POLITICS

Minnesota’s governor and attorney general on Wednesday defended their efforts to combat fraud and told a U.S. House committee that their efforts have been hampered by President Trump’s immigration crackdown in the state.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee accused Gov. Tim Walz and Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison of stalling to fight fraud in government programs, saying they put politics ahead of rooting out abuse instead of pausing payments.

“You have not been good stewards of the taxpayer dollars,” said Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chair of the committee. “And the Democratic position is keep the money flowing. The American taxpayers have had enough.”

Walz said he wanted to work with the federal government to help with fraud investigations, but the immigration surge was making that more difficult.

“The people of Minnesota have been singled out and targeted for political retribution at an unparalleled scale,” Walz said. “We’re going to prosecute, as we have, every single person that’s involved in fraud, but we can’t do it alone.”

Walz and Ellison defended their efforts on fraud, while also trying to turn the focus of the hearing to the surge of 3,000 federal agents in Minnesota that began in December. The Trump administration cited fraud as one justification for its enforcement action. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testified Tuesday that about 650 investigators remain in Minnesota as part of a broader fraud probe.

“Operation Metro Surge did nothing to address fraud in our state,” Ellison said. “It harmed our economy and it scarred our people and it dealt a devastating blow to fraud enforcement in Minnesota.”

Ellison noted the series of resignations of lawyers in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, leaving those who remain “drowning in immigration-related petitions” instead of prosecuting fraud. On Tuesday, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota appeared before a judge for a contempt hearing related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement not returning personal property of detainees.

Ellison said his office has “punched above our weight” in winning 300 Medicaid fraud convictions and recovering more than $80 million for taxpayers.

Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana called on Ellison to resign, accusing him of not leading investigations into criminal fraud activity.

Last week, Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration would “temporarily halt” $243 million in Medicaid funding to Minnesota over fraud concerns, as part of what he described as an aggressive crackdown on misuse of public funds. Minnesota sued on Monday to stop the money from being withheld, warning it may have to cut healthcare for low-income families if the money is held back.

Comer on Wednesday accused Walz of not stopping Medicaid payments despite knowledge of fraud because he “didn’t want to rock the boat.”

Comer and other Republicans accused Walz of lying about when he first found out about fraud in a $250-million scheme known as Feeding Our Future and stalling to act in order to protect the Somali American community. Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio asked Walz if he know how many of those who had been indicted were Somali Americans.

“Their ethnicity is not my concern,” Walz said.

Somali Americans make up 82 of the 92 defendants charged so far in the Feeding Our Future case, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Minnesota.

Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, as part of the effort to focus the hearing on the immigration crackdown, held up images of children detained by federal officers and a picture of the blood-stained car seat of Renee Good who was killed by an officer. Federal officers also killed another Minnesota resident, Alex Pretti, who had been filming enforcement operations.

“This violence does not make us safer,” Garcia said. “It does not address fraud, waste and abuse.”

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

Gayle King, the most high-profile star at CBS News, has signed a new deal with the network.

A CBS News representative said Wednesday the division reached an agreement with King, 71, to continue as co-host of “CBS Mornings” co-host but did not reveal the length or the terms. Her current deal was set to end in May.

King’s future at the program came into question last fall after the arrival of CBS News Editor-in-chief Bari Weiss. There were leaks to the trades and tabloid press that parent company Paramount was looking to trim King’s salary or reduce her role at the network as a means to cut costs.

“Rumors of my demise were inaccurate and greatly exaggerated,” King said in a statement. “CBS News is my longtime home, and I am committed to our mission. I’m excited about continuing at CBS Mornings. As always, I’m open to new adventures here and ready to go. It took a minute, but we got there. And now that we are here, I am all in.”

King is the highest paid on-air talent at CBS News, earning an annual eight-figure salary.

Known for her effusive charm, King apparently won Weiss over.

“There is only one Gayle King,” Weiss said in a statement. “We’re so proud that she’ll continue to call CBS home. We’re thrilled to have her on in the morning—and equally excited to work with her on new, enterprising projects that bring her talents to new audiences.”

While King is locked in for at least another year, there is a search underway for at least one new co-host on the program.

King’s current co-host is Nate Burleson, who is also an analyst for CBS Sports. The network has not permanently replaced Tony Dokoupil, who left “CBS Mornings” in January to take over as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.”

King joined CBS News in 2012, when she joined “CBS This Morning.” As co-hosts alongside Charlie Rose and Norah O’Donnell, the program experienced five consecutive years of ratings growth.

“CBS This Morning” was adrift after Rose — a major audience draw — was ousted over sexual harassment allegations. In 2021, it was renamed “CBS Mornings,” with King taking a more prominent role.

“CBS Mornings” ranks third in ratings behind NBC’s “Today” and ABC’s “Good Morning America,” but remains a significant revenue generator for CBS News.

AUSTIN, Texas — James Talarico did not mention President Trump when he greeted exuberant supporters at his primary night celebration.

But the newly minted Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Texas is now a front man for the political opposition to the Republican president, not just in his own state but around the country. With his victory over U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the state lawmaker from Austin will test whether a smiling message of unity and change is enough to answer voters’ frustrations amid discord at home and now a war abroad.

“We are not just trying to win an election,” Talarico told supporters in the Texas capital early Wednesday. “We are trying to fundamentally change our politics, and it’s working.”

The campaign provided “Love thy Neighbor” signs to people in the crowd.

The question for Talarico as he heads into the general election campaign is whether he can generate enthusiasm from voters who opted for Crockett because they saw her as the more aggressive fighter against Trump. Crockett conceded to Talarico on Wednesday morning, saying that “Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

Talarico will need all the help he can get in a Republican-dominated state where Democrats have gone decades without winning a statewide race. He will face either U.S. Sen. John Cornyn or state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who advanced to a Republican runoff on Tuesday.

Conventional political wisdom has it that Talarico was the stronger Democratic candidate in November, especially if Republicans nominate Paxton, a conservative firebrand who has weathered allegations of corruption and infidelity over the years.

Although Democrats are often choosing between moderate and progressive candidates in primaries, they faced a largely stylistic choice in Texas.

Talarico, 36, is a Presbyterian seminarian who quotes Scripture and rarely raises his voice. Crockett, 44, is an unapologetic political brawler who hammers Trump and other Republicans with acidic flourish.

Both have been reliably progressive votes in their current roles and telegenic faces across cable news and social media. Both represent generational change for a party with aging leadership. Each called for a more equitable economy and society. Each talked about bringing sporadic voters into their coalitions.

But Talarico’s broader argument is one that he could have made regardless of whether Trump was in the White House. Talarico’s campaign, he said often, is about addressing a country whose fundamental divide is not partisan but “top vs. bottom.” He regularly assails the rise in Christian nationalism. A former teacher, he has advocated for public education — and against Texas conservatives’ policies to restrict curriculum and reshape how U.S. history is taught.

“He’s just a good friend and he’s a serious advocate for the disenfranchised and a serious policymaker,” said Lea Downey Gallatin, 40, an Austin resident who became friends with Talarico when they interned together for a congressman.

Crockett promised Democrats that she could increase turnout within the party’s base, while Talarico campaigned on the theory that he could pull new people into the party’s tent.

“I can’t tell you how many have come up to me, whispering that they’re not a Democrat,” Talarico said as he campaigned in San Antonio in the closing days of the primary campaign. “I can’t tell you how many young people have said it’s the first time that they’ve ever voted, and that they are participating for the first time.”

As he strolled through the city, Talarico posed for pictures and greeted the singer of a Tejano band playing nearby. He later spoke to hundreds of people at the historic Stable Hall, a 130-year-old circular structure built for showing horses and now a converted event center. Hundreds more, unable to get into the full event, wound around the corner and along the sidewalk for blocks.

Inside, Lori Alvarez, a 39-year-old who works for a disaster relief nonprofit, said she supported Talarico because “he really listens to what we need.”

“I think he’s going to be able to make change in Washington for us,” said the married mother of three young girls.

Yet that was not what attracted so many voters to Crockett.

Troy Burroughs, a 61-year-old Navy retiree, called Crockett “rugged” and “the only one I see fighting for us.”

He added: “I like how she doesn’t back down from anybody.”

Burroughs said some voters probably saw Talarico as more electable because he is more soft-spoken. But, he said, “We’ve got to get into the gutter with these folks, because that’s where they are.”

Talarico, meanwhile, keeps fighting his own way.

“Tonight, the people of our state gave this country a little bit of hope,” he said Tuesday, “and a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing.”

Barrow, Figueroa and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta, Figueroa from Austin, Texas, and Beaumont from San Antonio.

The U.S. war effort against Iran was “accelerating” as American and Israeli forces fought for control of Iranian airspace and pressed farther inland to seek and destroy Iranian missile capabilities, top U.S. officials said Wednesday.

“Four days in, we have only just begun to fight,” said U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“The throttle is coming up,” said Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

However, a reported Iranian missile strike at NATO member Turkey — intercepted by NATO defense systems — was not expected to immediately broaden the war theater by triggering a NATO clause requiring other member nations to get involved, Hegseth said.

Hegseth, striking an unapologetic tone, said Iran’s surviving leadership “don’t know what plays to call” after exhausting initial retaliatory strategies devised prior to the U.S. assault, while the U.S. is firing on all fronts and stacking up wins — including an American submarine recently sinking an Iranian warship with a torpedo in international waters, which Hegseth called the first such sinking since World War II.

“We are just getting started. We are accelerating, not decelerating,” he said. “We can sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to.”

Caine, striking a far more measured tone at the Pentagon briefing, spoke of the “sacrifice” of the six U.S. service members who have been killed in the conflict to date and the “clear military objectives” of the operation, which include dismantling “Iran’s ability to project power outside of its borders, both today and into the future.”

And he said the U.S. has made “steady progress” toward those goals in recent hours. He said Iran’s “ballistic missile shots” were down 86% from the first day of fighting, and down 23% “just in the last 24 hours.” He said their “one-way attack drone shots” are down 73% from the “opening days” of the war.

That has allowed the U.S. to establish “localized air superiority across the southern flank of the Iranian coast and penetrate their defenses with overwhelming precision and firepower,” Caine said. “We will now begin to expand inland, striking progressively deeper into Iranian territory and creating additional freedom of maneuver for U.S. forces.”

Hegseth and Caine spoke against a backdrop of escalating destruction across the Persian Gulf region, as Iran — which Hegseth acknowledged is a “formidable” enemy — continued to unleash a wave of retaliatory strikes and Israel pushed into Lebanon and against Iran-allied Hezbollah fighters there.

Their message of U.S. control in the region belied chaos in many parts of it — as sirens blared in Bahrain, U.S. and other foreign citizens scrambled to flee the area, global air traffic was in disarray and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for the flow of global energy, was down by about 90%, according to the Associated Press.

Turkey’s defense ministry announced Wednesday that NATO air defenses had shot down a ballistic missile fired toward Turkish airspace from Iran, which raised additional questions about a rapidly expanding footprint of the war given that Turkey is a NATO member and protected by a treaty clause — Article 5 — stating that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

Hegseth said the U.S. was aware of the strike, but that he did not believe it would trigger Article 5 or force all of NATO into the conflict — which has already drawn in nations throughout the Gulf region as Iran has targeted U.S. allies and military facilities.

Hegseth jettisoned any pretense of constraint or measured force by the U.S., instead casting its operations as an all-out assault on “radical Islamist Iranian adversaries” that he suggested both Democrats and the U.S. media were badly misrepresenting to make President Trump look bad.

He suggested the U.S. media was overly focused on losses, such as the deaths of U.S. military personnel, and not nearly focused enough on the progress the U.S. has made toward destroying Iran’s military capabilities in a matter of days.

“They are toast, and they know it — or at least soon enough they will know it,” he said of Iran. “And we’ve only just begun to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities, just four days in.”

He said that the U.S. and Israel in “under a week” will “have complete control of Iranian skies — uncontested air space,” which he said will mean that “we will fly all day, all night, day and night, finding, fixing and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military, finding and fixing their leaders and their military leaders.”

“Death and destruction from the sky, all day long,” he said. “We’re playing for keeps.”

It was unclear what exactly Hegseth meant by that, given the Trump administration’s constant messaging that the war on Iran will not be another “endless” engagement for the U.S. in the Middle East.

The U.S. was using rules of engagement that are “bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it,” Hegseth said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.”

Disruptions to tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and their potential effect on global and U.S. gas prices, were clearly on Trump’s mind. On Tuesday, he posted to his Truth Social platform that the U.S. would be providing wartime insurance for “ALL Maritime Trade” through Gulf shipping lanes — as other insurers began canceling coverage — and that the U.S. Navy would begin escorting tankers if necessary.

“No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD,” he wrote.

The message drew immediate concern from some of Trump’s political opponents, who questioned the cost to the U.S. of securing energy shipments for the entire world, including rivals such as China, one of the largest purchasers of crude oil from the region.

“Very few, if any, of these tankers are coming to the United States,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) wrote on X. “This certainly looks like the United States will be subsidizing and protecting oil shipments to China.”

In national terms, California is about as indelibly blue as the political process permits, but an unusually comprehensive exit poll of voters in Tuesday’s presidential election confirms that Los Angeles is perhaps the bluest of the blue; it is now more liberal and Democratic than the state as a whole.

The nonpartisan, citywide survey was conducted by Loyola Marymount’s Center for the Study of Los Angeles under the direction of Fernando Guerra, and the results are revealing. While 43% of the nation’s white voters cast ballots for Barack Obama, 76% of L.A.’s white electorate went for the president-elect. Similarly, while the Democratic candidate won 66% of the Latino vote nationally, he carried 77% of L.A. Latinos. The city’s African Americans matched national percentages: Obama got 97% of their vote. He also was the choice of 67% of L.A.’s Asian Americans (nationally, Asian Americans are usually too small a group to get counted effectively in exit polls).

Across the city, 71% of voters told the Loyola pollsters that race was “not at all” important in their decision on which presidential candidate to back, but what’s interesting is that Los Angeles’ white voters emerged from Tuesday’s general election as the most liberal constituency in the city. If you take as your measure the two hot-button statewide propositions on the ballot — parental notification for teenagers seeking abortion and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — white voters’ social liberality is strikingly apparent.

Fully 69% of white voters opposed Proposition 4 (parental notification), and 73% voted against Proposition 8 (prohibiting same-sex marriage). Latinos voted for both proposals — 47% to 39% for parental notification and 48% to 42% to prohibit same-sex marriage. (When totals don’t add up to 100%, it’s because not all those questioned voted or revealed their votes on every issue to the pollsters.) Blacks and Asians split their vote on the social issues: A 45% plurality of African Americans opposed parental notification; 57% supported the ban on same-sex marriage. Asian Americans went the other way: 57% were against banning gay marriage, while a 42% plurality supported parental notification.

Geographically, the Loyola poll overturned the longtime local political assumption that the San Fernando Valley is generally more conservative than the city south of the Santa Monica Mountains: 72% of Valley voters went for Obama, as opposed to 78% of the rest of the city’s electorate. Similarly, a solid majority of Valley voters opposed parental notification (57%, which was higher than the city as a whole, at 51%) and a stunning 63% of Valley ballots were cast against the same-sex marriage ban. The rest of the city opposed the measure 54% to 31%.

All four of the city’s largest ethnic groups — whites, Latinos, blacks and Asians — are more liberal and more heavily Democratic than their counterparts statewide. Looking at same-sex marriage, for example, Loyola’s Guerra pointed out that 70% of blacks statewide opposed Proposition 8, compared to L.A.’s 57%.

So, with a mayoral election just over the horizon, what do these new realities suggest about the future of politics in Los Angeles? As Guerra said, it will be “much, much tougher for a Riordan-type Republican candidate to win the mayor’s office, somebody like Rick Caruso,” the billionaire shopping mall developer who announced Friday that he wouldn’t be running.

—

While the old divisions between Valley voters and the rest of the city have been swept away, Guerra says that some of the center’s other work suggests that pockets of traditional conservatism remain. Some districts north of the Santa Monicas may continue to elect relatively more conservative City Council members while voting with the rest of the city’s liberal majority on national, state and even citywide issues.

Other research by the Loyola-based center has verified a trend that may be increasingly decisive in local politics: Latinos’ overwhelmingly pro-union sentiment. Latino voters are virtually across-the-board supporters of organized labor and its agenda. In part, that’s because the region’s resurgent unions are essentially a Latino movement, which is one of the reasons labor here has championed immigrants’ rights so strongly. The loyalty is reciprocal; one of the significant things Guerra and his colleagues have discovered is that Latinos support organized labor whether or not anybody in the family pays union dues. In fact, nonunion Latino households are more likely to endorse labor’s agenda at the polls than white union members.

“To win in the future,” Guerra said Friday, “citywide candidates will need to put together a coalition of liberal whites, Latinos and unions. Tap them, and you’ve got an unbeatable combination.”

You’ve also got a very different Los Angeles.

Traditionally, officeholders here have been elected by one city to govern another. That is, the electors have been older, whiter, more conservative and more affluent than the majority of Angeleos; they have had interests — and they expected the officials they chose to serve them. Those who have been governed mostly have been younger, browner, blacker and far poorer than the electors; they have had — and they continue to have — needs, which sometimes have been met and, too often, haven’t.

The disconnect between the traditional electors’ interests and the civic majority’s needs is the source of much of our civic dysfunction. When the overwhelming majority of this new Los Angeles told the Loyola pollsters that they voted for the presidential candidate they felt would “bring change,” they may have had more than the White House in mind.

—

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

The judge was perplexed.

“Why were state law enforcement officers excluded?” U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wanted to know.

The judge pressed California Deputy Atty. Gen. Cameron Bell to explain the thinking behind a pair of trailblazing new laws meant to unmask the federal immigration agents patrolling Golden State streets and compel them to identify themselves.

One of the laws required all law enforcement operating in the state to visibly display identification while on duty, with narrow exclusions for plainclothes, undercover and SWAT details. It applied to everyone else, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

But the other law, a ban on masks worn by on-duty law enforcement officers, applied only to local cops and federal agents, with a broad exemption for the California Highway Patrol and other state peace officers.

Snyder wanted to know: Why were the laws different?

She never got an answer. Bell said she couldn’t comment on the actions of the Legislature.

State Sen. Scott Wiener attends the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco in February.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

In the halls of the statehouse last year, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) No Secret Police Act and Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s (D-Alhambra) No Vigilantes Act were referred to as “legislative twins,” a nod to their shared gestation and conjoined legal fate. If passed, both would immediately be challenged by the Trump administration.

That’s precisely what happened. Both measures became law — but only the ID law survived its first court battle, sending state legislators back to the drawing board on the mask ban.

Polls show unmasking ICE is overwhelmingly popular with voters, and both Wiener and Gov. Gavin Newsom took credit for getting the bill passed.

But behind the scenes, according to nearly two dozen sources familiar with the legislative process who spoke to The Times, a fight had been brewing between the two Democrats.

Days before the amendment deadline last summer, Newsom’s office proposed changes to Wiener’s mask ban that, according to legal experts and opponents, would have exempted most ICE and Customs and Border Protection operations from the bill. The governor’s team denies that was the intent of their proposal. The resulting compromise exempted state peace officers from the law instead.

Snyder struck it down on Feb. 9, writing that she was “constrained” to do so because the exemption of state police “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

Interviews with more than 20 lawmakers, policy advisors, law enforcement and legal experts show how the Labor Day weekend deal came together, ensuring both Wiener and the governor a political victory that in short order became a court triumph for the president.

There are now more than a dozen similar bills winding through statehouses from Olympia, Wash., to Albany, N.Y., as legislators try to rein in a practice the majority of Americans see as dangerous and corrosive. In Sacramento, similar efforts are underway to pass a narrower version of the law, and both Newsom and Wiener have said they were proud to make California the first state to pass an ICE mask ban.

Both sides said the legislative process is messy, and that eleventh-hour amendment fights are inevitable in a statehouse where more than 900 bills were passed and close to 800 signed into law last year.

Yet neither the governor’s office nor the legislator’s team has offered clear answers for why both accepted a last-minute change on a nationally watched bill that each was informed could kneecap the law’s constitutional standing in court.

“Seeing the carve-out, I was immediately really surprised,” said Bridget Lavender, staff attorney at the State Democracy Research Initiative, the nation’s leading expert on the myriad legal efforts to unmask ICE across the U.S. “That’s ultimately what doomed it.”

Others were more blunt.

“When I saw the final bill I said, ‘What happened here?’” said one prominent constitutional scholar, who asked not to be identified because they were advising several other state legislatures on similar mask ban efforts. “I can’t believe this happened.”

Legally, the mask ban was always going to be a cat fight. Law enforcement groups loathed it. Constitutional scholars were wary. The Justice Department contends both the mask ban and the ID law illegally interfere with the operation of the federal government, a violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, while California likens them to highway speed limits, which apply to everyone equally.

“There is a very strong argument that the law is constitutional so long as it applies to all law enforcement,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berekely Law School and an early champion of the original No Secret Police Act, known in Sacramento as SB 627.

Others saw it differently.

“It’s a very complicated question as to whether states can enact law enforcement policies that bind the federal government,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The answer [here] is probably not. I regret that’s the law, but I’m pretty sure that’s the law.”

Everyone agreed, the Golden State would set the precedent.

“All eyes were really on California,” Lavender said.

Judge Snyder agreed with the state, upholding the ID law. Judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned both the federal government and California in a hearing Tuesday, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of clear precedent and constitutional uncertainty of the law.

“California has done something that we just haven’t seen before,” said Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.

Most scholars believe it will ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

The mask ban would be on the same track now, if not for the state police exemption.

“We knew we really had to thread that needle very carefully,” said state Sen. Patricia Fahy of New York, whose mask ban bill could soon be fast-tracked in Albany. “You had to put all law enforcement in it. I say that as a non-lawyer, but I knew that.”

Wiener knew it too. A Harvard-trained lawyer and a former deputy city attorney for San Francisco, he’d rebuffed early requests to exempt state and local officers from the bill and circulated Chemerinsky’s July 23 op-ed in the Sacramento Bee explaining the necessity of a universal ban, including to the governor’s team.

The state’s powerful law enforcement unions were livid. They railed against the bill in public and in the Legislature, testifying relentlessly about the harm that would flow to them from a ban — including being required to enforce it against armed federal agents.

“The last thing you want is two people with firearms on their hips getting into an argument,” said Marshall McClain, a regional director in the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, among the state’s richest and most powerful lobbying groups.

Law enforcement objections shaped the changes the governor’s legislative office sought just days before the Sept. 5 amendment deadline, according to a stakeholder involved in those discussions.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles in 2024.

(Eric Thayer / Associated Press)

The most controversial ask from Newsom’s team was an exemption for all types of officers engaged in “warrant and arrest related operations” — precisely the type of enforcement Alex Pretti was filming when masked CBP agents tackled him to the ground and shot him to death in Minneapolis last month.

The governor’s office also sought an exemption for all officers engaged in “crowd management, intervention, and control” — the work ICE agent Jonathan Ross was doing when he shot and killed Renee Good less than three weeks earlier.

“We were working to ensure state officer safety and operational effectiveness, not exempt ICE,” said Diana Crofts-Pelayo, Newsom’s chief deputy director of communications.

Yet California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Mica Moore told the 9th Circuit on Tuesday that the state’s ID law only applies to officers engaged in “arrest or detention operations or … crowd control” — activities she characterized as central to its purpose.

Rather than swallow bad terms or risk Newsom’s veto, Wiener countered with the state police carve-out — a move constitutional experts advised him would leave the law at least some chance of survival.

The governor’s legislative team quickly accepted, leaving Bell and the attorney general’s office on the hook to defend the exemption.

Boosters argue that even with its fatal flaw, California’s law advanced such bans nationally in a pivotal moment last September.

“The politics have changed dramatically,” said Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy for MALDEF, one of the mask ban’s sponsors. “[Today] people realize this is not normal in a democracy like ours.”

Los Angeles cannabis businesses that owe back taxes wouldn’t have to pay late fees and interest under an “amnesty” program proposed by the City Council.

To qualify, the businesses would have to pay their city taxes within three years.

The council’s unanimous vote on Tuesday, asking the Office of Finance to draft language creating the program, comes at a time when city leaders are searching for money to cover basic services after closing a $1-billion budget gap.

More than 500 of the roughly 700 licensed cannabis businesses in the city collectively owed about $400 million in taxes — an amount that includes $100 million in penalties and $35 million in interest, according to an October report from the Office of Finance.

The total amount owed increased to $417 million as of December, according to Matthew Crawford, the office’s assistant director.

But only about $150 million is collectible, since some tax debts are outside of the three-year statute of limitations and some cannabis businesses are no longer operating.

Based on a projection that about half of eligible cannabis businesses would take part in the program, the city would collect about $30 million in back taxes while waiving about $25 million in penalties, the October report said.

Under the amnesty program, about 20% of the revenue would go to the city’s general fund and the Office of Finance. The Los Angeles Police Department and the city attorney’s office would receive about 40% for illegal cannabis enforcement, and the remaining 40% would fund social equity grants to cannabis operators, particularly members of low-income and minority communities that have been subject to disparate enforcement of criminal cannabis laws.

“The city finds itself with a unique opportunity to bring businesses into compliance and, at the same time, properly fund cannabis industry-centric programming,” City Councilmember Imelda Padilla said during Tuesday’s meeting.

Owners of cannabis businesses say the 10% city tax rate on their gross sales is exorbitant, at the same time that illegal cannabis businesses have carved out a chunk of the market.

“Not only are we competing against the illicit market, we’re competing against licensed dispensaries that the city is allowing to stay open who have made it their business model to not pay tax,” Daniel Sosa, who owns four cannabis dispensaries in the city, told the council on Tuesday.

The amnesty program should be mandatory for businesses that are behind on their taxes, and those who default on their payments should have their licenses stripped, Sosa said.

Sosa said that the tax on cannabis sales should be “just like every other business pays in the city: guns, tobacco, alcohol, major, major billion dollar corporations.”

Other business tax rates in the city range from 0.11% to 0.425%, according to Crawford.

Last month, the council placed a cannabis-related measure on the June 2 ballot that, if approved by voters, would close a tax loophole for illegal cannabis businesses and open them up to the threat of civil collection.

WASHINGTON — The United States plunged further into conflict with Iran on Tuesday as a new round of strikes heightened fears of an expanding war in the Middle East, sending markets reeling and oil prices soaring and drawing urgent calls from European leaders for a plan forward.

President Trump acknowledged during an Oval Office appearance that the public would feel some economic pain as fighting continues to threaten areas that are critical to the world’s oil and natural gas production.

“As soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe lower than ever before,” Trump said, though he did not provide a clear time frame for when the conflict might end.

As the war stretched into its fourth day on Tuesday, Israel struck Iranian missile launch facilities and weapon factories and Iran retaliated across the Persian Gulf region, including attacks on U.S. diplomatic sites in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Dubai.

The conflict simultaneously set off alarms in the global markets, prompting stocks in Europe and Asia to plunge and the S&P 500 to drop nearly 1% after falling as much as 2.5% in early trading.

European governments were also forced to contend with the fallout, with some countries increasing their military presence in the region as their actions are closely monitored by Trump, who publicly singled out countries that he thought had been helpful in his war efforts so far.

“Spain has been terrible,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office while threatening to “cut off all trade with Spain” after he said the country had denied American forces access to its military bases.

Trump said he was “not happy with the U.K. either” and complained about not being allowed to use a military base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. Without access to that military base, Trump said American planes were forced to fly “many extra hours.”

“We were very surprised. This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said. Churchill served as Britain’s prime minister during World War II.

As Trump threatened European allies, he sat next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, underscoring the fraught landscape that world leaders are navigating as American and Israeli forces work to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program and eye a potential change in government.

During their meeting, Trump said Germany has allowed the United States to use its air bases. Beyond that help, Trump said, “we’re not asking them to put boots on the ground or anything.”

When asked by reporters how Germany intended to help in the conflict, Merz said he wanted to focus on talking to Trump about what comes “the day after” the war ends.

“We are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Iran away and we will talk about the day after, what will happen then, if they are out,” Merz said.

Trump talks about regime change options

Trump did not have much to say yet on what will come next and was unclear on who will lead the Iranian government, saying that U.S. and Israeli military operations had killed the people who he thought could have filled the leadership vacuum.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said. “Now, we have another group, but they may be dead also based on reports so I guess you have a third wave coming in and pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.”

His remarks were a startling acknowledgment in part because minutes earlier he said the worst-case scenario in his mind was that the military operation would take place and “then somebody takes over who is as bad as the previous person.”

“That could happen,” Trump said.

Asked if Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah, is someone he would like to run the country, Trump said he is a “very nice person,” but did not say for sure whether he is his choice.

The president and his top aides have offered varying explanations when asked about regime change, drawing criticism from Democrats and some conservatives who are demanding to know why Americans are being dragged into a war with no clear end in sight.

On Saturday, when U.S. and Israeli forces first struck Iran, Trump said overthrowing Iran’s theocratic regime was part of his rationale. But on Monday, he emphasized that Iran’s missiles posed a threat to the United States, and therefore theattack was carried out to eradicate its missile capability and nuclear program.

After briefing lawmakers Monday afternoon, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the United States launched a “preemptive” attack on Iran because officials knew Israel was going to strike the country — a move that he said would have put U.S. forces at risk and led to even more U.S. casualties. As of Tuesday, six American troops have been killed in combat.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), after being briefed by Trump administration officials on Monday afternoon, said, “Israel was determined to act in their own defense, with or without American support.”

“If Israel fired upon Iran, and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets,” Johnson told reporters.

Trump disputed the suggestion that Israel’s plans to attack Iran prompted him to launch the strikes, saying it was the other way around.

“If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand,” Trump said Tuesday. “But Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out.”

But it was unclear how far along the U.S. military is in accomplishing its mission.

In a letter Monday, Trump told Congress that while the “United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) warned in a speech on the Senate floor that the administration’s murky strategy is not good for the country.

“History teaches us a simple lesson: Wars without a clear objective do not stay small. They get bigger, they get bloodier, they get longer, they get more expensive,” Schumer said. “This is not a defensive war. This is not a necessary war. This is a war of choice.”

The latest attacks on the region

Tuesday saw yet another expansion of the war when Israeli troops blitzed into Lebanon in a bid to dislodge the Iran-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah.

The ground invasion comes one day after Hezbollah lobbed rockets and drones at an Israeli military position across the border; an attack, the group said, that was vengeance for the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a response to Israel’s near-daily violations of a ceasefire brokered by the U.S. in November 2024.

The attack sparked a massive Israeli assault on dozens of villages and towns in southern Lebanon, as well as on the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The strikes killed 40 people, wounded 246 others and saw tens of thousands forced to leave their homes and scramble for shelter in Beirut and elsewhere, according to Lebanese authorities.

The Lebanese army said Tuesday that it was withdrawing from positions in southern Lebanon ahead of a ground incursion by Israeli troops. The Israeli military’s Arabic-language spokesman then issued a warning to residents of some 80 towns and villages in that region to “immediately evacuate your homes” and move northward.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, maintained a defiant stance and continued rocket and drone launches into Israel.

“The era of patience has ended, and we have no option but to return to resistance,” said Mahmoud Qatari, who chairs Hezbollah’s Political Council. “If Israel wants an open war, so be it.”

The invasion comes more than a year after Israel occupied parts of southern Lebanon in 2024. After the ceasefire came into effect, Israel withdrew from most parts of the country save for five positions near the border. Yet in the 15 months since the ceasefire was signed, it has proved to be more notional for Lebanon, with Israeli warplanes and troops conducting well over 10,000 truce violations, according to the U.N.

Israel says its actions are to stop Hezbollah from reconstituting itself near the border, but the result has meant residents of border towns and villages in southern Lebanon have been unable to return home.

Israel’s military spokesman, Brigadier Gen. Effie Defrin, said in a statement that troops were “creating a buffer” inside Lebanon between residents in northern Israel “and any threat.”

As the conflict has escalated, some 1,600 Americans stranded across the region have requested assistance and the Trump administration is trying to help evacuate them, Rubio said. But the effort has faced challenges because Iranian missiles have struck many Mideast airports.

“We know we are going to be able to help them,” Rubio said. “It is going to take a little time because we do not control the airspace closures.”

Ceballos reported from Washington, Bulos from Khartoum, Sudan.

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrived at a Senate oversight hearing Tuesday ready to spar with Democrats in her first Capitol Hill appearance since federal agents fatally shot U.S. citizens Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis.

But some of the sharpest comments from the Judiciary Committee came from fellow Republicans, who questioned her leadership, criticized her spending practices and called on her to admit that she was wrong to call Pretti and Good “domestic terrorists.”

“What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem, a disaster,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said. “The fact is you can’t even admit to a mistake. It looks like an investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back.”

Tillis hardly questioned Noem on specifics, choosing instead to deliver a blistering, high-volume “performance evaluation,” of the Homeland Security secretary. He accused Noem and Trump advisor Stephen Miller of prioritizing deportation quotas instead of investigating the “vicious” ICE agents involved in the Minnesota shootings.

“We’re not going after the people who did that damage at the expense of running numbers that Stephen Miller wants out of the White House,” he said. “We just want numbers. We want 1,000 a day, 6,000 a day, 9,000 a day. Because numbers matter, right? No, they don’t matter. Quality matters.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) also brought up Pretti and Good: “Did you determine whether there was any basis for the sensational claim, a claim that proved to be utterly false, that these two victims were engaged in domestic terrorism?” he asked.

Noem used the hearing to defend a series of decisions now under bipartisan scrutiny. She said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers face “serious and escalating threats” due to what she called “deliberate mischaracterizations” of their work.

She called the Minneapolis deaths “tragic situations,” and said the phrase “domestic terrorists” was based on early information she received from the agents from the city. “It was a chaotic scene,” Noem said. She did not apologize for using the phrase or say it was inaccurate.

Noem stood behind President Trump’s mass deportation agenda and said ICE is focusing on the “worst of the worst.” Recent reporting by the Cato Institute found that just 5% of ICE detainees have been convicted of violent offenses, and three-fourths have no criminal convictions at all.

The hearing came amid a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, triggered last month when Senate Democrats blocked funding in a standoff over immigration enforcement practices. As tensions mount in Iran, lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the security risks of leaving the department unfunded.

In her opening statement, Noem decried the shutdown as “reckless” and “unnecessary,” and accused Democrats of putting U.S. security posture at risk.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pointedly asked about a $200-million ad campaign promoting immigration enforcement — a campaign that features Noem and was awarded to a firm led by a friend. Such spending “troubles me,” he said, adding, “I just can’t agree with that, Madam Secretary. My research shows you did not bid this out.”

Noem maintained that Trump directed the messaging strategy and argued it has been “extremely effective” in deterring illegal immigration. She said she “didn’t have anything to do with picking those contractors.”

The back-and-forth became increasingly heated as Kennedy also peppered Noem for characterizing Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists.

“What got my attention was that you blamed those statements on Mr. Stephen Miller,” Kennedy said, referencing an Axios report quoting Noem.

She dodged the line of questioning, saying the sources Axios used in the report were “anonymous,” and, by her logic, not credible.

“This wasn’t anonymous. It was you,” Kennedy said. “They’re quoting you on the record saying it was Stephen.”

On numerous occasions throughout the hearing, the secretary was asked about her purchase of two luxury Gulfstream G700 jets at a combined cost of $200 million in taxpayer funds.

Reportedly designed by New York designer Peter Marino, the planes include private bedroom suites with queen-size beds, bathrooms with stand-up showers and electric bidets, and a lounge with a wet bar and wine chiller, according to images obtained by NBC.

Noem argued the purchases were authorized by Congress for executive travel and deportation operations.

In another testy exchange, Delaware Sen. Chris Coons pressed Noem over recent statements that she planned to station ICE officers at polling locations in November, to “make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders.” She said her department had no such plan in place but fell short of committing to ruling it out.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) endorsed investigations into ICE shootings, though his statements were largely designed to cast Noem in a favorable light.

“I’d like to make sure if there was a bad shooting as documented as such, and people pay a price. But I will not apologize to anybody in this room to try to clean up the mess that Biden started, and you empowered,” he said.

Democrats, meanwhile, accused Noem of presiding over “thuggish” and “illegal” enforcement tactics and demanded independent investigations into several incidents throughout the U.S.

Accusing Noem of routinely making false statements about ICE shooting victims while impeding state, local, and independent investigations, Schiff cited an episode in which immigration agents shot U.S. citizen and Chicago resident Marimar Martinez. In November, a federal judge raised concerns that agents mishandled or destroyed key physical evidence in the case.

“Our internal investigations are following the same policies as they always have,” Noem responded.

“Will you take some responsibility?” Schiff said. “How is the public supposed to believe anything your agency says or finds?”

Over 180 lawmakers have co-sponsored articles of impeachment against Noem. Tillis and Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski last month called for Noem to resign or face impeachment by Congress.

On Tuesday, Tillis said her responses to the committee amounted to stonewalling. “That’s a failure of leadership, and that is why I’ve called for your resignation,” he said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is preparing for President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, including by bracing his Senate colleagues for a vote in which they would be forced to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.

In the wake of reporting last week that conservative activists with connections to the White House were circulating such an order, Padilla sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Friday stating that any such order would be “wildly illegal and unconstitutional,” and would no doubt face “extremely strict scrutiny” in the courts.

“Nevertheless, if the President does escalate his unprecedented assault on our democracy by declaring an election-related emergency, I will swiftly introduce a privileged resolution [and] force a vote in the Senate to terminate the fake emergency,” wrote Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Padilla wrote that such an order — which could possibly “include banning mail-in voting, eliminating major voting registration methods, voter purges, and/or new document barriers for registering to vote and voting” — would clearly go beyond Trump’s authority.

“Put simply, no President has the power under the Constitution or any law to take over elections, and no declaration or order can create one out of thin air,” Padilla wrote.

The same day Padilla sent his letter, Trump was asked whether he was considering declaring a national emergency around the midterms. “Who told you that?” he asked — before saying he was not considering such an order.

The White House referred The Times to that exchange when asked Tuesday for comment on Padilla’s letter.

If Trump did declare such an emergency, a “privileged resolution,” as Padilla proposed, would require the full Senate to vote on the record on whether or not to terminate it — forcing any Senate allies of the president to own the policy politically, along with him.

Experts say there is no evidence that U.S. elections are significantly affected or swung by widespread fraud or foreign interference, despite robust efforts by Trump and his allies for years to find it.

Nonetheless, Trump has been emphatic that such fraud is occurring, particularly in blue states such as California that allow for mail-in ballots and do not have strict voter ID laws. He and others in his administration have asserted, again without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizen residents are casting votes and that others are “harvesting” ballots out of the mail and filling them out in bulk.

Soon after taking office, Trump issued an executive order purporting to require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering and barring the counting of mail-in ballots received after election day, but it was largely blocked by the courts.

Trump’s loyalist Justice Department sued red and blue states across the country for their full voter rolls, but those efforts also have largely been blocked, including in California. The FBI also raided an elections office in Georgia that has been the focus of Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

Trump is also pushing for the passage of the Save America Act, a voter ID bill passed by the House, but it has stalled in the Senate.

In recent weeks, Trump has expressed frustration that his demands around voting security have not translated into changes in blue state policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, where his shrinking approval could translate into major gains for Democrats.

Last month, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”

Then, last week, the Washington Post reported that a draft executive order being circulated by activists with ties to Trump suggests that unproven claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election could be used as a pretext to declare an elections emergency granting Trump sweeping authority to unilaterally institute the changes he wants to see in state-run elections.

Election experts said the Constitution is clear that states control and run elections, not with the executive branch.

Democrats have widely denounced any federal takeover of elections by Trump. And some Republicans have expressed similar concerns, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate rules committee.

In the Wall Street Journal last year, McConnell warned against Trump or any Republican president asserting sweeping authority to control elections, in part because Democrats would then be empowered to claim similar authority if and when they retake power.

McConnell’s office referred The Times to that Journal opinion piece when asked about the circulating emergency order and Padilla’s resolution.

Padilla’s office said his resolution would be introduced in response to an emergency declaration by Trump, but hoped it wouldn’t be necessary.

“Instead of trying to evade accountability at the ballot box,” Padilla wrote, “the President should focus on the needs of Americans struggling to pay for groceries, health care, housing and other everyday needs and put these illegal and unconstitutional election orders in the trash can where they belong.”

NEW YORK — U.S. and Israeli officials are privately casting doubt on projections from the Trump administration that the war with Iran could end within a matter of weeks — instead warning that a months-long campaign may be required to destroy the country’s ballistic missile capabilities and install a pliant government, multiple sources told The Times.

The prospect of extended combat creates new political risks and uncertainties for President Trump, whose penchant for dramatic, short-term military operations has suddenly given way to a full-scale assault on the Islamic Republic, shocking a MAGA base that for years supported his calls to end forever wars in the Middle East.

One Israeli official told The Times — despite internal guidance among Israeli officials to adhere to the U.S. president’s stated time frame — that the war “definitely could be longer” than the four-week window that Trump repeatedly offered to reporters.

A U.S. official said that in private conversations, top administration officials presume the campaign will require a longer runway now that remnants of Iran’s government have chosen to resist rather than acquiesce to Washington.

Protracted war was always a possibility. Trump was presented with U.S. intelligence assessments gaming out the potential conflict that emphasized how highly unpredictable the results of an attack would be — an analysis the intelligence community believes has borne out on the ground in the chaotic early days of the conflict.

A longer conflict could create diplomatic space between Trump and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has advocated for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic for over 30 years.

The Israeli leader has succeeded in convincing Trump to take military actions in Iran that American presidents have rejected for decades, from bombing its nuclear facilities to assassinating its leadership, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an opening strike over the weekend.

Goal of regime change fades

Yet, mere days into the war, White House officials have all but ceased references to a democratic spring that could sweep Iran’s government aside.

A set of four U.S. goals for the mission no longer calls for changing the regime itself. Still, Netanyahu’s government remains keen on replacing the government, and the nation’s longest-serving premier sees the current war as his best opportunity to do so, one official said.

Speaking with reporters Tuesday, Trump rejected reports that the Israelis had convinced him to launch the attack.

“No, I might have forced their hand,” Trump said. “Based on the way the negotiations were going, I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have had been knocked out.”

In a series of interviews this week, Trump said he had been given projections of a four- or five-week war, while noting he is prepared to go longer if necessary.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official who is Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that projecting a deadline to the conflict at its start would be a strategic mistake for the Trump administration, as it would in effect give Iran’s remaining leadership an end date to wait out the fighting.

“Successive presidents have shown that America has strategic attention deficit disorder,” Rubin said. “If that was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s especially true under Trump. He imposed a ceasefire on Gaza that let Hamas survive to fight another day; they still haven’t disarmed.”

The duration of the war will depend, in part, on Iran’s ability to resist and defend its remaining capabilities — but also on the president’s willingness to accept an outcome that leaves the Islamic Republic in place.

That decision has not yet been made by Trump, who has vacillated between calls for a democratic uprising across Iran — and U.S. military options to support resistance groups inside the country — as opposed to a shorter campaign that cripples Iran’s political leadership and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“I can go long and take over the whole thing, or end it in two or three days and tell the Iranians, ‘See you again in a few years if you start rebuilding,” Trump told Axios.

One of Israel’s primary goals is to effectively eliminate the country’s ballistic missile program, and progress on that score is ahead of schedule, another source familiar with the operation said. “Things are going very well at the moment,” the source added. “Great pace.”

An Israeli military source noted to The Times that the stated goal of the mission is to significantly degrade, but not necessarily destroy, Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, a goal the source said could be accomplished within Trump’s preferred time frame.

“Israel was quite unhappy Trump ordered the [June 2025] 12-day war ended when it did,” said Patrick Clawson, director of the Iran program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He said he expected the current war would “take time” to comprehensively set back Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, after a series of Israeli missions in 2024 against the missile program failed to set them back by more than a matter of months.

“Some Israelis think before the recent strikes, Iranian production was fully restored,” Clawson said. “So a really comprehensive attack on Iranian missiles is an important Israeli objective.”

The Maduro model

But no one inside the Islamic Republic system has emerged so far to serve in a supplicant role to Trump in the way that Delcy Rodríguez has stepped in as acting president of Venezuela, after U.S. forces captured that country’s strongman president, Nicolás Maduro, in an audacious overnight raid in January.

Since then, the Stars and Stripes have flown alongside the Venezuelan tricolor at government buildings in Caracas, where senior Trump administration officials have been welcomed to discuss lucrative opportunities in Venezuela’s oil industry.

Trump is now looking for an Iranian counterpart to Rodríguez, he said Tuesday, suggesting he is willing to keep the Islamic Republic in place despite encouraging its citizens to rise up against their government.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “We had some in mind from that group that is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also. Pretty soon we’re not gonna know anybody.”

“I mean, Venezuela was so incredible because we did the attack and we kept the government totally intact,” he added.

Dennis Ross, a veteran diplomat on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations, expressed doubt that Trump would be willing to proceed with a months-long campaign, regardless of Israel’s aspirational objectives.

“I believe President Trump doesn’t define clear objectives so he can decide to end the war at a time of his choosing, and declare the objective at that point, announcing we have achieved what we sought to do,” said Ross, noting that finding a figurehead in Iran as he did in Venezuela was always “a long shot.”

“Unilaterally, he could declare we made the regime pay a price for killing its citizens, and we have weakened Iran to the point that it is not any longer a threat to its neighbors,” Ross added. “He could then say, if Iran continues the war, we will hit them even harder.”

Even if we aren’t yet in a place where we can say that a democratic transition has begun, election talk is back, and with it, the activity of political parties, as many political prisoners are being released and some being granted full freedom. The old reflexes of electoral politics, that constitute the backbone of all political forces in Venezuela, are kindling again after the long, hard night of brutal repression that came with the steal of the July 2024 presidential election. The unsaid assumption is that Edmundo González Urrutia already did his historical role, and that fresh elections with a new CNE and a new TSJ must come to effectively start a democratic transition and put in place an essential component that has been missing for years, and is still missing after January 3: the people’s will.

A recent poll by Gold Glove Consulting, based on 1,000 in-person interviews on the ground, found that María Corina Machado would capture 67% of the vote against Delcy Rodríguez in a hypothetical head-to-head, although the latter’s tenure in office isn’t met with complete rejection by many respondents. The idea of that matchup remains a cherished possibility among Machado’s staunch supporters, who would love to see her being allowed to run in a presidential election against PSUV for the first time. But with the opposition leader still in Washington DC, and a domestic political ban still in place, others have emerged from the opposition dugout to stir up the yearning for change that the 2024 electoral campaign awakened.

People have seen how presidential pre-candidate Delsa Solórzano and Primero Justicia leader Juan Pablo Guanipa, visible members of Machado’s campaign entourage in 2024, have come back to give press conferences and even stir the pot, challenging the newly enacted amnesty law and demanding more releases (which initially earned Guanipa a few days in house arrest). In a new effort to embody a non-aligned or centrist lane, former presidential candidate Enrique Márquez showed up at the US Congress in a seemingly staged TV moment meant to let Trump boast about the success of his Venezuela operation. There has been speculation about whether Márquez was being considered as the White House’s favorite for a transition, and the Zuliano politician started to speak like a man with a mission, even if he got only a tiny fraction of the vote in 2024 (minor runners including Márquez, Antonio Ecarri, and the faux AD candidate Luis Eduardo el Burro Martínez together garnered 2%).

The most coherent voice in the Trump administration, Secretary Marco Rubio, said last week during a summit in St. Kitts and Nevis that “ultimately, in order for them [us Venezuelans] to take the next step to truly develop that country and to truly benefit from that country’s riches for the benefit of their people, they will need the legitimacy of fair, democratic elections.” Other US officials had mentioned that the US expects to see elections taking place in Venezuela around 2027. They know that a legitimate government—and Delcy Rodríguez’s local management is not one—would not only give more confidence to foreign investors, especially if such a government is not burdened with a history of expropriations as chavismo is. It would be free of sanctions and have access to multilateral organizations, financial aid, international arbitrage, commercial treaties, and diplomatic and commercial relations with everyone. Machado’s message last weekend, announcing plans to return to Venezuela in the coming weeks, revitalized electoral spirits in parts of the country and gave opposition parties fodder to build suspense on social media.

Could Vente be Venezuela’s largest movement? Potentially. Machado remains undisputed as the country’s dominant political leader.

As calls for the release of political prisoners evolve into a broader push for a true democratic transition, the country’s political heat map is beginning to warm up. Let’s examine how party movements are re-emerging: who the opposition is coalescing around, the numbers that might back each group, and which players are positioned to exert influence.

Vente Venezuela

Machado’s party was founded in 2012, and after a decade being a marginal group in the anti-Maduro coalition, it managed to exploit María Corina’s 2023-2024 electoral marathon by catching a wave of new recruits, which is not uncommon when a party with a suddenly popular leader takes the reins of the opposition. But this transformation is not just a product of public disaffection with the mainstream G4 parties (the interim government of Guaidó being the latest, crucial example). The Machado phenomenon and her connection with deprived Venezuelans produced the country’s most formidable electoral force since Hugo Chávez, and its performance in 2024 can put Vente among the strongest parties in the country. Except for a minor detail: the CNE has never allowed it to register as a political party—if elections were held in Venezuela tomorrow, its candidates would need to use the MUD slot to run (unless the likes of Capriles and Rosales also decided to support them).

Could Vente be Venezuela’s largest movement? Potentially. Machado remains undisputed as the country’s dominant political leader (with a 52% approval rating according to the Gold Glove Consulting survey) and her party saw significant growth two years ago. Of course, these organizations don’t disclose their actual membership numbers, and if they did so (even before an internal audience) they would almost certainly inflate the figures. Whatever the scale of the actual growth, Machado is faced with two realities. Number one: Vente’s human capital is unable to cover the country’s 30 thousand polling stations, and as in 2024, it would need help from other experienced parties and regional platforms to attempt a repeat of the 28J feat. And number two: Venezuelan politics is waking up from a calamitous hangover lasting from the last presidential vote to the US intervention on January 3rd, a period where Machado’s party bore the brunt of State terror.

Around 150 members were arrested soon after the CNE declared Maduro the elected president, while Machado had to hide and her top aides were besieged in the Argentinean Embassy in Caracas. Since Delcy took power, however, Vente Venezuela and other parties have turned the release of political prisoners into a public celebration, which is both a challenge to the security apparatus still in place, and a recognition for much-needed activists (and their families) after months of despair, where it was natural for many of them to question whether being in politics was worth the risk. Reassured by the level of American surveillance on the interim post-Maduro management, Vente activists have started to meet again, and you can see how they are summoning small groups in places like Margarita municipality Antolin del Campo, Guama in Yaracuy or Monay in Trujillo. In Portuguesa, María Oropeza, the local leader who became famous when she broadcasted her detention in Acarigua, has openly spoken about how to rebuild a true democracy. In Mérida, they gathered an even larger crowd, while Machado summoned party supporters in the US for a meeting in Washington DC. She has insisted she is ready to lead a genuine transition, offering her own timeframe and reform goals to challenge other stakeholders in the current political process. On February 5, she told Politico that elections could be organized within nine to ten months, not with the existing electronic machines, but by shifting to a manual voting system that for over a decade she has claimed would make domestic elections more effective and transparent.

Acción Democrática, Primero Justicia & Voluntad Popular

Acción Democrática is a historical party in a permanent state of survival-through-maneuvering; the other two (Primero Justicia and Voluntrad Popular) were once led by charismatic young figures meant to be a new generation of politicians that would lead the country into a new era and failed because dictatorship. Today, they all seem to be placing their cadres at the service of a Machado-led democratic transition. Two days ago in Valencia, AD’s Henry Ramos Allup said in front of his national leadership board that the party would endorse Machado in a presidential election—“with a dedicated and generous campaign”—if that’s what it took to get rid of the Delcy Rodríguez regime. Party Vice President Édgar Zambrano didn’t look too happy and didn’t applaud, but Ramos Allup is the boss, one that knows very well that AD could again fall to irrelevance if Maria Corina gave him the Capriles treatment (bear in mind that Acción Democratica was the last mainstream party that decided to boycott the May 2025 regional vote, where Capriles and Un Nuevo Tiempo formed an ephemeral alliance that could not win a single governorship while Machado called for abstention, something she later labelled an outright victory).

It’s no wonder that Primero Justicia members are relieved to know they have a national leader that has the charisma to be a presidential contender at some point.

The other two parties were also hit hard during the post-election crackdown, with leaders from recent years like María Beatriz Martínez and Paola Bautista from PJ still in hiding or exiled, or Freddy Superlano as an emblematic victim of forced disappearance and abuse. But these organizations will benefit from having Juan Pablo Guanipa and now Superlano roaming the streets again. In the case of Guanipa, who María Corina considers a dear friend (not just an ally), he has the potential to be more than a supporting actor in a democratic transition. Many opposition supporters see him as a brave, honorable figure that never bent the knee before chavismo, with tons of energy to address crowds and journalists whenever he has a chance, even instants after setting foot outside El Helicoide for the first time in eight months.

The re-arrest episode a few weeks ago only showed he’s still a man eager to talk truth to power sin medias tintas, like demanding the release of all political prisoners and the return of fellow politicians in exile. It’s no wonder that PJ members are relieved to know they have a national leader that has the charisma to be a presidential contender at some point—somewhere Julio Borges couldn’t get to, and a position a now-ostracized Henrique Capriles couldn’t cement—but we’ll see where that leaves him as long as María Corina tries to land in Miraflores. Machado will require the organizational structures these leaders command once an electoral process begins to unfold. In turn, these leaders recognize that Machado represents their best chance to be part of (or at least influence) a democratic national government that would allow them to capitalize on decades of anti-chavista struggle and serve as core components of a new era’s party system.

Bancada Libertad: the Capriles-UNT faction

Capriles and Tomás Guanipa finally broke away from Primero Justicia last year, having negotiated with the regime to lift their individual political bans. This allowed them to run in the parliamentary elections and secure an official CNE slot for their fledgling platform, Unión y Cambio. The former PJ figures are not the loudest voices in the National Assembly presided over by Jorge Rodríguez; that role has been assumed by their Un Nuevo Tiempo partners—Stalin González, Nora Bracho, and Luis Florido—alongside occasional interjections from former presidential candidate Antonio Ecarri, whom Rodríguez silences from time to time.

In terms of numbers, none of these figures know their true vote count from 2025. While CNE Rector Carlos Quintero claimed they got 5% of the total (roughly 300,000 votes), they did not demand the physical tally sheets as the Edmundo González coalition had done in 2024 (which both Capriles and Stalin were part of). That silence has to do with the fact that Jorge Rodríguez granted them approximately ten more seats than a correct application of the seat-allocation method would have yielded, but that’s that.

Delcy fares better in terms of popularity than security chiefs like Cabello and Vladimir Padrino, or even Capriles.

Are Capriles et al a significant political force? Not in the slightest. Their relevance is derived from being the only non-chavista group currently permitted to participate in elections, opposite to Vente Venezuela and others. They serve as a useful ‘legitimate’ counterpart for Delcy Rodríguez when sanctioning laws or naming new public officials, like we just saw with the appointment of Larry Devoe as Chief Prosecutor and the passage of the amnesty law (the latter featured a poor simulation of a debate with the Libertad fraction, while the critical fine print was being negotiated exclusively among chavistas who control the National Assembly). María Corina Machado views this group as irrelevant to any effort to influence the Rodríguez siblings’ agenda. However, political calculus shifts when elections appear on the horizon. A pivotal reform to the Organic Law of Electoral Processes, now in preliminary stages, may be enough to set old political gears back in motion.

Delcy Rodríguez and the chavista amalgam

The unpopular Diosdado Cabello continues to represent the eternal revolution (even if his characteristic aggressiveness has toned down after the capture of his boss), taking part in PSUV events or attempting to lead a lacking PSUV youth. The Rodríguez tribe might be looking for an electoral rebrand that creates some distance between a discredited PSUV and the technocratic style they want to project.

They know that their status is being reassessed by an electorate that wants quick economic reforms and sees compliance with the United States as favorable. As both the Gold Glove Consulting poll and a February study from Latam Pulse show, Delcy fares better in terms of popularity than security chiefs like Cabello and Vladimir Padrino, or even Capriles. The obvious strategy for the Rodríguez siblings is to capitalize on their time in power by tethering their image to potential improvements in the economy and quality of life, pressing concerns that (they hope) would cushion demands for democratic elections. In other words, they would reasonably try to rule long enough for the public to associate them to a limited recovery, and not the horrors they were part of, eventually running in future elections under banners no longer synonymous with devastation. Delcy may have some of that infrastructure: eight years ago, she founded a progressive political party under the revolutionary umbrella, Movimiento Somos Venezuela, and the Héctor Rodríguez-led Movimiento Futuro (the Chávez-era golden boy, unrelated to Delcy and Jorge) waits in the wings to finally break through with a sanitized version of chavismo claiming to foster youth sports and cultural activities within the framework of the Communal State.

We might see old-school, Siberia-based chavistas like Miguel Rodríguez Torres joining this camp. Old supporters of the former interior minister and political prisoner (2018-2023) are already promoting him as a reasonable acquisition for the Delcy cabinet. And he seems to have a tailwind compared to folks like Cabello, who look condemned, with no place in the future. Tensions that became evident during the amnesty bill’s saga might be early signs: the alliance we have known as the Gran Polo Patriótico could split, sooner or later.

Los Angeles County leaders are demanding the Sheriff’s Department ramp up safety measures within the jail system as inmate deaths continue to mount.

Ten people died inside L.A. County jails in the first two months of this year, putting the county on track for another record-setting year of in-custody deaths. Autopsies to determine causes for all the deaths are still pending.

County supervisors voted 4 to 0 on Tuesday on a motion, crafted by Supervisor Janice Hahn, requiring the Sheriff Department take a series of steps to reduce inmate deaths, including increasing access to the overdose reversal drug Naloxone, more closely monitoring cameras and beefing up safety checks.

“If we don’t address this now, we will see another record year of deaths in the County jails — a record we do not want to repeat,” the motion stated.

The death rate has eclipsed the pace of 2025, which saw nine deaths by the end of February. The year ended with 46 in-custody deaths, a jump from the 32 reported deaths in 2024.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstained from the vote, arguing the county could not address the death rate without building a new facility.

“We must be honest about the limitations of facilities that were never designed to house today’s population,” she said in a statement. “I have consistently called for a modern replacement facility focused on treatment and rehabilitation because that is where the real solution lies.”

Sheriff Robert Luna conceded this month that 2026 was “not off to a good start.” He framed the challenge as due partially to the fact that the county was booking people who were older and sicker than prior populations and needed more intensive care than could be offered by the jail system. Four in 5 people face a mental or physical health issue, the department said.

“Every time I get notified that someone in my care has passed away, it’s like a kick in the groin,” Luna said.

The department said in a statement that it has “taken aggressive action to prevent overdoses and violence,” but believes “no jail system can eliminate all risks when people enter custody already critically ill.”

The supervisors voted more than four years ago to shut down Men’s Central Jail, a downtown facility notorious for dangerous and deteriorating conditions, without building a replacement. Since then, inspectors continued to find a litany of problems inside the jail, including mildew and lack of food.

“The fact is that we need to close down Men’s Central,” said Peggy Lee Kennedy, one of several callers to the board meeting who urged the county to speed up the closure. “Why are all these people living there with major mental health issues instead of getting the help they really truly need?”

The county continues to face intense scrutiny from the state over the conditions inside the jail. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued the Sheriff’s Department in September alleging that inmates “are forced to live in filthy cells with broken and overflowing toilets, infestations of rats and roaches, and no clean water for drinking or bathing.”

Bonta alleged inmates were barred from mental and medical care, leading to a “shocking rate of deaths inside the jails, many of which are caused by preventable circumstances, such as overdoses, suicides, or violence among incarcerated persons.”

Times staff writer Salvador Hernandez contributed reporting.

So much Trump-related news has appeared lately on the airwaves and in web pixels — what with Iran and Epstein and Minnesota and so on — that inevitably a nugget will fall between the cracks.

That seems to have been the fate of the most recent annual financial report of Trump Media and Technology Group, which covered calendar year 2025 and was issued Friday.

Trump Media, which is 52% owned by Donald Trump and trades on Nasdaq with a ticker symbol based on his initials (DJT), is the holding company for Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.

The annual financial disclosure has garnered minimal press coverage. That’s a pity, because it makes fascinating reading, though not in a good way.

Here are the top and bottom lines from the 10-k annual report: Trump Media lost $712.1 million last year on revenue of about $3.7 million. That’s quite a bit worse than its performance in 2024, when it lost $409 million on revenue of about $3.6 million. The company attributed most of the flood of red ink to “loss from investments,” of which more in a moment.

Truth Social isn’t an especially strong keystone of this operation. The platform is chiefly an outlet for Trump’s social media ramblings and the occasional official White House statements. But no one has to sign in to Truth Social to see them — they’re almost invariably picked up by the news media or reposted by users on other platforms such as X.

That might explain Truth Social’s relatively scrawny user base. The platform is estimated to have about 2 million active users, according to the analytical firm Search Logistics. By comparison, X has about 450 million monthly active users and Facebook has more than 2.9 billion.

It’s no mystery, then, why TMTG disdains “traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users,” according to its annual report.

Relying on those metrics, which are used to judge TMTG’s social media rivals, “might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its stockholders, as it could lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term innovation and value creation.”

Instead, the company says it should be evaluated based on “its commitment to a robust business plan that includes introducing innovative features, new products, new technologies.” But it also acknowledges that, at its heart, TMTG is a proxy for “the reputation and popularity of President Donald J. Trump.” The company warns that “the value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.”

How has that played out in real time? Trump Media notched its highest closing price as a public company, $66.22, on March 27, 2024, the day after its initial public offering. In midday trading Monday, the shares were quoted at $11.08, for a loss of 83% since the IPO.

One can’t quibble with stock market price quotes; nor can one finagle annual profit and loss statements, at least not without receiving questions, and perhaps lawsuit complaints, from attentive investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In recent months, TMTG has engaged in a number of baroque financial transactions.

In May, the company announced that it was planning to raise $3.5 billion from institutions to invest in bitcoin, with the money to come from issues of common and preferred shares. The goal was to climb onto the cryptocurrency train, which Trump himself was fueling by, among other things, issuing an executive order promoting the expansion of crypto in the U.S. and denigrating enforcement efforts by the Biden administration as reflecting a “war on cryptocurrency.”

Under Trump, federal regulators have dropped numerous investigations related to cryptocurrencies. Trump has also talked about creating a government crypto strategic reserve, which would entail large government purchases of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies; a March 3 announcement on that subject briefly sent bitcoin prices soaring by nearly 20%, though they promptly fell back.

Then there’s TMTG’s relationship with Crypto.com, a Singapore-based crypto “service provider” best known to Angelenos unfamiliar with the crypto world as the firm with naming rights to the Los Angeles arena that hosts the NBA Lakers and Clippers, WNBA Sparks and NHL Kings.

In August, Crypto.com and TMTG announced a deal in which TMTG would pursue a crypto treasury strategy consisting mostly of Cronos tokens, a cryptocurrency sponsored by Crypto.com. The initial infusion would consist of 6.4 billion Cronos valued at $1 billion, or about 15.8 cents per Cronos.

As of Dec. 31, TMTG said in its 10-K, it owned 756.1 million Cronos, acquired at a cost of about $114 million, or 15 cents each. By year’s end, they were worth only about nine cents each, for a paper loss of about $46 million. In trading this week, Cronos was quoted at about 7.6 cents, producing a paper loss for TMTG of about $56.5 million, or roughly half the investment.

The financial maneuvering involved in this trade is a little dizzying. The initial transaction was a 50% stock, 50% cash trade in which Crypto.com bought $50 million in TMTG stock and TMTG bought $105 million in Cronos. Who gained in this deal? It’s almost impossible to say.

Crypto.com did gain, if not purely in cash, then arguably through the Trump administration’s good graces.

On March 27, the SEC formally closed an investigation of the company that it had launched during the Biden administration, when the agency was headed by a known crypto skeptic, Gary Gensler. Trump appointed a crypto-friendly regulator, Paul Atkins, as Gensler’s successor.

It’s reasonable to note that as a business model, crypto treasuries have been in vogue over the last year or so, allowing investors to play the crypto market without all the complexities of actually buying and holding the digital assets by buying shares in treasury companies.

I asked Crypto.com whether the steady decline in Cronos’ price suggested that the hookup with TMTG wasn’t bearing fruit. “The fluctuation in value during this time period is consistent with the entire crypto market, which is typical in a bear market,” company spokeswoman Victoria Davis told me by email.

Davis also asserted that the SEC’s investigation of the company had been closed by Gensler, “not the current administration” (i.e., Trump). That’s misleading, at best. Gensler put the investigation on hold after the 2024 election, when it became clear that Trump was going to be in charge.

Crypto.com’s March 27 announcement of the formal end of the case attributed the action to “the current SEC leadership” and blamed the case on “the previous administration.” I asked Davis to explain the discrepancy but got no reply.

TMTG, like Crypto.com, attributed the decline in Cronos’ value to the secular bear market raging in the entire cryptocurrency space, a reflection of “temporary price swings across the crypto market,” said TMTG spokeswoman Shannon Devine. She said the price decline “will not diminish our enthusiasm for the enormous potential of the [CRONOS] ecosystem.”

Trump’s coziness with crypto companies hasn’t gone unnoticed by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who issued a scathing report on the topic in November. (The White House scoffed at the report, saying in response to the report that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”)

In mid-December, TMTG launched yet another remaking — this time, plunging into the business of fusion power. The instrument is TAE Technologies, a Foothill Ranch-based company working to develop the technology of nuclear fusion as a clean energy source. According to a Dec. 18 announcement, TMTG and TAE will merge, creating what they say is a $6-billion company.

According to the announcement, TMTG will contribute $200 million to the merged company when the deal closes in mid-2026, and an additional $100 million subsequently. Following the merger, TMTG said last month, it will consider spinning off Truth Social into a new publicly traded company.

These arrangements are murky. TAE is privately held and the value of Truth Social is conjectural at best, so TMTG shareholders could be hard-pressed to assess their gains or losses from the merger and spin-off.

What makes them even murkier is the speculative nature of fusion as an electrical power source. Although numerous companies have leaped into the field — and TAE, which has been backed by Alphabet, the parent of Google, is among the oldest — none has shown the capability of generating electrical power at commercial scale with the elusive technology.

Although some researchers say that fusion could become a technically and economically feasible power source within 10 years, only in 2022 did fusion researchers (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) achieve the goal of using fusion to produce more energy than is required to sustain a reaction. They were able to do so only for less than a billionth of a second.

Others working on the technology have expressed doubts that fusion could become a viable power source before the 2040s. The technical challenges, including how to convert the energy produced by a fusion reactor into electricity, remain daunting.

All this points to the fundamental question of what TMTG is supposed to be. TMTG’s original mission, according to its own publicity statements, was to build Truth Social into an alternative social media platform “to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet.”

Spinning off Truth Social would place that goal on the side. TMTG is on its way too becoming a hodgepodge of crypto, fusion and other investments selected without regard to whether they fit together or are even achievable. The only constant is Trump himself.

If you want to invest in him, TMTG may be the best way to do it. But judging from its latest financial disclosure, that’s not the same as being a good way to do it.

Fearing the prospect of a Republican winning California’s gubernatorial race, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks on Tuesday urged his party’s candidates who lack a viable path to victory to drop out.

“It is imperative that every candidate honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign,” Hicks wrote in an open letter to the politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. “I recognize my suggestions are hard for many to contemplate and may be even viewed as overly harsh by some.”

Hicks did not name the Democrats he wants out of the race.

But, even though the odds are relatively low, California cannot risk having a Republican elected as the next governor at a time when President Trump is in the White House, he said.

“[S]o much is at stake in our Nation and so many are counting on the leadership of California Democrats to stand up and speak out at this historic moment,” Hicks wrote. “California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor.”

Hicks urged Democrats languishing at the bottom of the field of candidates to drop out before the Friday deadline to officially file to run for governor — to ensure their names do not appear on the June primary ballot.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

With nine top Democrats running, the fear is that the candidates will splinter their party’s vote and allow the top two Republicans in the race to finish in first and second place. This is despite Democratic registered voters outnumbering Republicans in the state by almost 2 to 1, and no GOP candidate winning a statewide election since 2006.

Having two Republicans competing in the November election would be devastating to Democratic voter turnout and could hurt party candidates in pivotal down-ballot races.

“The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our Nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025,” Hicks said in his letter. “We simply can’t let that happen.”

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that five candidates lead the contest — former Rep. Katie Porter, Rep. Eric Swalwell and hedge fund founder Tom Steyer among Democrats and conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans. Hilton and Bianco have led all candidates in other polls over the last few months.

Discussions about the need for some Democrats to exit the race took place at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention as well as when the powerful California Federation of Labor Unions began its endorsement process last week.

But a politically thorny issue is that nearly all of the Democrats lagging in the polls are people of color, as former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra noted at a candidate forum Monday evening.

“By the way, there are people who are calling for candidates to get out of the race,” he said at a gathering hosted by Equality California and the Los Angeles LGBT Center at the Renberg Theatre in Hollywood. “Isn’t it interesting that the candidates they are asking get out of the race are the candidates of color? So don’t take me there.”

Hicks, asked about the effect on candidates of color, lauded the field’s accomplishments.

“We have a number of strong candidates. They have incredible stories, and they are reflective of the diversity of our party. That being said, there are some political realities of where we are at at this particular moment,” he said in an interview. “I’m not calling on any specific candidates to move in one direction or the other. I’m just calling on them to assess their campaign and determine if they have a viable [path] and if they don’t, to not file.”

During Monday evening’s gubernatorial forum, Porter said she is concerned about the prospect of two Republicans making the top two.

“I hear people say to me, it could never happen, but everybody said that about Trump too,” she said at the forum. “And I look at how much harm we’re suffering, and I think about all the political risks that people are facing every day, the risk of an immigrant to leave their home and walk on our streets, the risk of a kid who’s trans to try to play sports even in this state. And I just don’t think we can take any more political risks.”

Times staff writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

A shock-and-awe campaign laying down a tsunami of bombs. An enemy succumbing rapidly under overwhelming firepower. And a triumphant U.S. president trumpeting a quick and easy campaign.

In 2003, President George W. Bush strode confidently on the deck of an aircraft carrier less than five weeks after he ordered the invasion of Iraq and declared the “end of major combat operations” under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.”

It proved anything but.

The invasion became a meat grinder, leaving thousands of Americans and possibly more than a million Iraqis dead. It unleashed forces whose effects are felt in the region and beyond to this day.

More than two decades later, another U.S. president attacked another Persian Gulf nation, promising rapid success in yet another Middle East adventure that he says will remake the region.

President Trump and his staff have vehemently rejected any comparison between “Operation Epic Fury,” launched Saturday, and “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” On Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a pugnacious news conference, insisting, “This is not Iraq. This is not endless.”

Yet the assault on Iran — almost four times larger than Iraq with more than double its population — presents no lack of challenges, ones that could spread chaos far beyond Iran’s borders and become a defining feature of Trump’s presidency.

In many ways, analysts say, toppling Iran’s leadership represents a much more complex task than Iraq ever did. Iraq was a state with deep sectarian divisions that was largely dominated by a single dictator: Saddam Hussein.

The Iran that emerged after the 1978-79 Islamic Revolution had a supreme leader, but Iran also developed an elaborate system of governance. That includes a president, a parliament and varying governmental, military and religious hierarchies, noted Paul Salem, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“Unlike Saddam’s Iraq, the Iranian state is multi-institutional and hence much more resilient — and, yes, not as vulnerable,” Salem said. “And hostility to the United States and Israel is at the heart of the Islamic Revolution — baked into the state.”

Here are some of the ways the Iran attacks could develop into the very scenarios Trump once derided in his days as the antiwar candidate:

Boots on the ground

For now, the U.S. and Israel have wielded air power to pound Tehran into submission. In the first minutes of the joint operation, a 200-plane fleet — Israel’s largest — struck more than 500 targets in Iran, according to the Israeli military. One such strike killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran is still fighting back, lobbing missiles at Israel, Persian Gulf nations, Jordan and other areas with U.S. bases in the region. The U.S. has the qualitative and quantitative edge of materiel to eventually prevail, but Iran’s capabilities will not make it easy, as the losses in service members and planes have demonstrated in the last two days.

And wars have never been won with air power alone. Rather than relying on boots on the ground, Trump expects ordinary Iranians to finish the job for him.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” he said in a video address on the first day of the campaign.

During the Arab Spring of 2011, protesters throughout the Middle East took to the streets to demand change. But those efforts mostly did not lead to significant reforms and, in some countries, prompted further repression.

In Iran, it’s true many people would welcome the Islamic Republic’s demise — as many Iraqis rejoiced at Hussein’s fall. But it’s unlikely that mostly unarmed protesters will triumph in a confrontation against enforcers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or its volunteer wing, the Basij.

It’s also difficult to gauge how many of Iran’s 93 million people despise the government enough to rise up against it.

Meanwhile, Trump has left the door open for dispatching U.S. troops, but the math of such a deployment raises doubts.

According to the U.S. Army, counterinsurgency doctrine dictates 20 to 25 troops for every 1,000 inhabitants to achieve stability. In the case of Iran that would entail deploying 1.9 million people — almost all the U.S. military’s active duty, reserve and National Guard personnel.

New leadership unclear

At this point, it’s not clear that decapitation of much of Iran’s leadership class will produce any real change in government, much less a successor inclined to bend to U.S. wishes. The top echelons of the Islamic Republic boast a deep bench of mostly hard-liners — not surprising, perhaps, for a nation that has braced for attack for years, if not decades.

Whatever new leadership that does emerge could rally around the “martyrdom” of Khamenei. Not especially popular in life, he appears to have become, in death, a rallying cry for defiance. And martyrs are exalted in Shiite Islam, Iran’s prevalent faith.

“He was the religious leader of the Shiites, so it’s sort of like killing the pope,” Salem said. “And he’s more popular dying as a martyr, than, say, of a heart attack. … He went out in style, no doubt about it.”

When the U.S. occupied Iraq, the expectation was that whatever came next would be a fervent U.S. ally, an idea perhaps best captured in the notion in Washington that a grateful Iraqi populace would shower U.S. troops with flowers. That didn’t happen. And in the Darwin-esque culling of leaders that followed, the ones that emerged victorious had little love for the U.S.

One of them was Nouri Al-Maliki, a Shiite supremacist whose policies were blamed for fueling years of sectarian bloodletting, and whose loyalties often seemed more aligned with Tehran than Washington.

Meanwhile, Tehran, playing on its proximity and deep ties to the new Iraqi ruling class, was able to steer Iraq — a majority Shiite country — deeper into its orbit.

After the Iraqi government — with the help of a U. S.-led coalition — pushed Islamic State out of Iraq in 2017, Iran was able to embed allied militias into Iraq’s armed services. That created the paradoxical situation of Tehran-aligned fighters wielding U.S.-supplied materiel.

Iraq has yet to emerge from Iran’s shadow. After Iraq’s most recent elections, Maliki seems poised to become prime minister once more, prompting Trump to write on Truth Social, “Because of his insane policies and ideologies, if elected, the United States of America will no longer help Iraq.”

A fragmented opposition

Iran’s population is diverse; an estimated two-thirds of Iranians are Persian, while minorities include Kurds, Baloch, Arabs and Azeris.

Those minorities have long-standing grievances against the ruling majority. It’s possible that Trump’s campaign and the resulting disorder could fuel separatist tensions.

Just last month, Iranian Kurdish factions joined together in a coalition that they said would seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic “to achieve the Kurdish people’s right to self-determination, and to establish a national and democratic entity based on the political will of the Kurdish nation in Iranian Kurdistan.”

An experienced insurgency

Over the decades, the Islamic Republic created a network that at its peak stretched from Pakistan to Lebanon.

It was a fearsome constellation of paramilitary factions and amenable governments that became known as the Axis of Resistance. It included Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestinian lands, Yemen’s Houthis, and militias in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

After Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, Israel — and, eventually, the United States — launched offensive campaigns to defang the groups.

Although weakened, the factions still survive, and could form a powerful, transnational and motivated insurgency when the time comes to fight whatever emerges if the Islamic Republic falls.

Bulos reported from Khartoum, Sudan, and McDonnell from Mexico City.

California Republicans facing tough reelection fights in this year’s midterm elections have lined up in support of President Trump’s war on Iran, which polling suggests is not popular.

They include Republicans whose chances of reelection were already diminished by the passage by voters in November of Proposition 50, which gave Democrats in Sacramento the authority to redraw the state’s congressional districts in favor of Democratic candidates.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has long criticized Iran, has defended the latest attacks as overdue and legal under existing authority the White House has for combating terrorism — which he said Iran is deeply involved in.

Asked Sunday by ABC News about Trump’s promises not to start new foreign wars during the 2024 campaign, and the attacks on Iran conflicting with that, Issa said the belief that Trump owes immediate answers about his intentions was “folly,” that the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities last summer had made people around the world “happy,” and that the latest attacks were a continuation of that effort.

He said Iran has funded terrorism for decades, expanding extremism around the region, and asking whether the Trump administration had a specific reason to attack now was the wrong question.

“The real question is, after nearly half a century, do we need a specific trigger, or do we at any time say enough is enough, we’re going to take the claws and the teeth out of this tiger, and then see if in fact it’s willing to drink milk rather than blood,” Issa said.

Issa’s district is one of five that Democrats reshaped to better favor a Democrat under Proposition 50. The measure was championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and others as a response to similar mid-decade redistricting efforts that Republicans undertook, at Trump’s urging, to win favor in states such as Texas.

Whether the Republican candidates’ backing of Trump in Iran will make them even more vulnerable is unclear. Some in California — including among the Iranian diaspora in Los Angeles — have been pleased with Trump’s actions and the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a conservative cleric who ruled the country with brutal force for decades.

However, several recent polls suggest the war is not popular.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed Sunday, only 1 in 4 Americans approved of the U.S. strikes on Iran, while about half — including 1 in 4 Republicans — said they believed Trump is too willing to use military force. Overall, 43% of respondents said they disapproved of the strikes, 27% said they approved, and 29% said they were not sure.

A text poll by SSRS for CNN on Saturday and Sunday found nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they opposed the decision to take military action against Iran. A separate text poll by SSRS for the Washington Post found 52% of Americans opposed the strikes, and 39% supported them.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) — who has long been hawkish on Iran, and accused the Biden administration of maintaining a weak policy on the Middle East nation — is another Republican in a redrawn district who has come out strongly in favor of the war effort.

“President Trump’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury will protect America and our allies by eliminating the Iranian regime’s ability to wage terror and threaten its enemies. It will also provide the Iranian people with a historic opportunity to shape their own future free from oppression,” said Calvert, chair of the Defense Appropriations Committee, wrote on X Saturday.

Another member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee facing reelection in a redrawn district, Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills), shared on Saturday a committee post on X that quoted Trump’s announcement that Khamenei was dead and committee chair Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) stating that although President Biden had given Iran funding, “President Trump gave him death.”

On Monday, she reposted video of a demonstration in favor of the attacks by Iranian Americans and others in Los Angeles, writing, “So grateful for our President’s decisive action & for our vibrant Iranian American community. From Southern California to Tehran, let freedom ring!”

Also facing redrawn districts and backing the war were Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin).

Valadao wrote Saturday on X that Iran had for years “ruled through fear at home and terror abroad,” and that as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, it continues to arm violent proxies, threaten our allies, and destabilize the region.”

“I commend President Trump for taking decisive action and pray for our brave men and women throughout the region working to keep us all safe,” Valadao wrote.

Kiley, in an X post Sunday, wrote, “It is the longstanding policy of the United States that one of the most evil regimes in history cannot get its hands on the most powerful weapon in history. The decapitation of the Iranian regime and the destruction of its instruments of terror and death hold the potential for a safer America and a more peaceful world.”

Kiley wrote that he looked forward “to being briefed soon on the scale of operations, the strategy going forward, and any risks to American lives and interests that need to be met with urgency,” and that Congress “must be centrally involved in defining and pursuing U.S. objectives going forward.”

Leading Democrats in California condemned the attacks — saying that although the Iranian government under Khamenei was corrupt and guilty of terrorism and violence, there was no evidence that it presented an “imminent threat” to the U.S. and no congressional authorization for Trump to commit the nation to war there unilaterally.

Many of the Democrats running in the state’s redrawn congressional districts staked out a similar position.

“I’m deeply disturbed that President Trump is moving us toward another regime-change war without congressional authorization, public support, or a clearly defined mission,” said San Diego Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert, a Democrat challenging Issa. “The Iranian regime is brutal and must never obtain a nuclear weapon — but the Constitution is clear: only Congress can declare war, and it must reconvene and exercise that authority now.”

Esther Kim Varet, an art dealer and one of several Democrats challenging both Calvert and Kim in the state’s new 40th District, in Orange County and the Inland Empire, wrote on X that “America and the world are safer without Khamenei” but that “Congress alone has the power to commit the U.S. military to wage war, or to amass its forces in foreign territory, unless in response to a clear and present danger.”

WASHINGTON — A year into the Trump administration’s ratcheted-up mass deportation effort, approval rates for asylum seekers have plummeted as immigrants are too afraid to show up for court hearings.

Fewer than 3% of asylum cases decided in January were approved — a record low, according to Mobile Pathways, a San Francisco nonprofit that analyzes federal immigration data. That’s compared with an 18% approval rate in January 2025.

Nationally, 20% of immigrants seeking asylum missed their hearings in January, compared with half that rate a year earlier. Asylum seekers with pending applications are in the country legally, but under federal law, failing to appear for a hearing can result in a deportation order.

In Los Angeles County immigration courts — among the largest in the country — the trend is substantially starker: no-shows made up 56% of the asylum hearings in January, compared with 14% a year earlier.

“That’s not fluctuation,” said Bartlomiej Skorupa, chief operating officer of Mobile Pathways. “That’s collapse.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said the Trump administration is restoring integrity to immigration courts.

As of December, nearly 3.4 million cases were pending in immigration courts, with more than 2.3 million of them asylum cases, according to TRAC, a data research organization.

The rise in the number of people avoiding asylum hearings helps explain another trend in the immigration court system. Over the last year, the number of asylum cases marked “abandoned” has doubled.

Immigration attorneys say cases can be classified as abandoned for various reasons: An applicant missed a deadline, filled out a form incorrectly, or just decided to leave the U.S.

But the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that administers immigration courts, can label a case abandoned if the applicant fails to show up for a hearing. Nationwide, the number of cases considered abandoned doubled over the last year to make up about 41% of those decided in January.

It takes an average of four years for immigrants to receive an asylum hearing, though a final decision can take longer with appeals, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.

During the Biden administration, most asylum claims were not issued decisions by an immigration judge; instead, many were administratively closed, or paused and taken off judges’ dockets. While the case is inactive, the person can remain in the U.S., work legally and pursue other avenues of relief.

But such a policy is vulnerable to being reversed by a subsequent administration, Migration Policy Institute experts wrote in a November report.

Lindsay Toczylowski, co-founder of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles, said the increase in no-shows is in part because the Trump administration began reopening asylum cases that had been administratively closed for many years.

Many of those people are no longer in contact with their attorney, if they had one, and would be difficult to notify of a new hearing.

A decade ago, a significant portion of asylum seekers came from El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras, many of whom settled in Southern California.

Since President Trump returned to the White House, Los Angeles was one of the earliest cities where federal agents began arresting immigrants at courthouses. Immigrants have become afraid to engage with any law enforcement authorities, Toczylowski said.

The government’s goal, she said, “is not due process or pursuing justice for people in immigration courts — it’s deportation orders. If people don’t show up in court, that’s a way for them to meet their metrics.”

Immigration courts are housed within the Department of Justice and judges have long complained that they lack full independence from executive branch overreach. The department disputes that, saying judges are independent adjudicators who decide cases individually.

More than 100 immigration judges have been fired since Trump took office and about the same number have resigned or retired, according to the union representing immigration judges. That’s down from 735 judges in last fiscal year.

Last summer, the Pentagon authorized up to 600 military lawyers to work for the Department of Justice after removing the requirement for temporary immigration judges to have immigration law experience.

Jeremiah Johnson, a former immigration judge who was fired last year from the San Francisco Immigration Court, said the 3% asylum grant rate in January is shockingly low.

Johnson, who was vice president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, said decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals throughout the last several months have limited asylum law. Immigration judges must abide by the precedent set in those cases.

One such case, for example, reverses prior interpretations to now limit gender-based asylum, finding that persecution claims based solely on gender, or gender combined with nationality, don’t generally don’t meet the definition of a “particular social group” — one of the five categories under U.S. asylum law.

Another factor contributing to lowered asylum approvals, he said, is that the federal government has started seeking to dismiss asylum cases by forcing migrants to start over in a “safe third country.”

These requests stem from the increasing number of so-called asylum cooperative agreements, which allow federal officials to send certain migrants to other countries — including less stable places such as Honduras, Uganda and Ecuador — instead of continuing to seek asylum in the U.S.

“It has really been a restriction in the availability for asylum and other related protection,” he said.

Kathleen Bush-Joseph, one of the authors of the Migration Policy Institute report, pointed to a post last month on X by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who said that asylum “is limited to individuals fleeing extremely narrow categories of state persecution.”

“None of the groups illegally crossing the border fit that criteria,” Miller wrote. “No one in Mexico or Ecuador or Honduras etc live in nations where there is any state persecution of any protected class.”

But Bush-Joseph cautioned that it’s not yet clear whether the Trump administration’s asylum changes are legal.

“Even though there are executive actions in place that are restricting access to asylum, those are being challenged in court and I don’t think that we know how all of this will turn out,” she said. “A lot of people are being deported in the meantime and they may not get the chance to come back.”

Northern California Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), whose congressional district was carved up in the redistricting ballot measures approved by voters last year, announced Monday that he would not challenge fellow Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove. Instead, he plans to run in the Democratic-leaning district where he resides.

“It’s true that I was fully prepared to run in [McClintock’s district], having tested the waters and with polls showing a favorable outlook in a ‘safe’ district. But doing what’s easy and what’s right are often not the same,” Kiley posted on the social media site X. “And at the end of the day, as much as I love the communities in [that] District that I represent now – and as excited as I was about the new ones – seeking office in a district that doesn’t include my hometown didn’t feel right.”

Kiley, 41, currently represents a congressional district that spans Lake Tahoe to Sacramento. He did not respond to requests for comment.

But after California voters in November passed Proposition 50 — a ballot measure to redraw the state’s congressional districts in an effort to counter Trump’s moves to increase the numbers of Republicans in Congress — Kiley’s district was sliced up into other districts.

As the filing deadline approaches, Kiley pondered his path forward in a decision that was compared by political insiders to the reality television show “The Bachelor.” Who would receive the final rose? McClintock’s new sprawling congressional district includes swaths of gold country, the Central Valley and Death Valley. The district Kiley opted to run in includes the city of Sacramento and the suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin in Placer County.

Kiley was facing headwinds because of the Republican institutional support that lined up behind McClintock, 69, who has been in Congress since 2009 and served in the state Legislature for 26 years previously. President Trump, the California Republican Party and the Club for Growth’s political action committee are among the people and groups who have endorsed McClintock.

Conservative strategist Jon Fleischman, a former executive director of the state GOP, said he was thrilled by Kiley’s decision, which avoids a divisive intraparty battle.

“If you open up the dictionary and look for the word conservative, it’s a photo of Tom McClintock. He is the ideological leader of conservatives, not only in California but in Congress for many, many years,” Fleischman said, adding that the endorsements for McClintock purposefully came because Kiley was considering challenging him.

Kiley, who grew up near Sacramento, attended Harvard University and Yale Law School. A former Teach for America member, he served in the state Assembly for six years before being elected to Congress in 2022 with Trump’s backing. But he has bucked the president, notably on tariffs. He also unsuccessfully ran to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom during the 2021 recall, and has been a constant critic of the governor.

Kiley is now running in a Sacramento-area district represented by Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove). Democrats in the newly drawn district had a nearly 9-point voter registration edge in 2024. Bera is now running in the new version of Kiley’s district.

In Kiley’s new race, his top rival is Dr. Richard Pan of Sacramento, a former state senator and staunch supporter of vaccinations.

“Kevin Kiley can try to rebrand himself, but voters know his extreme record,” Pan said in a statement. “He has stood with Donald Trump 98% of the time and was named a ‘MAGA Champion.’ The people of this district deserve better than political opportunism disguised as moderation. This race is about who will actually fight for healthcare, public health, and working families. I’ve done that my entire career. Kevin Kiley has not.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court revived a San Diego judge’s order Monday and said parents have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school.

The decision came in a 6-3 order granting an emergency appeal from lawyers for Chicago-based Thomas More Society.

They said the student privacy policy enforced in California infringes parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

“The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “The parents also take issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.”

The judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only for those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions,” the justices added.

The six conservatives were in the majority, while the three liberals dissented.

Religious liberty advocates hailed the decision.

“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “California tried cutting parents out of their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We’re glad the Court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had put on hold a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who held that the student privacy rules enforced by California school officials were unconstitutional.

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.”

Escondido public schoolteachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who described themselves as “devout Catholics,” sued in 2023, and they were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.

The Supreme Court’s ruling refers only to the parents.

The parents who brought the case “have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court said.

The court added: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”

The 9th Circuit had agreed with the state’s attorneys who said the judge had misstated California law.

“The state does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students’ gender identities to parents without student consent,” they said in a 3-0 decision.

“For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can ‘allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student’s wellbeing,’ and California Education Code allows disclosure to avert a clear danger to the well-being of a child.”

In their parents’ rights appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys said school employees are secretly encouraging gender transitions.

“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents — including religious parents — and to actively facilitate those children’s social transitions over their parents’ express objection,” they told the court.

“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm. That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately,” Jonna wrote in his appeal. “Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”

California state attorneys had urged the court to put the case on hold while it is under appeal.

They said the judge’s order “appears to categorically bar schools across the State from ever respecting a student’s desire for privacy about their gender identity or expression — or respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a particular name or pronouns—over a parent’s objection.”

They said the order “would allow no exceptions, even for extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will suffer physical or mental abuse.”

Venezuela has been going through an unprecedented political transformation(?) since the extraction of Nicolás Maduro. All political stakeholders will try to pitch the possible outcome  according to their respective interest: the Trump administration will say that it’s going fantastic; the Rodriguez regime will try to appear independent and in control; Team Machado will push for the full restoration of political rights; smaller actors like Enrique Marquez will try to conquer their own space; and the people will need to have proper tool, amid a sea of misinformation, to try to navigate between confusion and uncertainty.  

Media outlets like Caracas Chronicles are doing our best to reduce such uncertainty, but there are new initiatives sprouting everywhere, such as the one that friend of the blog Pablo Hernández Borges is leading with a team of researchers and technologists. Umbral (umbral.watch), defined as “a free, open-source analytical platform for monitoring and documenting Venezuela’s regime transformation in real time,” allows anyone with an internet connection to contribute, as follows: 

• Scenario Analysis with Citizen Participation. Five evidence-based trajectories for Venezuela’s political future, from full autocratization to complete democratic consolidation. Any person can rate the probability of each scenario on a 1 (least likely) to 5 (most likely) Likert scale. Results are disaggregated by profile and aggregated in real time, visible to all on the platform’s landing page.
• Citizen News Evaluation. Every article in the news feed can be voted on by users, who link it to whichever of the five scenarios they believe it signals. 
• Historical Trajectory. A V-Dem-style democracy index spanning 1900–2024, mapping four major regime transformation episodes in Venezuela’s history (like Pablo did in this piece).
• Political Prisoners Tracker. Arbitrary detention statistics with demographic breakdowns, sourced from leading Venezuelan human rights organizations.
• Internet Connectivity Monitor. Real-time IODA (Georgia Tech) data on BGP, Active Probing, and Network Telescope signals, both nationally and across all 25 Venezuelan states, visualized through a choropleth map and horizon heatmap.
• GDELT Media Signals. Daily-archived instability index, media tone, and article volume from the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone, annotated with key political events.
• Fact-Checking Feed. Curated posts from three Venezuelan fact-checking accounts: @cazamosfakenews, @cotejoinfo, and @Factchequeado.
• Interactive Timeline. Democratic Episodes Event Dataset (DEED) with bilingual (Spanish/English) events.
• Reading Room. A curated archive of books, academic articles, investigative journalism, and reports on Venezuela.
• Prediction Markets. A Polymarket contract dashboard tracking Venezuela-related markets.

It’s Rotten Tomatoes for political junkies hooked on the Venezuela stuff.

To develop Umbral, Pablo, who is a data scientist with a PhD in Political Science from Texas Tech University, got the support of NGOs Ciudadanía Sin Límites and Code for Venezuela. The platform is fully bilingual (Spanish and English) and its source code is publicly available on GitHub, ensuring complete methodological transparency. Its analytical architecture is grounded in the Episodes of Regime Transformation (ERT) methodology by the V-Dem Institute, which frames the inherent uncertainty of authoritarian transitions through concrete, evidence-based scenarios. 

Umbral is not just an observatory—it is a space for active civic participation. The goal is for community-generated data to complement—and ultimately calibrate—the academic models underpinning the platform.

Check it out: https://umbral.watch

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday refused to box himself in on how long U.S. military operations will last in Iran, saying the conflict in the Middle East could stretch from a month to potentially “far longer” as he frames the mission as one that is necessary to eliminate a “colossal threat” to American interests.

“Whatever the time is, it’s OK. Whatever it takes,” Trump said at a White House event. “Right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have the capability to go far longer than that. We’ll do it.”

Hours earlier, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the duration of the military operation remains fluid, and that Trump has “all the latitude in the world” to determine how long the war in Iran will go on.

“Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up. It could move back,” Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon news conference.

The Trump administration’s shifting time frames and open-ended objectives in Iran have deepened uncertainty around an expanding conflict in the Middle East, particularly as American troops have already been killed in action and officials warn of more U.S. casualties.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that additional U.S. military forces are already moving into the region, and warned that the conflict will not be a “single, overnight operation” and that he expects “additional losses.”

A fourth U.S. fatality

The development came as military officials confirmed a fourth American service member had been killed by Iranian counterattacks and that three American jets were mistakenly shot down in Kuwait in an “apparent friendly fire incident” — and as airstrikes continued to fall across the Middle East, where missile defense systems were unable to intercept every attack and deaths mounted into the hundreds.

As the U.S. and Israel continued to hammer Tehran and other targets across Iran and in Lebanon, retaliatory strikes by Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, were reported in Israel as well as at U.S. facilities and other targets inside Bahrain, Cyprus, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the United Arab Emirates, according to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, to Iran’s east, Pakistan and Afghanistan were engaged in their own battles, further destabilizing the region.

In addition to hundreds of people dead, including Iranian schoolchildren, other civilians and migrant workers in the Gulf, the fighting has impacted the world’s production of oil and natural gas — disrupting tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz at the southern end of the Persian Gulf and causing oil prices to shoot up.

Saudi Arabia said it intercepted Iranian drones attacking an oil refinery near Dammam, with the refinery shutting down as a precaution, the AP reported. Iran denied targeting the facility.

Air travel disrupted

The war also disrupted air traffic globally, as major airports in the Gulf, including in Dubai, halted or radically scaled back flights. The travel interruptions rippled around the world, and airline stocks tumbled.

Israel had implemented nationwide restrictions on activities as it fended off attacks from Iran and residents hid in bomb shelters. Iran reported strikes at multiple schools in the country had left young students dead.

As the conflict unfolds in real time, Trump and Hegseth have refused to rule out sending American troops into Iran, and the president has signaled that the “big wave” of military attacks is yet to come.

“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground. Like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” Trump told the New York Post on Monday. ”I say, ‘probably don’t need them,’ [or] ‘if they were necessary.’”

When asked by a reporter whether U.S. troops were currently on the ground, Hegseth told reporters they were not, but then bristled at further questions about potential future deployments.

“Why in the world would we tell you, the enemy or anybody, what we will do or will not do in pursuit of an objective?” Hegseth said.

The Trump administration’s objectives in the war have been equally hard to pinpoint. Trump said Saturday that the operation is aimed at razing Iran’s military and nuclear capability and dismantling Iran’s theocratic regime, but on Monday said the goal is to eliminate the threats posed by the “sick and sinister regime” but not the government itself.

Hegseth said the attacks in Iran are not part of a “so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it today.” The U.S. and Israel attack on Saturday killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

‘Second or third place is dead’

In an interview with ABC News on Sunday evening, Trump suggested his administration had considered some figures to replace Khamenei, but said those people are now dead.

“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump said. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”

The Trump administration’s messaging, meanwhile, was consistent in its vengeful rhetoric.

Hegseth and Trump both warned that any threat to Americans would be met with force.

“If you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on Earth, we will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation, we will kill you,” Hegseth said.

Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute, said a long misconception in “the way the U.S. reads Iran” is the belief that Khamenei ruled the country alone, and that taking him out would create a massive leadership vacuum or a sharp shift in the nation’s policies.

But while Khamenei was certainly an “intransigent” force in Iran, killing him won’t “lead to a major shift inside the country,” Harris said.

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said whether the U.S. can get out of Iran on a relatively short timeline depends on whether those in power in Iran now are willing to negotiate terms that Khamenei and other leaders who have been killed rejected.

“If the remnants of the regime are ideologically committed to what they were under Khamenei,” Radd said he “can’t see Trump backing down” and would expect the war to rage on.

Other leaders in Iran are fundamentalist and aligned with Khamenei, but given the U.S. has shown a willingness and ability to capture and assassinate foreign leaders, they might back down out of self-preservation.

“In the short term, there should be a wait-and-see approach as to what this reconstituted regime looks like,” he said.