incident “will not even … you write a citation or you warn them and they go about their way. No contact with (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) over nonviolent, non-jailable offenses. It reduces the fear and anxiety.”

Details of the change were to be spelled out in an executive order but the move by the nation’s fourth-largest city is one of the first steps to curb ICE’s powers since Tuesday’s election.

The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Houston has sparked protests after an ICE officer fatally shot a Mexican homebuilder this summer and another struck a man with a car.

A grand jury last week indicted ICE officer Mario Alberto Morales on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Prosecutors say Morales intentionally rammed his car into Miguel Parra Hernandez, whose leg was broken. ICE has asserted that Parra Hernandez ran in front of the vehicle, an account that prosecutors say is contradicted by video.

Oyekanmi writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — In his first public appearance after an election that soundly repudiated his policies, President Trump turned to a topic both familiar and, given the context, surprising: not his policies or politics but his efforts to remake pieces of the city that is the backdrop to his presidency.

Despite Trump’s affinity for project management, though, with Democrats taking control of Congress, the work his administration is doing to change the physical face of the District of Columbia is sure to encounter far more roadblocks than it did for the first two years of his second term.

From the renaming of and renovation plans for the Kennedy Center to remaking a public golf course and erecting an arch 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty without its pedestal, Trump has been deeply involved in how D.C. looks. Democrats have voiced opposition but, in terms of power, have been in the wilderness.

The potential collision point between opposition oversight from Democrats and the Republican president’s preoccupation with the projects was evident in his last message to the American public before the election — and in his first afterward, too.

Both focused to some degree on his projects. On Monday, it was the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial; on Wednesday, it was a tour of the under-construction White House ballroom, where he talked columns and steel beams and Corinthian designs.

The clouds of scrutiny are already gathering

Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction over the Interior Department that is involved with operations at parks and federal lands, spent much of the past year probing and questioning Trump’s projects, laying the groundwork for this moment.

“We’ve pushed back against vanity projects that seek to transform treasured public spaces into gaudy tributes to Trump. We exposed corruption, uncovered the efforts to hijack America’s 250th birthday, demanded accountability, and offered a compelling alternative governing vision grounded in science, fairness, environmental responsibility, and the rule of law,” Huffman said in a letter to colleagues seeking their support to be chairman.

As chairman with a strong Democratic majority, “I will ensure that the Committee’s full investigative and oversight authority is leveraged to uncover wrongdoing, demand accountability, and protect the public interest,” he said.

Trump has been rushing the various projects, a point Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer made Thursday at a public hearing when he opposed construction of the memorial arch the president has planned in Memorial Circle directly across the Memorial Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial.

“The appropriations process beginning Jan. 3 will be controlled by Democrats. That will be one of the ways Congressman Beyer will step in,” said Beyer’s spokesman Aaron Fritschner.

A less appreciated impact will be the change in who names the general counsel of the House. The House Speaker has that role, presumably Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.

While Democrats have joined in lawsuits opposing the various projects, their filings don’t carry the weight of Congress as the minority. “You’ll see the new majority pulling back the balance of power that (House Speaker) Mike Johnson was willing to cede,” Fritschner said.

A planning commission hearing for the arch featured dozens of witnesses

Beyer has already been a critic, Fritschner said, and cited other members who have signed on in amicus briefs. More than 120 witnesses were on hand for the National Capital Planning Commission meeting, which ran for 9 ½ hours late into Thursday night.

The commission gave the 250-foot (76-meter) arch its final approval on an 8-4 vote, before a federal judge stepped in before midnight to block the Trump administration from breaking ground for 14 days.

The remote, call-in commission hearing — which crashed repeatedly and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned, three-minute comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of nearby Arlington National Cemetery.

The Trump-appointed chairman of the commission, however, launched into a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is considering a motion from three veterans and an architectural historian to stop any work until the lawsuit is resolved. A separate lawsuit filed Saturday by the District of Columbia and Virginia has been consolidated with the existing one. D.C. and Virginia have asked for a temporary restraining order, which Chutkan granted late Thursday with her 14-day delay.

At Wednesday’s ballroom construction site tour, Trump spoke about the ballroom, the East Potomac Golf Links and the National Garden of American Heroes proposed for West Potomac Park and the arch. All four have been, or are currently in, litigation.

One of them, the golf course, has turned into an undertaking beyond the potential construction. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes has said she plans to open a “formal inquiry” to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about that project.

Beyond the courts, Congress is now an added bulwark

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs in several of the lawsuits, said the switch of control means the organizations that have filed lawsuits and challenged the administration will now be joined by Congress.

Organizations like hers will continue challenging the administration in court, she said, but “the important thing now is that the American people now have a tool that’s not just in the courts.”

Added Perryman: “We hope and we anticipate Congress will fulfill its constitutional duty of checking executive branch excesses.” That includes hearings and investigations into funding plans and sources, she said.

Information about estimates for work on the projects has been slim, even in court, with assessments trickling out during testimony in some cases. One number, for example, revolves around the seawall at the golf course, which would exceed $300 million. Congress appropriated $257 million for the renovation of the Kennedy Center.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Another area that could impact the District of Columbia is the change in governorships. Texas, Georgia, Iowa and Nevada all have Democrats coming into power as a result of Tuesday’s elections. They account for more than 600 National Guard members who are part of the mobilization that Trump ordered in August 2025.

Democrats who provided troops during the celebration of the United States’ 250th anniversary were roundly criticized for their participation and removed their troops and airmen months ago. Nearly 3,100 are stationed in the city now, up slightly from last month.

Fields and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge late Thursday blocked the Trump administration from breaking ground on a towering memorial arch for 14 days.

The temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan halting the work represents a major setback for one of President Trump’s most prominent projects in his vision to remake Washington.

The decision followed a series of steps taken earlier Thursday by the government, including the final approval of the arch by the National Capital Planning Commission in an 8-4 vote after a 9 ½ hour hearing where scores of witnesses opposed the construction.

The administration said the work could begin as soon as the approval and the Interior Department issued a final decision authorizing construction and the proper notification was published by the National Park Service.

In approving the temporary stop, Chutkan said Virginia and the District of Columbia had shown that the immediacy of the construction would cause real harm to the plaintiffs.

“The harm is certain,” she wrote. “Defendants initially notified the court that construction could begin as early as November 5, 2026, if the NCPC approves the project at its meeting that day and the Department of the Interior authorizes construction.” In their filing, Virginia and D.C. warned of traffic pattern distortions as well as concerns about the impact on mutual aid emergency calls if the arch were to proceed.

“Second, the District and Virginia will incur significant unrecoverable costs. As soon as construction begins, DDOT will need to expend staff time and operating resources to affirmatively and proactively manage temporary detours, crashes or disabled vehicles,” Chutkan wrote.

The judge ordered the government to provide a status report next Monday to ensure they are complying with the order.

The judge’s decision came just over an hour after the National Capital Planning Commission hearing ended. The vote by the commission broke along federal and local lines. Those in favor work for the administration or are connected to the president, who was pushing for the immediate construction. Opponents represented the city of Washington.

The remote, call-in hearing — which crashed repeatedly in the first few hours and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of the nearby Arlington National Cemetery, where hundreds of thousands of fallen service members and military veterans are buried.

The panel’s Trump-appointed chairman launched the meeting with a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.

“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, the commission’s chairman.

As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Commissioner Paul Ingrassia, a lawyer for the General Services Administration, said the arch was “not about politics. It’s about remembrance. It’s about celebrating our history. It’s about commemorating veterans. And it’s really something that’s a noble tribute to our nation and something that we can all rally behind.”

But D.C. City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who also serves on the planning panel, said the project has not received required approval from Congress, nor has Congress appropriated any money for it. The plan submitted to the commission does not include a reference to military use cited by Trump and other administration officials, Mendelson said.

“We cannot approve final site and building plans until we have the final site and building plans,” he said.

The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.

Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.

“This arch would dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.

Other critics, including the plaintiffs, argue that the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.

Several members of the Planning Commission used that logic in approving the project. Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.

Chutkan rejected that argument in her ruling: “The sheer improbability that a 100-year-old statute would contain authority, unknown to every previous administration, to erect a 250-foot arch at a principal location in the Nation’s capital indicates how far defendants must stretch to justify this project.”

Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press. AP videographer Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Jay Rockefeller, the last member of his family’s political dynasty — and the only Democrat — who served as West Virginia’s governor and later a longtime U.S. senator, has died. He was 89.

Rockefeller died Thursday night at his home in Washington, said Mary Stewart, vice president for external affairs at WETA, the public broadcasting station where Rockefeller’s wife, Sharon, serves as president and CEO.

Rockefeller came from one of the nation’s richest families to spend a half century in public service in one of the poorest states. He arrived in 1964 as a worker in an anti-poverty program, was elected governor a dozen years later and served two terms, then spent 30 years as a U.S. senator.

“I could not imagine a more rewarding career,” Rockefeller said upon his retirement in 2015.

He was born John D. Rockefeller IV in New York City. His great-grandfather, Standard Oil Co. founder John Rockefeller, died a month before Rockefeller’s birth. His father, John D. Rockefeller III, was a well-known philanthropist. Uncles Winthrop (Arkansas) and Nelson (New York) were Republican governors. Another uncle, David Rockefeller, ran Chase Manhattan Bank.

Jay Rockefeller went in a different direction.

A few years out of college at age 27, Rockefeller moved to the West Virginia mining community of Emmons to participate in the Volunteers in Service to America program, a time that Rockefeller said proved transformative.

“It explains every policy I pursued and every vote I have cast. It was where my beliefs were bolted down, and where my passions met my principles,” he said in an emotional farewell speech from the Senate floor on Dec. 4, 2014.

While he intended for his stay in the state to be brief, Rockefeller broke from his family’s Republican tradition and was elected to the state House of Delegates as a Democrat in 1966. By combining money with hard work in a traditionally Democratic state, Rockefeller overcame suspicions of political opportunism and rose from state legislator to secretary of state to governor.

A turning point came after Rockefeller’s only political defeat in the 1972 governor’s race to Republican Arch A. Moore Jr., whose daughter, Republican Shelley Moore Capito, was elected in 2014 to Rockefeller’s Senate seat upon his retirement.

After the defeat, Rockefeller remained in West Virginia, a decision he called the most important of his career. He became the first without a theological degree to become president of West Virginia Wesleyan College in 1973. His popularity there — and a change in his stance to embrace strip mining — translated to a landslide win over Republican Cecil Underwood in the 1976 governor’s race.

As governor, Rockefeller emphasized development of the state’s infrastructure, such as roads, sewers and bridges. Those issues, he said, are “not very sexy things, I grant you but very, very necessary in West Virginia.”

After Rockefeller defeated Arch Moore in a rematch in 1980, he won a U.S. Senate seat in 1984 after the retirement of longtime Democrat Jennings Randolph. It came despite a landslide victory that year for Republican President Ronald Reagan.

Rockefeller and his wife, Sharon, daughter of former Republican Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois, fit easily into the capital’s social scene, purchasing a multimillion-dollar estate for their family. Never shy or apologetic about using his inherited $150 million fortune to win his races, he spent millions upon millions from his own pocket. He won by comfortable margins in each of his five terms.

Rockefeller’s vast wealth was always a source of conversation and an undercurrent in his political races. He spent at least $21 million of his own money in his political campaigns, including $9 million to win a close 1984 Senate race against Republican novice and fellow multimillionaire John Raese. In Rockefeller’s 1980 gubernatorial race against Republican Arch Moore Jr., bumper stickers appeared saying: “Make Him Spend It All, Arch.”

The state’s junior senator for 25 years, Rockefeller carved his own path of influence in Sen. Robert C. Byrd’s immense shadow. Byrd died in 2010 as the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, winning an enduring reputation for steering billions of dollars over many decades to boost his impoverished state.

Rockefeller’s influence was less showy. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, he championed consumers’ rights, upgrading broadband infrastructure and sponsoring a bill to block companies from tracking online activity of their customers. He authored legislation in 1997 that created the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which assists poor families whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid.

He also was head of committees on Veterans Affairs and Intelligence, frequently sparring with President George W. Bush over foreign policy. Rockefeller said he regretted his 2002 vote to authorize the war against Iraq.

But Rockefeller also differed with the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama over mining-related regulations. With his state the nation’s second-biggest coal producer, Rockefeller was among several West Virginia officials who opposed the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency’s oversight of the mountaintop removal method of surface mining.

College studies in Tokyo laid the groundwork for Rockefeller’s efforts to bring business from Japan to West Virginia. He had known Toyota’s founding family since the 1960s and was instrumental in helping the Japanese automaker pick a Buffalo, West Virginia, cornfield for an engine parts plant in 1996. The $2 billion plant now employs about 2,200 workers.

Raby writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Democratic upsets in this year’s midterms, which stretched from the suburbs of Atlanta to rural Kansas, could reshape the electoral map that governs presidential politics — and, with it, the calculus for each party in the fight for the nation’s top office in 2028.

Democrats were already cautioning against overconfidence, discussing how to translate their midterm success into more lasting power and to draw back Tuesday’s voters in 2028.

For Republicans, the defeat set off something close to an existential crisis, with would-be contenders for the party’s presidential nomination openly debating what had gone wrong and how the party should regroup after voters rebuked President Trump’s agenda.

And members of both parties were taking stock of the deep reach Democrats demonstrated Tuesday, with Senate, House and state legislative seats flipped in red strongholds that have not been up for grabs in a presidential race in years.

The midterm results have “enlarged the competitive map” for 2028, said Alex Keyssar, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, who has written books about voting rights and the electoral college. States such as Texas and Georgia may no longer be considered long-safe GOP territory, he said, leaving Republicans with fewer states they can count on and more ground they will have to spend money to defend.

“The number of states that the Republicans can feel secure that they have has diminished,” he said. “And the flip side of that is that there are more states that the Democrats can compete in. And that’s a shift.”

Presidential hopefuls typically begin putting together exploratory committees soon after the midterms, announce their candidacies after the new year and begin fundraising by midyear. Potential candidates began putting down markers swiftly this week.

On Thursday, allies of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) launched a fundraising committee for his potential candidacy. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is considering a run, commuted the death sentences of all California’s death row prisoners. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker this week released a road map with recommendations for the new Congress.

And party leaders in Washington were nodding to 2028 as they outlined broad plans for their House and Senate majorities.

“As we look to 2028 and beyond, we need to start identifying now, in 2027, to solidify our position in the states we won and build our party infrastructure in those areas,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told an audience Wednesday at the think tank Center for American Progress, “and continue to expand the map into new states.”

Meanwhile, Republican leaders moved swiftly to assert authority within their party with analyses and prescriptions after Tuesday’s battering. Vice President JD Vance, long seen as a potential Trump heir, on Wednesday rushed to blame the sweeping losses on the president’s war in Iran.

Sen. Ted Cruz, whose state of Texas saw a historic blue wave, faulted his party for ignoring the economic pain many voters face. And Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, one of the few states where Republicans held the line, called the midterms an “extinction level event for Republicans” that will last beyond 2028.

“Once you have the [midterm] election results, that’s when like the real literal politicking begins, and you have to move quick,” said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist who worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the presidential campaigns of Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.

For the GOP, Tuesday’s results will mean spending more money in places such as Texas that the party has traditionally counted on to get their candidates to 270 electoral votes, Keyssar said.

“When the map shifts, the strategies have to shift, and that includes the allocation of money,” he said.

For Democrats, the midterms demonstrated that the party should be “investing heavily in the coastal South,” said Keneshia Grant, a Howard University political scientist. The party needs to “recognize the moment and meet it,” she said, pointing to the unexpectedly close Senate races in Florida and Mississippi.

“If you’re the Democratic Party at the national level, you now have to ask yourself different questions about the calculus,” Grant said.

It is generally difficult to predict the next presidential election outcome based on the results of the preceding midterms, said Justin Grimmer, a political scientist at Stanford University.

“Right now there’s this incentive or dream of Democrats to think, like, ‘Well, what if this were 2028? Then it’s a landslide.’ And then Republicans are fearful that if this map were to carry forward, that they would get ransacked in ‘28,” Grimmer said.

But “it’s hard to know what the major issues are gonna be in 2028, who the candidates are, and what sort of world we’ll be in.”

‘No silver lining’

President Trump has so far declined to endorse a successor, saying it is “too early” to make the call, though he has praised both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump said Wednesday. “You can have maybe a lot of people running, maybe nobody is going to run. … I don’t know who is going to run.”

Trump cast doubt on whether Vance would eventually run. But Vance appeared to be signaling 2028 aspiration with a post that pinned the GOP defeats on the Iran conflict launched by Trump this year.

The scale of the midterm losses may be the most useful thing for Republicans moving toward 2028, Gorman argued.

“The silver lining is that there’s no silver lining,” Gorman said.

That’s because there is nothing to cling to. “It’s a bottoming-out,” he said, which frees the party to begin “rebuilding conversations.”

The larger danger for whoever leads the party next is assuming that Trump’s voters come with the nomination, he argued, saying the 2028 nominee will have to create their own voter coalition. The same applies to Democrats, Gorman said, pointing to Latino voters who swung toward Trump in 2024 and back toward Democrats this year.

Such groups of swing voters, said California Republican consultant Mike Madrid, care about economic and quality-of-life-issues, not culture-war and partisan issues.

Madrid said that if he were advising a 2028 presidential contender, he would tell them, “Quit talking about these differences, or at least set these differences in the construct of a class-based, top down model — not a right left model.”

Time to ‘deliver’

With Democrats set for a wide-open presidential primary with a large array of candidates, the sweeping success on Tuesday of the party’s populist platform could influence how 2028 contenders run their campaigns.

Democratic leaders in Congress have said they intend to make affordability a centerpiece of their legislative agenda as soon as they take control of both chambers next year. But any measure will still need Trump’s signature, setting up an early test of whether Democrats can hand voters tangible results before 2028 — or end up with a stack of vetoes to campaign on instead.

“We have won immense amounts of political power, and now it’s the most important time in which to deliver,” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) told reporters Wednesday, “so we can keep that political power.”

Now that voters expect Democrats to clean up the nation’s problems in the next session, the party has to ensure that is “backed up by real results” — something anyone who is preparing a 2028 run will need to have in mind, strategist Rob Flaherty said at the Center for American Progress event Thursday.

“That is a huge thing that whoever we nominate has to be thinking about: quick delivery, quick change that people can substantively feel in their lives,” Flaherty said.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who has not ruled out a presidential run, told reporters Thursday that some states may now be more “swing-ish” and that the Democrats will need to “take in” and analyze Tuesday’s data.

But, he said, voters’ top issues will remain the same.

“The candidates … that can answer those things authentically and well for the voter,” he said, are “going to be the more successful” ones.

As the clock ticks down for the Senate to pass the so-called Sunshine Protection Act to mandate year-round daylight saving time in most of the United States, President Trump on Wednesday said he planned to “keep fighting” for the change.

In July, the House, in a lopsided bipartisan vote, approved a measure to make year-round daylight saving time the default for most of the United States. But its companion bill remains stalled in the Senate.

“Too bad the Senate has not yet approved the Sunshine Protection Act or, the I Don’t Want to Change My Clocks Anymore Act,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

Daylight saving time ended on Sunday, Nov. 1, meaning clocks in most of the United States fell back one hour at 2 a.m. Daylight saving time will begin again on March 14, 2027, unless the bill passes both chambers and is signed by Trump before then.

In his post, Trump lamented that it was dark by 5:31 p.m. “Just a few days ago it was so nice and sunny at this same time,” he said.

“I didn’t want to make a big deal out of this prior to the Election because I didn’t want to have certain Senators lose their Race, in a landslide, but it is too bad they can’t get it done,” Trump said.

Trump continued: “We have far bigger priorities, but I will keep fighting for this!”

Although permanent daylight saving time would mean brighter winter evenings, it would also mean darker winter mornings.

If the legislation were to pass, Los Angeles would see its latest sunrise of the year at 8 a.m. Sacramento would see sunrise as late as 8:24 a.m., and San Francisco as late as 8:25 a.m.

The debate over timekeeping has pitted some golf course owners — who argue that later sunsets are good for business as it gives people more daylight to play golf after work — against doctors, who say the darker mornings and brighter evenings of permanent daylight saving time weaken the circadian clock for many people.

Trump owns golf courses across the United States, including in New Jersey, North Carolina, Washington, D.C., and on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

At times, the debate has turned ugly. In October, Trump appeared to share the cellphone number of a vocal critic of the legislation, Sen. Tom Cotton telling his supporters to contact the Arkansas Republican.

Cotton has long argued that the late sunrises in the winter would mean students would need to walk to school in the dark and risk being struck by drivers — as was the case in 1974 when the U.S. briefly adopted year-round daylight saving time to combat an energy crisis.

Arizona resident Jay Pea, a former software engineer and the founder of the nonprofit Save Standard Time, also wants to put an end to the twice-annual clock adjustments.

But he’s not a fan of permanent daylight saving time, which he said would particularly burden outdoor workers, such as construction crews, farmers and groundskeepers, who would probably have to start their days in the dark.

“It makes you get up one hour earlier. It makes you start work in school one hour earlier,” Pea told The Times on Thursday. “Nobody’s calling up his congressman and saying, ‘Hey, can you make me go to work an hour earlier? Can you make me set my alarm an hour earlier?’ But that’s what DST [daylight saving time] does.”

Pea favors year-round standard time. It keeps clocks aligned with the sun, he said. He supports an alternative proposal, the Sunshine for Our Kids Act, which was introduced in July by Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.).

The proposal would make standard time the default year-round but give states the ability to opt out. That legislation remains stalled in the House, according to Pea.

Times staff writer Rong-Gong Lin II contributed reporting.

In the wake of President Trump’s historic, humiliating, crushing midterm trouncing, his most loyal followers are doing what could reasonably be expected from such a fine, upstanding bunch — variously jumping ship, backstabbing and doubling down on sycophancy and lies.

With dizzying speed, the Trump era has been upended by this democratic Democratic revolt, and not even the staunchest of MAGA supporters seem to know what to do — not even the president himself.

The big man met his defeat with unusual equanimity on Wednesday, promising to work with Democrats, who most certainly have other ideas in mind. By Thursday, the president was complaining about daylight saving time, and bragging about home improvements, offering media a tour of the ballroom construction, a peek at the emperor’s new granite, if you will. For Trump, at least, it was as if the election never happened.

But with Democrats gearing up an avalanche of investigations, those in Trump’s orbit clearly know it’s going to be a dark winter.

Let’s check in with the jumpers, the stabbers and the bottom kissers to see what they’re up to.

Sinking ship

It’s not unusual for top government officials to skedaddle after a midterm election. The two-year mark offers a somewhat elegant exit for those who have suddenly decided to spend more time with family.

So it was little surprise when Trump’s legal lapdog Harmeet Dhillon announced Thursday that she was resigning from her job as the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Someone had to be first, and it doesn’t shock me it was one of the few women left in the administration.

Under her tenure, civil rights were dismantled, which is not historically what the office is for. The agency was hollowed out of the nonpartisan legal experts who made a career serving government — more than 75% of the staff left. Instead, she wielded her power to, as she proudly put it, destroy diversity, equity and inclusion — making observers such as myself wonder whether she actually understood what civil rights are.

“Harmeet Dhillon has been the most destructive, lawless, and hateful head of the Civil Rights Division in DOJ history,” said Stacey Young, founder of Justice Connection, a group that supports current and former civil servants driven to near-insanity by the lawlessness of the Trump era. Young served in the Civil Rights office herself, across the administrations of five presidents.

“After she upended the division’s mission-critical work, the civil servants who dedicated their careers to protecting vulnerable communities were instead told to target them — and more than three-quarters of the division’s lawyers left,” Young continued in a statement. “Dhillon wielded the enormous power of the Justice Department to threaten universities, state and local officials, and election workers in spurious cases that rarely won in court.”

Rarely won in court is the key part there, because for all her vitriol and energy, Dhillon mostly lost when an actual judge was involved. But CBS reported her near-perfect losing streak wasn’t what ultimately drew Trump’s ire — it was her performance on “60 Minutes.”

So we know the ship is sinking — did Dhillon jump or was she pushed? Either way, buh-bye.

The knife-wielder

Leave it to Vice President JD Vance to stab someone in the back the moment it seems convenient. In the run-up to the election, Vance doubled down on every hateful thing he could lay his hands on.

He came out in support of Vivek Ramaswamy’s smarmy ad that used his opponent’s childhood rape as ammunition. He supercharged his racist attacks on Black immigrants, claiming illegal Somali voters were going to “flood” the polls.

Then, when the blue tsunami washed all that garbage away, he posted a long missive on social media explaining how the loss had nothing to do with the economy, or gas prices, or out of control Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It was all about Iran.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote. “The president himself said so last night.”

That would be Pete Hegseth’s war, you know, the belligerent, pec-flexing Trump sycophant whose name has also been floated as a presidential contender, God help us all. In truth, a Hegseth run is the only possible thing that could make Vance look good at this point.

But snakes gonna slither, so Vance (who, to be fair, was never that into this war) is using the moment to subtly blame the Defense secretary, and the blow seems to have landed, with his party, and with his boss.

Asked about Vance’s take, Trump said he agreed the war caused the midterm loss, but he had “no choice.” Now, there are rumblings that Hegseth’s days are numbered.

Kissy, kissy

Hegseth, meanwhile, doubled down Thursday on his crazy he-man routine. I mean, honestly, it’s alarming that this guy is making decisions about lunch, much less war.

In a five-minute video filmed with some kind of Nixon-era filter, Hegseth rambled between sucking up to Trump, making it seem like the war is going great, personal grievance that he might be held accountable for the war, and just making weird, scary pronouncements.

Here’s three of my top picks:

“Narco-terrorists should die, not be caught and released,” he said, apparently promoting extrajudicial executions.

“This is not about me, but of course the other side, in case you’ve noticed, they’re obsessed,” he said shortly after, referring to his side, in fact, and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie’s (who has long been a thorn in Hegseth’s side) threat to impeach Hegseth if he didn’t resign.

“A disgruntled, defeated congressman, along with all his Democrat allies, has also dropped sham articles of impeachment against yours truly, just like they tried against President Trump twice,” Hegseth complained. “It’s all about the politics of personal destruction. Didn’t work against President Trump, and it won’t work with me.”

Well, we’ll see, Pete.

But what about the Dems?

Meanwhile, literally every Democrat ever was busy working on which investigations they will pursue once the new, blue Congress is sworn in.

Chief among those was California’s own Robert Garcia, the Long Beach congressman who will now be the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Garcia has been waiting for this moment for a long time, and he’s ready.

It’s “critical that we take on corruption at the White House, that we take on corruption at places like ICE and DHS,” Garcia told me, referring to the Department of Homeland Security.

And as the Democrats do that, there’s only going to be more scurrying in Trump’s top ranks.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: A ‘tidal wave’ of severe eye disease is looming. It starts with childhood nearsightedness
The California angle: Nithya Raman defeats Bass to become next L.A. mayor
The L.A. Times Special: Newsom wants to empty death row. Most politicians wouldn’t bother — or dare

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

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

The Times is tracking race results across California, Congress and Los Angeles County from the moment polls close until the secretary of state certifies results in early December.

Twenty-three million registered voters in the state received a ballot by mail this fall. The vote count starts once the polls close at 8 p.m. on Tuesday. However, winners may not be known on election night because of the state’s mail-in and conditional ballot process.

The vote counts on these pages update periodically as results are reported by the Associated Press and the county registrars. On election day, those results include in-person voting as well as any mail-in ballots already received. In the days and weeks following, votes will be reported approximately once a day, as they are processed by county registrars. Voters can track their own cast ballot here.

The Associated Press surveys the numbers posted by local election officials. The AP projects the winner for all statewide and federal races using vote returns and other data. A race may be called before all expected votes are in. Results can change as more ballots are counted.

DEARBORN, Mich. — Campaigning relentlessly across Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed didn’t highlight the possibility that he could become the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate. But with victory in hand, he savored his triumph over the vitriol aimed at him and his fellow Muslim Americans.

“They tried to demonize people because of how they pray,” he told the Associated Press on Wednesday. “And Michigan — the whole Michigan — clapped back. People don’t want that. They’re sick of it.”

He showed his pride in his victory speech, declaring: “My name is Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed.”

Twenty-five years after the Sept. 11 attacks and their aftermath yanked anti-Muslim sentiment into the forefront of American life, those emotions are shared by many Muslim Americans in Michigan and across the country.

They saw a surge of anti-Muslim rhetoric after Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York City mayor a year ago, and they saw the attacks intensify as El-Sayed became the new prime target. President Trump called him a “jihadist” who was “on the side of the terrorists.” Dozens of Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress formed a Sharia-Free America Caucus, depicting Islam’s religious code as a threat to the U.S. Constitution.

But now, after El-Sayed’s defeat of GOP rival Mike Rogers was confirmed early Wednesday, there is a pervasive sense that a broader victory is at hand.

The outcome “represents a historic turning point for American Muslim political engagement and a historic defeat for the politics of hate,” said Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“Anti-Muslim extremists, Israel lobby groups and even the president of the United States used every smear in the book to paint Dr. El-Sayed as a Muslim bogeyman,” he said. “None of it was true, and none of it worked. Anti-Muslim hate was on the ballot, and it failed.”

In Dearborn, talk of ‘a beautifully American story’

Excitement over El-Sayed’s victory was palpable in Dearborn, a city near Detroit with a sizable Arab American population. The mayor, Abdullah Hammoud, said residents showed up at the ballot box in huge numbers.

“What a beautifully American story,” Hammoud said. “One of our brightest and best earned the support of the majority of Michiganders who participated in yesterday’s election. And regardless of the direction in which he prays, they’re sending him to the U.S. Senate.”

Hammoud, who has known El-Sayed for more than a decade, said although his win was important for many Arab Americans, people voted for him because of his platform, not his identity. He cited support in Dearborn for independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. Sanders, who is Jewish and caucuses with Democrats, ran on a progressive platform.

In El-Sayed, residents of Dearborn “finally saw themselves and a candidate who appealed to them, but it had to do with far more than just his ethnicity or his religion,” Hammoud said. “It was honestly because of the policies and building a coalition with this community in an honest way.”

When Zaynah Jadallah, 26, canvassed for El-Sayed in Dearborn, she said most people told her they already planned on voting for him before inviting her in for water or food. She credited the name recognition to El-Sayed’s grassroots campaigning and his pride in his Egyptian heritage.

“He’s always been proud of his identity. He never shied away from it or from saying his name,” Jadallah said.

Yasmin El-Sayed, no relation to the senator-elect, took her two daughters to the Detroit watch party from New York. She teared up after the victory speech.

“Having grown up in a post-9/11 world, being Muslim, being Arab myself, never in a million years did I think we would see what we saw today,” she said.

In a time of suspicion of government, a message of representation

El-Sayed depicted his election as a victory for all those “who don’t see themselves reflected in our government or who’ve been told that they don’t belong for some reason or another — not just how they pray but who they love, how they identify, the color of their skin, where they grew up.″

“I didn’t run to be the first Muslim senator. I ran to be the next senator of the state of Michigan who happens to be Muslim,” he said. ″But I also know that democracy is constantly about the conversation about who we are, who we want to be.”

“Michigan proved just how big we are. Rejected a hateful, spiteful campaign that had nothing to say about the issues and only wanted to point to my name and my face,” he added. ″I want all of those folks out there who have been told that America’s not big enough for them to reflect on that. America really is big enough for all of us.”

Mohamed Gula, CEO of the Muslim American advocacy group Emgage Action, said he was elated by El-Sayed’s triumph after a year of “extremely Islamophobic and disgusting rhetoric being used as a campaign strategy.”

“For Abdul to come out last night and use his full name meant the world to someone who grew up in post-9/11 America, where the Muslim American community was seen through a national security lens,” Gula said.

“Our children, years from now, will be able to run for office,” he said, “to be seen as who they are.”

A debate over the place of sharia law — and its very definition

Among the most frequent targets of anti-Muslim rhetoric was sharia, the religious code that provides Muslims with guidance on how to lead righteous lives. At the Republicans’ midterm convention in Dallas, some of the loudest cheers came after GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas declared: “Sharia law has no place in America.”

Muslim American civic leaders and scholars — in Texas and other states — responded forcefully to the anti-sharia rhetoric that dates back more than 15 years.

They passionately defended sharia — the way it’s practiced in the United States — as positive guidance that shares elements with the codes of other faiths, such as the Ten Commandments and the collective body of Jewish law derived from the Torah. They rebutted the claims of GOP critics that sharia is a coercive code that threatens the Constitution and the judicial system.

Gula noted that Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton were among the leaders of the anti-sharia campaign. Abbott lost his bid for reelection in Tuesday’s voting, and Paxton was trounced by Democrat James Talarico in the race for a U.S. Senate seat.

“I saw this as not just Muslims standing against Islamophobia as never before,” Gula said. “I saw Americans saying hate will not be used as a campaign issue … we are not going to accept hate.”

Asma Uddin, a professor at Michigan State University’s College of Law, has argued that many American politicians are depicting ordinary Muslim religious practices — such as prayer, choice of apparel, family counseling and mosque attendance — as evidence of political danger.

“What I find especially exciting is that El-Sayed won in a political climate where being visibly Muslim can still be a liability,” she said. His victory “gives us real reason for optimism. It suggests that anti-Muslim attacks don’t necessarily carry the political weight that those deploying them assume they do.”

GaNun, Cappelletti and Crary write for the Associated Press. Cappelletti reported from Washington and Crary from New York.

NEW YORK — New York appeals judges grilled President Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors Thursday about his bid to erase his historic hush money conviction, but the court didn’t signal how or when it would rule.

The judges delved into legal theory, presidential immunity and some evidence in Trump’s 2024 trial. Convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to obscure a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels, Trump denies any wrongdoing. He has turned to state and federal courts in hopes of unwinding the verdict.

Trump, who denounced the case on social media as recently as September, didn’t attend Thursday’s court session.

Much of the back-and-forth focused on prosecutors’ theory that the hush money was meant to keep unflattering information about Trump away from the electorate before the 2016 vote, and that it amounted to an illegal campaign contribution under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. told the judges that Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg’s office has no place tying a case to a federal election law.

“We think it’s the most obvious ground for reversal,” he said.

Prosecutors argued that they weren’t prosecuting an alleged federal campaign finance offense, but rather presenting it as a factor underlying what they claim was a Trump-orchestrated conspiracy.

“So are you relying upon FECA in order to prove your falsifying business records [charge]?” Justice Troy Webber asked.

“Only partially,” replied Bragg’s appeals chief, Steven Wu, adding that it was “important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy.”

Judges drill down on question about White House conversations

The appeal also concerns whether jurors should have been allowed to hear testimony about supposed White House workflow and conversations — some with then-Communications Director Hope Hicks — and even Trump social media posts during his first term. His lawyers cite presidential immunity for official acts, and they argue his official conduct included responding to the Daniels drama once it became public in 2018.

“Ms. Hicks was serving as a White House official,” talking with the president about how to respond to press inquiries that implicitly concerned his fitness for office, Giuffra told the appeals judges.

Wu countered later: “In this conversation, they were not speaking about a press response. … The president was talking to her about his private opinion.”

The appeals judges pressed both sides about the matter and the specifics of Hicks’ testimony. She told jurors that she asked Trump how he wanted to respond, but as for what he said, she testified only that he expressed relief that the Daniels story hadn’t emerged during the campaign.

Bragg’s office contends that all the White House-related evidence was fair game. The conversations were “unofficial conduct,” some of the other evidence was public record, and some was a general description of office practices, prosecutors say. They maintain that even if some of the evidence should have been excluded, its admission was a “harmless error” that doesn’t warrant overturning a conviction that rested on “a mountain” of other proof against Trump.

Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke wondered aloud about that.

“If you take all of those things cumulatively, right, and there’s a problem with this evidence, there’s a problem with this evidence, at what point … does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?” she asked.

“It would have to be a lot more than there was in this case,” Wu responded.

Trump’s lawyers also have argued the case was political

While the appeal turns on complex legal disputes, political overtones aren’t hard to find. The very first paragraph of one of the Trump team’s court filings contended that the case was the flimsy product of “immense political pressure” on a Democratic prosecutor to go after Trump — rhetoric that echoes the Republican president’s own oft-repeated claims in the court of public opinion.

The May 2024 verdict made Trump the first former — and now current — U.S. president with a criminal conviction. Though historic, it didn’t impede his return to the White House or subject him to any punishment.

The trial involved $130,000 that Daniels got from Trump’s then-fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, weeks before the 2016 election. The money bought, for a time, her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with the married Trump a decade earlier. He says that nothing sexual happened between them.

Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen in 2017, logging those payments as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers argue there’s only “weak” evidence that he even knew about Cohen’s dealings at the time. His trial attorneys also said that payments to Cohen were indeed legal expenses, and that any hush money expended on Trump’s behalf wasn’t hidden campaign spending, just an effort to avoid embarrassing his family.

The distinction matters because, under New York law, falsifying business records isn’t a felony unless it’s done with an intent to commit or conceal a separate crime.

While pursuing his state appeal, Trump also has been trying to shift the case to federal court and have it dismissed on immunity grounds. A federal judge said no — for the third time — in August. Trump’s attorneys are appealing that decision, with arguments set for Nov. 16.

Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.

Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a California attorney who radically reshaped the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to focus on political issues important to President Trump — including by targeting transgender rights and launching a nationwide hunt for alleged voter fraud by noncitizens — resigned her post Thursday.

In a resignation letter and in a post to X — where she routinely lambasted liberal policy and touted her office’s legal work to dismantle it — Dhillon said serving as the division’s chief was an honor.

“We ushered in the downfall of illegal DEI, we fought to protect women and girls’ sports, and so much more,” she wrote on X. “I want to thank President Trump for giving me this opportunity. I look forward to what’s next!”

Critics of Dhillon — including prominent civil rights leaders who had opposed her confirmation to the post — cheered her departure, saying she had flipped the storied Civil Rights Division on its head by attacking pillars of its past work, such as affirmative action policies, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, LGBTQ+ rights and voting rights.

“Is Harmeet running from a sinking ship? Trying to avoid actual oversight? Or getting pushed out by DOJ leadership?” Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division under President Obama, said in a text message. “Maybe it’s all of the above but regardless, she used the Civil Rights Division against the very communities and values it was founded to protect and that will be her legacy.”

Another part of her legacy, Gupta said, will be that she “oversaw the decimation of the Division’s incredible career workforce.” Many career civil rights attorneys left the department after she took over and demanded an ideological shift in the work.

Dhillon’s departure comes two days after a midterm election in which Republicans suffered sweeping losses, and amid widespread speculation as to how Trump and other leaders in his administration would respond — and who among them, if any, would leave or be unceremoniously ousted. Turnover after such an electoral drubbing is not uncommon.

In her resignation letter, Dhillon said she initially resigned in October, but that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles asked her to stay on until after the midterms. Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that Dhillon did “a fantastic job … boldly protecting Americans’ civil liberties.”

Dhillon also touted what she called “historic victories for the American people” under her leadership, and specifically cited her work ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, suing states including California over their policies for transgender students and athletes and for their voter rolls, defending gun rights and fighting anti-Semitism.

Dhillon’s success in those initiatives was middling at best — and in some areas disastrous. Out of dozens of lawsuits demanding states turn over their voter rolls, for instance, she had zero wins.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on X, wrote that Dhillon “has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor,” and that the department “is grateful for her dedicated public service” and wished her “every success in her future endeavors.”

A spokesperson for Dhillon said she was returning to her firm, the Dhillon Law Group.

Mark Trammell, the chief executive of the conservative Center for American Liberty — which Dhillon founded — praised her work in the Justice Department as “advancing civil rights for all Americans.”

Others expressed stridently different feelings about her tenure.

Stacey Young, executive director of Justice Connection, a nonprofit organization of former Justice Department employees that advocates for a non-politicized department, blasted Dhillon’s tenure in the department and cheered her departure.

“Harmeet Dhillon has been the most destructive, lawless, and hateful head of the Civil Rights Division in DOJ history,” Young said in a statement. “After she upended the division’s mission-critical work, the civil servants who dedicated their careers to protecting vulnerable communities were instead told to target them — and more than three-quarters of the division’s lawyers left.”

Dhillon turned away from the division’s traditional role of investigating problematic police departments and rebuffed calls for federal civil rights investigations into the killing by immigration agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. She later relented amid intense public pressure to launch an investigation into Pretti’s killing, but was criticized for assigning inexperienced staff and not taking the inquiry seriously.

Dhillon also helped dismantle long-standing firewalls between the Justice Department and the White House, acknowledging that she saw her mission as pursuing civil rights in line with Trump’s executive orders.

She focused on targeting universities accused of discriminating against white and Asian students, attacking policies protecting transgender students and athletes in California and elsewhere, and launching her failed nationwide effort to obtain state voter rolls in order to root out alleged noncitizen voters.

She also took a leading role in threatening election workers processing ballots in the midterms.

As of Thursday morning, Dhillon still had pinned to the top of her X account a post from July, in which she discussed sending letters to elections officials in all 50 states warning them that it is a crime to knowingly process ballots from noncitizens.

“Every state and local election official is on notice — knowingly encouraging noncitizens to vote or conspiring to fraudulently register noncitizens is a federal crime,” she wrote.

Before being appointed to the Justice Department, Dhillon had made a name for herself in California by attacking transgender rights and challenging COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and voting rights initiatives.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, asked about Dhillon’s departure, said, “Good riddance.”

“Few people have done more to undermine U.S. DOJ’s civil rights legacy than Harmeet Dhillon — undermining free and fair elections, subverting anti-discrimination laws, and targeting marginalized communities,” Bonta said — efforts he said his office helped thwart in court.

Brian Levin, a professor emeritus of Cal State San Bernardino and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, said Dhillon’s tenure atop the Civil Rights Division “was nothing short of an unmitigated catastrophe” compared with the division’s work under past Republican and Democratic administrations.

Levin said Dhillon ignored data showing discrimination against “the very vulnerable communities for whom the Civil Rights Division” was created to help to instead focus on things like “anti-white discrimination” and gun rights — overseeing “a complete abdication of protecting voting rights, housing and a slew of other projects that have been the foundation of what the division was founded to do.”

Levin said that “among these vulnerable communities that need the help the most that she has turned her back on have been the gay community, the trans community, immigrants, racial minorities, as well as the disabled,” and accused Dhillon of having “butchered” the division’s career staff and replaced it with people who “were vastly underqualified.”

“She was horrible, and anyone who cares about the preservation of civil rights, … and those who are the most vulnerable in our society, while not rejoicing today, can at least take some solace that the hemorrhaging will at least temporarily stop,” Levin said.

Young, of the Justice Connection, called on the next Senate — which will have a Democratic majority thanks to Tuesday’s elections — to exercise its confirmation powers to ensure Dhillon’s successor atop the Civil Rights Division fulfills its “congressional mandate to enforce all Americans’ civil rights diligently and fairly.”

SACRAMENTO — In his first news conference since being elected governor, Xavier Becerra remained noncommittal on taxes, energy and healthcare policy — even refusing to commit to reversing cuts to Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants, a campaign pledge.

But he asserted that he was already working with legislative counterparts on how to provide critical services and lower the cost of living.

“I can’t make a commitment without knowing what exactly I’m facing,” Becerra said of reversing cuts to Medi-Cal. “I don’t think any voter, any taxpayer, any Californian wants to have a governor who’s still acting like a politician” on the campaign trail.

The governor-elect, speaking to reporters Thursday afternoon inside the state Capitol, had just concluded a meeting with Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro-Tempore Monique Limón. The three Democrats appeared side by side in a display of unity between two branches of government with a sometimes-prickly relationship.

“You guys should get used to this,” Becerra said, pointing thumbs at the lawmakers on either side of him. “We’ve got lots to do, and the public made it very clear we should be focused on jobs one, two and three, and that is: cost of living, cost of living, cost of living. Letting California families know we want them to stay, we want them to thrive. We want them to retire in California.”

Becerra has provided few specifics about his plans to ease inflationary pressures. Asked whether he would consider cutting income tax rates for low- and middle-income Californians, he responded that “everything should be on the table.”

“You’re probably going to be hearing me say that a lot, whether it’s on energy, whether it’s on revenue tax policy, whether it’s on healthcare,” he said. “Why should we take anything off the table? We will explore it. At the end of the day, what should stay on is what’s smart and makes sense.”

Although he did not support the billionaire wealth tax on Tuesday’s ballot, Becerra has said repeatedly that he thinks the state’s wealthiest should contribute their fair share.

As a trained lawyer who spent more than 25 years in Congress, Becerra has earned a reputation as a thoughtful politician who takes time to mull over decisions.

Rivas and Limón were equally noncommittal when asked about Becerra’s proposal to provide low-income people with two daily hours of free electricity, which he calls “power hour.”

“Could there be some alignment on this idea of power hour?” Rivas asked. “Possibly, but specific to this proposal, I don’t know enough about it.”

“There’s an opportunity here to look both short-term and long-term” at energy issues, Limón added.

California’s three most powerful elected leaders — for the first time, all Latino — in their private meeting discussed healthcare, energy costs, artificial intelligence and implementing funding from an $11.25-billion housing bond voters approved Tuesday. Becerra, the state’s first directly elected Latino governor, took several questions in Spanish.

The top Democrats will decide how to divvy up hundreds of billions of dollars in the state’s budget beginning early next year.

The state expanded Medi-Cal coverage to undocumented residents over several years, but the costs proved higher than anticipated. In an October 2025 report, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated program expansions cost the general fund $10 billion annually, “more than double the initial estimates.”

However, thousands of undocumented immigrants disenrolled from the program last year after President Trump took office.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers imposed enrollment freezes and $30 monthly premiums for working-age undocumented adults, which take effect next year.

Becerra’s campaign website says he would “direct state agencies to protect access to essential, medically appropriate health services from federal restrictions, including reproductive care and healthcare for immigrant communities.”

Shortly before the news conference, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass conceded the race to challenger Nithya Raman. Becerra offered congratulations and said he would soon be in touch with the mayor-elect.

“I hope I can change the relationship with local government,” Becerra said, adding that he wants his administration to work closely with mayors and county supervisors around the state. “I know local government fears sometimes that Sacramento doesn’t pay attention to them and shortchanges them.”

On the Capitol grounds earlier in the day, Republican nominee Steve Hilton, whom Becerra defeated, said he hoped his opponent “can and will bring the change that people want to see in California.”

“There’s a desperation among regular working people in California,” Hilton said, his voice shaking with emotion. “Whatever they do in the next four years, I really hope they understand that Californians are at breaking point.”

Courage in politics is rare.

It’s especially difficult and fraught for a politician such as Gavin Newsom, who has Oval Office ambitions and everything to lose from a misstep. Playing it safe is playing it smart.

On Thursday, Newsom took what can only be described as a courageous stand, a risky stand — commuting the death sentences of the 548 men and women condemned to die in California, and instead seeking to change their sentences to life without parole.

Many people will stop reading right now because honestly, do you care what happens to those on death row? They’ve raped, murdered, robbed, tortured — you name the heinous crime, one of them has done it. They are not the most sympathetic lot, and in truth many of us have ambivalent feelings on the death penalty.

It’s that ambivalence, that uncertainty, that makes Newsom’s move so interesting. We are in the most unlikely of moments — witnessing a self-inflicted test of political endurance from a savvy politician who didn’t need to go there. What happens in these strange days when a presidential hopeful takes an unnecessary risk simply because he believes it’s the right thing to do?

Newsom will be roasted by those claiming to be tough-on-crime types. They predictably will cry that he is circumventing the will of the people and disrespecting crime victims and juries. Some will say he cares more about criminals than victims. Fox News is going to have a field day.

Newsom has publicly pondered this decision for some time, calling it a “rocking chair” choice, one he’s likely to look back on someday to judge whether he lived up to his own ideals. He has said he is morally opposed to the state killing to prove killing is bad. As he terms out of office, he had only a couple of months left to take action on that belief before the power to end the largest death row in the Western Hemisphere slips out of his hands.

“Faithfulness to our values is measured by how we act when it’s most difficult to uphold them,” Newsom wrote in a letter to Californians announcing his decision. This, he said, was one of those moments for him.

“Americans are looking for leadership that is more principled,” civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson told me, arguing Newsom’s move is actually in sync with the electorate. Stevenson is one of the people Newsom has talked to about the death penalty, and the founder of the Legacy Museum in Alabama, which traces the line from slavery to mass incarceration.

The shocking blue-wave midterms showed that Americans aren’t just tired of cruelty for cruelty’s sake, he said. They are tired of injustice, tired of selfish, self-serving leaders, tired of fearing that their own government might crush them simply because it can.

Across the country, voters elected political leaders who stood for something — who bucked the trends to run on their values and vision of a better America, even if it wasn’t mainstream or safe.

So whether Americans agree with Newsom’s decision to commute these sentences to life without parole or not, voters are at a moment when I suspect, as Stevenson does, that they may embrace his courage to stand for something, even if they don’t agree with what that something is.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of that power of government to crush. Support for it has been mixed for years, even among liberals — though young people are less likely to back it. It has been banned in nearly every Western democracy including almost all of Europe, Canada and New Zealand.

Twenty-seven U.S. states either have abolished it or have gubernatorial moratoriums on it (Newsom enacted one in California a few years ago). And President Biden commuted the death sentences of most federal inmates in his final days of office, as have several other governors over the years.

There also has been a growing understanding in the U.S. that race bias is baked into how we use the death penalty. Black and brown people make up the majority of those on death row, and crimes in which the victim is white are more likely to draw the death sentence — even when we get it wrong.

More than 200 people on death row have been exonerated across the United States since the 1970s — including eight in California — meaning that for every eight people we have put to death, there has been one other who was going to be killed by the state until we figured out they were innocent.

So while there’s a moral argument to be made against the state killing people to prove killing people is wrong, there’s also a practical one: It turns out we’re really bad at imposing a lethal sentence fairly, or even correctly.

Vicente Benavides Figueroa is proof of that. After 25 years on death row, the justice system finally realized it had made a terrible error in his conviction. Figueroa wasn’t just railroaded into a lethal sentence — for the murder, rape and sodomy of a toddler — the crime itself likely never actually happened.

Figueroa was a seasonal farmworker, a Mexican immigrant with less than a high school education, who was watching his girlfriend’s kids in the Central Valley in 1991 when he lost track of the youngest, Consuelo, for 15 minutes. When he found her, she was in the front yard, unresponsive and vomiting.

One thing led to another — a “reckless” investigation, as his civil attorney Salomon Zavala, describes it; faulty translators; a mostly white jury who werefar from his peers; and erroneous medical testimony — and Figueroa was convicted. The machine of justice was so grinding that Figueroa did not understand he had been sentenced to death until he got to San Quentin.

Decades later, the doctors who claimed Consuelo was raped and sodomized would realize the injuries were likely because of trauma from medical workers attempting to insert an adult-sized catheter. They recanted. New experts, hired by the defense, theorized the child had been hit by a car, causing the extensive internal injuries that killed her. The witnesses now agreed the child never had been raped or sodomized.

Figueroa’s conviction was overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2018, citing false evidence in the original trial.

“No matter what your moral position is on the death penalty, I think we have to look at it from a standpoint of institutional responsibility,” Zavala, the lawyer, told me. “We have to really think about whether we, as a society, are comfortable with executing someone that could potentially be innocent.”

I’m of the mind that erroneously killing one person in the name of justice is one too many — that the death penalty is an unacceptable risk.

I take nothing away from, nor mean to diminish, the importance or pain of any victim, their story or their point of view. Their pain is real and enduring, and surely there will be some who feel Newsom’s decision robs them of some sort of final resolution.

But pain cannot define justice.

It’s easy to forget that Newsom is married to a survivor of violent crime, and knows as well as anyone how complicated and difficult and personal the journey to recovery is, and how that suffering affects not just victims, but also families and communities.

But whether or not the state should be in the business of killing has to be a bigger decision that we consider collectively in moments when we are not in distress.

Newsom’s decision does that, seeking to go beyond “these performative sentences that just represent a lot of fear and anger,” Stevenson said, and move our justice system toward one that lives up to the ideal of promoting safety and fairness over vengeance. And even then, the state Supreme Court will have a say in the majority of these clemencies, since Newsom needs their approval in cases where there are repeat felonies.

But it’s a can of worms he didn’t have to open — the clearest statement we’ll ever get of who Newsom is as a leader.

And it’s a welcome reminder that sometimes, occasionally, values still have a place in politics.

A Culver City ballot measure that would give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in municipal and school board elections was trailing Thursday.

Ballots still were being counted, but Measure YV was losing, with 55% of voters in Culver City voting against it and 45% voting for it, according to early results posted by the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office.

There were 7,875 votes against the measure and 6,487 for it as of Thursday — a margin of 1,388 votes.

Passage of Measure YV, which was championed by a group of high school students called Vote16 Culver City, would make the Westside city one of just a few municipalities nationwide, and among a handful in California, to expand voting rights to people younger than 18.

The measure proposes an amendment to the city charter that would allow youth voters to participate only in school board and city elections. They would not be able to vote in county, state or federal contests.

The teenage proponents spent weeks canvassing for the measure in Culver City, despite having no power to cast ballots for it.

This is the second time the youth-vote initiative has been on the ballot in Culver City, where a similar measure failed in 2022 by just 16 votes.

In 2024, a citizens’ initiative to lower the voting age failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. In February, the City Council, at the request of Vote16 Culver City, voted to put the measure on the November ballot.

Supporters say that 16- and 17-year-olds who are old enough to work, drive and pay taxes are mature enough to have a say in local decisions that affect their schools, parks, public safety, transportation and other matters. In California, they already are allowed to preregister to vote so that on their 18th birthday, they become automatically eligible to cast a ballot.

“I feel really strongly that 16- and 17-year-olds are very capable to vote and make a calm, educated decision for a school board and city elections,” 16-year-old Arlo Meighan-Thiel, a leader for Vote16 Culver City, said last month. “It would be amazing for us, the people who go to school five days a week, to have a say who represents us on the school board.”

Opponents counter that 16- and 17-year-olds are too young to make reasoned electoral choices and easily could be manipulated by adults.

Ron Bassilian, who signed the opposition statement in the city’s voter guide, told The Times in a text message Thursday that the 2022 measure trailed significantly a few days after that year’s election, only to lose by a few votes in the end.

“We remain cautiously optimistic for now” that the measure will not pass, said Bassilian, president of Protect Culver City, a political action committee that has opposed local efforts to defund law enforcement and other causes.

Bassilian, a Republican, told The Times last month that progressive candidates and activists had “really been pushing their way into the high school” seeking to influence young people, and that he was concerned about high schools becoming places where political interests were fighting for access to teenagers.

Vote16 Culver City is a part of Vote16USA, a national organization that supports youth-led state and local campaigns to lower the voting age. Vote16USA is funded by the New York-based nonprofit Goodnation Foundation, according to its website.

In 2013, Takoma Park, Md., became the first city in the U.S. to lower its voting age to 16 for municipal elections. A few additional cities in Maryland, as well as cities in New Jersey and Vermont, allow people younger than 18 to cast ballots in some or all local elections.

Multiple efforts to pass a similar youth voting initiative in San Francisco have failed by a narrow margin in recent years.

In 2016, Berkeley became the first municipality in California to drop the voting age to 16 for school board elections, followed by its Alameda County neighbor Oakland in 2020. Voters in Albany, also in Alameda County, took it a step further in 2024 when they passed a measure to let 16- and 17-year-olds cast ballots in all municipal elections — though the county still is trying to figure out how to fully accommodate youth voters in citywide contests.

In those cities, 16- and 17-year-olds were able to vote for the first time in this year’s school board elections, according to the Alameda County elections office. Every eligible preregistered youth voter was set to receive a vote-by-mail ballot before the election.

Technology companies Google, Meta and Tik Tok sued the state of California on Wednesday to block a new law that restricts companies from targeting children younger than 16 with “addictive” social media content that can keep them scrolling for hours.

Assembly Bill 1709, introduced by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), bars social media sites from providing features such as autoplay and recommended content displays to teenagers and young children.

The social media companies, which filed separate lawsuits in federal court, cited their 1st Amendment right to free speech and the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from being sued over content posted by third parties. Meta Platforms, as well as Google and YouTube, filed lawsuits in the Northern District of California. TikTok filed in the Central District.

California’s attempt to “appoint the State as the editor, curator and controller of online speech” and “override Meta’s editorial judgment about how to curate and display these billions of posts of third-party speech,” violates the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for Meta wrote in its lawsuit. The technology company owns Instagram, Facebook and Threads.

A representative for Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said his office was reviewing the litigation.

The legal action follows successful lawsuits brought against the tech giants by California and others that have resulted in massive civil settlements. At the same time, the tech industry continues to file legal challenges to block state efforts to rein in social media companies.

Lowenthal said earlier this year he was inspired to seek more safeguards for social media users, citing the anxiety and depression among children who grew up with access to cellphones, tablets and computer screens.

The addictive nature of autoplay and other features is “harmful, full stop, and that they’re not appropriate for the developing brain,” Lowenthal said.

Tech industry groups opposed Lowentha’s bill, arguing it would hamper users’ ability to connect with family and friends.

Meta and others sued last year over Senate Bill 976, a similar bill known as “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” that bars addictive feeds and certain features to minors without parental consent. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals likely will hear arguments in the case next spring, Courthouse News Services reported last month.

Both Senate Bill 976 and Assembly Bill 1709 go into effect on Jan. 1.

TikTok, in its lawsuit filed Wednesday, argues that AB 1709 essentially overrides SB 976, preventing a social media site from providing “addictive features,” even if parents consent to a minor’s use of the features. The company also argued it has restrictions in place to protect teens.

“The consequence is that a parent who has reviewed TikTok’s platform, linked her account to her fifteen-year-old’s account through Family Pairing, set a 30-minute daily screen-limit, enabled Restricted Mode, and concluded that a personalized For You feed introducing her daughter to new musicians and science educators is appropriate for her family has no ability under California law to make that choice,” Tik Tok’s attorneys wrote. “Nor does the fifteen-year-old daughter have any say in her online expression.”

California is home to some of the biggest social media companies, who increasingly are facing lawsuits over their products. California was among dozens of states that sued Meta in 2023, alleging it designed harmful and addictive features to hook children while misleading the public about the dangers. Some of the harms included depression, anxiety, addiction and body image issues as young people compare themselves to others on social media.

Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion and make changes to its Facebook and Instagram platforms, including hiding likes and reactions and blocking teens from using extreme makeup filters. The company also said it would enact a default two-hour daily time limit that teens can turn off only with parental permission, mute notifications during school hours and implement a night access mode that blocks its apps from midnight to 6 a.m.

In another landmark case, a Los Angeles jury in March found that Instagram and YouTube were responsible for the suffering of a Chico, Calif., woman who charged the platforms were addictive by design. The 20-year-old, who was awarded $6 million damages, said she became hooked on YouTube and Instagram in grade school.

WASHINGTON — A federal panel was expected Thursday to approve President Trump’s proposed memorial arch in Washington at the end of a meeting that drew dozens of opponents to a key part of the president’s push to leave his imprint on the nation’s capital.

The approval would clear a hurdle on the road to breaking ground on the project, and the administration has said it could launch construction within a day of the vote. But the proposed 250-foot tall gilded arch still faced legal challenges.

The remote, call-in hearing — which crashed repeatedly and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned, three-minute comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of the nearby Arlington National Cemetery.

The Trump-appointed chairman of the commission, however, launched into a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.

“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, the commission’s chairman.

As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget. In addition to Paoletta, the arch received support during the hearing from Republican lawmakers and a veteran who praised the administration’s efforts to build the monument.

The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.

Trump is working to remake Washington

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.

Many of the plans are being challenged in the courts, and three lawsuits have been filed opposing the arch. A judge has been asked to block the construction so long as lawsuits are still being litigated, and she could rule as early as Thursday.

Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.

“This arch would dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.

Opponents argue the arch is too big for the skyline and would disrupt carefully designed sight lines between landmarks in and around the capital — most prominently the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery — that were meant to symbolize the reunification of the North and the South after the Civil War.

But the opposition has done little to influence the members of the commission, which is led by some of Trump’s closest allies. Trump appointed Paoletta to chair the 12-member panel. Two other commissioners are also White House aides.

Trump wants an arch, but it faces legal challenges

Still, a federal judge on Monday complicated Trump’s efforts to move quickly on the project.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plans, said she must be told of any decision by the planning commission within an hour. The order set the same time limits for any decision by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.

Before Thursday’s hearing began, attorneys with the Justice Department filed a notice with Chutkan informing her that a contractor had already done site prep work on Oct. 31, with what she said appeared to be no authorization from the National Park Service.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits are calling for a halt to work on a monument that is set to be built on a patch of grass off a bridge that spans the Potomac River and connects Washington with Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va. When complete, the monument would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty without its pedestal.

Critics, including the plaintiffs, argue that the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.

Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.

Last week, the government submitted a 106-page plan for the arch that envisions a massive structure more than 12 stories high that includes a huge bronze statue of Lady Liberty with wings and carrying a torch with an eternal flame. The structure would include an observation deck with views to the east and the west and two mezzanines.

Inside the arch are rooms for program space, offices, a staff lounge, circular staircases, multiple elevators and a fire command center. The project proposes significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic on nearby roads. Administration officials have said the arch also will have a national security function.

In a recent hearing, Chutkan asked why the Trump administration was so keen on moving ahead quickly with the arch despite the ongoing lawsuits, aside from Trump’s “desire to bedazzle the city.”

Administration lawyer Robert Stander said the arch was “absolutely a high-priority project” and that any ruling delaying construction would impede the work of the government.

Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press.

Bold.

That’s what I initially thought when a political novice named Nithya Raman upset an incumbent in 2020 to become the first democratic socialist elected to the Los Angeles City Council.

That’s what I felt when Raman weathered well-funded challengers and loudmouth opponents to win reelection outright in the 2024 primary, despite representing a district redrawn to her disadvantage.

Bold was Raman filing to run for mayor just before the deadline. Taking on her ally Karen Bass, an L.A. institution she had endorsed just weeks earlier. Angering members of the Democratic Socialists of America’s L.A. chapter, who hadn’t planned to mount a mayoral campaign this year. Calling out L.A. establishment shibboleths like the pricey Convention Center renovation.

Picking Stevie Wonder’s “Living for the City” as a campaign theme song despite its stark lyrics of urban despair. Dancing with all the grace of Elaine from “Seinfeld” on primary night, despite being in third place at the time.

“Bold,” I texted a friend when we found out Raman was holding her Nov. 3 election night party at the Greek Theatre — either a brilliant move that would mark the start of a new day for L.A., or the worst venue choice for a political loser since Hillary Clinton threw her 2016 party in a hotel ballroom with a glass ceiling.

Bold was all Raman had going for her. Bass raised more funds and was backed by L.A.’s blue establishment. Haters, from the Los Angeles Police Protective League to the California Post to her fellow City Council members, painted Raman as an immature, insecure pinko wimp who didn’t know L.A. and barely could do her job, let alone run one of the world’s great cities.

But Raman didn’t stop. She left the hipster areas of the city where democratic socialists have found a base and campaigned in districts represented by council members who openly loathed her. She trotted out her imperfect Spanish to show that she wanted to reach Angelenos in any way possible and was vulnerable enough to reveal that she still was learning. Raman even teared up in public, which City Hall insiders have long mocked her for, when crying in the name of trying for a better L.A. is as bold as you can get.

Bold is what this metropolis needs. And bold is what Los Angeles is going to get now that Raman has taken out Bass in a campaign for the ages.

Critics will downplay the victory as more a verdict on a deeply unpopular mayor than an embrace of Raman — a tree stump could have trounced Bass, they’re already saying. But that’s not what heavyweights who have long aspired to become mayor — like billionaire developer Rick Caruso, L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez — were thinking when they had the chance to run this year and chose not to.

They saw the road to City Hall as too dangerous to risk their reputations on a potential loss. They weren’t bold.

I can’t say I saw any of this coming. I did call Raman the comeback kid of L.A. politics in a September columna, as indefatigable a politician as I’ve ever covered. But she spent the last month of her campaign apologizing for easily preventable gaffes that seemed to confirm all the skepticism about her. The attacks against Raman became nastier and more relentless, while Bass glommed on to anyone she thought might get her more votes, from walking alongside Caruso to standing next to future governor Xavier Becerra at Homegirl Cafe the day before the election.

I told a friend on the morning of the election that Bass probably was going to win. Angelenos wouldn’t be brave enough to go with Raman. As I wrote just a few weeks ago, Los Angeles has long gone with the old for mayor, when it could have gone bold.

Not this time.

Los Angeles Mayor-elect Nithya Raman, left, embraces her father, Venkit Raman, during an election night party at Boomtown Brewery.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

As mayor, Raman will need to be bolder than ever. Angelenos yearn for safer streets, an end to homelessness, a renewal of the dreamland that the city has represented for more than a century. They want less of the bureaucracy that has slowed down rebuilding in Pacific Palisades and made running a small business more of a punishment than a reward. They don’t want someone beholden to any ideology other than that the City of Angels needs to be heaven again.

Raman will assume office with nearly half of those who voted, not to mention the entire City Council, having supported her opponent. She needs to go in with the humility to convince naysayers, the conviction to get rid of things and people that aren’t making L.A. better, the smarts to keep what works, the courage to defy the DSA and the vision to make the city believe in itself once again.

Above all, Raman needs to be bold enough to not become another Karen Bass.

The lifelong Angeleno used to be bold when she was an activist in South L.A. pioneering multiracial coalitions and taking on the old guard. She was an effective Assembly member and Congress member. But City Hall sucked out her creativity, her optimism, her drive. She became cautious, then negative. By the end of the race, Bass seemed to be running only so she could say she kept away another DSA insurgent as a final gift to the city.

Bright-eyed outsiders drowning in the swamp — that’s the story of L.A. politics. It’s a story Raman needs to show can come to an end.

“Bold” ultimately is having hope that you can be the one who breaks systems that need to be obliterated. That was the other big note Raman incessantly hit during her campaign, culminating in her election night speech at the Greek.

“Hopelessness can be fatal for a city,” she told an adoring crowd that kept getting bigger and bigger until security closed off the entrances. “But this campaign refused to accept that. You refuse to accept that. You saw hopelessness, and you chose hope.”

Angelenos chose bold. Let’s hope Raman stays bold.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday signed a proclamation that he said will prevent future changes to the Oval Office and Cabinet Room as he has redesigned them.

“We’re making it a national monument and it will not be allowed to be touched by anybody,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump’s proclamation signing comes two days after voters, dissatisfied with his economic policies, threw dozens of Republicans out of office, delivering control of Congress to Democrats.

It’s also the third day this week in which the president, a real estate mogul, delivered remarks fixated on his pet projects in Washington, D.C., including an opulent ballroom and the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has overseen numerous design changes to various rooms, including the Oval Office, where he has filled the wall space with portraits, a copy of the Declaration of Independence and numerous golden accents.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.