POLITICS

OAKLAND — Mayor Lionel Wilson, a fixture in this city’s politics for three decades, was fighting off a nasty cold as he took his campaign for reelection to a hall filled with real estate agents recently.

In past years, Wilson could have stayed home to nurse his ailment. He long ago endeared himself to Oakland business leaders by presiding over a boom in downtown building that brought a glistening skyline to the city. As he seeks a fourth term, however, the soft-spoken mayor finds he can take no group for granted.

Concluding his speech to the agents, he pleaded, “Give me a chance to complete the job I started.” But on this day, in a city beset by a continuing drug crisis, crime, a troubled school system and the aftermath of last October’s earthquake, the applause for the mayor was polite, and nothing more.

At 75, Wilson is facing the toughest campaign of his career, challenged by politicians who barely were teen-agers when he began his government career in 1960. The most likely outcome is that no candidate will win more than 50% of the vote in the nonpartisan June 5 election, and the two leading vote-getters will face off in November. But a recent Oakland Tribune-Gallup Poll confirmed what local politicos have been saying for weeks: Wilson may not make it to the runoff.

Only 18% of the likely voters backed Wilson. Assemblyman Elihu Harris, a Democrat who is giving up the legislative seat he has held for 12 years to mount a well-heeled effort to unseat Wilson, led with 32%, the poll showed.

Harris’ closest rival was veteran City Councilman Wilson Riles Jr., liberal son of the former state superintendent of schools, who was supported by 22%. Five other candidates had lesser support. And 22% were undecided.

In a sign of Wilson’s past impact on Oakland, candidates Harris, Riles and City Councilman Leo Bazile all have been labeled his protege in the past. Now, though, they depict him as a figure whom time has passed by.

“It is sad,” Riles said of the sinking political fortunes of the city’s first black mayor. “He was probably the right person to break the color barrier. (But) I don’t know whether he should have gotten a second term, and certainly not a third term. . . . People are saying it is time for a change.”

The campaign has been mean even by Oakland’s fractious standards. Candidate forums routinely are interrupted by demonstrators, and campaign rhetoric frequently has been downright nasty.

At a recent candidates forum, Bazile, a city councilman since 1983, ignored a thoughtful question about the future of downtown and accused Harris of a cavalier attitude toward crack cocaine use because he has broached the prospect of legalizing drugs.

Harris restrained himself, answered the question about downtown, and waited until after the debate to respond. He said he did not advocate that crack be made legal, though he added that in the fight against drugs, “We should not be afraid to discuss all of the options.”

Such asides notwithstanding, the issues in Oakland are considerable. Last October’s earthquake hit the city hard; repairs to city-owned buildings may cost $250 million. Officials must negotiate with Caltrans over a replacement for the collapsed Nimitz Freeway.

Meanwhile, thousands of blue-collar workers could lose their jobs if a federal study recommending closure of Oakland-area Navy bases becomes reality.

Crack use is epidemic, straining the health care system and fueling crime. A city of 360,000 people, Oakland had a record 148 homicides last year. The murder rate was third-highest in the state last year for cities with populations of more than 100,000, and the overall crime rate was second-worst.

Oakland schools, though not the mayor’s responsibility, are a major campaign topic. A state trustee has been appointed to oversee the Oakland Unified School District, and a criminal investigation has led to the arrests of 13 district employees for theft and embezzlement.

“The solutions to those problems are going to have to come at a quickened pace,” said Alameda County Supervisor Don Perata, who is neutral in the race. “Rhetoric won’t get by. You’re going to have to have some very adroit leadership.”

Then, there’s football.

After initial reluctance, Wilson backed an ambitious plan to lure the Los Angeles Raiders back to Oakland with an unprecedented $600-million-plus package of loans, grants, guaranteed profits and a promise to rebuild the Oakland Coliseum, all to suit team owner Al Davis.

Politicians quickly discovered that while Oakland football fans may pine for the Raiders, they don’t miss Davis. This is the man who spurned them by moving the team to Los Angeles after the 1981 football season. The thought that the city would guarantee him profits angered so many that 31,000 residents signed petitions to place the plan to bring the Raiders back on the ballot. The referendum was put on hold after Wilson withdrew his support of the deal; city officials and the Raiders have reopened negotiations.

Wilson conceded that the proposal has been “a negative” for him. He added, “I got caught in the middle.”

Even Councilman Riles, who scored big by opposing the deal, was shocked at the reaction. The deal elicited more angry calls than any municipal issue Riles could recall. “I lucked out,” he said.

Riles, long Wilson’s nemesis, tried to unseat the mayor in 1985. An ally of liberal Rep. Ron Dellums (D-Berkeley), Riles battles the moderate Wilson on such issues as rent control and development. He contends that more should be spent on the city’s poor neighborhoods and less on big downtown projects.

Wilson encouraged interest in his job by strengthening the office. Under a 1988 City Charter change that he engineered, the next mayor will make $80,000 a year, up from the previous $30,000.

He also supported moving local elections to even-numbered years. For the first time, the mayoral campaign is being held in conjunction with major state races. Turnout could hit 50%; in the last two mayoral elections, it was less than 28%.

At the time the changes were being debated, Wilson was leaning against running. He changed his mind last summer, saying he concluded that no other candidate could see through to completion development of a major downtown retail center.

However, as many voters apparently see it, Wilson’s day is over.

Clinton O’Keefe Killian, a 32-year-old lawyer and Harris supporter, talks of Oakland’s “tremendous potential,” but points to opportunities lost under Wilson. He extols the lifestyle in his ethnically diverse city, though he has complaints with faulty city services and frets about sending his children to Oakland schools.

“Oakland could be the town in California where blacks and other minorities can show they bring something to the table,” Killian said. But for all its promise of becoming “Atlanta-West,” Oakland won’t “go any further unless somebody is pushing it.”

Harris has tailored his message to such voters. While Wilson proved to any skeptics that “blacks could run the city,” Harris said, there’s a need now to move “beyond presence and become more aggressive.”

Harris has built his campaign around high-quality public schools. In some ways, it’s an odd issue to champion, given that the mayor has no say over the schools, which are run by an independently elected school board.

Still, Harris made a name for himself last year by pushing state legislation that led to the naming of a trustee to oversee the school district. The bill came after years of poor academic performance by students, studies critical of district management, and, finally, the criminal investigation.

Harris won popular support with the bill, but has taken his share of hits over it. Wilson charged that he pushed it merely to gain needed name identification.

The move also angered members of a black neighborhood group called the People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement. Using a variety of disruptive tactics, Uhuru adherents have been hounding Harris.

Their point: Harris backs “white colonialists” and “the U.S. government’s war against the black community” with his support of the school trustee.

FLORENCE, S.C. — Few people have anything bad to say about Darline Graham, who was catapulted from obscurity last month when she was appointed to replace her late brother Lindsey Graham in the U.S. Senate.

“I think Darline’s wonderful,” said Kathy Bustos of Mount Pleasant after attending a Republican forum recently.

But that doesn’t mean Bustos wants to vote for her in the state’s special primary Tuesday.

“I think it’s a very nice gesture for her to have the rest of his term to complete, but I’m not sure that she’s really qualified or ready to be elected to the Senate,” she said.

It’s a common sentiment among Republican voters pondering an unexpected decision about replacing Lindsey Graham, who was nominated for a fifth term before he died last month from a tear in his aorta. Darline Graham was often by his side throughout his career, but she remains largely unknown in South Carolina’s clubby political circles.

President Trump has endorsed her, and she’s backed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is running television advertising to support her candidacy.

However, Graham has been largely absent from the campaign trail, spending most of her time in Washington as an interim senator. Her appointment to the role, instead of giving her a leg up over the competition, may ultimately hold her back by preventing her from getting to know voters during a weeks-long sprint to Tuesday.

A crowded field

She is up against several well-known Republicans, including Reps. Russell Fry and Ralph Norman, as well as former Gov. Mark Sanford. The crowded field makes a runoff more likely, and it would be held Aug. 25.

All of them spoke at a Friday meeting of the Fourth District Republican Club in Greenville, but Graham sent a video message, saying she was “in Washington working hard for you.” She promised to be “a great friend and ally” to Trump and that she wanted to “earn your vote.”

And at a candidates event in Florence on Saturday, where Graham spoke, some of her supporters said they backed the interim senator’s decision to stay in Washington, even if it meant not campaigning.

“She committed to not missing votes or not being there to push forward with those bills,” said Teresa Castrinos, who made the hours-long drive from Bluffton to see Graham. “I feel like she’s putting South Carolina first. She’s wanting to fulfill her time as a senator right now, so I really admire her for that.”

A low profile

While Lindsey Graham was single and well-known around the world, his sister lived a relatively quiet life with her husband and daughters in Lexington, S.C. She spent years in state government, working with people with disabilities and as an agency head of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind.

Before participating in Saturday’s event in Florence, her only public campaign event had been a candidates forum in Lexington. Charles Brentnell of Greenville County, who said he was still considering whom to vote for, liked her decision to stay in Washington when the Senate was in session.

“Let’s keep the Senate at the Senate instead of taking a month off for no good reason,” he said.

Appearing alongside other contenders Saturday, Graham apologized for reading from notes from a lectern, pointing to the Senate votes that kept her in Washington until just hours before she headed to meet voters in South Carolina.

“Yes, I have some notes. You know why? Because I haven’t slept in two days, so I’m going to keep my thoughts straight,” Graham said, adding that she opposed Senate recess but lost out to others who wanted to end votes and go home. “I wanted to stay there, and I wanted to get things done.”

Graham also participated in one of two televised debates, where she backed Trump’s plan to change filibuster rules to make it easier to pass the president’s bill for strict voter ID requirements.

While other candidates came to speak to the media gathered afterward, Graham skipped the session and merely gave a thumbs-up outside when asked how she felt the debate had gone.

In contrast to her loquacious late brother, Graham has not spoken with reporters in Capitol Hill hallways or fielded questions on the stump.

She’s spoken at length to Fox News personalities Sean Hannity and Trey Gowdy, both of whom eulogized Lindsey Graham at memorial services last month, and granted two interviews to local news outlets.

On Saturday, in her first gaggle with reporters, Graham addressed some of voters’ concerns, reiterating her commitment to do Senate work when the chamber is in session.

“I feel like my job is to be in D.C. working for everyone right now. I hate that I can’t be here. I want to be here,” she said. “That’s why I left and didn’t sleep at all last night, so I could attend today’s event.”

As to the skepticism in sending her to Washington for six years, Graham cited her state government experience, plus the last several weeks she’s had serving as interim senator.

“Trust me, I have learned a lot already, so I think I have experience,” she said.

A second debate took place while Graham was in Washington on Tuesday, a date her campaign pointed out had been scheduled despite the senator’s conflict.

Gigi Bray of Charleston said the idea of Darline Graham serving in the interim makes sense, but electing her to a full term does not.

“I think it’s a great honor for her to hold her brother’s spot till November, but it’s time for a change,” said Bray, who backs Sanford. “I don’t think she has a lot of government experience, and I think right now, with the state of our country, I think it’s very important that somebody has experience.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Weeks before voting ended in California’s primary for governor, Los Angeles-based influencer Shaka Smith took to Instagram to tell his more than 700,000 followers whom he was voting for and why.

“Healthcare shouldn’t bankrupt you, housing should not feel impossible, polluters shouldn’t pass their bill to us, and artists should not be replaced by AI,” Smith said. “That’s why I’m supporting Tom Steyer for governor.”

But Smith started the video with a disclaimer: “This is an ad, and honestly, I wish more political content said that first.” His caption specified that he was paid by Steyer’s campaign.

California is one of two states, along with Texas, that have passed policies requiring content creators to say if they’ve been paid by a political campaign to post, and the Golden State is considering cracking down by fining people who don’t.

Campaigns have long worked with celebrities and major influencers to win over voters, but now they are teaming up with smaller creators — sometimes with fewer than 100,000 followers — to reach more tailored audiences. That has sparked debates about whether disclosure rules for political advertisements should apply to content creators, who are expected to play prominent roles in the upcoming midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

“If you’re running for president and you are not currently trying to court some of these people or lining up your own people to act as surrogates for you, you’re already behind,” said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist who worked for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

Campaigns tap creators to spread their message

Questions about transparency have been fueled by high-profile instances of influencers making content intended to change minds or votes without disclosing they were being paid.

In 2022, the campaign of Democratic then-Senate candidate John Fetterman paid Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi of “Jersey Shore” to record a video teasing his GOP rival for leaving New Jersey before announcing his run in Pennsylvania. In 2023, content creators were paid by an influencer marketing agency with conservative ties to defend Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, a Republican, after he was impeached for alleged bribery and other accusations of misconduct, according to the Texas Tribune. The payments weren’t clearly disclosed in either case.

Steyer, a Democratic billionaire who spent more than $215 million of his own money on his unsuccessful bid for governor, took fire from rivals for paying content creators. He wasn’t the only contender in the race paying influencers, but he faced much of the blowback because he had already been accused of trying to buy the election for having poured much of his personal fortune into his campaign. Many of the creators who worked with Steyer’s campaign disclosed that they were paid, but the state’s campaign finance watchdog is investigating several other instances in which creators allegedly didn’t.

There are no federal disclosure rules

Sen. Adam Schiff of California introduced federal legislation last month, but it hasn’t received a vote yet. Some outside groups are urging the Federal Election Commission to pass its own rule.

California’s law requiring disclosure, passed in 2023, is difficult to enforce. The state’s campaign watchdog can seek a court order compelling an influencer to disclose that they were paid, but that can take months.

That prompted Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) to write a new bill to penalize content creators and political committees if the creator fails to state they were compensated. The bill would give the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission the power to fine influencers and committees if they are found to have violated the law, allowing the commission to bypass the court process. They could face fines of up to $5,000 per violation, according to the commission.

“Voters should have a right to know whether or not campaigns are paying for the messaging that they’re seeing,” Berman said.

Texas’ campaign watchdog passed a rule in 2024 requiring content creators to include disclaimers when they are paid for political advertisements, and the New York Legislature is considering a similar requirement. Other disclosure bills failed in recent years in Utah and Georgia.

Influencer says his ad had an impact

Smith, the L.A. influencer, hadn’t committed to a candidate for governor when a trusted friend told him to look into Steyer. That friend had been paid to post about Steyer.

Smith liked Steyer’s promise to increase taxes on billionaires and his refusal to accept donations from corporate political action committees.

He ended up doing two paid ads, both of which included compensation disclaimers that the Steyer campaign told him were a requirement.

Smith wouldn’t say exactly how much the campaign paid him, but he said it was in the thousands of dollars. He thinks the posts had an effect on his followers, with only a few detractors objecting.

“They kind of trust my voice,” he said of his audience. “They knew that if I’m saying it, it’s at least something they should look into.”

Creators respond to proposed policy changes

Dustin Torreverde, a content creator in Southern California who hasn’t been paid by a political campaign for social media posts, said it’s important for influencers to be transparent with their audiences. But the bill could pose an unfair burden on creators who are just trying to make a living, he said.

“A lot of us are very small creators,” he said. “So if we were to get penalized and we have to get lawyers, stuff like that, it’s going to be very difficult for us.”

Adina Flores, a libertarian content creator in Northern California who votes for both parties, said influencers should have to disclose if they are paid and that she generally supports penalties. She worries some people may take money to post political content without doing a “deep dive into the candidate to make sure that’s somebody they should support.”

Saurav Ghosh, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on protecting American democracy, hopes disclosure requirements passed by states will lead to federal rules.

“Transparency is one of the most important pillars of our election system,” he said.

Austin writes for the Associated Press.

Abigail Aguirre has been sleeping terribly.

Too many times, she said, residents of a nearby homeless encampment have partied late into the night — sometimes yelling, sometimes blasting music. The noise is especially hard on her husband, who frequently leaves for his job before 5 a.m.

“Oh my God, they don’t let us sleep,” said Aguirre, whose home sits just east of the 110 Freeway in South Los Angeles. “They do drugs in there. They play the loud music. They don’t care.”

Three years ago, workers with Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe program moved dozens of homeless people from Aguirre’s neighborhood into nearby hotels and motels. Sanitation crews cleared the streets and sidewalks of trash.

But more people, and their tents, kept arriving, not just near Aguirre’s home but on many of the east-west streets that pass over the 110 south of downtown: 43rd, 49th, 51st and Vernon Avenue, to name a few.

Unsheltered homelessness — people living on the street or in their vehicles — went up nearly 8% citywide in this year’s homeless count, dealing a setback to Bass, who is running for reelection and has made homelessness a core part of her agenda.

The streets that line the 110 Freeway between 42nd and 58th are a potent symbol of the challenges facing Bass and her program. According to records obtained by The Times, outreach workers carried out Inside Safe operations 25 times on that one-mile stretch during her first three years as mayor, returning again and again to bring people indoors.

Frank Gordon, 51, has been living on Cahuenga Boulevard at the 101 Freeway in Hollywood. Mayor Karen Bass’ Inside Safe program has moved people indoors from that location several times since 2022.

During one operation, Inside Safe brought 42 people inside. A month later, 54 more people came indoors. On other occasions, progress was measured in single digits: two people during one visit, five on another, eight on the next.

Despite those efforts, many of the overpasses and side streets still have encampments. Things have been especially grim on the 51st Street overpass, where tents, makeshift structures and huge mounds of trash lined the sidewalks. In the street, a refrigerator missing a door was on its back, overflowing with garbage.

Joel Galarza, who lives in a house nearby, said the encampment has brought crime, fires, prostitution, open-air drug use and other problems. In May, a man was found stabbed on the overpass.

Galarza said his family has called the city and the LAPD many times, only to see the situation get worse.

“It feels like there’s no more hope, that your voice doesn’t matter,” he said.

Since taking office, Bass has made the removal of street encampments a top priority, arguing that they are unsafe both for unhoused residents and for the neighbors. She said early on that Angelenos will not view her work as a success until their communities are free of tents.

Inside Safe, her signature homeless program, has moved more than 6,200 people into hotels, motels and other interim housing. But by June 30, 43% of them were back on the street, with some getting kicked out and others walking away.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Traci Park, left, and residents of Venice thank Mayor Karen Bass in 2023 for overseeing efforts to move more than 100 people into temporary housing from sidewalks in Venice.

Bass, in an interview, said she understands the frustration of people who live near the encampments. She said she hopes to overhaul the city’s approach to the crisis in the coming months by securing greater control over services such as medical care, addiction treatment and case management.

At the same time, she contends that her administration has made major strides, keeping about 80% of the locations visited by Inside Safe free of tents in recent weeks.

“Inside Safe has been a success in terms of getting people off the streets and clearing encampments,” Bass said. “What Inside Safe has not been able to do is reach the scale that is needed.”

Bass said Inside Safe has conducted 137 encampment operations so far, when many more are needed. To expand the program’s reach, the city will need to move away from expensive hotels and motels and toward high-quality homeless shelters, the mayor said.

1

2

1. A man sits with his belongings on Cahuenga Boulevard under the 101 freeway in Hollywood. (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times) 2. A torn copy of a notice announcing a cleanup of homeless encampments hangs from a stop sign along Grand Avenue at 51st Street in South Los Angeles. (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

The repopulation issues have not been limited to the 110 corridor. By December, the end of Bass’ third year, 23 Inside Safe areas across the city — about a fifth of the total at that time — had received at least five visits from the mayor’s outreach team, records show.

Inside Safe went to a handful of streets just east of MacArthur Park 10 times over two years. In Hollywood, around Franklin and Argyle avenues, the program conducted eight operations over 18 months.

By the fourth quarter of 2025, 80% of Inside Safe encampment operations — 36 out of 45 — involved areas that had repopulated, records show. Nine were new to the program.

City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running for mayor against Bass, said Inside Safe is ineffective and too expensive, forcing taxpayers to pay a premium to “shuffle people around rather than get them housed for good.”

“When 40% of the people who participated in the program return to homelessness, and some locations need repeat outreach visits five, 10, even 25 times, it tells us that something is wrong,” she said in a statement.

Bass and her team said many of the most problem-plagued Inside Safe locations are at freeway overpasses, which are attractive to homeless people because they provide shelter from scorching summer sun and the winter’s pouring rain. Freeways and industrial areas are also popular because they provide some degree of privacy, they said.

In some cases, people move to an Inside Safe location hoping to be offered housing, just as previous residents were, Bass said.

In other cases, she said, people have returned to the street because they need intensive care, such as a psychiatric bed. Those beds, which are provided by L.A. County, are not always available, Bass said.

Estela Lopez, head of the Downtown Industrial Business Improvement District, which represents businesses in Skid Row, said repopulation happens for a simple reason: a lack of enforcement. Once an encampment is cleared and people are moved indoors, police should be allowed to enforce city laws and make sure an area stays clear, she said.

A pedestrian walks into the street to get around a homeless encampment on Alameda Street. The Inside Safe program went to that area 12 times over a single year.

Lopez said she regularly receives complaints about a row of encampments on Alameda Street between 4th and 6th streets. Inside Safe visited that two-block stretch 12 times last year, records show.

Last month, the area had about a dozen tents, which forced pedestrians to leave the sidewalk and walk on Alameda, where large trucks travel to and from nearby industrial businesses.

Lopez offered another reason that homeless people keep coming back.

“That’s where the drugs are,” she said. “It’s Skid Row, and Skid Row is where the drugs are, and has the fewest consequences for open-air drug use and sales.”

Bass’ first Inside Safe operation, more than three years ago, hit a stretch of Cahuenga Boulevard under the 101 Freeway in Hollywood, an area represented by Raman.

Inside Safe went to Cahuenga and the 101 six times over 18 months, according to the city’s records. Two blocks south, the program made five separate visits to Franklin and Cahuenga.

Frank Gordon said that he and his girlfriend lived in an RV on Cahuenga next to the 101 during the COVID era, when the streets were lined with encampments. Outreach workers eventually moved them into the Stuart Hotel in Westlake, he said.

From there, the couple relocated to the Highland Gardens, a hotel in Raman’s district converted into homeless housing. Gordon said they left the facility after one of their rooms was destroyed in a fire, going to yet another interim housing site.

Last month, they were back at Cahuenga and the 101. He called it “familiar ground.”

Sanitation crews remove belongings from a homeless encampment during an Inside Safe operation on Laurel Canyon Blvd. in North Hollywood in March.

Kevin Paz, who has been sleeping on the 51st Street overpass in South L.A., said he used to live a few blocks away. He still has friends in the area, including high school classmates.

“It made more sense to stay here than to live anywhere else,” he said.

Seated on the overpass on a swelteringly hot day, the 32-year-old said he picked his particular strip of sidewalk for the shade it gets from the elevated 110 Freeway carpool lane. He said he would accept a motel room if offered one.

“Honestly, nobody wakes up in the morning and says, ‘Hey, I wanna go live on that street,’” he said.

Bass’ team has highlighted the scores of locations where encampments have not returned. They pointed to the success of an Inside Safe operation at 6th and Fairfax, where the sidewalk was later narrowed and new landscaping was planted, making it difficult to camp there.

West of downtown, streets and sidewalks also remain clear around Angelus Rosedale Cemetery, where 48 people were brought indoors in April 2025. To keep people from living in their cars at that location, city crews turned a stretch of Washington Boulevard into a no-parking zone, Bass’ team said.

Even some places that had severe repopulation issues are now clear of tents.

In Harbor City, Inside Safe went to the same intersection a dozen times between 2023 and 2025. That location has been free of encampments for 17 months, said Councilmember Tim McOsker, who represents the area.

McOsker credited the mayor’s team, as well as his staff, for going to the location over and over to offer interim housing to new arrivals. He also asked a group that delivers glass pipes and clean hypodermic needles to relocate, saying the service was attracting newcomers to an area that had been cleared.

In Baldwin Hills, Inside Safe workers went to Jim Gilliam Park 14 times over three years. Last week, encampments no longer occupied the grassy area around the tennis courts on La Brea Avenue or the sidewalks along the nearby Michelle and Barack Obama Sports Complex.

Johnnie Raines III, who serves on the local neighborhood council, knows some of the people Inside Safe brought indoors. He said the program has been “life-changing” for them.

Still, Raines, 79, has no illusions about the challenges the city faces.

“If you house these three people that are in this space today, three more will show up,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that you were not successful in housing the first three people. That just means that three more people come.”

Elmer Roldan, who lives in South Los Angeles, points out the spot where an encampment burned on Grand Avenue near 54th Street.

In the neighborhoods that abut the 110 in South L.A., some residents have lost patience.

Elmer Roldan, who lives on 55th Street, said some of his homeless neighbors have been causing fires — sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose. Earlier this year, he called 911 after seeing a man set fire to vines hanging from the freeway’s sound wall.

Roldan, who ran unsuccessfully for City Council in June, said he sees plenty of people living in their vehicles, but fewer tents. Still, he said, it’s been demoralizing to have so many come back.

“I certainly don’t want it to get worse,” he said.

Times staff writer Doug Smith contributed to this report.

For six years, Californians have been able to shake up a craft cocktail at home using alcohol delivered to their doorstep. Now, it’s last call for the distillery deliveries, unless lawmakers intervene by the end of this month.

That’s unlikely, thanks to opposition from California’s wine industry, Teamsters union truck drivers and corporate alcohol wholesalers and distributors.

The influential, well-funded groups lobbied the Legislature behind closed doors this year to block legislation that would have made permanent pandemic-era rules that allowed craft distillers to ship spirits directly to their customers.

During the pandemic lockdowns, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that allowed craft distillers to ship spirits to their customers’ homes. In the years since, lawmakers passed temporary laws allowing craft distillers — defined as those that produce up to 150,000 gallons a year — to keep shipping their spirits.

The latest extension expires Dec. 31.

“I don’t have a lot of hope that we’re going to be able to salvage this,” said Folsom Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover. He tried unsuccessfully this year to amend one of his bills to let small distillers continue shipping directly to their customers.

The groups blocking Hoover’s proposal have spent more than $1 million lobbying the Legislature and state government this year. They have donated at least 11 times that much to California politicians and their campaigns over the years.

The craft distillers, who have spent a fraction as much on state politics, say all that spending from the opposition, particularly from corporate liquor distributors, appears to have paid off.

Cris Steller, owner of Dry Diggings Distillery, talks about the various products that are made in his distillery.

(Fred Greaves / For CalMatters)

“They went directly to legislators’ offices and basically torpedoed any effort we came up with,” said Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Assn. and the owner of Amador and Dry Diggings Distillery in El Dorado Hills, a family-run business that makes whiskey, brandy, vodka and gin.

The fight is about more than whether Californians can have a bottle of whiskey or gin delivered. It illustrates how decisions are made in Sacramento, where wealthy and powerful interests can shape or kill policy in secret negotiations with lawmakers. Politicians, in turn, benefit when proposals die quietly because they don’t have to explain their decisions to voters.

Opponents insist they aren’t using the political system to crush competitors as national alcohol sales slump.

Instead, representatives of the major alcohol wholesalers and distributors that stock shelves at liquor retailers say they oppose the proposal because it primarily benefits out-of-state companies and weakens safeguards that include preventing alcohol deliveries to minors.

Teamsters lobbyist Matt Broad said the labor group’s truck drivers aren’t opposed to allowing craft distillers to ship their product. They just want them to use established shipping companies that have actual employees, including those that employ Teamsters, such as UPS. Those companies, Broad said, have standards to ensure liquor is delivered legally.

Those companies have standards to ensure legal delivery, Broad said. When they employ drivers rather than use contractors, the companies — not the drivers — bear legal liability.

Federal law preempts California from mandating hiring unionized truck drivers, Broad said.

“We are absolutely not opposed to the little guys being able to ship directly to consumers, and in fact, we have a track record of supporting the proposal but with meaningful guardrails that protect our members and protect the public,” he told CalMatters.

The California wine industry, which has been allowed to ship bottles directly to customers in California for decades, isn’t necessarily opposed either. But its representative says wine sellers are leery of giving little alcohol sellers delivery rights when big liquor companies deserve the same. Wineries of any size can ship to their customers in California.

Big Booze, Big Labor spend big

The U.S. Postal Service prohibits most alcohol shipments to homes, but California allows certain types of alcohol sellers to use private shipping companies. Breweries are prohibited from shipping directly to California customers.

Hoover hoped his Assembly Bill 2211, a proposal to give craft distillers the ability to offer tastings and sell spirits at locations other than their distilleries, could be amended to give craft distillers a permanent direct-to-consumer provision.

It has advanced through the Legislature without formal opposition or any lawmaker voting against it, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. The measure is pending before the full Senate.

There may be no formal opposition, but reports filed with the California secretary of state show an extensive behind-the-scenes lobbying effort aimed at preventing any changes.

At least six groups, including some of the biggest national alcohol distributors, have reported lobbying on Hoover’s bill.

The reports show those groups spent more than $1 million on lobbying this year. State ethics laws only require entities to report the total amount they spent lobbying the government in a year. They’re not required to report how much they spent on specific legislation, so it’s unclear how much they spent trying to influence lawmakers as they considered AB 2211 and its never-published direct-shipping amendment.

Those groups, along with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Wine Institute, have given at least $11 million to both Democrats and Republicans in California since 2000, according to Digital Democracy, including at least $738,000 since 2025, the start of the current two-year legislative session.

By comparison, California’s craft distillers reported spending $54,000 on lobbying this year.

They reported just three donations to lawmakers in the past decade, according to Digital Democracy. One was a $42 bottle of whiskey in 2022 to former Napa Democratic Sen. Bill Dodd, who now lobbies on behalf of the craft distillery industry. In 2023, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas received $215 in tequila. Democratic Assemblymember-turned U.S. Rep. Adam Gray received a $1,300 campaign donation in 2016.
Hoover said he has been trying since last year to add language to his bill that would allow craft distillers to permanently keep shipping. He succeeded last year in getting the extension that expires Dec. 31, but this year he’s been unable to overcome the opposition to expanding the tasting room measure.

“I’m always open to figuring this out, if there’s a way that we can make this work. … but I don’t have a lot of hope that this bill is going to preserve those provisions this year,” he said.

With less than a month left before the Legislature finishes for the year on Aug. 31, Democratic leaders would probably need to sign off on changes to Hoover’s tasting room measure. They’ve offered little indication they intend to intervene for craft distillers.

Rivas, who’s received at least $108,000 in donations over the years from opponents of Hoover’s unpublished proposal, declined CalMatters’ request for an interview. Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who’s received at least $33,000, responded to an interview request with an emailed statement saying she is aware of the pending deadline.

“This bill will continue to work its way through the legislative process as intended,” it said.

Bottles of spirits produced by Dry Diggings Distillery in El Dorado Hills on Aug. 4.

(Fred Greaves / For CalMatters)

Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, oversee the committees that regulate California’s alcohol industry. When Hoover’s measure passed through their committees, the chairs could have allowed Hoover to add the direct-to-consumer amendment. They did not.

Susan Rubio has received at least $65,000 in donations from the groups blocking the direct-shipping proposal, according to Digital Democracy. Blanca Rubio has received at least $129,000.

Sen. Rubio’s spokesperson, Giovanni Ruiz Reyes, responded to interview requests with emailed statements. The first said “conversations between stakeholders are ongoing” and that she “looks forward” to reviewing potential legislation.

Ruiz Reyes said in a second statement Thursday that she’s supported four previous extensions of the craft distiller shipping policy.

“There is currently no bill or amendment before the committee seeking another extension,” Ruiz Reyes said. “Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to suggest that Senator Rubio or the committee has blocked or refused to hear an extension when no such proposal is currently before the committee.”

Assemblymember Rubio didn’t return interview requests.

Fewer Americans are drinking

The liquor industry is facing a nationwide decline as more Americans cut back on drinking.

In that difficult business climate, corporate liquor wholesalers and distribution companies lobbied “to obliterate competition,” said Dodd, the former state senator from wine country lobbying on behalf of craft distillers.

“We oppose any effort to make DTC (direct to consumer) permanent,” the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors and the California Family Beer Distributors wrote in a joint statement to CalMatters.

Craft distilleries’ direct shipping “was always meant to be temporary pandemic relief, and it’s expiring exactly as designed, six years later,” said the groups, which represent local and national companies that move many of America’s best-known beer, wine and liquor brands. They argue that after the law expires, spirits can still be delivered to customers through services such as DoorDash. DoorDash is listed as a member of the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America on its website.

The groups’ representative, Kevin Luckey, declined an interview request.

Steve Gross, president and chief executive of the Wine Institute, said the wine industry has worked hard over the decades to have large and small wine sellers treated equally under California and national alcohol distribution laws. He said it would undermine his industry’s efforts if small distillers get delivery rights in California when large ones don’t have them.

“They have the option to go in and try and fight for a bill that we and others could also support,” Gross said. “They’ve chosen not to because those larger distillers are not their members.”

The Wine Institute is a lobbying group that represents more than 700 large and small wine sellers, including one of the world’s largest, Modesto-based Gallo Winery.

Craft distillers say they’ve tried to work with the groups blocking their bill to address their concerns, but they have gotten nowhere.

In the meantime, Steller, the El Dorado Hills distiller, has already started pulling back on shipping bottles to his customers because the Legislature won’t budge.

“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” he said.

Ryan Sabalow writes for CalMatters.

In a matter of a few clicks and keystrokes, anyone can find themselves deep in conversation with “Psychologist,” a chatbot character that describes itself as an expert in “empathy” and “active listening.”

It responds to messages of anxiety and sadness with reassurance. It asks questions and offers advice; it even responds with italicized nonverbal cues: “The psychologist’s expression softens with compassion.” In smaller font, a disclaimer reads: “This is A.I. and not a real person. Treat everything it says as fiction.”

As more people turn to chatbots for mental health help and advice — including by some estimates one in eight teens and young adults — legislators are in a race to keep up with the quickly developing technology. Among the latest efforts is a bill that would add restrictions around the use of chatbot companions and other artificial intelligence-powered tools that people use to support mental healthcare or in lieu of professional help.

State Sen. Steve Padilla, a San Diego Democrat and the bill’s author, said the intent is to draw a line: AI can be used for administrative purposes and to support clinicians, but it cannot practice psychotherapy.

“We’re dealing with a new impactful technology that is unfolding and is deployed in our world at light speed, and so it is both extremely powerful and consequential,” Padilla said.

The debate has taken on new urgency amid wrongful death lawsuits — some playing out in California federal courts — that accuse AI chatbot makers of contributing to users’ suicides.

Senate Bill 903 would ban companies from advertising chatbots as therapy. It would prohibit AI from making therapeutic decisions without the review of a licensed professional and require health providers to disclose and get a patient’s permission before using AI tools to record therapy sessions or to triage mental healthcare.

Consumer protections vs. innovation

The bill is backed by professional associations that represent psychologists, therapists and counselors. Also behind the bill is the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which has been leading a push against unchecked use of artificial intelligence and digital tools in mental healthcare. Most recently, the union filed a complaint with state regulators against Kaiser Permanente for its alleged use of an automated algorithm in mental health triaging.

Padilla and supporters argue that the legislation is needed to protect consumers from AI in formal and informal spaces, but also to protect licensed professionals from being displaced by AI.

Le Ondra Clark Harvey, chief executive officer at the California Behavioral Health Assn., told lawmakers that without clear safeguards, chatbots can provide inaccurate information or mishandle crisis situations. “The difference between a licensed clinician and an automated response is not technical. It can be life altering,” Harvey said.

Opposition to the bill has largely focused on the restrictions of AI use in formal clinical spaces. TechNet, which represents tech-sector companies, argues the legislation could restrict beneficial uses of AI in healthcare and stifle innovation. Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California, said the bill could limit the use of tools that help expand access to mental healthcare.

“At a time when every county in California faces a shortage of behavioral healthcare workers, SB 903 still puts a clinician bottleneck in front of the intake and screening tools that help patients reach care faster,” Boykin said in an emailed statement.

The bill awaits its next vote in the Assembly’s fiscal committee.

Popular chatbot ‘therapy’

Every day millions of people turn to AI chatbots through programs such as ChatGPT and Character.ai to help with research, work tasks and troubleshooting. But the top use of chatbots over the last two years has been companionship and “therapy,” research shows.

Experts say that’s in part because of a tremendous amount of loneliness, especially among young people. It is often hard or costly to get timely mental healthcare at the same time there is a spike in mental health diagnoses.

People turn to chatbots “because they have unmet needs,” said Dr. Jodi Halpern, professor of bioethics and medical humanities at UC Berkeley. But once people start using chatbots in this informal way, she said companies rely on a business model built around maximizing engagement “including by manipulative tactics,” such as praise and agreement.

General chatbots are largely free, available 24/7, and involve no hassle with insurance, making them appealing to many. But they function with no oversight from licensed professionals. In addition to general chatbots, there has also been a rapid uptick in AI-powered mental health apps — often requiring paid subscriptions and advertised as “pocket therapists” or “AI coaches.”

Groups like the American Psychological Assn. warn that chatbots are not a safe or effective replacement for true therapy. Trained clinicians look for cues like tone of voice, eye contact and body language and can detect more serious conditions; AI is not equipped to manage urgent symptoms, such as suicidal ideation, even though people increasingly share such thoughts with chatbots.

OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, revealed in a report last fall that about 1.2 million users a week share thoughts of suicide on the platform. OpenAI said that in such cases, it recommends people speak to a professional and directs them to resources like the 988 hotline. Families who have filed wrongful death lawsuits against OpenAI and other companies claim chatbots assisted their loved ones through their suicide plans.

The cases have helped raise the stakes for lawmakers around the country. Last year, Illinois became the first state to pass a law prohibiting the use of AI in therapy services. A handful of other states have since followed with similar restrictions.

AI use in health spaces

One gray area in the discussion is exactly which tools this bill applies to.

NUHW’s complaint against Kaiser targets its e-visit screening tool, which evaluates patients who think they may be experiencing anxiety or depression. According to the complaint, patients answer a multiple choice questionnaire and the tool “automatically and instantaneously generates care recommendations and referral pathways based on the responses provided.”

The union argues that because care recommendations are generated so quickly, it is unlikely that a licensed professional is reviewing patients’ answers — which it says puts patients at risk and violates state law.

It’s not clear whether SB 903 would apply to Kaiser’s e-visit tool.

“That tool is in a black box. Kaiser is not sharing with us or others about exactly how it works and exactly what it does,” said Benjamin Eichert, NUHW’s director of public policy.

In response to the complaint, Kaiser told CalMatters its e-visit tool “does not use AI to diagnose patients, make clinical decisions, or determine medical necessity.”

Eichert said many other behavioral health provider groups are already advertising using AI during triage — a practice he said would fall under SB 903’s requirements.

“That intake process, that triage and screening process, is where implementation [of AI] has happened fastest,” Eichert said. “That’s why those provisions were proposed because it’s an area where this technology is already being used without guardrails.”

For NUHW, the bill and the complaint against Kaiser represent two tracks toward the same goal: reasserting the place of practitioners in spaces increasingly taken over by algorithms. State regulators are investigating the union’s complaint.

Ibarra writes for CalMatters.

A slew of online discourse unfolded last week after Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet shared that a college-aged member of the conservative nonprofit told him, “A burrito shouldn’t cost $20.”

“Yeah, a lot of this is a hangover from COVID and Biden-era inflation, but the lived experience is the same: It just feels like basic things cost too much,” Kolvet wrote in the viral X post, which has racked up more than 3 million views.

The online controversy highlights a deep frustration for young adults in Los Angeles. While politicians appear to be debating inflation for their own ends, students are struggling with the reality of not being able to afford food.

A $20 burrito sounds “unjustifiable” to Klarissa Palacios, who graduated from USC in May with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in law, history and culture. While in school, Palacios interned at various city hall offices and said her hourly salary eventually reached $25 — a key consideration for college students, she said, because many young people determine a meal’s affordability based on how many work hours can pay it off.

With minimum wage in L.A. at $18.42 per hour as of July, college students earning this rate would need to work for more than an hour in order to pay for just one burrito, Palacios pointed out.

“I’m Mexican, so I grew up with free burritos at home, anytime I wanted. $20 is pretty steep,” she said. “I’m expected to eat three times a day. If I’m spending $20 per meal and I work eight hours, then that means I’m only really getting paid five hours.”

Noticing a need for affordable meals, Palacios and fellow USC student Josiah Herfurth spent this past semester hosting $10-per-person lunches at their college apartments, dubbing the offering Cafe 10:31. The idea budded from a survey they sent to fellow members of their campus ministry, which found that the leading reason students weren’t attending post-church lunches at restaurants ranging from In-N-Out to sit-down ramen spots was because they wanted to save money, not for a lack of transportation or time.

So Palacios and Herfurth began paying out of pocket for bulk Costco runs that fed as many as 40 people per event. On the menu? Tacos, chili, hot dogs and conversation.

“It started with being just a USC college student thing, and ended up being just a general young adults thing,” Herfurth said, referring to how word quickly spread to UCLA and Cal State Long Beach students, as well as the young adult community at their church.

Herfurth is used to meal prepping in bulk, and said it’s a common practice among college students hoping to cut costs. He and his roommates would use up to six stove burners at a time to prepare meals together, he said.

“It was always more fun for me when I could share something with someone else, and it also made things cheaper,” Herfurth said. “That was the key to me.”

As the online conversation around food affordability evolved, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) chimed in on X.

“Just hearing about this dumb $20 burrito debate so just thought I’d make the losers on social media angry before going to bed,” Crenshaw wrote. “Stop whining, get a job, eat ramen like the rest of us did in college, on a budget with four roommates.”

But Megan Monroe, who graduated from UCLA in June, said it’s unrealistic to eat packaged ramen like the iconic Cup Noodles brand for every meal.

“Just because someone else did it, doesn’t mean that was the right thing to do,” Monroe said. “Nutrition has come such a long way. … I think it’s for the best that we’re steering toward a better, nutritional diet.”

Still, Monroe is a stickler for keeping her diet affordable.

Even though UCLA’s dining halls are recognized as the best in the country, Monroe opted out of the campus meal plan her junior year. Her required freshman and sophomore year plans came out to about $9 per visit, but when she moved to an off-campus, university-owned housing complex, she had the choice to opt into a plan that would cost about $15 per visit. She deemed it too expensive.

“I was like, I can cook for less than that,” Monroe said.

Since her dining hall days, Monroe now makes one Trader Joe’s trip per week, which usually comes out to about $45. She typically has milk and cereal for breakfast and is known among friends to eat a homemade take on a classic deli combination “360 days of the year”: a cold sandwich, a piece of fruit and a bag of chips.

Monroe does dine out once per week, including for burritos — she favors the $11 burrito at Brother’s Cousins Tacos in Sawtelle.

In a burrito city like L.A., prices can range dramatically, such as Burritos La Palma’s $5 homestyle burritos, where the menu recommends ordering two or three per person for a satisfying meal. When former taco stand El Ruso opened its flagship in Studio City last month, burritos wrapped in 18-inch Sonoran flour tortillas and stuffed with rib-eye or chile Colorado were priced at $20 each. It’s not uncommon to find breakfast burritos that exceed $20, like the $24 wrap with beef machaca and shrimp offered on Daisy Margarita Bar’s weekend brunch menu.

For students at other universities, campus dining varies in affordability.

When Joshua Min started at Cal State Long Beach in 2025, a $315-million renovation project had just shut down its University Student Union through 2028.

In light of the closure shuttering certain food options on campus, the university gathered an array of local food trucks — with most meals within the $15 to $20 range, Min said. Not wanting to spend additional funds, he opted into a meal plan offered for commuter students like himself, with 50 meals for the 16-week semester that came to about $10 per meal.

Min said he had minimal complaints of the food itself; he often filled up his plate with chicken, rice, fruit and vegetables. But he found himself rationing the meal swipes, starting the semester conservatively and ending with extras, which he used by inviting his friends to come with him.

After that semester, Min opted to pack turkey or tuna salad sandwiches for school, using bulk ingredients that his family buys from Costco.

Min said he ultimately was disappointed at Cal State Long Beach’s selection of food trucks, as a student who prioritizes cutting his cost of living.

“It seemed like they just cobbled up these ideas at the last minute,” he said. “I respect the effort, but I think a lot of students were left unheard and hungry.”

This video, made by a teenager who was living in one of the OPPP buildings in Vargas state, is one of the most moving visual documents of a tragedy that abounds in them.

If you are brave enough to watch it to the end, you’ll be moved by the crying around the kid trying to save his life without turning off the camera, his effort to get out of his room just after the earthquake that shook Vargas state, the desperation of the people looking for their relatives, shouting the names of their kids. The continuous shot of outstanding cinematic quality leads us down the stairs onto the streets where an entire community begins to run for shelter and to take the wounded to someplace where someone can save their lives. You see that the building is standing but irremediably damaged, that it will be impossible to inhabit again. These people have lost everything in an instant, and they are just realizing it. And you realize, with them, the depth, the extent of their vulnerability. 

This is a complex built with oil money by a government that was desperate to get its president reelected at any cost, even if that president was dying of cancer and telling everyone he was fine. The same government, with another president that no one elected, is in place several years later. During the first thirteen minutes this video recorded, the immediate aftermath, we see no police, no firemen, no rescuers. The only trace of the State is the damaged building. Well, way more than thirteen minutes would pass, and that community of people would have to remove their dead from the rubble with no help from the State.

Between 2011 and 2015, the OPPP managed approximately $3.3 billion, calculated using the official exchange rates for each year. There was no transparency regarding the use of these funds. The office received 1.17 billion the year Chávez was last re-elected.

The State failed them. It failed to prevent this tragedy. It failed to respond to it. It’s failing at learning from it. And all this is deliberate: it’s part of a model of exerting power and extracting everything from the nation.

The failure at preventing

The OPPP buildings we see in the video (shorthand for the Presidential Office for Special Plans and Projects, known for housing people displaced by the 2010 floods, a landmark component of the Gran Misión Vivienda Venezuela) are a dramatic example of the lack of safeguards during construction, particularly in public housing complexes. In previous reporting, we have noted that both private and public residential buildings were severely affected by the earthquakes, and that drawing broad political conclusions from the rubble alone would be imprudent. However, there are documented cases in which the State actively disregarded construction practices that could have better prepared infrastructure to withstand the double earthquake.

According to Armando.Info, the OPPP’s first president, architect Francisco “Farruco” Sesto, once acknowledged that soil studies were not conducted due to the need to deliver fast. Independent assessments showed that buildings of that scale simply could not comply with safeguards in that time frame and that the local soil requires extensive studies. Beyond that significant omission, the construction process was marked by limited financial transparency and opaque contracting practices. Even before the earthquakes, residents had raised concerns about vulnerabilities in the buildings. After the disaster, Armando.Info identified that nearly 4 out of every 10 OPPP towers collapsed, while 27 suffered serious structural damage.

Speed was also the priority with the Hugo Chávez complex in Playa Grande. More than 150 of its 196 buildings were crushed, sunken, or tilted, while even those that remained standing suffered significant internal damage. As with the OPPP developments, Armando.Info found no publicly available records confirming that detailed soil studies were conducted before construction. They were made by a company called Summa, which was awarded the contract within the framework of the Venezuela-Türkiye Agreement of 2011. The complex reached an estimated population density of approximately 450 people per hectare, three times the 150 inhabitants per hectare permitted for that type of terrain. Independent assessments have also raised the strong possibility of inadequate foundations, while the compressed construction schedule may have made strict compliance with seismic-resistance regulations more difficult. Community spokespeople speak of more than 3,000 affected families.

Despite extensive efforts of citizen-led initiatives to try to find missing people, there is still no official number reported by the State.

Between 2011 and 2015, the OPPP managed approximately $3.3 billion, calculated using the official exchange rates for each year. There was no transparency regarding the use of these funds. The year with the largest budget was 2012, when the office received approximately $1.17 billion, during an election year.

This is part of a broader pattern of simply ignoring seismic-resistant regulations. Physicist Raúl Estévez pointed out that Venezuelan scientists have been engaging with the question of seismic activity and risk prevention in the country for decades, including seismic microzoning of urban areas, but the State did not take active effort to increase the country’s capability to resist earthquakes. In fact, it did the opposite. Geologist Luiraima Salazar echoed a similar statement: “Buildings were raised on land whose stability, bearing capacity, shear resistance, or behavior during an earthquake required much more detailed and specialized studies or simply incorporating all the knowledge generated in the country’s geoscience faculties, because all this was already known, but was somehow ignored by those who had decision-making power. That is why some areas are more vulnerable than others, not only because they are close to an active fault, but because they combine unfavorable soils, poor construction, high density of population, unstable slopes, poorly prepared essential services and bad political decisions in the management of territorial planning based on geological risk.”

All is compounded by Venezuela’s prolonged complex humanitarian emergency,  with food insecurity, an unstable electrical grid, and a healthcare system in which, according to Transparencia Venezuela, only 40% of operating rooms were functional, 74% lacked surgical supplies, and approximately 60% of hospitals lacked running water. The country was simply not well positioned to face an emergency of the scale of the double earthquake. 

The failure at responding

The State’s response was extremely delayed compared to international standards. Within the first 24 hours, reports Transparencia Venezuela, the government deployed only 12.6% of its peak personnel. That figure reached 34.6% after 48 hours. The maximum deployment of 31,837 civilian and military officials was not achieved until day 18, well past the crucial 72-hour “golden window” when rescuing survivors is most feasible.  

According to The Wall Street Journal, in the first few hours after the tragedy, the government also hindered the efforts of rescue workers by blocking or delaying international rescue teams, demanding they obtain safe conduct passages and forcing them to participate in propaganda-related activities, all while dismissing the massive citizen reaction as a “media matrix”. The delays were costly in lives, time and money, with the flight detour costing another $20,000 in fuel for the jet that a private donor had lent them. “Rescue teams say they squandered hours waiting to receive their equipment and luggage at the overwhelmed airport in Valencia, a two-hour drive from the disaster. Some said they were forced to take photos with (Delcy) Rodríguez, which were then posted on her social-media accounts”.

A similar sentiment was echoed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which listed bureaucratic delays as a factor that can delay humanitarian response during the first few months of 2026. However, they mentioned that they have maintained good coordination with local authorities. 

Even the government admitted to blocking affected areas, which prevented volunteers from accessing. So, during the first 48 hours, most of the people who were rescued alive were rescued by neighbors, local volunteers, and self-evacuated, digging with their bare hands without heavy machinery. In addition, despite the fact that, according to Transparencia Venezuela, the State spent billions of dollars over two decades on a fleet of 59 heavy and medium transport aircraft (such as Mi-26 helicopters and Y-8 planes), there was little to no evidence of their effective use during the emergency.

To mitigate this absence, private machinery had to be mobilized from miles away to assist with rescue operations. On the site of the tragedy, multiple reports alleged that members of the National Guard and CICPC looted the rubble. This footage gained traction on social media and became a symbol of the government response to the tragedy. 

In addition to hindering rescue operations, the state also tried to control the flow of information. Operations on the ground in Caracas have reported limits for on-site inspections and have highlighted the inconsistent reporting on the damages and casualties of the earthquake. For instance, despite extensive efforts of citizen-led initiatives to try to find missing people, there is still no official number reported by the State. The lack of centralized information makes the work of international aid organizations and humanitarian workers more difficult.

State communications mention more than 600 “delivered” housing units in the weekly “reconstruction stage” updates. This timeline is excessively rushed, especially considering the amount of soil studies and other preventative measures that must be taken to build safely in La Guaira.

The international standards, based on the experience from so many tragedies around the world, recommend registering and managing volunteers according to their different capabilities, assigning working areas for all of them, and trusting in experts like UN agencies to administer the supplies that are suddenly sent to the disaster area. It’s essential to trace what came in, from whom, where it is, and to whom it was delivered. In Venezuela, however, doing this work means competing with a State that never wants anyone to supplant it (unless it is Southern Command marines). 

One source with knowledge of inspections in Caracas says the government blocked access to La Guaira and tried to absorb all the information the engineers were generating while reviewing the damage in the capital, but refused to share its own data. This time, fortunately, foreign presence prevented the police from arresting engineers, as the regime always does with anyone who is trying to break the theoretical monopoly of the State to care for the population. This is consistent with the deliberate opacity and the highly inconsistent casualty figures, which severely underreported the scale of the damage. While official figures claimed 856 affected buildings, independent satellite estimates from NASA radar suggested around 58,870 structures were damaged or destroyed.

Just as there were delays in the deployment of rescue workers, the state’s response was characterized by significant delays in the distribution of humanitarian aid. The Transparencia Venezuela report mentions that, of more than 150 collection centers in Caracas and the affected areas, only three were operated by the State. Furthermore, it highlights potential traceability problems. For example, despite a significant number of donations being reported from 133 international donors (including the IMF, the US government, and UN offices) as of the report’s cutoff date, none of the more than $781 million appeared to be confirmed or verified in the UN tracking system.

The tracking problems persist. Although the State reported distributing 9,585 tons of food and thousands of liters of water, there is simply no breakdown clarifying which of these supplies came from international aid, its own resources, or national donations. Moreover, a striking example of the traceability problems was the discovery of boxes labeled “Humanitarian Aid” in Maturín, Monagas state, hundreds of kilometers from the affected areas. The boxes had been donated by the Panama City Hall. However, due to doubts about the transparency of the delivery process, city hall officials hid GPS devices in the boxes, which helped locate them in the eastern part of the country. Nevertheless, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello dismissed the accusations.

These traceability and tracking errors represent a significant risk to reconstruction efforts in the affected areas, as the arrival of hundreds of millions of dollars to a State with fragile institutions and high levels of opacity can lead to the funds being used for rent-seeking or money laundering. Experts warn, in fact, that the greatest risk of corruption occurs in the months following a tragedy. However, one also has to worry that the State seems to be failing to learn from this experience, because this isn’t the kind of knowledge that is useful to preserve power.

The failure at learning

In the weeks following the earthquakes, the State opted to repeat the patterns from past tragedies: announcements of accelerated construction, political patronage, and propaganda. Interim authorities have repeatedly promised that the government will provide housing for those affected by the earthquake before the end of the year. They already mentioned more than 600 “delivered” housing units in the weekly “reconstruction stage” updates. This timeline is excessively rushed, especially considering the amount of soil studies and other preventative measures that must be taken to build safely in La Guaira. In fact, the first of these “deliveries,” which took place on July 20, did not include new properties. They were homes in Fuerte Tiuna intended for chavista officials. Yes, that huge military facility where Nicolas Maduro was living until January 3. 

According to reports by El Pitazo, the recipients of these homes were officials from the La Guaira Governor’s Office, the National Integrated Customs and Tax Administration Service (SENIAT), and other government agencies. Authorities argued that, given that Fuerte Tiuna is a strategic military point, residents should be selected through careful vetting, which, according to the report, included proven loyalty to the political process in power. It is difficult to separate this from the clientelistic tradition of chavismo.

According to AUAEV’s first director, Carlos Genatios, the agency’s work was repeatedly subordinated to political interests.

The distribution process also served as an opportunity for political propaganda. Images of grateful families were shared on State social media channels and complemented a communications strategy that positions Rodríguez as a “stateswoman” in an active, leading role within her government. This shift contrasts with the more impersonal nature of the “Free Venezuela Mission” and is the central theme of communications for the “Venezuela Reborn Mission” reconstruction plan.

This is a model

The most concerning aspect of the government’s response is that it is neither new nor accidental. Rather, it reflects a governing logic that has repeatedly emerged in the aftermath of major disasters. 

The first large-scale example came 26 years ago, when catastrophic floods and landslides devastated La Guaira in what remains Venezuela’s deadliest natural disaster. Faced with a humanitarian emergency that left thousands dead and displaced, the Chávez government transformed reconstruction into a political project. In practice, this meant prioritizing political results over the deliberate and methodical work of institutional planning and risk reduction. 

Reconstruction became a vehicle for political messaging, technical expertise was repeatedly subordinated to political conflict, and new housing programs increasingly prioritized speed over long-term resilience. 

For instance, one of the most ambitious reconstruction efforts was led by the Autoridad Única del Estado Vargas (AUAEV), a government agency created to coordinate the work of geologists, engineers and urban planners tasked with rebuilding the region and reducing its vulnerability to future natural disasters. According to its first director, Carlos Genatios, the agency’s work was repeatedly subordinated to political interests. Local and national authorities reportedly sabotaged reconstruction by dumping debris onto roads and drainage systems that had already been cleared, obstructing coordination with international experts, withholding critical information and derailing long-term planning during the 2000 electoral season. Most importantly, key mitigation works were severely compromised by the usage of inadequate construction materials, weakening efforts to build a more resilient La Guaira. 

Political scientists Maryhen Jiménez, Rebecca Hanson, Benedicte Bull and Verónica Zubillaga describe the chavista regime as a predatory State: one that prioritizes the extraction and distribution of resources for political survival over the provision of public goods, institutional capacity and accountability. For decades, chavismo has morphed governing institutions into arms of a structure aimed at both siphoning the country’s wealth and repressing dissent. Yet, the process of disaster response requires careful planning, deliberate construction and freedom of information, characteristics that are simply not compatible with chavismo’s model. 

While rushed housing projects continue to be announced and meaningful information sharing remains absent, it is becoming increasingly clear that rebuilding La Guaira will require far more than pouring new foundations and raising new apartment blocks. It will require rebuilding the institutions responsible for deciding where, how, and under what standards those buildings are constructed. Institutions willing to share information and coordinate with international organizations and, most importantly, institutions able to deliver timely aid to those in need. 

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as attorney general in a vote early Saturday, cementing the command of President Trump’s former personal lawyer at a Department of Justice that Trump has sought to bend to his will.

The Republican-led Senate voted 50 to 49 to make Blanche the second confirmed attorney general since Trump returned to the White House last year with a stated desire to use the law enforcement agency to investigate his political enemies. While Blanche has already been leading the department in an acting capacity, his confirmation could free him to pursue the administration’s agenda even more aggressively.

Blanche said on social media that he was “deeply honored by the trust and confidence President Trump has placed in me,” adding that he was “grateful” to senators for working late to confirm him.

The vote followed a tumultuous confirmation fight that exposed deep concerns — from some Republicans as well as Democrats — about installing Trump’s close ally atop a Justice Department that historically prided itself on its independence from the White House.

In the end, Blanche was confirmed by the narrowest of margins, opposed by two Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — and by every Democrat.

The path to confirmation for Blanche was unusually rocky, due in large part to Republican concerns about a controversial settlement of Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS.

Under pressure, Blanche publicly promised in writing that the department would abandon Trump’s proposed $1.8-billion compensation fund for the president’s allies, including those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and rein in another piece of the settlement designed to shield Trump and his family from IRS tax audits.

His appeals were enough to win over Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the decisive vote who threw his support behind Blanche on Friday morning. Cassidy said no other nominee may be able to run the department better under Trump and suggested Blanche’s role as Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer can make him more effective at resisting the Republican president’s demands.

“This is not a referendum on President Trump. It is a decision regarding Mr. Blanche in very specific circumstances,” said Cassidy, who lost his primary this year to a Trump-backed challenger.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said confirming Blanche would be a “serious mistake.” He begged his colleagues not to be on the “wrong side” of history.

“If there is ever a moment in history when we need an attorney general above reproach, who is clearly dedicated to ending corruption, even at the highest level of our government, it’s right now,” Durbin said.

Loyalty to Trump

The vote capped off a bruising confirmation fight, with Blanche’s loyalty to Trump at the center of the stalemate.

Blanche was elevated to the top Justice Department post in an acting capacity after Trump fired Pam Bondi in April. Blanche moved swiftly to advance the president’s interests, accelerating investigations into Trump’s perceived foes and announcing the settlement that created the $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization fund” to compensate Trump allies who feel mistreated by the criminal justice system and provided the president and his family members with immunity from tax audits.

The controversial settlement threatened to torpedo Blanche’s nomination until he formally rescinded the fund in writing under pressure from Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The deal reached between the senators and the department unlocked a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which advanced Blanche’s nomination earlier this week.

Even after the deal, Blanche faced opposition from some Republican senators concerned with the settlement fund and the tax audit immunity.

Murkowski announced early Friday that she would join Collins in opposing Blanche’s nomination, saying the country needs an attorney general “who will check the worst impulses of this administration.”

Former prosecutor rises as Trump’s defender

A former federal prosecutor in New York, Blanche rose to public prominence as a lead attorney on Trump’s defense team, including during Trump’s hush money trial in New York in which he was found guilty of felony fraud.

He also defended Trump against criminal charges in the two federal cases brought by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice, related to Trump’s attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election and his hoarding of classified documents at his home in Florida. Both cases were dropped after Trump won reelection in 2024, and despite the seriousness of the charges, Blanche said that experience provided him a firsthand look at what he claims was the weaponization of the criminal justice system against Trump.

Blanche entered the Justice Department last year as deputy attorney general under Bondi, overseeing the agency’s day-to-day operations and serving as the public face for high-profile and controversial matters, like the release of millions of investigative files related to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Democrats have accused Blanche of prioritizing his loyalty to Trump above all else through investigations against perceived Trump foes such as former FBI Director James Comey and a radical reshaping of the department. Under Bondi and Blanche’s leadership, the department has lost thousands of employees through firings, resignations or voluntary departures.

Blanche’s supporters say his experience as a federal prosecutor and the trust he earned from Trump in the courtroom make him better equipped than Bondi to explain to the White House the legal constraints of its demands. Republicans have also touted his efforts to bring down violent crime, tackle illegal immigration and combat violent cartels and drug trafficking.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Judiciary Committee chairman, gave a full-throated endorsement of Blanche ahead of voting, saying he’s led the Justice Department with distinction. “Mr. Blanche is the right choice,” said Grassley (R-Iowa).

It is unclear whether Blanche will fare any better in delivering on Trump’s desire for retribution than Bondi, whom Trump fired amid resistance from judges, grand jurors and the department’s own workforce as prosecutors sought to establish criminal conduct by one Trump foe after another.

Shortly after Blanche took the top post, the Justice Department moved to indict Comey on charges of threatening the 47th president by posting a social media photograph of seashells in the numerical arrangement of “86 47.” Comey’s lawyers are pressing to have the case dismissed, accusing the department of misleading judges, submitting documents containing false statements and withholding key facts.

Blanche has also appointed Joseph DiGenova, a former Justice Department prosecutor from the Reagan administration, to oversee a Florida-based investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired over the last decade to undermine Trump. But it remains uncertain whether that inquiry will result in any criminal charges.

Durkin Richer and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate in an overnight vote Saturday approved a short-term measure to fund federal agencies into early December and avoid a potentially chaotic government shutdown during the middle of campaign season.

The late-summer action on a funding fix is unusual. Normally, Congress waits until the final days or hours of a funding deadline to pass short-term patches, but this time senators acted nearly two months before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

The 90-6 vote showed lawmakers are still smarting from the two historic shutdowns in the last year and want to avoid another before voters go to the polls.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wanted the funding dealt with before senators went home for the next five weeks to focus on their reelection campaigns and other matters. It got caught up with other issues that pushed votes into the night, but the bill had broad bipartisan support. The House will also have to approve the measure when members return from their August recess before it can go to President Trump’s desk for his signature.

The bill generally funds the federal government at current levels through Dec. 11, but includes a variety of exceptions that senators negotiated with the White House.

Democrats secured language to ensure no money could be transferred to the Border Patrol. They also rejected the White House’s request of $1 billion for early work on a new “Trump-class” battleship that the administration announced Dec. 22.

“The only person who wants these golden ships is Donald Trump so he can slap his name on them,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

Hemp provision

The bill also includes language delaying a national ban on most intoxicating hemp products. That one-month delay prompted outrage from some Senate Republicans who say that too many such products are falling into the hands of unsuspecting children. The packaging of the products often relies on bright colors and intentionally mimics popular snack brands to attract consumers.

Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) said that since 2017 there has been nearly a tenfold increase in cannabis-related emergency room visits by minors in his home state.

“This is a public health crisis that deserves this Senate’s immediate attention,” Budd said. “Our children should never be the testing ground for an industry willing to exploit a loophole in federal law for profit.”

But the hemp industry said the delay buys time for Congress to craft legislation that protects hemp farmers and businesses while also putting in place safeguards to protect children.

Trump himself has called Budd to discuss the issue, though the president did not specifically ask the senator to drop his effort, Budd’s spokesman said.

“Sen. Budd had a friendly phone call with President Trump discussing the legislative efforts regarding THC,” said spokesman Christian McMullen. He said the senator outlined his concerns about “any delay to closing the hemp loophole.”

Budd tried to strip the hemp delay from the bill, but the Senate turned aside his effort.

Trump rule on grants delayed

Democratic lawmakers, along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), also got language in the bill that would block, for the duration of the funding patch, new regulations on federal grants. The regulations would require a senior political appointee to review grants before they are awarded to ensure, among other things, that they advance the president’s policy priorities. Democrats say it’s an effort to kill grants destined for Democratic-leaning states. The Trump administration recently admitted in a court filing denying clean-energy grants to California and other blue states based only on politics.

“They are not interested in making our tax dollars work better — they just want them to work for Donald Trump,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The White House Office of Management and Budget says its effort is about improving accountability to ensure taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted or misused. The issue is sure to be a topic of future negotiations on a full-year spending measure.

But Collins said the vast majority of the nearly 500,000 people and groups weighing in on the rule are opposed to it.

“I don’t think in my time that I’ve been privileged to serve in the Senate that I have ever seen a proposed rule generate that many negative comments,” Collins said.

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

During the Los Angeles mayoral primary, Spencer Pratt put out a video saying he was living in a trailer on the burned-out lot where his Pacific Palisades home once stood — a claim that was soon debunked by TMZ, which reported that he was actually staying at the Hotel Bel-Air.

While Pratt’s mayoral bid has come to a close, his campaign’s final spending on luxury hotels — including the Hotel Bel-Air — is now coming to light.

Pratt spent just under $71,000 on hotels for himself, his campaign staff and his fundraising operation, mostly at the Hotel Bel-Air and the Four Seasons Hotel in New York, according to recently released campaign finance filings in the mayoral race.

The former reality TV star has a history of lavish spending on hotels, according to his memoir, “The Guy You Loved to Hate,” where he recounts staying at the Four Seasons in Costa Rica for a month in 2010. He said the hotel stay was “bleeding him dry.”

The tens of thousands of dollars Pratt’s campaign spent on hotels represent just a fraction of the more than $3 million Pratt’s campaign spent overall, including hundreds of thousands to campaign strategy firms and more than $200,000 to the company Black Llama Inc. for billboards. Pratt had AI-designed billboards placed across the city.

Pratt also spent more than $180,000 on private security firm Delta Special Operations Corp., almost entirely in the final month before the June 3 primary.

Delta Special Operations charges $650 per day to provide a single security officer in Los Angeles, but also offers a higher level of “executive protection.” Pratt has said he faced threats during his candidacy.

Pratt placed third in the primary, behind Councilmember Nithya Raman and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who will square off in the Nov. 3 general election. Raman’s campaign reported spending about $1,000 on security, while Bass has security provided by the city.

Building out her support

Raman secured what could be one of her most significant endorsements of the entire election cycle this week, pulling in the support of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters.

The endorsement from the carpenters union marks a sharp turn for the labor group, which backed Bass in 2022. The union committed more than $2 million to independent expenditure groups supporting Bass’ candidacy in 2022, paying for television ads that ran in advance of the general election.

During the primary, Raman and independent group supporting her focused on ads on social media and streaming platforms, which are cheaper than traditional television ads.

“We will be matching the same energy and we’ll have same type of commitment as when we endorsed Bass. We don’t plan on holding back,” said Pete Rodriguez, the second general vice president of the international union.

Rodriguez said the union would spend significantly to support Raman, though he did not give a figure.

Bass has dominated labor endorsements throughout the campaign. She has secured more than two dozen endorsements from influential labor unions including the Police Protective League, which represents rank and file police officers in the LAPD, and SEIU 721, which represents public sector workers at the airport and in street services, among other departments. She also has the backing of the powerful Los Angeles Federation of Labor, a coalition of unions (Bass calls its leader, Yvonne Wheeler, “The Beyoncé of Labor”).

“Workers are overwhelmingly behind Karen Bass … because she delivers real results,” said the mayor’s campaign spokesperson, Alex Stack. “Results like building more affordable housing immediately to drive down rents, mortgages, and the cost of housing.”

Rodriguez said one major issue that caused the carpenters union to break with Bass was the mayor’s failure to include higher labor standards in the codified version of Executive Directive 1, which fast-tracked some affordable housing applications.

That law was passed by the council and Raman voted in favor of the law that codified the mayor’s directive.

Raman told The Times in a statement that she stood by her vote, but that she appreciated the union’s ability to work with legislators to enact legislation that “combines density with higher labor standards.”

The DSA endorsement …

Raman could get another key and much-discussed endorsement later this month.

The Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America is once again considering endorsing her for mayor. The endorsement would bring doorknockers for Raman and could bring more national attention to the race.

An internal petition shared with The Times is circulating in the group and needs just 50 signatures by Aug. 8 in order for the consideration of Raman to go to a vote. Raman would then need 60% of the vote at an Aug. 22 chapter meeting in order to win the endorsement.

“Nithya Raman is running an insurgent left-wing campaign for the mayor’s office against Karen Bass and L.A.’s unpopular status quo Democratic establishment,” the petition reads. “Will an insurgent Left seize control of our city government to build a Los Angeles for its working class? Or will the establishment fend off this insurgency and deepen its power?”

After jumping into the race on the last possible day in February, Raman was not endorsed by the left-wing organization in the primary. The group instead “recommended” her — a status that means the DSA wouldn’t actively campaign on her behalf but urged voters to cast their ballots for Raman.

Raman was endorsed by the group in both her council campaigns, but her late entry came after DSA had made its endorsements.

The group considered reopening its endorsement process for either Raman or Rae Huang — who like Raman is a member of the DSA — but ultimately decided to focus on other down ballot races in the primary.

DSA-LA declined to say whether the petition had gained the requisite number of signatures for a vote.

State of play

— LINEAGE LEGISLATION: Los Angeles city and county officials unveiled a slate of measures aimed at speeding recovery, increasing corporate accountability and expanding financial assistance for residents and businesses affected by the June fire at the Lineage cold food storage facility.

— PRICED OUT: Councilmember Curren Price’s motion to get his perjury and embezzlement case dropped was denied Friday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge. Price’s lawyers maintain that he did not knowingly vote on city contracts for real estate developers that contracted with his wife. The judge argued there was “ample evidence, albeit circumstantial, that this was a scheme and not just happenstance.” The outgoing council member’s next court date is set for October.

— E-BIKES UNDER FIRE: The council’s Rules Committee passed a motion Tuesday that asks the city’s Department of Transportation to come up with ways to regulate e-bikes, including who can ride them and how. The measure next goes to the ways to regulate e-bikesPublic Safety Committee, then the full City Council.

— A NEW ERA: For the first time since 1963, Council District 9 in South Los Angeles will soon have a non-Black representative in the City Council. Estuardo Mazariegos and Jose Ugarte, who are facing each other in the Nov. 3 election to represent parts of downtown and South Los Angeles, are both immigrants from Latin America who arrived undocumented as children.

— OFF THE RAILS: Homelessness on Metro’s rail and bus system has dropped by 57% since 2024, the agency said this week.

— A ROSE AND A THORN: The Rose Bowl Aquatics Center will close April 1, and not be returned to its regular users until the fall of 2028, after the conclusion of the Olympic Games. The announcement came after The Times reported on the impending shutdown.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program went to the intersection of Alameda Street and E. 223rd Street in City Councilmember Tim McOsker’s district where it brought 22 people indoors.
• On the docket next week: The City Council will vote on whether to execute the Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

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.

It was early Wednesday morning when Edith Pfeffer and Carolyn Tallet became late-night TV stars, charming CNN hosts, producers and viewers alike with their earnest attempt to make sense of a mathematical snafu that had left the outcome of the Iowa caucuses hanging in the balance.

Pfeffer, who is chairwoman of the Clinton County Republican Central Committee, and Tallet, president of the Clinton County Republican Women’s Club, talked by phone with CNN hosts Wolf Blitzer and John King as the network tried to locate the final 3% of precinct tallies that would decide the winner of Iowa’s GOP presidential nominating contest.

The call resulted in eight minutes of hilarious, heartwarming television as the women tried to unscramble the math while King drew numbers on his special television screen and Blitzer pressed on for precision. (Watch the video below.)

Turns out Pfeffer had the missing tallies all night – they were phoned in less than an hour after the caucuses began, she said, but somehow weren’t counted by Republican Party officials.

Tallet told CNN that she learned just after midnight that the party was searching for the tallies, but couldn’t reach Pfeffer by phone.

“I knew they needed the information, and so I came to Edith’s home and pounded on the door and woke her up and got her up,” Tallet said.

“Do you know who carried this precinct?” King asked, referring to the precinct for which the state party said it had no votes. “…Who won?”

“Mitt Romney won with 51 votes,” Pfeffer said. “Rick Santorum and Ron Paul tied with 33 votes each.”

Double-checking, Blitzer asked Tallett and Pfeffer to give the totals for all precincts in Clinton County.

“Oh God, I added them up,” Pfeffer said, sparking giggles from the CNN crew offstage. “I added them up a couple times. I – oh, man.”

After they got the math all sorted out, Blitzer wanted to be sure he had the record straight.

“Just to be precise, we didn’t wake you up – the state chairs in Des Moines, they called you, they woke you up, is that right?”

“No!” Tallet said. “I woke her up…I was staying home watching CNN, waiting for the results, when I was told by the party. And so I came to wake up Edith, who didn’t answer her phone.”

The duo was such a hit that CNN called them back later in the night, once the results were official.

“I am just overwhelmed with all of this,” Pfeffer said. “I am just amazed because really and truly, my people did call this in tonight, and I don’t know where the glitch was…”

Pfeffer said she gave her county’s tallies to Romney campaign staff at the end of the night.

“And then I went to bed, and it’s been kind of interesting to wake up,“ she said.

kim.geiger@latimes.com

The National Enquirer’s parent company paid a Manhattan doorman $30,000 for a story it never published alleging that Donald Trump secretly fathered a child, according to news reports.

Former doorman Dino Sajudin told the story to the National Enquirer in late 2015, when Trump was the top contender for the Republican presidential nomination, the Associated Press and the New Yorker reported early Thursday.

Sajudin, who worked at Trump World Tower near the United Nations headquarters, told the National Enquirer that he’d heard from co-workers that Trump had “knocked up” one of his employees, who gave birth to a girl, according to documents posted on the website of Radar Online, a sister publication of the National Enquirer.

The supermarket tabloid requested a polygraph exam, and the examiner concluded that Sajudin was telling the truth about hearing the story, the documents say.

Four unnamed National Enquirer employees told AP that top editors, despite the polygraph results, ordered them to stop reporting the story.

Sajudin signed a contract with the tabloid’s parent company, American Media Inc., led by President Trump’s close friend David Pecker. Sajudin, who received the $30,000 in return for giving American Media exclusive rights to the story, agreed to pay a $1-million penalty if he failed to keep quiet, according to the AP and the New Yorker.

“I can confirm that while working at Trump World Tower, I was instructed not to criticize President Trump’s former housekeeper due to a prior relationship she had with President Trump which produced a child,” Sajudin told CNN on Thursday.

It is the second known case of American Media spending money in a way that protected Trump from a potentially harmful story during the 2016 presidential race — a practice known in the tabloid gossip world as “catch and kill.”

Days after Trump won his party’s presidential nomination, American Media paid former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for exclusive rights to her story of a nine-month affair with Trump, but never published it.

McDougal is suing to void the deal, alleging that her attorney was secretly colluding with Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is prized for his loyalty — and willingness to attack the president’s rivals »

The FBI raided Cohen’s office, home and hotel room this week under search warrants reportedly seeking records on McDougal’s nondisclosure deal with American Media.

The search warrant also reportedly sought records on a separate confidentiality agreement that Cohen reached in October 2016 with porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. He set up a shell company that paid Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about Trump’s alleged 2006 sexual encounter with her.

It’s unclear what crimes federal authorities suspect were committed. But McDougal’s lawsuit charges that American Media’s $150,000 payment to her was an illegal secret donation that federal election law required the Trump campaign to publicly disclose.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan ethics group, has filed complaints with the Justice Department and Federal Election Commission alleging that the payments to McDougal and Daniels were illegal campaign contributions.

On Thursday, Common Cause submitted new complaints alleging the payment to Sajudin, too, was an unlawful attempt to influence the 2016 election by protecting Trump’s candidacy from bad publicity.

“Secret payments to hide affairs may have been commonplace in the president’s previous life as a tabloid figure, but when he became a candidate for the presidency, any new payments to safeguard his candidacy became violations of federal law,” said Paul S. Ryan, the vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause.

Cohen acknowledged that he discussed Sajudin’s story with the National Enquirer when it was reporting on the allegations, but denied knowing in advance that the tabloid paid the former doorman $30,000, the AP reported.

Neither the AP nor the New Yorker named the woman who was alleged to have had Trump’s child about 30 years ago.

The documents posted by Radar Online indicate that the National Enquirer found in late 2015 that the woman was then living in Queens, and her daughter in Northern California.

Radar Online reported that despite the polygraph results, National Enquirer editors concluded after four weeks of investigating, that Sajudin’s story was false.

“When we realized we would be unable to publish, and other media outlets approached the source about his tale, we released Sajudin from the exclusivity clause that had accompanied his $30,000 payment, freeing him to tell his story to whomever he wanted,” Dylan Howard, the chief content officer at American Media, told Radar Online.

American Media, or AMI, led by longtime Trump friend Pecker, released a statement denying that Cohen or Trump had anything to do with its decision “not to pursue a story about a ‘love child’ that it determined was not credible.”

“The suggestion that David Pecker has ever used company funds to ‘shut down’ this or any investigation is not true,” the statement said. “In addition, AMI and Mr. Pecker emphatically deny any suggestion that there might have been be any ‘partnership’ created which might influence any business ties in regard to AMI. These claims are reckless, unsubstantiated, and false.”

The statement also quoted Howard defending the decision to not publish a story.

“Paying for information has long been a practice of The National Enquirer and to suggest that it has only paid for, and not run, stories about any particular person is absurd,” he said.

The former National Enquirer employees told the AP that the tabloid failed to pursue its standard reporting practices for proving paternity, such as exhaustive stakeouts.

In 2007, when the National Enquirer disclosed that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had fathered a child with a mistress, it did so in part by rummaging through a dumpster for material to use in a DNA test. Months later, Edwards admitted the story was true.

Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, was tried on federal charges of using campaign money to hide the pregnant mistress from voters during the campaign. The case ended in an acquittal on one charge and a mistrial on five others.

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

Twitter: @finneganLAT

UPDATES:

6 p.m.: This article was updated with a statement from American Media Inc.

1:30 p.m.: This article was updated with Sajudin’s statement to CNN and background on John Edwards.

12:20 p.m.: This article was updated with new Common Cause complaint.

This article was originally published at 10:55 a.m.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon issued an apology Tuesday for remarks made by Gen. Carl E. Mundy Jr., commandant of the Marine Corps, who said in a televised interview that black officers and those of other minority groups do not shoot, swim or read compasses as well as whites.

In a statement to reporters, Navy Capt. Michael Doubleday said that Mundy “regrets any offense that may have been taken by his statements,” which were televised Sunday on the CBS program “60 Minutes” as part of a segment on problems minority officers have receiving promotions.

Mundy’s comments on “60 Minutes” marked the third time this year that the commandant has caused a stir. In mid-August, the general abruptly issued orders that would have barred married persons from enlisting in the Marines. He was forced to rescind them immediately after a protest by the President.

Earlier, Mundy angered the Administration by vigorously opposing Clinton’s plan to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. And he only grudgingly supported the resulting compromise “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows gays to serve but restricts their behavior.

Asked about the latest incident, Doubleday said that top Pentagon officials had no plans to discipline Mundy for his comments but added that, partly as a result, Navy Secretary John H. Dalton had ordered a complete review of minority promotions in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Dalton “would like to see more minorities in positions of leadership” in the Navy and Marine Corps and wants the study “to examine the process and to determine how we can achieve that objective,” Doubleday said.

A spokesman for California Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Oakland), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it was unclear whether the lawmaker would want to meet with Mundy over the incident. Dellums, who is black, plans hearings later this year on racism in the military.

Mundy’s remarks on “60 Minutes” were contained in a transcript provided by the Pentagon. Asked why some minority officers complain that they are not being promoted rapidly, the general said it “has to do with performance.”

“In the military skills, we find that the minority officers do not shoot as well as the non-minorities . . .,” he said. “They don’t swim as well. And when you give them a compass and send them across the terrain at night . . . they don’t do as well at that sort of thing.

“I’m saying that there are problems that we have got to identify that will show us what it is that causes us to promote at a reduced rate,” the general went on, in a brief segment on the program. “It is not intended that we do that.”

Doubleday said Tuesday that Mundy was referring only to the “objective test scores achieved in certain skills during initial entry-level training” and did not mean to suggest that members of minority groups could not do well in the Corps.

“He (Mundy) would like to see more minorities in positions of leadership,” the Pentagon spokesman added.

And the Marines issued a statement saying that, because only part of the interview with Munday was telecast, “it may have sounded . . . that he was implying minorities have less innate ability . . . to fully develop their military capability through training and education.”

“That was not his intent or belief,” the statement went on.

“As an institution, the Marine Corps is totally committed for equal opportunity for all individuals to compete and advance through the ranks, and is aggressively pursuing initiatives to gain balance in our senior officer representation.”

White House officials said Tuesday that they had not been aware of Mundy’s comments but were looking into the matter.

Pentagon figures show that in fiscal 1991, there were 34,200 black enlisted men and women in the Marine Corps–19.7% of the total–and 980 black officers, or 5.1% of the service’s officer corps. Figures for Latinos and other minority groups were not immediately available.

Stephen Cloobeck — a one-time California gubernatorial candidate ensconced in Democratic political circles — pleaded not guilty to witness tampering charges Friday related to a burglary case against his former paramour, OnlyFans model Adva Lavie.

Cloobeck, 64, was arrested in May and charged with three counts of attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying and one count of harassment for making annoying phone calls, according to a criminal complaint. Cloobeck allegedly contacted Lavie’s attorney, swore at him and threatened him, his property and members of his family, according to the complaint.

Cloobeck’s former girlfriend, Lavie, was charged in March with burglarizing the homes of older wealthy men she met through dating apps.

The pair have since broken off their engagement, according to the California Post.

He entered a plea of not guilty Friday morning during a brief court appearance in Van Nuys. His next hearing date was set for October. David Chesnoff, who was part of the legal team that defended Robert Durst during his Los Angeles murder trial, appeared on Cloobeck’s behalf.

The defendant and his legal team declined to speak with a throng of reporters outside the courthouse. Cloobeck remains free on $300,000 bond.

Cloobeck got rich in the timeshare industry, eventually selling his Las Vegas-based Diamond Resorts company to a private equity firm for $2.2 billion. He immersed himself in Nevada Democratic politics, growing close with the late U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, and later launched a long-shot bid for California governor.

He quickly faded in the crowded field, failing to garner above 1% in any poll, and then threw his support behind Democrat Eric Swalwell, who dropped out of the race in disgrace amid a torrent of sex assault and harassment allegations, which he denied.

According to prosecutors, Lavie posed as the girlfriend of numerous men between 2023 and 2025 before pilfering cash, gold and high-value items from homes in Westlake Village, West Hollywood, Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, according to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office. She has also pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors have yet to say exactly how Cloobeck allegedly threatened Lavie’s possible victims. Lavie’s attorney, Lou Shapiro, has declined to discuss the case with The Times.

Lavie was arrested again last week on a new theft charge out of Riverside County. Responding officers from the Beverly Hills Police Department noticed she was not wearing the ankle monitor she was required to keep on as a condition of her bail last week, leading L.A. County prosecutors to file a new misdemeanor count against her.

She is scheduled to appear in the Van Nuys Courthouse early Monday.

In the days since he charged a Los Angeles police officer with a crime for capturing evidence of his co-workers’ racist remarks, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman has been the subject of withering criticism from Mayor Karen Bass, former cops and even some of his own prosecutors.

The chorus of voices decrying the filing of 16 counts of felony eavesdropping against Officer Daniel Flores — who caught fellow officers on tape using slurs and making derogatory remarks about Asians, Mexicans, Black people and women in the LAPD’s Training Division in 2024 — say the charges will dissuade other officers from reporting corruption and raise questions about Hochman’s commitment to police accountability.

“The bottom line is that the alleged racist, sexist, and homophobic comments made are outrageous and unacceptable,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement to The Times on Tuesday. “While I understand that it is inappropriate and a crime to record colleagues without their consent, those charges certainly send the wrong message that calling out egregious behavior could land you in prison.”

Six L.A. County prosecutors — all speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the case candidly — also said in recent days they were shocked by Hochman’s decision to charge Flores.

One referred to the filing as “insane,” while another suggested Flores’ case should have been dismissed in the interest of justice.

On Friday, the district attorney’s office made public a 27-page motion asking for a lengthy preliminary hearing in the case. The filing alleged Flores deceptively edited the recordings to hide his own insensitive remarks. Several of the officers whom Flores taped said he often talked about wanting to win the “LAPD lottery,” meaning he intended to sue the department and retire on his winnings, according to the motion.

“[Flores] often starts the recordings in mid-conversation,” the district attorney said in an interview Friday. “Many people talk about the fact that he initiated some of these discussions, that he participated in some of these discussions. You’ll hear references to comments he made. Usually he has edited out his comments.”

The motion — which relies heavily on representations made by the officers whose comments Flores exposed — alleges Flores “manipulated conversations by initiating or participating in discussions about a particular topic before activating the recording device, then ceasing his own participation.”

Hochman said the recordings contain evidence that Flores made sexist remarks and referred to a group of people as “f—ing Crips.” It was not clear how referencing the infamous L.A. gang was, on its own, racist.

Flores’ attorney, Alan Jackson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Flores is due in court for an arraignment on Monday.

Some of Hochman’s own prosecutors said the charges look bad considering the district attorney’s suspect record in police accountability cases.

“Optics are terrible,” one prosecutor said, questioning whether Hochman was pressured to act by police unions, which made heavy contributions to his 2024 campaign.

Since taking office, Hochman has moved to dismiss a number of violent use-of-force cases against police and resolved others with lenient plea deals. He also either dismissed charges or offered no-jail plea deals to four former Torrance police officers who had been accused of crimes after they were implicated in the department’s infamous racist text scandal.

One prosecutor also said the Flores case is unwinnable and will certainly fail before a jury.

“Just because a law is broken doesn’t necessarily mean you are going to get 12 jurors in L.A. to convict,” the prosecutor said.

Flores turned over 122 recordings of his colleagues’ commentary to the LAPD Office of the Inspector General early last year, according to the motion filed Friday. An amended criminal complaint submitted in late July suggested the recordings were then used as evidence against Flores by LAPD officials who sought to punish him.

Flores has said he heard co-workers refer to Black people as “monkeys” who like grape soda and eat watermelon between basketball games, according to a retaliation lawsuit he filed last year. The suit claims Flores also heard colleagues call female officers “bitches” who couldn’t be trusted and alleged a supervisor said Mexican L.A. Dodgers legend Fernando Valenzuela died of septic shock because he “ate too many” tacos.

In the motion made public Friday, Hochman argued that Flores made the recordings, in part, to support his civil suit. Several of the officers quoted in the motion said Flores said he had anxiety about wearing a police uniform or going on patrol and wanted to retire to become a “stay at home Dad,” according to the motion.

The motion also provided more information about the alleged insensitive discussions than has been previously reported. One of the officers recorded by Flores admitted to describing a potential LAPD recruit as “rapeable” because they were “someone who could be taken advantage of,” according to the motion.

“The use of the phrase ‘rape’ was not in a sexual context,” the motion read.

The officers also suggested in the D.A.’s motion Flores was a habitual liar. He became embarrassed after he was caught fabricating or embellishing stories about playing college baseball, responding to protest scenes and an award he won in the police academy, according to the motion.

The motion said that an internal affairs sergeant found many of the allegations Flores made concerning officers in the recruitment unit improperly disqualifying candidates based on appearance and falsifying time sheets were not supported by evidence.

When he announced the charges last week, Hochman said that while the comments captured by Flores were deplorable, he couldn’t turn a blind eye to a blatant violation of the state’s two-party consent recording statute. With few exceptions, it is a crime in California to record a conversation without the consent of all parties involved.

Hochman said Friday that Flores is not protected by whistleblower laws because, although the recordings exposed bigoted speech, they did not prove evidence of a crime by any of the other officers. He also said the comments were not hateful in nature. At multiple points, the motion refers to the comments as “locker room” talk.

Many of the officers told investigators they made the crude comments “in a sort of joking, sort of locker room banter context. In hindsight these things are insensitive … but you’ll have for instance a Black individual making comments about Blacks,” Hochman said. “You’ll have an Asian individual making insensitive stereotypical comments about Asians.”

Hochman said the prosecution was meant to deter rogue police actions rather than silence whistleblowers. He likened what Flores did to a detective using illegal means to record a drug dealer or gang member.

Hochman said Flores should have reported his colleagues’ misconduct to internal affairs or the LAPD’s inspector general. But California Department of Justice records show there were 4,878 allegations of racial bias made against LAPD officers in the last decade, and the department upheld only three of those complaints.

Presented with those statistics at a news conference Thursday, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell did not respond directly to a question about how Flores could possibly have faith in an internal probe. McDonnell said Flores’ complaint triggered an investigation into 18 other officers, all but one of whom faced sustained disciplinary complaints.

He declined to say what sanctions the officers faced. An LAPD spokesperson declined to elaborate.

The district attorney’s office has been less aggressive in prosecuting those who made surreptitious recordings in the past.

When asked to pursue charges against those who secretly recorded several City Council members making racist remarks during a meeting at the L.A. County Federation of Labor’s headquarters, the district attorney’s office found a crime had been committed but referred the case to the L.A. city attorney’s office for misdemeanor filing in 2024. Ultimately, no charges were filed.

Last year, the D.A.’s office opted not to bring charges in a different case involving an LAPD officer in possession of a secret recording.

In that case, the ex-girlfriend of Brandon Tilford provided the department with an audio recording he had texted her in January 2024, according to a rejection memo by prosecutors. In the recording, an unidentified police officer is heard saying, “Officer walks through processing and goes, man, this is f— Planet of the Apes in here” in an apparent reference to Black inmates. Tilford texted his former girlfriend, “That’s my sgt btw lol.”

But prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence to bring charges because the girlfriend couldn’t identify the officers in the recording or say who made it. Thus, prosecutors reasoned that they could not prove Tilford created the recording and did so without the others’ knowledge.

Retired LAPD Cmdr. Lillian Carranza said she understood why Flores “might feel compelled to gather evidence to substantiate serious allegations,” given how the department has handled past whistleblower cases.

“For me, the difficult question is not whether evidence should be gathered, but where the line should be drawn,” said Carranza, a 36-year department veteran who successfully sued the city several times for misogyny and sexual harassment. “Gathering evidence over days or even weeks to document ongoing misconduct is one thing. Doing so over many months raises different legal and ethical questions.”

Hochman said the sheer volume of recordings, and the fact that Flores is a sworn law enforcement officer, played a role in the decision to file felony charges.

The union that represents front-line public defenders also seized on the controversy, saying in a statement that Hochman’s decision sent a clear message to others who may want to report wrongdoing: “keep quiet, or you will be the one facing trial.”

The department has long had a policy that forbids retaliation against officers who report misconduct.

But in practice, LAPD insiders say, those who come forward with compromising information get little support. The department is facing scores of lawsuits by officers who claim they faced retaliation after speaking out in the form of poor job evaluations, harassment, demotions and even termination.

A state judge Thursday rejected a challenge to how California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office summarized a strict new voter ID measure on November ballots — ruling that the summary language accurately describes the measure’s effects were it to pass.

Another judge dealt the backers of the measure a second loss by tentatively finding that their description of the measure, submitted for the official state voter’s guide, was misleading. They had claimed that Proposition 39 would make voting easier.

In the first case, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the label, title and summary of the certified ballot measure accurately describe Proposition 39 as a measure that “prohibits citizens from voting” — language the measure’s backers specifically objected to — unless they provide a government-issued ID.

According to minutes from a Thursday hearing on the matter, Rockwell concluded that, to the extent the measure’s backers object to that language, they are objecting to “the provisions of the measure itself.”

Rockwell rejected the argument put forth by the measure’s backers that it would not prevent people without ID from voting, only their votes from being counted — a distinction the judge found lacking.

Both parties had asked the court to move quickly ahead of printing deadlines for November ballots.

The attorney general’s office is responsible for preparing titles and summaries for ballot measures, and is not required by law to use the same language as a measure’s proponents when gathering the necessary voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

Bonta’s office had argued in court that his office applied the same standard of review to the voter ID measure as every other ballot measure that has come before his office.

Bonta praised Rockwell’s decision on social media Thursday, writing that it “confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points.”

“My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information,” he wrote. “We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the chief backer of the court challenge and chairman of the group Reform California, responded to the ruling with a video post to social media, writing that it was “expected” but nonetheless “disappointing.”

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying to “manipulate the vote” with “rigged” language, and Rockwell of being a “liberal judge” who had unsurprisingly decided that Bonta “gets to do corruptly what he wants to do.”

“It’s pissing me off,” DeMaio said in his video post.

DeMaio predicted that Proposition 39 will still pass, but that it will take “all of us spreading the word that the attorney general has tried to manipulate the title on the ballot measure.”

Voter ID requirements are being pushed by Republicans across the country — from President Trump down — as necessary to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens, despite elections experts saying that such fraud is exceedingly rare and that there is no evidence that it exists in volumes large enough to swing elections.

Democrats, including in California, have argued that states already have robust measures to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, including through existing security measures such as signature verification. They said stricter voter ID requirements would lead to eligible voters without ready access to documents being denied access to voting — including poorer, elderly and rural voters and married women who have changed their names.

A majority of California voters back stricter voter ID requirements, according to recent polls.

The Trump administration has been pressing for new voter ID requirements nationwide, including in Congress, without success.

Passage of Proposition 39 in liberal California would represent a massive win for the administration and a setback for California’s Democratic leaders. It would require substantial reforms to how the state accepts ballots both in person and through the mail — the latter being the preferred option for the vast majority of voters in recent California elections.

Backers of Proposition 39 also took a hit in a separate court proceeding Thursday, where another judge — siding with top Democratic lawmakers — issued a tentative finding that the measure’s backers were misleading voters by claiming in voter guide language that the measure would make voting easier in the state were it to pass.

“It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” wrote Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.

The voter guide language will need to change as a result.

California leaders who brought the challenge — including State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — praised the decision.

“Prop 39 is a MAGA-backed power grab by Donald Trump’s closest allies,” Rivas said in a statement. “As today’s ruling underscores, Prop 39 isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

DeMaio denounced the decision, accusing Chang of having “sided with the politicians” in California to “strike legitimate arguments on why Voter ID is needed to improve election integrity.”

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

Washington does not have a single policy toward Venezuela. On the contrary, since January 3, it has shown two distinct tracks that, for now, avoid colliding. The first is executed by the White House—a pragmatic, gradual strategy willing to bring opposition figures beyond María Corina Machado and Edmundo González to the negotiating table. The second has been maintained by Congress since the removal of Nicolás Maduro, most recently taking the form of a bipartisan Senate resolution that insists both remain the legitimate leaders of the opposition. The real question here is not which of these two faces will prevail, but why it serves US interests for both to exist simultaneously.

The past week showed how the board is functioning. On August 1, Jorge Rodríguez and Dinorah Figuera initiated dialogue over the phone between Delcy Rodríguez’s “government” and the remnants of the 2015 National Assembly, with the Trump administration acting as sponsor. Four days later, the Senate resolution reaffirmed González as president-elect, aligned with the administration’s stated goal of free elections while recognizing the electoral illegitimacy of Delcy Rodríguez. Caught between these two approaches, Marco Rubio asked Venezuelans for patience (“months, not years”) regarding elections, while Democratic Representative Jonathan Jackson (who had traveled to Caracas in July with the House delegation) revealed that even within Congress, there is no single consensus on what the US should be doing in Venezuela. Still, the simple fact that a Democrat secured permission to travel with the delegation speaks volumes.

Two paths, one destination?

For the White House, Venezuela has ceased to be—if it ever fully was—a matter of democratic principles, morphing instead into an equation of stabilization: energy, migration, and hemispheric security. Secretary Rubio’s three phases lay this out frankly: economic stabilization, recovery and reconciliation, and transition. This sequence shifts US priorities from democratic ideals to transactional metrics.

The IMF mission making headway in Caracas, Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s focus on the oil sector, and Rubio’s comparisons to transitions that took “nearly three and a half years” in countries like Paraguay and Spain confirm that the White House is prepared to manage Venezuela’s political timeline in a gradual, controlled manner, avoiding disruptions that could impact oil prices. Congress, on the other hand, bears no such executive burden. It can afford to speak the language of principles because it doesn’t have to sit down and negotiate barrels or deadlines.

Shielding that stance in a bipartisan manner is, at its core, a way to ensure US tutelage over Venezuela survives beyond Trump.

The Trump administration excluded Machado and Edmundo González from the process launched on August 1, a fact both publicly confirmed while clarifying that they would not stand in its way. Their seats at the table were filled by Dinorah Figuera and a delegation from the 2015 National Assembly. While this group does not answer directly to Machado’s party, it comprises members of Primero Justicia and Voluntad Popular, two parties that have consistently backed Machado and González throughout.

Meanwhile, the Senate resolution does the exact opposite: it explicitly names Machado and González as the legitimate leaders, describing Delcy Rodríguez as someone lacking an electoral mandate who would be unlikely to win a free election. It is a text that leaves no room for the ambiguity the White House grants itself.

Why this shift in signal? My first response would be that Congress—and particularly the Foreign Affairs committees in both chambers—operates under an institutional incentive distinct from Trump’s: surviving electoral cycles and administrative turnover. A resolution that anchors the recognition of legitimacy to Machado and González does not depend on who occupies the White House in 2029. Shielding that stance in a bipartisan manner is, at its core, a way to ensure US tutelage over Venezuela survives beyond Trump, even if the next occupant of the Oval Office chooses to change course.

Who are the players and what are their interests?

On the congressional chessboard, it is worth examining who the key players are—a crucial detail with the November midterm elections fast approaching.

In the Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee is chaired by Jim Risch (R), with Jeanne Shaheen (D) as ranking member. The Western Hemisphere Subcommittee is chaired by John Curtis (R) alongside Tim Kaine (D). Here lies the first key detail: Shaheen, the prominent Democratic voice who co-led the August 4 resolution with Ted Cruz (R), announced she will not seek reelection in 2026. She is retiring from Congress, but leaving this text as a legacy, which deprives Trump of a critical Democratic counterpart willing to apply public pressure.

Committee Chair Risch is on the ballot this November, while John Cornyn (a Republican who has been critical of Trump) is retiring, allowing him to adopt a harder line on foreign policy even when it diverges from the administration’s stance. Cruz, by contrast, does not face voters again until 2030, insulating him from immediate electoral pressures—making it no coincidence that he is leading the toughest resolution against the Delcy regime.

In the House, the Foreign Affairs Committee consists of over fifty members. It is chaired by Brian Mast (R), who led the July delegation to Caracas, with Gregory Meeks (D) as ranking member. The Western Hemisphere Subcommittee (which has served as the key House venue shaping the tone toward Venezuela) is chaired by María Elvira Salazar (R) with Joaquín Castro (D) as ranking member, alongside 13 other members (six Republicans and five Democrats).

A Congress with more elected Democrats, or with Republicans who survived tough races where voters demanded tangible results, will push harder to ensure the process unfolding in Venezuela moves beyond rhetoric.

All thirteen members are seeking reelection in 2026, meaning their moves leading up to November could either preserve Republican control of the committee or shift its leadership to the Democrats. Another detail worth noting is that Michael Lawler (R)—representing one of three Republican districts won by Kamala Harris in 2024—flirted for months with a run for New York governor before deciding in July to stay in his House seat to avoid risking the Republican majority. It is the same logic that kept Castro from running for the Senate in Texas. In a Congress where every seat matters, even figures with national ambitions end up staying put.

Another factor connecting the midterms directly to the Venezuelan community—particularly those in South Florida—is the special election in November to fill the remainder of the Senate term left vacant by Marco Rubio when he became Secretary of State. Given Florida’s demographic makeup, that seat cannot afford to be detached from US policy toward Venezuela. Furthermore, the seat will be up for election again in 2028, requiring anyone competing for it to keep their stance on Venezuela front and center.

Analyzing these congressional actors reveals that the pursuit of bipartisanship on Venezuela—a staple of foreign policy since 2014—appears to be a mechanism for institutionalizing US tutelage, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office. What could change (and likely will after November) is the execution. A Congress with more elected Democrats, or with Republicans who survived tough races where voters demanded tangible results, will push harder to ensure the process unfolding in Venezuela moves beyond rhetoric into a concrete transition.

What this means for Venezuelans

Amid all these tensions are the Venezuelan people, and this is where the gap between Washington and Caracas becomes most uncomfortable. The August 1 dialogue addresses earthquake relief, democratic strengthening, and political guarantees: a modest agenda compared to the demands set by the Senate. Meanwhile, real money is flowing into Venezuela through the IMF mission, energy cooperation, and the capital accompanying the “economic stabilization” phase Rubio outlined. Here, despite its strong resolutions, Congress exercises little actual oversight over how negotiations are conducted or where that money goes, as foreign policy decisions and economic licenses ultimately rest with the Executive branch.

Rather than leaving all these levers to executive discretion, Congress could take a far more active role.

This is why symbolic resolutions fall short. If Congress wants its recognition of Machado and González to be more than a gesture, it possesses concrete tools it has yet to fully deploy, such as: (i) conditioning any sanction relief or oil license on mandatory reporting regarding the destination of funds entering Venezuela; (ii) requiring the State Department to brief Congress periodically on the status of the August 1 dialogue; and (iii) tying the approval of new economic licenses to verifiable negotiation milestones, such as the release of political prisoners, the appointment of Supreme Court (TSJ) magistrates or new National Electoral Council (CNE) rectors, and ultimately the publication of an electoral timetable.

Rather than leaving all these levers to executive discretion, Congress could take a far more active role. None of this requires Congress to act as a negotiator—only to stop being a passive spectator in a process funded partly through money within its jurisdiction. For Venezuelans who have waited more than two decades for a genuine transition, the question is not just whether Machado and González remain recognized by the United States, but whether anyone in Washington will be held accountable for what is being negotiated in their name.

Both sides of this coin prompt us to ask: To what extent is the “transition” an act in which Venezuelans actually hold decision-making power? How far do US interests truly align with improvements for the Venezuelan people? Are we willing to prioritize institutional strength over the leadership of the moment? There will be as many answers as there are Venezuelans. What we can say for certain is that in this process, the United States is playing a role far beyond that of a mere “watchdog.” It is actively building an “institutional” tutelage.

President Trump targeted birthright citizenship again Thursday by signing a pair of executive orders purporting to narrow it — including by cracking down on “birth tourism” and limiting which children born to immigrants in the U.S. qualify.

The new orders follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected an attempt by Trump to end birthright citizenship outright.

During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.

“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.

Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.

Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”

“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”

The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.

The amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”

“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.

A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.

It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.

“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.

The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”

It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.

Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.

“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.

White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.

“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.

Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.

“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”

Vice President JD Vance also hailed the move.

“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.

In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.

Mayor Karen Bass said Thursday that the LAPD should stop working with Flock Safety, warning that the company, which operates AI-enabled license plate readers that allow authorities to monitor vehicles around the city, had lost public trust.

In her most forceful comments to date on the topic, Bass said while she supports license plate reading technology generally as a tool for law enforcement, Flock had “lost the trust of Angelenos and residents across the country, especially in immigrant communities targeted by the federal administration.”

“There are many companies that provide this technology to cities nationwide,” Bass said in a statement. “The LAPD needs to identify another company that doesn’t share data.”

LAPD officials have said Flock’s technology enables investigators to solve crimes, helping to find vehicles that have been reported stolen or linked to suspects. Last month, the department announced it was pausing its relationship with Flock, but police officials later said they were in the process of negotiating a new deal with the company that would include more data sharing and collection safeguards.

Dozens of mostly smaller cities have deactivated their Flock cameras or ended their contracts with the company over concerns that it provides data to the Trump administration that can be used to track down immigrants for deportation.

Bass joined the chorus of activists and local officials calling for the LAPD to end its relationship with the company outright.

Her opponent in the November mayoral election, Nithya Raman, said last week on the social media platform X that the city should “cut ties with Flock Safety.”

“Cities across the country are canceling their Flock contracts over the risks its license plate readers pose to privacy, civil liberties, and immigrant communities,” Raman’s post read.

Last month, Bass signed an ordinance that prohibits city personnel from providing anyone outside local government access to data that can be used to determine someone’s immigration status.

A recent Washington Post report uncovered at least 50 instances nationwide in which law enforcement officials were accused of misusing their access to the cameras, largely to stalk former romantic partners or citizens.

A report issued last month by the LAPD inspector general’s office found numerous “limitations” in the department’s existing agreements with its three plate reader vendors — Flock, Axon and Motorola — including a lack of clear language about how long the data are retained and how they are shared with third parties or other law enforcement agencies.

The inspector general recommended that the department update its current license plate reader contracts to address data security and privacy concerns, conduct regular audits and develop standardized rules for traffic stops based on plate reader hits.

Flock has said its customers decide who can access data from their cameras. The company said it doesn’t have contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, adding that has taken other steps to assuage public concern, such as barring federal agencies from its lookup tools and restricting immigration-related searches to ensure compliance with laws in California, Washington and other states.

In an interview with ABC7 last month, Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the company had to “tighten up the police and make sure everyone’s aligned and then turn it back on. He said the company retains the data from its plate readers for only 30 days and denied that its cameras employ facial recognition software as some of its critics have suggested.

During a virtual listening session hosted last week by the inspector general’s office, dozens of people sounded off on the department’s use of Flock cameras.

Some speakers, mostly from the fire-ravaged community of Pacific Palisades, supported the use of cameras to deter burglars who have repeatedly hit homes and construction sites in the area.

Jennifer Wolfe, who identified herself as a teacher in Altadena, another community devastated by the 2025 wildfires, urged Flock’s supporters to consider how “surveillance systems can grow far beyond their intended purpose.”

Locating stolen cars is important, she said, but people should be more concerned by this newfound and unchecked ability for the government to collect “vastly more information, with far less effort.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump is trying again to limit the number of people born in the country who can become American citizens, in a sign that even after his first attempt at limiting birthright citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court, he’s ready to renew his efforts.

The president said he was signing two executive actions on immigration, including one limiting the number of people eligible for citizenship after being born in the United States. The written executive order released Thursday was narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court and appeared to focus on restricting automatic citizenship to specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations as well as anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.

It also aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to anyone whose parents “engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.”

A second order seeks to curb what Trump called “birth tourism” by increasing restrictions on visitors to the U.S. who want to obtain visas to give birth while in the country.

Trump said he thought his latest actions would be constitutional.

“I thought we were going to win it at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we had a bad decision, very unfair decision. Our country suffers because of it and we’re ending it a different way,” Trump said.

In June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous efforts to declare that children born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily aren’t American citizens, and upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship.

On the first day of Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen.

Trump’s administration immediately was sued by opponents who said the executive order went against the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which makes anyone born in the country a citizen, with very limited exceptions.

The executive order was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s order by a 6-3 vote. But the vote was too close for many immigration advocates and legal observers who felt the legal question of birthright citizenship was a long-settled issue.

Weissert and Santana write for the Associated Press.