Politics Desk

SACRAMENTO —  Could the Declaration of Independence be signed today by this crop of political leaders, particularly the one who occupies and defaces the White House?

Not just sign, but sincerely mean it.

Especially the guy who bangs a wrecking ball against the historic East Wing to make room for an incongruous ballroom monstrosity, who mars the sacred Oval Office with gold glitter and paves over the lovely Rose Garden.

But never mind these displays of egotism and tackiness that currently blemish landmarks throughout the nation’s capital, including the National Mall, traditional site of the annual July Fourth fireworks.

Back to my central question: Would there be enough patriots today to affix their John Hancocks to a rebellious document that bravely concludes:

“For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Political leaders would very likely sign the more famous preamble that includes this passage, widely regarded as the most important sentence in American history:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Those words probably would poll well and make salable talking points in local town halls. Even if the notion that all people are created equal would be recognized, as it was 250 years ago, as merely a lofty, hypocritical pie-in-the-sky goal. After all, the eloquent document’s principal author, Thomas Jefferson, owned 600 slaves.

We’ve made a world of progress since then on equality. But clearly President Trump and much of America today don’t agree that all people are created equal and guaranteed the same right, for example, of due process in court. People such as undocumented immigrants — the tired, the poor and the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

But that’s a heated and politicized 250-year-old debate that will continue indefinitely.

For me, the most striking and sincere sentence in the Declaration of Independence is the last one, in which 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, unanimously pledged “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”

“It was not a throwaway line,” notes UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar. “It was an acknowledgment that they were committing treason. It showed how deeply committed they were.”

The nation’s founders understood that in British King George III’s view, they were traitors. And if their rebellion failed, they’d be targets for execution.

“We must indeed all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately,” Benjamin Franklin supposedly told delegates.

In fact, nine of the signers died during the Revolutionary War from disease, prison hardships or combat wounds.

An estimated 6,800 U.S. soldiers died in combat and more than 8,500 were wounded. An additional 17,000 Americans perished.

Several signers sacrificed their fortunes, some to help pay for the war.

Gen. George Washington — an immensely rich Virginia planter — refused to accept a salary as commander in chief of the Continental Army. He bought much of the ammunition and fighting gear himself, then was reimbursed after the war.

Sacred honor? That meant what it said back then. The revolutionary leaders proved their character with sacrifice and bravery.

The nation’s first president, Washington, could not tell a lie, according to myth. Of course, he routinely lied during the war to deceive the British. But our 47th president, Donald Trump, is a pathological liar who seems to prevaricate daily.

Would Trump pledge his fortune to the cause of liberty?

That’s hard to imagine of a president who uses the office to promote and prosper from his own brand name. And whose income ballooned to $2.2 billion in 2025, his first year back in the White House after being booted by voters in 2020, a humiliation he still doesn’t have the integrity to acknowledge.

“President Trump is using the office to enrich himself and his family in ways we’ve never seen before,” Chemerinsky asserts.

Pledge his life? Please!

This is a man who once faked bone spurs to avoid the military draft. OK, he wasn’t the only young fellow who dodged combat in the unnecessary Vietnam War, which claimed the lives of 58,000 Americans.

But Trump has called America’s war dead “suckers” and “losers,” according to former aides. He denies it.

There’s no question he expressed contempt for the late Sen. John McCain, who spent more than five years as a North Vietnamese prisoner. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said. “I like people who weren’t captured.”

The Declaration of Independence was about severing the chains of a British monarchy and creating a government powered by the people with checks and balances.

Trump has attempted — often successfully — to govern as a monarch, ignoring the checks and balances of Congress and the judiciary. He has gotten away with it because bullied Republican congressional leaders have mostly rolled over like lapdogs.

But we may be seeing the early signs of a mild revolt against the king as Trump sinks further in the polls and we draw closer to the November elections.

That’s sort of what the founders had in mind: a government deriving its power “from the consent of the governed.” And when citizens are subjected to “absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

So could the Declaration be signed today? Hard to say. There’s no King George hovering over us. Only a wannabe king.

But, yes, I suspect there’d be a signing. Independence is a dominant gene in America’s DNA.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: What you should know about the $351.7-billion state budget Newsom just signed
Go your own way: Facing setbacks and resistance, Trump presses bid to reshape elections on multiple fronts
The L.A. Times Special: More money and patience could help California’s vote count

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

SACRAMENTO — When attorney Janice Rogers Brown left her job as Gov. Pete Wilson’s legal adviser last year to become a justice on the state’s 3rd District Court of Appeal, she cashed out the vacation, personal leave and holiday time accumulated in her years in state service.

Her unused 138 days off were converted into a lump sum payment of $52,359 when she moved to the judiciary, according to payroll records obtained from the state controller’s office.

“When I was in the governor’s office, I didn’t get much time off,” said Brown, who had earlier worked for the state attorney general.

The jurist was one of thousands of state employees who accumulate their vacations–and eventually cash them out–rather than use them.

While there is no question that they are entitled to the money–courts have ruled that the time is a vested right–the vast accumulation of vacation and leave time represents a sizable liability for state government.

As of June 30, California taxpayers owed their government employees more than $1.1 billion in accumulated vacation time, according to a controller’s office estimate.

And the amount is growing.

“We have given leave time as a benefit when we didn’t have cash,” said Patricia Pavone, chief of benefits and training for the state Department of Personnel Administration. “Now it’s coming back to haunt us. It’s borrowing in the future. Instead of a liability in 1991, we have it in 2001 in higher dollars when people retire.”

State policies that put a cap on the amount of leave time that can be accrued and eventually cashed out are not observed uniformly. A department computer survey of 72,000 state employee records found that 6,665 had accumulated vacation and leave time in excess of their limits.

More than 100 employees have accrued the equivalent of half a year’s pay or more, according to the study, and one unidentified individual has saved up more than 2,000 hours–the equivalent of a year’s pay.

As Pavone and others point out, unused leave time is cashed out at a worker’s final salary, which in most cases has risen with cost of living adjustments and promotions.

“The system is far too generous,” said one former high-level executive branch appointee, who cashed out a sizable amount of accumulated time when he left government. He asked not to be identified. “If you added the state holidays, the floating holidays, the annual leave hours, you can accumulate enormous amounts of time. You can take a reasonable or small amount of vacation and leave state service and have an enormous accumulation.”

Official state policy and negotiated employee contracts set the maximum at 50 days of vacation time, or 80 days for employees who decide to forgo sick days in exchange for a more generous “annual leave” system.

In contrast, federal government policy allows workers to carry only 30 days of accrued leave time into the next year. And several states also have a 30-day limit, including Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Washington, according to a survey conducted by Workplace Economics Inc. of Washington, D.C.

Many private businesses along with the federal government take a “use it or lose it” approach to vacation time, limiting their future liability by putting a cap on the amount that an employee can carry over into the next year.

However, California is legally unable to enforce its relatively generous limits, officials say. To take away excess time that has not been used at the end of the year would require a change in state law and would be subject to labor negotiations, said Pavone’s boss, personnel administration director David J. Tirapelle.

Instead, supervisors are supposed to sit down with their employees and set up vacation schedules that will ensure that vacation time is used.

“We want employees to take their vacations,” said Department of Personnel Administration spokeswoman Shirley McCall. “It’s there to use, not to accumulate for financial purposes.”

Generally, the higher the employees’ rank in the bureaucracy, the more likely that they will exceed the cap, department statistics show.

The highest ranking employees, people such as the governor’s former legal adviser, Justice Brown, say they find it almost impossible to get away for more than a few days at a time because of the demands of their jobs.

And career employees in certain departments–Emergency Services, Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol–find it difficult to use up their time as fast as they accumulate it.

When four ranking Highway Patrol officers left their jobs last year–to retire or because of disability–they took with them lump sum payments totaling $245,800 in vacation and compensatory time.

For example, former chief deputy Harry T. Adair cashed out 46 weeks of accumulated time worth $82,894.

Lynn Newquist, commander of personnel services for the CHP, said her agency tries to comply with state policy. “The commanders review vacation and annual leave balance usually around June 1 of each year and usually encourage employees to plan on time off,” she said.

But a broad exception to the state leave policy is made to allow for natural emergencies and public calamities, she said. And the unused time can accumulate quickly.

New state employees start earning as much as 16.5 days off a year–10.5 days of vacation plus six additional days if they decide to trade sick days, which cannot be cashed out, for added “annual leave” days.

After the third year, they begin to earn 22.5 days of leave time annually. The amount of annual leave time continues to climb in increments to a maximum of 30 days after 25 years.

Few private employers have been quite so magnanimous with benefits, according to a 1993 survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Only one in 10 companies surveyed offered their workers more than 20 vacation days off each year–even after 20 years of service.

And in an effort to balance the state budget during California’s lean recession years, state workers in 1991 were given one additional day off a month in exchange for a 5% pay cut. For most workers, the additional days were given for a year and a half, until the pay cut was restored. For many of the governor’s appointees, however, the pay cut remains in place, and they continue to accumulate the added time. (This added leave time does not count toward the state’s 80-day limit.)

“The theory is since we couldn’t give them a pay raise, we should give them a day off instead,” said Wilson press secretary Paul Kranhold.

But large numbers of state workers simply banked the time, waiting for the day when they would leave government service and cash it out.

There are a number of reasons why state workers find it easy to accumulate leave time rather than use it.

For one, the state is generous with paid holidays–13 per year. Only six other states observe that many, according to the Workplace Economics survey.

And many have been able to accumulate large amounts of compensated time off–or “comp time”–for working extra hours or on weekends. This is time that they can use in place of leave time for their vacations.

The top salaried state employees, including the governor’s top appointees and attorneys, are generally not eligible for comp time, although exceptions can be made in recognition of several days of unusually arduous work, said Edmund Brehl, labor relations counsel for the Department of Personnel Administration.

But this year the state auditor reported that a number of supervisors, managers and attorneys working for the Department of Fish and Game and the legal division at the Department of Transportation had been banking sizable amounts of comp time, in violation of state policy. The employees were using the time instead of vacation leave. One unnamed Caltrans attorney had banked almost a half a year’s worth of comp time–the equivalent of $43,891, the auditor’s report said.

Other Caltrans employees have been allowed to accumulate vacation time far in excess of state limits.

When former Caltrans district director Jerry B. Baxter left his $85,900-a-year post in Los Angeles last year for a top-paying job at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, he cashed out his vacation time.

The 161 days of leave time that he had accumulated in his 35 years with the department entitled him to a lump sum payment of $56,730.

Caltrans spokesman Jim Drago said part of the problem has been downsizing the agency. “As we’ve been reducing the size of the department, the opportunity for other people to take vacation time gets reduced,” he said.

Top employees at other departments say they find they cannot break away for prolonged vacations. Charles S. Poochigian, the governor’s former appointments secretary, said he rarely was able to get away for a vacation for more than a few days at a time while working for Wilson or for Gov. George Deukmejian.

“I’m not claiming I was overworked and underpaid,” said Poochigian, who last year ran successfully for the Assembly from Fresno. “I think the compensation was quite good given the job opportunity and satisfaction. But there are few opportunities for time off when you work for the governor or the Speaker of the Assembly, people at that level.”

Last year, Poochigian said he used up leave time in his successful campaign for the Legislature. But he still had enough left over after seven years of government service to receive a lump sum of $26,770 for his unused time.

When James W. Robinson left his job as Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s communications director last year, he cashed out his remaining vacation time–118 days and six hours–for $45,384. He had accumulated the time over more than a decade in government, starting under Gov. Deukmejian.

In a recent interview, Robinson told a reporter: “If you’re suggesting that a person in a relatively high-level, high-pressure job can quickly accumulate a lot of time that can then be cashed out in what sounds like big amounts, that’s absolutely right. That’s the way the system is set up.”

U.S. Navy sailor Chase Humes is moving back to his dad’s house in Texas.

Last month, the 25-year-old was notified that his “voluntary separation” from the Navy, which he’d applied for in May 2025, had been approved — he would be released from service. He and his wife must be out of their military housing in San Diego by mid-July.
Humes, a transgender man who’s been taking testosterone for seven years, was among at least 1,000 service members who chose to leave on their own terms rather than face involuntary separation following the military’s February 2025 ban on transgender service members. By choosing a voluntary separation, he’s been approved for an “honorable discharge,” which preserves access to benefits like Veterans Affairs healthcare that others worry they might not have access to.
Humes is one of about 4,200 transgender service members the Department of Defense estimates have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and could be subject to the policy. Advocates say the transgender service member population could exceed 15,000, according to a UCLA study from 2014.
A new California bill, Assembly Bill 1775, is intended to assist people who don’t have the certainty of Humes’s honorable discharge and worry about their future prospects if they were forced out of the military. Proponents say the bill, by San Diego Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, could help people who are given less than honorable discharge for hiding their transgender identity by helping them restore access to services.

In the meantime, service members like Humes are scouting their next move. The sailor and his wife have been searching for jobs near his dad’s house outside Houston. They can’t afford to start their life in San Diego, despite having fallen in love with the city’s accepting atmosphere.
“The whole reason I joined was for a better future for myself and my family, and it just got torn away,” Humes said of the separation.

Over a year in limbo

Among the flurry of executive orders President Trump issued at the start of his second term was the Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness order.

It rescinded President Biden’s policy permitting transgender people to openly serve in the forces, and asserted that gender dysphoria and using pronouns different than one’s biological sex at birth were inconsistent with the country’s “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”

What followed the Jan. 27, 2025 order was a series of legal challenges, some of which are still ongoing. Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military was likely unconstitutional, allowing a group of 28 plaintiffs from across the country to continue serving while their case proceeds.
Transgender troops were faced last spring with the choice of either voluntarily leaving the military, and in some cases receiving separation pay, or saying nothing and hoping they were not found out and “involuntarily separated” from the forces.

Humes is choosing to voluntarily leave the Navy after the Trump administration announced a policy banning transgender troops.

(Adriana Heldiz / CalMatters)

Kat Koehlmoos, who was in active duty for eight years and is now in an inactive Army Reserve status, said the military chain of command does not know she is transgender.
“Anyone could use my testimony today to report me to the Army Reserves here, and they would be required to take action to involuntarily discharge me from the U.S. military,” she told lawmakers during a hearing on the legislation last month.
Koehlmoos is a board member for SPARTA Pride, which advocates for transgender service members and co-sponsored the legislation. She said the bill came about in part because supporters are concerned the federal government might replicate the actions it took during its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allowed gay, lesbian and bisexual troops to serve if they concealed their sexual orientation. Some 2,000 troops were given less than honorable discharges in connection to the policy, and were shut out of some veterans’ benefits, according to a class-action lawsuit that was settled in 2025.

Koehlmoos said the group anticipates some people who are “involuntarily separated” under the 2025 transgender ban will be punished by the Department of Defense for not complying with the law.

“They may pursue other charges: accusing them of falsifying records or lying on federal documents, and attempt to get them a less than honorable discharge because of that,” she said, although SPARTA Pride does not know of any such cases so far.
If that happened in California, Ward’s bill would help those people qualify for expedited professional licensing in civilian careers like contracting and nursing and prioritize them for discharge upgrades as well as housing and support services.

Ward said he believes the benefits of all service members should be secured, whether they leave voluntarily or involuntarily.

“They have served honorably, and this was a separation that was involuntary, and they would deserve the full benefits that they otherwise would have been due had they been cisgender,” he said.

Unknown number affected

It’s unclear how many people could be affected by the legislation. Ward has repeatedly told fellow lawmakers that 2,900 of the federal government’s estimated 4,200 transgender troops — 69% — are either from California or are currently stationed in California. In an emailed statement in response to a question from CalMatters, Ward said the figures were mistakenly adopted after conversations with veterans’ advocates, and he would no longer use them to describe the number of affected California service members.
The bill would also require the state’s Department of Veterans Affairs to create a new housing and supportive services grant for veterans, which Ward said would fill a gap in existing housing support for veterans experiencing imminent homelessness. But the budget Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Monday does not include funding for that program.
Instead, it directs $2 million toward the state’s existing Veteran’s Military Discharge Upgrade Grant Program, which provides legal assistance for veterans fighting for a discharge upgrade.
As Humes prepares to leave San Diego, Ward’s bill is still pending in Sacramento. The legislation has cleared policy committees in both houses and awaits a hearing in the Senate appropriations committee.
Koehlmoos said the moment is stressful for most transgender troops — those being removed voluntarily, who have few options; the people who haven’t notified the chain of command, who may be living in fear; and the service members who will delay their transition, or never transition, because of the federal government’s ban on transgender troops.

“For me that’s heartbreaking, because that really is putting your life on hold,” she said.

Kate Wolffe writes for CalMatters.

July 5, 1811, is rightly remembered as one of the key dates in our republican history. It commemorates nothing less than the Declaration of Independence from the Spanish Monarchy, and is the central act of the political and legal process of independence that began on April 19, 1810, and led to the promulgation of Venezuela’s first Constitution on December 21, 1811.

On March 2, 1811, the General Congress of Venezuela was convened, becoming the first Parliament in our republican history. That General Congress, meeting in what was then the chapel of the Santa Rosa de Lima Seminary in Caracas, had as its fundamental mission the drafting of the 1811 Constitution. However, two months after beginning its sessions, the nascent Republic felt the need to issue a formal declaration of independence from the Spanish Crown, thus clarifying the political separation of the previous three hundred years. Once the Congress had decided to move towards a republican government—after refusing on April 1810 to obey the French regime that had invaded Spain—it was incompatible with that decision not to make an unrestricted declaration of independence from the Crown.

In the sessions of July 3, 4, and 5, the problem, which was certainly not insignificant, was openly addressed, among other reasons because it was necessary to convince those who were not entirely convinced of the legitimacy or timeliness of the process. Ultimately, the declaration of independence required to substantiate the reasons for declaring independence.

Therefore, the Act of Independence will be a very well-founded argument for the reasons why independence is being declared. The first paragraph will establish the context in which the declaration of independence will be justified:

“In the name of Almighty God, we, the representatives of the United Provinces of Caracas, Cumaná, Barinas, Margarita, Barcelona, ​​Mérida, and Trujillo, which form the American Confederation of Venezuela on the southern continent, assembled in Congress, and considering the full and absolute possession of our rights, which we justly and legitimately recovered on April 19, 1810, as a consequence of the events in Bayonne and the occupation of the Spanish throne by the conquest and succession of another new dynasty established without our consent, wish, before exercising the rights of which force had deprived us for more than three centuries, and which the political order of human events has restored to us, to make known to the world the reasons that have arisen from these same events and authorize the free exercise that we are about to make of our sovereignty.”

On July 5th, as the culmination of debates that had begun on July 3rd, independence was declared within the Congress. Later, in another session, the drafting of an Act to record the decision was decided. Therefore, although independence was declared by Congress on July 5th, the Act that justified it politically and legally was only read, approved, and signed on July 7th, having been drafted by Juan Germán Roscio and Francisco Isnardi.

The declaration of independence is a central element in our independence process, as it reflected the motivation behind the decision to sever political ties with the Monarchy under which these territories had lived for three centuries.

Indeed, the declaration of independence, from the perspective of the political and legal process that independence entailed, lies at the very heart, even temporally, of the first part of that process, which, at least in this initial and fundamental stage, was essentially civil. This stage begins with the events of April 19, 1810, and continues, among other events, with the establishment of the General Congress of Venezuela, and then proceeds, also among other events, with the Declaration of the Rights of the People of 1811 and the Constitution of 1811, of December 21.

Also from this perspective, it is worth noting that the Declaration of Independence occurred within the context of the first constituent process in our republican history. In fact, it can be pointed out that this constituent process, which began on April 19, 1810, and whose first stage culminated on December 21, 1811, is not only our first constituent process, but the only genuine constituent process that has existed in Venezuela. 

In the institutional history of Venezuela, only one truly constituent process can be identified, the constituent process of 1811. During this process, the most important political transformation of our history took place.

This paragraph from the Declaration of Independence summarizes the truly constituent decision:

“In consideration of all these solid, public, and irrefutable political reasons, which so strongly persuade us of the need to recover the natural dignity that the course of events has restored to us, and in the exercise of the imprescriptible rights that peoples possess to dissolve any pact, agreement, or association that does not fulfill the purposes for which governments were instituted, we believe that we cannot and should not maintain the ties that bound us to the government of Spain, and that, like all the peoples of the world, we are free and authorized to be independent of any authority other than our own, and to assume among the powers of the earth the equal place that the Supreme Being and nature assign to us and to which the succession of human events and our own good and utility call us.”

The Declaration of Independence is particularly clear in the final paragraph of the Act:

“We, therefore, in the name and with the will and authority vested in us by the virtuous people of Venezuela, solemnly declare to the world that its United Provinces are, and from this day forward, in fact and in law, free, sovereign, and independent States, and that they are absolved from all submission and dependence on the Crown of Spain or on those who claim or may claim to be its agents or representatives, and that as such a free and independent State, it has full power to adopt the form of government that is in accordance with the general will of its people, to declare war, to make peace, to form alliances, to arrange treaties of commerce, boundaries, and navigation, and to perform all other acts that free and independent nations perform.”

Thus, July 5th is a date to commemorate an essentially civil event, one of the few that has occurred since in our republican history: faced with the political situation resulting from the Napoleonic invasion of Spain, Venezuelans questioned the legitimacy of their submission to that Crown. The independence process was, therefore, in its origins, a question based on ideas and on the concern for the legitimate and correct path to follow as a nation.

For this reason, a military celebration on July 5th is actually a historical anachronism. The main celebration of July 5th should take place in the National Assembly, the successor to the General Congress of Venezuela, where independence was declared and the Act of Independence was signed.

Happy Birthday, America!

You turned 250 on Saturday and, honestly, you don’t look a day over 249. (Ha ha.)

Seriously, it’s perfectly understandable why there’s more gray on your scalp and deeper worry lines on your face. This last year has been another challenging one, to say the least. (And we thought the one cataloged 12 months ago in this space was rough.)

The country is caught up in an unpopular, on-again, off-again war with Iran that was recklessly launched by President Trump with far more swagger than foresight. In an utterly predictable move, Iran choked off the the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway for the world’s oil, sending gasoline prices skyrocketing. Though they’ve fallen since the announcement of a shaky ceasefire agreement, the cost of filling up is still significantly higher than a year ago.

Of course, costlier oil means virtually everything else has become more expensive. Trump was reelected in good part because he vowed to tame inflation on his very first day in office. Instead, it’s reached a three-year high.

The ground beef served up at many July 4 cookouts costs 75 cents a pound more than it did a year ago. A package of hamburger buns is up 15 cents. The price of hot dogs and other picnic staples have also increased, along with just about every other item at the grocery store.

Chew that over with your corn on the cob. (Up roughly 2.5% from July 2025.)

Meanwhile, Trump enriched himself to the tune of $2.2 billion during his first year in office alone. Treating the U.S. treasury like his personal cash cow, the president has lavished hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on vanity projects such as a personally kitted out Air Force One — a “gift” from Qatar that Trump plans to keep after retirement — and a gilded White House ballroom, rising where the demolished East Wing used to stand. Plans are underway for a grand, marble arch in Washington celebrating, well, you know who.

At the same time, Trump has squandered money and resources pursuing political vendettas, persecution of his enemies and fruitless investigations like the one probing “theft” of the 2020 election and “vandalism” at the algae-clogged Reflecting Pool he promised and failed to rehab.

All this while millions of Americans have lost healthcare coverage and/or federal food assistance, all thanks to the One Big Billionaire Bounty bill that Trump signed into law a year ago.

It’s all a bit unnerving isn’t it, America? You’re on edge in a way you haven’t been in at least a generation.

In Minnesota, in the dead of winter, two of your citizens were gunned down by federal officers as they engaged in that most American of exercises, registering dissent against the policies of their government. From sea to shining sea, innocent Americans have been arrested — and sometimes shipped abroad — and immigrant communities cower in fear of federal agents who often seem bent more on meeting deportation quotas than meting out justice.

You’re divided, America, in ways no one alive has ever seen.

It starts at the very top. Trump acts as though he’s president of a favored rump group — his political supporters — rather than the nation as a whole. He’s used your 250th birthday not to celebrate those many grand and glorious things that hold us together as Americans but to bask in the tanning-bed glow of his immeasurable self-regard.

But, heck, if it’s any consolation on this star-spangled holiday weekend, the country has been through worse. Much worse. And you, America, have not only survived but in many ways grown stronger by surmounting obstacles, facing down your flaws and overcoming some knee-buckling, soul-crushing challenges.

Slavery. Civil war. Racist exclusionary laws. Genocide against indigenous peoples. Two worldwide conflicts. Depression. Financial crises. And too many deadly natural disasters — fire, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes — to enumerate.

Your treatment of some Americans, it should be said, hasn’t always been fair and just. It still isn’t.

People are despairing over the Supreme Court and its genuflecting deference to the president. The justices of its conservative majority have done just about everything short of handing Trump a crown and scepter to reign as a virtually untouchable, imperial president.

But it’s worth noting that earlier court majorities held that Black Americans — “beings of an inferior order,” in the words of the wretched Dred Scott decision — could be denied citizenship, that racial segregation was constitutional and that compulsory sterilization based on eugenics was perfectly fine from a legal standpoint.

That ugly, sordid history won’t necessarily make anyone feel better about the current state of affairs, nor should it. But it does offer some perspective and, with it, hope.

This weekend is best celebrated honoring the country’s many good things and the bright, shining place that America aspires to be, with liberty and justice for all. So chin up! Have another slice of birthday cake, America, and don’t worry about the calories — you really do look terrific for 250!

Going forward it’s up to us, your citizens, to keep working toward that more perfect union mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Whatever ails you, America, the remedy resides with we the people and the power we hold, particularly at the ballot box.

Unhappy with the wrecking crew that’s heedlessly chain-sawed federal programs and allowed Trump to money-grub with both fists, defile the White House and undermine our rule of law? Send a message and vote ‘em out, starting in November’s midterm election. And bear in mind the damage that’s been wrought come the 2028 presidential race.

Don’t stop believing that, as dark and difficult as things may seem right now, better days lie ahead.

That undimmed and abiding faith is what makes America great.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plans to commemorate America’s 250th anniversary of independence with a rally on the National Mall were complicated on Saturday by severe storms that gathered near Washington, forcing event organizers to order an evacuation.

“Freedom 250 will share updates on programming and doors reopening,” Freedom 250 spokesperson Danielle Alvarez said in a statement that encouraged participants to seek shelter at museums and federal buildings near the National Mall. Washington’s metro system also said several of its underground stations were available for shelter.

Plans for fireworks were still moving forward in other cities including Chicago and New York, where tall ships passed the Statue of Liberty earlier in the day, recalling the fanfare around America’s 200th anniversary in 1976.

Anticipation for the milestone holiday has been building for much of the year, serving as an opportunity for Americans to reflect on their complicated history as onetime colonists of an empire who became a superpower of their own. Organizers of celebrations months in the making had to adjust or cancel activities entirely as much of the East Coast sweltered under heat that approached and in many cases surpassed triple digits.

Heat is defining the big weekend in many places

The disruption was particularly acute in Washington, where signs at the Great American State Fair posted an alert shortly after 7 p.m. ET encouraging participants to leave the area. As the order to evacuate was played over loudspeakers on the National Mall, some people appeared to be standing in place, talking with those around them and not exiting the area, while others were walking toward exits. National Guard troops told people to leave.

The U.S. Secret Service announced it had temporarily closed checkpoints to screen attendees ahead of Trump’s speech, which was scheduled to begin around 10 p.m. ET.

Crowds were building in the area several hours before Trump’s speech. Tina Hale, 58, of Cohoes, New York, watched three of her grandchildren children dip their hands into a pool of water near a museum. Hale pointed toward the sky and urged them to look up as three military jets roared above the crowd.

“If that doesn’t make you proud to be an American,” she said.

David Koshko, 42, and his wife, Jennifer Koskho, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, came to Washington for a baseball game but planned to stay for the city’s fireworks show. After baking in the heat for hours during the Pittsburgh Pirates’ win over the Washington Nationals, they took a break in the shade of an overpass near the National Mall to plot their next stop.

“Just to be a part of the 250 years (anniversary) is an amazing thing,” said David Koshko, a commercial driver and veteran of the Marine Corps reserves.

In Philadelphia, fireworks began to crack as early as midday in the birthplace of the nation near the site where the Declaration of Independence was adopted by delegates to the Second Continental Congress. Hundreds of visitors were gathering at Independence Hall in the sweltering heat to await the celebrations coinciding with the France-Paraguay World Cup knockout game at Philadelphia Stadium, which began with commemorations of the holiday.

“It’s one big party in here,” Carlos Alban, who traveled to Philadelphia from Chicago to watch the match, said as he arrived at the stadium, adding that he spotted a fan in the parking lot dressed as one of the Founding Fathers.

About 45 minutes before another World Cup match in Houston, a message from astronauts aboard the International Space Station noting the holiday was beamed into the stadium.

In New York, tall ships, with their masts, rigging and white sails outlined against a blue sky, made a procession around the Statue of Liberty and up the Hudson River.

The 43 ships were followed by a display of aerial might with a stealth bomber and the Navy’s Blue Angels. Patrouille de France, the French Air Force’s acrobatic teams, flew over New York Harbor with their red, white and blue trails, evoking images of the American flag.

“We got up early and just rode our bikes about a mile down here to come see the scene,” said Oona Moore, a Jersey City, New Jersey, resident who took in the New York festivities. “We saw the tall ships and we saw the planes, you know, all different manner of military aircraft. I’ve never seen it so close and in the sky at the same time.”

At George Washington’s Mount Vernon, people took the Oath of Allegiance to become U.S. citizens. They stood with eyes closed and hands over hearts for the national anthem.

An uneasy nation gets ready to celebrate

Trump spoke Saturday with world leaders including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who both congratulated the U.S. as they engage in a war. The president has also heard from Britain’s King Charles III and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent days.

Inside the U.S., The celebrations are unfolding against the backdrop of a deep divide this election year that has been expanding for years, visible in everything from political expression to cultural norms to age-old questions over race, class and immigration.

At Mount Rushmore on Friday, Trump spoke of communism as a “mortal threat to American liberty” with the Republican president saying it was more dangerous than either World War or 9/11.

Without naming Trump, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a Democrat who is also a democratic socialist and recently backed several successful congressional candidates in their primaries, appeared to reference Trump during a speech Friday.

“Those ideals upon which our nation was built — they are strong enough to endure any authoritarian regime, but only if we reach for them,” he said.

Vice President JD Vance said small but loud voices would speak on America’s birthday about its imperfections instead of its greatness.

“They will tell you that America is just another country, where the weak struggle against the strong,” Vance said speaking aboard the USS Kearsarge in New York Harbor.

Sloan writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Emily Wang in New York, Luis Andres Henao in Philadelphia, Kristie Rieken in Houston, Sarah Rankin in Richmond, Va., Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, S.C., Safiyah Riddle in Los Angeles and Jesse Bedayn, Anna Johnson, Will Weissert and Michael Kunzelman contributed to this report.

Reporting from Sacramento — Proposition 10, a ballot measure to expand rent control in California, was decisively rejected by voters Tuesday in a victory for the state’s top landlords who spent millions to defeat it.

The campaign was one of the most expensive initiative battles in California history with more than $104 million in total fundraising. With Proposition 10’s failure, a statewide ban on most new forms of rent control remains in effect.

“The stunning margin of victory shows California voters clearly understood the negative impacts Prop. 10 would have on the availability of affordable and middle-class housing in our state,” Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Assn., said in a statement.

It’s expensive to be a tenant in California. Will Proposition 10’s rent control expansion help? »

The campaign to expand rent control was pitched to voters as housing has become less affordable in the state. About 9.5 million renters — more than half of California’s tenant population — are burdened by high rents, spending at least 30% of their income on housing costs, according to a UC Berkeley study.

To address the issue, tenant advocates decided to go after the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state law passed 23 years ago that blocks cities and counties from imposing rent control on single-family homes and apartments built after 1995, among other prohibitions. After a bill to repeal Costa-Hawkins failed in a legislative committee in January, groups turned in signatures for a ballot measure, Proposition 10, that would have done the same thing. Had the initiative passed, local governments would have been free to add new restrictions on rents, something Los Angeles, Berkeley and other cities were considering.

But polling showed Proposition 10 never really caught on with voters. A September survey from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California revealed just 36% of likely voters backed the initiative. A month later a poll from the same organization showed support had decreased to 25%.

That drop came amid a blitz of TV advertisements from opponents who, as of Friday, had raised nearly $80 million to defeat Proposition 10. They argued that expanding rent control would increase the state’s housing shortage, exacerbate overall affordability issues and hurt the investments of single-family homeowners. Much of the funding for the No on 10 campaign came from national real estate investors with large apartment portfolios in California.

The Proposition 10 campaign was watched beyond California’s borders. Market analysts have paid close attention to the campaign, which had the potential to spur similar rent control measures across the country. The National Multifamily Housing Council, an apartment industry group, called Proposition 10 an “existential threat to the industry.”

Supporters of Proposition 10 raised $24.6 million, 94% of it coming from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit. Backers contended that the initiative offered the quickest and cheapest way to provide housing cost relief for renters, and that cities and counties should be allowed to tailor rent stabilization rules to their communities.

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said the campaign revealed the influence that corporate landlords have over the state’s housing market.

“They may be enjoying their victory at the polls tonight,” Weinstein said. “But this campaign exposed who they are and what they represent.”

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has argued that housing stability is crucial to its mission of serving low-income AIDS patients, now has lost four high-profile California and Los Angeles ballot measures it’s bankrolled since 2016. Voters have also rejected statewide efforts to limit prescription drug prices and mandate the use of condoms in adult films and a Los Angeles measure to slow growth in the city.

Despite Proposition 10’s defeat, rent control is likely to remain in the spotlight. Residents in Sacramento, the state’s sixth-largest city, have qualified a 2020 initiative that would implement rent controls on the city’s older apartment buildings. Democrat Gavin Newsom, who was elected governor on Tuesday, opposed Proposition 10, but he has said the state should have stronger protections for tenants.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation officials have said that if Proposition 10 didn’t pass they would immediately begin discussing whether to push a stronger rent control measure for the 2020 statewide ballot. After the results came in Tuesday night, Weinstein said he wanted to work with Newsom first.

“Gavin Newsom, who is the incoming governor of California, has said affirmatively that he intends to solve this problem. I take that at face value. It’s incumbent upon us to exhaust that opportunity before we go to the ballot again.”

Coverage of California politics »

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

UPDATES:

11:45 p.m.: This article was updated with quotes from an interview with Michael Weinstein, which replaced written statements from Proposition 10 supporters.

10:12 p.m.: This article was updated with a quote from Proposition 10 proponents.

This article was originally published at 9:45 p.m.

Reporting from Manila — The contrast was inescapable. At the top of a local newspaper’s front page here was a huge photo of the new Canadian prime minister, in a trim suit and wind blowing through his hair, captioned “ladies’ choice.” Next to him was a workmanlike headline over a separate story: “Obama to give PH two warships.”

President Obama, once a glamorous figure among world leaders, has been replaced as the “It Boy” of the summit circuit by Canada’s newly elected Justin Trudeau, as heads of state meet up this week in Turkey, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Though Obama came to Manila for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit with a new financial commitment to bolster the Philippine maritime fleet, the nation’s hearts and minds seemed won over by the 43-year-old Canadian, who lighted up Twitter with the designation #APECHottie.

NEWSLETTER: Get the day’s top headlines from Times Editor Davan Maharaj >>

If there was any resentment on the part of a president whose hair is more salt than pepper these days, it didn’t show as he and Trudeau sat down here for their first official meeting.

Obama warned him: “If you don’t want to gray like me, you need to start dyeing it soon.”

“So young and yet so cynical,” Trudeau joked in response.

Though Trudeau’s global image as a hip, next-generation leader mirrors Obama’s of seven years ago, Trudeau’s views on some of Obama’s biggest policy priorities provide a more sobering contrast.

Trudeau has been ambivalent on the massive Pacific trade deal Obama is pushing, and he reiterated to Obama on Thursday that he planned to follow through on his campaign pledge to end Canada’s part in the air campaign against Islamic State — though his nation will ramp up efforts to train local fighters in Iraq and Syria.

“Canada continues to be a strong player, doing its part – and more than its part,” Trudeau said.

Differences in viewpoint between two North American leaders is familiar. Canadian leaders have long tried to show independence from the United States in matters of foreign policy. Trudeau’s father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, was one of the first Western leaders to embrace communist China and grew so close to Fidel Castro that the Cuban leader served as an honorary pallbearer at his funeral.

“Canada and the U.S. have not always seen eye-to-eye when there’s a Liberal government in power, something that stems from Trudeau’s own party and parentage,” said Antonia Maioni, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal who researches and writes about the Canadian political process and social policy. “It stems from the Canadian attitude that emerged under Pierre Trudeau that was about Canada finding its own way in international relations and not just being part of the U.S. orbit.”

But in the budding relationship between Obama and the younger Trudeau, there may be potential for collaboration, given the youth-oriented campaign that Trudeau ran – Obama noted the similarity to his own “hope and change” message – and their shared affinity for progressive social policies, especially on climate change.

Given that common ground, said Maioni, Trudeau may eventually drift more closely toward Obama’s point of view on national security and trade, too.

“A lot of people in Trudeau’s inner circle were inspired by and have taken advice from people around Obama,” she said. “That may open a conversation that would allow for change.”

Obama and Trudeau on Thursday began to explore an area in which they may be able make progress together – the fight against climate change.

Obama’s recent announcement to reject a Canadian company’s request to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would have carried crude oil from Alberta to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries was fortunate for Trudeau, said James Coleman, a legal scholar at the University of Calgary who studies environmental and energy regulation. Even though Trudeau was in favor of the pipeline, he is helped by the timing of the debate over it, which came during the tenure of his predecessor, the Conservative Party’s Stephen Harper.

“Given that President Obama was going to reject the pipeline, sooner was better for him,” said Coleman. “Because now it will be easier for him to pin it on Harper.”

Added Coleman: “It’s not hard to predict a little more friendliness between Obama and Trudeau than there was between Obama and Harper.”

Trudeau, whose graduate studies were in environmental science, emphasized the similarities in his and Obama’s climate doctrines. He noted that Canadians feel that their government hasn’t done enough to protect the environment, and he vowed to set and meet tough targets for carbon reduction.

Obama echoed the sentiment, arguing that transition from fossil fuels “does not happen overnight,” especially by nations that produce and consume a lot of oil and gas. Seated next to Trudeau, the father of three young children, Obama also made an argument about parenthood.

“If we want to preserve this planet for our kids and grandkids, then we’re going to have to shift increasingly away from carbon-emitting energy sources,” Obama said.

“This is going to be a messy, bumpy process worldwide,” he said, “but I am confident that we can get it done.”

michael.memoli@latimes.com

christi.parsons@latimes.com

Memoli reported from Manila and Parsons from Washington.

For more White House coverage, follow @mikememoli and @cparsons

ALSO

Why fewer Mexicans are leaving their homeland for the U.S.

House votes to block Syrian refugees, ignoring White House veto threat

Islamic State presence in the U.S. ‘the new normal,’ FBI director says

Rosie, say it’s not so! The news last week was surprising: Rosie O’Donnell’s bodyguards had applied for permits for concealed handguns. Few have declared their opposition to guns as strongly as O’Donnell. For someone who ambushed Tom Selleck on her television show last year on gun control, called for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment and emceed the so-called Million Mom March in Washington, the advice that O’Donnell has freely given others no longer seems to match what she thinks is best for her own family.

Earlier in May on ABC-TV’s “This Week,” Rosie was asked if she opposed concealed handgun laws. She declared: “Of course, I’m against them.” She has claimed that “I also think you should not buy a gun anywhere.”

O’Donnell previously has been accused of trying to generate attention for her flagging television show by attacking Selleck, despite her agreement with him not to discuss guns. Her credibility was tarnished by appearing in ads for Kmart, a major seller of guns.

Yet the current hypocrisy is more fundamental. A spokeswoman for O’Donnell justifies guns for the talk show host’s bodyguards because of threatened violence. Yet how does her concern differ from what motivates anyone who gets a gun for self-defense? Why does O’Donnell give others advice that she doesn’t find applicable to herself?

O’Donnell’s response that she still does not “personally own a gun” misses the whole point. Of course, she does not need her own gun when her bodyguards have their guns with them.

Unfortunately, O’Donnell joins a long list of people who demand that others disarm even while they keep their own armed bodyguards. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, for example, surrounds himself with armed guards even when he visits relatively low-crime areas, but he opposes issuing handgun licenses for people to keep a gun at home in even the most dangerous parts of the city. (Chicago has the highest murder rate of any large city in the U.S.)

For their own safety, people should not follow what O’Donnell preaches, but what she does: Get armed protection. As she apparently believes for her own safety, and as the statistics bear out, passive behavior is simply not the wisest course of action. The chance of serious injury from an attack is 2 1/2 times greater for women offering no resistance than for those resisting with a gun. Having a gun is by far the safest course of action, especially for people who are relatively weak physically–women and the elderly.

Concealed handgun permit holders not only protect themselves but often others, though this receives very little attention. Take the following two incidents occurring the same week as O’Donnell’s story hit the media:

In Florida, a robber at a Wal-Mart store slashed two employees with a knife, but before he could cause further injuries 53-year-old Sandra Suter pulled out a pistol and said, “I have a concealed weapons permit. Either drop the knife, or I’ll shoot you.” After repeating her threat, the robber dropped his knife.

In Indiana, 70-year-old George Smith stopped two armed robbers at a store because he had a gun. As one of the store clerks saw it, “I think George was the real hero. He saved my life.” He likely saved other lives as well, but probably no one outside of Indianapolis has heard of this story.

Unfortunately, no one like Suter or Smith was present at Wendy’s last week in Brooklyn when five workers were killed. If they had been, and been able to prevent the attack, would that have gotten the same attention? Despite the focus in the media, people use guns defensively about five times more frequently than guns are used to commit crime.

Greenwich, Conn., where O’Donnell lives, is one of the wealthiest and safest cities in the United States. Most people there can sleep well at night without a gun for protection. This is not true in many other places, particularly in poorer urban areas. As long as inexpensive guns have not been outlawed, many poor, vulnerable citizens will continue to rely on guns for self-protection.

McDonnell may be able to afford bodyguards and pride herself that she does not “personally own a gun.” Yet many other people have just as great a need for protection. Guns are the poor man’s bodyguard.

WASHINGTON — President Trump ushered in the 250th anniversary of American independence on Friday with soaring rhetoric about American exceptionalism before veering into a darkly political speech with warnings about a sinister threat of communism that evoked one of the country’s ugliest chapters.

“Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty,” he said from Mt. Rushmore. “It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor or even 9/11.”

While the language was similar to several other speeches Trump has given in recent days, it was notable for being delivered in a national park that commemorates some of America’s most prominent presidents. And it swerved from the typically apolitical, unifying speeches past presidents like Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan have delivered during earlier high-profile Independence Day celebrations.

Indeed, Trump’s language evoked the Red Scare of the 1950s, when purported communists were persecuted and blacklisted from jobs across America, from Washington to Hollywood.

In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, delivered his own address that cast America as a nation of contradictions “working each day towards the perfection in which it was conceived.”

The president’s speech capped an Independence Day eve that was otherwise most notable for a brutal heat wave that gripped much of the eastern portion of the country. Officials have warned those celebrating the holiday to stay hydrated and take air-conditioned breaks as needed.

Philadelphia canceled its Salute to Independence parade Friday. The Great American State Fair in Washington shut down in the early afternoon before reopening at 5 p.m. The Capitol Fourth concert, a mainstay of the holiday in Washington, opened its gates a little later than normal but ultimately moved forward with appearances from Patti LaBelle, Trace Adkins, members of the Artemis II space mission and fireworks over George Washington’s Mount Vernon. An Independence Day parade scheduled for Saturday in Washington was canceled.

Looking for a place to cool off

By early afternoon Friday in Washington, hundreds of people were roaming the grounds of the National Mall, home to the Great American State Fair. They snapped photos of the flyovers and tried to cool off inside tents that offered $9 lemonades and $23 turkey legs. Many were dressed in patriotic colors, their faces glistening with sweat.

Glenn Brooks, who was pardoned by Trump for his participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, said he was “thankful to be participating in this grand event.”

The activity culminates in the main event Saturday, when fireworks will erupt in communities across the U.S., along with backyard cookouts and block parties. Trump will deliver another speech at the National Mall in Washington before what is being billed as a historically massive fireworks show.

As the rest of the country struggled under stifling heat, the Pacific Northwest enjoyed temperatures in the 60s with even a few light showers.

World Cup soccer fans in Seattle were staying cool Friday as they got psyched up for Monday’s big game between the U.S. and Belgium. In the nearby suburb of Issaquah, Megan Kurowski, 31, brought her two dogs to the dog park so they could get some exercise before she went to work.

Kurowski said she was feeling positive about America’s 250th anniversary and was planning a possible paddleboard to watch the fireworks.

“Everyone’s just, from what it seems, been pretty excited about celebrating 250 years,” she said.

The holiday is unfolding at a unique time in the U.S. The anniversary has served as an opportunity for the country to reflect on its history while also reminding it of the political polarization of the moment.

On a holiday of unity, there is an undercurrent of division

In New York, Mamdani, a Democrat, did not mention Trump by name, but parts of his speech appeared aimed at the president’s divisive rhetoric.

“For generation after generation, we have been told that when the world has sent its people to our shores, it has not sent its best,” Mamdani said in an apparent reference to a common criticism from Trump. “Those ideals upon which our nation was built — they are strong enough to endure any authoritarian regime, but only if we reach for them.”

Freedom 250, an organization aligned with the White House, has come to rival America250, a bipartisan group founded by Congress a decade ago. Freedom 250 has organized much of the activity in Washington, including the Great American State Fair. America250 is behind the ball drops unfolding in many cities, including New York, and will host a concert in Los Angeles on Saturday.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults feel “proud” about the country’s 250th anniversary, according to an April survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Roughly 3 in 10 said “excited” describes their emotions.

Ahead of the holiday, auto technician Joe Fuqua-Bejarano in Topeka, Kansas, sized up “what makes us awesome” as a people. It is clearly not the politics, in his view, but rather resilience.

“We’ve just all got to find unity somewhere, whether that’s in laughter or perseverance, and keep everybody cool,” he said from the fireworks stand where he is doing a booming business as a side hustle.

Christina Zhou, a 25-year-old research assistant from Cambridge, Mass., said she would aim to “think about just things that are happening locally.”

“It feels a little bit more like within our own personal control,” she said.

Jerry Chin of Newcastle, Wash., said he wasn’t aware that the U.S. was celebrating its 250th anniversary and planned to stay low-key around the holiday. He and his wife generally skip the fireworks and instead stay home with their fearful dogs to keep them calm.

“America’s a great place, but there are some concerns,” he said. Chin, 55, and his wife worry about healthcare and issues around staying healthy, but they also stress about politics.

“We’re Democrats, so kind of given up hope,” he said. “Just feel that it is the way it is. I don’t know if there could be change.”

At the National Archives in Washington, visitors made their way through the Rotunda to look at the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — and to escape the heat outside.

Michael Dresdner, 60, traveled from West Orange, N.J., with his wife, Cindi, 57, and about two dozen other people to be part of the America 250 celebrations. He said their group of travelers included people on both sides of the political aisle — and that is what gave him hope for the future of American democracy.

“We are all here, and we all love America,” he said.

Sloan, Peoples and Price write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York. Associated Press writers Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Anthony Izaguirre in New York, John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., Michael Casey in Cambridge, Mass., and Calvin Woodward, Didi Tang, Gary Fields and Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, David Zahniser and Melissa Gomez, giving you the latest on city and county government.

Los Angeles voters won’t get a chance to increase the size of the City Council. They won’t take up a plan to give noncitizens the right to vote, either.

These and other proposed ballot measures got put on the back burner, delayed for a future year as the council scrambled to finish its work before its summer break.

One proposal did survive the sometimes blunt vetting process: decreasing the number of council meetings.

On Tuesday, council members sent voters a measure for the Nov. 3 ballot that would only require a single council meeting per week. The City Charter currently mandates a minimum of three.

Councilmember Tim McOsker was among those pushing for the change, saying it will make the council more efficient and effective.

“It will also allow council members to take care of more business in their districts,” said McOsker, who represents neighborhoods stretching from Watts to the Port of Los Angeles.

The council, which voted 12-0 to place the measure on the ballot, has been thinking about cutting back on the number of meetings for a few years.

In 2024, McOsker and Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky tried to place a measure before voters that would have made the same change. But other council members were not prepared to put it on the ballot.

Yaroslavsky said at the time that much of the city’s public comment period was occupied by “15 people screaming racist, misogynistic, antisemitic epithets.”

Any change to the City Charter would not preclude the council from scheduling additional special meetings.

The proposal drew sharp criticism from Rob Quan, an organizer with Unrig LA, who spent much of the past year tracking the effort to rewrite the charter. He fears that a reduction in meetings will also lead to a decrease in opportunities for Angelenos to address their council representatives.

One of the reasons council members, who each make $244,727 a year, don’t get as much business done is that they frequently use their Friday meetings for ceremonial activities — honoring civic leaders, community groups, youth sports teams, Dodgers superstar Shohei Ohtani and beloved bands from the 80s.

“Do we really need that? Not necessarily,” Quan said.

Quan said the proposal to cut the number of meetings received zero vetting from the council. The 13-member Charter Reform Commission, which spent nearly a year examining various changes to city government, took up the idea and rejected it.

If voters approve the change, council meetings could end up resembling those of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which meets most Tuesdays at 9:30 a.m. The supervisors frequently don’t finish their business until well after 5 p.m.

Former prosecutor will stay away from Lee case

We told you last week that Councilmember John Lee is suing the city Ethics Commission over a $138,000 fine he received for allegedly violating city gift laws — a case that stems largely from a notorious 2017 trip to Las Vegas. The council responded to that lawsuit by voting to retain the law firm Hecker Fink to defend the Ethics Commission, at a cost of $120,000.

As it turns out, at least one Hecker Fink lawyer knows plenty about that Vegas trip.

Mack Jenkins, who heads the firm’s L.A. office, was one of the federal prosecutors who brought the criminal case against Lee’s onetime boss, Councilmember Mitchell Englander, in 2020. That case stems from the duo’s trip to Sin City in 2017.

Federal prosecutors said Englander and Lee, listed in court filings as Staffer B, were plied with fancy meals, expensive alcohol and other freebies by people seeking to do business with the city. Englander went a step further, walking into a casino bathroom and picking up $10,000 cash in an envelope from a Los Angeles-area businessman. He later pleaded guilty to providing false information to investigators.

The city’s lawyers say they cannot represent the Ethics Commission because Lee is one of their clients. But does Jenkins’ history with the case create any type of conflict for Hecker Fink?

Nancy Jackson, a spokesperson for the Ethics Commission, says no. In an email, she said Jenkins will be walled off from Hecker Fink’s work on the matter.

“That former prosecutor is recused from the case and will have no involvement in the case,” she said.

What went wrong with the lighting assessment?

Property owners resoundingly rejected a recent request to pay more to fund streetlight repairs. One of the reasons might have been the wording on their ballot.

The city mailed letters asking if they would like to increase the yearly assessment, using language that didn’t offer a lot of explanation.

In the section where property owners had the option to vote yes, the ballot read: “Yes I am in favor of the proposed maximum assessment for Fiscal Year 2026/2017 and the proposed annual cost of living increases as described in the attached notice beginning Fiscal Year 2026/2027.”

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the council’s Public Works Committee, said the phrasing could have been a lot more persuasive — and better explained the need for additional money.

“Some of the language that was put out was not written in a way for us to be clear about what we were doing, and instead used language that really turned people off,” she said.

The assessment, which has not changed since 1996, currently generates about $45 million a year. For the average single-family home, the current payment is $58 annually.

The increase would have brought the average annual bill to $117, generating an additional $80 million a year as the city faces a backlog of broken streetlights due to stagnant funding and a rise in vandalism and theft.

After the vote failed to pass, the council approved a motion directing city staff to identify $6.6 million for the Bureau of Street Lighting. Without that money, the city will face “an immediate threat to public safety and our infrastructure at large,” the motion said.

“There will be a 15% cut in field workforces by the end of July 2026, making the timeline for streetlight repair to reach 2 years when the City had previously been able to do this work within 7 days,” said the motion authored by Hernandez and Yaroslavsky.

Hernandez voiced frustration over the defeat of the assessment. She took aim at Proposition 218, the state law that restricts how local governments can raise money, saying it disenfranchises renters who have to “live with the conditions that property owners choose for them.”

She added that the ballot measure’s wording, which she said was crafted by the City Attorney’s Office, failed to capture the reason for the increase.

“People really think that the main reason our lights are out is copper wire theft,” she said. “But the fact is that over 60% of our street lights are out because of lack of maintenance, because we just do not have the money to do that work.”

Hernandez said that next time, she would push for more community engagement so voters understand why the increased funding is needed. She also raised the possibility of reforming Proposition 218.

“No matter what, I’m going to get these streetlights on, and if that’s figuring different things out until we can get a significant effort to do another assessment, then we will do that,” she said.

State of play

— COLD FEET: The L.A. City Council decided against putting two major measures on the Nov. 3 ballot. One measure would have provided a pathway for noncitizens to vote in local elections, while the other would have given the council more authority over the LAPD.

— COSTLY COLLISION: The city of Los Angeles will pay $20 million to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of a teen who lost his leg in a 2023 hit-and-run in Boyle Heights. The lawsuit blamed the city for an intersection lacking signage, lighting and other traffic controls.

— LAHSuit: The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, also known as LAHSA, sued the Trump administration Monday to stop it from suspending the agency from receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. LAHSA argued that the decision would put thousands of people at risk of losing their government funded housing.

— FORWARDING ADDRESS: The only post office in Skid Row abruptly closed in January due to repeated break-ins and damage to employee property, according to the U.S. Postal Service. The closure has frustrated residents and business owners.

— BUILDING BLITZ: Senate Bill 79, the historic housing bill, took effect across the state on Wednesday. The law could bring townhomes, row houses and other developments to 57 neighborhoods across the city.

— AIRBORNE TOXIC EVENT: A preliminary analysis showed that the recent inferno at a Boyle Heights warehouse contaminated the air with high levels of smoke and soot, rivaling the pollution that filled the region during the 2025 wildfires.

— MORE MEGA PROJECTS: Two large scale developments grabbed the attention of downtown Los Angeles this week. One, approved by the council, is slated to add 1,500 residences to Skid Row. The second, proposed this week, would transform the World Trade Center building into a 512-unit affordable housing complex.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelesssness went to the area near Olympic Boulevard and Menlo Avenue in Pico Union on Friday in Hernandez’s district, bringing 24 people indoors.
• On the docket next week: The City Council will be on summer recess until Aug. 4.

Stay in touch

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

PITTSBURGH — If her husband is elected president, Teresa Heinz Kerry will be among America’s most recognizable figures. But she already is commander of a family empire that has been a familiar name to Americans for over a century — one whose history includes political activism and philanthropy, but also infighting and tragedy.

The Heinz family history is told all over this riverfront city — at a stylish museum named for Teresa’s late husband, Sen. H.J. “John” Heinz III, and in archives at Carnegie Mellon University. The name is stamped on parks, schools and a magnificent limestone chapel at the University of Pittsburgh.

The symbols of Heinz wealth, power and patronage in Pittsburgh tell the public story of a pioneering American industrial family almost as important to food as the Fords are to autos and the Rockefellers are to oil.

A closer look reveals a long record of conservative as well as liberal political activity and philanthropy, mixed with epic battles over money and personal turmoil such as divorces, suicides and alcoholism.

Within the family, there are painful memories of a schism in the 1930s that led to a 50-year legal battle and helped shape the modern Heinz family. To this day, it has left some of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of patriarch H.J. Heinz feeling cast out.

“Most of the time, people aren’t talking to each other,” said Nancy Heinz Russell, a granddaughter of H.J. Heinz. “That’s what happens when people have money.”

Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira joined the family in 1966, when she married John Heinz, future Republican senator from Pennsylvania and great-grandson of H.J. Heinz, the ketchup and pickle king.

She assumed control of the family empire in 1991 after Sen. Heinz died in a plane crash. Five years later, she married John F. Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

Even as she made a new life with Kerry, she remained loyal to the Pittsburgh branch of the family. She is addressed by her staff as Mrs. Heinz, and her legal residence is the Heinz family estate outside of town.

She has fought fiercely to protect the family image. Ten years ago, Heinz Kerry hired an archivist to research the family tree, but has kept the findings private, even within the family. She declined to be interviewed for this article.

After a lengthy genealogical investigation, The Times has identified the other descendants of H.J. Heinz, founder of the pioneering food company, who died in 1919 at age 74.

He left three wings of the family under daughter Irene and sons Howard and Clifford. Four generations later, there are more than three dozen descendants.

The family is spread far and wide, most having severed their Pennsylvania roots years ago. In several cases, The Times’ reporting led to members of the Heinz family getting in touch with each for the first time, including two distant cousins living a few streets apart near Monterey.

Except for Heinz Kerry and her three sons, most of the family lives in California. Heinz Kerry, worth at least $1 billion, controls the lion’s share of the family’s money, but there are other centers of wealth and sharply varied political views about how it should be used.

Separate Lives

Heinzes pioneered the industrialization of the U.S. food supply, pushed government reforms to improve food safety and advocated for military intervention to stop the Armenian genocide.

Heinz Kerry is the family’s largest philanthropist, but other Heinzes have opened their wallets for public causes from Orange County to New York. Family money has funded hospitals, assisted the poor and educated scientists and artists.

The family has also experienced tragedies, most notably the midair plane collision over a suburban Philadelphia schoolyard that killed Sen. Heinz and six others. Far less known is the alcoholism, suicide, eccentric behavior and marital instability that have plagued all three wings of the family.

Along the way, there were odd encounters with the rich and powerful. Rock star David Bowie wrote the song “Young Americans” for his good friend in the celebrity circuit, the late Sharon Heinz Tingle. Sarah Heinz Waller, whose husband was a maverick Chicago alderman in the 1920s, was personally threatened by mobster Al Capone, friends and family say.

Many Heinz family members today lead very private lives, tired of jokes about ketchup and requests for loans. Family members no longer manage H.J. Heinz Co., and they own less than 4% of the firm’s stock.

Some descendants have no real sense of heritage or kinship.

“I had no idea I had any relationship with this family until I was 12 years old,” said Wilda Northrop, a watercolor artist and a great-granddaughter of H.J. Heinz. “I was raised that this was a big secret.”

Northrop, president of the Carmel Art Assn., shook hands this year with Heinz Kerry at a fundraising event, but didn’t mention she was the second cousin of Heinz Kerry’s late husband.

Northrop’s son, Lowell, is supporting Sen. Kerry’s campaign, making videos for MoveOn.org, the liberal activist group. Lowell Northrop says he knows little about Heinz Kerry.

“It’s an interesting little story that I am a Heinz, but it is not something I have gone out of my way to tell anybody,” he said in a phone interview. “Money sometimes brings out the worst in people.”

‘Just Johnny Heinz’

The man Heinz Kerry married was the child of Joan Diehl Heinz and H.J. “Jack” Heinz II. The couple’s marriage did not last long, and they played very different roles in their son’s upbringing.

After their divorce, Joan moved to San Francisco with her young son in tow and, an aviation pioneer herself, married naval pilot Monty McCauley.

“No one in San Francisco knew where he came from,” said a family friend, Ted Stebbins, referring to the future senator. “He was just Johnny Heinz.”

Meanwhile, Jack Heinz, the father, was a consummate jet-setter. He owned a dozen homes and had two more wives after Joan. Suave and imperious, he hobnobbed with British royalty and Greek shipping tycoons while running the family company from Pittsburgh.

By most accounts, Jack Heinz had a distant relationship with his only son, and was none too happy when he learned that the main heir to the family fortune wanted to marry the daughter of a Mozambique doctor.

“His dad disapproved of his marriage…. The story was that his dad felt he had been hoodwinked by a fortune-seeking European woman,” recalls Cliff Shannon, who headed John Heinz’s Senate staff in the 1980s. “Eventually, he made his peace with Teresa.”

Jack Heinz underwrote the performance hall for the highly regarded Pittsburgh Symphony. Less well known is the philanthropy of his ex-wives.

Drue Heinz, the last of Jack Heinz’s wives, had bit parts in film, and still controls a foundation with assets of $32 million that supports some of the top fiction writers in America.

His first wife, Joan McCauley, who died in 1999, left the bulk of her $31-million estate in the Bay Area, contributing to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and the ARCS Foundation, which supports the nation’s elite students in science and engineering.

Progressive Legacy

The progressive views of family patriarch H.J. Heinz were out of sync with early 20th century capitalism. He provided employees with medical care and adult education. Some of his factories had rooftop gardens where workers could relax.

It was in this era that armed guards for U.S. Steel killed 10 employees during the infamous 1892 Homestead strike at a plant in Pittsburgh. In a move laden with symbolism, Heinz Kerry would later purchase the abandoned U.S. Steel plant and turn it into a public park.

“He treated his workers better than anybody I have seen in the early 20th century,” Nancy Koehn, a historian at Harvard Business School, said of H.J. Heinz. “He was the real deal.”

H.J. Heinz was branded a traitor in some sectors of the food industry because he supported government intervention to ensure minimum safety standards. As food-processing scandals raged in the background, he pushed hard for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which created the Food and Drug Administration.

His son Howard, also deeply involved in public service, was sent to the Middle East by the Wilson administration after World War I to head famine-relief efforts. On the day H.J. Heinz died, Howard was delivering 30,000 tons of food to the region, where he witnessed the unfolding genocide that took the lives of 1.5 million Armenians.

Howard tried to get Wilson to send troops to halt the slaughter in harsh, remote areas of eastern Turkey and Armenia. In a dispatch to the president, he wrote, “I do not believe America, when she knows the truth, will be satisfied to have all our ideals of humanity thrown to one side while these people are murdered.”

His pleas were ignored.

It was Howard’s grandson, John Heinz, who became a U.S. senator and came to personify a moderate Republicanism similar to his grandfather’s.

John Heinz tried working in the family business but left unsatisfied after five years. He became a college professor, and in 1971 was elected to Congress, six years after marrying Heinz Kerry.

Sen. Heinz drew an unusual mix of support. Steelworkers liked his protectionist policies, and he tirelessly promoted the coal industry. But he also backed environmentalists’ efforts to clean up the state’s air and water. On the campaign trail, he successfully masked his blue-blood pedigree.

“He had a common touch,” said Louis Pagnotti, whose family owns a Pennsylvania coal mine. “And Teresa was a big hit in the ethnic communities up here.”

Since the death of her husband, Heinz Kerry has kept tight control over family documents. About 10 years ago, she began collecting detailed personal information from distant relatives, recalled Robert Heinz, a great-grandson of H.J. Heinz.

After meeting the family archivist for lunch in San Francisco, Robert Heinz said, he repeatedly asked to see the family tree — with no success. “The archivist finally told me that Teresa has not authorized it,” Heinz said in a phone interview.

A Conservative Side

If Sen. John Heinz represented the family’s moderate politics and public policy, Clifford Heinz represents a different outlook.

A grandson of H.J. Heinz, Clifford has long — and quietly — underwritten conservative causes from his base in Orange County. He has acquired a wealth, celebrity and power separate and apart from the Pennsylvania wing of the family.

When the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, he was awakened with the news at Clifford’s mansion in Newport Beach, where he was a guest.

Heinz has helped fund the Free Congress Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, and has underwritten the campaigns of various Republicans, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach. He has long funded ethics programs and endowed a chair for peace studies at UC Irvine.

“Clifford is a very principled, conservative Republican,” Rohrabacher said.

Clifford Heinz, 85, declined to be interviewed. His attorney, Bernard I. Segal, said his client had no desire to be drawn into a public controversy with Heinz Kerry. To put it mildly, the two have little in common politically.

Clifford Heinz was a key financial supporter of Oliver North, contributing $25,000 to his unsuccessful Senate campaign in 1994 — the same year Teresa Heinz sharply attacked the former U.S. Marine colonel and his role in the Iran-Contra matter in a speech before the National Assn. of Christians and Jews.

“It is difficult to imagine anything more cynical than Oliver North running for Congress,” she said in her speech. “This is a man who used his moment in the public eye to spit not just on politicians, but on the institution of Congress itself.”

Geographic Schism

Not long after the death of patriarch H.J. Heinz in 1919, his descendants began migrating to California, and a Western branch of the family came to outnumber the Eastern branch. By the Depression, a full-blown schism had occurred, centered around who would get the family wealth held by the senior Clifford Heinz.

A director and vice president for labor relations, Clifford had always been second fiddle to his older brother, Howard. And by the Depression, Howard’s son Jack was playing an influential role in the family business.

The battle began in March 1935, when the senior Clifford Heinz died of pneumonia at a Palm Springs hotel. He had left Pittsburgh three months earlier, hoping the dry desert air could cure him. Clifford’s third wife, Vira Ingham, was by his side when he died.

But the three children from his second marriage — Clifford, Nancy and Dorothy — were never informed of their father’s illness, even though they lived only a few hours away in Beverly Hills. Their mother was socialite Sara Moliere Young, who had run afoul of the Pittsburgh family.

After their father’s death, the teenage children received a second jolt, discovering that in Clifford’s final will, they had been disinherited. They came to believe that decision was made on his deathbed under pressure from the elders of the Pittsburgh clan.

“They tried to cut us out of the will,” recalled Nancy Heinz Russell. “Dad was not a strong, forceful man … and the Heinz family hated my mother. The Eastern family hated the Western family.”

The resulting lawsuit dragged on for decades, ultimately resulting in the children getting a large share of key Heinz trust funds.

It wasn’t the only time the family played tough when it came to money.

Rust Heinz, grandson to the company founder, moved to Pasadena in the 1930s and married Helen Clay Goodloe, daughter of a prominent family from Kentucky that included a U.S. senator and an ambassador.

When Rust was killed in a 1939 car accident, Heinz family attorneys persuaded his wife to take $25,000 and forfeit any claim to the family money. The couple had separated, but they were still legally married.

The inside story of what had happened was detailed in a newspaper article 16 years later in the Pittsburgh Press. The headline: “Heinz widow traded fortune for $25,000.”

After a second unhappy marriage, Helen Heinz took her life, according to her daughter, Margot Pierrong, a convention planner who lives in Anaheim.

“She was so young,” Pierrong said. “I am not bitter, but what the Heinz family did to my mother will come around.”

Out of Public View

Irene Heinz, the eldest child of the company founder, married and moved to Manhattan, and her branch of the family virtually disappeared from public view.

Irene’s husband, John LaPorte Given, suffered a nervous breakdown — under the harsh treatment of the Heinz family, according to his granddaughter. He retired early to play golf, and gave away tens of millions of dollars to Harvard University and other schools.

A daughter, Sarah Given, came to distrust the family money, saying it destroyed personal character. She married twice, the second time to a firefighter.

Sarah’s younger brother, John Given, became estranged from the family and was known for eccentric behavior. New York City police arrested him in 1948 on allegations that he beat a man with his cane.

When police examined the cane, they found a 28-inch dagger in its shaft. Four years later, after he fired a pistol at a neighbor’s birthday party, he was ordered by a New Jersey magistrate to leave town.

Given, who never married and suffered from alcoholism, died in 1957. In his will, he instructed executors at Chase Manhattan Bank to find deserving beneficiaries for his estate.

They gave more than $4.5 million to charity.

It was a traumatic moment for much of Southern California, as federal immigration agents snatched undocumented workers from car washes, garment factories and Home Depot parking lots.

Angelica Salas, who heads one of Los Angeles’ most influential immigrant rights groups, met regularly last summer with City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez — himself the son of Mexican immigrants — as they formulated a response. The two kept circling back to a singular issue: the lack of political power wielded by noncitizens.

“A lot of this is happening because immigrants don’t have the right to vote,” said Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.

Those conversations helped fuel Soto-Martínez’s decision in late April to push for a ballot proposal aimed at giving noncitizens the right to vote in city and school district elections. The proposal quickly gained momentum, with two-thirds of the council voting in mid-June to draft a measure for the Nov. 3 ballot.

Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martínez attends a City Council meeting following elections at City Hall June 3.

(Etienne Laurent / For the Times)

But the effort collapsed on Tuesday, with the council reversing course and sending the proposal to a committee for more study. Before the vote, Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not performed sufficient outreach, particularly to the city’s Black community leaders.

By then, critics were accusing the council of failing to do its homework, leaving voters to fill in the blanks on such questions as whether undocumented immigrants would be covered by the expanded franchise. Some worried the proposal would endanger the very people it was designed to help, making them a fresh target for the Trump administration.

Even community leaders who have worked on civil rights issues were urging the council to slow down.

Mobilizing Preachers and Communities, a national nonprofit that represents clergy and civil rights advocates, asked for a delay, citing concerns about President Trump. Rev. K.W. Tulloss, the group’s western regional director, said he was also hearing concerns from Black residents and their religious leaders about the potential for weakening Black voting representation.

That, in turn, could reduce the overall number of Black elected officials in Los Angeles, he said.

“That’s a major concern among our community,” Tulloss said. “And we can’t be afraid to have that dialogue.”

In L.A., Black residents make up about 8% of registered voters, according to the Sacramento-based firm Political Data, Inc. That figure has been gradually declining over the past few decades. An influx of noncitizen voters — Latinos, Asians and others — could cause it to shrink even more.

At the end of the year, L.A.’s 15-member City Council will have two Black representatives, down from three, all in South L.A.-based districts. Two Latinos are running in this year’s election to replace Councilmember Curren Price, who is Black and retiring after serving the maximum three terms.

The county’s five-member Board of Supervisors has one Black member. Voters have given the go-ahead to add four more members, which some fear could leave the board with one Black member out of nine.

Tulloss said his organization supports creating a pathway to citizenship for the city’s undocumented immigrants. At the same time, he worried that Soto-Martínez’s proposal could in the short term divide Black and brown residents, who share a common struggle on a wide range of issues.

“At the end of the day, we don’t want any type of deal that will be divisive in the community,” he said.

Soto-Martínez, who represents an Echo Park-to-Hollywood district, said in an interview Wednesday that noncitizen voting was part of his platform when he first ran for City Council in 2022. He said he first thought about the issue seriously a decade ago, when San Francisco voters passed a measure allowing noncitizen parents to cast ballots in school board elections.

Since its formation, the United States has repeatedly redefined the right to vote, broadening it to include women, Black people and other groups, he said.

“To me, it just seemed very natural to expand it,” he said. “It’s part of our history.”

The idea of noncitizen voting has been circulating in L.A. for years. School board member Kelly Gonez persuaded her colleagues to begin exploring it in 2019. But the effort was set aside after the onset of COVID-19, which caused massive disruptions across the Los Angeles Unified School District, said Michael Trujillo, a political strategist for Gonez.

Last summer, as the Trump administration was launching immigration raids across Southern California, the city was convening a 13-member citizens commission to come up with proposals for rewriting the City Charter, L.A.’s governing document.

The commission took up noncitizen voting in March, narrowly rejecting it. Several commissioners said they were worried about unintended consequences, like the Trump administration taking aim at newly registered voters, said Raymond Meza, who served as the commission’s chair.

“I thought those concerns were not fully addressed,” Meza said, “so I actually switched my vote” and opposed the proposal.

A month later, with the deadline for placing items on the Nov. 3 ballot fast approaching, Soto-Martínez introduced a motion calling for a two-step process for expanding voting rights. First, voters would be asked to give the City Council the authority to grant noncitizens the right to vote.

The council would then examine the details surrounding the change before passing an ordinance expanding those voting rights.

Soto-Martínez said his motion was based on a simple idea: Those who live in the city, raise their families there and pay taxes “deserve to have a voice” in local decision-making. He did not offer many specifics, saying those would be worked out at a later date.

Critics, and even some supporters, said Soto-Martínez was making his move at the wrong time. Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who voted against the proposal in mid-June, voiced fears that the list of noncitizen voters would immediately be seized by federal immigration authorities.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he opposes noncitizen voting in city elections. He does favor it for L.A. Unified — but only for parents of children attending those schools.

Villaraigosa, who led the city from 2005-13 and recently ran for governor, argued that this is not the right time to make even that change.

“With Trump ferreting through every record he can find looking for undocumented people, I just think it’s the wrong time,” he said. “I think these people would be exposing themselves to deportation, and the well-intentioned would be exposing them as well.”

Soto-Martínez portrayed such arguments as “fear mongering,” saying undocumented immigrants take risks every day in their quest to create a better future for their families.

Salas, the head of CHIRLA, echoed that idea.

“At end of day, we are already targets,” she said. “This is not going to make it worse. Don’t tell me voting against this was for the protection of immigrants.”

The Trump threat was not the only reason council members hesitated.

Rodriguez, who has expressed some interest in the proposal, said city leaders had not determined how county election officials would issue separate ballots for voters who would be barred from state and national contests. They also had not determined the cost of such a service, she said.

Twenty-two local jurisdictions across the country have approved and implemented noncitizen voting, according to Megan Dias, who is co-author of “Immigrant Voting and the Movement for Inclusion in San Francisco,” a report examining that city’s push to allow immigrants to vote in school board elections.

Dias said that backers of noncitizen voting need to build a broad coalition — grassroots organizations, election officials, lawyers for the city — before taking the proposal to voters.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said he is confident that noncitizen voting will get a much more extensive review in the coming months, and make the ballot in 2028. First, he said, the council will need to provide voters with specifics on how the changes would work.

Harris-Dawson said he heard from people who wanted more time to understand the proposal, to “make sure that it was done in a way that protected Black voting districts in particular.”

During the deliberations on the proposal, it also was not clear whether the change would apply to green card holders, recipients of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals or other categories of noncitizens.

“When something goes to the ballot, we need the details to be figured out — like how much something is going to cost, exactly how it’s going to work, and what the parameters are,” Harris-Dawson said. “All of that needs to be defined.”

NEW ORLEANS — Louisiana’s attorney general has been indicted over accusations she threatened the jobs of New Orleans leaders who fought a Republican-led overhaul of local courts in the heavily Democratic city.

The 16-count indictment against Republican Liz Murrill, handed up Thursday by a New Orleans grand jury, charges Louisiana’s first female attorney general with intimidation and malfeasance.

At the center of the case are deepening rifts between state leaders in Louisiana, which is heavily Republican, and Democrats who control the state’s most prominent city.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry promised a swift pardon, saying Murrill would not have her reputation tarnished by an “Orleans kangaroo court.” Mayor Helena Moreno, a Democrat, was among those who had accused the state’s top law enforcement official in May of making threats against public officials.

Murrill called the case against her “retaliatory, meritless, and unconstitutional.” Late Thursday, Murrill said she had filed for an emergency stay with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

“I will not back down. I will continue enforcing the law, fighting corruption, and doing the job the people of Louisiana elected me to do,” she wrote on X.

For months, political tensions intensified between Louisiana Republicans and New Orleans officials over a new law that abolished a court clerk office won by an exoneree, Calvin Duncan, who spent nearly three decades in prison. The change consolidated that job with another clerk’s office, which Republican supporters said would make the local judicial system more efficient.

The change was staunchly opposed by New Orleans leaders, and in May, the City Council set a special election that would have given Duncan a chance to win the newly combined job. Murrill responded by warning local officials in letters that they could lose their offices for violating state “usurper” laws, which forbid support for an unauthorized officeholder.

“We’re very interested in elected officials in New Orleans not being intimidated or threatened by letter or any other way,” special prosecutor Laurie White told reporters.

Bond for Murrill was set at $400,000 on Thursday, according to court records.

Landry said he was ordering state police to investigate what he called “alleged improprieties” of the grand jury and those who ran it.

“The criminal justice system is a circus at its finest in Orleans and we will not have any of that!” he wrote on X.

The Republican Attorneys General Assn. said that making statements to local officials — in writing — was simply “issuing a legal opinion and warning public officials about the law” as part of her official duties. It called the indictment “as outrageous as it is dangerous.”

Moreno, who was elected in January and was defiant after Murrill sent the letters, on Thursday called it a “matter for the courts” and did not directly address the allegations.

“My focus, as always, remains on fulfilling the responsibilities the people of New Orleans elected me to carry out,” Moreno said.

Duncan has said he believes state officials were retaliating against him in eliminating the job he won with 68% of the vote. Murrill and Landry have long refused to acknowledge his innocence, though he’s listed on the National Registry of Exonerations.

Republicans have said the change was not personal and supporters have noted that the offices of criminal and civil clerks of courts are combined in other parishes.

Duncan was a jailhouse lawyer who later graduated from law school. He founded a nonprofit dedicated to expanding incarcerated people’s access to the court system and was the driving force behind a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended nonunanimous jury convictions.

Duncan spent more than 28 years in prison over a fatal shooting during a robbery in 1981.

The night before a 2011 hearing to consider new evidence, prosecutors offered to reduce Duncan’s sentence to the time he’d already served in prison if he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery. Duncan took the deal and was freed but didn’t give up on clearing his name.

In 2021, a judge agreed that Duncan had been unjustly convicted and vacated his sentence altogether. Landry and Murrill have pointed to the 2011 plea deal in objecting to Duncan calling himself exonerated.

Riddle and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporter Jack Brook in New Orleans contributed.

New Jersey is launching a new fee on companies whose workers have Medicaid health coverage instead of being covered by their employers. Other states are considering it, too.

Democratic lawmakers and governors see it as a way to help pay for the joint federal and state insurance program that covers low-income residents as federal policy changes are expected to make the program more expensive for states and may lead to a reduction in the number of people with coverage.

Proponents also say it’s about fairness because employers benefit from having some lower-income workers with taxpayer-funded health coverage.

Business groups object. So do some liberal policy organizations.

New Jersey is putting the fee in place

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a measure Tuesday night to charge employers that have at least 50 workers covered by Medicaid, and the state budget she approved earlier in the week counts on raising $145 million this year from the program.

Under the plan, companies will be billed for each employee and employees’ dependent receiving Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program.

The fees per person would start at $325 a year for companies with 50 to 249 Medicaid beneficiaries and top out at $725 annually for employers with at least 500 recipients.

A bill passed this week in California doesn’t impose a charge now, but it does direct the state administration to present lawmakers options for doing so next year.

Finishing the job would fall to the successor of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is leaving office in January. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra has made an employer charge part of his election platform.

State Sen. John Laird, a Democrat who sponsored the California proposal, said the big tax and policy law President Trump signed a year ago was a major factor in the need for action because it could prompt the state to spend more on Medicaid to plug holes left by federal changes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expects more than 10 million people will be uninsured because of the law by 2034. It requires some beneficiaries to work, be in school or volunteer — and requires even more to document whether they meet the requirements.

Most employees at the bigger companies would not be at risk of losing Medicaid coverage as long as they’re working at least 20 hours a week.

Laird also said there’s an equity issue involved.

“If you’re a small business person in California, you are quite likely paying for health insurance for your employees. And through your taxes, you’re paying for health insurance for some of the biggest employers in California,” he said. “And that’s not fair.”

Legislation with similar intents passed one legislative chamber in both Colorado and Oregon this year, but neither made it to law. A measure was also introduced in Washington.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat who is seeking a third term in November’s election, has called for the same move there with the idea of making it a part of the state budget that would kick in two years from now.

Opposition comes from business and some liberal groups

It’s no surprise that business organizations have criticized the approach, which would add to their expenses.

“The fact remains that many job-creators are still going to be penalized for something they have no control over,” Christopher Emigholz, the chief government affairs officer at the New Jersey Business and Industry Assn., said in a statement. “If an employee declines an employer-provided health plan because they’d rather be on Medicaid, it is unfair to penalize the employer for that employee’s decision.”

Some left-leaning policy organizations also oppose the charges.

Gideon Lukens, who analyzes health policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that while the idea may be well-intentioned, it could lead companies to employ fewer people from low-income household or single parents. He said companies could also consider the policy in decisions about whom to hire or lay off — and also on where to locate or how many workers to employ.

And, he said, it could make employees — or potential employees — less likely to enroll in Medicaid knowing it would make them less attractive to employers.

“Usually, when I see a tax on something it’s going to discourage whatever being taxed,” he said in an interview.

New Jersey’s legislation tries to address some of the concerns. It would exempt temporary, seasonal and part-time employees. It would also bar employment decisions based on a workers’ Medicaid status.

Charging companies whose workers are covered by Medicaid isn’t a new idea. At least two states have previously enacted it, and it’s been proposed in Congress.

Massachusetts lawmakers in 2017 adopted a charge on employers up to $750 per nondisabled worker who was covered through Medicaid or a state-subsidized health exchange plan. The program began in 2018 was not renewed when it expired the next year.

An even earlier policy in Maryland, in 2006, immediately affected only Walmart. An industry group challenged it in court and won, stopping the fees.

The latest generation of proposals may avoid that legal pitfall by not referencing those health plans in the legislation.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump reshaped this year’s U.S. Senate map by sidelining some Republican incumbents and promoting loyalists to replace them. Now the question is whether he’ll put his money where his mouth is.

With four months to go until November’s elections, it’s still unclear how much MAGA Inc., the country’s largest political war chest, with $382 million in the bank as of last month, plans to spend on key races.

The silence has persisted even as Senate Republican leaders have urged Trump’s team, both privately and publicly, to pick up the tab for the president’s decisions.

Front and center is Texas, where Trump successfully endorsed fiery conservative Ken Paxton over Sen. John Cornyn, a choice that some Republicans grumble has turned a safe election into a toss-up that will drain resources away from other battlegrounds. Democratic nominee James Talarico, a state lawmaker, has made Paxton’s history of corruption allegations a central target of his campaign.

“The president picked Paxton, and he’s got $350 million,” Cornyn recently told Semafor. “I think he can spend his money.”

Another challenge has emerged in North Carolina, where Sen. Thom Tillis declined to run for reelection after feuding with Trump last year over healthcare spending.

Trump backed Michael Whatley, his former handpicked chair of the Republican National Committee, to run instead, and Democrats hope to flip the seat with former Gov. Roy Cooper.

Some in Republican campaign leadership are expecting MAGA Inc. to pitch in for Whatley in North Carolina, where the several metro media markets can be pricey.

Republicans will likely be able to count on generous support from well-funded official party committees, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this week should be allowed to make unlimited direct contributions to candidates’ campaigns.

But even that sum falls short of what Trump has stockpiled in MAGA Inc. Even though the president is constitutionally barred from running again, he began raising money shortly after winning a second term, and he’s regularly held fundraisers at his resort properties where tickets cost $1 million per person.

James Blair, the former White House political director who left his government job to coordinate the president’s midterm efforts, was evasive in an interview with Sean Spicer, a former Republican spokesman who hosts a podcast.

“The president is going to expend substantial resources to win the midterms,” said Blair. “He cares deeply about the party winning.”

As a super PAC, MAGA Inc. can raise unlimited money from individuals and corporations. However, it is barred from coordinating with individual campaigns or national Republican committees, which adds to the sense of mystery surrounding its plans.

It’s been more than two months since Blair, along with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, pollster Tony Fabrizio and political advisor Chris LaCivita huddled at Washington’s Waldorf Astoria to discuss MAGA Inc.’s strategy.

The huddle was focused on assembling teams of vendors, such as advertisers, canvassing providers and digital media company leaders who had worked with the Trump team in key states during previous elections and who would be dispatched once plans were in place.

The president has spent much of the year waging a war of retribution against Republicans who have crossed him. He viewed Cornyn as insufficiently loyal, held a grudge against Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana for voting to convict him in an impeachment trial and assailed Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky as the “worst Republican Congressman in history.”

All of them lost their primaries to Trump-backed challengers.

Cornyn’s loss weighs heavily on Senate Republicans, who suggest that Paxton could cost the party an extra $100 million to defend the seat.

Senate Leadership Fund, the principal super PAC aligned with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, is still expected to spend money on advertising in Texas, but not to play a central role given its obligations elsewhere.

Democrats must net four seats to take the majority, and they see Alaska, Maine, North Carolina and Ohio as their best opportunities. The Senate Leadership Fund has already committed to spending $342 million across these four states, plus Iowa, Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire.

When Paxton came to Washington after winning the nomination May 26, he had a cordial meeting with Thune focused on moving forward together, according to people with knowledge of the conversation who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Later that day, Thune suggested that Trump should be putting up money for a candidate whom Senate Republicans hadn’t asked for.

“We will do what we need to do to make sure the state stays red,” Thune told reporters. “But I’m certainly hopeful the president and the resources he can bring to bear will be engaged.”

“It’s going to be an expensive race,” he added.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press White House correspondent Seung Min Kim contributed from Washington. Beaumont reported from Des Moines.

WASHINGTON — Festivities commemorating the 250th anniversary of American independence from Great Britain kick into higher gear across the United States on Friday as celebrations are balanced with efforts to stay safe as much of the country bakes under extreme heat.

President Trump will travel to South Dakota to deliver a speech and watch fireworks at Mt. Rushmore. And in a novel twist, there will be a ball drop in New York City’s Times Square at midnight to usher in the July Fourth holiday with much the same revelry that is typically reserved for New Year’s Eve.

The activity culminates in the main event Saturday, when fireworks will erupt in communities across the U.S., along with backyard cookouts and block parties. Trump will deliver another speech at the National Mall in Washington before what is being billed as a historically massive fireworks show.

But for all the celebrations, there are also serious safety considerations as potentially record heat grips much of the Midwest and East Coast. Officials have warned those celebrating the holiday to stay hydrated and take air-conditioned breaks as needed.

The heat has already affected some of the programming surrounding the holiday. In Washington, organizers of the Capitol Fourth concert banned the public from attending a Thursday rehearsal because of the heat.

The concert Friday, a staple of Washington’s Independence Day traditions, is on, but the gates will open to the public later than usual, at 7 p.m. EDT, an hour before the show. Organizers of celebrations in Washington on Saturday said they were adding water stations along with cooling resources and medical support.

From Boston to Norristown, Penn., and Gettysburg National Military Park, plans were shifting to accommodate the soaring temperatures. Amtrak canceled some trains in the Northeast due to excessive heat that could affect the tracks.

The holiday is unfolding at a unique time in the U.S. The anniversary has served as an opportunity for the country to reflect on its history while also reminding it of the political polarization of the moment.

Even the celebrations themselves have not quite escaped the divide.

Freedom 250, an organization aligned with the White House, has come to rival America250, a bipartisan group founded by Congress a decade ago. Freedom 250 has organized much of the activity in Washington, including the Great American State Fair, which has gained attention for the relatively small crowds it has attracted. America250 is behind the ball drops unfolding in many cities, including New York, and will host a concert in Los Angeles on Saturday.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults feel “proud” about the country’s 250th anniversary, according to an April survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Roughly 3 in 10 said “excited” describes their emotions.

Sloan writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., Michael Casey in Cambridge, Mass., and Calvin Woodward in Washington contributed to this report.

For nearly six months, Delcy Rodríguez’s interim government has tried to project a different image: less ideological, more administrative; less revolutionary, more technocratic. The earthquakes became the first real test of whether that transformation ran deeper than economic policy. It didn’t. Faced with the country’s worst humanitarian disaster in decades, the Venezuelan state reverted almost instinctively to the habits it had spent 25 years learning.

The earthquake handed Delcy Rodríguez something politics rarely does: a chance, however limited, to soften public perceptions of her government. Nobody expected it to prevent the earthquake or even manage it flawlessly. The bar was much lower than that. Venezuelans expected a government that communicated at least somewhat honestly, remained visible, welcomed help wherever it came from, and, above all, stayed out of the way of those trying to help. Instead, many of its decisions seemed almost designed to produce the opposite effect, leaving an already angry public even angrier.

For the crucial first hours after the earthquake, Venezuelan civil society largely filled the vacuum left by the state. By the time the government moved to reclaim the space it had forfeited, the nature of its response had become clear. The emphasis was no longer on expanding the rescue effort, but on reasserting control over it. The government’s administrative response had been slow. Its political reflexes were anything but that.

Why?

The obvious explanation is incompetence. Of which there was certainly plenty. But incompetence alone cannot explain why a government whose political identity has been built on the appearance of public support repeatedly embraced decisions that seemed to generate even greater public anger. Something deeper appears to have been at work.

Responding to earthquakes requires a very particular kind of approach. Unlike ordinary governance, disaster response cannot be centralized for long. Every collapsed building becomes its own command center. Every neighborhood develops different priorities. Every rescue team faces different engineering challenges. Governments do not succeed because they directly coordinate thousands of decisions. They succeed because they remove obstacles that allow thousands of other people to make good decisions simultaneously.

As civil society increasingly assumed functions the state could not perform, it also threatened to accumulate visibility, legitimacy, and influence outside government control.

During normal times, governments can afford to centralize decisions and insist that major initiatives pass through official channels. Earthquakes punish those instincts. Rescue operations cannot wait for permission, and civil society and the private sector suddenly become indispensable partners in the state’s response. The democratic governments (like the one overseeing Venezuela’s “transition”) that perform best recognize this early, spending the first critical hours empowering society rather than attempting to direct every aspect of the response themselves. For twenty-five years, chavismo taught its institutions almost the opposite lessons.

The government could not lead the humanitarian response with the effectiveness the moment demanded. Society therefore began leading significant parts of it instead. Volunteers organized rescue brigades. Churches became shelters. Journalists became emergency information networks. Engineers inspected damaged buildings. Diaspora organizations coordinated donations. Foreign rescue teams rapidly became the public face of many rescue operations. None of this was unusual. This is how major disasters are managed around the world.

What was unusual was the kind of state confronting the disaster.

Every major political crisis reinforced the same institutional lesson: autonomous organization reduced the state’s control over society. Independent organization was rarely viewed as something to harness, but was something to supervise. NGOs are suspected of serving foreign interests, until proven innocent. Independent journalists and universities are seen as political adversaries. Neighborhood networks are just three doritos away from becoming opposition structures. Enemies abound in the schizophrenic chavista view of societal organization. Because for a chavista state that has banked its continuous survival on complete, centralized control, such a degree of civil organization represents an extinction level threat.

Those lessons make sense for a political system primarily concerned with its own survival. They become profoundly maladaptive during natural disasters. Thus, the humanitarian response itself gradually became part of the government’s problem. As civil society increasingly assumed functions the state could not perform, it also threatened to accumulate visibility, legitimacy, and influence outside government control. Administratively, this strengthened Venezuela’s response. Politically, it displaced the government from the center of its own national emergency. Most democratic governments would welcome that trade-off. 

What authoritarian systems find difficult to tolerate is not civilian participation itself, but civilian participation they neither direct nor control. The rescue volunteers were not political activists. The churches distributing food were not organizing protests. The programmers building databases of missing persons were not preparing electoral campaigns. Yet institutions do not respond only to intentions; they respond to patterns. For a security apparatus that had spent years dismantling decentralized civic networks, from the humanitarian aid operation of 2019 to the comanditos of 2024, the potential may have mattered more than the differences.

Search-and-rescue operations have become increasingly militarized, with rescue crews at the Tahití building reportedly prevented by the military from reaching survivors for hours.

Seen through that lens, what initially looked like a series of political blunders begins to look more like institutional habit. Faced with a humanitarian emergency it lacked the capacity to fully manage, the government fell back on the institutions it trusted most: those responsible for regulating information, supervising autonomous actors, and maintaining political control. Much of the administrative state had long ceased to be valued primarily for its capacity to govern, functioning instead as an instrument of patronage and political management, while the coercive apparatus remained the regime’s principal institutional investment.

Faced with the limitations of both its own incompetence and the state it had spent decades constructing, havismo has increasingly resorted to the tactics with which it is most familiar. Survivors who expressed their anger at the government’s lackluster response, such as Wilmer Cruz, have reportedly been arrested. Search-and-rescue operations have become increasingly militarized, with rescue crews at the Tahití building (Caraballeda, La Guaira) reportedly prevented by the military from reaching survivors for hours. Intelligence agencies such as the DGCIM have been deployed to intimidate the families of victims, while, as the Sky News Trump 100 podcast reported, authorities have obstructed reporting from Caracas.

For months, the debate surrounding Venezuela’s transition has centered on whether chavismo was truly changing or merely adapting. The earthquake suggests the answer is both. Markets can be liberalized. Diplomatic priorities can shift. Revolutionary rhetoric can soften. Institutional instincts are far more resistant to change because they are built over decades of incentives, routines, promotions, and crises.

The earthquake did not create those instincts. It merely forced the government into a situation where it could no longer avoid relying on them.

Every state becomes good at what it repeatedly practices. The chavista regime spent twenty-five years investing in political control rather than disaster response; in supervising society rather than empowering it; in preserving power rather than preparing for catastrophe. When the country’s greatest humanitarian emergency in decades arrived, society responded with the institutions it had built to save lives. The state responded with the institutions it had built to preserve power. The earthquake did not force the Venezuelan state to choose between control and effective governance. That choice had been made long before the ground began to shake.

WASHINGTON — Small towns across America had big plans to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial this weekend. Local historical societies scheduled town square readings of the Declaration of Independence, hired bands to play patriotic tunes, organized parades and set up themed baking contests.

But many of their most ambitious plans were scrapped after the Trump administration cut $100 million in federal funding for humanities nonprofits and state councils at the start of its term. The decision severely hampered local planning for America’s 250th anniversary, disrupting history projects, museums and educational programs nationwide.

Instead, the Trump administration funneled tens of millions in federal dollars to Event Strategies, the firm behind Trump’s infamous rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, to organize anniversary events throughout the nation’s capital centered on President Trump.

The result, historians say, has become a centralized, more politicized spectacle, marking the national milestone as a celebration of an imperial presidency rather than a revolution from kingly rule.

The spectacular show that Americans will see features Trump at its center, culminating a year of concerted efforts by the president to put his face on passports and currency, national park passes and government buildings.

Members of the Dance4Life studio in Claymont, Del., prepares to march ahead of the Red, White, & Blue To-Do Pomp & Parade on July 2, 2026, in Philadelphia.

(Al Drago / Getty Images)

Yet, beyond the noise of the nation’s capital, historians and teachers, docents and curators, archivists, tour guides and reenactors have sustained the messy, organic discourse of the American story, less funded but no less vocal in their patriotism.

“The way history has been argued since Trump returned to office has been a reminder that governments and political figures have remarkable power to shape a society’s historical memory,” said David Ekbladh, a history professor at Tufts University and author of “Look at the World: The Rise of an American Globalism in the 1930s.”

Trump’s effort to control the anniversary narrative has reminded Ekbladh of one of George Orwell’s most famous quotes: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

“The administration’s clear signals that it can and will restrict funding to institutions seems to have muted the way many institutions, like museums and universities, have approached the anniversary,” Ekbladh added. “With this said, Trump’s own direct, personal use of the 250th has been less about articulating a clear view of the nation’s history than using the moment itself to keep attention on him.”

The White House has taken a more active role in the festivities than initially planned, setting up its own Freedom 250 project to supplement America250, a bipartisan congressional effort to celebrate the occasion.

Fencing is seen around the Great American State Fair on the National Mall on Thursday.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

The Trump administration has directed funding to events centered on the president’s attendance, primarily around Washington, and partnered with conservative organizations such as PragerU and Hillsdale College to present the country’s founding story through a conservative Christian lens.

Historians are in broad agreement that this year’s celebration has garnered far less attention than the bicentennial, marked in 1976, which generated blanket media coverage and widespread national excitement.

Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College and author of “The New Imperial Presidency,” attributed the lack of enthusiasm this time in part due to a more fragmented media landscape than existed 50 years ago, denying the country a “core curriculum” and a shared story.

“I don’t think it’s a lack of patriotism, so much as a determination that no presidential administration should be able to center itself as the focus of that patriotism,” Rudalevige said.

“There’s a lot to celebrate in the text of the declaration. But that’s not where the focus of the Freedom 250 efforts has been,” Rudalevige said. “It would have been interesting to see what the bipartisan America250 initiative could have come up with if its funding and energies had not been diverted.”

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is fenced off in preparation for Fourth of July fireworks.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

Trump has scheduled little national travel around the anniversary, visiting North Dakota this week for an event that allowed him to debut a new version of Air Force One, donated by Qatar and outfitted to the president’s tastes. Trump intends to keep the plane after leaving office for his personal use.

The jet will fly over the National Mall alongside the Defense Department’s most impressive equipment on Saturday, before the president delivers a speech in what is forecast to be a blistering heat wave. The evening will end, according to administration officials, with the largest fireworks display in U.S. history.

“The fundamental challenge that we face now is the fight between the historians — people who have been studying the past and who have been thinking about how to tell that story to the public — and government leaders over who gets to control that story,” said Peter Kastor, chair of the history department at Washington University in St. Louis.

“The people who are really on the front lines are museum professionals, the operators of historic sites and schoolteachers,” he said. “They face the responsibility for explaining the past to a general audience on a day-to-day basis, and they are the ones who most often face the backlash from people who want the story to be told differently.”

ROME — President Trump’s attacks on Italy’s premier have had an unintended consequence.

After Trump questioned Italy’s reliability as a wartime ally and claimed Giorgia Meloni had groveled for his attention, European leaders rallied to Meloni’s side, thawing what had been a frosty relationship over her hard-right political roots.

It is the latest example of how the often divisive American president is helping to draw Europe closer together.

European leaders are finding more reasons to coordinate on defense, tariffs and foreign policy as they confront wars in Ukraine and Iran, a ballooning trade deficit with China, and threats from Russia. That leaves Trump, who has often preferred to negotiate with European countries individually, with less ability to do so, analysts say.

“Most of the mainstream leaders realize that Europe is getting squeezed between China and America, and so, if not now, then when?” said Sudha David-Wilp, vice president at the German Marshall Fund. “They need to act as a bloc in order to maintain Europe’s place in the world.”

This newfound European unity could be tested next week at a NATO summit in Turkey.

European leaders rally around Meloni

Meloni’s spat with Trump has helped her strengthen ties with European leaders once wary of her party’s post-fascist roots.

A pivotal moment came in March when she wouldn’t allow U.S. bombers headed to the Middle East to use a base in Sicily without parliamentary approval.

For years before then, France and Germany often kept Meloni outside the small-group talks that helped shape Europe’s response to major foreign policy crises. That persisted into 2026 amid disagreements over the Russian war on Ukraine, including Meloni’s rejection of a proposal by Britain and France to send European troops there following a possible ceasefire.

But Trump’s escalating attacks on Meloni — who called Trump’s criticism of Pope Leo “unacceptable” — helped shift the dynamic, prompting European leaders to rally around her.

After all, they, too, have been on the receiving end of Trump’s barbs.

Meloni was firmly in the fold at a late June meeting in Berlin with the leaders of Germany, France, Britain and Poland. And she met the next day with French President Emmanuel Macron in southern France — the first bilateral summit since the pandemic.

Europe’s nationalist parties are adjusting

Even nationalist parties across the continent once aligned with Trump are recalibrating their stances because his trade policies and war with Iran are proving unpopular with voters.

In France, far-right leader Jordan Bardella recently blasted U.S. actions as “foreign interference” and described Trump as “erratic” and “extremely unsteady.” Bardella had previously welcomed Trump’s brand of nationalism as a “wind of freedom.”

In Germany, leaders of the far-right Alternative for Germany party have criticized the U.S. military campaign against Iran. The co-leader of the party, Tino Chrupalla, said in March he was “extremely disappointed” with Trump, whom he had viewed as a politician who would avoid new conflicts.

The changing rhetoric comes as elections approach, putting more focus on domestic issues.

“This pushes everyone to consider a European horizon more than an international one,” said Lorenzo Castellani, a political analyst and professor at Rome’s LUISS University,

Beyond Europe’s biggest powers

These dynamics are playing out beyond the European Union, from the Arctic Ocean to the Balkans.

When Trump threatened to take Greenland by force, protests erupted in its capital, Nuuk, and in the Danish capital of Copenhagen. Leaders across the political spectrum bristled at the threatened infringement of European sovereignty and feared it could shatter the already stressed NATO military alliance.

In Albania, a luxury development being planned that is linked to Trump’s family business has become a major political issue, drawing protests in June.

The political risks of close alignment with Trump were perhaps most clearly illustrated in Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — long regarded as Trump’s closest ally in the European Union — was voted out of office in April despite support from the U.S. president and prominent figures in the MAGA movement.

An analysis by the consultancy Maplecroft suggested that negative perceptions of the Trump administration may have weighed on Orbán politically.

Meloni’s balancing act

Though Meloni remains closely aligned with Trump on issues like immigration and security, she has long diverged from him on Ukraine. Her steadfast support for Kyiv made her more palatable for European leaders and has been a key factor in forging a more united European front toward the U.S.

During their public spat last month, Meloni said her friendship with Trump came with a heavy political cost.

In her response to his accusation that she had “begged” to be photographed with him while at the recent G7 summit in France, she wrote on social media: “As for my popularity, being your friend has certainly not helped it, nor does it depend on my relationship with you.”

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that Trump is deeply unpopular in Italy. According to the survey, 83% of Italians have no confidence in Trump’s ability to do the right thing regarding foreign affairs. His handling of a range of issues — including Iran, tariffs, and U.S. immigration policies — received a low level of support.

With a national election due by 2027 — and possibly as early as next spring — Meloni faces mounting political pressures, including fallout from the unpopular Iran war and her former ties to Trump.

Voters across Europe could hold their own politicians accountable for the actions of an American president beyond their control, said Castellani, the political analyst.

“At a certain point, when voters see the price of gasoline rising because of a war perceived as distant, they ask Meloni for the bill, not Trump.”

Zampano and McNeil write for the Associated Press. McNeil reported from Brussels. AP writers Sylvie Corbet in Paris, Geir Moulson in Berlin, and Justin Spike in Budapest, Hungary, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The head of the FBI’s Chicago field office is abruptly leaving his position, according to a resignation message he sent to colleagues and multiple people familiar with the situation who said he was told to retire.

Douglas DePodesta has served as special agent in charge in Chicago, one of the FBI’s largest offices, for nearly two years and has been with the bureau since 2002.

He told colleagues that his last day would be Monday, according to a message seen by the Associated Press. Multiple people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel move, said DePodesta had been pushed to retire.

The events leading up to his departure were not immediately clear, but DePodesta alluded in his farewell note to a conflict that he suggested had precipitated it.

“I’ve never backed down from a fight, as long as it meant our personnel could continue serving the FBI’s mission,” DePodesta wrote in the message. “Unfortunately, that has proved unpopular over time and my departure is a consequence of that.”

The move is part of a broader upheaval in the FBI’s workforce as Director Kash Patel has sought to force out line agents and supervisors alike who are perceived as not supporting the Trump administration’s agenda. It also comes amid prolonged tumult in the law enforcement community in Chicago, whose top federal prosecutor, Andrew Boutros, described this week a sweeping review of more than 1,000 grand jury presentations made by Illinois prosecutors following the dismissal of a high-profile case over misconduct.

The FBI declined to comment Thursday, but the bureau’s “rapid response” social media account on X responded to a separate post about DePodesta’s departure by saying: “It’s simple: Anyone who is not on board with THIS FBI under the leadership of President Trump — which has achieved the lowest murder rate ever — is free to leave.”

DePodesta also quoted in his note from a farewell message from Patel’s predecessor, former Director Chris Wray, who reminded the workforce that “you have been who the American people have turned to in their darkest moments” and praised them for having “stayed true to the values that define who we are, and to the qualities for which we stand: Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity.”

DePodesta joined the FBI in Chicago in 2002 and worked drug investigations. He later held senior roles at FBI headquarters in Washington and in Detroit and Memphis before being named top agent in Chicago in August 2024.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and his fellow Republicans are reviving a line of attack against Democrats heading into the midterm elections: They’re communists.

In just the past week, Trump has issued dark warnings that members of the Democratic Party’s ascendant left are communists who want to “completely destroy the traditional American way of life” and even engage in assassinations. Vice President JD Vance has similarly called out communism as a political shift that is “something we haven’t seen in the U.S.” House Speaker Mike Johnson has decried “radical candidates” who are “self-described, self-identifying Marxists.”

The GOP’s ideological focus conflates democratic socialism, which often centers on securing universal healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter corporate regulation, with communism, under which private ownership is largely eliminated. It has been building since Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won the Democratic nomination for New York City mayor last year.

But it’s kicked into a higher gear recently after democratic socialists won several New York City congressional primaries last week. The primary victory on Tuesday by another democratic socialist, Melat Kiros, for a Denver congressional seat suggested the trend may extend beyond Manhattan liberalism.

“The Democrats are making this easy for us,” Rep. Richard Hudson, the North Carolina Republican who leads the House GOP’s strategy and fundraising arm, said in an interview. “They’re nominating extreme liberals, leftists who are out of touch even with mainstream Democrats.”

Republicans are holding onto slim majorities

The messaging effort comes as Republicans scramble to hold onto threadbare congressional majorities in the November midterms. It risks overlooking public frustration, particularly among younger voters, with unfettered capitalism at a time of growing income inequality and rising costs.

But it also gives Republicans a much-needed opportunity to shift the conversation back to territory that is more comfortable for them after their party has spent much of the year on defense over the fallout from Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran, which contributed to widespread price spikes.

Ralph Reed, the longtime conservative activist who hosted Trump last week at a Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, acknowledged that Republicans are facing steep headwinds this year. But the recent string of wins by democratic socialists, he said, allows Republicans to present a contrast between “common sense and crazy.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a Get Out the Vote (GOTV) rally at Kings Theater on June 18, 2026 in New York City. Sanders joined Mayor Zohran Mamdani ahead of next week’s primary, and the start of early voting on Saturday, as the pair campaigned for Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, who are challenging incumbents in Democratic primary contests.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Democrats are uncertain over the party’s direction

The renewed push could tug at tensions among Democrats who are largely united in their loathing of Trump but are divided over the party’s direction. This year’s primaries are shaping up as a referendum between centrists who are eager to course correct from what they see as progressive overreach earlier in the decade and a left-wing pushing for even more sweeping change.

“A lot of this anger has been boiling under the surface,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, which was founded by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats. “It’s coming to the fore in this moment in a very powerful way.”

But Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a centrist New Jersey Democrat, called the victories in Colorado and New York “aberrations.”

“We’ve got to fight like hell to keep our party from being hijacked by socialists,” he said. “Most of them are bomb throwers, not problem solvers.”

Nevada Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford easily dispatched a more progressive rival earlier this year in his Democratic bid for governor in a state Trump carried in 2024. As he eyes a general election challenge to Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, he insisted candidates like those who won in New York don’t represent all Democrats.

He said the Democratic Socialists of America “is not the face of our party.”

Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who chairs the House Democratic campaign committee, said in a statement that Republicans were “resorting to desperate attacks that aren’t actually about the pocketbook issues.”

Trump risks overreaching with communism argument

Trump and fellow Republicans risk missing the mark when the public’s embrace of capitalism might not be as strong as it was decades ago.

About half of U.S. adults, 54%, have a positive view of capitalism, according to an August poll from Gallup, a slight decline from 61% in 2010. Democrats have driven some of the shift, but favorable opinions of capitalism have fallen among independents as well.

Only 42% of Democrats viewed capitalism favorably, while 66% had a positive view of socialism. The poll found that both younger and older Democrats have warmed slightly on socialism since 2010, but Democrats under age 50 are much less likely to view capitalism favorably. Democrats age 50 or older didn’t shift meaningfully.

“Young voters, who I would argue are driving a lot of the electoral energy that we’re seeing, came of age politically in a post-Soviet world,” Geevarghese said. “The attacks don’t land in the same way when Donald Trump was politically of age.”

Hudson, who is running the House GOP campaign committee, acknowledged the communism line might not resonate in the same way with all voters, particularly younger people. That’s why, he said, it’s important for Republicans to tailor their message to the needs of individual districts.

“I’ve never run cookie-cutter campaigns where we just say one thing over and over everywhere,” he said.

Still, the argument was high on Trump’s mind again on Wednesday as he visited the newly built Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota. He called the former president a “ferocious opponent of a thing called communism.”

“It’s the biggest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, September 11,” he said. “It’s a bigger threat, potentially a bigger threat than that, because it’s like a cancer that spreads, and you better stop it fast.”

Beverly Gage, a history professor at Yale University who has written on the rise and fall of Sen. Joe McCarthy, said earlier eras of anti-communism politics took hold because there was a large and active Communist Party in the U.S. and the Soviet Union was the country’s primary foe. But she said Trump’s focus on the issue is notable given his ties to Roy Cohn, a onetime confidant of Trump who earlier worked for McCarthy.

“It’s not very many steps to get from McCarthy to Roy Cohn to Donald Trump,” she said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, shrugged off Trump’s communism focus as “bunk.” In an interview, he said the direction of the party isn’t all that different from the dynamics he’s navigated for decades in California politics.

“I governed in an environment where the DSA was otherwise known as progressives,” he said. “This dialectic is so deeply familiar to me, and I don’t over read any of it.”

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