POLITICS

WASHINGTON — Late September in the Oval Office, President Trump declared, “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We’re gonna win that war very soon.”

It wasn’t the first time he’s described the hostilities as “war.”

On Feb. 28, the day U.S. and Israeli began bombarding Iran, he warned that “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

But throughout seven months of back-and-forth strikes with Iran, Trump administration officials, and sometimes Trump himself, have performed verbal acrobatics to avoid the “W” word.

President Trump, addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, used the word “war” one time when referring to hostilities with Iran.

(Pool / Getty Images)

Senior administration officials loosely tossed around “war” during the first stages of conflict, but with polls showing the war in unpopular and congressional support waning, “war” and even “Operation Epic Fury” have become taboo among members of the Trump administration.

Trump has called attacks on Iran a “military operation,” “military decimation,” “excursion” and “skirmish.”

At a White House press briefing last month, Vice President JD Vance attempted to clear the air when a reporter asked about a potential end to what she called a “war in Iran.”

“I wouldn’t call it a war right now,” Vance said. “Major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.”

Vice President JD Vance, addressing reporters at the White House on Sept. 3, said, “I wouldn’t call it a war right now” when asked about the conflict with Iran.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tread carefully in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July, repeatedly referring to a “conflict” in Iran that needed additional funding to continue.

On May 5, during the first of two delicate ceasefires with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced an end to the objectives laid out in Operation Epic Fury and the beginning of “Project Freedom” — an effort to escort merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

In April, Trump announced the blockade of Iranian ports. When asked about whether the blockade constituted an act of war, Rubio replied, “That’s not an act of war, that’s a defensive measure. It’s a counter to what they have decided to do.”

Senior Trump officials have maintained that the conflict can no longer be viewed as war because the intensity of strikes between the two countries has been reduced.

The “end” of Operation Epic Fury, the name Trump used when he announced hostilities on Feb. 28, was declared on May 5 — 60 days after the fighting began.

The timing was no coincidence. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must cease all hostilities abroad after 60 days if there is no congressional declaration of war.

Legal and political considerations

Under the Constitution, only Congress declares war, but past presidents have routinely circumvented this rule by exercising their authority to direct the military and initiate strikes on targeted nations.

Nearly every modern president, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Trump, has used this justification to undertake military action without the declaratory approval of Congress.

Congress can also choose to approve an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which grants the president legal authority to conduct military operations overseas.

Unless Congress sets a time limit on the authorization, authority to use the legal justification to launch military strikes can theoretically span multiple administrations.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor at American University, said that presidents of both parties have avoided the term “war” when attempting to evade congressional approval of hostile action abroad.

“Trump has followed some of his predecessors in playing word games with the war power,” Raskin said. “What makes his case so extreme is that he proudly described it as a war and depicted it in glorified military terms.”

In March, seven days into the fighting, Trump said, “The war itself is going unbelievably. It’s as good as it can be.”

Congress has not officially declared war since World War II. The Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan and both wars in Iraq were all approved by Congress under the umbrella of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This year Congress has not approved such an authorization for the action with Iran. Fourteen Senate votes for a War Powers Resolution to curb Trump’s war efforts have failed in the chamber so far.

According to a CNN/SSRS poll last month, only 26% of Americans approve of the Trump administration’s handling of the Iran war.

Raskin said that he believes Trump’s terminology has shifted with the public mood, adding that he hasn’t heard any of his Republican colleagues “play along with the semantic games.”

“When things have turned south in the fortunes of this war, he has tried to pretend it’s something else,” Raskin said. “I think that has just further enraged the population.”

Past handling of congressional war power

The administration’s declaration that Operation Epic Fury had concluded echoed May 2003, when then-President George W. Bush stood in front of a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, approximately six weeks after Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said. “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

President George W. Bush speaks aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast on May 1, 2003.

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Despite the victory lap, combat operations in Iraq and across the Middle East continued through the aughts. The Iraq war wouldn’t officially end until 2011, with President Obama’s signature.

Obama himself relied heavily on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force — passed by Congress under Bush — in his military campaign against Islamic State during his presidency.

According to Council on Foreign Relations data, Obama launched 542 drone strikes and killed 3,797 people in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia without renewed approval from Congress.

A case more analogous to Trump’s comes in former President Truman’s unilateral decision to deploy U.S. troops to Korea in 1950. The Truman administration forwent congressional approval altogether and used United Nations Security Council resolutions to justify the intervention against Communist forces in the north, according to a White House news release from the time.

There were many critics of this exercise of executive war powers, most notably, Ohio Republican Sen. Robert A. Taft, who argued that Truman had usurped congressional war powers.

However, that Congress still provided monetary support, granting Truman military funds and extensions to the draft to raise additional troops for the Korean War effort. According to historical Gallup polls, 78% of Americans in 1950 approved of U.S. intervention in Korea.

Trump sticking with ‘war’

While Vance and other administration officials continue to avoid “war,” it does slip out now and then. Trump has been, perhaps, the most discordant messenger of the administration when discussing Iran.

After referring to the “war” on social media and public interviews more than a dozen times, Trump backed Vance’s comments about the Iran war no longer being active as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office in September. He refuses to call the conflict a “war,” Trump said, because “you are supposed to get approval.”

“I call it a military conflict, because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump said.

Even Fox News, one of President Trump’s preferred media outlets, isn’t exempt from his go-to term for any woman he dislikes.

“She can be so nasty,” was how Trump recently described the conservative-leaning network’s senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich.

Never one to hold back, the president has also had harsh words for her spouse, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a moderate Republican congressman. “Her husband votes against me all the time,” Trump once said. “Can you imagine?”

The double-barreled attacks don’t bother Heinrich, who as president of the White House Correspondents Assn. is leading the fight against Trump’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. When Trump delivered his insult at the WHCA’s dinner in July, Heinrich just shrugged and smiled.

“You don’t get into journalism to be well liked by the subject that you’re covering,” Heinrich said in a recent phone interview. “As long as I’m doing my job, which is to get the story and tell it fairly and fully, the rest of it is not really my business to care about. It’s probably not the last time I’ll upset him. The president still takes my calls.”

Heinrich’s durability is being put to the test as she delivers the public and private messaging on the latest battle with the White House over press freedom. Trump banned the three outlets from the White House grounds due to what he believes is their constant negative coverage.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to block the move, calling it viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the outlets’ 1st Amendment rights. But the administration continues to prevent CNN from serving in
the press pool that follows the president at all times. More court hearings are ahead.

Over the last 10 days, Heinrich has issued public statements condemning the ban, monitored the legal proceedings and held back channel conversations with the White House in an effort to get Trump’s decision reversed. It’s a second job on top of covering the president and co-hosting a weekend program “The Sunday Briefing.”

Executives and journalists say privately that it’s helpful to have someone from a Trump-friendly outlet lead the organization to restore the press credentials of outlets the president views as hostile. The WHCA exists to maintain and facilitate access to the White House for its 900 members across 250 news organizations.

But for Heinrich, it’s logical that 1st Amendment arguments transcend any political leanings of any media outlet. If Trump’s ban stands, conservative news organizations could find themselves facing similar restrictions the next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office.

“When you empower the president to select who is allowed to ask them questions, it shrinks the room,” Heinrich said. “It shrinks the perspective and it hands over that same authority to the next administration, who will surround themselves with only voices that approve of or are supportive or friendly toward what they’re doing.”

Eugene Daniels, a co-host at the progressive-leaning MS NOW and a former White House Correspondents Assn. president, said the organization’s members from Fox News and the further right-leaning Newsmax were always supportive of 1st Amendment and press access issues during his tenure.

“A lot of our news organizations understand intrinsically that at some point the shoe could be on the other foot,” Daniels said. “The solidarity matters.”

Daniels has also known Heinrich since the two worked together years ago at a TV station in Colorado Springs, Colo., and believes she is well-equipped to push the WHCA’s cause.

“She’s clear eyed about the role of White House correspondents in covering any president,” he said. “She is very tough and always has been since we’ve met. She stands 10 toes down when it comes to what’s right.”

Heinrich’s respect for journalistic principles has even extended to her personal life. When Fitzpatrick first asked her out on a date five years ago, he had to wait several weeks for an answer. Heinrich checked with her Fox News bosses to see if dating an elected official was a conflict even though she was no longer assigned to covering congress.

“He was very patient,” Heinrich said. The couple was married at New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral in June.

Heinrich is among the correspondents at Fox News — which this week will mark 30 years on the air — whose reporting doesn’t adhere to the leanings of its opinion hosts and commentators.

In 2020, Heinrich reported on Trump’s false claims of voter fraud in the election he lost to Joe Biden, while commentators, hosts and guests on the network continued to raise doubts about the results. Her reporting angered hosts such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, who were concerned that her work was alienating viewers loyal to the president.

Carlson called on Fox News Media Chief Executive Suzanne Scott to fire Heinrich in a text that came to light three years later when Dominion Voting System filed its defamation suit against the network. Dominion claimed Fox News deliberately aired false statements about the company’s role in the 2020 election, settling the suit for $787 million.

But Heinrich said she was unaware of the conversations before they were revealed in a legal brief in February 2023. (Carlson was fired from Fox News two months later.) She has been promoted twice since 2020.

“My bosses never interfered with my reporting,” she said.

Heinrich, 37, studied international affairs at George Washington University and wanted to pursue a career in the State Department before internships at MSNBC and WRC-TV in Washington led her to journalism. After working at several local TV stations she became a Fox News correspondent in New York in 2018. She covered Congress and the 2020 presidential campaign before moving to the White House beat in 2021.

Heinrich was raised in New England in what she describes as a politically diverse family. Her parents divorced when she was young, and she split her time between a conservative father in New Hampshire, a politically moderate mother in Maine and a Bernie Sanders-supporting stepfather from Vermont. She believes her upbringing was excellent training for her profession.

“It was ‘Live Free or Die’ and socialism all under two roofs but one family,” she said. “We have developed a really keen ability to listen. I think that’s one of the most important parts of journalism, is hearing and understanding someone’s perspective enough that you can describe it to someone else in a way that is fair and complete.”

Once Heinrich gets past the current conflict with the White House, she’ll have to plan the association’s annual dinner. (The event was cut short and rescheduled this year after a gunman attempted to enter the ballroom at the Washington Hilton.)

Heinrich said even with the president’s open hostility toward the press, he will be welcomed to the event in 2027.

“We have invited the president every single year for the last 115 years and that’s not going to change just because of President Trump,” Heinrich said. “We uphold laws, norms, and traditions around here and we intend to keep it that way.”

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Frankie Llerandi, 21, has been unable to land a single internship in his three years at Michigan State University.

He will graduate in the spring with an economics degree and an interest in data analytics, but true adulthood seems maddeningly far away. Most of his cousins have not been able to buy a house or start a family deep into their 30s.

Kira Saiti, a 19-year-old sophomore, is more upset about the broader world than her own future. Every time she looks at her phone she sees images of violence and horror, both in the Middle East and closer to home.

“It’s kind of hard to look at that and say, ‘This world is a great place,’” she said.

Julian Bautista, 20, saw his chosen profession of environmental work decimated by Trump administration cuts, pushing the junior to decide he will leave the United States to find work in the Netherlands when he graduates. He considers what remains his home country for the next 18 months to be a failure of democracy led by what he sees as corrupt politicians.

“Throughout my life, we’ve either stagnated or declined; we haven’t improved,” Bautista said.

For many of their classmates on campus and elsewhere around the country, the present looks bleak and the future uncertain at best. Their anxiety is fueling a restlessness with a national political system that they worry is no longer capable of improving their lives or no longer interested in helping.

Two years ago, grim economic vibes helped Donald Trump win a far larger share of young voters than is typical for a Republican — 47%, according to AP VoteCast, an extensive survey of the electorate. Now, anxiety about artificial intelligence and the Iran war has been added to the mix, powering a wave of disruptive candidates on the opposite end of the political spectrum who have been embraced by college students.

Llerandi, Saiti and Bautista all support a slate of progressive, anti-establishment Democratic candidates in Michigan who are pledging to shake up the status quo. Among them are Abdul El-Sayed, a former public health official running for U.S. Senate, and Will Lawrence, a liberal activist trying to unseat Tom Barrett, the Republican congressman who represents the swing district that includes the university.

A similar trend has been playing out in Los Angeles in recent years. Four Democratic Socialists of America members are on the L.A. City Council, and one of them — Nithya Raman — is polling strongly in her campaign to unseat the more establishment Democratic mayor, Karen Bass. The city’s dearth of affordable housing has been a leading issue in the race.

The future looks bleak for many students

Anxieties about the job market, homeownership and adulthood are widespread across the East Lansing campus, even among those who are not deeply involved in politics.

“It’s just something to laugh at, but, you know, I really do want a house when I’m older,” said Praveen Amunugama, a 21-year-old biochemistry major who plans to go to graduate school in hopes the job market improves over the next two years.

His friends feel the same way.

“They want to be able to afford things, raise a good family,” he said.

Despite the economic angst among young people, at first blush the picture does not look that bad for them. The unemployment rate for those age 22 to 27 is 7.2%, higher than the broader rate of 4.1% but lower than in some moments of economic calm.

A 2024 study found members of the younger generation known as Generation Z are poised to be wealthier than millennials, who themselves are wealthier than the prior generation despite the persistent sense of economic doom that accompanied their entry into the job market during the Great Recession.

Kevin Corinth, the economist who co-wrote that study, said he understands Gen Z angst, given modern uncertainties, especially the prospect of AI reshaping various industries and data showing younger people are taking longer to leave home and start families.

“For previous generations, if you took certain paths you were likely to succeed, to do better than your parents,” said Corinth, who is at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank. For young people now, he acknowledged, that path is not as clear.

Kathryn Edwards, a Texas-based economist, noted that unemployment among recent college graduates is at 5.6%, higher than at most other times in recent history other than the Great Recession. Combined with historically high housing prices and rising costs for essentials such as food and healthcare, that is a challenging environment for young people.

“It’s pretty bad for them,” Edwards said, adding that young people are picking up on broader warning signs in the economy. “So many aspects of our current economy, I think young people have gotten right.”

They are also fully exposed to the new form of job hunting: AI-powered, digital and done almost exclusively online, where it is hard to discern real job openings from fake ones.

“Think about the amount they get spammed and scammed, and there are tons of fake jobs out there,” said Marla McGraw, assistant dean of career management in Michigan State’s business school. “They’re always coming in here going, ‘Is this real?’”

She spends a lot of time trying to buck up disenchanted students.

“Our message right now is the job market is tough, but you’re tougher,” McGraw said.

Students say political leaders are falling short

Young Americans’ optimism about the job market has plummeted since 2024, and the gap between their view of the economy and those of their elders is greater than almost anywhere in the world, according to a Gallup survey earlier this year.

They are less likely to be engaged in politics and less likely to think it is important to vote, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found. They also are less likely to be concerned about political violence.

That dissolution of beliefs in traditional political values worries Karlee VanAntwerp.

The 21-year-old Michigan State senior is also head of the local chapter of Turning Point, the group for young conservatives whose founder, Charlie Kirk, was killed by a gunman last year. VanAntwerp has been horrified to see Kirk’s killing mocked online, sometimes menacingly.

“Gen Z tends to be more extreme with their views,” VanAntwerp said. “It makes it hard to work with people of different political beliefs, because even if you’re in the middle, they assume you’re crazy.”

VanAntwerp sees that feeding into the despair many of her generation feel about real change ever happening.

“One administration does a bunch of stuff, another administration comes in and wipes it all out,” said VanAntwerp, who is also working for Barrett’s campaign. “It feels like we always go in circles. That contributes to the political temperature being so high, because people feel nothing changes.”

Her politics are the polar opposite of many liberal students who gathered to hear Lawrence, Barrett’s Democratic challenger, talk in a classroom one recent evening, but there was a similar desire for dramatic change. Lawrence sympathized with the glum feelings of early adulthood and urged the students not to succumb to despair.

“When I was a little younger I wanted to drop out of society, and it was organizing that gave me a path in life,” Lawrence said.

After the candidate left, however, Bautista still sounded on the verge of despair. He talked about how online influencers he trusts deride Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York as “mini-me’s” because, in Bautista’s view, they are just watered-down versions of Trump.

“Our leaders are representing us less,” Bautista said. “People are desperate for big stuff.”

Ganun and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.

Every fall, I teach a Latino History of Orange County course at Chapman University — from the Portola expedition all the way to Huntington Beach’s MAGA Latina councilmember, Gracey Van Der Mark. The lecture last week focused on how anti-Mexican politics have always worked in Orange County and usually go on to be copied nationwide.

I usually, sadly, have to update this lecture every year because the lowlights just keep coming. That’s why this time around, one of my PowerPoint slides ended with “2026: Anaheim?”.

Haven’t you heard? A lawsuit accuses Anaheim mayor Ashleigh Aitken of calling her chief of staff a “dirty Mexican.”

Stay classy, O.C.!

TimesOC writer (and my fellow Anaheimer) Gabriel San Román first reported on the allegation last month. He revealed that a lawyer for Aitken’s chief of staff Berenice Ballinas was seeking mediation from the city after his client suffered a “sustained pattern of harassment, discriminatory treatment and, most recently, retaliation” while doing her job. A legal claim filed soon after offered pages of alleged incidents detailing what Ballinas claimed she had to deal with when her boss supposedly had too much to drink while on city business.

It’s an ugly read, with incidents at Disneyland’s Club 33, Angel Stadium and other Anaheim landmarks. Yet no passage is more damning — yet more Orange County — than when Ballinas claimed Aitken once called her a “dirty Mexican” in front of then-city attorney Jim Vanderpool and said another time that the mayor didn’t want “a Mexican” like Ballinas to drive her car while Aitken was supposedly what the British satirical magazine Private Eye would call “tired and emotional.”

The mayor, a Democrat who’s running for reelection, has denied the explosive charge in an official statement and during a recent council meeting. And yet the allegation against her now enters Orange County’s long, sad spectrum of anti-Mexican political history.

Just part of the list: Proposition 187. Poll guards. Trying to give local police immigration-enforcement powers. When then-Orange County supervisor Ronald Caspers called a group of Mexican American county employees who demanded promotions “bandidos” during a 1972 supervisors meeting, then suggested the supes move the county seat away from Santa Ana because the city “does not have a normal ethnic balance” — in other words, it was too Mexican.

Or how about when a Newport Beach council member, Dick Nichols, opined during a 2003 council meeting that he opposed expanding the grassy areas of Corona del Mar State Beach because Mexicans “claim it as theirs, and it becomes their personal, private ground all day”? (Asked to apologize, Nichols doubled down by saying, “Where the hell am I in any way discriminating or being a bigot by making a statement that is blatantly true?”)

My hometown is not exempt from this sad parade. Anaheim’s schools, parks and swimming pool were segregated until the 1950s. In 1999, the Anaheim Union High School District board of trustees voted to sue Mexico for $50 million for educating the children of undocumented immigrants (The Times’ write-up was the first time I appeared in the paper, although the writer misspelled my last name).

Why all the O.C. anti-Mexican hate? You’ll have to enroll in my Chapman class for the full explanation. But the main reason is that Mexicans have long functioned as O.C.’s demonized minority. When millions of O.C. residents have grown up believing the powers that be that all Mexicans do is work low-paying jobs and underachieve in life, no wonder politicians bash them again and again — and no wonder many Anaheim residents aren’t giving Aitken the benefit of the doubt.

On Friday, the Anaheim City Council announced after a closed session that it would launch an independent investigation into Ballinas’ allegations. Aitken had an eventful Friday of her own. She admitted on Instagram that she has an “unhealthy relationship” with alcohol and sighed to CBS Los Angeles that Ballinas was “somebody who I thought was my right-hand person.” And while local activists have demanded she resign, O.C.’s ascending liberal machine isn’t asking for her head the way they would’ve if it were a Republican official: Mayor Anaheim gave the opening remarks at the Orange County Labor Federation’s annual Solidarity Awards gala on Friday night to cheers.

Stay classy, O.C.!

The week’s biggest stories

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton visits patrons at Victorio’s Ristorante in North Hollywood, where a watch party was held for the CNN governor’s race debate Wednesday night.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

California politics

• A sexually suggestive ad from Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton has drawn millions of views — and condemnation from allies on the right and Democrats.
• Latino voters have shifted away from Karen Bass in the L.A. mayor’s race, according to a new poll.
• The poll’s findings contrast the results of the June 2 primary, in which Bass carried 35 Latino-majority neighborhoods compared with Raman’s seven.

Helicopter tragedy

Paramount-Warner Bros. merger

• David Ellison said the merged Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery will be called Skydance — the moniker he picked nearly two decades ago when he began building his Hollywood empire.
• Although the name of the corporate parent will change, the two historic studios will continue to operate under their names.
• As Ellison names his new empire, the message is clear: He owns Hollywood, writes news and culture critic Mary McNamara.

More news

Editor’s pick

More picks

Things to do

Retro candies, zombie-themed chips, ghost-branded coffee and large-scale movie characters can all be found at the Horror Boodega snack shop in Burbank.

(Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times)

Today’s recipe

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

For culinary content producer Owen Han, his nonna’s recipe for meatballs is as classic as they come. She does not brown the meatballs but instead poaches them in the copious tomato sauce (she called it salsa di pomodoro, or sugo, but you might know it as marinara) so they are extra tender.

Photo of the day

(Nava Rawls / Los Angeles Times)

Games

Here’s today’s mini crossword, plus our other free, daily crossword puzzle, sudoku, word search and jigsaw games.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jack Dolan, investigative reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.

It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.

California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.

They have “privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.

(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)

Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.

But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.

Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.

The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the oil companies sounded the same theme.

“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.

The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.

“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”

The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.

Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.

UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”

Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.

Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.

The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.

A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.

The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.

Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.

The justices may opt out of ruling, however.

When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.

Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.

And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.

A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.

In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.

Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.

In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.

But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.

Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.

A refinery in Carson in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday, the court announced it will hear arguments on the mandatory detention policy, likely to be scheduled for January.

The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”

The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.

The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.

The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.

Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.

In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.

California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

After turning away cases for a decade, the justices voted to hear 2nd Amendment challenges to the laws in Cook County, Ill., and the state of Connecticut.

There are few people, if any, who’ve tracked U.S. elections for longer or in greater depth than Charlie Cook.

Ever since 1984, when he started his eponymous political newsletter, Cook and his stellar crew of nonpartisan analysts have plumbed many thousands of races — for president, Congress, governor — following the money, sussing out the candidates, watching their ads and assaying the campaign landscape at a granular level.

Cook calls this midterm election the strangest he’s ever seen.

What appeared to be a fairly normal election for a president halfway through his term — a probable setback, as unhappy voters register their discontent — has the potential, Cook said, to turn into a disaster for Republicans. Big losses aren’t rare for the party in the White House. Democrats picked up 41 House seats in President Trump’s last midterm election, in 2018.

What’s unusual, Cook suggested, is the prospect of big Democratic gains when Republicans started out this election season with so many advantages. (And that was before the GOP set off on a gerrymandering jag at Trump’s behest.)

Roughly two-thirds of the Senate seats up in November are in states Trump carried in 2024. Five of the seven toss-up races are in states Trump won, several by double digits.

On the House side, Republicans maintain control by an exceedingly narrow margin, meaning there aren’t a lot of low-hanging districts for Democrats to aim for. As Cook rightly noted, “A party cannot lose a seat they don’t have.”

But Trump’s deteriorating approval rating, an unpopular war, persistent inflation and the president’s egotistical indulgences have jeopardized a number of GOP-held seats that normally would be automatic wins, including contests in such Republican strongholds as Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and even Texas.

“I’m not a meteorologist, but it’s kind of like three competing weather fronts collided,” Cook said. “One was Iran and gasoline, diesel prices going sky high … Then there’s trade, tariffs, overall non-energy cost of living, tariff impact on farmers. And then the third is kind of the catch-all and it’s everything from ballrooms, reflecting pools, arches, vaccines, Medicaid cuts.”

We’ll get to predictions in a moment. (Patience, dear reader.)

First, let’s hear from Nathan Gonzales, another longtime election handicapper. He’s been tracking political contests nationwide for more than 25 years and edits and publishes Inside Elections — formerly the Rothenberg Political Report — another nonpartisan field guide to campaigns. Like Cook, he traffics in clear-eyed, dispassionate analysis, not partisan wish-casting or political spin.

Gonzales, too, sees a bad moon rising for Republicans.

A detail of the exhibit in the Epstein Files Bookmobile during a campaign stop for Democratic House candidate Bob Brooks at the United Steelworkers of America office in Bethlehem, Pa. Brooks is challenging Republican incumbent Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) in Pennsylvania’s highly competitive 7th Congressional District in the upcoming midterm election.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Trump’s performance — his approval rating is flirting with record lows — “has inspired Democrats, turned off independents and created a group of apathetic Republicans,” Gonzales said, “and those are the ingredients for a good or great Democratic year.”

He noted Democrats don’t need a big wave to seize control of the House. A pickup of just three seats would flip the House, marking the seventh straight midterm election in which one chamber or the other changed partisan hands.

(For the record, there is no authoritative definition of a wave election, though it’s generally agreed the term applies to an election in which one party or the other gains a large and lopsided number of House and Senate seats.)

It’s beginning to feel a lot like 2006, Gonzales said.

“We had an unpopular Republican president, a war in the Middle East that drove up gas prices. Some members on Capitol Hill that were behaving badly,” Gonzales recalled. “I remember talking to Republicans after the fact and they admitted that, while they thought they had great research on Democratic candidates and they had a fundraising advantage, voters just didn’t care. Voters weren’t in the mood to listen to what they were saying about Democrats because they were so frustrated with what was going on with the status quo and the direction of the country.”

In that election, at the midpoint of President George W. Bush’s second term, Democrats gained six seats to take control of the Senate and netted 31 in the House, allowing the installation of Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker in history. “A thumpin’,” Bush called it.

So, 2026.

Gonzales and his team of experts believe the House is most likely gone for Republicans, forecasting a Democratic gain of seven to 15 seats, unless the bottom falls out for the GOP and their losses climb much higher.

In the Senate, where Democrats need to pick up four seats to take control, Gonzales sees the chamber teetering on a knife’s edge, forecasting a Democratic gain of three to five seats.

“It’s too late to fundamentally change the trajectory of this election,” Gonzales said. “But if Republicans can boost Republican turnout, it might be enough to save the Senate.”

For his part, Cook agrees that Mike Johnson may be nearing the end of his speakership. The best-case scenario for the GOP would be keeping its losses to 25 House seats or less, Cook said, which is right around the average for midterm elections going back well over half a century.

“It starts getting into eyebrow-raising territory if it gets north of 35,” Cook said, “because that shouldn’t be possible with the few competitive districts we have now.”

As for the Senate, he suggested the best Republicans can hope for is a net loss of two seats, keeping the GOP barely in control. (A loss of three would mean a 50-50 split, leaving Vice President JD Vance poised to be the tiebreaker on close votes — and wouldn’t he love having to drop off the 2028 campaign trail to be on hand, just in case.)

Of course, there’s still an election to be held, votes to be cast and ballots to be counted.

Blue wave, tsunami or a pale sapphire puddle?

We’ll know in a little more than four weeks.

WASHINGTON — Sipping tea from beer mugs with his co-workers, Kyle Bos listed the ways his life is changing.

Bos has two daughters, with a third due in January. At the grocery store, five items cost as much as a full cart once did. And on Wednesday, Bos and nearly 1,400 other people were laid off from their jobs as the Navistar truck factory in southwestern Ohio shut down.

The layoffs — occurring three days before President Trump’s rally Saturday at a nearby high school — were large enough to essentially erase an entire year of job growth in the greater Dayton area. And they are one reason why Bos, 30, plans to spend the final weeks before the November election canvassing votes for Democrats.

Asked how many times he voted for Trump, Bos held up three tattooed fingers. But he said he’s done with the president.

“Something has to change politically in this country,” said Bos, a member of the United Auto Workers who identifies as a centrist.

A Trump campaign stop

This election is a test for the working-class coalition that lifted Trump into the White House again and gave majorities to Republicans in the House and Senate. The outcome will be decided in places like Dayton, which once sprouted factories but shed about half of its 90,000 factory jobs since 1990 after the North American Free Trade Agreement and trade with China made it cheaper to buy auto parts from abroad.

Trump’s blunt talk and status as a celebrity businessman initially helped him in and around Dayton, where some said politics as usual had failed them. But voters this year are disgruntled about inflation and the war in Iran.

An Ohio race could help determine control of the Senate. Republican Sen. Jon Husted is facing a challenge from Democratic former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is trying to harness that disenchantment as he attempts a comeback two years after losing his seat.

Americans increasingly blame Trump for the high cost of living, with just 17% approving of his handling of the issue, according to a new AP-NORC poll. Trump didn’t talk about grocery prices or gas prices or layoffs at his Saturday night rally in Vandalia, part of what he says will be a 32-day marathon of rallies to try to convince the public that the economy is better than they think.

“The fake news media, they refuse to talk about our record-setting numbers. So tonight, if you don’t mind, I’m going to do it myself,” he said at the rally.

Trump largely has scoffed at concerns about affordability, but is promising to give people $5,000 checks if Republicans win the House and Senate next month— something Bos said he found offensive.

“It feels like a bribe, a slap in the face, and, like, that we’re all ignorant,” Bos said.

Factory work moved abroad

As steady paychecks vanished in the 1990s, drug addiction and crime increased. Things seemed to hit bottom after the 2008 financial crisis, prompting Phil Plummer, who was then Montgomery County sheriff, to enter politics.

“My jail was 40% drug addicts, 50% mental health patients, 10% criminals,” said Plummer, the Montgomery County GOP chairman who has been a Republican state representative since 2019. “We got it upside down — that’s what drove me to the statehouse.”

Plummer is now on the ballot for the Ohio state Senate and thinks Trump is what keeps the GOP’s coalition of businesses and working-class families together.

In recent years, the local economy has improved as the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base steadily added government workers. The base has drawn new aerospace companies to the area such as Joby Aviation, Electra and the Sierra Nevada Corp.

“In economic development, it takes time, and you have got to give it a little bit of time to bake, and then once it does, then you’re going to have something special,” said Jeff Hoagland, chief of the Dayton Development Coalition.

Demand at plant fell

Trump pointed to the $850-million investment by aircraft maker Electra — along with a new project in Ohio from Stellantis and a Friday announcement from Bayer for a $2.2-billion drug plant near Columbus — as evidence that his policies were creating jobs.

But at the Navistar plant, Trump’s broad tariffs never boosted demand, and the plant’s former owner, International Motors, chose to offload the facility.

Trump’s major legislative achievement, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contributed little to people’s take-home pay, even as it temporarily stripped taxes from tips and overtime.

“We weren’t getting a lot of overtime because of the economy,” said Marianne Donnelly, who drove a forklift at the factory. “There just wasn’t any to be had, very little to be had.”

Laid-off workers like Donnelly say they expect to be rehired in six to 12 months by Roshel, a Canadian manufacturer of armored vehicles, which is buying the plant. Roshel said in a statement that it’s “working with everyone involved not only to protect the current workforce, but to more than double it over the coming years through a phased process.”

Laid-off workers looking for hope

On the Monday before the layoffs, Morgan Hughes and JoJo Burkhard were knocking on doors in Kettering, a Dayton suburb. They were trying to convince union members and retirees to vote for Democrats.

The Navistar job had helped Hughes, 35, buy a house at age 21 and work alongside her father. Burkhard said inflation had made it easier to swing voters to their side.

“It isn’t a hard pitch at all,” she said. “And even if they don’t want to stay Democratic long term, they’ll at least give the candidates a chance this election, which could be a turning point for us.”

After a morning of talking to voters, the pair settled down at a Chinese restaurant for some pot stickers, and the weight of the week hit them.

Burkhard cracked open a fortune cookie and tears began to well up. The layoffs meant no work for her, her boyfriend and her mother — and the words in small print almost seemed prophetic.

Her fortune read: “You’ll find your inner strength to overcome challenges.”

Boak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Seung Min Kim in Vandalia contributed to this report.

President Trump is promising more payments to voters just ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections — this time, to more than 20 million seniors, who each would get $90 to help pay for Medicare premiums.

The announcement, made late Friday night by Trump on social media, comes after he said last month about 1 million people would get rebate checks of $500 for Affordable Care Act premiums. It also comes after his One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year slashed funding for Medicare, disqualifying thousands from eligibility and raising fees for the rest, and for the ACA, raising premiums for millions by eliminating tax credits.

Trump has also promised on the campaign trail to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.

His latest promise — which, like the others, would require approval from Congress — would probably cost more than $1 trillion, adding to the ballooning deficit and worsening inflation.

Polls show Americans increasingly blame Trump for the high cost of gasoline and groceries, with just 17% approving of his handling of inflation. Rising healthcare costs are also a key component of the affordability struggles many face across the country.

The president has sought to shrug off concerns about affordability, claiming the economy is booming.

The White House said the $90 payments for seniors would come from the Medicare Improvement Fund, established by Congress in 2008 as flexible funding to improve program operations and payments to healthcare providers.

As proposed, Medicare Part B enrollees would receive a one-time payment in October, either through direct deposit or by check, the White House said. Total monthly costs for the program — which covers costs like doctor’s visits, ambulance services and lab tests — start around $200 and vary with income.

To be eligible, seniors must be living in the U.S. and not be already receiving premium assistance from Medicaid or paying adjusted monthly premiums based on income, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare coverage, would not be eligible for the payment. More than half of eligible Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare Advantage, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Previous administrations have not used the Medicare Improvement Fund in this way, although Congress has periodically taken out money from the fund to pay for other priorities, said Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy. For example, $20.74 billion was used for the creation of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

“The Medicare Improvement Fund language is quite broad and gives substantial discretion to the administration,” Levitt said.

Goldin writes for the Associated Press.

AUSTIN — A little more than a year ago, on a muggy July day packed with political symbolism, Texas Gov. George W. Bush delivered his first major policy address as a presidential candidate at an Indiana church.

As the national press hung on every word, Bush sketched his vision of a kinder, gentler brand of conservatism, one in which the government would turn to religious groups for help serving the poor. The word “compassion” popped up 15 times in 20 minutes.

Watching from afar, proud as a parent at a high school graduation, was Marvin Olasky, the inspiration for Bush’s philosophy of compassionate conservatism and one of the most unlikely gurus ever to attract the attention of a potential world leader.

Olasky–ex-Communist, ex-atheist, born-again Christian–has become a savior of sorts among Republicans, who see in his theories a way to create small government with a big heart.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich first raised his national profile in 1995, suggesting that Olasky’s vision was a model for the future of the GOP.

Now, Olasky’s idea that religion can play a role in providing government social services has found special resonance with Bush, a fellow Texan and fervent Christian who wrote the foreword to Olasky’s most recent book, a paean to faith-based charities published last month.

Olasky believes the current wall between church and state must be broken down to let religions use tax money to help the poor. An alcoholic needing treatment could take a government voucher to an evangelical abstinence program, for instance. Or a taxpayer could donate money to help fund a Buddhist self-help center.

As Olasky’s influence has grown, the University of Texas journalism professor has become the political equivalent of a double-wide trailer in tornado country, attracting roaring controversy.

In recent months, civil rights groups have attacked his views on religion as a menace to the church-state wall. Feminists are outraged by comments they say show that Olasky believes women are secondary as leaders. And some Jewish groups were angered by a recent article in which Olasky attacked a group of conservative newspaper columnists, all of whom turned out to be Jewish.

Even some other conservatives have joined the chorus, saying Olasky’s work lacks intellectual rigor and stokes negative stereotypes of Christian conservatives.

“We are concerned that someone of this stripe has the ear of a presidential candidate who self-admittedly is not an intellectual,” said Ira Foreman, head of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Anti-Semitism Issue Is Raised

Some of the attacks, especially those that hint at possible anti-Semitism, have angered Olasky, 50, who was raised Jewish and has praised the work of Hebrew charities in his books. Others he brushes off as misreadings that ignore his life’s work, which include more than 13 scholarly books and hundreds of articles.

But he’s not backing down from his philosophy, which he said in a recent interview would even let groups like Scientologists and Wiccans use taxpayer funds to deliver services to the poor, so long as the programs were voluntary and proven effective.

“My tendency is to be inclusive. That can include Wiccans and Scientologists. If people are going to get mad at me, then so be it,” Olasky said.

Olasky is almost amused by the fierceness of the attacks against him. After years of portrayals in the media as an obscure academic with an oddball story, he now appears as a powerful Svengali bending Bush to a radical agenda.

Olasky scoffs at the notion, downplaying his role as “a very occasional, very informal, very unofficial” advisor who hasn’t had contact with Bush this year.

Bush officials echo that assessment, continuing a recent pattern of distancing Bush from the controversies that have dogged Olasky.

“He’s an outside, informal advisor,” said Dan Bartlett, a Bush spokesman. Bartlett noted that Bush had contact with Olasky only twice, though both times proved significant.

One came in 1996, when Olasky helped lead a task force to figure out how Bush could implement faith-based programs in Texas. The second was in 1999, when he worked on another Bush task force to do the same thing, but on a national level as part of his run for the presidency.

Olasky’s journey to prominence has been a long, strange circumnavigation between ideological poles, from Marxist to church elder.

Born in Massachusetts, Olasky grew up in a Jewish home, attending Hebrew school and celebrating his bar mitzvah at 13.

But a year later, the intellectually precocious youth told his parents he was actually an atheist. By the time he entered Yale, Olasky was running toward the left at full tilt. He protested the Vietnam War. He staged a five-day hunger strike. By 1972, he signed up to become a card carrying member of the Communist Party USA.

Then one night, while reading a passage from Lenin, Olasky asked himself the sort of question that keeps college students up at night: What if Lenin is wrong? What if there is a God?

Olasky decided God deserved a second look and began a slow process that culminated with his conversion to Christianity in 1976. He and his wife began attending a conservative Christian church they picked out of the phone book and never looked back.

Gingrich Helps Put Olasky in Spotlight

In 1983, Olasky arrived at the University of Texas, where he taught journalism.

In 1992, he published “The Tragedy of American Compassion,” the product of research into turn-of-the-century nongovernmental charities and their effectiveness. After a few thousand sold, the book seemed destined for the dollar bin at Books-a-Million.

But then, a rising Republican powerhouse from Georgia–Gingrich–discovered Olasky’s work. In his first speech in 1995 as speaker of the House, Gingrich hailed Olasky in the same breath as Alexis de Tocqueville as models for the future of the GOP.

Olasky, suddenly, was a GOP darling: in demand on the morning talk shows, running a think tank with Arianna Huffington, and advising the 1994 Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate–Bush.

But the spotlight didn’t really begin to burn until the pitched primary season between Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In February, Olasky wrote an article accusing a group of conservative writers of being uncomfortable with Bush’s open embrace of religion. He implied they were “proselytes in the religion of Zeus”–a reference to a Tom Wolfe book.

As it turned out, all three writers were Jewish–which Olasky said he didn’t know at the time. Some Jewish organizations jumped on the seeming slight as an attack by a Christian conservative on Jews; others said they found no offense.

Olasky, himself a journalist who edits the Christian newsweekly World, smelled politics: “At least some of the people who are very partisanly motivated were trying to find ways of hurting Gov. Bush,” Olasky said.

Recently, Olasky’s writing has drawn scrutiny from women’s groups, in particular a passage from a 1998 religious newsletter interview in which he talked about the biblical tale of Deborah and Barak.

In the story, Barak says he will not go into war unless accompanied by Deborah, who was serving as a leader of Israel at the time.

“God does not forbid women to be leaders in society, generally speaking, but when that occurs it’s usually because of the abdication of men,” Olasky said. “As in the situation of Deborah and Barak, there’s a certain shame attached to it. I would vote for a woman for the presidency, in some situations, but again, there’s a certain shame attached. Why don’t you have a man who’s able to step forward?”

Women’s Groups Abhor Remarks

Olasky said the quote has been taken out of context and that he has no problem with a woman as president of the country or a corporation, though his own church forbids women to serve as elders.

That’s still not good enough for many women’s groups, who find Olasky’s statements offensive, no matter what the context.

“I hope he keeps talking and talking,” said Loretta Kane, a NOW vice president. “I hope he gets lot of media coverage saying he’s one of George W. Bush’s advisors.”

A provocative, sexually suggestive ad by GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton is drawing heat from his fellow Republicans while drawing millions of viewers online.

Two young women sit on a bed, with an LGBTQ+ flag in the background, with one urging the other to try a new experience.

“I can’t believe I’m doing this,” one woman says, and the other replies. “Don’t be nervous. It’s not that bad … Just try it. Look, give me your hand. Close your eyes, and I’ll do all the work.”

She leads the hesitant woman’s hand to mark her ballot for Hilton rather than Democrat Xavier Becerra, the front-runner in the race, and says, “Now lick it,” referring to the mail ballot envelope.

Fellow Republicans as well as several Democrats denounced Hilton over the messaging.

Two members of Hilton’s GOP “Golden Ticket” on the Nov. 3 ballot lashed out about the ad’s content.

“I emphatically denounce the use of young women as a political tool,” Michael Gates, the Republican candidate for attorney general who has frequently appeared alongside Hilton at campaign events, wrote on X. “California families deserve better, and as AG, I will fight every day to protect our girls, young women, and parental rights.”

Sonja Shaw, who is running to be the next state superintendent of schools, castigated Hilton, the state Republican party and its chairwoman for promoting the ad, which had been viewed by nearly 5 million people as of Saturday afternoon.

“Shame on you … for reposting and cheering this creepy, weird, disturbing garbage,” Shaw wrote on X. “This is a clear example of exactly why good people are walking away from the Republican Party. As a mother and someone who has fought to protect the innocence of children, this crosses a line. We have lost our way. Embarrassing.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), an openly gay member of Congress, and state Democratic Party chairman Rusty Hicks also condemned the ad.

“This is a bizarre and desperate ad from a person who has attacked the LGBTQ+ community and stands with Donald Trump,” Garcia said. “Hilton is losing and more interested in AI slop than actually talking about issues Californians care about.”

Hilton acknowledged the ad has provoked strong reactions, but it underscored the foundation of his campaign — that many Californians may be put off by his party affiliation but want change given the state’s myriad problems, such as growing unaffordability, that have taken place under a Democratic lock of every statewide office and the state Legislature.

“We’re just saying, you know, just try it,” he said in an interview. “It’s a provocative and humorous way of making a point, right? Which often the best communication does.”

He also said the ad does not conflict with his beliefs about restrictions on gender-affirming care and on youth sports because those would only apply to people who are not adults.

A spokesman for Becerra, who led Hilton 58% to 33% in a recent UC Berkeley/Los Angeles Times poll, was gleeful about the rift the ad was creating among Republicans.

“MAGA is melting down over Steve Hilton’s creepy ad because they’re finally seeing him for the sellout he really is, willing to abandon his own twisted values to get ahead,” said Jonathan Underland.

However, some conservatives who were dismayed by the message stood by Hilton’s side.

Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, a Christian nationalist, called the ad “grotesque” and said it promoted lesbianism among young women, on a Facebook Live post Saturday. However, he said he still supports Hilton over Becerra. He did not respond to requests for comment.

Hilton is scheduled to speak on Monday to a chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, an LGBTQ group, at a brewery in Palm Desert. The organization did not respond to requests for comment.

Former California GOP chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said that while the ad wasn’t for her, she understood the campaign’s desire to expand its reach to different voters.

“Does the ad speak to me? No. He’s not going after my vote. He already has my vote. He’s trying to think of new and creative ways to make people who wouldn’t normally feel like voting for a Republican feel safe to do so,” she said. “He’s going out of his comfort zone and going for people that wouldn’t normally feel comfortable voting for him.”

Californian Fred Karger, who made history in 2012 as the first openly gay person to run for president, had mixed views about the ad, calling it shrewd yet hypocritical. And he questioned its effectiveness.

“The audience that he’s targeting there — the hipster, young hipster, lesbian audience — probably has a 1% chance of voting for him,” Karger said. “So it’s kind of a long shot. But it is a clever ad.”

Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” that take effect after Jan. 1, 2026. That includes financial assets, investment accounts, intellectual property, personal belongings and other assets used for retirement or financial planning.

It also would bar retroactive taxes on past earnings unless the state is using revenue from the tax to respond to emergencies such as a fire or a flood.

Proposition 42 could nullify Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax, because the two measures conflict with one another. If voters approve both, the one with the most “yes” votes generally would become law, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Proposition 42 could reduce state tax revenue but it’s unclear by how much, according to the office’s analysis. Currently, the state does tax certain personal property such as vehicles. It doesn’t tax people for owning financial assets like stocks and investment accounts but does tax income from them.

California Professional Firefighters, the California Federation of Teachers, the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California and the California School Employees Assn. all oppose the measure. They argue that it will make it harder to pass tax hikes to pay for police and fire departments, fix and repair local roads, staff local schools or backfill federal healthcare cuts.

They also argue that Proposition 43 skirts the California Supreme Court’s opinion on the threshold.

Gubnatorial candidate Xavier Becerra opposes Proposition 43. In a statement, he called corporations “special interests” that want the proposition to pass in order to block new taxes.

“Prop. 43 would hand special interests the power to block the resources our communities count on most: fire protection, safe roads, good schools,” Becerrra said.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Jarvis taxpayers group that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

History was made this week on Capitol Hill when a female senator womansplained sports to a male senator, and surprisingly, the gender-shaming reversal did not cause the universe to collapse on itself.

During a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, MAGA’s manhood cloak was breached when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) revealed that Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) had mixed up the names of basketball teams in an unsuccessful attempt to perjure former Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Smith was testifying before the committee because he had led the investigations into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and retain classified documents. Several Republican lawmakers have said that Smith overstepped his duties and launched a “witch hunt” against Trump and his allies.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speaks during a 2020 event in Las Vegas.

(Ethan Miller / Getty Images)

Schmitt was trying to suggest Tuesday that Smith improperly colluded with Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis on their separate criminal cases against Trump by placing the former special counsel on Willis’ home turf of Atlanta in 2024.

But a watershed Watergate moment this was not. If Schmitt’s effort to ensnare Smith was set to a musical score, it would have been far more “Curb Your Enthusiasm” than “Mission Impossible.”

His gotcha moment became a schooling by Klobuchar on basketball, turning the tables on the age-old art of mansplaining. For those who need a quick definition, it’s when a man explains something to a woman in a patronizing way, with sports usually at the top of that talk-down-to-her list. He assumes she knows less than he does, even if she’s versed on the subject.

Klobuchar is an avowed sports fan and the daughter of respected Minneapolis sportswriter Jim Klobuchar and a former prosecutor known for her sharp questioning. The combination proved unfortunate for Schmitt during the hearing when he tried to catch Smith in a lie.

The Republican senator asked Smith, “Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on Feb. 3, 2024?”

Smith, whose normally commanding presence has launched countless memes, appeared genuinely perplexed. “What city would that be in?” he asked.

“Atlanta,” replied Schmitt.

Smith denied he was there.

“So your testimony today is that you did not go to a Hawks game on Feb. 3, 2024. Is that correct?” Schmitt said.

“I have no recollection of that,” a bewildered Smith said.

As evidence, Schmitt introduced text messages from Smith’s security detail about seating arrangements for a game, displayed on a poster board that was taken down so quickly that Smith and various senators said they didn’t have time to read it.

“I think you’ve already perjured yourself,” said Schmitt, a former Missouri attorney general who then used the rest of his time to condemn Smith for subpoenaing the communications of Republican lawmakers while investigating Trump.

“You have weaponized the Department of Justice against political enemies to an extent that has never happened in the history of this country,” Schmitt proclaimed. “You will go down as a total dirtbag.”

Klobuchar, who was up next to question Smith, asked if the poster board could be produced again.

“I’m a former prosecutor too, and I have never seen anyone just say, ‘What do you think of this?’ and put it down,” she said.

Schmitt’s evidentiary board was produced again, and this time for more than a few seconds. There was no mention of Atlanta in the text messages.

One could almost hear the sound of Schmitt’s perjury trap crumbling under Klobuchar’s heel.

“Could it then be that it was the University of Iowa, [which] is the ‘Hawkeyes,’ could that be it?” she asked Smith. “That might be the confusion over the names of the team.”

Then she addressed Schmitt: “Perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully. I think people should have their facts straight before they accuse people of being a ‘dirtbag,’ and not get the teams wrong.”

Leave it to a man to confuse the Atlanta Hawks, an NBA team, with the Iowa Hawkeyes of women’s college basketball. Perhaps his emotions got in the way.

Smith said he attended the game in Maryland to see the Hawkeyes’ supremely talented star, Caitlin Clark. Regardless of his whereabouts, Republicans contend that Smith was on a political witch hunt after then-Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland appointed him to oversee the twin investigations into Trump. Smith’s team scrutinized the retention of national defense information and classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, as well as the president and his allies’ efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and impede the peaceful transfer of power.

When Trump won the presidency a second time, Smith moved to dismiss both cases because Department of Justice policy prohibits the criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Now, it’s game time for Judiciary Committee members who’d like to put Smith on the ropes. There’s just one new rule: Don’t talk sports around the ladies. They deliver a knockout punch.

The California Taxpayers Assn., the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce and others back the proposition. They say it would result in the government spending taxpayer dollars more wisely while improving transparency.

The bulk of the contributions to support the proposition have come from Building a Better California, data from the California secretary of state’s website show. Top contributors to Building a Better California include Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder; John Doerr, chairman of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins; and Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google.

Proposition 41 “requires more accountability, transparency and trackable progress of programs funded by our taxes, so that we stop funding failure and start funding successful outcomes,” a website for the proposition states.

WASHINGTON — More than three weeks have passed since the deadline for extending or revoking temporary protections against deportation for around 170,000 immigrants from El Salvador.

The Trump administration still hasn’t reached a decision, plunging the Salvadoran community into uncertainty and raising questions about what has prompted the delay.

The deportation reprieve is known as Temporary Protected Status. About 1.3 million people from 17 countries had TPS when President Trump returned to office last year, and Salvadorans make up the largest group of remaining beneficiaries.

When the TPS expiration deadlines approached for other groups, the administration reached a decision within days of a deadline. Haitians lost their TPS protections and were encouraged to leave the country. Some have been deported.

For now, Salvadoran immigrants are stuck. Many have been able to keep their jobs, though others were laid off in the absence of an official work permit extension.

Last month, administration officials said an announcement on TPS for Salvadorans would come “at the appropriate time” and that they would retain work authorization in the meantime. Asked for updated guidance Friday, a Homeland Security spokesperson provided the same statement.

The Department of Homeland Security had been prepared to end TPS protections for Salvadorans but was stopped from doing so by the White House, Politico reported.

So what’s causing the limbo?

One theory focuses on political considerations — that extending the deportation reprieve could have made the administration appear weak on immigration to its conservative base, just ahead of next month’s consequential midterm election.

Another theory holds that ending TPS would shock El Salvador’s economy, which is heavily reliant on remittances from Salvadorans in the U.S. President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, advocated for more time, according to Politico.

In addition, the White House was warned that canceling TPS for Salvadorans would disrupt construction projects in Washington, D.C., the New Yorker reported and a source with knowledge of the warnings confirmed they had occurred.

A White House official, in a statement, said that “any assertion Washington D.C. construction projects had anything to do with a decision about El Salvador TPS are false.”

The Washington region has the second-largest Salvadoran population in the U.S., after Los Angeles, and the construction industry relies significantly on workers with TPS.

Trump is overseeing a sweeping aesthetic makeover of the nation’s capital, including his controversial 90,000-square-foot, $600-million ballroom complex at the White House. The president also ordered a facelift for the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, renovations at Lafayette Square, a public park across from the White House and the application of 23.75 karat gold leaf to four bronze and granite statues.

Contracts at sensitive locations such as the White House typically include requirements that workers be U.S. citizens. A White House official said there is no one with TPS status working on the East Wing Modernization construction project.

Asked about those working on the president’s other projects around the district, a Department of Interior spokesperson said contractors are obligated to ensure everyone working on any project is legally permitted to work in the U.S.

“The Department has not had any conversations about TPS or how it relates to construction projects around the city,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement.

People with TPS do work in other federal facilities.

Lauren Truslow is chief executive of 3D Enviro, a Virginia company that does hazardous materials abatement with a handful of workers affected by the TPS expiration for El Salvador. She said that after her employees’ federal badges expired last month, they were eventually reinstated until Oct. 9 — but not before missing several days of work.

TPS allows immigrants to obtain work permits and other documents. The uncertain status of TPS has led to sometime conflicting actions by government agencies or employers.

Advocates for TPS holders said some states have refused to renew their driver’s licenses, while others renewed licenses for different lengths of time. Truslow said some of her employees were only able to get federally noncompliant driver’s licenses, which they can’t use to get into federal facilities.

“At least they’re here in this community and they weren’t forced to leave,” she said. “I don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I think there were ramifications with the decision and still there’s uncertainty.”

Truslow said the government agency her company works with is unrolling a new process. After next week, her workers on that project can seek an approval extension for their badges that would last until March.

For construction companies, getting rid of TPS “would be a disaster,” said Arnoldo Diaz, co-coordinator of the National TPS Alliance, an advocacy group. “D.C. can’t function without TPS.”

Rebecca Shi, executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition, has had ongoing conversations with Homeland Security and White House leaders about TPS. What sets Salvadorans apart, she said, is the decades of experience many bring to the construction industry, which would be impossible to quickly replace.

“Many are managers and business owners themselves, running large projects,” she said. “It’s a level of skill set and longtime loyalty that cannot be replaced overnight. Because the president has been in this industry for five decades, he instinctively knows that.”

That economic consideration, coupled with polls showing that Latino voters think Trump has gone too far with immigration enforcement, “are the much larger considerations than the president’s own pet projects,” Shi said.

Roxy Mejia, political director of a local painters union in Washingon, said 67% of the 1,500 members are Latino and many of them Salvadoran TPS holders.

Mejia said she and her father immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador in 1985, before TPS existed. He worked on the Pentagon renovation after 9/11.

Under this administration, some Salvadorans with TPS have been declining government contract jobs out of fear of being detained, she said.

“Even the contractors have lobbied with us to keep TPS extending, because they would lose a lot of manpower in this area,” she said.

As a candidate in 2022, Cohen said she’d conduct audits of homeless spending, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Employment Development Department if elected. However, her office didn’t do audits of homeless spending, a spokesperson said.

Cohen said her office sought funding from the governor and the state to conduct homeless audits but was denied. Her office clarified the request was for money for high-risk audit investments but didn’t specifically mention homelessness.

Cohen also acknowledged that she didn’t conduct reviews of the DMV and EDD, because, she said, other agencies were doing those audits and she didn’t want to duplicate their efforts.

After Cohen’s election, her office found itself in a public dispute over the state’s annual comprehensive financial report, a summary of California’s spending.

The report, published each year by the controller’s office, is used by credit agencies to monitor the state’s fiscal health and for years has been published months after it is due. Cohen blames other departments’ delays in turning over data as part of the reason for its chronic lateness.

The state auditor, a separate agency that reports to the state Legislature, launched its own audit about the timeliness of the report. In a 2025 letter, the auditor accused the controller’s office of spending more than a year “resisting an independent review” of the delayed report, which almost led to a legal showdown between the agencies.

Cohen, in an interview this year, said she succeeded in getting the report published closer to its due date. Her office also disputes the state auditor’s version of events.

Also this year, Cohen’s press officer secretly was recorded by a woman who pretended to be on a date with him. In the recording, the officer is heard saying that the office’s auditing team was cut by the state and that the office doesn’t have the resources to proactively perform audits. The recording was procured by conservative activist group O’Keefe Media.

Cohen called the recording illegal and declined to comment. The officer didn’t respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Hours before Nithya Raman took the stage at Jewish Federation L.A.’s mayoral forum this week, Mayor Karen Bass’ campaign blasted out a press release accusing the council member of skipping a City Council Jewish Heritage Month event to appear on Hasan Piker’s livestream.

The Raman camp’s response: “The Mayor is deliberately spreading misinformation that the public record directly contradicts,” said Liz Garcia, a campaign spokesperson.

Piker is a left-wing streamer on the platform Twitch and a fierce critic of Israel. Raman appeared on his stream on May 15, where he asked her if she thought Israel was committing genocide in Palestine. She said she did.

That same day, Raman missed a Jewish Heritage Month event at City Hall. Debbie Paperman, who is on the executive board of Democrats for Israel Los Angeles, said Raman told her that she had not been feeling well.

The Bass campaign, citing the fact that Raman appeared on Piker’s stream the same day, fired off an email to reporters claiming the councilmember had lied about her reasons for missing the Jewish heritage event.

The Raman campaign said that Raman was, in fact, ill.

Video from the May 15 council meeting shows Raman was present at the start of the meeting, but no longer at her seat during the heritage event, in which Councilmember Bob Blumenfield celebrated Jewish athletes. More than an hour later, Raman was back in council to make a speech and introduce other speakers for Hapa Day, celebrating people of mixed Asian and Pacific Island heritage, during which she said she wasn’t feeling well.

Raman’s team said she was still at City Hall during the Jewish Heritage Month event, but that she left council chambers due to her illness.

She felt better later that afternoon, the Raman camp said, allowing her to appear on Piker’s show.

Paperman said she wasn’t convinced. “It happened that you were sick for the multiple hours this was going on and you happened to get better to go on this psycho’s stream?” said Paperman. “I don’t believe that.”

Piker, meanwhile, shot back at the mayor for using his name to try to dissuade voters from supporting Raman.

“Karen Bass is deploying the same nasty tactic that Donald Trump used recently at a press conference, wondering out loud why any Jewish person would vote for Democrats, due to my presence in the big tent,” he told The Times in a text message.

Piker said he will vote for Raman, though he supported Bass against billionaire Rick Caruso in 2022.

“I was also a fan of [her] past work in Cuba,” he told The Times. “Karen Bass used to be quite the radical.”

Bass swings up in new poll

Bass will need to rely on undecided Republican and conservative voters to propel her to a mayoral victory, a new poll paid for by a group supporting her found.

The incumbent mayor is trailing Raman by 4 percentage points, 39% to 35%, with a quarter of the electorate still undecided, according to the initial results from an FM3 Research poll that was commissioned by the Central City Assn.’s PAC, an independent expenditure group supporting the mayor.

When the pollsters gave likely voters additional, critical information about both candidates, Bass shot up by 5 points and took a narrow lead over Raman, 40% to 39%, with 21% undecided, according to FM3.

“The undecided voters — including many that say they will refuse to make a choice between Bass and Raman by Election Day — are disproportionately: Republicans, conservatives, 65+, homeowners, Democratic women over the age of 50 and those who do not hold a college degree,” wrote the research company in a polling memorandum.

The poll surveyed 809 likely L.A. voters from Sept. 21-28. It has a 3.5% margin of error.

“The mayoral race remains a statistical tie,” said Nella McOsker, the president of the Central City Assn. “Our poll demonstrates that some of the most reliable voting blocs swing to Bass once they fully learn both candidates’ records.”

A poll conducted between Sept. 15 and Sept. 20 by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found Raman was ahead 39% to 28%.

Raman allies engage in trash talk

A woman walks out of her home carrying a full garbage bag, then starts venting about the high cost of trash pickup.

“Karen Bass has nearly bankrupted L.A., so the city doubled my trash fees. Isn’t L.A. expensive enough?” the woman says angrily, before slamming the lid on a black trash bin.

That message is at the heart of a campaign video created by Streets For All, a transportation advocacy group now spending about $1.2 million to promote Raman and tear down Bass.

That ad is missing a key piece of information: Raman voted to hike those trash fees several times last year, even as two of her council colleagues spoke out against them.

“I was one of two no votes,” said City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who is supporting Bass’ reelection, in an interview. “She never once pushed back.”

Rodriguez called the ad misleading, saying it implies that Raman was an opponent of the fee hikes.

Michael Schneider, who runs the Streets For All campaign committee, defended the 14-second spot, saying council members hiked the trash fees to make up for bad budget decisions made by the mayor — including her support for a $2.6-billion upgrade of the Convention Center.

The council boosted the trash fee to $55.95 per month last year for small apartment buildings, up from $24.33. For single-family homes, the monthly fee was also hiked to $55.95, up from $36.32.

The city’s budget advisors said the increases were needed in large part because the monthly fees had not been increased in 17 years. As a result, L.A.’s residential trash customers were not being charged the full cost of garbage pickup, leaving the city budget to cover the difference.

“Kick it in the Park” gets Olympic makeover

L.A.’s summer of 2026 will be remembered for stifling heat, innumerable Dodgers injuries and, especially, World Cup watch parties.

Teams, corporate sponsors and the city of Los Angeles welcomed in the world, producing large crowds and kumbaya moments — with fans of opposing teams partying side-by-side in (relative) peace and harmony.

Mayor Karen Bass’ “Kick it in the Park” events drew a total of 45,000 fans over the length of the quadrennial soccer tournament. A survey of about 2,000 of them registered overwhelming support for the free shindigs.

Paul Krekorian, executive director of the mayor’s Office of Major Events, declared victory in a meeting with City Council members this week. He also said that substantial planning is already underway to bring the city even more viewing parties and “activations” during the 2028 Olympics.

While the city hosted a maximum of three viewing parties a day during the World Cup, it plans to stage as many as 15 a day when the Olympics come to town. A list has been drawn up of possible locations for the festivities — spread around every corner of the city and distant from Olympic venues to avoid overcrowding.

Among the possible viewing party locations: MacArthur Park, the Greek Theatre, Pan Pacific Park, Leimert Park Plaza, Koreatown, Penmar Recreation Center, Echo Park Lake, Angels Gate Park and the Watts Towers.

Given the welter of Olympic events, it will be a challenge to schedule the parties, whose centerpieces are usually big screen projections of the live events, with food and live performances often thrown in.

State of play

— SPLIT ON GAZA: Bass and Raman split on Tuesday over whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza during the Israel Gaza war. The two candidates gave their opinions during a forum hosted by Jewish Federation Los Angeles. Raman said she agrees with the experts who use the term, while Bass said she would not use the term genocide to describe Israel’s counteroffensive in Gaza.

— WILDFIRE FAILURES: A long-awaited independent investigation commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom offered the most in-depth review of the Jan. 7, 2025, Palisades and Eaton fires, describing the chaos and poor communication that made firefighting, rescues and evacuations even more difficult. The 724-page report also cited the Los Angeles Fire Department’s failure to fully extinguish the Jan. 1 Lachman fire, which reignited days later, and Los Angeles County’s failure to provide timely evacuation alerts in Altadena.

— ESTAMOS CON WHOM?: Recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that likely Latino voters favor Councilmember Raman over incumbent Bass by a wide margin — 45% to 21%, with 34% undecided. That’s an even bigger lead than Raman had over Bass with voters overall in the most recent Berkeley IGS/L.A. Times poll.

— VOTER GUIDES: The Times released its much-anticipated voter guides for the November election this week, including a mayoral guide and a guide to the Council District 9 race, among many others.

— OLYMPIC OBSCURA: The nonprofit organizer of the 2028 Summer Olympics, LA28, has provided less information in its annual reports than it agreed to in a 2021 contract with the city. The group has stopped reporting the contracts it signs over $1 million, leaving taxpayers with less information about the work going into the Games. LA28 says it has provided all necessary info.

The city also asked LA28 to take out a $650-million insurance policy, and agree to cover any potential losses above that amount, should the Games be canceled by a calamity.

— LAPD BLUES: Secret recordings documenting LAPD officers making racist comments have renewed questions about whether the force, which is now less than 50% white, has made forward progress on stamping out prejudice in its ranks.

— STORM’S BREWING: L.A.’s sanitation agency is bracing for the coming ‘Super’ El Niño, which could wreak havoc with the city’s Hyperion sewage treatment plant.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program went to East Hollywood in Hugo Soto-Martínez’s district on Tuesday, where they moved 61 people indoors near Beverly Boulevard and Madison Avenue. On Thursday, Inside Safe moved 27 people indoors near Louvre Street and Ralston Avenue in Pacoima in Rodriguez’s district.
• On the docket next week: On Wednesday, the City Council’s transportation committee will be discussing an independent evaluation of the city’s Vision Zero Program.

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.

Organizations publicly opposing Proposition 44 include the California Medical Assn., the California Hospital Assn., which represents hospitals and health systems, the Assn. of California Healthcare Districts, which represents the state’s 76 public healthcare districts, the California Teachers Assn., the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliate, the state Democratic Party, the state Chamber of Commerce and Reform California, a conservative advocacy group.

Opponents say the proposition’s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted in the 90% of revenues, prompting clinics to cut programs to avoid financial penalties. A study commissioned by the California Primary Care Assn. found that clinics could face up to $1.7 billion in collective penalties in the first year of the measure’s implementation alone, an additional expense that could leave up to 88% of clinics operating in the red.

Opponents also say the measure adds an expensive layer of bureaucracy to the state’s budget and grants elected officials — in this case, the attorney general — authority to determine which services clinics can offer.

Fewer City Council meetings

McOsker, who represents the Harbor Area and parts of South L.A., said he’d like to spend less time on the 110 Freeway getting downtown and more time serving his community directly. He called the frequent council meetings the “most nonproductive part of my week.”

Many cities, including Long Beach, San Diego and Sacramento, have councils that meet just once a week, McOsker noted, adding that the council still could meet more frequently if needed.

Fewer meetings also would make it more likely for the council to settle issues at one meeting, he said — a benefit to constituents who show up at meetings only to see a vote on their issue deferred to another day.

Fewer meetings also may encourage people to instead attend council committee hearings, McOsker said, which often discuss measures in more detail and allow for robust public comment.

Rob Quan, an organizer with the watchdog group Unrig LA, opposes the amendment but said he would support fewer meetings if the council made other changes to improve public access to city government, including releasing meeting agendas further in advance and scheduling committee meetings in the evenings when more people can attend.

But Quan expressed skepticism the council would make those changes.

Rodriguez noted that Measure EE also includes a measure to raise fines for city ethics violations, which she described as a cynical attempt to shift the focus away from the reduced requirement for meetings.

“My big problem with EE is that it’s a ruse of reform,” she said.

Referendum signatures increase

Amendment EE also would make it harder for voters to overturn City Council actions through the use of ballot referendums.

To qualify a referendum for the ballot, petitioners must collect a number of signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election. Amendment EE would increase this threshold to 15% of ballots cast.

For example, 929,000 votes were cast in the 2022 mayoral general election — meaning referendums need about 93,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. With a 15% threshold, nearly 140,000 signatures would be needed.

McOsker said the change makes the number of signatures needed for referendums and voter initiatives consistent in the city charter. Both methods should have enough support from the public to make it to the ballot, he said.

“Measure EE seeks to make the ballot box powers equal to either overturn or to adopt legislation,” he said.

Quan took issue with that, noting that with ballot initiatives, organizers have four months to collect the required signatures. With a referendum, they have just 30 days.

“It is going to be functionally useless. There is going to be nobody that has the money to pull this off in 30 days,” he said.

The city’s most recent referendum effort came last year, when business groups sought to repeal the $30 minimum wage for tourism workers. The effort fell about 9,000 signatures short despite backing from Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, the American Hotel and Lodging Assn. and others.

More power to police and fire watchdogs

The L.A. Police Department inspector general and Fire Department independent assessor provide civilian oversight over their respective departments. Amendment EE would remove the ability for the police and fire commissions to stop an audit by their independent inspectors.

“As an independent entity, it is important for them to be able to proceed with the work that they deem appropriate,” McOsker said.

Quan said the reform is potentially helpful but said he knows of no instances in which commissions blocked an audit. Quan speculated that this was included — at the very top of the ballot measure — as a sweetener to help sell the less palatable provision to reduce the number of required council meetings. “It’s a really marginal reform,” he said.

Ethics commission changes

Amendment EE would increase civil fines — those imposed by a judge through the court system — to the same level as administrative fines levied by the ethics commission.

McOsker said the higher penalty should lead to fewer violations.

Quan said this was another marginal change, noting that under Charter Amendment ER, approved by voters in 2024, the ethics commission can impose fines of up to $15,000. Under EE, private citizens or others filing ethics suits in civil courts could seek fines of the same amount.

In addition, Amendment EE would ban ethics commissioners or the executive director from running for City Council or the LAUSD Board of Education for five years after they leave office.

McOsker acknowledged that there hasn’t been a precedent, but said “we need to anticipate the potential that someone could get on the commission and take a look at the seat they want and use their position to improve their chance of getting that office.”

A final change proposed by the amendment would clarify the definition of a “stakeholder” in the charter as it relates to who can sit on a neighborhood council, which makes recommendations to the City Council but lacks formal legislative power.

Stakeholders currently are defined as anyone who lives, works or owns real property within the neighborhood boundaries, or community organizations like chambers of commerce or nonprofits.

Kay Hartman, president of the Palms Neighborhood Council and chair of the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition’s subcommission on charter reform, said there was “no substantive change” to neighborhood councils in the amendment.

Whitesides was the first chief executive of Virgin Galactic, which employed hundreds of people in Antelope Valley. Previously, he worked on President Obama’s 2008 transition team and was chief of staff for NASA in the Obama administration. Whitesides co-founded nonprofit organization Megafire Action to advocate for policy solutions to prevent massive wildfires and served as a member of the Antelope Valley Economic Development and Growth Enterprise board of directors.

He was elected to Congress in 2024 and is running for reelection to continue creating jobs and expanding opportunity in California’s 27th District.

Gibbs was elected to Santa Clarita City Council in 2020 and chosen by his fellow council members to serve as mayor in 2023. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering from Cal Poly and, according to his campaign website, worked on the the Delta II, Delta IV and Atlas V rocket launch systems in the local aerospace industry. Gibbs has served on the board of the Boys and Girls Club, the Valley Industry Assn. and the Salvation Army, according to his website.

He is running for Congress because he feels Washington is broken and believes in “common sense, accountability, and putting our community ahead of politics,” he says on his website.

Oct. 3, 2026 3:03 AM PT

Menopause has been having a moment lately, and Washington is taking notice. On Sept. 16, the Senate held its first hearing on the dismal state of federally funded menopause research and vast gaps in treatment and care. Within 24 hours, the Department of Health and Human Services also convened pharmaceutical manufacturers and physicians to troubleshoot the alarming lack of availability of estradiol patches, an essential menopause hormone treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration held a full day of expert panels on female-dosed testosterone, which is currently only FDA-approved for men.

One week later, Health and Human Services joined the American Urological Assn. for a discussion about a silent killer of postmenopausal women: urosepsis from recurrent urinary tract infections. There is a simple solution — localized vaginal estrogen — and yet because of outdated guidelines and lack of clinician training, the medication is too often ignored or denied. Nor is the prescription routinely covered by Medicare, despite its well-established health and longevity benefits for women over age 65.

These are among the attempts to now, finally, address decades of policy failures — a refreshing change, quite frankly, given neither political party has ever prioritized menopause. That 2026 marks the year when menopause has entered the policy arena comes as little surprise to me. I’ve been beating this drum for years. Every aspect of daily life that menopause touches — the soaring cost of medical care, inadequate access to health insurance, extreme underinvestment in scientific research focused on women’s health, even the myriad ways midlife women are stretched to the limit caring for kids and aging parents — is smack in the middle of the political zeitgeist. These are the kitchen table issues on the minds of voters this election.

Menopause moment, meet the midterms.

Another issue rightly revealed by menopause is the chasm of public trust in government. As one of the four expert witnesses who testified at the Senate, I was heartened that it was a true bipartisan endeavor. But that’s a rarity these days in Congress, an institution rife with dysfunction. Our federal health agencies have become so shamelessly politicized they are on a collision course with science — from HHS’ overt moves to undermine childhood vaccines, to the decimation of leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is struggling to respond to the crisis of measles outbreaks across the country.

My goal as a policy advocate is to help turn the tide on this country’s long record of neglect when it comes to menopause. Like many other women’s and reproductive health advocates, after the 2024 election l turned my attention to state legislatures — not just as a consolation prize but as a way to test what range of reforms were feasible and to get as many good laws as possible passed. It was the right move. Over the last two years, more than 60 bills have been introduced in 28 states — to do things like require private insurance and Medicaid to cover menopause care and treatment, improve clinician training and public education, and bolster antidiscrimination protection in the workplace. Ten of those states now have 21 laws on the books.

California is one and can claim real leadership. Among the bills passed by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 2270 from 2023-24 incentivizes continuing medical education on menopause for clinicians, the majority of whom receive little to zero training while in medical school and residency. The California Department of Corrections is now collaborating with medical experts to help bring menopause resources to incarcerated women in state prisons.

Newsom also just vetoed AB 1940, which would have codified menopause as a protected category in the state’s workplace antidiscrimination laws.

The Legislature has been especially deft at easing access to FDA-approved hormonal treatments, including testosterone, often used off-label by menopausal women: AB 82 ends the requirement to report prescriptions to the state’s tracking database; AB 1778 proactively declassifies testosterone as a controlled substance under state law, should there be action in Washington to do the same under federal law.

Although Newsom twice vetoed bills to mandate insurance coverage for menopause treatment — and deserved all the flak he received — the 2026-27 state budget includes a minor course correct: a $3.4-million “trailer bill” to invest in public education and make menopause treatments more affordable; Medi-Cal patients are not fully covered by the addendum, though, making it a toothless reform for those who need support the most.

Why should California’s menopause agenda, or that of the other 27 states that have introduced reforms, matter to the rest of the country? They offer useful models of what to do — or in the case of Medicaid exclusion, what not to do — in crafting meaningful policies. Perhaps more important, they offer a rationale that can help persuade the public; those who might balk at a congressional bill or federal policy, in part because of skepticism of the federal government or the current administration, can listen to and learn from other stakeholders, including governors and state lawmakers and activists.

Take for example the FDA decision in November 2025 to remove the long-critiqued “black box” warning on estrogen products for menopause. This was the culmination of a decade-long campaign by physicians, researchers and scientists — who had been waging the fight for accurate labeling well before the acronym MAHA ever existed and regardless of which party held power. Yet the very image of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. using his moment at the podium to credit the Trump administration’s deep commitment to women’s health posed a serious credibility challenge. Aligned and contemporaneous state reforms offered much-needed reassurance and clarity to many.

Trust in government is understandably at a low point, but this happens to be when menopause finally has caught the attention of policymakers at all levels of power. Some are taking long-overdue steps for women’s health, however implausibly. Let’s take the wins.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is the author of “When in Menopause: A User’s Manual & Citizen’s Guide.” She is executive director of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center.

DURANT, Okla. — David Coleman doesn’t know much about the Republican candidates who are running in November. But he knows President Trump, and he trusts that the president won’t steer him wrong.

The 54-year-old Oklahoman made his way to Trump’s midterm rally in Durant, Okla., on Thursday planning to support whomever Trump brought onstage with him.

“I am going to ask ChatGPT what their name is and vote for them,” Coleman said as he and thousands of others waited for the president to appear.

Voters like Coleman — who are fiercely loyal to Trump but only loosely attached to the rest of the Republican ticket — are part of those whom the president is trying to target in the final stretch before the Nov. 3 election.

Rather than prioritizing visits to battleground districts, which will decide which party controls Congress, Trump is rallying in Republican strongholds such as Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama, betting that his presence will be enough to energize a base that may be thinking about sitting out the election because his name isn’t on the ballot.

In Oklahoma, Trump told the crowd to imagine he is on the ballot because the future of his “America First” agenda depends on Republicans getting out to vote. He then urged them to vote for GOP candidates like Senate candidates Ken Paxton of Texas and Kevin Hern of Oklahoma.

“You have to get out and vote,” Trump said. “You can’t assume they are going to win.”

Supporters gesture after President Trump spoke during a campaign rally Thursday in Durant, Okla.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

The red-state itinerary is a departure from what Trump initially promised to do in the 30 days leading up to the midterms. At a Rose Garden dinner with Republican lawmakers last month, he pledged to campaign in the country’s 35 most competitive districts. But in many of those races, the president is proving to be a political liability as his his approval dwindles, even among Republicans.

In Texas, Paxton, who is locked in a tight race against Democrat James Talarico, has lamented that Trump’s GOP convention in Dallas hurt him, according to a recording obtained by the New York Times. Since the report, Trump has told supporters to vote for Paxton “whether you love him or not” even while he said that “he can be a pain in the ass.”

“We need Ken so badly, that’s why I am here,” Trump told a crowd in Texas on Thursday, while noting that it would be a “horror” if Republicans lost the Senate seat to Talarico.

Democrats, meanwhile, are making heavy investments in winning back voters they lost to Trump in 2024, including Latino voters in south Texas. Some of those voters have said they feel betrayed by Trump’s policies on immigration and the economy.

Trump has dismissed the poll findings that he is losing the Latino vote. Asked what his message was to Latino voters who are dismayed by his policies, he said: “We have to do what we have to do.” The president has also brushed off comments that his unpopularity among Americans may be hurting Republican candidates, saying that “everybody that has me wins.”

But in recent days, Trump has publicly said Republicans are “worried” about several races, including those in Michigan, Texas and “a few other states.” These concerns come as even the most ardent Trump supporters grow concerned about the economy, particularly the cost of gas.

Ronnie Smith, 77, has voted for Trump every time he has been on the ballot, and his support for the president has not wavered. But, he said, “the only thing that I think is hurting him is the cost of diesel.”

Gas prices in the U.S. have soared during the seven-month Iran war, with the national average for a gallon of diesel reaching $6.37 on Friday, according to AAA. The cost of diesel hit a record $6.52 on Sept. 22.

Smith says he regularly hears complaints about the cost of fuel from trucker friends who have long commutes for work. But he said he is sure Trump can “take care of it.”

On Friday, Trump announced that the world’s wealthiest industrial nations had agreed to release 100 million barrels of diesel and fuel products from their strategic stockpiles in the coming weeks, a move that he is expected to tout in his upcoming midterm rallies.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other Republican lawmakers answer questions from reporters at the Capitol on Sept. 29.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

In these rallies, Trump has repeatedly said that he believes his administration has been doing a “tremendous” job with the economy, the problem is that “we’re doing an extremely poor job at promotion.”

A Republican source close to the White House said the president visited Durant because of its proximity to the Texas border, with the hope of helping candidates in both states. The strategy is similar to his Friday visit to Mobile, Ala., which is near Florida’s Panhandle.

Trump’s swing through GOP strongholds is seen as a way to get the word out to his base.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters this week that Republicans “need the president to turn out voters that are his voters.”

“In a non-presidential year, in a midterm election, that challenge is always voter turnout,” he said. “In this case you have a lot of voters out there who may not be inclined to go out there and vote.”

Sylvia Sigler, 66, a school cafeteria worker who attended Trump’s Oklahoma rally Thursday, said she normally votes in local elections but has not voted in a federal election since 2016.

When asked what would motivate her to get out and vote this November, she contemplated what to say.

“I haven’t thought about it, but maybe the economy,” she said. “I don’t even know who is running because I don’t keep up with it.”

But she was curious to attend Trump’s rally and see what the buzz was all about. Asked whether she thought his message would make a difference for her, she once again paused.

“It could,” she said. “But I am not making any promises.”