POLITICS

Reporting from Sacramento — California is poised to charge the highest taxes and fees on gas in the country when an increase kicks in July 1, but officials say the state is still billions of dollars short of what’s needed to properly fix the roads and are considering additional charges.

The gasoline tax is set to climb by 5.6 cents per gallon, the second in a wave of increases approved by state leaders two years ago to raise billions of dollars for road and bridge repairs and mass transit.

Combined with a 12-cent increase that took effect in November 2017, the taxes and vehicle fees approved in a bill known as SB 1 are projected to add $5.4 billion in the coming year to transportation funding.

But officials estimate $130 billion is needed to bring the state’s roads and bridges into a state of good repair. The gas tax increases of 2017 will raise some $52 billion during the first 10 years but that will leave a road repair shortfall of approximately $78 billion.

The tax does not expire after 10 years and will continue to grow with the cost of living in future decades.

“The current funding is not sufficient, it is not enough,” said Tony Akel, a Fresno engineer who is a leader of the American Society of Civil Engineers. “We know that there is a big gap that is a result of years of underfunding.”

The group just released a study that gives California’s roads a “D” grade, saying they are among the worst in the country. State Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose), who authored the gas tax measure, said the evaluation appears accurate, but argued it is not a failure of the tax measure, just too early an assessment.

“You won’t see the impact of SB 1 for another couple of years,” Beall said. “The grades are based on actual conditions, and the SB 1 projects are underway but they are not finished. Road conditions will improve.”

The state has completed about 100 transportation projects and 400 more are in the works, according to the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Projects funded so far include $135.9 million to improve 104 lane miles of Interstate 605 and $54.9 million for 99 lane miles of State Route 1 in Los Angeles County. Projects completed so far include repaving a stretch of Interstate 5 between the 605 and Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles County.

“SB 1 was never expected to completely fund all backlog work, but it has given us a great start to making up for years of underfunding,” said Jeff Burdick, a spokesman for Caltrans.

The increase taking effect next month means the total state taxes and fees on gasoline will be 57.8 cents per gallon, based on the current average price of gas across California.

That will just edge out the 57.6 cents-per-gallon charged by Pennsylvania. Washington state will remain in third place, charging motorists 49.4 cents per gallon.

(Some of the California tax is based on a percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas, so a significant drop in prices could cause the overall tax to drop — at least temporarily — below Pennsylvania’s.)

Alaska and Missouri have the lowest gas taxes in the country, with per-gallon charges of 14.34 and 17.35 cents respectively, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Motorists in all states also pay 18.4 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes.

“California will be number one in another category that it shouldn’t be number one in,” said state Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), who opposed SB 1 as it made its way through the Legislature. “These incremental increases drive people nuts. They are trying to meet their budgets, and we keep pounding away at it.”

Assembly Democrats, in a 49-17 vote, on Monday blocked an attempt by Republicans to postpone the July tax hike. “Democrats reaffirmed their support for a regressive gas tax increase that punishes every Californian who can’t afford a Tesla,” said Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R-Visalia). “So much for being the party of working people.”

SB 1 calls for additional annual increases to California’s gas tax based on inflation starting July 1, 2020.

Beall, the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, agreed with the assessment of the engineers’ group that current revenue is insufficient.

“Money went to local [agencies] from the gas tax, but they still need more,” Beall said, adding that the federal government needs to increase its funding for roads, while counties also can go to their voters for local sales tax increases for transportation projects.

Voters in Riverside County are among those who may be asked next year to raise taxes to fill a funding shortfall to fix the roads.

The Riverside County Transportation Commission has launched a study to determine how to make up a $12.6-billion gap between its transportation needs and expected funding over the next 20 years, according to Cheryl Donahue, a manager at the agency.

“As part of its review, the commission will determine whether asking county voters to consider a sales tax measure to fund transportation improvements is part of the best overall approach to reducing congestion and improving mobility,” Donahue said.

The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System also is considering whether to ask voters to increase the sales tax by up to one-half cent next year to pay for transit, highway and road improvements, spokesman Rob Schupp said. The San Diego Assn. of Governments released a poll in March that found strong voter support for such a tax, with 70% of those surveyed saying “improving roads to support transit services” is important.

Voters in San Mateo and San Benito counties approved sales tax increases in November for road projects.

Moorlach said Orange County, where he lives, has approved two local tax measures to fund its transportation needs in recent years, and he does not have a problem with other counties following suit.

The group Move L.A. has proposed a grander plan, suggesting that raising local sales taxes by a half-cent in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties could bring in about $1.5 billion per year for public projects.

Much of the money would go to South Coast Air Quality Management District efforts to increase non-polluting transportation, including electric cars and trucks. But some could be spent on infrastructure including bike and pedestrian lanes, which SB 1 finances.

The air district has sponsored a bill, SB 732, that would allow it to ask voters to raise the sales tax by up to 1% in the four counties. The legislation is expected to be taken up next year.

State law requires a two-thirds vote to approve a local tax increase for transportation, but a pair of other pending bills could make approval easier. A bill in the Legislature would put a measure on the November 2020 statewide ballot that would allow cities, counties and special districts to impose taxes if 55% of local voters approve. The measure would benefit projects involving affordable housing and infrastructure, including improvements to transit and streets and highways.

Another bill, AB 1413, would allow local transportation agencies like San Diego’s to seek voter approval of tax increases in any portion of the county, so if some areas want better roads they can vote on them. The measure would allow communities to pay for “improving roads, transit, highways, or other transportation infrastructure as they see fit,” said Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego).

But the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. argued agencies “shouldn’t be able to pick and choose among their tax base to make it easier to increase regressive sales taxes.”

State lawmakers also are considering a bill that would charge a 10% tax on every barrel of oil pumped from the ground in California to bring in some $900 million annually. That, critics say, would mean motorists will pay more at the pump. Backers of the bill deny there would be a significant impact on drivers.

Money raised by the bill would go to the general fund but could help with transportation, said Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), the legislation’s author.

“While other states have brought in billions of dollars for their constituents through an oil severance tax, California has had to dip into its own pockets to cover extensive clean-up costs brought about by the oil industry’s irresponsible actions,” Wieckowski said. “Californians deserve better.”

Sign up for our Essential Politics newsletter »

[email protected]

Twitter: @mcgreevy99

WASHINGTON — A man whose convictions for storming the U.S. Capitol were erased by President Trump’s mass pardons has been arrested on a charge that he threatened to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Christopher P. Moynihan is accused of sending a text message on Friday noting that Jeffries, a New York Democrat, would be making a speech in New York City this week.

“I cannot allow this terrorist to live,” Moynihan wrote, according to a report by a state police investigator. Moynihan also wrote that Jeffries “must be eliminated” and texted, “I will kill him for the future,” the police report says.

Moynihan, of Clinton, N.Y., is charged with a felony count of making a terroristic threat. It was unclear if he had an attorney representing him in the case, and efforts to contact him and his parents by email and phone were unsuccessful.

Moynihan, 34, was sentenced to 21 months in prison for joining a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. In January, he was among hundreds of convicted Capitol rioters who received a pardon from Trump on the Republican president’s first day back in the White House.

Jeffries thanked investigators “for their swift and decisive action to apprehend a dangerous individual who made a credible death threat against me with every intention to carry it out.”

“Unfortunately, our brave men and women in law enforcement are being forced to spend their time keeping our communities safe from these violent individuals who should never have been pardoned,” Jeffries said in a statement.

House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about the case during a news conference on Tuesday and said he did not know any details of the threat against Jeffries.

“We denounce violence from anybody, anytime. Those people should be arrested and tried,” said Johnson, a Louisiana Republican.

The New York State Police said they were notified of the threat by an FBI task force on Saturday. Moynihan was arraigned on Sunday in a local court in New York’s Dutchess County. He is due back in the Town of Clinton Court on Thursday.

Dutchess County Dist. Atty. Anthony Parisi said his office is reviewing the case “for legal and factual sufficiency.”

“Threats made against elected officials and members of the public will not be tolerated,” Parisi said in a statement on Tuesday.

On Jan. 6, Moynihan breached police barricades before entering the Capitol through the Rotunda door. He entered the Senate chamber, rifled through a notebook on a senator’s desk and joined other rioters in shouting and chanting at the Senate dais, prosecutors said.

“Moynihan did not leave the Senate Chamber until he was forced out by police,” they wrote.

In 2022, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper convicted Moynihan of a felony for obstructing the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Moynihan also pleaded guilty to five other riot-related counts.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

MEXICO CITY — The small Central American nation of Belize has signed a “safe third country” agreement with the United States, the two sides said on Monday, as the Trump administration seeks to ramp up deportations and dissuade migration north.

What the agreement entails wasn’t immediately clear, but it comes as President Trump has increasingly pressured countries in Latin America and Africa to help him carry out his immigration agenda.

The deal appears to be similar to one with Paraguay announced by the U.S. State Department in August that included a “safe third country” agreement in which asylum seekers currently in the U.S. could pursue protections in the South American nation.

In Trump’s first term, the U.S. signed several such agreements that would instead have asylum seekers request protections in other nations, like Guatemala, before proceeding north. The policy was criticized as a roundabout way to make it harder for migrants to seek asylum in the U.S. and was later rolled back by the Biden administration.

Earlier this year, Panama and Costa Rica also accepted U.S. flights of hundreds of deportees from Asian countries – without calling the deals “safe third country” agreements – and thrusting the migrants into a sort of international limbo. The U.S. has also signed agreements, such as deportation agreements, with war-torn South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda.

The Belize government said in a statement on Monday that it “retains an absolute veto over transfers, with restrictions on nationalities, a cap on transferees, and comprehensive security screenings.”

The government of the largely rural nation wedged between Mexico and Guatemala reiterated its “commitment to international law and humanitarian principles while ensuring strong national safeguards.” No one deemed to be a public safety threat would be allowed to enter the country, it said.

On Monday, the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs thanked Belize in a post on X, calling the agreement “an important milestone in ending illegal immigration, shutting down abuse of our nation’s asylum system, and reinforcing our shared commitment to tackling challenges in our hemisphere together.”

The decision prompted fierce criticism from politicians in Belize, who railed against the agreement, calling it a “decision of profound national consequence” announced with little government transparency. The agreement must be ratified by Belize’s Senate to take effect.

“This agreement, by its very nature, could reshape Belize’s immigration and asylum systems, impose new financial burdens on taxpayers, and raise serious questions about national sovereignty and security,” Tracy Taegar Panton, an opposition leader in Belize’s parliament, wrote on social media.

She noted fierce criticisms of human rights violations resulting from similar policies carried out by both the U.S. and Europe.

“Belize is a compassionate and law-abiding nation. We believe in humanitarian principles. But compassion must never be confused with compliance at any cost. Belize cannot and must not be used as a dumping ground for individuals other countries refuse to accept,” she wrote.

Janetsky writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Plans are on hold for President Trump to sit down with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to talk about resolving the war in Ukraine, according to a U.S. official.

The meeting had been announced last week. It was supposed to take place in Budapest, although a date had not been set.

The decision was made following a call between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The official requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

The back-and-forth over Trump’s plans are the latest bout of whiplash caused by his stutter-step efforts to resolve a conflict that has persisted for nearly four years.

Lee writes for the Associated Press. This is a developing story that will update.

WASHINGTON — As the government shutdown enters its fourth week, Senate Republicans are headed to the White House on Tuesday — not for urgent talks on how to end it but for a display of unity with President Trump as they refuse to negotiate on any Democratic demands.

Senate Democrats, too, are confident in their strategy to keep voting against a House-passed bill that would reopen the government until Republicans, including Trump, engage them on extending health care subsidies that expire at the end of the year.

With both sides showing no signs of movement, it’s unclear how long the stalemate will last — even as hundreds of thousands of federal workers will miss another paycheck in the coming days and states are sounding warnings that key federal programs will soon lapse completely. And the lunch meeting in the White House Rose Garden appears unlikely, for now, to lead to a bipartisan resolution as Senate Republicans are dug in and Trump has followed their lead.

Asked about the message at lunch, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, second in Senate GOP leadership, told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday that it will be, “Republicans are united, and I expect the president to say, ‘Stand strong.’”

Senate Republican leader John Thune, of South Dakota said on Monday that he thinks Trump is ready to “get involved on having the discussion” about extending the subsidies. “But I don’t think they are prepared to do that until (Democrats) open up the government,” he said.

Missed paychecks and programs running out of money

While Capitol Hill remains at a standstill, the effects of the shutdown are worsening.

Federal workers are set to miss additional paychecks amid total uncertainty about when they might eventually get paid. Government services like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, and Head Start preschool programs that serve needy families are facing potential cutoffs in funding. On Monday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the National Nuclear Security Administration is furloughing 1,400 federal workers. The Federal Aviation Administration has reported air controller shortages and flight delays in cities across the United States.

And as the shutdown keeps future health costs in limbo for millions of Americans, most U.S. adults are worried about health care becoming more expensive, according to a new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, as they make decisions about next year’s health coverage.

Still, there has been little urgency in Washington as each side believes the other will eventually cave.

“Our position remains the same: We want to end the shutdown as soon as we can and fix the ACA premium crisis that looms over 20 million hardworking Americans,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Monday, referring to the expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire in December.

Schumer called the White House meeting a “pep rally” and said it was “shameful” that House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has kept the House out of town during the shutdown.

November deadlines

Members of both parties acknowledge that as the shutdown drags on, it is becoming less likely every day that Congress will be able to either extend the subsidies or fund the government through the regular appropriations process. The House GOP bill that Senate Democrats have now rejected 11 times would only keep the government open through Nov. 21.

Thune on Monday hinted that Republicans may propose a longer extension of current funding instead of passing individual spending bills if the shutdown doesn’t end soon. Congress would need to pass an extension beyond Nov. 21, he said, “if not something on a much longer-term basis.”

Democrats are focused on Nov. 1, when next year’s enrollment period for the ACA coverage begins and millions of people will sign up for their coverage without the expanded subsidy help that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. Once those sign-ups begin, they say, it would be much harder to restore the subsidies even if they did have a bipartisan compromise.

“Very soon Americans are going to have to make some really difficult choices about which health care plan they choose for next year,” Schumer said.

What about Trump?

Tuesday’s White House meeting will be a chance for Republican senators to engage with the president on the shutdown after he has been more involved in foreign policy and other issues.

The president last week dismissed Democratic demands as “crazy,” adding, “We’re just not going to do it.”

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said that Republican senators will talk strategy with the president at Tuesday’s lunch. “Obviously, we’ll talk to him about it, and he’ll give us his ideas, and we’ll talk about ours,” Hoeven said. “Anything we can do to try to get Democrats to join us” and pass the Republican bill to reopen the government, Hoeven said.

Still, GOP lawmakers expect Trump to stay in line with their current posture to reject negotiations until the government is open.

“Until they put something reasonable on the table to talk about, I don’t think there’s anything to talk about,” said Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy.

Democrats say Trump has to be more involved for the government to reopen.

“He needs to get off the sidelines, get off the golf course,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. “We know that House and Senate Republicans don’t do anything without getting permission from their boss, Donald J. Trump.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking, Stephen Groves and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

CHICAGO — The music begins low and ominous, with the video showing searchlights skimming along a Chicago apartment building and heavily armed immigration agents storming inside. Guns are drawn. Unmarked cars fill the streets. Agents rappel from a Black Hawk helicopter.

But quickly the soundtrack grows more stirring and the video — edited into a series of dramatic shots and released by the Department of Homeland Security days after the Sept. 30 raid — shows agents leading away shirtless men, their hands zip-tied behind their backs.

Authorities said they were targeting the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, though they also said only two of the 27 immigrants arrested were gang members. They gave few details on the arrests.

But the apartments of dozens of U.S. citizens were targeted, residents said, and at least a half-dozen Americans were held for hours.

The immense show of force signaled a sharp escalation in the White House’s immigration crackdown and amplified tensions in a city already on edge.

“To every criminal illegal alien: Darkness is no longer your ally,” Homeland Security said in a social media post accompanying the video, which racked up more than 6.4 million views. “We will find you.”

But Tony Wilson, a third-floor resident born and raised on Chicago’s South Side, sees only horror in what happened.

“It was like we were under attack,” Wilson said days after the raid, speaking through the hole where his door knob used to be. Agents had used a grinder to cut out the deadbolt, and he still couldn’t close the door properly, let alone lock it. So he had barricaded himself inside, blocking the door with furniture.

“I didn’t even hear them knock or nothing,” said Wilson, a 58-year-old U.S. citizen on disability.

Dreams and decay

The raid was executed in the heart of South Shore, an overwhelmingly Black neighborhood on Lake Michigan that has long been a tangle of middle-class dreams, urban decay and gentrification.

It’s a place where teams of drug dealers troll for customers outside ornate lakeside apartment buildings. It has some of the city’s best vegan restaurants but also takeout places where the catfish fillets are ordered through bullet-proof glass.

It has well-paid professors from the University of Chicago but is also where one-third of households scrape by on less than $25,000 a year.

The apartment building where the raid occurred has long been troubled. Five stories tall and built in the 1950s, residents said it was often strewn with garbage, the elevators rarely worked and crime was a constant worry. Things had grown more chaotic after dozens of Venezuelan migrants arrived in the past few years, residents said. While no residents said they felt threatened by the migrants, many described a rise in noise and hallway trash.

Owned by out-of-state investors, the building hasn’t passed an inspection in three years, with problems ranging from missing smoke detectors to the stench of urine to filthy stairways. Repeated calls to a lead investor in the limited liability company that owns the building, a Wisconsin resident named Trinity Flood, were not returned. Attempts to reach representatives through realtors and lawyers were also unsuccessful.

Crime fears spiked in June when a Venezuelan man was shot in the head “execution-style,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. Another Venezuelan was charged in the death.

Days after the raid, the doors to dozens of the building’s 130 apartments hung open. Nearly all those apartments had been ransacked. Windows were broken, doors smashed, and clothes and diapers littered the floors. In one apartment, a white tuxedo jacket hung in the closet next to a room knee-deep in broken furniture, piles of clothing and plastic bags. In another, water dripping from the ceiling puddled next to a refrigerator lying on its side. Some kitchens swarmed with insects.

Wilson said a trio of men in body armor had zip-tied his hands and forced him outside with dozens of other people, most Latino. After being held for two hours he was told he could leave.

“It was terrible, man,” he said. He’d barely left the apartment in days.

A city under siege?

Chicago, the White House says, is under siege.

Gang members and immigrants in the U.S. illegally swarm the city and crime is rampant, President Trump insists. National Guard soldiers are needed to protect government facilities from raging left-wing protesters.

“Chicago is the worst and most dangerous city in the World,” he posted on Truth Social.

The reality is far less dramatic. Violence is rare at protests, though angry confrontations are increasingly common, particularly outside a federal immigration center in suburban Broadview. And while crime is a serious problem, the city’s murder rate has dropped by roughly half since the 1990s.

Those realities have not stopped the Trump administration.

What started in early September with some arrests in Latino neighborhoods, part of a crackdown dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz,” has surged across Chicago. There are increasing patrols by masked, armed agents; detentions of U.S. citizens and immigrants with legal status; a fatal shooting; a protesting pastor shot in the head with a pepper ball outside the Broadview facility, his arms raised in supplication.

By early October, authorities said more than 1,000 immigrants had been arrested across the area.

The raids have shaken Chicago.

“We have a rogue, reckless group of heavily armed, masked individuals roaming throughout our city,” Mayor Brandon Johnson said after the Sept. 30 raid. “The Trump administration is seeking to destabilize our city and promote chaos.”

To Trump’s critics, the crackdown is a calculated effort to stir anger in a city and state run by some of his most outspoken Democratic opponents. Out-of-control protests would reinforce Trump’s tough-on-crime image, they say, while embarrassing Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, seen as a possible Democratic presidential contender.

So the South Shore raid, ready-made for social media with its displays of military hardware and agents armed for combat, was seen as wildly out of proportion.

“This was a crazy-looking military response they put together for their reality show,” said LaVonte Stewart, who runs a South Shore sports program to steer young people away from violence. “It’s not like there are roving bands of Venezuelan teenagers out there.”

Officials insist it was no reality show.

The operation, led by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, was based on months of intelligence gathering, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The building’s landlord told authorities that Venezuelans in about 30 units were squatters and had threatened other tenants, the official said, adding that the building’s size necessitated the show of force. Immigration agencies declined further comment.

Even before the “Midway Blitz,” Trump’s election had whipsawed through Chicago’s Latino communities.

Stewart said Venezuelan children began disappearing from his programs months ago, though it’s often unclear if they moved, returned to Venezuela or are just staying home.

“I had 35 kids in my program from Venezuela,” he said. “Now there’s none.”

A wave of migrant newcomers

The raid echoed through South Shore, pinballing through memories of the surge in violence during the 1990s drug wars as well as economic divides and the sometimes uncomfortable relations between Black residents and the wave of more than 50,000 immigrants, most Latino, who began arriving in 2022, often bused from southern border states.

Chicago spent more than $300 million on housing and other services for the immigrants, fueling widespread resentment in South Shore and other Black neighborhoods where the newcomers were settled.

“They felt like these new arrivals received better treatment than people who were already part of the community,” said Kenneth Phelps, pastor at the Concord Missionary Baptist Church in Woodlawn, a largely Black neighborhood.

It didn’t matter that many migrants were crowded into small apartments, and most simply wanted to work. The message to residents, he said, was that the newcomers mattered more than they did.

Phelps tried to fight that perception, creating programs to help new arrivals and inviting them to his church. But that stirred more anger, including in his own congregation.

“I even had people leave the church,” he said.

In South Shore it’s easy to hear the bitterness, even though the neighborhood’s remaining migrants are a nearly invisible presence.

“They took everyone’s jobs!” said Rita Lopez, who manages neighborhood apartment buildings and recently stopped by the scene of the raid.

“The government gave all the money to them — and not to the Chicagoans,” she said.

Changing demographics and generations of suspicion

Over more than a century, South Shore has drawn waves of Irish, Jewish and then Black arrivals for its lakeside location, affordable bungalows and early 20th-century apartment buildings.

Each wave viewed the next with suspicion, in many ways mirroring how Black South Shore residents saw the migrant influx.

Former first lady Michelle Obama’s parents moved to South Shore when it was still mostly white, and she watched it change. A neighborhood that was 96% white in 1950 was 96% Black by 1980.

“We were doing everything we were supposed to do — and better,” she said in 2019. “But when we moved in, white families moved out.”

But suspicion also came from South Shore’s Black middle-class, which watched nervously as many housing projects began closing in the 1990s, creating an influx of poorer residents.

“This has always been a complex community,” Stewart said of those years.

“You can live on a block here that’s super-clean, with really nice houses, then go one block away and there’s broken glass, trash everywhere and shootings,” he said. “It’s the weirdest thing and it’s been this way for 30 years.”

Sullivan writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Aisha I. Jefferson in Chicago, Elliot Spagat in San Diego and Claudia Lauer in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

Nancy Pelosi’s plan to seek reelection extends one of San Francisco’s longest-running, most-fevered political guessing games: Who will succeed the Democrat when she finally does step aside?

The announcement Tuesday by the 81-year-old congresswoman was utterly predictable. Her decision augurs an election that will be thoroughly pro forma.

Pelosi will attract, as she always does, at least one candidate running to her left, who will insist — in true San Francisco fashion — that she is not a real Democrat. There will also be a Republican opponent or two, who may raise many millions of dollars from Pelosi haters around the country acting more out of spite than good sense.

And then, in just about nine months, she will be handily reelected to Congress for an 18th time.

Nob Hill may crumble. Alcatraz may tumble. But Pelosi, who hasn’t bothered running anything remotely resembling a campaign in decades, will not be turned out by her constituents so long as she draws a breath and stands for election.

There was speculation she might step aside and not run again. But Pelosi knows better than anyone the power and influence — not to mention prodigious fundraising capacity — that would diminish the moment she indicated the rest of the year would be spent marking time to her departure.

In an October 2018 interview, while campaigning in Florida ahead of the midterm election that returned her to the speakership, Pelosi allowed as how she didn’t envision staying in office forever. (It was a signal to those impatient Democrats in the House that their aspirations wouldn’t die aborning and helped her secure the votes she needed to retake the gavel.)

“I see myself as a transitional figure,” Pelosi said at a downtown Miami bistro. “I have things to do. Books to write; places to go; grandchildren, first and foremost, to love.”

But, she quickly added, she wasn’t imposing a limit on her tenure. “Do you think I would make myself a lame duck right here over this double espresso?” Pelosi said with a raised eyebrow and a laugh.

She won’t, of course, live forever, and so for many years there has been speculation — and some quiet jockeying — over who will eventually take Pelosi’s place.

To say her seat in Congress is coveted is like suggesting there’s a wee bit of interest in the city in a certain sporting event this weekend. (For those non-football fans, the San Francisco 49ers will be playing the Rams in the NFC championship game for a ticket to the Super Bowl.)

In nearly 60 years, just three people have served in the seat Pelosi now holds. Two of them — Phil Burton and Pelosi — account for all but a handful of those years. Burton’s widow, Sala, served about four years before, as she lay dying, she anointed Pelosi as her chosen replacement.

So succeeding Pelosi could be the closest thing to a lifetime appointment any San Francisco politician will ever enjoy. And given all the pent-up ambition, there is no shortage of prospective candidates.

One of the strongest contenders is state Sen. Scott Wiener, 51, who has built an impressive record in Sacramento in a district that roughly approximates the current congressional boundaries.

Another prospect is Christine Pelosi, 55, the most politically visible of the speaker’s five children and a longtime activist in Democratic campaigns and causes. If she ran, to what length — if any — would the speaker go in hopes of handing off the seat to her daughter?

Republicans seem exceedingly likely to win control of the House in November. It seems exceedingly unlikely that Pelosi would happily settle into the role of minority leader, much less fall back as a workaday member of a shrunken, enfeebled Democratic caucus.

Would she time her departure to benefit her daughter by, say, requiring a snap election that would take advantage of Pelosi’s brand name? Or would she avoid choosing sides and allow the election to play out in San Francisco’s typically brutal, free-for-all fashion?

The intrigue continues.

WASHINGTON — In a day of bitter partisan skirmishing, President Trump’s allies and his Democratic antagonists took to the nation’s talk shows Sunday to present stridently opposing views of the impeachment inquiry that hit Washington last week like a tornado, sweeping nearly all other priorities aside.

The sharply dueling narratives showed that the impeachment battle will be one of bitter political messaging as much as impartial sifting of evidence. Initial polls showed a majority of Americans approve of the inquiry — but no national consensus on how to assess the president’s actions.

While the president spent the day golfing, his allies angrily attacked the legitimacy of the House inquiry, excoriated the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the crisis, and repeated debunked allegations against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.

Trump later upped the ante on Twitter, leveling an incendiary charge against Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that is spearheading the impeachment process. Schiff, the president wrote, should be “questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.”

Democrats pushed back, saying that if the whistleblower’s complaint is borne out, Trump’s misconduct was egregious enough to merit ouster from office.

“This is classic abuse of power. This is as serious as it gets,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic caucus, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

At issue is whether Trump abused his authority for personal gain, and put national security at risk, by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in promised military aid to Ukraine while urging its president to do him a “favor” by digging up dirt on his potential Democratic rival in the 2020 election.

Schiff said lawmakers had reached an agreement with the whistleblower who filed an anonymous complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and subsequent White House efforts to “lock down” evidence, to testify behind closed doors.

Schiff did not give a date, but said he expects it as soon as the individual’s lawyers are granted an appropriate security clearing to attend the hearing. “We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower,” Schiff said on ABC News’ “This Week.”

“We are taking all the precautions we can to protect the whistleblower’s identity,” Schiff added. “With President Trump’s threats, you can imagine the security concerns here.”

Mark Zaid, one of the lawyers representing the whistleblower, tweeted, “We continue to work w/both parties in House & Senate & we understand all agree protecting whistleblower’s identity is paramount.” He added that no date or time had been set for the testimony.

Schiff, asked if Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer and a central figure in the impeachment storm, would also be called to testify, said it was too soon to say.

“I don’t want to commit myself to that at this point,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We certainly need to do a lot of work to find out what Giuliani has been doing in Ukraine.”

Giuliani, a private citizen who claims the State Department approved his back-channel dealings with Ukrainian officials on Trump’s behalf, said during a testy exchange on ABC’s “This Week” that he “wouldn’t cooperate” with Schiff.

He derided Schiff, who has served nearly two decades in the House, as an “illegitimate chairman” who “wants to hang the president.”

Stephen Miller, a senior White House aide who has mounted scorched-earth campaigns for Trump’s controversial immigration crackdown, branded the whistleblower’s complaint a “little Nancy Drew novel” that “drips with condemnation, condescension and contempt for the president.”

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Miller called the whistleblower “a saboteur trying to undermine a democratically elected government,” and endorsed Trump’s menacing characterization of the whistleblower — made in a closed-door meeting in New York last week — as “close to a spy.”

The acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, told Schiff’s committee last week that the whistleblower, who is reportedly a CIA analyst who was assigned to the White House, had acted “in good faith” and had followed the law.

Republicans have generally stood behind Trump, but in an administration beset by near-constant turnover and turmoil, some former White House officials began to venture criticism.

Trump’s former homeland security advisor, Tom Bossert, told ABC’s “This Week” that “it is a bad day and a bad week for the president and for this country if he is asking for political dirt on an opponent.”

But Trump’s staunchest congressional supporters — including Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.), who once called Biden “as good a man as God ever created” — sought to counter allegations against Trump by insisting it was the Democratic presidential candidate whose actions needed investigating.

Giuliani and other Trump supporters have repeatedly claimed that in 2016, Biden, then vice president, acted improperly to help his son, Hunter, by pushing for the firing of Ukraine’s prosecutor general, the country’s senior law enforcement official.

The prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was ousted at the request of not only the Obama administration but also the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, who were seeking to stem corruption in Ukraine and believed Shokin was obstructing that work.

Shokin had once looked into the oligarch who owned Burisma, the energy company that had given a lucrative job to Hunter Biden, but the younger Biden was not the target or accused of any wrongdoing. In any case, the probe was already dormant when Shokin was pushed out.

Graham said on “Face the Nation” Sunday that “I love Joe Biden” but added, “somebody ought to look at whether or not Joe Biden had the prosecutor fired, and in a proper way.” Graham also said the whistleblower’s complaint “smells to high heaven.”

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), who recently traveled to Ukraine, said attacks on the former vice president were groundless, noting that no evidence of any criminal conduct has emerged in either Ukraine or the U.S.

“All these insinuations around Joe Biden — there is zero evidence for the claims the president is making,” Murphy said, describing them as a deliberate attempt to distract attention from Trump’s own comments in his July phone call to Zelensky.

“The whistleblower complaint is absolutely credible, but frankly you don’t need it because you have a transcript of a conversation in which the president of the United States tried to convince a foreign leader to interfere in the 2020 election,” he said.

“And you have Rudy Giuliani on TV every morning and every night, openly admitting that as an agent of the president’s campaign, he has been coordinating with the State Department in order to try to perpetuate the president’s political agenda,” Murphy added. “This is not allowable in a democracy.”

An estimated 7 million Americans turned out Saturday to peacefully protest against the breakdown of our checks-and-balances democracy into a Trump-driven autocracy, rife with grift but light on civil rights.

Trump’s response? An AI video of himself wearing a crown inside a fighter plane, dumping what appears to be feces on these very protesters. In a later interview, he called participants of the “No Kings” events “whacked out” and “not representative of this country.”

I’m beginning to fear he’s right. What if the majority of Americans really do believe this sort of behavior by our president, or by anyone really, is acceptable? Even funny? A recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 81% of Republicans approve of the way Trump is handling his job. Seriously, the vast majority of Republicans are just fine with Trump’s policies and behavior.

According to MAGA, non-MAGA people are just too uptight these days.

Vice Troll JD Vance has become a relentless force for not just defending the most base and cruel of behaviors, but celebrating them. House Speaker Mike Johnson has made the spineless, limp justification of these behaviors an art form.

Between the two approaches to groveling to Trump’s ego and mendacity is everything you need to know about the future of the Republican Party. It will stop at nothing to debase and dehumanize any opposition — openly acknowledging that it dreams of burying in excrement even those who peacefully object.

Not even singer Kenny Loggins is safe. His “Top Gun” hit “Danger Zone” was used in the video. When he objected with a statement of unity, saying, “Too many people are trying to tear us apart, and we need to find new ways to come together. We’re all Americans, and we’re all patriotic. There is no ‘us and them’,” the White House responded with … a dismissive meme, clearly the new norm when responding to critics.

It may seem obvious, and even old news that this administration lacks accountability. But the use of memes and AI videos as communication, devoid of truth or consequence, adds a new level of danger to the disconnect.

These non-replies not only remove reality from the equation, but remove the need for an actual response — creating a ruling class that does not feel any obligation to explain or defend its actions to the ruled.

Politico published a story last week detailing the racist, misogynistic and hate-filled back-and-forth of an official, party-sanctioned “young Republican” group. Since most of our current politicians are part of the gerontocracy, that young is relative — these are adults, in their 20s and 30s — and they are considered the next generation of party leaders, in a party that has already skewed so far right that it defends secret police.

Here’s a sample.

Bobby Walker, the former vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans, called rape “epic,” according to Politico.

Another member of the chat called Black Americans “watermelon people.”

“Great. I love Hitler,” wrote another when told delegates would vote for the most far-right candidate.

There was also gas chamber “humor” in there and one straight up, “I’m ready to watch people burn now,” from a woman in the conversation, Anne KayKaty, New York’s Young Republican’s national committee member, according to the Hill.

Group members engaged in slurs against South Asians, another popular target of the far right these days. There’s an entire vein of racism devoted to the idea that Indians smell bad, in case you were unaware.

Speaking of a woman mistakenly believed to be South Asian, one group member — Vermont state Sen. Samuel Douglass, wrote: “She just didn’t bathe often.”

While some in the Republican party have denounced, albeit half-heartedly, the comments, others, including Vance, have gone on the attack. Vance, whose wife is Indian, claims everyone is making a big deal out of nothing.

“But the reality is that kids do stupid things. Especially young boys, they tell edgy, offensive jokes. Like, that’s what kids do,” Vance said. “And I really don’t want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke — telling a very offensive, stupid joke — is cause to ruin their lives.”

Not to be outdone, Johnson responded to the poop jet video by somehow insinuating there is an elevated meaning to it.

“The president was using social media to make a point,” Johnson said, calling it “satire.”

Satire is meant to embarrass and humiliate, to call out through humor the indefensible. I’ll buy the first part of that. Trump meant to embarrass and humiliate. But protesting, of course, is anything but indefensible and the use of feces as a weapon is a way of degrading those “No Kings” participants so that Trump doesn’t have to answer to their anger — no different than degrading Black people and women in that group chat.

Those 7 million Americans who demonstrated on Saturday simply do not matter to Trump, or to Republicans. Not their healthcare, not their ability to pay the bills, not their worry that a country they love is turning in to one where their leader literally illustrates that he can defecate on them.

But not everyone can be king.

While the young Republicans believe they shared in their leader’s immunity, it turns out they don’t. That Vermont state senator? He resigned after the Republican governor put on pressure.

Maybe 7 million Americans angry at Trump can’t convince him to change his ways, but enough outraged Vermont voters can make change in their corner of the country.

Which is why the one thing Trump does fear is the midterms, when voters get to shape our own little corners of America — and by extension, whether Trump gets to keep using his throne.

After 12 years on the Los Angeles City Council, Curren Price will be term-limited out of the legislative body this coming year.

The candidate he hopes will replace him comes from his staff, his deputy chief of staff, Jose Ugarte, who has been referred to in the past as Price’s “right-hand man.”

But with many months to go before ballots are cast, Ugarte is already in hot water with the city’s Ethics Commission.

According to documents released by the commission, Ugarte has agreed to pay a $17,500 fine for repeatedly failing to disclose outside income he made from his lobbying and consulting firm while also working as a council staffer.

A commission investigation found that Ugarte failed to report outside income from his consulting firm, Ugarte & Associates, for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, according to the documents.

The Ugarte proposed settlement is set to go before the Ethics Commission on Wednesday.

“This was an unintentional clerical reporting error on my part. As soon as I was made aware, I took full responsibility and corrected them,” Ugarte said in a statement emailed to The Times. “I take disclosure seriously. Moving forward, I have implemented steps to ensure nothing is missed.”

Ugarte said his work with Ugarte & Associates never overlapped with his time in Price’s office. He started working for Price in 2013, but left the office in 2019. He returned in 2021. Ugarte & Associates was formed in 2018 and still conducts business. He co-owns the company with his sister.

The settlement comes as Ugarte’s boss faces his own ethics quandary.

Price was indicted two years ago on 10 counts of grand theft by embezzlement after his wife’s consulting firm received payments of more than $150,000 between 2019 and 2021 from developers before Price voted to approve projects.

Prosecutors also said Price failed to list his wife’s income on his ethics disclosure forms.

Prosecutors have since filed additional charges against Price saying his wife, Del Richardson, was paid hundreds of thousands by the city housing authority while Price voted in favor of millions in grants to the agency. He also wrote a motion to give $30 million to the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority from 2020 to 2021, a time frame in which Richardson was paid more than $200,000 by the agency.

Price said he supports Ugarte despite the ethics violation.

“This matter dates back to 2021, when he was not employed by the city, and is clerical in nature,” Price said in a statement texted to The Times. “I wholeheartedly support Jose Ugarte, alongside an unprecedented coalition of elected officials, labor groups, and community leaders who stand behind his character, leadership and proven record of results.”

Ugarte is one of the leading candidates running to represent Council District 9, which covers South Los Angeles. He raised $211,206 in the first reporting cycle of the election, far outpacing his rivals.

One of Ugarte’s opponents, Estuardo Mazariegos, called the Ethics Commission findings “very disturbing.”

The Ethics Commission also alleged that Ugarte’s documents about outside income, known as Form 700s, failed to report clients who gave $10,000 or more to Ugarte & Associates.

Those clients were mostly independent expenditures for local candidates.

His firm was paid $128,050 to help with the reelection campaign of Congressman Jimmy Gomez (D-California). It was also paid $222,000 by Elect California to help with the reelection campaign of Mitch O’Farrell among other clients.

“This proposed settlement raises more questions than it answers: Are these the only payments Ugarte hid? Why was he concealing them from the public? And above all, how did these massive payments in outside interests affect Jose Ugarte’s work as a city employee?” Mazariegos said in a statement to The Times.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a stark warning Monday that food assistance benefits for millions of low-income Californians could be delayed starting Nov. 1 if the ongoing federal shutdown does not end by Thursday.

The benefits, issued under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and formerly called food stamps, include federally funded benefits loaded onto CalFresh cards. They support some 5.5 million Californians.

Newsom blamed the potential SNAP disruption — and the shutdown more broadly — on President Trump and slammed the timing of the potential cutoff just as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches.

“Trump’s failure to open the federal government is now endangering people’s lives and making basic needs like food more expensive — just as the holidays arrive,” Newsom said. “It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to grow a spine, stand up to Trump, and deliver for the American people.”

The White House responded by blaming the shutdown on Democrats, as it has done before.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the “Democrats’ decision to shut down the government is hurting Americans across the country,” and that Democrats “can choose to reopen the government at any point” by voting for a continuing resolution to fund the government as budget negotiations continue, which she said they repeatedly did during the Biden administration.

“Newscum should urge his Democrat pals to stop hurting the American people,” Jackson said, using a favorite Trump insult for Newsom. “The Trump Administration is working day and night to mitigate the pain Democrats are causing, and even that is upsetting the Left, with many Democrats criticizing the President’s effort to pay the troops and fund food assistance for women and children.”

Congressional Republicans also have blamed the shutdown and resulting interruptions to federal programs on Democrats, who are refusing to vote for a Republican-backed funding measure based in large part on Republican decisions to eliminate subsidies for healthcare plans relied on by millions of Americans.

Newsom’s warning about SNAP benefits followed similar alerts from other states on both sides of the political aisle, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned state agencies in an Oct. 10 letter that the shutdown may interrupt funding for the benefits.

States have to take action to issue November benefits before the month ends, so the shutdown would have to end sooner than Nov. 1 for the benefits to be available in time.

Newsom’s office said Californians could see their benefits interrupted or delayed if the shutdown is not ended by Thursday. The Texas Health and Human Services Department warned that SNAP benefits for November “won’t be issued if the federal government shutdown continues past Oct. 27.”

Newsom’s office said a cutoff of funds would affect federally funded CalFresh benefits, but also some other state-funded benefits. More than 63% of SNAP recipients in California are children or elderly people, Newsom’s office said.

In her own statement, First Partner of California Jennifer Siebel Newsom said, “Government should be measured by how we protect people’s lives, their health, and their well-being. Parents and caregivers should not be forced to choose between buying groceries or paying bills.”

States were already gearing up for other changes to SNAP eligibility based on the Republican-passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which set new limits on SNAP benefits, including for nonworking adults. Republicans have argued that such restrictions will encourage more able-bodied adults to get back into the workforce to support their families themselves.

Many Democrats and advocacy organizations that work to protect low-income families and children have argued that restricting SNAP benefits has a disproportionately large effect on some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including poor children.

According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served by SNAP benefits per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. The USDA has some contingency funding it can utilize to continue benefits in the short term, but does not have enough to cover all monthly benefits, advocates said.

Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy at the advocacy group End Child Poverty California, urged the USDA to utilize its contingency funding and any other funding stream possible to prevent a disruption to SNAP benefits, which he said would be “disastrous.”

“CalFresh is a lifeline for 5.5 million Californians who rely on the program to eat. That includes 2 million children. It is unconscionable that we are only days away from children and families not knowing where their next meal is going to come from,” Cheyne said.

He said the science is clear that “even a brief period of food insecurity has long-term consequences for children’s growth and development.”

Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said a disruption would be “horrific.”

“We speak out for the needs of kids and families, and kids need food — basic support to live and function and go to school,” he said. “So this could be really devastating.”

Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.

YORBA LINDA — Not all the President’s men were there, but enough to make a strong showing.

Former Cabinet members Henry A. Kissinger and Richard G. Kleindienst were in attendance. So were Watergate figures Maurice Stans, once finance chairman for Nixon’s re-election committee, and G. Gordon Liddy, the convicted mastermind of the bungled burglary.

Former Nixon spokesman Ron Ziegler and Counsel Chuck Colson also paid their respects. Jo Horton Haldeman, the widow of Nixon’s chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, was in the audience. And so was Rose Mary Woods, the secretary who took responsibility for creating the infamous 18 1/2-minute gap on a critical Watergate tape.

But so was George McGovern, who was among the first named on Nixon’s infamous “enemies list,” and whose presence on the funeral’s exclusive guest list spoke more eloquently of reconciliation than some who eulogized the 37th President.

“This has been a reconciling day for me and, I think, for a lot of other people,” said McGovern, who as the Democratic nominee waged an acrimonious political fight against Nixon for the presidency in 1972 and was buried in a electoral landslide. “I kind of really feel like I’ve lost an old friend, even though we were bitter political enemies through the years.”

Colson, who spent seven months in prison for obstructing justice during the Watergate conspiracy, also spoke of healing.

“I think he achieved in death something he never quite achieved in life–to bring the nation together,” said Colson. “Maybe the wounds of Watergate are now, twenty-some years later, finally healed.”

The guest list for the funeral cut across a broad spectrum of Nixon’s political and private life: Republicans and Democrats, friends and former enemies, family members, entertainers, sports figures, religious leaders and many, many longtime staffers.

At the Yorba Linda Community Center, where many of the guests had gathered before the funeral, the Nixon faithful–wearing either purple or yellow “RN” badges that were their tickets to the funeral–embraced like long-lost friends.

Liddy and Howard H. Baker Jr., the former Tennessee senator and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee that held televised hearings on Watergate, rode over to the funeral site together on a shuttle.

Robert H. Finch, who served under Nixon as secretary of health, education and welfare, smiled and shook hands with Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense under President Gerald R. Ford.

“I think the Nixon family can feel very, very good about what he accomplished, and who all is here,” Rumsfeld said. “A broad cross-section of the world is recognizing him for what he did.”

From across the Nixon years came Alexander M. Haig Jr., Haldeman’s replacement as chief of staff, and Caspar W. Weinberger, former secretary of health, education and welfare who became Ronald Reagan’s defense secretary. James R. Schlesinger, Nixon’s defense secretary, and William P. Rogers, his secretary of state, joined a few dozen others from the Nixon presidency, including political columnist and presidential aspirant Patrick J. Buchanan, security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Atty. Gen. Elliot L. Richardson.

Even former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, who before Nixon’s resignation left office himself in disgrace under a criminal indictment, and his wife, Judy, attended the funeral. Agnew had asked Julie Nixon Eisenhower if he would be welcome at the funeral and was assured that his presence was important. On Wednesday, he was greeted warmly.

“I’m here to pay my respects for (Nixon’s) accomplishments,” said Nixon’s vice president, who resigned in 1973 after pleading no contest to tax evasion. “It’s time to put aside 20 years of resentment, which is what I’m doing at this moment.”

More than 100 members of Congress were on the guest list, including 47 U.S. senators, House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), Senate Democratic Leader George Mitchell of Maine and the California congressional delegation.

Representatives from across the globe, from Angola to Argentina and Singapore to Seychelles, also were in force. In all, 86 countries sent dignitaries to pay respects.

But Nixon had other admirers, too, who had little if anything to do with politics. Comedians Bob Hope and Red Skelton and actor Buddy Ebsen attended with their wives. Former Rams star Roosevelt Grier also attended.

“It was a good send-off to Richard Nixon and his future life,” said Ebsen, who also attended Pat Nixon’s funeral last summer. “There was a feeling of togetherness. It stepped across party lines and it was a beautiful happening. We need that to get all of us together.”

Said Hope: “He was a hell of a guy. Playing golf, you learn a lot about a guy’s character. His was a great character.”

The guest list was indeed impressive, with names like Walter Annenberg, George Argyros, Jesse Helms, William Lyon, Ashraf Pahlavi, Bebe Rebozo, Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Segerstrom, Mary Roosevelt and James B. Stockdale sprinkled throughout.

Orange County also had a large contingent, including a gathering of state senators and assemblymen. All five Orange County supervisors were also invited. The local Republican Central Committee distributed 100 tickets to elected officials, volunteers and others affiliated with the local party, chairman Thomas A. Fuentes said, and just about everyone who wanted in got in.

“It was dignified, sentimental and memorable,” Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder said. “I think it was Kissinger who said that when you look at the quality of a person and whether they lived well, you look at the entirety of the life. That’s how I remember Richard Nixon.”

Mourners spoke about healing and the inevitability that Nixon, in death, may finally have been absolved of his perceived sins.

Former Vice President Dan Quayle joked that Kissinger had captured it perfectly when he predicted that Nixon “would’ve liked to have read and reread all the favorable reviews that he’s had this last week.”

The Rev. Robert Schuller said he was pleased to see those reviews.

“I’m very grateful to God for the respect that’s been shown (Nixon) this last week,” said Schuller. “Society does not forgive. People tend to hold on to their hurts.”

But since Nixon’s death, Schuller said, the public is beginning to “recognize Nixon’s greatness.”

Times staff writers Alicia DiRado, Doreen Carvajal and Eric Lichtblau contributed to this report.

On the Guest List

The official U.S. delegation, members of Congress and the foreign delegation attending the funeral of Richard Nixon, according to the White House:

U.S. PRESIDENTS AND THEIR WIVES

* Bill and Hillary Clinton

* George and Barbara Bush

* Ronald and Nancy Reagan

* Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter

* Gerald and Betty Ford

NIXON ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS

* Spiro T. Agnew, former vice president

* Peter J. Brennan, former labor secretary

* Frederick B. Dent, former commerce secretary

* Elliot L. Richardson, former attorney general and health, education and welfare secretary

* William P. Rogers, former secretary of state

* Henry A. Kissinger, former secretary of state

* James R. Schlesinger, former defense secretary

* Caspar W. Weinberger, former HEW secretary

* William B. Saxbe, former attorney general

* Alexander M. Haig Jr., former chief of staff

* Brent Scowcroft, former Nixon aide

* Herb Stein, former economic adviser

* James T. Lynn, former HUD secretary

* Charles W. Colson, former special counsel to the President

* Dwight L. Chapin, former deputy assistant to the President

* Kenneth H. Dahlberg, former Midwest finance chairman of the Committee for the Re-election of the President

* Richard G. Kleindienst, former U.S. attorney general

* Ronald L. Ziegler, former press secretary

* G. Gordon Liddy, former White House aide

* Herbert W. Kalmbach, personal attorney to Nixon

* Robert H. Finch, former secretary of health, education and welfare

* Patrick J. Buchanan, speech writer

* Rose Mary Woods, former secretary

* Lyn Nofziger, former staff member

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS

* Defense Secretary William Perry

* Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

* Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty, White House chief of staff

* Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state

* Carol Browner, Environmental Protection Agency administrator

* Phil Lader, White House deputy chief of staff

* Dee Dee Myers, White House press secretary

* David Gergen, counselor to the President

* Bruce Lindsey, senior presidential adviser

* W. Anthony Lake, national security adviser

* Lloyd Cutler, White House special counsel

* Robert Rubin, director of National Economic Council

* Mark Gearan, White House communications director

* Pat Griffin, White House congressional affairs lobbyist

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

More than 100 members were on the list. Among them:

* House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash.

* Senate Democratic Leader George Mitchell, D-Me.

* Sen. Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan.

* Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y.

* Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

* Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo.

* Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

* Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

* Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Tex.

* Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

* Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.

* Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex.

* Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

* Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

* Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga.

* Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore.

* Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo.

* Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C.

* House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo.

* House Republican Leader Robert Michel, R-Ill.

* Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

* Rep. Carlos Moorhead, R-Glendale

* Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Bakersfield

* Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas

* Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon

* Rep. Robert K. Dornan, R-Garden Grove

* Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley

* Rep. Wally Herger, R-Rio Oso

* Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Newport Beach

* Rep. Jay C. Kim, R-Diamond Bar

* Rep. Howard P. McKeon, R-Santa Clarita

* Rep. Ed Royce, R-Fullerton

OTHER INVITED GUESTS

* The Rev. Billy Graham, officiant

* Lynda Johnson Robb, daughter of former President Lyndon B. Johnson

* Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va.

* George McGovern, Nixon’s 1972 presidential opponent

* Bob Strauss, chairman of the Democratic National Committee when Nixon was President

* Vernon Jordan, former president of the National Urban League

* Pete Wilson, California governor

* Kenneth M. Duberstein, former White House chief of staff

* Dwayne Andreas, former ambassador to the People’s Republic of China

* Buddy Ebsen, actor

* Bob Hope, comedian

* Red Skelton, comedian

* Rupert Murdoch, media executive

* Thomas F. Riley, O.C. supervisor

* Harriett M. Wieder, O.C. supervisor

* Gaddi H. Vasquez, O.C. supervisor

* William G. Steiner, O.C. supervisor

* Roger R. Stanton, O.C. supervisor

* Thomas A. Fuentes, O.C. Republican Party chairman

* Dan Quayle, former vice president

* Walter F. Mondale, former vice president

* Walter Annenberg, former U.S. ambassador

* George Argyros, O.C. businessman

* Reza and Ashraf Pahlavi, self-proclaimed Shah of Iran and his aunt

* Richard Riordan, L.A. mayor

* Jack Kemp, former secretary of housing and urban development

* Bebe Rebozo, Nixon friend

* Henry Segerstrom, O.C. businessman

* James B. Stockdale, retired vice admiral

* The Rev. Robert H. Schuller

* Howard H. Baker, former Senate minority leader, chief of staff in Reagan Administration and the ranking minority member on the Senate Watergate Committee

* Ji Chaozhu, United Nations undersecretary general from China

* James A. Baker III, former secretary of treasury and state in Reagan and Bush administrations

FOREIGN COUNTRIES REPRESENTED

Angola, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brunei, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, India, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Maldives, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Suriname, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia.

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Associated Press

From the first time decades ago he was lampooned as a quirky upstart until now, the final stretch of his unprecedented fourth term as California’s governor, Jerry Brown has reveled in his reputation as a cheapskate.

“Nobody is tougher with a buck than I am,” he boasted during the 2010 campaign that sent him back to Sacramento.

Eight years later, Brown is poised to earn a place in the history books as the leader who helped right the ship of state. His mantra of measured spending could be a standard by which future governors are judged.

“We’re well positioned, but if the next governor doesn’t say ‘no’ at critical moments, things will get worse,” Brown said in an interview with The Times.

His promise of similar straight talk about California’s budget prevailed in the 2010 election, held in the shadow of financial collapse. The projected budget deficit he inherited — even after two years of cuts under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — stood at $27 billion.

All of which seemed a distant memory Wednesday as Brown signed a budget creating a $13.8-billion cash reserve, the largest in state history. “I think people in California can be proud that we’re making progress,” the 80-year old Democrat said standing beside legislative leaders — the oldest of whom was only 12 when Brown was first elected governor in 1974.

Gov. Jerry Brown displays a playing card with his dog, Sutter, on it during his State of the State speech in 2014. The cards, handed out to legislators, urged them to save — not spend — all of the growing tax revenues.

(Rich Pedroncelli / AP )

While supporters tout his record on combating climate change or raising the minimum wage, the through line of Brown’s second chance as governor has always been the budget, a topic that demanded a fiscal reckoning just days after he took office.

“What surprised me was how deep the deficit became during Schwarzenegger’s last few years,” he said. “We had to get in there and cut, and find some new revenue and work it out the best way we could.”

Brown’s first moves in 2011 were to cancel new cell phones and government vehicles for state workers, political symbolism not unlike the bland Plymouth sedan he chose in the 1970s from the state vehicle pool. By spring, he convinced lawmakers to cut $8.2 billion from programs like higher education, daytime elderly care services and doctor visits for the poor.

When substantive efforts to solve the rest of the problem stalled that June, the governor did something his predecessors had never done: He vetoed the budget ratified by lawmakers.

“For a decade, the can has been kicked down the road and debt has piled up,” Brown said as he signed the veto message. “California is facing a fiscal crisis, and very strong medicine must be taken.”

The veto was a shot across the bow to the Legislature. “It communicated very clearly that there was going to be a minimum standard for the legislative budget, and they just couldn’t slap anything together and put the name ‘budget’ on it,” Brown says now.

“We were frustrated,” remembers John A. Pérez, who was Assembly speaker at the time. “But it laid the foundation for what has become eight years of on-time, balanced budgets.”

Deeper cuts ultimately were made. Within months, ratings agencies moved California’s credit outlook to positive, the beginning of a trend that has driven down interest rates for government borrowing, one way the state has saved money.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s wall of debt crumbles, but more walls are behind it »

He later turned his attention to the short-term obligations that piled up during the financial crisis, from raided school funds to Wall Street-backed deficit bonds. Branded by Brown as the state’s “wall of debt” and once towering at nearly $35 billion, today the balance is less than $5 billion.

“I tell my friends that Jerry Brown is one of the most fiscally conservative Democrats that I know,” said Connie Conway, a Tulare County Republican who served as Assembly GOP leader from 2010 to 2014. She recalls saying at one point that Brown “is the adult in the room because at least he’s admitting we have debt.”

Still, it was Republicans who handed Brown his first real budget setback in 2011, refusing to support a special statewide election to extend temporary taxes. The governor, never a back-slapping kind of politician, nonetheless mounted an intense charm offensive. He hosted private dinners for legislative Republicans where California wine flowed freely. He brought along his affable Corgi, Sutter, for visits. GOP lawmakers wouldn’t budge.

In hindsight, it was a lucky break. Special elections have historically had a disproportionately high turnout of conservative voters who likely would have rejected the plan. When Republicans balked, Brown and a coalition of business and labor leaders qualified a tax increase for the ballot in 2012, a presidential election year with strong turnout from Democrats.

Gov. Jerry Brown holds up a sign in support of Proposition 30 while visiting a San Diego school on Oct. 23, 2012, in San Diego. The ballot measure passed with 55% of the vote.

(Lenny Ignelzi / AP )

The resulting Proposition 30, a surcharge on the state’s sales tax and the incomes of wealthy taxpayers, provided revenue for six years — a more robust plan, Brown now says, than what he asked Republicans to support. “We’d have been right back in the soup” with the original plan, he said. “This way, we got a couple of more years.”

Brown campaigned hard for the ballot measure, shrewdly making it about the budget’s biggest beneficiary — schools — and about his own commitment to balancing the books. On election day, it passed with 55% of the vote.

“There’s no way in hell the voters would have approved those taxes if not for their faith in his fiscal stewardship,” Pérez said.

The taxes and California’s recovering economy have since produced historic tax windfalls. The state Department of Finance estimates the 2012 tax initiative and an extension approved by voters (but not explicitly endorsed by the governor) in 2016 has, to date, generated $50 billion in additional revenue.

Brown’s budget dominance begins with a firm grip on tax revenue forecasts »

Not that all of the modern Brown era has been all about less spending. State government spending has risen by 59% since 2011. Much of that has gone to K-12 schools, as required by law, and Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Healthcare spending, in particular, has more than doubled in seven years, to about $23 billion in general fund costs. California has fully embraced Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Brown has lashed out at efforts by President Trump to rescind the law.

The rush of revenue also has allowed for a substantial savings account. Brown and lawmakers crafted a robust rainy-day reserve fund, ratified by voters in 2014. “That’s the kind of collaboration you don’t often see between legislators and governors,” Pérez said.

Through lean and flush years alike, the governor’s job approval ratings remained strong. Liberal activists routinely criticized him for not doing more to help those in need, suggesting with an increasing frequency through the years that the scion of a prominent political family had never experienced those struggles first-hand.

Health and human services advocates hold a Los Angeles rally to protest Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget in 2014.

(Ricardo DeAratanha / Los Angeles Times )

“They’re always asking for more,” he said. “There’s no natural limit. There’s no predator for this species of budgetary activity, except the governor.”

Even critics acknowledged that Brown kept listening to advocacy groups. In 2016, he agreed to remove a provision in the state’s welfare assistance program, CalWORKs, that denied coverage to children born while their families were already receiving benefits. The ban had been in place for almost two decades.

“We came a long way,” said state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), the chair of the Senate’s budget committee and a vocal advocate for changing the welfare rule. From the beginning, she said, Brown’s advisers said it was about the cost, not the policy.

This year, Mitchell convinced him to go even further — a small increase in the size of CalWORKs’ monthly cash grants, subsidies that failed to rise with inflation for more than a decade.

Mitchell recalled a flight from Los Angeles during which Brown, a voracious reader, spoke at length about a book that chronicled poverty around the world. “And I was able to say to him, ‘Yes, that chapter right there, that sounds like Central California,’ ” she said.

Likening income inequality to his celebrated efforts on climate change, Mitchell said she once told Brown, “By you just making it a priority, you’ve had worldwide impact. So have the same attitude about poverty.”

In recent years, Brown has agreed to expand childcare programs, Medi-Cal coverage for children regardless of immigration status and a state earned income tax credit for the working poor.

“His track record on issues of poverty, inequality and economic security adds up far better [over two terms] than it often looked in individual budget years,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the nonprofit California Budget and Policy Center, which advocates for the working poor.

Looking beyond the one-year-at-a-time approach to state budgets may be an important legacy of the Brown administration. The governor pointed to recently adopted five-year plans as a way to get a better look at what’s over the horizon. “It gets people thinking about the inevitable consequences of the decisions in this budget,” he said.

It also may help break one of the more ignominious traditions of California governors: leaving a fiscal mess for the next person to clean up. It’s the kind of dilemma his father, the late Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, left Ronald Reagan in 1967 and he left the late George Deukmejian in 1983.

“The story is one of governors always hitting a wall and leaving a big, fat deficit,” he said. “I wanted to avoid that if I could.”

[email protected]

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed command of Oregon National Guard troops to the president Monday, further raising the stakes in the ongoing multifront judicial battle over military deployments to cities across the U.S.

A three-judge appellate panel — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — found that the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to dispatch soldiers domestically.

The judges found that when ordering a deployment, “The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts.”

The ruling was a stark contrast to a lower-court judge’s finding earlier this month.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her Oct. 4 temporary restraining order.

The appellate judges said they were guided by a precedent set in the 9th Circuit this summer, when California tried and failed to wrest back control of federalized soldiers in and around Los Angeles.

Another proceeding in California’s case is scheduled before the appellate court this week and the court’s earlier decision could be reversed. At the same time, an almost identical deployment in Illinois is under review by the Supreme Court.

For now, exactly which troops can deploy in Portland remains bitterly contested in U.S. District court, where Immergut blocked the administration from flooding Portland with Guardsmen from California.

The issue is likely to be decided by Supreme Court later this fall.

The judges who heard the Oregon case outlined the dueling legal theories in their opinions. The two members of the bench who backed Trump’s authority over the troops argued the law is straightforward.

“The President’s decision in this area is absolute,” wrote Judge Ryan D. Nelson, a Trump appointee, in a concurrence arguing that the court had overstepped its bounds in taking the case at all.

“Reasonable minds will disagree about the propriety of the President’s National Guard deployment in Portland,” Nelson wrote. “But federal courts are not the panacea to cure that disagreement—the political process is (at least under current Supreme Court precedent).”

Susan P. Graber, a Clinton appointee, said the appellate court had veered into parody.

“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” she wrote in her stinging dissent.

But the stakes of sending armed soldiers to American cities based on little more than “propaganda” are far higher, she wrote.

“I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur,” Graber wrote. “Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed a critical-minerals deal at the White House on Monday as the U.S. eyes the continent’s rich rare-earth resources at a time when China is imposing tougher rules on exporting its own critical minerals.

The two leaders described the agreement as an $8.5 billion deal between the allies. Trump said it had been negotiated over several months.

“Today’s agreement on critical minerals and rare earths is just taking” the U.S. and Australia’s relationship “to the next level,” Albanese added.

This month, Beijing announced that it will require foreign companies to get approval from the Chinese government to export magnets containing even trace amounts of rare-earth materials that originated from China or were produced with Chinese technology. Trump’s Republican administration says this gives China broad power over the global economy by controlling the tech supply chain.

“Australia is really, really going to be helpful in the effort to take the global economy and make it less risky, less exposed to the kind of rare-earth extortion that we’re seeing from the Chinese,” Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, told reporters Monday morning before Trump’s meeting with Albanese.

Hassett noted that Australia has one of the best mining economies in the world, while praising its refiners and its abundance of rare-earth resources. Among the Australian officials accompanying Albanese are ministers overseeing resources and industry and science, and the continent has dozens of critical minerals sought by the U.S.

The prime minister’s visit comes just before Trump is planning to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea later this month.

The prime minister said ahead of his visit that the two leaders will have a chance to deepen their countries’ ties on trade and defense. Another expected topic of discussion is AUKUS, a security pact with Australia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom that was signed during President Biden’s administration.

Trump has not indicated publicly whether he would want to keep AUKUS intact, and the Pentagon is reviewing the agreement.

“Australia and the United States have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in every major conflict for over a century,” Albanese said before the meeting. “I look forward to a positive and constructive meeting with President Trump at the White House.”

The center-left Albanese was reelected in May and suggested shortly after his win that his party increased its majority by not modeling itself on Trumpism.

“Australians have chosen to face global challenges the Australian way, looking after each other while building for the future,” Albanese told supporters during his victory speech.

Kim and Madhani write for the Associated Press.

State officials on the front lines of preparing for natural disasters and responding to emergencies say severe cuts to federal security grants, restrictions on money intended for readiness and funding delays tied to litigation are posing a growing risk to their ability to respond to crises.

It’s all causing confusion, frustration and concern. The federal government shutdown isn’t helping.

“Every day we remain in this grant purgatory reduces the time available to responsibly and effectively spend these critical funds,” said Kiele Amundson, communications director at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency.

The uncertainty has led some emergency management agencies to hold off on filling vacant positions and make rushed decisions on important training and purchases.

Experts say the developments complicate state-led emergency efforts, undermining the Republican administration’s stated goals of shifting more responsibility to states and local governments for disaster response.

In an emailed statement, the Department of Homeland Security said the new requirements were necessary because of “recent population shifts” and that changes to security grants were made “to be responsive to new and urgent threats facing our nation.”

A new wrinkle tied to immigration raids

Several DHS and FEMA grants help states, tribes and territories prepare for climate disasters and deter a variety of threats. The money pays for salaries and training, and such things as vehicles, communications equipment and software.

State emergency managers say that money has become increasingly important because the range of threats they must prepare for is expanding, including pandemics and cyberattacks.

FEMA, a part of DHS, divided a $320 million Emergency Management Performance Grant among states on Sept. 29. But the next day, it told states the money was on hold until they submitted new population counts. The directive demanded that they omit people “removed from the State pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States” and to explain their methodology.

The amount of money distributed to the states is based on U.S. census population data. The new requirement forcing states to submit revised counts “is something we have never seen before,” said Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, a group representing emergency managers. “It’s certainly not the responsibility of emergency management to certify population.”

With no guidance on how to calculate the numbers, Hawaii’s Amundson said staff scrambled to gather data from the 2020 census and other sources, then subtracted he number of “noncitizens” based on estimates from an advocacy group.

They are not sure the methodology will be accepted. But with their FEMA contacts furloughed and the grant portal down during the federal shutdown, they cannot find out. Other states said they were assessing the request or awaiting further guidance.

In its statement, DHS said FEMA needs to be certain of its funding levels before awarding grant money, and that includes updates to a state’s population due to deportations.

Experts said delays caused by the request could most affect local governments and agencies that receive grant money passed down by states because their budgets and staffs are smaller. At the same time, FEMA also reduced the time frame that recipients have to spend the money, from three years to one. That could prevent agencies from taking on longer-term projects.

Bryan Koon, president and CEO of the consulting firm IEM and a former Florida emergency management chief, said state governments and local agencies need time to adjust their budgets to any kind of changes.

“An interruption in those services could place American lives in jeopardy,” he said.

Grant programs tied up by litigation

In another move that has caused uncertainty, FEMA in September drastically cut some states’ allocations from another source of funding. The $1 billion Homeland Security Grant Program is supposed to be based on assessed risks, and states pass most of the money to police and fire departments.

New York received $100 million less than it expected, a 79% reduction, while Illinois saw a 69% reduction. Both states are politically controlled by Democrats. Meanwhile, some territories received unexpected windfalls, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, which got more than twice its expected allocation.

The National Emergency Management Association said the grants are meant to be distributed based on risk and that it “remains unclear what risk methodology was used” to determine the new funding allocation.

After a group of Democratic states challenged the cuts in court, a federal judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order on Sept. 30. That forced FEMA to rescind award notifications and refrain from making payments until a further court order.

The freeze “underscores the uncertainty and political volatility surrounding these awards,” said Frank Pace, administrator of the Hawaii Office of Homeland Security. The Democratic-controlled state received more money than expected, but anticipates the bonus being taken away with the lawsuit.

In Hawaii, where a 2023 wildfire devastated the Maui town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people, the state, counties and nonprofits “face the real possibility” of delays in paying contractors, completing projects and “even staff furloughs or layoffs” if the grant freeze and government shutdown continue, he said.

The myriad setbacks prompted Washington state’s Emergency Management Division to pause filling some positions “out of an abundance of caution,” communications director Karina Shagren said.

A series of delays and cuts disrupts state-federal partnership

Emergency management experts said the moves have created uncertainty for those in charge of preparedness.

The Trump administration has suspended a $3.6 billion FEMA disaster resilience program, cut the FEMA workforce and disrupted routine training.

Other lawsuits also are complicating decision-making. A Manhattan federal judge last week ordered DHS and FEMA to restore $34 million in transit security grants it had withheld from New York City because of its immigration policies.

Another judge in Rhode Island ordered DHS to permanently stop imposing grant conditions tied to immigration enforcement, after ruling in September that the conditions were unlawful — only to have DHS again try to impose them.

Taken together, the turbulence surrounding what was once a reliable partner is prompting some states to prepare for a different relationship with FEMA.

“Given all of the uncertainties,” said Sheets, of the National Emergency Management Association, states are trying to find ways to be “less reliant on federal funding.”

Angueira writes for the Associated Press.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and congressional Democrats have announced a sweeping investigation into potential misconduct in the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown that has ensnared citizens, made use of racial profiling and terrified communities for months.

Bass and the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), announced that Congress will open up “a broad investigation” into arrests of U.S. citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, as well as another investigation into immigration raids overall. The announcement was made Monday at a news conference at L.A. City Hall.

“Donald Trump and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem are terrorizing immigrants, working people, the people of Los Angeles and of our state every single day,” Garcia said. “They violate the law and they violate the constitution.”

Garcia said that his House committee would investigate “every single brutal misconduct” that immigration authorities have committed in Los Angeles as well as across the country.

Simultaneously, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will conduct an investigation into reports of the detention of at least 170 U.S. citizens by immigration authorities, which was reported by ProPublica last week.

“Troublingly, the pattern of U.S. Citizen arrests coincides with an alarming increase in racial profiling — particularly of Latinos — which has been well documented in Los Angeles,” Garcia and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter to Noem. “In a pattern symptomatic of a disregard for civil rights by DHS, U.S. citizens have faced extended periods of detention.”

For months, agents have roamed the streets of Los Angeles toting guns and chasing down immigrants. The scenes that have played out on the streets — protesters being arrested, immigrants dragged out of their cars — have been repeated in Chicago and other cities with largely Democratic leadership.

Mayor Bass said the arrests of American citizens means that no one in the country is safe.

“This can happen to anyone, to all of us, at any period of time,” she said.

Garcia said that the first hearing of the House committee will be held in Los Angeles and that Angelenos should attend and be heard on immigration enforcement issues.

The congressman did not give a date for the hearing, but said he hoped it would be soon.

In the letter that Garcia and Blumenthal sent to Noem on Monday, the legislators called on the Department of Homeland Security to report the total number of U.S. citizens who have been detained by immigration authorities, as well as how long each individual was detained. They also asked for information regarding the training that CE and Customs and Border Protection agents receive on use of force, among other things.

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A Vermont state senator who took part in a Young Republicans group chat on Telegram in which members made racist comments and joked about rape and gas chambers has resigned.

State Sen. Sam Douglass was revealed last week to have participated in the chat, which was first reported on by Politico. The exchanges on the messaging app spanned more than seven months and involved leaders and lower ranking members of the Young Republican National Federation and some of its affiliates in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. Douglass was the only elected official involved.

Vermont’s top Republican leaders, including Gov. Phil Scott, quickly called for Douglass to resign. A joint statement from the GOP lawmakers described the comments “unacceptable and deeply disturbing.”

Douglass, who was in his first year of representing a conservative district near the Canadian border, said in a statement Friday that he and his wife had received multiple hateful messages and “nasty items” in the mail since news of the group chat broke.

“I know that this decision will upset many, and delight others, but in this political climate I must keep my family safe,” Douglass said in explaining his decision to resign. “And if my Governor asks me to do something, I will act, because I believe in what he’s trying to do for the state of Vermont.”

Douglass also said he had served in a “moderate fashion,” and touted his efforts to improve Vermont’s welfare system,

“Since the story broke, I have reached out to the majority of my Jewish and BIPOC friends and colleagues to ensure that they can be honest and upfront with me, and I know that as a young person I have a duty to set a good example for others,” Douglas wrote, referencing the acronym Black, Indigenous and people of color.

Other participants in the group chat have faced repercussions, including a New York Young Republicans organization that was suspended Friday.

Kruesi writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide if “habitual drug users” lose their gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The Trump administration is defending a federal gun control law dating to 1968 and challenging the rulings of two conservative appeals court that struck down the ban on gun possession by any “unlawful user” of illegal drugs, including marijuana.

Trump’s lawyers say this limit on gun rights comports with early American history when “common drunkards” were prohibited from having guns.

And they argue this “modest, modern” limit make sense because well-armed drug addicts “present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”

The government says the ban applies only to addicts and “habitual users of illegal drugs,” not to all those who have used drugs on occasion or in the past.

Under this interpretation, the law “imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction — one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use,” the administration’s attorneys told the court.

The appeal noted that California and 31 other states have laws restricting gun possession by drug users and drug addicts, all of which could be nullified by a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment

The court said it will hear the case of a Texas man and a Pakistani native who came under investigation by the FBI for allegedly working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

When agents with warrant searched the home of Ali Denali Hemani, they found a Glock pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. He told the agents he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with violating the federal gun control law, but the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans ruled this ban on gun possession violates the 2nd Amendment unless the defendant was under the influence of drugs when he was arrested.

The 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis adopted a similar view that gun ban for drug users is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration asked the justices to hear the case of U.S. vs. Hemani and to reverse the two lower courts. Arguments are likely to be heard in January.

Last year, the justices rejected a gun rights claim in another case from Texas and ruled that a man charged with domestic violence can lose his rights to have firearms.

Historically, people who “threaten physical harm to others” have lost their legal rights to guns, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in an 8-1 decision.

SACRAMENTO — Some witty person long ago gave us this immortal line: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

Humorist Will Rogers usually is credited — wrongly. Mark Twain, too, falsely.

The real author was Gideon J. Tucker, a former newspaper editor who founded the New York Daily News. He later became a state legislator and judge, and he crafted the comment in an 1866 court opinion.

Anyway, Californians are safe from further legislative harm for now. State lawmakers have gone home for the year after passing 917 bills. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 794 (87%) and vetoed 123 (13%).

I’m not aware of any person’s life being jeopardized. Well, maybe after the lawmakers and governor cut back Medi-Cal healthcare for undocumented immigrants to save money.

One could argue — and many interests did — that what the Legislature did to increase housing availability made some existing residential neighborhoods less safe from congestion and possible declining property values.

But kudos to the lawmakers and governor for enacting major housing legislation that should have been passed years ago.

Public pressure generated by unaffordable costs — both for homebuyers and renters — spurred the politicians into significant action to remove regulatory barriers and encourage much more development. The goal is to close the gap between short supply and high demand.

But legislative passage was achieved over stiff opposition from some cities — especially Los Angeles — that objected to loss of local control.

“It’s a touchy issue that affects zoning and is always going to be controversial,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who finessed through a bill that will allow construction of residential high-rises up to nine stories near transit hubs such as light-rail and bus stations. The measure overrides local zoning ordinances.

Wiener had been trying unsuccessfully for eight years to get similar legislation passed. Finally, a fire was lit under legislators by their constituents.

“The public understands we’ve screwed ourselves by making it so hard to build homes,” Wiener says.

But to win support, he had to accept tons of exceptions. For example, the bill will affect only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. There are eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Sacramento.

“Over time it will have a big effect, but it’s going to be gradual,” Wiener says.

Dan Dunmoyer, who heads the California Building Industry Assn., calls it “a positive step in the right direction.”

Yes, and that direction is up rather than sideways. California could accommodate a cherished ranch-house lifestyle when the population was only a third or half the nearly 40 million people it is today. But sprawling horizontally has become impossibly pricey for too many and also resulted in long smog-spewing commutes and risky encroachment into wildfire country.

Dozens of housing bills were passed and signed this year, ranging from minutia to major.

The Legislature continued to peck away at the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Opponents of projects have used the act to block construction for reasons other than environmental protection. Local NIMBYs — ”Not in my backyard” — have resisted neighborhood growth. Businesses have tried to avoid competition. Unions have practiced “greenmail” by threatening lawsuits unless developers signed labor agreements.

Another Wiener bill narrowed CEQA requirements for commercial housing construction. It also exempted from CEQA a bunch of nonresidental projects, including health clinics, manufacturing facilities and child-care centers.

A bill by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) exempted most urban infill housing projects from CEQA.

You can’t argue that the Legislature wasn’t productive this year. But you can spar over whether some of the production was a mistake. Some bills were both good and bad. That’s the nature of compromise in a functioning democracy.

One example: The state’s complex cap-and-trade program was extended beyond 2030 to 2045. That’s probably a good thing. It’s funded by businesses buying permits to emit greenhouse gases and pays for lots of clean energy projects.

But a questionable major piece of that legislation — demanded by Newsom — was a 20-year, $1-billion annual commitment of cap-and-trade money for California’s disappointing bullet train project.

The project was sold to voters in 2008 as a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s $100 billion over budget and far behind its promised 2020 completion. No tracks have even been laid. The new infusion of cap-and-trade money will merely pay for the initial 171-mile section between Merced and Bakersfield, which the state vows to open by 2033. Hot darn!

Newsom muscled through the bill at the last moment. The Legislature should have taken more time to study the project’s future.

One gutsy thing Democratic legislators and the governor did — given that “oil,” among the left, has become the new hated pejorative sidekick of “tobacco” — was to permit production of 2,000 more wells annually in oil-rich Kern County.

It was part of a compromise: Drilling in federal offshore waters was made more difficult by tightening pipeline regulations.

Credit the persistent Sen. Shannon Grove, a conservative Republican from Bakersfield who is adept at working across the aisle.

“Kern County knows how to produce energy,” she told colleagues during the Senate floor debate, citing not only oil but wind, solar and battery storage. “We are the experts. We are not the enemy.”

But what mostly motivated Newsom and legislators was the threat of even higher gas prices as two large California oil refineries prepare to shut down. Most Democrats agreed that the politically smart move was to allow more oil production, even as the state attempts to transcend entirely to clean energy.

Let’s not forget the most important bill the Legislature annually passes: the state budget. This year’s totaled $325 billion and allegedly covered a $15-billion deficit through borrowing, a few cuts and numerous gimmicks.

Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek last week projected deficit spending of up to $25 billion annually for the next three years.

In California, no state bank account is safe when the Legislature is in session.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Sen. Scott Wiener to run for congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi
California vs. Trump: Federal troops in San Francisco? Locals, leaders scoff at Trump’s plan
The L.A. Times Special: One of O.C.’s loudest pro-immigrant politicians is one of the unlikeliest

Until next week,
George Skelton

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