POLITICS

With three weeks left to go until election day and polls showing her on the brink of losing, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has begun to channel the Sun King himself, Louis XIV:

L’État, c’est moi.

Gaslighting voters by insisting the political establishment that has left Los Angeles a mess and that she personifies is worth keeping in office for four more years is her only hope for victory. It’s a wild strategy that reached a crescendo during Tuesday night’s debate, as Bass kept bringing up the fact that L.A.’s ancien régime just doesn’t like her democratic socialist opponent, Nithya Raman.

“Your colleagues have a very difficult time working with you,” Bass snapped at one point, later claiming that Raman’s constituents don’t care for her even though the council member won reelection two years ago. The mayor twice bragged that immigrant rights groups support her; twice referenced Imelda Padilla, the moderate San Fernando Valley council member whose internet dragging of Raman has been out of the Burn Book from “Mean Girls”; and described her opponent as “not ready for prime time.”

Well, the way the mayor’s term has gone in the last couple of years, if it was a prime-time TV show, it might be called “Breaking Bad 2.” And it wouldn’t exactly be a hit.

If it were, two-thirds of Angelenos wouldn’t have decided to vote for anyone but Bass in the primary.

Bass arguably won the debate Tuesday night, but it felt like the technical “victory” — and that’s probably the wrong word — of a politician who is simply more polished. The mayor really needed a knockout punch, and that she did not achieve.

Instead, she in effect told voters that the last four years of disasters, inefficiencies and ineptitude are still a better option than taking a chance on the City Hall equivalent of the classroom dork.

Yet people are so angry at Bass and what she represents that a democratic socialist has a great shot at becoming L.A.’s next mayor — an unthinkable prospect even last year, with no one to blame but the ruling class that has left this great city hobbled, cynical and at the point of giving up.

So the establishment doesn’t like Raman: So what? And: Boo-hoo.

Casting Raman as a political leper while asserting that Bass represents stability and good times ahead isn’t the winning strategy that Bass and Raman’s critics think it is. It’s really just a sad coda for Bass.

She’s been a good soldier for L.A., someone who has participated in nearly every progressive movement to pass through Southern California since volunteering for Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign as a teenager nearly 60 years ago. Even as Bass embarked on a 22-year political career that has seen stops in Sacramento, Washington and City Hall, the native Angeleno always successfully depicted herself as a political outsider.

Because she was: a Black woman in a realm not meant for people like her. She was someone who co-founded a pioneering nonprofit in the crucible of a changing South L.A. in the 1990s and always seemed to land on the right side of history until becoming mayor in 2022.

Sadly, Bass didn’t turn out to be the visionary L.A. desperately needed.

Mayor Karen Bass, left, sits for Tuesday’s debate with Councilmember Nithya Raman, right. Between them are NBC4 reporter Conan Nolan, NBC4 News anchor Colleen Williams and Telemundo 52 anchor Alejandra Ortiz.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Like so many baby boomers, Bass eventually became The Man without realizing it. Today, she not only stands as the figurehead of the city’s liberal potentates, but she’s also calling on them to rally around one of their own — and they have responded in kind. Democratic politicians, bureaucrats and labor leaders, once rabble-rousers like Bass who nowadays seem to exist mostly to keep their sinecure, have labored mightily to convince unbelieving voters that Bass deserves another shot.

That’s always been the marvel of L.A.’s political establishment. It can take someone like Bass, once considered so radical that her days visiting communist Cuba in the 1970s torpedoed her chances of becoming then-presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020, and transform her into an anodyne incumbent. It can make democratic socialists like Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Ysabel Jurado and Hugo Soto-Martínez — people who explicitly ran to take on a sclerotic City Hall — full-throated Bass supporters who have refused to support one of their own in Raman.

Raman was also becoming part of L.A.’s political chosen ones, to the point she initially endorsed Bass. But she now embraces her turn as the machine’s biggest sellout — whether it’s a true change of heart or a chameleonic self-serving measure, as critics maintain, remains to be seen. It was Raman who said at the end of the debate, “When the mayor is confronted with issues, she blames the system. With your support, we can actually change the system” — catnip to enough Angelenos that Raman seems to be at the cusp of victory and a monumental upset.

After the debate, NBC reporter Robert Kovacic interviewed elected officials to let them hype up Bass or Raman. The latter’s proxy was City Controller Kenneth Mejia, another person loathed by L.A.’s political know-it-alls because he keeps bucking the establishment. Mejia gushed about how Raman “destroyed” Bass with the enthusiasm of a Swiftie.

Bass’ supporters were Councilmember Monica Rodriguez and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, both of whom gravely parroted their candidate’s warnings about just how dangerous a Raman mayoralty would be. Chavez Zbur reduced Raman’s not-bad performance to a “host of complaints” — ironic, because most of Bass’ night was spent bashing Raman instead of offering much of anything positive.

Rodriguez, meanwhile, told Kovacic that voters shouldn’t choose Raman because “we can’t afford that level of indecisive leadership.”

I rolled my eyes when Rodriguez — whose office declined a chance for her to sit down with me to talk up why Latinos should support Bass — said that.

She’s part of the fabled eastern San Fernando Valley Latino political machine, another group of former gatecrashers who assumed the trappings and stylings of the old guard once they assumed power. Rodriguez long blasted Bass with the same venom she reserved for Raman until the latter mounted her challenge — but now that Rodriguez’s power is under threat, she’s all of a sudden decided to become Bass’ ride-or-die?

Moves like that remind me of another French monarch, Louis XV. “After me, the deluge,” he is supposed to have said, a warning of what would happen once his reign ended.

If Bass’ vow to rule the same as before represents a decisive leader, more and more Angelenos seem to be saying, give us the Raman flood.

Besides, nobody ever said, nor ever put on a campaign sticker, “The establishment? It’s cool!”

The U.S. Department of Justice has ratcheted up its pressure campaign on California election officials to ferret out alleged voter fraud ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm election, demanding that officials statewide prove the U.S. citizenship of thousands of voters flagged by the federal government as potential noncitizens, or withhold or set aside their ballots.

Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter made the demand — which experts called highly questionable at a time when votes are already being cast — in letters to state election officials Tuesday, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office.

The letters, reviewed by The Times, call on the state officials to respond to the Justice Department within 48 hours.

McCotter wrote that the Justice Department had provided Logan’s office with a “password-protected thumb drive with a list of names the Federal Government believes are likely noncitizens who were sent a vote-by-mail ballot” for the Nov. 3 election.

“We request that you review the list within 48 hours to determine whether any citizens are listed. For individuals whom you cannot independently confirm citizenship status, we request that you immediately instruct the appropriate elections officials to segregate — not cancel — those individuals’ vote-by-mail ballots until their citizenship status can be determined,” McCotter wrote to both Weber and Logan.

The demand letter came from U.S. Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter, shown entering a news conference in September 2026 in Washington.

(Finn Gomez / Getty Images)

Voters on the federal list who haven’t already been sent a ballot should not be sent one until their citizenship is verified, while ballots already returned by voters on the list should not be counted until their citizenship is verified, McCotter wrote.

Weber’s office in a statement late Wednesday criticized the Justice Department for telling it to obtain a list of an unknown number of voters it hadn’t been given directly from Logan’s office, investigate all of those voters and “take action” all within 48 hours, based on inaccurate federal data that has led to U.S. citizens being purged from rolls in other states, and under threat of litigation despite the Justice Department providing no legal authority for the demand.

Weber said the Justice Department’s “relentless efforts to unlawfully gain access to states’ protected voter data and purge voter rolls serve only to cause chaos and fuel public distrust in our elections,” and that California already has “robust state law requirements” to ensure only U.S. citizens vote.

Logan said his office was reviewing the Justice Department letter in coordination with Weber and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, but had not accessed the USB drive because state officials “do not consider the device a secure medium” and accessing its contents “would conflict with established data privacy and information security protocols.”

He said that maintaining accurate voter records is a fundamental responsibility of his office, but also that federal and state laws “are clear on how voter eligibility is established — and any action to remove a voter from eligibility must be based on verifiable information, not assertions of unconfirmed data matching.”

Weber previously questioned the basis for a claim by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in July that there may be more than 190,000 noncitizen voters on California rolls, and rebuffed Trump administration offers to work with her office to purge state rolls of such ineligible voters ahead of November without additional information on how it reached its conclusions.

Similar Trump administration lists have been shown in other states to be substantially inaccurate, and to include many voters who are indeed citizens. Election experts say that makes the demand on California — where ballots have already been mailed out — even more concerning.

“One must question why the DOJ would violate its own rules about investigating elections close to election day, and over a week after they knew the state had already mailed ballots out, particularly when their past claims have been full of errors,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

Becker noted the Trump administration alleged that there were nearly 16,000 noncitizens registered in Nevada, later reduced that number to 185 after additional scrutiny, and then determined all of them were in fact citizens.

A Justice Department spokesperson, in a statement to The Times, defended the agency’s demands to California — saying it “should not be controversial, as the criminal statute is clear: only American citizens may vote in federal elections. It is a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections, and the DOJ is asking California to ensure that is not occurring.”

The spokesperson said the agency could not provide the exact number of voters whose citizenship is being questioned, but that it is in the thousands.

California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber speaks during the state Democratic Party convention in Anaheim on May 31, 2025.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

McCotter wrote that if Weber cannot implement his demands for how to segregate ballots and verify voter citizenship for those on the federal list, the Justice Department “will have no choice but to seek emergency relief” — an apparent reference to seeking court intervention.

McCotter copied on the letters First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles whose office previously sent Logan’s office a series of grand jury subpoenas for individual voter records as part of a criminal investigation into illegal voting.

Essayli’s office referred questions to the Justice Department. Bonta’s office referred questions to Weber and Logan.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, said that he is “not aware of anything like this ever happening this close to an election,” and that it may in fact be illegal under the National Voter Registration Act, which “prevents systematic purges of voters 90 days before the election.”

He said that the question of whether that preclusion against purges applies to the removal of noncitizens is an issue that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, in an Arizona case the high court will hear in December, but that the Justice Department’s actions strike him as “legally questionable.”

Hasen said the “whole point of that 90-day rule is to prevent the inadvertent disenfranchisement of eligible voters by mistake in the rush before the election,” and that risk is increased by the inaccuracies of similar lists presented by the Trump administration in other states. “So if there is an attempt to go to court — if DOJ tries to sue over this — they might have a hard time getting a judge to agree that this is something that the registrar must do or even can do.”

The fact that election officials are already busy receiving and preprocessing ballots would only bolster the state’s position in such a case, Hasen said.

“It’s obviously not a convenient time,” he said. “And given the fact that the lists have proven to be wildly inaccurate, at least in other states, it might be sending the registrar on a wild goose chase, when they have more relevant things to do in the election.”

But that “chaos” may be the point, Hasen said. “This is potentially another example of DOJ just making the work of state and local election administrators — which is already quite difficult and stressful — even harder,” he said.

Attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo, in which they challenged the Trump administration’s use of unproven federal databases to allege registered California voters are not citizens.

On Wednesday, they told the Justice Department that they would be seeking emergency relief from such practices, given McCotter’s letters.

“The federal government’s attempt to pressure California election officials into acting on lists that may misidentify eligible voters is an alarming abuse of power as election season gets underway. This puts our communities and our fundamental rights at risk,” said Carl Bergquist, a CHIRLA attorney.

The Justice Department in recent weeks has announced scattered arrests of alleged noncitizen voters around the country, and Trump administration officials — including Essayli — have pointed to such arrests as proof that noncitizens are voting illegally.

Such voting does happen, Hasen said, but after months of the administration aggressively searching for such voters, the relatively small number of arrests “belies the contention that it’s widespread” or criminal, with many of the few cases identified the result of “administrative error or misunderstanding” rather than an intent to illegally cast ballots.

In his letters to Weber and Logan, McCotter wrote that allowing “noncitizens to vote cancels citizen votes,” and that ferreting out illegal noncitizen voters is a joint responsibility of state and federal officials.

“States are responsible for voter registration, and the Federal Government is responsible for maintaining immigration records to enable verification of citizenship,” he wrote. “Working together, we can more effectively protect against voter dilution and promote election integrity.”

Oct. 14, 2026 10:49 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook’s lawyers say that a committee set up by the White House last week to investigate an accusation against her is “demonstrably biased,” though they did not close the door on the possibility that she would appear before the panel.

Lawyer Abbe Lowell also said in a letter Tuesday that Cook would not be able to participate in a hearing Nov. 5 because she “will be executing her official duties as Governor at financial and monetary policy meetings in Europe.”

The earliest that Cook could appear before a “committee of inquiry” that the White House set up last Friday would be after the Fed’s policy meeting Dec. 8-9, the letter said. The letter was sent to William Scharf, a counsel to President Trump.

Lowell’s comments are the latest turn in the Trump administration’s extended efforts to fire Cook from her position as one of seven members of the Fed’s board of governors. Trump has accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud in 2021, before she joined the board, a claim she has denied. No criminal charges have been filed.

No president has fired a Fed governor before, a reflection of the Fed’s traditional independence from politics. Yet Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the central bank lower its key interest rate, has taken numerous steps that economists say have threatened that independence. The Justice Department earlier this year sought to investigate then-Chair Jerome Powell over brief testimony he had given about an extensive building renovation, though a judge threw out subpoenas in the case and it was later dropped.

Cook was appointed by former President Biden and is the first Black woman on the Fed’s board.

Trump first tried to fire Cook in August 2025, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year she could remain in her position while litigation continued. The court also suggested, in a footnote to the ruling, that Trump could try again to fire her if the administration provided her adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. The committee of inquiry announced by the White House last Friday is an effort to meet those conditions.

Under the law governing the Fed, the president can only fire a Fed governor “for cause,” but the Supreme Court didn’t address whether Cook’s actions met that standard. The committee of inquiry will ultimately recommend whether there is cause to fire Cook, a White House memo last week said.

Lowell also said in the Tuesday letter that “we have significant concerns regarding the objectivity and fitness of the committee for its assigned purpose.”

One of its three members, Kevin Hassett, a top economic adviser to Trump, has already said the president has “cause” to fire Cook, the letter noted. The other two members — Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling and chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Andrea Rich — are also Trump appointees.

“A hearing with demonstrably biased members, unspecified additional allegations, and an unclear schedule for the disclosure of any additional evidence – with no explanation for why it was not previously produced – is not a process that respects the appearance or history of independence,” Lowell’s letter said.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, celebrated the 20-year anniversary of landmark climate legislation he signed while in office alongside Democrats including Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday.

“California is the perfect example of what can be done when people work together and when we don’t look at this as a Republican or as a Democratic issue,” Schwarzenegger said at an economic conference in Long Beach, noting that Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act had significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions while creating more than a half a million clean-energy jobs.

“This is the message that is so important for the world,” he said, because the state’s policies have become a model for other states and nations.

Newsom noted that the state had met “audacious” goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, touting 39,000 megawatts of clean energy that have been installed in the last seven years, 23,000 megawatts of battery storage created, and that no flex alert has been issued in the state in four years.

“So we’re not in the goal-setting business; we’re in the how business,” he said.

He added that the clean energy transition is “the most critical national security issue in the United States of America,” with economic and supply chain leadership at stake as China surpasses the U.S. in electric vehicles, clean-energy manufacturing and the deployment of renewables.

The state already met the climate change legislation’s ambitious target — returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — four years ahead of schedule. However, recent analyses indicate California is not on track to meet its future targets of cutting emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2045.

The legislation paved the way for the creation of California’s nation-leading carbon market, cap-and-invest, which launched in 2013. The Legislature extended cap-and-invest’s life to 2045 last year, and the state is now initiating the process of linking its market with Washington state.

The event as well as a luncheon the prior day in Santa Monica were rare displays of bipartisan unity at a time of heightened political polarization in the United States. Schwarzenegger and Newsom piled praise upon each other during the Wednesday afternoon discussion, hugging at the end.

At the luncheon, former Gov. Gray Davis, whom Schwarzenegger ousted from office in the 2003 recall election, as well as billionaire hedge-fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, who unsuccessfully ran for governor this year, were among the Democrats in attendance, as well as former state Assembly Speaker Fabien Nunez and former state Sen. Fran Pavley, who were both pivotal in the passage of the climate-change legislation.

In addition to remarks highlighting the foundation of some of the nation’s bedrock environmental policies, such as former GOP President Richard Nixon creating the Environmental Protection Agency and signing the Endangered Species Act, there were moments of levity.

Schwarzenegger said he told fellow Republicans “f— you” when they balked at him naming Susan Kennedy, a Democrat, as his chief of staff, he said Tuesday.

During a breakout session at the Wednesday conference, he referenced his former wife, Maria Shriver, a scion of the Kennedy family, as he described his desire to hear from people on both sides of the aisle.

“So I had Democrats in my administration, and of course the Republican Party went nuts,” he said. “I didn’t care because, to me, I thought I wanted to hear what the Democrats were thinking. Plus, I was sleeping with one every night anyway.”

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to toss out $122,000 in legal costs that lawyers for former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake were ordered to pay for false and misleading statements they made in a lawsuit that sought to require a hand-count of all ballots in the 2022 midterm elections.

The nation’s highest court on Tuesday denied a request from Andrew D. Parker, an attorney who represented Lake in the lawsuit, to review a lower-court decision over the legal costs arising from the unsuccessful litigation.

The lawsuit by Lake and state lawmaker Mark Finchem sought to ban electronic tabulation devices. It was dismissed by a judge who found Lake and Finchem lacked standing to sue and that their lawsuit was filed too close to the election.

In 2022, Lake lost the governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs and Finchem was defeated in the secretary of state’s race by Democrat Andrian Fontes. Both Republicans had promoted the narrative that the 2020 election was marred by fraud.

Maricopa County had sought sanctions against Lake, Finchem and their lawyers, alleging they broke a court rule by making unfounded allegations and by not conducting the necessary research before filing the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge John Tuchi later concluded the lawsuit’s claims lacked an adequate basis in fact, that the standard inquiry attorneys must make before pressing litigation hadn’t been done and that the lawyers acted recklessly in seeking a court order based on frivolous claims.

The requirement to pay the legal fees applies to the lawyers who pressed the lawsuit, not to Lake and Finchem.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected appeals over the lawsuit’s dismissal and the awarding of the legal fees.

The Associated Press left phone and email messages Tuesday for Parker, whose firm is based in Minneapolis.

Earlier this year, Parker asked the Supreme Court to throw out the requirement to pay Maricopa County’s legal fees in the case, arguing such sanctions would deter attorneys from bringing aggressive or novel legal claims.

Maricopa County said lawyers for Lake and Finchem had disregarded a letter that identified false allegations they had made in their lawsuit and relied on some of those claims in a later court filing. The county’s attorneys said those who brought the lawsuit failed to present evidence to support their allegations and falsely alleged that Arizona didn’t use paper ballots and that its electronic voting systems hadn’t been subjected to expert analysis.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

In the Los Angeles mayoral debate Tuesday night, I was reminded of two things.

First, as I’ve said before, it’s no surprise that roughly one-third of likely voters remain undecided with less than three weeks to go until election day.

Second, there is one key difference between the two candidates: We know who Mayor Karen Bass is, but we don’t yet know who Councilmember Nithya Raman is, even though she’s been leading in most polls.

Those two points are connected. I think a majority of voters want a change at City Hall because of the marginal progress on homelessness, the erosion of basic services and the bad decisions before and after the Palisades disaster, among a host of other issues.

But they’re not sure what they’d be getting in Raman.

Why not?

If you haven’t already seen the story a few days ago by The Times’ longtime City Hall reporting ace, Dave Zahniser, you need to check it out right here.

The headline neatly sums it up:

“L.A. mayoral candidate Nithya Raman has strong opinions. But they often change.”

Raman has flip-flopped so many times, it’s as if she’s having a political identity crisis, which is not a great selling point for a candidate.

She endorsed Bass, an ally, for reelection and then abruptly and surprisingly announced that she was running against her.

She rose to power as a darling of the Democratic Socialists of America and vowed to defund the police, only to later support an LAPD budget increase.

She embraced the so-called mansion tax, then said it needed an overhaul.

She supported and helped fund Bass’ signature homelessness initiative, Inside Safe, and now has turned against it.

“That’s the real wild card,” said Sara Sadhwani, assistant professor of politics at Pomona College. “She has flip-flopped so extensively on policy that it’s unclear which version of her values we would get.”

Look, it’s not uncommon for a candidate of the left, or the right, to move toward the center to broaden support. And there’s nothing wrong with learning on the job and evolving. It’s all too rare, in fact.

The problem for Raman is that in somersaulting around on core issues, she’s alienating some of the people she would need as allies in order to be an effective mayor.

They might come around, because in the city’s shared system of power, there are times when the City Council and mayor need to paddle in the same direction in order to get anywhere. But among the 15 City Council members, 13 have endorsed Bass, and that support includes even the DSA wing of the council.

I like the idea of a rebel as L.A. mayor, but the job is hard enough with City Council allies. Without them, Raman could be cooked. And it’s not as if she’d have an easy time winning support for much of anything from the powerful public employee unions and traditional business interests, which are for the most part aligned with Bass, for better and for worse.

Both candidates had their moments in the debate, although I gave the edge to Bass. During The Times’ live chat, I said I think L.A. really needs a leadership change, and I think Raman did not prove that she’s the answer.

It’s probably the second-most important political job in the state, in one of the great cities of the world, and along with the ducking and punching, I wanted more love, more poetry, more unbridled passion and a contagious sense of possibility.

And please, all you Spencer Pratt toadies, don’t send me your whiny little notes about how he was the guy all along. Identifying some of the obvious problems is easy enough. (I do it all the time.) Having a plan is another matter, and that’s why I never ran for mayor, and why Pratt faded out of the picture.

So what next, as the final three weeks of the campaign play out?

If I were Raman, who is 45, I’d go heavy on touting the work she’s done on eviction protections and capping rent hikes, because nailing down younger voters could give her the keys to the throne. On homelessness, she knows the issue better than most, has detailed what’s wrong with the Bass program, has made headway in her own district, and has laid out a plan to speed up progress and efficiency citywide.

But her best argument is that City Hall and the entrenched political establishment need a major shake-up, because the machine is now a jalopy.

“We cannot afford another four years of decline, of mismanagement, of excuses,” Raman said in the debate.

As for Bass, 73, you can’t count her out just yet because she’s a fighter, and she’s better at campaigning than at being mayor. She also is likely to benefit from the fact that older voters — who are most likely to go to the polls — favor her by a huge margin.

“You are not ready for prime time,” Bass told her former ally during the debate, and Bass also hammered Raman for taking “different positions on different days of the week.”

In 2005, Mayor Jim Hahn became the first L.A. mayor to lose a reelection bid in more than three decades, falling to Antonio Villaraigosa. It was a rout, at 58% for Villaraigosa to 41% for Hahn.

I don’t see a rout this time.

The question for Los Angeles is this:

Have you had enough of the mayor you know, and are you ready to roll the dice on someone you don’t?

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nixed a trailblazing California law on Wednesday, permanently barring the state’s efforts to force federal immigration agents to display identification while on duty.

“As before, we conclude … the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the panel. “No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.”

The U.S. Justice Department first sued to block the ID requirement alongside a related law attempting to ban masks for federal agents and local police in the fall of 2025.

The joint case hit Los Angeles federal court at the beginning of this year amid a surge of immigration enforcement in Minneapolis that led to the shootings of civilians Renee Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

By then, more than a dozen other states were pursuing similar statutes in an effort to rein in what many saw as lawlessness in President Trump’s sprawling deportation force.

Judge Christina A. Snyder ultimately blocked California’s law prohibiting the use of masks by law enforcement, on the grounds that it unfairly carved out an exception for state peace officers, but allowed the ID requirement for ICE agents and others to go forward, agreeing with the state that it was more akin to a speed limit on the highway than a direct regulation of the federal government.

The 9th Circuit quickly disagreed.

“If a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” Bennett wrote.

The decision comes as ICE is quietly shedding many of the 12,000 new recruits it hired last year. Although public outrage over Trump’s militarized mass deportation efforts has diminished somewhat since the winter, it remains a potent election issue.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll from September showed more than 40% of Americans strongly disapprove of the president’s handling of immigration. Meanwhile, the share who fret over unauthorized immigration is nearly identical to the proportion who worry about the unchecked spread of measles — anxieties that pale in comparison with stress over the cost of living, the proliferation of data centers and the war with Iran, data show.

NEW YORK — The new White House press secretary is facing mounting questions about her background and resume as she transitions into her role as the public face of the Trump administration.

Katie Zacharia has long described herself as a lawyer as she has worked to establish herself as a commentator for conservative outlets such as Fox News and Newsmax. But so far, she and the White House have offered no evidence that she passed the bar exam in any state or in China, where she worked for a large law firm years ago.

The questions add to the confusion surrounding President Trump’s decision to hire Zacharia, who had worked for his social media company for only a few months when he announced her appointment and whose debut at the podium on Tuesday has been widely panned.

Afterward, the president was asked by reporters where Zacharia had passed the bar exam, following a report by the independent outlet Popular Information that she did not appear to be licensed in any state.

Trump stepped aside to allow Zacharia to answer.

“When I moved to China,” she responded over the sound of Marine One whirring in the background. It is unclear what she had intended to say or whether she had finished the sentence.

China’s notoriously difficult National Unified Legal Professional Qualification Examination can be taken only by Chinese citizens.

Asked what credentials she held, the White House passed along a statement from Zacharia, who received a bachelor of arts degree from Pepperdine University in 2007 and received her law degree from Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in 2011, according to the school and her LinkedIn bio.

“I practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials,” it read.

Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, added that Zacharia was “uniquely qualified and whip smart to help inform the American people about all the great things President Trump and his Administration have been doing, and she will do an incredible job as press secretary.”

A resume under scrutiny

According to her LinkedIn profile, Zacharia has been the senior communications advisor at the Trump Media & Technology Group since June and spent two months as deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security this year.

From 2011 to 2013, it says, she served as an associate on the International Practice Team at the Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing. She also worked as the manager of fundraising and communications for Compassion for Migrant Children, which assists the children of migrant workers, from 2012 to 2013.

More recently, it says she served as general counsel for Fix California, a group started by Trump administration official Richard Grenell.

Neither the firm nor the two groups responded to questions about her tenure and background.

Zacharia has long called herself a lawyer. On Instagram, she describes herself as the White House press secretary, “Wife, Mom, & Lawyer” (with three heart emojis after “Mom”).

And her official author page at the California Globe, where she wrote occasional commentary, says that, in addition to being a “regular commentator on Fox News, Newsmax,” she has “extensive experience in political advocacy, international corporate law, and non-profit work, including time as outside counsel for the World Bank and IFC in Beijing.”

A June 2026 news release from NovaRed Mining Inc. announcing her appointment to the company’s advisory board, which was first reported by Popular Information, said her “professional experience includes work related to international legal and financial transactions, including matters involving organizations associated with the World Bank Group and the International Finance Corporation during her tenure with Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing.”

In announcing her hire on his social media site, Trump described Zacharia as “a distinguished Graduate of Pepperdine University, and the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, an attorney, and a frequent Commentator on outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax.”

“She has an unblemished record of support, and has been a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning. She is, likewise, a devoted fan and member of MAGA!” he added.

‘No record’ found

Zacharia is not listed as a member of the state bar in California, where she currently resides, according to a public database.

Rick Coca, a spokesperson for the State Bar of California, a regulatory agency that oversees state licensing, said in a statement that it has “no record of Kate Sharon Zacharia or Kate Sharon Black” or any version of her married or maiden names “having been licensed to practice law in California.”

Popular Information said the same was the case in all 50 states it had queried, plus Washington.

In response, the watchdog group Campaign for Accountability filed a complaint Wednesday with the State Bar of California asking it to investigate whether Zacharia misrepresented herself as a lawyer in violation of California law.

“In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime. The State Bar should investigate whether Ms. Zacharia has misled the public about her credentials and hold her accountable if she has,” said the watchdog group’s executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith, in a statement.

The State Bar said it could not confirm whether the agency had received the complaint or was conducting an investigation, citing confidentiality laws.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.

When a county judge put the brakes on what would be the largest data center in California, ruling the whole project needed extensive environmental review, Kristian Salgado was relieved.

The community organizer lives in Imperial County, where the nearly one-million-square-foot facility was proposed. The rural county near the Mexico border struggles with bad air pollution and has one the state’s highest rates of asthma hospitalization for kids, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. One of Salgado’s nephews lives right next to the site and struggles with the respiratory disease.

“It just seemed very unusual that a project of this scale, with that many backup generators could be permitted without requiring any further [analysis] of what that would mean for residents,” she said.

Now, Salgado and others who share her concern believe Proposition 45 on the November ballot could roll back their wins. The initiative changes the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, a law intended to inform decision makers and the public about a project’s possible environmental impacts — and mitigate them to the extent possible.

Supporters say Prop 45 will speed up environmental review for essential housing, transportation, water, health, education and other projects, cutting costly delays and passing the savings on to consumers. Opponents say it not only weakens environmental protections for many developments, but will cover potentially polluting ones — including data centers. The Yes on 45 campaign forcefully rejects the data center claim, but independent legal experts are divided.

At the heart of the debate is the definition of one of the categories covered by Prop 45: “broadband internet access projects” or “mass-market retail service … that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all internet endpoints.”

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., which supports the proposition, was adamant: “We specifically excluded data centers” when crafting the measure.

Yet the proposition expressly names certain excluded projects: nuclear energy, high-speed rail, jails and Delta conveyance facilities. Data centers aren’t among them.

Dunmoyer maintains that even if they’re not explicitly listed, data centers just don’t fit the measure’s definition.

In a Daily Journal op-ed, Rachelle Chong, a former Federal Communications Commission member, similarly argues that the definition refers to internet access bought from a provider like AT&T or Comcast. “A conventional data center ordinarily performs an entirely different function,” she wrote, arguing data centers aren’t in play.

But land use attorneys Matthew McKerley and Richard Frank, in another op-ed, say many modern data centers fit the bill because they house equipment used to transmit consumer data to and from the internet.

They also highlight conspicuous campaign finance contributions, including $250,000 from Prologis, which developed two data centers in San Jose.

Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley Law, said data centers will argue they fit the definition — and then it will be up to the courts to decide.

“Anyone telling you that it’s definitely not going to be data centers, they cannot read the future,” he said. “The way they’ve written the language, they can’t provide 100% assurance.”

Eric Biber, a UC Berkeley law school professor with expertise in environmental law, pointed to language in the measure requiring it to be interpreted broadly “to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and realization of, essential projects.” In a blog post, he called it “a thumb on the scale” that could lead courts to conclude that projects should be covered when their eligibility is in doubt.

But Ryan Thomason and J. Scott Miller, partners at the law firm Mitchell Chadwick with CEQA expertise, think it’s likely courts would rule otherwise. In an article, they note that the definition used in the measure hews closely to another section of California law, which distinguishes providing internet services from offering content, services and applications online. “Courts generally interpret identical language in related statutes to have the same meaning,” they write.

Dunmoyer, of the California Building Industry Ass., stressed that the measure doesn’t overthrow local zoning rules.

Opponents are “making it sound like in your backyard will be a data center,” he said. “Well, that doesn’t happen at all by this initiative. That has to happen by a county board of supervisors voting to put a data center in your backyard. And if they decide to do that, this initiative does nothing to expedite that CEQA review.”

But what if local officials run afoul of their constituents? In the case of the Imperial Valley Data Center Campus, the roughly 75 acres of unincorporated land where it would go had already been zoned for data centers. As a result, county officials said they had the power to move forward with the facility for artificial intelligence computing infrastructure without city approval.

They granted the project an exemption from the state environmental review.

Then came the backlash. Residents spoke out at public meetings, rallied on the streets, circulated a petition and formed a community organization. The city of Imperial and the Sierra Club sued. In the wake of the outrage, the county walked back its decision, declaring a moratorium on data centers. (The developer sued the county over the ban, and the county recently rescinded it following a court order.)

If Prop 45 passes — and data centers are covered by it — Eric Biber, of UC Berkeley Law, told The Times that such a moratorium wouldn’t be possible. That’s because the measure prevents state and local officials from changing the rules for a project once its application is submitted, he said. So if a community didn’t have a moratorium in place and its zoning laws allow a data center, “They’re done,” said. Existing bans aren’t expected to be affected.

Attorneys for the No on Prop 45 campaign argue that it could have real-world impacts for the Imperial Valley facility, saying the developer could claim the new rules apply. For instance, the measure would prevent courts from overturning approvals of qualifying projects because of CEQA violations. Courts would only be able to halt the affected portion of the project while the issue is fixed.

Sebastian Rucci, principal developer of the Imperial Valley data center, said he will fight for his project to move forward and that there’s an environmentally sound way to do it. He said he’s willing to negotiate and mitigate where necessary — but will not go through the CEQA process. If push comes to shove, he said he’ll move the project elsewhere. California could “get in the game” or be left in the dust, he said.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, the company behind the project, says it will create at least 100 permanent jobs and generate $28.7 million in annual property tax revenue.

CEQA requirements “are not about the environment,” Rucci said. “They may be for some, but they’re not for many. For many, they are about killing things.”

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities investigating Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar seized the Democratic lawmaker’s phone and have issued more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas, including to some of her relatives, according to a person briefed on the probe.

The subpoenas were issued for a grand jury collecting evidence in Minnesota as federal authorities probe potential fraud in Omar’s immigration paperwork, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation. The investigation led to federal agents searching Omar’s Washington, D.C. home on Monday just weeks before the November midterms, in which Omar is seeking reelection.

The scope of the investigation into Omar is unclear, though Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has suggested that authorities were examining potential crimes related to her family’s immigration paperwork.

On Tuesday, Washington D.C. U.S Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a Fox News interview that “there are several investigations going on” related to Omar and that her office is also probing issues concerning the lawmaker’s financial disclosures.

“If there was a crime that was committed, it will be prosecuted,” Pirro said.

The search of Omar’s home so close to next month’s midterm contests that will determine control of the House and the Senate was swiftly condemned by Democrats, who accused the administration of targeting the Democrat for political purposes. Omar, in a statement on X, called the search an “attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement.”

“For 10 years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation,” she said. “I will not be silenced.”

A phone message seeking comment was left Wednesday with a representative for Omar.

Though the Republican focus on Omar’s background dates back years, the search notably took place three weeks before the November midterms, in which Omar is seeking reelection. The Justice Department has historically sought to avoid public investigative actions involving a candidate within 60 days of a primary or general election.

Omar, who was first elected to the House in 2018, represents Minnesota’s 5th District, including Minneapolis. She is part of The Squad of progressive lawmakers who are a vibrant political force on the left wing of Congress but have also endured repeated attacks from President Trump, dating back to his first term. She was one of the first two Muslim-American women in the House and the first African refugee to be elected to Congress.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Federal immigration officials need to ensure that body cameras worn by officers are uniformly activated when needed, a government report released Wednesday said, following a series of contentious shootings and aggressive arrests by ICE officers.

The agency rejected the recommendation, saying that using cameras that automatically activate when an officer pulls their weapon or activates a car siren could risk privacy concerns.

ICE has come under intense scrutiny after numerous incidents where officers have opened fire during enforcement operations and the agency has claimed they were under threat but officers weren’t wearing body cameras. Critics say the cameras could help hold officers accountable and promote transparency at a time when the agency is operating at a high tempo across the country and increasingly accused of excessive use of force. The report by the Government Accountability Office covers the period from February 2025 until September of this year. The report, conducted at the request of Democratic members of Congress, delves into policies governing the use of body-worn cameras by ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and details improvements both agencies can make to improve their programs. But it did not go into any of the high-profile ICE-involved shootings that have focused attention on the agency’s body-worn camera usage, such as the shooting deaths of Renee Good in Minneapolis or Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston.

A fatal shooting exposed gaps in ICE’s camera rollout

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced in February that every Homeland Security officer on the ground in Minneapolis would be issued body-worn cameras. Noem, who was later fired by Trump, said officers across the country would receive them as funds became available.

The department later received $20 million from Congress to finish the ICE body-camera rollout plan. But then came a shooting in July of Salgado Araujo, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers shot and killed the Mexican man who lived in the U.S. for more than 35 years. Those officers were not wearing body cameras, raising questions about why the agency still hadn’t gotten the cameras out to officers in the field. Homeland Security said after Salgado Araujo’s death that body cameras had been deployed to more than half of ICE field offices and that the remainder would get them in the next 60 days. In the GAO report, DHS said all ICE offices had received the body-worn cameras as of Aug. 5 and that officers were being trained on their use.

In a statement Wednesday, DHS said that while they’d purchased devices for all ICE officers across the country, the required training was still ongoing and that they expected to be finished “soon.”

DHS rejects automatic recording, citing privacy concerns

The report recommended ICE take additional steps such as “automated camera activation” that it said would be particularly helpful in situations where “unexpected and unplanned incidents, unrelated to sensitive operations, result in use of force by or against personnel.” The report said this would improve transparency and public trust. But DHS disagreed, saying that cameras that automatically activate could result in “the unauthorized recording of sensitive interactions with informants or victims.” The agency said the body-worn cameras are required to be turned on at the beginning of pre-planned enforcement activities.

Confusion over camera rules kept one ICE office from using them

The report also said some of the officers they talked to at both ICE and CBP were confused as to when they should activate the cameras. For example, some officers told the GAO they didn’t know whether to activate the cameras during vehicle searches or when transporting detainees. The report noted that at one ICE office, staff was so uncertain about when they were supposed to use the cameras that they hadn’t begun using them even after they’d been trained.

The report also found that neither agency had updated the plans that oversee their body-worn camera programs even as their staff had grown significantly.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with Republicans Wednesday and gave political parties and their fundraising committees lower rates for broadcast campaign ads.

Over two dissents, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from the Trump administration and the National Republican Congressional Committee and upheld the use of the GOP-friendly rule in the midterm election.

In a brief order, the court said the issue should be left to the Federal Communications Commission.

The outcome has given Republican candidates an advertising edge in the final weeks of the campaign.

Federal law says a “legally qualified candidate” running for election is entitled to a “lower unit charge” for campaign ads in the 60 days prior to an election.

However, on March 30, the FCC, under Republican control, announced that broadcasters must extend the lower rates to political parties and their joint fundraising committees.

The FCC notice did not explain the basis for this change, and it refused to hold a commission hearing to debate the issue.

But the change was seen as benefiting Republicans.

Democratic candidates have raised more money from direct but limited contributions from individuals, while Republicans have raised far more through party committees that are funded by wealthy donors.

The non-partisan Campaign Legal Center said the FCC’s rule change was “contrary to the text and purpose of the federal statute and would effectively grant super PACs an advertising discount.”

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC, issued a statement objecting to the change.

“The American public should not have sweeping election-year rule changes forced on them in the dark, on the eve of the election, without a single opportunity for public input,” she said.

Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Roy Cooper from North Carolina objected to the FCC rule change in April and and asked for a review.

When no action was taken, they filed suit in federal court. They argued the FCC had no authority to change the law that gave only candidates, not fundraising committees, the benefit of the lower ad rates.

Since then, the two sides have gone back and forth in the courts, with both accusing the other of seeking a late change in the rules.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled for the Democrats in a pair of 2-1 decisions.

“Suffice to say that any ‘chaos’ is the FCC’s fault, not ours,” Judge Robert B. King, a Clinton appointee, said on Oct. 7. It “has endeavored to create from whole cloth a new rule entirely outside the purview of judicial review.”

But the Supreme Court stepped in twice to overturn the 4th Circuit and rule for the Republicans.

In a Sept. 4 order, the court said in an unsigned order the 4th Circuit intervened too soon. The law “makes clear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission to resolve its application for review by order before filing a petition for judicial review.”

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

In September, the FCC did nothing other than to ask for public comments on its March rule change.

Frustrated with the delay, the 4th Circuit issued a second order requiring the FCC to act by Oct. 9.

Last week, in response to an appeal from Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts put the 4th Circuit order on hold.

On Wednesday, the full court said the 4th Circuit Court should have left the issue to the FCC.

“Our system of separation of powers does not allow the judiciary to meddle in the workings of a coordinate branch of the government in this manner,” the court said an unsigned opinion.

In dissent, Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the administration’s appeal.

BOULDER CITY, Nev. — Janelle Sorenson loves the clear night skies in Boulder City, less than an hour’s drive from the bright lights of the Las Vegas Strip. It’s a small, quiet town, and she thinks an artificial intelligence data center would ruin the community and scar the desert landscape.

So over the summer, she joined with other residents to successfully oppose plans for one of the giant computing warehouses that have popped up around the country.

But their victory was short-lived. The developers withdrew their application and instead sought adjacent land owned by the federal government — and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management signed off.

“Not only did we not get to decide anything or have a say,” Sorenson said, “we were just really kept in the dark.”

The Townsite data center was the first in the country to be approved on federal public land, though construction is stalled after a judge ruled that the government couldn’t use an old environmental review from when the project was intended to be a solar farm.

Tech companies are eager for vast tracts to build data centers that can be as large as 70 football fields, and Townsite could set a precedent for similar projects on federal property with more than a dozen others in the planning stages. President Trump has been a steadfast supporter of the AI industry, which he views as a source of economic growth and part of a global competition with China.

However, data centers have been unpopular in many communities as voters worry about higher electricity bills, declining water supplies and other effects. In Nevada, where 80% of the land is owned by the federal government, Townsite and other projects have become a dominant issue in the battleground state’s closely watched governor’s race.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, one of his party’s most vulnerable incumbents, doesn’t outright oppose building data centers on public lands, as long as they have community support. He recently signed an agreement with Trump’s Republican administration to streamline infrastructure projects, which could include data centers on federal lands.

Democratic nominee Aaron Ford, the state attorney general, has pledged to oppose data centers on public lands, saying affordable housing should be the priority.

Both say the projects, whether on public or private land, must follow state rules, such as requiring data centers to cover their own energy costs and protecting water supplies, or they would lose eligibility for state tax abatements.

Voters across the political spectrum unite against data centers

Sorenson, the Boulder City resident, considers herself a liberal, but she said her conservative neighbors are on the same page as she is.

“We’re all aligned on this,” she said.

Autumn McGrath-Shook, who lives in the same town, said she recently left the GOP and registered with the Green Party over data centers, though she still identifies as conservative. Worried about the environmental impact on wildlife, she joined forces with “these crazy libs” to oppose the project.

Data centers have quickly become a “catalyzing issue” in the midterms, catching many politicians flat-footed, said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Some state leaders who were previously supportive of data centers have rushed to respond. For example, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott paused data center approvals until audits are completed, and Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro signed an executive order removing data center proposals from a fast-track permitting process and requiring them to receive local approval before seeking state approval.

In August, Ford announced his plan to pause new tax abatements for data centers while an audit is conducted to see whether the projects have fulfilled promises about producing tax revenue and economic benefits.

In September, Lombardo, who has said data centers provide enormous economic opportunity for Nevada, signed an executive order placing more guardrails on them and requiring them to pay more taxes to support schools.

The two have successfully “muddied the waters” on their data center positions, Damore said.

Lombardo criticized Ford for co-sponsoring 2015 legislation that created the state’s tax abatement program for the facilities, a measure that received bipartisan support. Ford criticized Lombardo for giving more than $200 million in tax breaks to data centers, which is connected to the legislation that Ford co-sponsored.

Ford told the Associated Press that he would use “every tool” at his disposal to prevent data centers from skirting state guardrails, including withholding tax abatements and pursuing litigation.

Lombardo, whose campaign declined to make him available for an interview, has a similar pitch. His office said he would not hesitate to confront the federal government to advocate for Nevadans.

But that’s not good enough for McGrath-Shook, who is on the fence in the governor’s race. She thinks Ford is soft on crime, but she views Lombardo as more pro-data centers.

“I would much rather vote for Lombardo than Aaron Ford in a normal world,” she said. “But with the looming data centers, it really changes the landscape — and literally.”

Data centers on public lands are the latest effort in AI race

Last year, Trump signed an executive order to accelerate permitting for AI data centers, and his administration has rolled back the National Environmental Policy Act, saying the bedrock law needlessly delays federal approval for energy and infrastructure projects.

Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry wants to be a part of the conversation about responsible development on federal lands.

“The good-faith actors in this space are going to be approaching that development responsibly,” he said, “ensuring that it’s going to do no harm on important federal lands.”

But environmentalists are concerned about data centers developing on federal lands to skirt environmental protections and laws and circumvent permitting processes. They’re generally opposed to using public lands for the projects in the first place.

“We believe that public lands are reserved for public good and should be protected and kept in trust for future generations,” said Olivia Tanager, director of the Sierra Club’s Toiyabe Chapter. “And the idea of using public lands for data center construction totally flies in the face of that set of values.”

She said Congress should pass legislation with new standards for environmental reviews and public engagement that could slow development.

“Short of some type of legislation to that effect,” Tanager said, “we’re staring down the barrel of having many data centers move forward on public lands over the next few years.”

Hill writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is headed to New Hampshire this weekend to campaign for Democratic candidates in the November election, a continuation of his reconnaissance tour through swing states in preparation for a possible 2028 presidential run.

The trip follows voyages to other early primary voting states, including South Carolina in September and Nevada in July, that could be critical to his campaign if he officially joins the race.

“I think if your travel calendar aligns with the Democratic Party’s primary calendar, you’re probably running for president,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego.

It’s still too early for Newsom, or any other would-be presidential contender, to declare their candidacy, Kousser said, but the governor’s movements are typical of a politician who is “all in.”

“This is the clearest signal to voters, to donors, and to the chattering class that you’re willing to put in the hard yards, the years of on-the-ground campaigning, that it takes to do well in one of these primaries or caucuses,” he said.

Newsom isn’t alone.

A cadre of potential 2028 candidates, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, among others, is also deploying a similiar shadow campaign strategy and raising money for swing-state Democrats in the midterms.

The governor’s visit to New Hampshire comes after he raised a half of a million dollars for New Hampshire Democrats this election cycle. His fundraising supported a new field office for the state party in Nashua, where he’ll join gubernatorial candidate Cinde Warmington and Rep. Chris Pappas, who is vying against a Republican for the U.S. Senate, at a canvassing event on Saturday morning.

Newsom, Pappas and Warmington will appear at a second campaign event in Exeter together at 1 p.m. before Newsom heads to an early evening meet and greet with Stefany Shaheen, a House candidate, in Manchester.

After returning from New Hampshire, Newsom plans to participate in campaign events across California in support of Democrats in newly redistricted congressional seats.

The Harris campaign said she also plans to stump for Pappas in New Hampshire on Oct. 24. As she considers a third bid for the White House, Harris is visiting Nevada, Mississippi, Wisconsin and Georgia in the final days of the midterm election cycle.

Kousser said Harris’ schedule suggests she wants to keep her options open.

“These candidates are reaching out to the direct audience of voters, endorsers, and key leaders in those states, and they’re also trying to show the national audience that they have a fire in the belly and that they’re willing to put in the work,” he said.

While Newsom mirrors the moves of a presidential candidate, his comments have fueled speculation about whether he will ultimately run.

Newsom recently said that if Harris is in, he’s out.

The governor, who made similar statements in the past, said it would be “mutually-assured destruction” and there would be too much crossover between the two California political heavyweights, who would be vying for the same donors and supporters while offering a similar policy profile.

The governor has also said the decision lies with his family and that his four children need to be “on board.”

ROMA, Texas — Standing on a high bank of the Rio Grande, Army Lt. Col. Ray Richards points to a stretch of river that was, until recently, one of the busiest spots for illegal border crossings from Mexico.

But on a recent afternoon, the area is quiet. American soldiers gather at a border monitoring post in Roma, Texas, where an infantry vehicle with camouflage netting sits between houses. A Blackhawk helicopter drops soldiers onto an island in the river, while U.S. Border Patrol agents breeze by on fan-propelled boats.

“At any given time, there would be multiple rafts full of people trying to get to this side,” Richards said of the area before U.S. forces made it a priority last year.

The Army has been inviting reporters to the Rio Grande Valley as it deploys hundreds more soldiers to the region this month by shifting some of the thousands of troops already serving along the 2,000-mile border. U.S. officials said the troop surge follows signs of elevated activity from drug cartels and has been accompanied by increased cooperation from the Mexican military. The U.S. Coast Guard said it recently encountered gunfire from the Mexican side of the river, prompting the Americans to fire back.

In this small patch at the southern edge of the United States, a slow saga is playing out — a curious mix of policing, policy and politics.

Some question a troop surge just weeks before midterm elections

While Republicans face increasing headwinds because of President Trump’s unpopularity, persistently high prices and the fallout from the war in Iran, border security has remained a relative bright spot in Trump’s polling numbers, with about half of Americans saying they approve of his performance there.

But some experts have questioned the need for such a large military presence. They suggest it’s less about effective strategy and more about political theater.

Illegal crossings have plummeted due in large part to asylum restrictions that began before Trump returned to the White House. Meanwhile, a large percentage of the fentanyl, cocaine and heroin seized along the border was being smuggled in cars and trucks passing through checkpoints, not the areas in between.

David Shirk, a University of San Diego political science professor, said the Trump administration wants to remind voters it’s been very aggressive on border security.

“I don’t dispute there’s some benefit to having personnel in areas at risk for people smuggling and drug trafficking,” Shirk said. “But the vast majority of that is now happening at ports of entry.”

Dessa Bergen-Cico, a professor of public health at Syracuse University who studies drug trafficking, said street prices for cocaine and fentanyl are still low, suggesting the drug flow remains unimpeded.

But Army Maj. Gen. Curtis Taylor, who commands the military’s southern border task force, said the work has been vital and effective, particularly for targeting human trafficking.

The moral argument for the Army’s mission is “dismantling this marketplace of human trafficking that is bringing people into the border,” Taylor said. “An added benefit of that is there’s an awful lot of drugs moving with that human trafficking.”

Efforts to secure a former epicenter of illegal crossings

Roma, a city of about 10,000 people, lacks a border wall in some places because homes sit close to the steep slopes along the Rio Grande. Directly across the water is Miguel Alemán, a town in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas that’s been plagued by decades of cartel violence. From Roma, it’s a football field’s distance across the river at best and much less in some places.

In 2021, Roma became a center of illegal crossings when thousands of families and unaccompanied children arrived each day to seek asylum. Border crossings fell sharply after President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in 2024 and dipped after Trump suspended asylum at the border.

After Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the Army and Coast Guard expanded operations to back up the Border Patrol, which remains the lead agency for border security. The Army now commands some 8,000 U.S. troops along the entire border, while the U.S. Coast Guard and Texas law enforcement have brought in more personnel.

Army officials said people still try to cross into Roma despite multiple obstacles. A barrier of strung-together buoys, each the size of a hay bale, stretched along the river. Concertina wire lined the U.S. river bank, while a surveillance blimp hung in the sky. A river island was recently cleared of trees that hid people trying to cross.

Army Sgt. Nathaniel Decker said he recently saw people on three rafts set out from the Mexican side at dusk. He reported to Border Patrol that one group had cleared the buoys. They were eventually caught by a house in Roma.

Mexico also has sent more troops

The U.S. has stopped many of the drones used by the cartels to surveil the border and ferry drugs, by electronically jamming or capturing them or shooting them down with a laser.

The U.S. has gotten better at tracking them and coordinating with Mexican officials to locate the drones’ operators. But some still get across.

“We have reduced a lot of the flights,” said Richards, the Army lieutenant colonel, who has deployed with the Massachusetts Army National Guard. “But in the middle of the night, those drones can fly into the U.S. airspace, and that’s a true threat to any soldier on the ground.”

Under pressure from Trump, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has cracked down more heavily on crime than her predecessors. Mexico this month sent 500 National Guard and military officers to Tamaulipas as part of a coordinated effort with the U.S. to prevent drug and human trafficking.

Mexico’s deployment “is based on intelligence gathered regarding the movements of criminal groups,” a federal official in Mexico told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the matter.

As part of the operation, the Mexican Army is using two UH-60 helicopters, drones and anti-drone equipment.

The U.S. Coast Guard has also boosted patrols on the Rio Grande, bringing in more than 300 personnel in October of last year. While assisting Border Patrol in trying to apprehend someone attempting to enter the U.S. illegally, the Coast Guard encountered gunfire from the Mexican side of the water near Garceno, Texas, the service said in a statement. The Americans returned fire. None were hurt.

U.S. Coast Guard Cmdr. Jeff Miller wouldn’t give additional details about the exchange of gunfire, except to say the personnel are “working in a very challenging environment” and are authorized to use force to protect themselves.

On a recent patrol, the scene along the river was quiet. A Coast Guard boat armed with machine guns motored along the greenish water. Two men fished from a small boat. A privately funded border wall, made from galvanized steel, lined the American side. In Mexico, there was a park with soccer goal posts, homes and a woman waving.

A Coast Guardsman driving the boat, who declined to give his name, said he’s seen kids on the Mexican side get excited as if a fire truck were passing. Others have offered the Americans cold beer. Some have reacted with offensive gestures.

Joel Garcia, Border Patrol’s acting deputy chief patrol agent for the Rio Grande Valley, said the agency has proof that U.S. operations have been effective based on the amount of drug seizures, the number of people apprehended and decreasing traffic within certain areas.

“Border security, when done right, if we have truly secured the line, should be boring,” he added. “It should look as if no one is crossing and nothing is happening.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Fabiola Sánchez and Megan Janetsky in Mexico City contributed to this report.

Oct. 14, 2026 10:13 AM PT

COLUMBIA, S.C. — U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace’s former fiance and two of his business associates were charged with sex crimes and voyeurism on Wednesday over an episode the South Carolina congresswoman described in detail during a speech last year on the House floor about how crimes against women are not investigated thoroughly.

John Douglas Osborne committed sex acts on a 23-year-old incapacitated and intoxicated woman while Mace’s ex-fiance Patrick Bryant and Eric Bernard Bowman watched, according to sworn statements by agents from the State Law Enforcement Division, which brought the charges.

The men talked about who would assault the woman beforehand, took photos and recorded the assault, which was also seen on a security system feed at the home in Sullivan’s Island, an affluent suburb of Charleston, state agents said. The woman had fallen into a pool and was passed out on a couch covering herself with a pillow, agents said.

Another woman who happened to be watching the feed saw the assault and took pictures and wrote about it in a journal, police said. Mace and Bryant were not yet engaged at the time of the October 2018 assault.

Osborne, 46, is charged with first-degree assault and battery and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Bryant, 53, and Bowman, 46, are each charged with voyeurism.

Along with the voyeurism charge, Bowman was also charged with obstruction of justice after agents said he did a factory reset on a cellphone he knew investigators were seeking in a search warrant, and with publishing the name of a victim of criminal sexual conduct after posting the victim’s name and a video of her on X.

Bryant didn’t return a message seeking comment on Wednesday, and attorneys who have been listed as representing Bowman and Osborne in other cases did not immediately return messages.

Mace, a Republican, described the assault at length in a nearly hourlong speech in February 2025 that named the men and described other photos and videos found when she looked at Bryant’s cellphone when they were still together.

Mace said she “accidentally uncovered some of the most heinous crimes against women imaginable. We’re talking about rape, non-consensual photos, non-consensual videos of women and underage girls, and the premeditated, calculated exploitation of women and girls in my district.”

At the time, Bryant completely denied the allegations. “I take this matter seriously and will cooperate fully with any necessary legal processes to clear my name,” he told the Associated Press.

The State Law Enforcement Division didn’t say if their investigation into any of the men is continuing.

After the arrests, Mace released a statement detailing the 25 bills she says will protect victims of sexual assault, harassment or discrimination, including in retaliatory defamation and libel lawsuits that may result from allegations they bring to light.

The Republican, who is leaving the House this term after losing her bid to be South Carolina governor, introduced a proposal this week to require that anyone who brings such a case and loses must pay attorney fees for the defendant.

“Protecting women and holding predators accountable isn’t a slogan. It’s been one of my top priorities in Congress. For too long, survivors have faced broken systems while predators exploited loopholes and walked free,” Mace said in her statement.

Kinnard and Collins write for the Associated Press.

President Trump’s new press secretary stepped to the podium, the eyes of a packed room of journalists — and many in their audiences — upon her. She smiled broadly at the sea of faces both probing and friendly. With that, Katie Zacharia went live and became the official voice of the world’s most powerful person.

Fourteen minutes and just three questioners later, she was done. In the aftermath, it was clear that the former Newsmax commentator accomplished at least one thing: She put the “brief” back in briefing.

In her debut Tuesday, Zacharia looked downward and often read directly from a script. She paused and grinned when she uttered the words “Department of War.” She stumbled on a question about her background and mixed up the words “husband” and “president.” The few questions she took were nonconfrontational and from media outlets that have been sympathetic to the Republican president. In short: She made no memorable impression — or at least, to hear some tell it, not the one she likely wanted.

This would not be an easy job under any circumstances. Trump most frequently serves as his own spokesman. And his antagonism toward the media has created a new layer of tension. Zacharia is finding out on day one that she, too, will be under constant watch. Some — including a few of those who have stood in her shoes — didn’t think it went all that well.

In fractured times, in a national media scrum unimaginable just a few decades ago, what is the proper way to approach a job like this? How do you speak effectively when your boss speaks for himself so often that he commandeers the news cycle multiple times a day — and sometimes late into the night — with remarks provocative, unexpected and sometimes incendiary?

For one, you realize for whom you work: not your audience of millions but your audience of one, and the absolute need for his approval.

“I get to do what I was doing on the outside already, which was hoping to amplify, multiply and expand upon President Trump’s incredible agenda for the American people,” Zacharia said. Nowhere did she mention the task of disseminating accurate information to Americans.

The press secretary role has been many things

Over the nearly 10 decades since former journalist George E. Akerson made his and the office’s debut as Herbert Hoover’s press secretary in 1929, the job has served many purposes: deliverer of information, amplifier of policy, jouster with journalists, protector of the presidential reputation and, sometimes, overlord of obfuscation.

Under Trump and his second-term press secretary so far — Karoline Leavitt, who resigned in August — the job has been primarily one of acting as the immovable object against an irresistible, and in Trump’s eyes sometimes treasonous, force.

Leavitt got to know this terrain well in her 17-month tenure. She took a smiling but combative stance against a press that was increasingly coming under Trump’s criticism for coverage — and was named in at least one lawsuit about White House media access. She was not shy about interdicting what she considered media bias. “What a stupid question,” she said to one reporter at a briefing last year.

Trump, outside the White House on Tuesday shortly after Zacharia’s briefing, praised her debut as “excellent.” She was standing behind him at the time.

Other early reviews were more critical. MS NOW quoted one unnamed White House official as saying of the performance: “She needs to get much better fast, otherwise she’ll break Scaramucci’s record.” Anthony Scaramucci, an early White House communications director for first-term Trump, lasted 11 days in 2017. Said Scaramucci on X Tuesday afternoon: “I hope she makes it.”

Joe Biden’s former press secretary, Jen Psaki, now the host of a show on MS NOW, put it more succinctly, posting on X: “Well that briefing was basically an SNL skit….except it wasnt.”

Talking up Trump but taking few questions

While Zacharia’s performance — and of course, that’s what every briefing is — may have been bumpy to some, it was also mostly content-free except for news she broke about the White House asking U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle to quit, which she immediately did.

Predictably, also like Leavitt before her, Zacharia spent a great part of her opening monologue praising Trump and giving an “up ‘til now”-style update on his second term’s priorities and accomplishments so far. Talking points included a “booming economy,” “his historic boom in energy production” and “a great relationship with Venezuela.”

She was also fond of superlatives, a trait that likely will resonate with a president whose remarks are often equally if not more expansive: “President Trump is working to secure the Western Hemisphere for centuries to come.”

When it came to questions, though, she was downright parsimonious. She allowed three questioners, then answered an additional one as she prepared to depart. The three called on during the briefing were Breitbart, Fox News and the Daily Mail, all of which have been friendly to Trump in varying degrees during periods of his two terms. And she said she would continue Leavitt’s policy of bringing “new media” in — which has often meant outlets more sympathetic to Trump.

“We love new media and we want to be able to embrace it,” she said. Currently, three major outlets — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — are fighting to regain White House access after Trump banished them last month, saying he didn’t like their coverage and calling it “fake news.”

How will Zacharia fare in coming days and weeks and, if it lasts, months? That, like so much else, depends on one thing: Donald Trump.

The late U.S. Sen. Howard Baker once famously said that, when being asked difficult things, handle it something like this: If you don’t like the question being asked, just answer a different question. On Tuesday, a half-century later, Katie Zacharia found a different way in — pick three nonconfrontational questioners, then defer to your boss and say: The End.

Anthony writes for the Associated Press.

With not-terrible odds heading into the 2028 Democratic primaries, Gov. Gavin Newsom is getting one shared warning whispered in his ear by roughly 3,729 political consultants right now: Do not mess with the murderers.

Do not, under any circumstance, follow that inner voice that may be telling you to commute the death sentences of the 563 killers on California’s death row to life without parole, as Newsom recently admitted he was considering. Doing so would be a stupid move for an Oval Office wannabe, one already hobbled by the progressive persona of the Golden State.

“I’m getting all those people in my ear,” Newsom said during a podcast conversation with Bryan Stevenson, one of the preeminent death penalty lawyers in the country. “Don’t do it. Politics.”

Newsom already dismantled San Quentin’s execution chamber a few years ago, so the state can’t kill people even if it wanted to. But the governor has made it clear that he opposes the death penalty in principle because every year the evidence mounts that its implementation is flawed and racially biased. As he put it, the decision on commuting the largest death row in the Western Hemisphere may be his “rocking chair test,” a measure of whether he will have lived up to his own ideals when he looks back on his life.

Most other western countries have already banned the death penalty, leaving the U.S. in the company of places including North Korea and Libya when it comes to this punishment. Twenty-three states have abolished it, and three besides California have a moratorium. Nine governors over the years have commuted their entire death row, including one Republican. In 2024, on his way out of office, President Biden commuted the death sentences of 37 federal prisoners, in part, Stevenson said, to prevent the Trump administration from using executions as theater.

But none of that is why Newsom should do it.

He should do it because we, the voters, are exhausted by the venality of politicians whose every move is controlled by politics and self-dealing. We need to believe that conscience is not a relic of America’s past, and roll reality back to a time when, occasionally, leaders acted because they believed in something, even if it wasn’t popular.

He should do it because our president glorifies violence and death (more on that in a moment) and people need a reminder that the America of hope and dreams, the America that always strives to be better, may be down, but she’s not out.

He should do it simply because he thinks it’s right.

“A lot of people in this country want a leader who is not trying to promote themselves, who’s not trying to advance themselves, is not always scheming for the angles and the corners,” Stevenson told me. “That’s not trying to just do what makes them get the most votes.”

Showing mercy to murderers historically has not been popular with voters. The tale of Willie Horton, the convicted murderer whose subsequent felonies tanked the 1988 presidential ambitions of then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, is still invoked like a Biblical lesson about the sin of soft-on-crime.

Horton’s warning happened during what now seems like the benign and civilized days of the President George H.W. Bush era, though. This moment is different, and all the advice about dodging this dodgy issue is now wrong.

America is increasingly in the death business, to steal a phrase from the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun — or at least our leaders are. Under the Trump administration, brutality, cruelty, corruption and even killings are being used as misguided and ugly proxies for strength and power. Fear is a weapon, death the point — the state can kill you if you make its leaders mad.

“It’s a handful of people whose view of the social order is very violent. It uses power. It abuses power. They think death is good for demonstrating strength,” Stevenson said.

Think that sounds overblown?

Just ask the family of Renee Good. Or Alex Pretti. Both Americans were killed by masked federal officers only 10 months ago. But so many other deaths have happened since then, they’re just ghosts in our collective psyche — haunting reminders that faceless, nameless agents are now empowered to roam our streets.

Most of us can no longer place the name Nurul Amin Shah Alam, the near-blind Rohingya refugee dumped by federal agents in the freezing cold on a February night. He was found dead five days later, his passing ruled a homicide.

Do you remember Lorenzo Salgado Araujo? Or Johan Sebastián Duran Guerrero? That’s what the business of death does, normalizes killings until they blend and fade in significance.

What about the 120 Iranian children, many of them little girls, who were killed when the U.S. bombed their school?

Then there are the roughly 238 people who have been executed by U.S. bombings of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, allegedly while transporting drugs, though the killings took place with no arrests, no trials and no real evidence. Four of those killings happened in October, though they barely made news.

And there is the profiteering from death — the talk of resorts on the shores of Gaza, the government money saved by Elon Musk cutting off aid to starving children.

Now, if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has his way, a year that began with televised footage of the death of Good and Pretti will end with the live-streamed execution of Nidal Hasan, the paralyzed, wheelchair-using former Army psychiatrist who 17 years ago killed 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood in Texas. If the grotesque spectacle happens, it will be a throwback to the days of the Roman Colosseum when the business of state-sponsored death was at an apex, combining public violence with propaganda, politics and social control.

Stevenson warns that “we’re in the midst of a narrative struggle, and this struggle is for the soul of America.”

Newsom has the chance to, if not change that narrative, offer an alternative one — an America that rejects killing as the ultimate display of power. An America that seeks justice with dignity and wisdom, not arrogance and gore. An America that feels safe because our leaders act with integrity and honor, not with a slavish, intemperate ego.

Though there is a political risk inherent in striking out in a solitary direction, there can also be reward. As Stevenson told Newsom, that’s the “beauty of struggling for things that are right, struggling for things that are moral, struggling for things that are just — all kinds of people will come along, and when you feel like you just can’t take another step, there’ll be something there. There’ll be somebody there.”

My mercy isn’t for those on our death row, many of whom are guilty of gut-churning crimes. I’m not arguing that they are victims themselves, or even that some may have been unfairly tried, or even innocent, though that may be true. I acknowledge some families of victims may be angry if Newsom commutes sentences, though some will not.

My mercy is reserved for America, and those who are exhausted by the business of death, this business Trump wants us to believe is just American business — necessary and unavoidable.

A commutation of California’s death row sentences would be a rejection of Trump’s manic desire to pull us ever lower; a rejection of our growing cynicism that there is no such thing — Republican or Democrat — as a leader who acts from conscience. An assurance, instead, that it is still possible to heed an internal moral compass that is more powerful than the need for power.

Would voters really reject the leader who offered that?

Would you?

Nearly 40 years have passed since a Californian was president.

Several have pursued the White House in the decades since Ronald Reagan ambled into retirement, in January 1989. But not a one succeeded. Kamala Harris, who was saved from political purgatory when Joe Biden chose her as his running mate, came closest — though not close — in 2024.

The 2028 race could bring at least three more California contestants, none of whom seem likely to end the state’s presidential dry spell.

Some of that speaks to the individual flaws and political frailties of those who are, at the least, eyeing a 2028 bid: Harris, outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom and five-term Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna.

The problem they all face is their return address.

“There was a cliche that dates to the ‘60s or ‘70s, or maybe before that,” said Matthew Dallek, who was born and raised in Los Angeles and now teaches political management at George Washington University. “‘As California goes, so goes the nation.’ I don’t think that world exists anymore.”

Or as Jim Newton, a former L.A. Times reporter and editor and now a biographer and California historian, bluntly put it, the state has migrated in the minds of many beyond its golden confines “from a kind of serious west of the West place to a kind of hippy-dippy silly place.”

Not necessarily an accurate assessment on the part of those naysayers, but a damning perception nonetheless.

Political bookends

In many ways, Reagan and Harris serve as ideal exemplars of their home state and how it’s changed — along with attitudes toward California — in the decades between Reagan’s 1980 election as president and what would be, in 2028, Harris’ third try.

(The former vice president hasn’t ruled in or out another White House bid. Newsom has said he won’t run if Harris does. Khanna is in limbo until after November’s midterm election.)

Reagan was a product of the nation’s heartland and a California transplant. The state that launched him to the White House was predominantly white and Republican, an arsenal of the Cold War and the birthplace of a grass-roots anti-tax movement that swept the nation. His conservatism was seen by many as an antidote to the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s.

“California was in some ways on the cutting edge of American politics because it was signaling the direction in which our national politics were trending,” said Dallek, who wrote a book about Reagan’s first electoral victory, in the 1966 gubernatorial race. “Reagan was kind of the tip of the spear.”

Although leaning to the right, especially in presidential races, California was a robust two-party state until the mid-1990s, with several Democrats holding statewide office and long periods when Democrats controlled one or both houses of the Legislature. That competitiveness, along with California’s sizable cache of electoral votes, helped boost Reagan’s political standing nationally.

Harris was born in Oakland, the daughter of a father from Jamaica and a mother from India. By the time the Democrat left for Washington in 2017, to serve as a U.S. senator, then vice president, California had turned as blue as a cloudless desert sky.

California had more brown than white residents. The military was no longer the all-mighty economic engine it had been. And with Democrats in hegemonic control of Sacramento, the state had become the country’s preeminent bastion of liberal values and policies.

Many see that progressivism as overly obsessed with identity politics, personal pronouns and the like, ignoring practicalities and the day-to-day concerns of most voters.

California “has sort of gone off the deep end,” said Ken Khachigian, a longtime conservative strategist in Orange County, who worked for both Reagan and Richard M. Nixon.

(Between the two, California had a seat in the White House for more than half a roughly 40-year stretch. Nixon served two terms as vice president before winning the presidency in 1968. His second term was cut short when the Watergate scandal drove him from office.)

Khachigian noted that Republicans rule over states that are just as politically lopsided as California: Indiana, Mississippi, Idaho and Utah, for instance. “But they don’t seem crazed like California,” he said.

That’s obviously one partisan’s perspective.

‘Far left … ungovernable’

But Dallek agreed it’s no longer a political asset to come from California, which much of the country sees as “pretty far to the left.”

“And somewhat ungovernable at this point,” he added. “You have incredible, insane amounts of wealth concentrated in places like Silicon Valley and parts of Los Angeles and then you have incredible amounts of poverty and homelessness…. There’s not a sense that what’s happening in California really resonates across the country.”

There is a case to be made that California is great and good in so many ways, beyond just its incredible natural splendor.

It has the world’s fourth-largest economy, as Newsom and others never tire of pointing out. It remains on the cutting edge of culture, research and technology. It’s still a place that offers fertile ground for the imagination, for reinvention and for second chances.

Newcomers, from other states and abroad, are welcomed like in few other places. The unofficial California credo — live and let live — makes it possible to be one’s authentic self without fear of shame, ostracism or constraint.

Harris, Newsom, Khanna or any Democrat hailing from California will doubtless argue those virtues are what makes the state truly shine, convinced it’s a model they can sell the rest of America.

Good luck with that.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Is there a doctor in the House? Backlash to Trump, RFK Jr. may boost their political ranks
The deep dive: Republican Steve Hilton leans on cheeky ads, voter discontent in long-shot campaign for governor
The L.A. Times Special:Take a breath. Educate yourself. Then vote.

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

A century and a half after Chinese came to California, one in four Americans hold “very negative attitudes” toward Americans of Chinese ancestry, and a third question their loyalty to the United States, according to a nationwide poll scheduled for release today in Washington.

The survey of public attitudes toward Chinese Americans also found that, while an overwhelming majority of Americans admire Chinese Americans for their devotion to family, emphasis on education and diligence, nearly a quarter would not approve of marriage to a Chinese American.

Twenty-three percent of Americans said they are uncomfortable with the idea of voting for an Asian American candidate for president, compared to 15% for an African American, 14% for a woman and 11% for a Jew.

Thirty-four percent said Chinese Americans have too much influence in the U.S. technology sector. Virtually the same proportion said Chinese Americans are more loyal to China than to the United States.

Those findings would appear to reflect the residue of the federal prosecution of U.S. nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was accused of transferring nuclear weapons data to unsecured computers on behalf of China.

The poll results, coming at a time of renewed tension between the U.S. and Chinese governments, disheartened experts who have long believed that the American public’s perception of Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans is disproportionately affected by the tone of diplomatic relations. Those experts felt that some of the responses showed that Americans are woefully ignorant about Asian Americans, even in California, where an estimated 40% of the nation’s Asian Americans live.

“We find these findings startling,” said Henry S. Tang, chairman of the Committee of 100, the Chinese American leadership organization that sponsored the telephone survey of 1,216 Americans. The group’s better-known members include cellist Yo-Yo Ma and architect I.M. Pei. “It makes you wonder how not only Chinese Americans, but Asian Americans, can shake this legacy of somehow being less than 100% Americans,” said UCLA political scientist Don T. Nakanishi, director of the Asian American Studies Center.

After a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet along the coast of southeast China earlier this month, a rash of talk show hosts and radio personalities called for the internment of people of Chinese ancestry. Some even urged a boycott of Chinese restaurants and made fun of Asian accents.

The release of the survey today at the National Press Club is coordinated with the committee’s 10th annual conference during which several panels will discuss the implications of the poll.

The telephone survey, conducted March 1-14 by Yankelovich Partners in consultation with the Anti-Defamation League and the Marttila Communications Group, has a margin of sampling error of 3.1 percentage points.

The main thrust of the study was to probe the public’s attitudes toward Chinese Americans. The survey also tried find out whether attitudes toward Chinese Americans were largely the same or different from those toward Asian Americans in general. It asked 1,002 respondentstheir opinions about stereotypes of Chinese Americans; 214 were asked about identically worded stereotypes of Asian Americans, according to the study. The answers were nearly identical, suggesting that prejudice against Chinese Americans is a subset of broader prejudices against Asian Americans, the researchers said.

Asians Americans were second only to African Americans as undesirable marriage partners. A third of respondents said they disapproved of marrying blacks, compared to 24% for Asians, 21% for Latinos and 16% for Jews.

As for housing, Americans preferred to be neighbors of Asians rather than blacks and Latinos. Seventeen percent of the respondents said they would be upset if an Asian moved into their neighborhood, compared to 21% for Latinos, 19% for blacks and 9% for Jews.

Asian Americans are often told that they excel in technical skills, but lack leadership qualities because they tend not to be assertive.

The poll found that 7% of Americans would not want an Asian American chief executive for a Fortune 500 company, compared to 4% who would not want an African American, 3% a woman and 4% a Jew. And the highest percentage of those surveyed objected to having an Asian American supervisor–6%, compared to 3% to 4% for the other groups.

“What’s disheartening about all of this is these negative views will continue because they are so tied to the things that really relate to our future–high technology, trade, U.S.-China relations,” said political scientist Nakanishi.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

On Chinese Americans

A telephone survey of 1,216 Americans age 18 and older conducted March 1-14 asked about views of Asian Ameri-cans and Chinese Americans.

*

Attitudes toward Chinese Americans

Very negative: 25%

Positive: 32%

Somewhat negative: 43%

*

Positive sentiment toward Chinese Americans (% who said “probably true”)

Have strong family values: 91%

Are as honest as other businessmen: 77%

Are as patriotic as other Americans: 68%

Place a higher value on education than do most other groups in America: 67%

Have contributed much to the cultural life of America: 56%

*

Negative sentiment toward Chinese Americans (% who said “probably true”)

Have too much influence in the U.S. high-technology sector: 34%

Always like to be at the head of things: 32%

Are more loyal to China than to the U.S.: 32%

Hard to get close to, make friends with: 28%

Taking away too many jobs from Americans: 24%

*

Note: Margin of error plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Source: Committee of 100

For the past eight years, a small group of influential Ventura County Republicans has played a pivotal role in the selection of every new judge in the Superior and Municipal courts.

Working out of the public eye, this little-known group of judicial advisers has helped pick almost half the judges now serving in the Ventura County courts–its recommendations almost always accepted by Gov. George Deukmejian.

The most influential of the advisers–according to several sources–is Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury, who has helped secure judicial appointments for nine assistant prosecutors out of the 11 judgeships that have opened up since Deukmejian’s election in 1982.

In addition to Bradbury’s input, three of the county’s top Republican Party stalwarts serve as an informal judicial screening panel for Deukmejian.

They are Paul Leavens of Ventura, former county campaign chairman for Deukmejian; Gwen Tillemans of Oxnard, county Republican chairwoman; and Katherine H. Haley of Ojai, a major Republican fund-raiser.

The four have helped give a conservative and prosecution-oriented shape to the county’s bench for years to come, but whether they will enjoy a similar advisory role in the administration of Republican Gov.-elect Pete Wilson remains to be seen.

Leavens, Tillemans and Haley say that, in the informal structure of the county panel’s makeup, they see themselves as a separate panel of political advisers to the governor that usually checks with Bradbury before making judicial recommendations to Deukmejian.

Leavens is among those who candidly admit that Bradbury is probably the most influential of Deukmejian’s local advisers, an opinion shared by many in the legal community.

“The district attorney in Ventura County, as I recall, is a very influential person,” said Charles Vogel, president of the California Bar Assn. “I think that he’s not shy about expressing his views and I think that he will endeavor to influence the composition of the court, since it’s important to him.”

“It is not sufficient for Kay Haley to say, ‘Gee, I’d like you to make Chuck Campbell a judge now,’ ” said Wendy Lascher, president of the Ventura County Bar Assn., referring to Municipal Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr.

“That’s how the governor gets the ideas for choosing who to nominate, and if it comes down to one or the other it makes a difference,” Lascher added. “I suspect Mike Bradbury has had more influence than the rest of those people put together.”

And Leavens conceded:

“I would never send a recommendation to the governor without checking with Mike. He’s probably the most influential one of all. He’s in and out of the courts. He knows who they are.”

Bradbury downplays his role in picking the county’s judges, insisting that the governor’s office consults the local district attorney on judicial openings in every county in California.

That statement is supported by Terry Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary, but disputed by a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner in Los Angeles, a Democrat, who said Deukmejian never consults Reiner or any other Democratic head prosecutors around the state.

“I’m treated no differently than any other district attorney in the state . . . the governor’s office seeks our input and we provide it if we have the pertinent information,” Bradbury said. “The governor is clearly his own person when it comes to judge appointments and he does not simply rubber-stamp the recommendations of others.”

Nonetheless, Bradbury said that all 11 judges appointed by Deukmejian in the last eight years were recommended by him during the initial review process, including the nine former prosecutors from Bradbury’s office.

All the judges are white, nine of the 11 are Republicans and all but one are men.

Deukmejian appointed five out of the 15 sitting Superior Court judges, including Robert C. Bradley in 1984 and Barbara A. Lane, Kenneth R. Yegan, Frederick A. Jones and Edwin M. Osborne in 1986. All were elevated from Municipal Court positions. Osborne, a Democrat, is now presiding Superior Court judge.

Deukmejian also installed half of the 12 Ventura County Municipal Court judges, including Democrat Herbert Curtis III in 1984, John R. Smiley in 1986, Barry B. Klopfer in 1987, Charles W. Campbell Jr. and Ken W. Riley in 1988 and Thomas J. Hutchins in 1989.

Lane and Smiley, the only non-prosecutors, were appointed from private practice.

Bradbury’s influence in the judicial selection process, especially the elevation of Municipal Court judges to the Superior Court, brought an expression of concern from one expert on legal ethics, Dean Gerald F. Uelmen of the Santa Clara University School of Law.

“I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a conflict that should preclude him from serving on the committee, but I think it’s a legitimate concern,” Uelmen said. “The danger would be that a judge would be more reluctant to rule against the D.A. on an issue that comes before him, for fear that it would jeopardize his prospects for advancement.”

Bradbury retorted:

“Gerry’s comment is the typical BS that he throws out on this and every other issue where he takes a very pro-defense point of view. I’ve never had any judge try and curry favor with me for any reason.”

Bradbury said he has “a fairly combative relationship” with Ventura County’s judges who dislike the fact that his policy against plea bargaining forces 12% to 15% of cases to trial, compared with 5% to 7% in most other counties.

Bradbury vehemently insisted he is “not on any committee” and added that “my views do not carry the kind of weight people attribute to me.” He said that Deukmejian’s office also consults with Sheriff John V. Gillespie on some appointments. Gillespie was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Each of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees in Ventura County began the selection process by calling or being recommended by someone on the informal three-member review panel, Leavens said.

Panel members never meet to discuss their work, but they often call each other and Bradbury to confer on nominees, said Leavens, whose Ventura-based Leavens Ranches company owns more than 1,000 acres of citrus and avocado orchards in Ventura and Monterey counties.

Each sends a letter of recommendation to Deukmejian’s office only “after conversing with people that know these people and learning who is well-respected, who has a good reputation and who would not embarrass the governor,” Leavens said.

Haley, a third-generation Ventura County resident described by some as “Mrs. Republican” in Ventura County, said she agrees with Leavens’ description of their work.

“The gist of it is that when there were people who had contacted us that were interested in serving as a judge . . . we investigated whether they were qualified people who could do the job. We’d write a letter and send it to the governor,” Haley said. “He wouldn’t always take our suggestion.”

Bradbury said that party loyalties play no role in his recommendations to Deukmejian. As for the fact that nearly all of Ventura County’s judges are Republican, he said:

“I have a hunch it’s because people that go into law enforcement organizations, for example, prosecutors, tend to be Republican. But we’ve got our share of Democrats in the office.”

Although the three review panel members do not automatically reject Democrats, Leavens and Tillemans said they screen the legal records, family background and political views of potential nominees to make sure that they will hew to Republican philosophies.

“Through the years, we’ve had so many judges that were very lenient in so many ways . . . so we look for the good Republican principles,” Tillemans said. Asked to outline the principles that are reflected in nominees’ legal briefs and judicial rulings, she said, “It’s more government by the people than government for the people.”

However, the three said that they do not delve into nominees’ personal lives.

“The kind of people we were talking to were all law-abiding citizens that were well-known in the legal community. Besides, isn’t that against the law anyway?” Haley said. “I never had anybody talk to us that had murdered anybody or threw his wife downstairs.”

And Leavens said they do not concern themselves with the nominees’ drinking habits or marital fidelity. “I think those things you wouldn’t have to ask about. You’d hear about them from other sources. Anybody that wants to go up is essentially pretty clean.”

The process of settling on a recommendation can take four to six months, said Tillemans, who when not working for her party promotes housing developments for the Dolphin Group, a Los Angeles-based lobbying and public relations firm with strong Republican political connections.

“We go over their resumes and we recommend the ones who we think are suitable and then the governor’s appointment secretary looks over them and it goes to Deukmejian,” she said.

But before Deukmejian makes any appointment, each nominee is reviewed by the state Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission, a panel of 20 lawyers and six lay people, which does extensive background checks.

The so-called Jenny Commission also reviews a seven-page questionnaire in which each nominee lists experience on the bench and at the bar, outlines political affiliations and personal history, and answers the question, “Why do you want to be a judge?”

Once that process ends, the commission rates each nominee as extremely well qualified, well qualified, qualified or “not ready for appointment at this time,” Flanigan said.

After reviewing the commission’s recommendations and letters on the nominees from local bar associations, the governor picks the nominee he feels is best suited for the slot, Flanigan said.

But this process could change in January–after what is sure to be a flurry of appointments by the outgoing Deukmejian–when Sen. Pete Wilson becomes governor, legal experts and Wilson associates agree.

Wilson has relied on an eight-member merit selection committee to make initial recommendations for federal judge appointments in the Central District of California. The panel included U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, U.S. District Judge William D. Keller and California Supreme Court Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, who also served while a federal district judge.

Although critics on the federal bench challenged the propriety of letting federal judges help name their colleagues when the Wilson committee’s makeup was first revealed in 1986, the panel has continued to advise Wilson on federal judicial nominees. Federal judges are appointed by the President upon the recommendation of legislators.

And if Wilson’s taste in federal judges is any guide, his appointments to the state bench will differ to some degree from Deukmejian’s, said Vogel, the state bar association chief.

“It appears he is impressed with people who have good academic records,” Vogel said of Wilson. “If you look at his federal appointments, many of them were high achievers in college or law school.”

Vogel continued, “Deukmejian was the attorney general, he did work with prosecutors, he did work with government lawyers. He was pretty proud of them and felt somewhat in line with them and felt their expertise in government would fit them well in the bench.”

However, Wilson’s method of weeding out unwanted nominees probably will change for state appointees because state law requires nominees to be reviewed by the Jenny Commission, said John G. Davies, a San Diego lawyer who served as Wilson’s judicial selection adviser.

“Deukmejian and all the other governors in my lifetime have had local screening committees. I have no idea what Pete’s intentions are on that,” Davies said.

“We have over 4,000 judicial applications on file for Deukmejian,” Flanigan said. He predicted the lame-duck governor will fill many of the judicial vacancies before leaving office. “I think he’ll look at it as his greatest legacy.”

The retirement last week of Presiding Municipal Judge Lee E. Cooper Jr. virtually guarantees that Deukmejian’s local advisers will have further impact on the bench before Wilson takes office.

The Jenny Commission already has pumped nominees through the pipeline and readied them for the governor’s final approval, and the local advisers have made their recommendations for new openings, Bradbury said.

“It’s my sense that Deukmejian will fill every opening that he has available before he leaves office because the judiciary was a very important issue for him,” Bradbury said.

Once Wilson takes office, he will find the California justice system far larger and more of a challenge–with 1,500 judgeships–than the federal system he is accustomed to, said Flanigan, the governor’s appointment secretary.

Flanigan, who has been asked to keep his job through the first year of Wilson’s term, said that relying on a fixed group of people for input “would not be reasonable,” even though “there are lawyers and non-lawyers who we may talk to in the Deukmejian or future Wilson administration.” The ideal situation, he said, “is to talk to as broad a group as possible.”

Flanigan said the work of local advisers such as Bradbury, Leavens, Tillemans and Haley is vital to selecting the nominees that his office sends to the Jenny Commission–that is, the nominees who have a shot at being appointed by the governor.

“Wilson will follow the same road as Deukmejian in appointing conservative judges,” Tillemans predicted, “and we’re on that governor’s council now.”

Leavens’ wife, Carolyn Leavens, who was chairwoman of Wilson’s campaign in Ventura County, said she made a recommendation on one of Deukmejian’s judicial appointees–a duty she would gladly repeat for Wilson.

Bradbury, who actively campaigned for Wilson this year, said he is uncertain what his role will be in helping the new governor select future Ventura County judges.

But he added, “I would hope that Sen. Wilson would continue to seek the input of local public officials.”

Carlos Dammeier, administrative law judge, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
Bar rating: Qualified

Dammeier began in law enforcement, working for a decade as a dispatcher, jailer and police officer. He went to law school and, for a quarter-century, represented police and other public-sector unions, “handling employee rights cases at every level from administrative hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said in an email.

In 2013, The Times reported, a law firm in which he was a named partner dissolved after two Costa Mesa City Council members sued one of his clients, the city police union, over legal and political tactics the politicians asserted were overly aggressive.

Dammeier recently said his team was the focus of “antiunion attacks by political forces” and said that after multiple investigations, none of the firm’s attorneys faced charges or disciplinary action.

In 2022, Dammeier became an administrative law judge. His campaign website states he has heard and issued decisions in more than 2,000 unemployment, disability and tax appeal cases.

Priorities are addressing case backlogs and making thoughtful, unbiased decisions.

“Win or lose, everyone needs to know they had fair treatment by our courts,” he said.

He ran for Superior Court seats in Merced and San Bernardino counties in March 2024, losing both races, and also ran unsuccessfully in San Bernardino County in 2016.

David Ross, deputy alternate public defender
Bar rating: Qualified

Ross worked as a legislative aide for an Indiana Democrat in Congress and as a TV reporter and documentary producer before becoming a lawyer in 1994, according to his campaign website.

His legal career began in Riverside County, where he served five years as a deputy public defender. In 2000, he became a Los Angeles County deputy alternate public defender in regional branches, including Long Beach and Compton. He has been at the Torrance office since 2018.

Ross, according to his website, has represented more than 10,000 indigent defendants and completed more than 110 jury trials.

A priority would be ensuring people feel recognized in his courtroom.

“My goal is to hear everyone out, so that even if a party ultimately loses, they will walk out of court knowing the judge listened,” he said in an email.

Troy W. Slaten, administrative law judge, state Department of Industrial Relations
Bar rating: Qualified

After roles as a child actor on “Cagney and Lacey” and “Parker Lewis Can’t Lose,” Slaten began a two-decade law career in 2005.

He first worked as a private criminal defense attorney, then spent 11 years at an international firm where he focused on criminal, civil and administrative law and, for a time, managed the criminal defense division. He’s regularly cited as a legal analyst on TV and in The Times.

Slaten volunteered as temporary Superior Court judge from 2016-20 and in 2021 became a full-time administrative law judge presiding over workers’ compensation hearings.

“I have uncovered fraud and have helped when injured workers have been denied healthcare and other benefits,” he said in an email.

He has twice run for Superior Court, falling short in 2020 and 2022.

He would prioritize fairness and efficiency. “I would work to ensure cases move forward in a timely and organized manner while preserving due process,” he said.

Outside the courtroom, Slaten announces and deejays UCLA men’s and women’s water polo games.

Donna Tryfman, L.A. County deputy public defender
Bar rating: Qualified

A deputy public defender since 1998, Tryfman has had assignments countywide. From 2016-19, she supervised 25 attorneys and mentored new hires as deputy in charge of Eastlake Juvenile Court. She’s worked in collaborative drug court, coordinating with prosecutors, judges and others to help individuals dealing with addiction.

Her current assignment is in the Major Crimes Unit, where she exclusively handles homicides with special circumstances.

Tryfman spent five years as president of the Public Defenders Assn., according to her campaign website, and has proctored a high school program on civic duties and constitutional principles. She has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She received the peer-decided Gideon Award as felony attorney of the year in 2025, her bio states.

“I would champion further access to justice by exploring and expanding digital access to the courts in underserved communities,” she said.