POLITICS

Chicago police officers responded to a call of gunshots fired at federal agents Saturday amid immigration enforcement operations that drew protesters into the streets, the department said.

There were no reports of anyone hit by gunfire, according to police, and the federal Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on the social platform X that the shots were fired by a man in a black Jeep who was targeting the agents.

The suspect and the vehicle have not been located, according to DHS.

Tensions are high as federal enforcement has grown increasingly aggressive some two months into an immigration operation in Chicago dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz.” Some residents have protested, at times following and confronting heavily armed agents.

A federal judge issued an extensive injunction this week restricting agents’ use of force after saying a top Border Patrol official repeatedly lied about threats posed by protesters.

Saturday’s Border Patrol operation in Little Village, a largely Mexican neighborhood, attracted protesters who blew whistles, honked car horns and yelled at agents to leave. Some confronted police officers they viewed as helping the federal agents.

One police vehicle had its taillight smashed and windshield damaged. DHS said some protesters threw a paint can and bricks at agents’ vehicles.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Raza writes for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom strode onstage in Houston on Saturday to a cheering crowd of Texas Democrats, saying Proposition 50’s victory in California on election day was a win for the nation and a firm repudiation of President Trump.

Newsom possessed the air of a politician running for president at the boisterous rally, a possibility the California governor says he is considering — and the location he chose was not happenstance.

Newsom accused Trump of pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to rejigger the state’s congressional districts with the goal of sending more Republicans to Congress, an action that triggered California’s Proposition 50. Newsom successfully pushed for a special election on the ballot measure to counter the efforts in Texas, which the governor said wasan attempt by Trump and the Republicans to “rig” the 2026 midterm election.

Cheers erupted from the friendly, union-hall crowd when Newsom belittled Trump as an “invasive species” and a “historically unpopular president.”

“On every issue, on the economy, on terrorists, on immigration, on healthcare, [he’s a] historically unpopular president, and he knows it, and he knows it,” Newsom said. “Why else did he make that call to your governor? Why else did he feel the need to rig the election before even one vote was cast? That’s just weakness, weakness masquerading as strength. That’s Donald Trump, and he had a very bad night on Tuesday.”

Newsom was the main political force behind Proposition 50, which California voters overwhelmingly approved in Tuesday’s special election. The statewide ballot measure was an attempt to counter Trump’s push to get Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. Newsom and California Democrats hope the change will net an additional five Democrats in California’s congressional delegation, canceling out any gains in Texas.

Newsom thanked Texas Democrats for putting up a fight against the redistricting effort in their state, saying it inspired an uprising.

“It’s dawning on people, all across the United States of America, what’s at stake,” Newsom told the crowd. “And you put a stake in the ground. People are showing up. I don’t believe in crowns, thrones. No kings.”

Newsom’s trip to Texas comes as the former San Francisco mayor has been openly flirting with a 2028 run for president. In a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

“Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

In July, Newsom flew to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he wanted to help his party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But South Carolina is a solidly conservative state and did not appear to have a single competitive race.

During that trip, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.” Newsom received similar praise — and encouragement — when he was introduced at the “Take It Back” rally in Houston.

Newsom now heads to Belém, Brazil, where representatives from 200 nations are gathering to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit. For Newsom, it’s a golden opportunity to appear on a world stage and sell himself and California as the antidote to Trump and his attacks on climate change policy.

The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

It is, by both candidates’ admission, a Republican primary race without issues, conflict or many campaign dollars. The low-budget, low-profile contest does not bode well for the eventual nominee’s prospects against Democratic Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman of Tarzana in November.

Attorneys Tom Franklin of Beverly Hills and Edward Brown of Sherman Oaks are competing in the June 7 primary for the GOP nomination in the 43rd Assembly District. The affluent, heavily Democratic district stretches from Studio City to Topanga Canyon and over the Santa Monica Mountains to Beverly Hills, Westwood and Brentwood.

The campaign for the hearts and minds of the district’s 64,237 registered Republicans is being waged at GOP gatherings and door-to-door; neither candidate has raised enough money to mail any brochures or flyers. Both Franklin and Brown seek to contrast themselves with Friedman–who they maintain is too liberal for the district–rather than each other.

“I’m running against Terry Friedman,” Franklin said last week. “I don’t really know Mr. Brown’s interest in the major issues.”

Asked why Republican voters should choose him over Franklin, Brown replied, “I don’t know that they should. I’m not going to lower myself to some kind of mudslinging contest.”

Friedman, meanwhile, responds that his priorities of protecting the Santa Monica Mountains, upgrading education and aiding the elderly and underprivileged “are right in the mainstream of the district.” Democrats enjoy a 54%-to-36% registration advantage, although President Reagan carried the district in 1980 and 1984 and fellow Republican Gov. George Deukmejian won it in 1986.

Inside Track

Franklin, 29, appears to have the inside primary track because he has a base of support among Republicans in Beverly Hills, where he has been active, and has been more visible, according to GOP activists such as Shirley Whitney, chairman of the 43rd District Republican Committee. The committee does not endorse candidates in the primary.

Franklin has served as president of the Beverly Hills Republican Assembly, a 150-member volunteer organization that registers voters and supports candidates, and has been active in GOP politics since he was University of Southern California recruitment chairman for Reagan’s 1980 presidential bid.

The self-styled conservative has also garnered more campaign dollars than Brown, although Friedman has raised 100 times more money than each Republican. Franklin reported raising $1,395 and spending $531 as of March 22, when he filed a campaign statement with the secretary of state. He has a $15-a-person event scheduled Sunday at his parents’ Beverly Hills home but is well short of the pace he needs to attain his original goal of $200,000.

Brown, who says the subject of campaign finances is too personal to discuss, said he has raised less than $500. “I won’t take anything more than $10,” Brown said. “I don’t want to have any special pleading.”

He failed to file a campaign fund-raising report with the secretary of state in mid-March as required by state law, media director Caren Daniels-Meade said. He faces a possible fine, which would be determined by how much he has spent but not reported, she said.

Strongly favored to win a second term, Friedman reported raising $122,575 and having $127,678 on hand in his March 22 campaign statement. He said last week he subsequently took in $40,000 more at a fund-raiser. Many of his contributions are from fellow attorneys.

“Substantially, those are people who know me from my past work as executive director of Bet Tzedek Legal Services,” said Friedman, referring to the Los Angeles legal-service program for low-income elderly. “And from my work on several committees in the Legislature.”

Robert Townsend Leet of Tarzana, a Libertarian candidate, and Marjery Hinds of Los Angeles, the Peace and Freedom candidate, filed March campaign reports with the state stating they had not raised as much as $1,000 and didn’t expect to do so.

Brown, 58, is an ex-Democrat who unsuccessfully sought election to a municipal court judgeship and Congress in the 1960s and to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors in the early 1970s. He describes himself as a conservative who is also concerned about protecting individual constitutional rights.

Bush or Kemp

Franklin and Brown did differ in which candidates they favor for the 1988 Republican presidential primary. Franklin says he supports Vice President George Bush, the apparent nominee; Brown says U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) is his choice.

Franklin and Brown concur, however, in criticizing Friedman’s opposition to a bill to allow local and state police to eavesdrop electronically on suspected drug dealers. Advocates called it a tool to combat gang violence. It passed the Assembly on a bipartisan 48-18 vote last month and was sent to the Senate, which had previously approved a more sweeping bill.

“I don’t think these punks call each other up to decide where they’re going to do a drive-by shooting,” said Friedman, who says the measure is marred by loopholes and inconsistencies and would be financially inefficient. “That’s not how they plan their evil.

“I believe that the police sweeps in South-Central Los Angeles have been much more effective than any attention-grabbing attempt in Sacramento to appear tough on crime.”

Franklin ridiculed Friedman’s reasoning.

“It’s common knowledge that many gang members bring their beepers with them into the classrooms and that’s how they are informed they have a pending drug deal to consummate,” Franklin said. “It just shows how out of the mainstream he is, even in his own party.”

Brown said, “I’d like to bring in the National Guard. Every four or five blocks you’ll have a cop standing there in a little shed and you won’t have any more gangs.”

WASHINGTON — It was the decision that launched a thousand lips.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission stopped requiring broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial issues, a policy known as the Fairness Doctrine. The move is widely credited with triggering the explosive growth of political talk radio.

Now, after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage helped torpedo a major immigration bill, some in Congress have suggested reinstating the Fairness Doctrine to balance out those powerful syndicated voices.

That has unleashed an armada of opposition on the airwaves, Internet blogs and in Washington, where broadcasters have joined with Republicans to fight what they call an attempt to zip their lips.

Opponents of the Fairness Doctrine said it would make station owners so fearful of balancing viewpoints that they’d simply avoid airing controversial topics — the “chilling effect” on debate that the FCC cited in repealing the rule two decades ago.

“Free speech must be just that — free from government influence, interference and censorship,” David K. Rehr, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, wrote to lawmakers.

There’s little chance the fairness doctrine will return in the near future, as FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin publicly opposes it and the White House wrote to broadcasters last week assuring them that Bush would veto any legislation reinstating it. But the issue has renewed debate about how far the government should go in regulating the public airwaves.

Some Democrats say conservative-dominated talk radio enables Republicans to mislead the public on important issues such as the Senate immigration reform bill.

“These are public airwaves and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is considering whether the Fairness Doctrine should be restored.

Republicans say that the policy would result in censorship and warn that it could return if Democrats win the White House in 2008.

“This is a bad idea from a bygone era,” Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) said at a news conference last week with five other Republicans announcing legislation to block reenactment of the policy.

The FCC enacted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 to ensure the “right of the public to be informed” by presenting “for acceptance or rejection the different attitudes and viewpoints” on controversial issues. The policy was upheld in 1969 by the Supreme Court because the public airwaves were a “scarce resource” that needed to be open to opposing views.

Broadcasters disliked the rule, which put their federal station license at risk if they didn’t air all sides of an issue. Michael Harrison, who hosted a weekend talk show on the former KMET-FM in Los Angeles from 1975 to 1985, said the policy kept him from giving his opinions on controversial topics.

“I would never say that liberals were good and conservatives were bad, or vice versa. We would talk about, “Hey, all politicians are bad,” or “It’s a shame that more people don’t vote,” said Harrison, who publishes Talkers magazine, which covers the talk radio industry. “It was more of a superficial approach to politics.”

The Fairness Doctrine ended during the Reagan administration. In a 1985 report, the FCC concluded the policy inhibited broadcasters from dealing with controversial issues and was no longer needed because of the growth of cable television.

“Many, many broadcasters testified they avoided issues they thought would involve them in complaints,” recalled Dennis Patrick, who was chairman of the FCC in 1987 when it repealed the policy. “The commission concluded that the doctrine was having a chilling effect.”

The decision was controversial. Congress passed a law in 1987 reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it.

Shortly afterward, Limbaugh, then a little-known Sacramento disc jockey, emerged as a conservative voice on radio stations nationwide. Another failed congressional attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in 1993 was dubbed the “Hush Rush” bill.

A 1997 study in the Journal of Legal Studies found that the percentage of AM radio stations with a news, talk or public affairs format jumped to 28% in 1995 from 7% in 1987. Liberal talk radio efforts, such as Air America, have struggled to get ratings.

The Fairness Doctrine seemed dead and buried. Then in January, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is running for president, announced that with Democrats back in the House majority, he planned to hold hearings on reviving the policy because media consolidation has made it harder for some voices to be heard.

And this spring, conservative talk show hosts unleashed a campaign against the Senate immigration bill, which would have given the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Their listeners flooded the Capitol with complaints, and the bill failed last month on a procedural vote.

Bill supporters immediately lashed out at talk radio.

“Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with the problem,” said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). And Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said they favored restoring the Fairness Doctrine.

“We have more power than the U.S. Senate and they know it and they’re fuming,” conservative talk show host Savage said in an interview. The liberal bent of the mainstream media more than compensates for conservative dominance of AM talk radio, he said.

“We’re going to have government snitches listening to shows,” he said. “And what are they going to do, push a button and then wheel someone into the studio and give their viewpoint?”

But Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the rest of the media presented a balanced view of controversial issues, and the Fairness Doctrine would simply reimpose that requirement on talk radio.

Hinchey is readying legislation to reinstitute the doctrine as part of a broad package of media ownership reforms.

“It’s important that the American people make decisions for themselves based upon the ability to garner all the information, not just on what somebody wants to give them,” he said.

Republicans have seized on comments like that.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a former radio talk show host, proposed an amendment last month prohibiting the FCC from spending money to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 309 to 115 after a parade of Republicans took to the House floor to blast calls to restore the policy. Democrats branded the vote a political stunt. Republicans tried to propose a similar amendment in the Senate last week, but Democrats blocked it .

Republicans vow to continue pressing the issue.

“The American people love a fair fight, and so do I,” Pence said. “But there’s nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine.”

[email protected]

With his million-dollar donation to the pro-Obama “super PAC,” Bill Maher has established himself among the top Democratic mega-donors, a field dotted with boldface Hollywood names.

Donors from the entertainment industry gave $2.2 million through January to Priorities USA Action, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — half of the group’s overall fundraising since it formed last spring.

Much of that came from a single donation by Dreamworks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, who wrote a $2-million check to the group last May. His former producing partner, director Steven Spielberg, contributed $100,000 in July.

Director/producer J.J. Abrams and his wife, Katie McGrath, kicked in a combined $100,000 to the group in June.

Each new round of Federal Election Commission filings have revealed a new set of million-dollar donors, although the vast majority have given to super PACs supporting Republican candidates or the GOP as a whole.

And none of those prolific givers have made their pledges quite as public as Maher, who brandished a gigantic check onstage at his comedy special CrazyStupidPolitics.

Maher’s past political giving has been relatively modest – a total of $4,850 given since 2004, mainly to the Democratic presidential campaigns of Sen. John F. Kerry, former Sen. John Edwards and then-Sen. Barack Obama, as well as to the successful 2008 Senate run for fellow comedian Al Franken.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump, as he often does, had a few things to say.

After admitting that he had been lonely over the holidays, Trump took advantage of his first public appearance of the new year Wednesday to air lingering grievances, make multiple false claims and reinforce recent decisions that have rattled financial markets and his party’s leaders.

As he held forth for more than 90 minutes before a small pool of reporters and photographers, members of his Cabinet, ostensibly called to the White House for a meeting, sat quietly around a long conference table.

Trump defended his decision last month to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and sharply cut the deployment to Afghanistan, moves that disturbed Republican allies in Congress and prompted the resignation of Defense Secretary James N. Mattis. In doing so, he contradicted his own recent claim that the U.S. had achieved its objectives of total victory over Islamic State militants in Syria.

“Syria was lost long ago,” he said.

“Look, we don’t want Syria,” he continued. “We’re talking about sand and death. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about vast wealth. We’re talking about sand and death,” he said, seemingly contrasting the war-wracked country with Iraq and its vast oil reserves.

Iran “can do what they want there, frankly,” he added, a comment likely to unnerve officials in Israel, who have worried that a U.S. withdrawal from its positions in eastern Syria would allow Iran to expand its influence there.

“It’s not my fault,” he said. “I didn’t put us there.”

Trump offered little further clarity on the U.S. withdrawal from Syria, which he initially said would take place in 30 days, saying now that the pullout will “take place over a period of time.”

Later, in a long riff about Afghanistan, Trump seemed to endorse Moscow’s 1979 invasion of the country — an act that the U.S. viewed as an attempt to spread communism and waged a long, covert operation to combat during the Carter and Reagan administrations.

“The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia,” Trump said, making a case to leave the policing of hot spots in the Mideast and Central Asia to countries in the region. “They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight.”

The Soviet Union eventually was bankrupted by its Afghan war, Trump added. “Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia, because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan.”

Historians generally agree that the Russian invasion and subsequent occupation of much of Afghanistan was one of several factors that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, although the country never went bankrupt.

For years, Republicans have credited President Reagan with bringing an end to the Soviet Union by his aggressive increase in U.S. military spending.

Trump’s comments stood in stark contrast to the view Mattis espoused in the resignation letter he presented last month after failing to convince the president to hold off on withdrawing from Syria.

“We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances,” Mattis wrote.

Mattis’ comments clearly stung Trump, who responded last month with criticism of his former Pentagon chief. On Wednesday, he stepped that up, claiming that he fired Mattis.

“What’s he done for me? How had he done in Afghanistan? Not too good,” Trump said. “As you know, President Obama fired him, and essentially so did I.”

Obama did not fire Mattis, although the general did retire several months early in 2013 from his position as the head of the military’s Central Command after dissenting from Obama administration policy decisions.

Tuesday was Mattis’ final day at the Pentagon. Trump, in a fit of pique after the resignation letter became public, had moved up Mattis’ termination date

In addition to his foreign policy comments, Trump also downplayed December’s stock market losses, which erased all positive gains for the year, as “a little glitch” and asserted — wrongly — that there are “probably 30-35 million” immigrants in the U.S. illegally. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center estimates that as of 2016, there were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country, a number that has declined in recent years.

Trump repeated his call for Democrats to agree to $5.6 billion in funding for a border wall, and expressed surprise not to have received overtures from them over the holidays to negotiate an end to the government shutdown.

“I was in the White House all by myself for six or seven days,” he said. “It was very lonely. My family was down in Florida. I said, ‘Stay there and enjoy yourself.’ I felt I should be here just in case people wanted to come and negotiate the border security.”

Trump, who met later in the day with congressional leaders away from TV cameras, has already dismissed a funding proposal from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi that includes $1.3 billion in border security funding.

While leaving the door open to a compromise, Trump continued to argue for the importance of a wall, pointing to other examples of barriers. He incorrectly asserted that Obama’s Washington residence is surrounded by a 10-foot wall and cited the Vatican, which he said “has the biggest wall of them all.”

“When they say the wall is immoral, then you better do something about the Vatican,” he said. “Walls work.”

As Trump spoke, a “Game of Thrones”-style movie poster teasing Iran sanctions — “SANCTIONS ARE COMING,” it read — lay unfurled across the table directly in front of him. But he made no remarks on the subject.

He did, however, comment on Sen.-elect Mitt Romney of Utah, who wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday that he was troubled by Trump’s “deep descent in December” and that his deficit in “presidential leadership in qualities of character … has been most glaring.”

“I wish Mitt could be more of a team player,” Trump said. “And if he’s not, that’s OK too.”

Seeming to warn Romney about the fate that lies ahead for Republican lawmakers who vocally criticize him and his presidency, Trump boasted that he “got rid of” former Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, both of whom opted not to seek new terms last year.

Accusing both men of seeking publicity in taking stands against him, Trump suggested that Flake would be seeking a job as a paid cable news contributor — or perhaps in another profession that Trump himself once plied.

“Jeff Flake is now selling real estate or whatever he’s doing,” he said dismissively.

The latest from Washington »

[email protected]

@EliStokols

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”

In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.

“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”

The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.

Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.

Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to the president’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in Homeland Security about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the Police Department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Rush and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP staff writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report from Palm Beach, Fla.

The revelers who packed Tuesday’s election night party in L.A.’s Highland Park neighborhood were roughly 2,500 miles from the concert hall where New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani celebrated his historic win.

Yet despite that sprawling distance, the crowd, heavily populated with members of the L.A. chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, had no trouble finishing the applause lines delivered by Mamdani, himself a DSA member, during his victory speech.

“New York!” Mamdani bellowed on the oversized television screens hung throughout the Greyhound Bar & Grill. “We’re going to make buses fast and — “

“Free!” the crowd inside the bar yelled back in response.

In Los Angeles, activists with the Democratic Socialists of America have already fired up their campaigns for the June election, sending out canvassing teams and scheduling postcard-writing events for their chosen candidates. But they’re also taking fresh inspiration from Mamdani’s win, pointing to his inclusive, unapologetic campaign and his relentless focus on pocketbook issues, particularly among working-class voters.

The message that propelled Mamdani to victory resonates just as much in L.A., said City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who won her seat in 2022 with logistical support from the DSA.

“What New York City is saying is that the rent is too damn high, that affordability is a huge issue not just on housing, but when it comes to grocery shopping, when it comes to daycare,” she said. “These are the things that we’re also experiencing here in Los Angeles.”

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, appearing at a rally in Lincoln Heights last year, said New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s message will resonate in L.A.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

DSA-LA, which is a membership organization and not a political party, has elected four of its endorsed candidates to the council since 2020, ousting incumbents in each of the last three election cycles. They’ve done so in large part by knocking on doors and working to increase turnout among renters and lower-income households.

The chapter hopes to win two additional seats in June. Organizers have begun contemplating a full-on socialist City Council — possibly by the end of 2028 — with DSA members holding eight of the council’s 15 seats.

“We would like a socialist City Council majority,” said Benina Stern, co-chair of DSA’s Los Angeles chapter. “Because clearly that is the logical progression, to keep growing the bloc.”

Despite those lofty ambitions, it could take at least five years before the L.A. chapter matches this week’s breakthrough in New York City.

Mayor Karen Bass, a high-profile leader within the Democratic Party with few ties to the DSA, is now running for a second term. Her only major opponent is former schools superintendent Austin Beutner, who occupies the center of the political spectrum in L.A. Real estate developer Rick Caruso, a longtime Republican who is now a Democrat, has not disclosed his intentions but has long been at odds with DSA‘s progressive policies.

In L.A., DSA organizers have put their emphasis on identifying and campaigning for candidates in down-ballot races, not citywide contests. Part of that is due to the fact that L.A. has a weak-mayor system, particularly when compared with New York City, where the mayor has responsibility not just for city services but also public schools and even judicial appointments.

L.A. council members propose and approve legislation, rework the budgets submitted by the mayor and represent districts with more than a quarter of a million people. As a result, DSA organizers have chosen the council as their path to power at City Hall, Stern said.

“The conditions in Los Angeles and New York I think are very different,” she said.

Since 2020, DSA-LA has been highly selective about its endorsement choices. The all-volunteer organization sends applicants a lengthy questionnaire with dozens of litmus test questions: Do they support diverting funds away from law enforcement? Do they oppose L.A.’s decision to host the Olympics? Do they support a repeal of L.A.’s ban on homeless encampments near schools?

Once a candidate secures an endorsement, DSA-LA turns to its formidable pool of volunteers, sending them out to help candidates knock on doors, staff phone banks and stage fundraising events.

During Tuesday’s party, DSA-LA organizers recruited new members to assist with the reelection campaigns of Hernandez and Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, a former labor organizer. They distributed postcard-sized fliers with the message, “Hate Capitalism? So do we.”

Standing nearby was Estuardo Mazariegos, a tenant rights advocate now running to replace Councilmember Curren Price in a South L.A. district. Mazariegos, 40, said he first became interested in the DSA in the seventh grade, when his middle school civics teacher displayed a DSA flag in her classroom.

The crowd at the Greyhound in Highland Park reacts to results on Tuesday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Mazariegos hailed the results from New York and California, saying voters are “taking back America for the working people of America.” He sounded somewhat less excited about Bass, a former community organizer who has pursued some middle-of-the-road positions, such as hiring more police officers.

Asked if he supports Bass’ bid for a second term, Mazariegos responded: “If she’s up against a billionaire, yes.”

“If she’s up against another comrade, maybe not,” he added, laughing.

When Bass ran in November 2022, DSA-LA grudgingly recommended a vote for her in its popular voter guide, describing her as a “status quo politician.”

Councilmember Nithya Raman, who represents a Hollywood Hills district, is far more enthusiastic. Raman has worked closely with Bass on efforts to move homeless Angelenos indoors, while also seeking fixes to the larger systems that serve L.A.’s unhoused population.

“Karen Bass is the most progressive mayor we’ve ever had in L.A,” said Raman, who co-hosted the election night party with the other three DSA-aligned council members, DSA-LA and others.

Raman was the first of the DSA-backed candidates to win a council seat in L.A., running in 2020 as a reformer who would bring stronger renter protections and a network of community access centers to assist homeless residents.

Two years later, voters elected labor organizer Soto-Martínez and Hernandez. Tenant rights attorney Ysabel Jurado became the fourth last year, ousting Councilmember Kevin de León.

Stern, the DSA-LA co-chair, said she believes the four council members have brought a “sea change” to City Hall, working with their progressive colleagues to expand the city’s teams of unarmed responders, who are viewed as an alternative to gun-carrying police officers.

The DSA voting bloc also shaped this year’s city budget, voting to reduce the number of new recruits at the Los Angeles Police Department and preserve other city jobs, Stern said.

To be clear, the four-member bloc has pursued those efforts by working with other progressives on the council who are not affiliated with the DSA but more moderate on other issues. Beyond that, the group has plenty of detractors.

Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., said DSA-backed council members are making the city worse, by pushing for a $30 per hour hotel minimum wage and a $32.35 minimum wage for construction workers.

“No one is ever going to build a hotel in this city again, and DSA were a part of that,” he said. “Pretty soon no one will build housing, and the DSA is a part of that too.”

The union that represents LAPD officers vowed to fight the DSA’s effort to expand its reach, saying it would work to ensure that “Angelenos are not bamboozled by the socialist bait and switch.”

“Socialists want to bait Angelenos into talking about affordability, oppression and fairness, get their candidates elected, and then switch to enact their platform that states ‘Defund the police by rejecting any expansion to police budgets … while cutting [police] budgets annually towards zero,’” the union’s board of directors said in a statement.

In New York City, Mamdani has proposed a series of measures to make the city more affordable, including free bus fares, city-run grocery stores and a four-year freeze on rent increases inside rent stabilized apartment units.

Some of those ideas have already been tried in L.A.

In 2020, weeks into the COVID-19 shutdown, Mayor Eric Garcetti placed a moratorium on rent hikes for more than 600,000 rent-stabilized apartments. The council kept that measure in place for four years.

Around the same time, L.A. County’s transit agency suspended mandatory collection of bus fares. The agency started charging bus passengers again in 2022.

City Councilmembers Nithya Raman and Eunisses Hernandez celebrate at the election night party they co-hosted with Democratic Socialists of America’s L.A. chapter and two other council members.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

In recent months, the DSA-LA has pushed for new limits on rent increases inside L.A.’s rent-stabilized apartments. Raman, who chairs the council’s housing committee, is backing a yearly cap of 3% in those buildings, most of which were built before October 1978.

Hernandez, whose district stretches from working-class Westlake to rapidly gentrifying Highland Park, is a believer in shifting the Overton Window at City Hall — moving the political debate left and “putting people over profits.”

Like others at the election party, Hernandez is hoping the council will eventually have eight DSA-aligned members in the coming years, saying such a shift would be a “game changer.” With a clear majority, she said, the council would not face a huge battle to approve new tenant protections, expand the network of unarmed response teams and place “accountability measures” on corporations that are “making money off our city.”

“There’s so many things … that we could do easier for the people of the city of Los Angeles if we had a majority,” she said.

WASHINGTON — Senators are working through the weekend for the first time since the government shutdown began more than a month ago, hoping to find a bipartisan resolution that has eluded them as federal workers have gone unpaid, airlines have been forced to cancel flights and SNAP benefits have been delayed for millions of Americans.

As the weekend session was set to begin Saturday, it was uncertain whether Republicans and Democrats could make any headway toward reopening the government and breaking a partisan impasse that had lasted 39 days.

President Trump made clear Saturday that he is unlikely to compromise anytime soon with Democrats, who are demanding an extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits. He posted on social media that the ACA is “the worst Healthcare anywhere in the world” and suggested Congress send money directly to people to buy insurance.

Senate Republican leaders have signaled an openness to an emerging proposal from a small group of moderate Democrats to end the shutdown in exchange for a later vote on the ACA subsidies.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who is leading the talks among moderates, said Friday evening that Democrats “need another path forward” after Republicans rejected an offer from Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York to reopen the government and extend the subsidies for a year. “We’re working on it,” she said.

Moderates continue to negotiate

Shaheen and others, negotiating among themselves and with some rank-and-file Republicans, have been discussing bills that would pay for parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things — and extend funding for everything else until December or January. The agreement would only come with the promise of a future healthcare vote rather than a guarantee of extended subsidies.

It was unclear whether enough Democrats would support such a plan. Even with a deal, Trump appears unlikely to support an extension of the health benefits. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also said this week that he would not commit to a healthcare vote.

Republican leaders need only five additional votes to fund the government, and the group involved in the talks has ranged from 10 to 12 Democratic senators.

Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19 tax credits as premiums could skyrocket for millions of people, but they want new limits on who can receive the subsidies.

“We have had really good discussions with a lot of the Democrats,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

Republicans eye new package of bills

Trump wants Republicans to end the shutdown quickly and scrap the filibuster, which requires 60 Senate votes for most legislation, so they can bypass Democrats altogether. Vice President JD Vance, a former Ohio senator, endorsed the idea in an online post Saturday, saying Republicans who want to keep the filibuster are “wrong.”

Republicans have rejected Trump’s call, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is eyeing a bipartisan package that mirrors the proposal the moderate Democrats have been sketching out. What Thune might promise on healthcare is unknown; he has refused to negotiate thus far.

The package would replace the House-passed legislation that the Democrats have rejected 14 times since the shutdown began Oct. 1. The current bill would extend government funding only until Nov. 21.

A choice for Democrats

A test vote on new legislation could come in the next few days if Thune decides to move forward.

Then Democrats would have a crucial choice: Keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual healthcare vote — but not a guaranteed outcome.

After a caucus meeting Thursday, most Democrats suggested they would continue to hold out for Trump and Republican leaders to agree to negotiations.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said Democrats are “obviously not unanimous” but “without something on healthcare, the vote is very unlikely to succeed.”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said they need to stand strong after overwhelming Democratic victories on election day this week and demand an extension of the subsidies.

Jalonick and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Joey Cappelletti, Stephen Groves and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Antonio Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor and current candidate for California governor, on Friday said he opposed the creation of a state-level single payer healthcare system.

Villaraigosa’s stance separated him from three rival Democrats who appeared on stage with him at a candidate forum at UC Riverside.

Candidates, who were asked about a single-payer healthcare system during a question-and-answer session that only involved raising their hands, did not provide explanations for their stances. But during earlier remarks, Villaraigosa had said he had no interest in selling “snake oil” solutions to voters on complex matters like healthcare.

The divide stood out because the four Democrats were otherwise closely aligned on prioritizing healthcare if elected in the 2026 race.

Aside from Villaraigosa, the candidates included: former state Controller Betty Yee, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

During the event, candidates were asked how they would approach a range of issues that impact an individual’s health, including aging, nutrition and mental illness.

The four contenders were largely on the same page, with all promising to work on removing barriers to care by expanding healthcare coverage and supporting programs that increase access to fresh food and mental health services. They all voiced support for creating pathways and incentives for students to study healthcare to help with industry staffing shortages.

Each also offered slightly different insights when asked a question about how to best support the “sandwich generation,” or those who are caring for both children and aging parents.

Becerra recalled how he and his siblings took turns caring for their aging father, which allowed him to spend his final years at home.

“There is nothing better because they are being cared for by those who love them,” Becerra said. “If I am governor, home care will be compensated.”

Yee said income tax credits could help and explained she would work with employers to improve employee leave options.

Thurmond said California should create a long-term care system for seniors similar to the system the state developed to help homeowners unable to access homeowners insurance.

The event was organized by Health Matters, a nonpartisan forum on health and equity that is organized by 11 health-focused foundations in California.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Noah Goldberg and Libor Jany, giving you the latest on city and county government.

L.A.’s elected leaders took a dramatic step to cut police spending this year, chopping in half the number of officers that Mayor Karen Bass had been hoping to hire.

In May, the City Council voted to give the LAPD just enough money to recruit 240 officers this year, down from the 480 requested by Bass. They did so not just to close a $1-billion budget shortfall, but also to prevent other city workers from being laid off.

But on Tuesday, council members learned that the LAPD is on track to blow way past its budget allocation by adding 410 officers by summer 2026, the end of the fiscal year. That would mean hiring as many as 170 officers who lack funding in this year’s budget.

Councilmember Tim McOsker voiced frustration, saying the LAPD’s overspending represents “everyone’s worst fear about a department running rogue.”

“The budget has to mean something,” McOsker said during a Budget and Finance Committee meeting on Tuesday.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky was equally irritated. At the meeting, she asked City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo whether his office had identified the funds to hire the 170 extra officers. Szabo, a high-level budget official, said no.

“At some point, we’re going to have to stop the hiring,” Yaroslavsky replied. “That’s all I’m going to say. If we can’t find the money, we have to stop the hiring once we hit the 240 that’s budgeted for in this year’s budget.”

Police hiring was the biggest source of tension between Bass and the council during this year’s budget deliberations. Bass, who has seen the LAPD lose hundreds of officers since she won office in 2022, had been hoping, at minimum, to keep the department from shrinking significantly this year.

Council members, on the other hand, were determined to avert the mayor’s proposal to lay off as many as 1,600 civilian workers — even if that meant scaling back police. Cutting the number of recruits ultimately freed up the money to save scores of jobs, including civilian crime specialists working at the LAPD.

By the end of May, Bass was seriously considering a veto of the council’s budget. But by that point, the city was being upended by federal immigration raids, with helmet-wearing LAPD officers captured on video using tear gas while facing off against protesters in downtown Los Angeles.

Bass ultimately signed the budget but, at the 11th hour, said she had reached an agreement with the council’s leadership — that is, Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson — to find the additional money to restore the police hiring.

In her announcement, Bass said that would happen within 90 days. For now, they haven’t come up with the money.

Clara Karger, a Bass spokesperson, said in a statement that her office is working to find the additional funding. The city is preparing for next year’s World Cup, as well as other large-scale events, she said.

“Crime is down and we are going to keep reducing crime and, obviously, hiring officers is a key component of a comprehensive approach,” Karger said.

Police Chief Jim McDonnell, in an interview, said his agency’s recruiting numbers are “substantially up” after a long slump. Yet even if the council signs off on the additional hiring, sworn personnel will still drop by the end of the budget year, he said.

“We’re going to still have a net loss, because we’re projected to lose [through] attrition between 500 and 600 people this year,” he said.

On Tuesday, Yaroslavsky and McOsker said they want to hire more officers — but only if the city has the money to pay for them. They warned that if the additional funding isn’t there, overspending at the LAPD could force city leaders to contemplate cuts to other city jobs, which they oppose.

“Either we find the money, new money, for the additional hires, or we need to have a serious conversation about following the budget,” Yaroslavsky said.

Szabo told council members this week that, if the budget committee instructed him to, he would prepare a report identifying additional money to cover the cost of the extra 170 officers.

“But we didn’t,” McOsker, an attorney who at one point represented the police union, quickly responded. “If we did, we would. But we didn’t. And it still came out the same.”

The council’s budget advisors had previously projected that the city would need an extra $13.3 million to restore the 240 police hires sought by Bass. In 2026-27, the cost of those same officers would grow to about $60 million, since they would have worked a full year, the advisors said.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents about 8,600 rank-and-file officers, supports the mayor’s effort to increase LAPD hiring. In a statement, the union’s board of directors said it is confident that Bass and the council will find the money to add the additional officers.

“We have every confidence that city leaders will act with the same sense of urgency to identify funds for additional officers … as they recently did to protect other city workers from layoffs,” the union said.

State of play

— END OF AN ERA: Bass announced this week that she is ending her declaration of emergency on homelessness, nearly three years after she announced it. Bass was facing pressure from council members to lift the emergency, which allowed her to award contracts and leases without bidding or council oversight. In her letter, she said she would not hesitate to reinstate the emergency if she finds that insufficient progress is being made on the crisis.

— WHITHER ED1? The biggest question mark is the mayoral initiative known as Executive Directive 1, which fast-tracks the approval of 100% affordable housing projects and was made possible by the homelessness emergency. The council recently voted to make ED1 permanent law. But City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto still needs to finalize the legal language, and for now, it’s not clear how long that will take. The homelessness emergency expires Nov. 18.

— POOR COMMUNICATION: L.A.’s emergency responders had communication breakdowns, inconsistent recordkeeping and poor coordination during their response to the Palisades fire, according to a new report issued by the LAPD. The report said communications were particularly poor between the LAPD and the city’s fire department on the wildfire’s first day.

— LOOKING FOR TEXTS: Meanwhile, a federal grand jury issued a subpoena seeking text messages and other communications from the fire department regarding the Jan. 1 Lachman brush fire, which reignited six days later into the massive Palisades fire, according to an internal memo. The Times previously reported that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to pack up and leave the burn area the day after the Lachman fire, even though some firefighters said the ground was still smoldering.

— MANY, MANY McOSKERS: Councilmember Tim McOsker is just one of the many McOskers who have had a toehold at City Hall. There’s daughter Nella McOsker, who heads the Central City Assn., the business group that weighs in on city policy, and brother Pat McOsker, who was at one point president of the firefighters union. There’s nephew Emmett McOsker at the tourism department and a few others beyond that. We spell it all out here, along with a helpful family tree.

— CAPPING THE RENT: The council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee voted 3-2 to endorse Councilmember Nithya Raman‘s plan to limit rent increases in rent-stabilized apartment buildings to no more than 3%, down from 10%. (The city’s housing department had proposed lowering the cap to 5%.) The proposal heads to full council on Wednesday.

— NO SOLICITORS: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took the first step toward cracking down on “predatory” salespeople who they say hit up vulnerable residents seeking benefits from social services offices. The looming crackdown follows a Times investigation that found nine plaintiffs in sex abuse lawsuits against the county who said they were recruited outside the offices.

— PRESS PROTECTIONS: Councilmember Ysabel Jurado is looking to change the way the city issues press credentials to journalists in the wake of the LAPD’s treatment of the news media at anti-ICE protests. Her proposal would, among other things, change the design of press passes so officers can more easily identify journalists.

— WILL HE OR WON’T HE? Billionaire developer Rick Caruso still isn’t saying. The erstwhile mayoral hopeful might run for mayor or governor, but had no answer on either while speaking with podcaster Adam Carolla on Monday at a town hall at Caruso’s Americana at Brand mall in Glendale.

Caruso asked the audience, which was filled with his supporters, to clap for the office they want him to run for. Carolla concluded that mayor won out by a small margin. “I’m getting pushed in a lot of different directions,” Caruso said.

— HE’S BACK: Councilmember Curren Price returned to the council chamber after a monthlong absence. He suffered a “health-related incident” during an Oct. 1 press conference, with his staff saying at the time that he had been dehydrated. Price also made an appearance in court this week for a preliminary hearing in his ongoing corruption case. The hearing was delayed until Dec. 11.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to the area around 15th Street and St. Andrews Place, which is in the Harvard Heights section of Councilmember Heather Hutt’s district.
• On the docket next week: The council’s Public Safety Committee takes up the mayor’s nomination of Deputy Chief Jaime Moore to be the next fire chief on Wednesday.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

For Zuri Crawford, the last several weeks have been an emotional whirlwind — swinging from fears to frustration to now partial relief.

A 20-year-old single mother and Riverside City College student, Crawford depends on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to buy groceries for herself and her young son. Earlier this week, she braced herself for the possibility that — because of the federal shutdown — she would not receive the $445 that typically gets loaded onto her state-issued debit card on the sixth day of every month.

“I really feel like I’m going to be burnt out. I feel like it’s going to be hard on me because I am a single mom,” she said on a recent afternoon. “I have to push through, but I am going to be overwhelmed.”

On Thursday, however, Crawford was surprised to learn that the $445 payment had showed up on her card. Soon after, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that, because of a court victory, “food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families” — at least temporarily.

Crawford is one of roughly 5.5 million statewide who depend on this food aid — known in California as CalFresh — and one of 42 million people nationwide. In recent weeks, this group has been caught in the crosshairs of a political battle that has shifted from Congress to courtrooms amid a federal shutdown that has now lasted more than five weeks.

As of early Friday, two federal judges had ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to use billions of dollars in contingency funding to continue providing SNAP support — the reason Crawford and many others nationwide received their full benefits Thursday. On Friday the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court to block one of those orders. The appeals court let the order stand, and then late Friday the Trump administration succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to block the judicial rulings and — at least temporarily — withhold food benefits from millions of Americans.

Many recipients in California already have their payments, but the legal drama late Friday may add to their anxieties. Many were already improvising, and may have to do so again.

Zuir Crawford, 20, loads groceries bought using gift cards supplied by Riverside City College.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

In Crawford’s case, she already juggles college coursework, picks up shifts as an UberEats driver and cares for her 1-year-old. When she learned her food aid would be delayed this month, she made a plan: She would drop two classes and then pick up additional work as a caregiver so she and her son could afford to eat. She would use that money to supplement the support she is receiving from her school and community.

Even with food aid, she depends on food pantries to help her obtain items such as canned ravioli, Rice-a-Roni and frozen dinners for the last two weeks of the month.

Single parents could be hit especially hard by the delay in food benefits. Nationwide, single-adults make up nearly two-thirds (62%) of all SNAP households with children, according to the USDA. In California, almost a quarter of single working parents (23.2%) are in poverty, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Households headed by single mothers are especially vulnerable amid a worsening gender wage gap and rising costs for education, housing and child care, said Jesseca Boyer, vice president of policy and strategic initiatives for the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “All of those factors require a single mother to stretch their already limited dollars even further,” she said.

In the Bay Area city of Mountain View, Abigail Villavicencio usually gets between $500 and $700 each month loaded onto her CalFresh cards, she said. It depends on her fluctuating income delivering food for apps such as Uber Eats. A single mom with three children, she first qualified for SNAP in 2021, and at that time was able to stretch the money to cover groceries for an entire month.

“But over the last year, it hasn’t been enough. I spend $500 in 2 weeks. I noticed prices were going up,” she said, and her weekly grocery trip often now costs $200 to $300. “I have two weeks when I have to figure out what to do.”

Villavicencio said she augments her benefits by collecting donated food at her son’s school twice a month.

The last few weeks have been particularly hurtful, she said, when she sees commenters on social media deriding food stamp recipients as “lazy.” She notes that she has to show her bank accounts every six months to qualify for CalFresh. For the past three years, she’s been home with her twin daughters as they went through intensive behavior therapy for autism.

News of the delayed SNAP benefits gutted her carefully calibrated food plan. She dipped into her savings for the last grocery trip and bought enough to make meals she could sell to construction workers to earn a few extra dollars.

Now that her twin daughters are in kindergarten, she’s also been searching for more consistent work — but it’s been challenging, she said, to find one that will allow her to drop off and pick up her children from school.

Holding her dog Bear, Zuir Crawford, 20 fears losing her SNAP benefits because of the federal government shutdown. “I really feel like I’m going to be burnt out. I feel like it’s going to be hard on me because I am a single mom,” she said on a recent afternoon. “I have to push through, but I am going to be overwhelmed.”

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

As for Crawford, she said she experienced “trauma after trauma” growing up, bouncing between homes in Los Angeles and Riverside counties. She has sought stability since becoming a teen mom to her son, whom she affectionately calls Baby Z.

She is in her second semester at Riverside City College, where she is taking prerequisite courses to pursue a nursing career. She makes “little to nothing” driving for Uber Eats, she said, “but it’s enough for me to at least put gas in my tank.”

Without the financial support of her family or a partner, she relies on a patchwork of government programs.

Two months ago, she, her son and her fluffy white dog Bear moved into a one-bedroom apartment that she obtained through a county housing program for the homeless. She uses the nearly $900 a month she receives through CalWorks, a state welfare program, to cover her rent, utilities and phone bill. Along with CalFresh, she gets a monthly allotment of healthy food through the Women, Infants and Children program.

She said she’s also sustained by her Christian faith. She attends regular Bible studies and uses a portion of her food budget to make meals for the homeless.

Inside the college’s Basic Needs Resource Center on Wednesday afternoon, Crawford filled a black basket with peanut butter, jelly, oatmeal, a can of pozole and hygiene products. While students can typically access the pantry every two weeks, they can collect staples once a week during the shutdown, a volunteer explained.

Crawford is in her second semester at Riverside City College, where she is taking prerequisite courses to pursue a nursing career.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

As a community college student and single parent receiving public assistance, she is also eligible for additional support including meal vouchers and grocery gift cards.

With SNAP beneficiaries becoming pawns in the shutdown fight, she said she’s grateful for the public assistance, which she views as a “stepping stone” to a more financially secure life.

“It’s not my fault that I was born into the family I was born into,” she said later that day, as she sliced and spiced chicken and steamed vegetables for a low-cost meal. “I can’t control that. But what I can control is my outcome. And I know that if I keep on working hard, if I keep on persevering through all the hardships, I’m going to be OK.”

Zuir Crawford, 20, carries groceries from a local market and also from a food pantry to her apartment in Riverside.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Up until Thursday, both Villavicencio and Crawford were preparing for hard times. The Mountain View mom was worried about telling her children about a diminished Thanksgiving this year. Crawford was calculating how to further improvise on using her food budget wisely.

Both women were relieved that, on the sixth day of the month, their benefits had fully reloaded.

“I can breathe now,” Villavicencio said Friday.

“I’m super-shocked,” added Crawford with a laugh. “I feel relieved. I just feel happy.”

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

WASHINGTON — President Trump made historic gains with Latinos when he won reelection last year, boosting Republicans’ confidence that their economic message was helping them make inroads with a group of voters who had long leaned toward Democrats.

But in this week’s election, Democrats in key states were able to disrupt that rightward shift by gaining back Latino support, exit polls showed.

In New Jersey and Virginia, the Democrats running for governor made gains in counties with large Latino populations, and overall won two-thirds of the Latino vote in their states, according to an NBC News poll.

And in California, a CNN exit poll showed about 70% of Latinos voting in favor of Proposition 50, a Democratic redistricting initiative designed to counter Trump’s plans to reshape congressional maps in an effort to keep GOP control of the House.

The results mark the first concrete example at the ballot box of Latino voters turning away from the GOP — a shift foreshadowed by recent polling as their concerns about the economy and immigration raids have grown.

Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill celebrates with supporters after being elected New Jersey governor.

(Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

If the trend continues, it could spell trouble for Republicans in next year’s midterm elections, said Gary Segura, a professor of public policy, political science and Chicana/o studies at UCLA. This could be especially true in California and Texas, where both parties are banking on Latino voters to help them pick up seats in the House, Segura said.

“A year is a long time in politics, but certainly the vote on Prop. 50 is a very, very good sign for the Democrats’ ability to pick up the newly drawn congressional districts,” Segura said. “I think Latino voters will be really instrumental in the outcome.”

Democrats, meanwhile, are feeling optimistic that their warnings about Trump’s immigration crackdown and a bad economy are resonating with Latinos.

Republicans are wondering to what degree the party can maintain support among Latinos without Trump on the ticket. In 2024, Trump won roughly 48% of the Latino vote nationally — a record for any Republican presidential candidate.

Some Republicans saw this week’s trends among Latino voters as a “wakeup call.”

“The Hispanic vote is not guaranteed. Hispanics married President Donald Trump but are only dating the GOP,” Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida said in a social media video the day after the election. “I’ve been warning it: If the GOP does not deliver, we will lose the Hispanic vote all over the country.”

Economic issues a main driver

Last year Trump was able to leverage widespread frustration with the economy to win the support of Latinos. He promised to create jobs and lower the costs of living.

But polling shows that a majority of Latino voters now disapprove of how Trump and the Republicans in control of Congress are handling the economy. Half of Latinos said they expected Trump’s economic policies to leave them worse off a year from now in a Unidos poll released last week.

In New Jersey, that sentiment was exemplified by voters like Rumaldo Gomez. He told MSNBC he voted for Trump last year but this week went for for the Democratic candidate for governor, Rep. Mikie Sherrill.

“Now, I look at Trump different,” Gomez said. “The economy does not look good.”

Gomez added he is “very sad” about immigration raids led by the Trump administration that have split up hardworking families.

While Latino voters fear being affected by immigration enforcement actions, polling suggests they are more concerned about cost of living, jobs and housing. The Unidos poll showed immigration ranking fifth on the list of concerns.

In New Jersey and Virginia, Democrats’ double-digit victories were built on promises to reduce the cost of living, while blaming Trump for their economic pain.

Marcus Robinson, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said Democrats “expanded margins and flipped key counties by earning back Latino voters who know Trump’s economy leaves them behind.”

“These results show that Latino communities want progress, not a return to chaos and broken promises,” he said.

Republicans see a different Trump issue

GOP strategist Matt Terrill, who was chief of staff for then-Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign, said the election results are not a referendum on Trump.

Latino voters swung left because Trump wasn’t on the ballot, he said.

Last year “it wasn’t Latino voters turning out for the Republican party, it was Latino voters turning out for President Trump,” he said. “Like him or not, he’s able to fire up voters that the Republican party traditionally does not get.”

With Trump barred by the Constitution from running for a third term, Republicans are left to wonder if they can get the Latino vote back when he is not on the ballot. Terrill believes Republicans need to hammer on the issue of affordability as a top priority.

Mike Madrid, a “never Trump” Republican and former political director of the California Republican Party, has a different theory.

“They’re abandoning both parties,” Madrid said of Latinos. “They abandoned the Republican party for the same reasons they abandoned the Democratic party in November: not addressing economic concerns.”

The economy has long been the top concern for Latinos, Madrid said, yet both parties continue to frame the Latino political agenda around immigration.

“Latinos aren’t voting for Democrats or Republicans — they’re voting against Democrats and against Republicans,” Madrid said. “It’s a very big difference. The partisans are all looking at us as if we’re this peculiar exotic little creature.”

The work ahead

Democrat Abigail Spanberger was elected governor in Virginia in part because of big gains in Latino-heavy communities. One of the biggest gains was in Manassas Park, where more than 40% of residents are Latino. She won the city by 42 points, doubling the Democrats’ performance there in last year’s election.

The shift toward Democrats happened because Latinos believed Trump when he promised to bring down high costs of living and that he would only go after violent criminals in immigration raids, said Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, who worked with Spanberger’s campaign on outreach to Spanish-language media.

Instead, she argued, Trump betrayed them.

Cardona said Medicaid cuts under Trump’s massive spending package this year, along with the reduction of supplemental nutrition assistance amid the government shutdown, have Latinos families panicking.

“What Republicans misguidedly and mistakenly thought was a realignment of Latino voters just turned out to be a blip,” she said. “Latinos should never be considered a base vote.”

Political scientists caution that the election outcomes this week are not necessarily indicative of how races will play out a year from now.

“It’s just one election, but certainly the seeds have been planted for strong Latino Democratic turnouts in 2026,” said Brad Jones, a political science professor at UC Davis.

Now, both parties need to explain how they expect to carry out their promises if elected.

“They can’t sit on their laurels and say, ‘well surely the Latinos are coming back because the economy is bad and immigration enforcement is bad,’” Jones said. “The job of the Democratic party is now to reach out to Latino voters in ways that are more than just symbolic.”

CHICAGO — When I turned on my phone after landing at O’Hare Airport on Wednesday, texts poured in from friends and colleagues warning that I was about to enter a region under siege.

Many sent a video from that morning of immigration agents running into a day care facility in Chicago’s Roscoe Village neighborhood to pull out a teacher. It was the latest attack against the metropolis by President Trump’s deportation Leviathan, whose so-called Operation Midway Blitz this fall has made its earlier occupation of Los Angeles look like a play date.

Armed agents have sauntered through downtown and manned a flotilla of boats on the Chicago River. They shot and killed a fleeing immigrant and raided an apartment building with the help of a Black Hawk helicopter. In nearby Broadview, home to the region’s main ICE detention facility, rooftop migra shot pepper balls at protesters below, including a pastor. They even tear-gassed a neighborhood that was about to host a Halloween children’s parade, for chrissakes.

From Back of the Yards to Cicero, Brighton Park to Evanston, immigration agents have sown terror throughout Chicagoland with such glee that a federal judge declared that it “shocks the conscience” and issued an injunction limiting their use of force — which they no doubt will ignore.

I was in town to speak to students at the University of Chicago about the importance of reporting on things one may not like. Heaven knows that’s been my 2025. But as I waited to deplane, I checked my email and found something I’ve sorely needed this year:

Hope.

On Tuesday, Democrats won governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia by wide margins. Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York, telling Trump to “Turn. The. Volume. Up” during a soaring victory speech.

Back home in California, 64% of voters favored Proposition 50, the ballot initiative crafted by Gov. Gavin Newsom to create up to five Democratic-leaning congressional districts in response to Trump’s gerrymandering in Texas.

It was a humiliating rebuke of Trumpism. And the tip of the Democratic spear? Latinos.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic governor-elect in New Jersey, takes a photo during an election-night party. Democrats reclaimed political momentum Tuesday with gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia, early signs that voter unease with the economy in President Trump’s second term could give them a path to winning control of Congress next year.

(Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In New Jersey, where Trump received 46% of the Latino vote in 2024, a CNN exit poll showed just 31% of Latinos siding with the losing GOP candidate for governor. Nearly two-thirds of Latinos in Virginia went against Cuban American Atty. General Jason Miyares, a Republican who also lost. The CNN poll also found that more than 70% of California Latinos voted for Proposition 50, a year after GOP Latino legislators made historic gains in Sacramento.

At the same time, support for Trump has dropped among Latinos. Only 25% of Latinos surveyed in October by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research viewed Trump favorably — a cratering from the 45% who liked him in April. Even more telling, two-thirds of Latino men thought negatively of Trump — despite 51% of that demographic choosing him in 2024.

Latinos’ leftward shift on election night already set off as many thought pieces as Trump did when he captured 48% of the Latino vote — the most a Republican presidential candidate has earned, despite his long history of slurring, maligning and insulting America’s largest minority. Democrats, who have long depended on Latino voters, were shocked, and GOP leaders were delighted, feeling that a demographic that had long eluded them was finally, truly within reach.

This week Latinos sent a loud message: You had your chance, y nada.

House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to play off his party’s collapse among Latinos to NBC News, sniffling, “I do believe that the demographic shift that we were able to see and experience in the 2024 election will hold.”

Mike: time to bring the Republican Party out of its Stockholm syndrome. Your guy has blown it with Latinos. Let him keep doubling down on his madness, and Latinos will continue to flip on ustedes like a tortilla.

Trump’s 2024 victory was the culmination of an extraordinary shift in the Latino electorate that few saw coming — but I did. As I’ve written ad nauseam since 2016, Latinos were beginning to favor the GOP on issues like limited government, immigration restrictions and transgender athletes in high school sports because Democrats were taking them for granted, obsessing over woke shibboleths while neglecting blue-collar issues like gas prices and high taxes.

A voter holds a sign in Spanish while riding with other voters to the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center as part of a 2024 event organized by LUCHA (Living United For Change In Arizona) for Latinx voters and volunteers in Arizona.

(Anna Watts/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

All this was was happening as the Biden administration made it easier for newly arrived undocumented immigrants to remain, angering those who have been here for decades without similar help. The long-standing tendency for Latinos to sympathize with the latest Latin Americans to cross over eroded, and some became more receptive to Trump’s apocalyptic words against open borders.

Last year 63% of Latinos in California considered undocumented immigrants to be a “burden,” according to a poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

That happened to be the same percentage of California voters who favored Prop. 187, the infamous 1994 initiative that sought to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants and showed the GOP that xenophobic politics can work.

After the 2024 election, Latinos seemed to be joining earlier Catholic immigrants who were once cast as invaders — Irish, Italians, Poles, Germans — on the road to assimilation and the waiting arms of the Republican party. All Trump had to do was improve the economy and clamp down on the border. If he did the former, Latinos would have been largely supportive of the latter, as long as deportations focused on newcomers.

Instead, Trump wasted his opportunity.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents knock on the door of a residence during a targeted enforcement operation in Chicago.

(Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The economy remains stagnant. Trump effectively declared war on Latin America with tariffs real and threatened and by bombing Venezuelan and Colombian boats suspected of carrying drugs without asking permission from Congress.

Trump officials keep issuing punitive policies that crush the dreams of Latinos, like a crackdown on English fluency in the trucking industry and ending federal grants that helped colleges and universities recruit and retain Latino students.

Federal agents leave the area of North A Street as residents and community members protest an early morning federal enforcement action in Oxnard.

(Julie Leopo/For The Times)

But Trump’s biggest mistake has been his indiscriminate deportation raids. His toxic alphabet soup of immigration enforcement agencies — HSI, ERO, CPB, ICE — largely has ignored the so-called “worst of the worst” in favor of tamale ladies, fruteros and longtime residents. Nearly three-quarters of immigrants in ICE detention as of September have no criminal convictions, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

Trump’s deportation deluge has rained down across the country as his administration repeatedly has exhibited white supremacist tendencies, from effectively blocking all new refugees except South African Boers to pumping out social media garbage extolling a mythical America where white makes right and Latinos exist only as blurry mug shots of alleged illegal immigrants.

A federal agent holds his weapon as law enforcement officers conduct a raid on street vendors. New Yorkers witnessing the attempted detainments began protesting and attempted to block agents.

(Michael Nigro/LightRocket via Getty Images)

No wonder 65% of Latinos feel it’s a “bad time” to be Latino in the U.S. — a 25-percentage-point drop in optimism from March of last year, according to an Axios-Ipsos poll done with Telemundo and released this week.

Trump even is losing credibility among Latino Republicans, with a September 2024 AP-NORC poll finding that 83% of them had a “very” or “somewhat” positive view of the president last year.

Now? Sixty-six percent.

Trump very well can win back some of those Latinos in 2026 if the economy improves. But every time his migra goons tackle innocents, another Latino will turn on him and get ready to fight back.

At the University of Chicago, orange whistles hung around a bronze bust just outside the room where I spoke. They’ve become a symbol of resistance to Trump’s invasion of the City of Strong Shoulders, blown by activists to alert everyone that la migra is on the prowl.

A bronze bust with whistles around it inside Swift Hall at the University of Chicago. They’ve become a symbol of resistance, blown by activists to alert everyone that la migra is on the prowl.

(Gustavo Arellano/Los Angeles Times)

I grabbed one as a memento of my time here and also as a reminder of what’s happening with Latinos right now. Nationwide, we’re warning everyone from the front lines — the streets, the ballot box, the courtroom, everywhere — about the excesses of Trump and warning him what happens if he doesn’t listen.

So, Trump: Turn. The. Volume. Up.

There are three essential components to a healthy democracy: elected officials, voters and political opposition. The first two make the most noise and get the most attention.

But that third pillar really matters too.

According to Ballotpedia, the online nonpartisan organization that tracks election data, of the nearly 14,000 elections across 30 states that the group covered this week, 60% were uncontested — with only one candidate for a position, or for some roles, no candidate at all.

Much of this week’s postelection analysis has been focused on the mayoral race in New York City and Zohran Mamdani’s victory. Yet the same night, as democracy in America took center stage, more than 1,000 people were elected mayor without facing an opponent.

Only about 700 mayoral races tracked by Ballotpedia gave voters any choice. Dig a little deeper and you find more than 50% of city council victories and nearly 80% of outcomes for local judgeships were all without competition.

That’s a problem.

Elections without political opposition turn voting — the cornerstone of our governance — into performance art. The trend is heading in the wrong direction. Since Ballotpedia began tracking this data in 2018, about 65% of the elections covered were uncontested. However, for the last two years the average is an abysmal 75%.

It’s a symptom of broader disengagement. Over two and a half centuries, a lot of lives have been sacrificed trying to perfect this union and its democracy. And yet last November, a third of America’s eligible voters chose not to take part.

Are we a healthy democracy or masquerading as one?

Doug Kronaizl, a managing editor at Ballotpedia who analyzes this data, told me the numbers show Americans are increasingly more focused on national politics, even though local elections have the greatest effects on our daily lives.

“We like to view elections sort of like a pyramid, and at the tippity top, that’s where all of the elections are that people just spend a lot of time focused on,” said Kronaizl, who’s been at the nonprofit since 2020. “That’s your U.S. House races, your governor races, stuff like that. But the vast majority of the pyramid — that huge base — is like all of these local elections that are always happening and end up being for the most part uncontested.”

Take New York, for example. For all the hoopla around Mamdani’s win, the fact is most of the state’s 124 elections weren’t contested. Iowa had 1,753 races with one or zero candidates; Ohio had more than 2,500.

And that’s being conservative. In some cases, if an election is uncontested, ballots aren’t printed and the performance art is canceled. Ballotpedia says its data doesn’t include outcomes decided without a vote.

We have elected officials. We have voters. But political opposition? We’re in trouble — especially at the local level, down at the base of the pyramid. The foundation of democracy is in desperate need of repair.

* * *

The former mayor of Tempe, Ariz., Neil Giuliano, has dedicated most of his life to public service. He said when it comes to running for office, people must remember the three M’s: the money to campaign, the electoral math to win and the message for voters.

“It used to be the other way around,” he told me. “It used to be you had a message and you talked about what you believed in.” Now, however, “you can talk about what you believe in all day long,” he said, but if you don’t have the money and the data to target and reach voters, “it’s either a vanity effort or a futility effort.”

When an interesting electoral seat opens in Arizona, Giuliano — who was elected to the city council in 1990 before serving as mayor from 1994 to 2004 — is sometimes approached about running again. For two decades now, his answer has been the same: No, thank you.

Instead, the 69-year-old prefers mentoring candidates and fundraising. He also sits on the board of the Victory Fund, the 30-year-old nonpartisan organization that works to elect openly LGBTQ+ candidates at all levels of government.

Giuliano said the rise in uncontested elections can be explained by two discouraged groups: Some people don’t run because they believe the positions don’t matter. Others are “so overwhelmed with everything going on they’re not going to alter their life,” he said. “It’s already challenging enough without getting into a public fray where people hate each other, where people need security, where people are being accosted verbally and on social media.”

That sentiment was echoed by Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of Run for Something. Her nonprofit recruits and supports young progressives to run for local and state offices. Since President Trump was elected last November, Litman said, the organization has received more than 200,000 inquiries from people looking to run for office — which could indicate some hope on the horizon.

“I think the problems have gotten so big and so deep that it feels like you have to do something — you have to run,” she said. “The number one issue we’re hearing folks talk about is housing. The market in the last couple of years has gotten so hard, especially for young people, that it feels like there’s no alternative but to engage.”

* * *

Indeed, these are the times that try men’s souls, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Paine. He wrote those words in “The American Crisis” less than two years into the Revolutionary War, when morale was low and the future of democracy looked bleak. It is said that George Washington had Paine’s words read out loud to soldiers to inspire them. And when the bloodshed was over and victory finally won, the founders drafted the first article of the Bill of Rights because they knew the paramount importance of political opposition. That is what the 1st Amendment primarily protects: freedom of speech, the press and assembly and the right to petition the government.

Today, the crisis isn’t tyranny from abroad, but civic disengagement.

And look, I get it.

Whether you watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC, it usually seems as though no one in politics cares about you or your community’s problems. We would have a different impression if we listened to local candidates. There are thousands of local elections every year, starving for attention and resources, right at the base of the pyramid. Since the 20th century — when national media and campaign financing exploded — we have been lured into looking only at the tippity top.

One reason political opposition in local races is critical to democracy is that it teaches us to get along despite our differences. The president will never meet most people who didn’t vote for them, but a local school board member might. Those conversations will affect how the official thinks, talks, campaigns and governs. When the system works, politicians are held accountable — and are replaced if they get out of step with voters. That’s a healthy democracy, and it’s possible only with all three elements in place: elected officials, voters and political opposition.

* * *

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has dedicated most of his life to public service. He said he learned early on to care about his community because he grew up during the civil rights movement, “when they were sending dogs to attack human beings.”

Today, the 72-year-old is a 2026 gubernatorial candidate in California. He told me when it comes to the rise in uncontested elections, people have to remember “democracy is a living, breathing thing.”

“Not everybody can run for office, not everybody wants to run for office, but everybody needs to be involved civically,” he said. “We have an obligation and a duty to participate, to read about what’s going on to understand and yes sometimes to run when necessary.

“We got to stand up to the threat to our democracy, but we also got to fix the things we broke … and it’s a lot broken.”

Voters often want something better than the status quo, but without political opposition on the ballot, it can’t happen. That’s the beauty of democracy: It comes in handy when elected officials forget government is meant to serve the people — not the other way around.

Leanna Hubers contributed to this report. YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

NEW YORK — U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, a close Republican ally of President Trump, announced Friday that she’s running for governor of New York, a place she depicted in a campaign launch video as being “in ashes” because of lawlessness and a high cost of living.

In her video, a narrator declares “The Empire State has fallen” as it paints a grim picture of urban, liberal leadership and life in New York City, though the message appeared to be aimed at audiences in other, more conservative parts of the state.

Her candidacy sets up a potential battle with Gov. Kathy Hochul, a centrist Democrat, though both candidates would have to first clear the field of any intraparty rivals before next November’s election.

Stefanik, 41, has teased a run for months, often castigating Hochul, 67, as the “worst governor in America.” She’s also assailed Hochul for endorsing the ascendent, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor-elect of New York City.

In a written statement, Stefanik said she is running to make “New York affordable and safe for families all across our great state.”

“Our campaign will unify Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to Fire Kathy Hochul once and for all to Save New York,” she said.

Hochul’s campaign released its own attack ad Friday against the Republican, dubbing her “Sellout Stefanik,” and blamed her for enabling Trump’s tariffs and federal funding cuts to education and health care.

“Apparently, screwing over New Yorkers in Congress wasn’t enough — now she’s trying to bring Trump’s chaos and skyrocketing costs to our state,” said Hochul campaign spokesperson Sarafina Chitika.

Representing a conservative congressional district in northern New York, Stefanik had once been a pragmatic and moderate Republican who would avoid uttering Trump’s name, simply calling him “my party’s presidential nominee.”

But in recent years she has reshaped herself into a brash disciple and ardent defender of Trump’s MAGA movement, rising through the ranks of the Republican Party’s congressional hierarchy as it molded to Trump’s political style.

Last year, Stefanik was tapped to become the president’s ambassador to the United Nations, though her nomination was later pulled over concerns about her party’s tight margins in the House. She then began to angle toward a run for governor, and very quickly got a public nod of support from Trump.

Her announcement video, which was titled “From the Ashes,” casts New York as a dangerous place plagued by “migrant crime” and economic crisis, placing the blame on “Kathy Hochul’s failed policies,” as urgent, ominous music plays in the background.

New York City police officials have long touted drops in crime and this week said the city is in its eighth consecutive quarter of major crime decline.

The Republican primary field remains unclear ahead of the 2026 race.

On Long Island, Republican Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has said he’s weighing a run for governor. In a statement Friday, he said he has “tremendous respect” for Stefanik but that the GOP needs to nominate a candidate who has “broad based appeal with independents and common sense Democrats.”

“The party must nominate the candidate with the best chance to defeat Kathy Hochul and I have been urged by business, community and political leaders across the state to make the run and I am seriously considering it,” said Blakeman, who handily won reelection to another four-year term on Tuesday.

U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler had been contemplating a run but instead decided to seek reelection in his battleground House district in the Hudson Valley.

Hochul faces a contested primary, with her own lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado, running against her.

Democrats have a major voter registration edge in New York. The state’s last Republican governor was former Gov. George Pataki, who left office about two decades ago.

Still, Republican Lee Zeldin, a former Long Island congressman and current head of the Environmental Protection Agency, made a serious run for the office in 2022, coming within striking distance of upsetting Hochul.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Philip Marcelo contributed to this report.

The Trump administration spent Friday fighting to avoid restoring $4 billion in food assistance in jeopardy due to the government shutdown, suggesting it might need to “raid school-lunch money” in order to comply with court orders.

The claim was part of a break-neck appeal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, where the government hoped to duck a court order that would force it to pay out for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — through November.

“There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the appeal.

The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.

On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.

SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.

Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.

The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.

But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.

“Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.

“Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.

“Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”

The appeal could extend that deadline by as little as a few hours, or nullify it entirely.

But the latter may be unlikely, especially following the appellate court’s decision late Friday. The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents.

While the court deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.

More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.

But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.

“This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.

In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday accused foreign-owned meat-packers of driving up the price of beef in the U.S. and asked the Department of Justice to open an investigation.

The Republican president announced the move on social media days after his party suffered losses in key elections in which the winning Democratic candidates focused relentlessly on the public’s concerns about the cost of living.

“I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation,” Trump wrote in the social media post.

“We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply,” he continued.

Trump offered no proof to support his allegations.

Beef prices have soared to record levels in part after drought and years of low prices led to the smallest U.S. herd size in decades. Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, a major beef exporter, have also curbed imports.

Concentration in the meat-packing business has long been a concern for farmers and politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are four major meat-packing companies in the United States, and the largest beef company, JBS, is headquartered in Brazil. JBS USA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

“Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People,” Trump said.

Last month, Trump suggested the U.S. would buy Argentine beef to bring down stubbornly high prices for American consumers, angering U.S. cattle ranchers.

Trump’s accusations have renewed a bipartisan presidential fight against rising food prices.

Then-President Biden talked with independent farmers and ranchers about initiatives to reduce food prices by increasing competition within the meat industry. And then-Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Trump defeated last year, used her campaign to vow to crack down on food producers and major supermarkets “ price gouging.”

Superville and Karnowski write for the Associated Press. Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.

BOSTON — President Trump ’s administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly SNAP food benefits amid a U.S. government shutdown, even as at least some states said they were moving quickly to get the money to people.

The judge gave the Trump administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

The court filing came even as Wisconsin said Friday that some SNAP recipients in the state already got their full November payments overnight on Thursday.

“We’ve received confirmation that payments went through, including members reporting they can now see their balances,” said Britt Cudaback, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Uncertainty remains for many SNAP recipients

The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for the food program that serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income. For many SNAP participants, it remains unclear exactly how much they will receive this month, and when they will receive it.

Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, N.J., waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corp. food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.

“If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”

The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.

In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”

States are taking different approaches to food aid

Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services said it directed a vendor servicing its SNAP electronic benefit cards to issue full SNAP benefits soon after the federal funding is received.

Benefits are provided to individuals on different days of the month. Those who normally receive benefits on the third, fifth or seventh of the month should receive their full SNAP allotment within 48 hours of funds becoming available, the Michigan agency said, and others should receive their full benefits on their regularly scheduled dates.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services said that partial SNAP benefits were distributed Friday, based on the Trump administration’s previous decision. Officials in Illinois and North Dakota also said they were distributing partial November payments, starting as soon as Friday for some recipients.

In Missouri, where officials had been working on partial distribution, the latest court jostling raised new questions. A spokesperson for the state Department of Social Services said Friday that it is awaiting further guidance about how to proceed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

On Thursday, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Jim Pillen downplayed the effect of paused SNAP benefits on families in his state, saying, “Nobody’s going to go hungry.” The multimillionaire said food pantries, churches and other charitable services would fill the gap.

Lieb, Casey and Bauer write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo., and Bauer from Madison, Wisc. AP writers Margery Beck in Omaha; Mike Catalini in Newark, N.J.; Jack Dura in Bismarck, N.D.; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Del.; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Ill.; and Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration are increasingly anxious that an ongoing standoff with Democrats over reopening the government may drag into Thanksgiving week, one of the country’s busiest travel periods.

Already, hundreds of flights have been canceled since the Federal Aviation Administration issued an unprecedented directive limiting flight operations at the nation’s biggest airports, including in Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Washington, D.C.

Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, told Fox News on Thursday that the administration is prepared to mitigate safety concerns if the shutdown continues into the holiday week, leaving air traffic controllers without compensation over multiple payroll cycles. But “will you fly on time? Will your flight actually go? That is yet to be seen,” the secretary said.

While under 3% of flights have currently been grounded, that number could rise to 20% by the holiday week, he added.

“It’s really hard — really hard — to navigate a full month of no pay, missing two pay periods. So I think you’re going to have more significant disruptions in the airspace,” Duffy said. “And as we come into Thanksgiving, if we’re still in a shutdown posture, it’s gonna be rough out there. Really rough.”

Senate Republicans said they are willing to work through the weekend, up through Veterans Day, to come up with an agreement with Democrats that could end the government shutdown, which is already the longest in history.

But congressional Democrats believe their leverage has only grown to extract more concessions from the Trump administration as the shutdown goes on.

A strong showing in races across the country in Tuesday’s elections buoyed optimism among Democrats that the party finally has some momentum, as it focuses its messaging on affordability and a growing cost-of-living crisis for the middle class.

Democrats have withheld the votes needed to reopen the government over Republican refusals to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits. As a result, Americans who get their healthcare through the ACA marketplace have begun seeing dramatic premium hikes since open enrollment began on Nov. 1 — further fueling Democratic confidence that Republicans will face a political backlash for their shutdown stance.

Now, Democratic demands have expanded, insisting Republicans guarantee that federal workers get paid back for their time furloughed or working without pay — and that those who were fired get their jobs back.

A bill introduced by Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, called the “Shutdown Fairness Act,” would ensure that federal workers receive back pay during a government funding lapse. But Democrats have objected to a vote on the measure that’s not tied to their other demands, on ACA tax breaks and the status of fired workers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, has proposed passing a clean continuing resolution already passed by the House followed by separate votes on three bills that would fund the government through the year. But his Democratic counterpart said Friday he wants to attach a vote on extending the ACA tax credits to an extension of government funding.

Democrats, joined by some Republicans, are also demanding protections built in to any government spending bills that would safeguard federal programs against the Trump administration withholding funds appropriated by Congress, a process known as impoundment.

President Trump, for his part, blamed the ongoing shutdown for Tuesday’s election results earlier this week, telling Republican lawmakers that polling shows the continuing crisis is hurting their party. But he also continues to advocate for Thune to do away with the filibuster, a core Senate rule requiring 60 votes for bills that fall outside the budget reconciliation process, and simply reopen the government with a vote down party lines.

“If the filibuster is terminated, we will have the most productive three years in the history of our country,” Trump told reporters on Friday at a White House event. “If the filibuster is not terminated, then we will be in a slog, with the Democrats.”

So far, Thune has rejected that request. But the majority leader said Thursday that “the pain this shutdown has caused is only getting worse,” warning that 40 million Americans risk food insecurity as funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program lapses.

The Trump administration lost a court case this week arguing that it could withhold SNAP benefits, a program that was significantly defunded in the president’s “one big beautiful bill” act earlier this year.

“Will the far left not be satisfied until federal workers and military families are getting their Thanksgiving dinner from a food bank? Because that’s where we’re headed,” Thune added.