POLITICS

California prison officials have opened a new psychiatric center for inmates, contending the $24-million treatment facility is proof the state is ready to shed federal oversight of mental-health care for prisoners.

The new building at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville will provide outpatient treatment for mentally ill inmates who do not require 24-hour care. Its opening was accompanied by positioning for the courts.

“It’s time for the federal courts to recognize the progress the state has made and end costly and unnecessary federal oversight,” Jeffrey Beard, secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said in prepared remarks.

The kind of care that California gives mentally ill inmates is the subject of fierce contention in U.S. District Court, where the state has filed a legal bid to end federal oversight as well as lift prison population caps that California concedes it cannot currently meet. A document filed Friday shows state’s prison population remains 49% above what the facilities were designed to hold, with Central California Women’s Facility at 82% above its design capacity.

In anticipation of also filing in court a request to end federal healthcare oversight, state officials have announced they intend this week to bring a group of Texas experts to inspect three prisons. Lawyers for inmates have asked a federal judge to allow them to accompany the state’s experts on their inspection tour. Lawyers for the state argue that doing so would be an “impermissible invasion into privileged communications.”

Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco has scheduled a hearing Tuesday morning to consider the dispute.

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

Molly Yard, National Organization for Women president, and Eleanor Smeale, former president, do not speak for all NOW members when they say they will not work for any current Democratic candidate (Part I, Aug. 25) other than Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.).

Granted, there probably isn’t a feminist alive who does not respect and admire Schroeder. I, for one, would rejoice to have her as our President.

But it is erroneous to suggest NOW members will sit out the 1988 elections because the other candidates are dull.

This NOW member believes we have several exciting, strong, intelligent candidates.

Furthermore, to imply there is no difference between a (Democratic Massachusetts Gov.) Michael Dukakis (who favors reproductive choice for all women, including medical funding of abortions for poor women) and a (Republican New York Rep.) Jack Kemp (who favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion for all women, even victims of rape) is not only inane, it is downright irresponsible.

I am distressed that as a NOW activist I might be associated with their unenlightened point of view. Speaking for myself, come 1988, I’ll be out there–and I suspect thousands of other NOW women and men will be there with me–working for the pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, pro-reproductive rights candidate. Schroeder? Dukakis? (Illinois Sen. Paul) Simon? Or . . . ?

JOANNE J. PARKER

West Los Angeles Chapter

California NOW Foundation, President

NEW YORK — Reviving a campaign pledge, President Trump wants a one-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a move that could save Americans tens of billions of dollars but drew immediate opposition from an industry that has been in his corner.

Trump was not clear in his social media post Friday night whether a cap might take effect through executive action or legislation, though one Republican senator said he had spoken with the president and would work on a bill with his “full support.” Trump said he hoped it would be in place by Jan. 20, marking one year since his return to the White House.

Strong opposition is certain from Wall Street and the credit card companies, which donated heavily to his 2024 campaign and to support his second-term agenda.

“We will no longer let the American Public be ripped off by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Researchers who studied Trump’s campaign pledge after it was first announced found that Americans would save roughly $100 billion in interest a year if credit card rates were capped at 10%. The same researchers found that while the credit card industry would take a major hit, it would still be profitable, although credit card rewards and other perks might be scaled back.

Americans are paying, on average, between 19.65% and 21.5% in interest on credit cards, according to the Federal Reserve and other industry tracking sources. That has come down in the last year as the central bank lowered benchmark rates, but is near the highs since federal regulators started tracking credit card rates in the mid-1990s.

Trump’s administration, however, has proved particularly friendly until now to the credit card industry.

Capital One got little resistance from the White House when it finalized its purchase and merger with Discover Financial in early 2025, a deal that created the nation’s largest credit card company. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is largely tasked with going after credit card companies for alleged wrongdoing, has been largely nonfunctional since Trump took office. His administration killed a Biden-era regulation that would have capped credit card late fees.

In a joint statement, the banking industry opposed Trump’s proposal.

“If enacted, this cap would only drive consumers toward less regulated, more costly alternatives,” the American Bankers Assn. and allied groups said.

The White House did not respond to questions about how the president seeks to cap the rate or whether he has spoken with credit card companies about the idea.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who said he talked with Trump on Friday night, said the effort is meant to “lower costs for American families and to [rein] in greedy credit card companies who have been ripping off hardworking Americans for too long.”

Legislation in both the House and the Senate would do what Trump is seeking.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) released a plan last February that would immediately cap interest rates at 10% for five years, hoping to use Trump’s campaign promise to build momentum for their measure.

Hours before Trump’s post, Sanders noted that the president, rather than working to cap interest rates, had taken steps to deregulate big banks that allowed them to charge much higher credit card fees.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) have proposed similar legislation. Ocasio-Cortez is a frequent political target of Trump, while Luna is a close ally of the president.

Sweet and Kim write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and West Palm Beach, Fla., respectively.

BOSTON — A federal judge said Friday that she expects to temporarily block efforts by the Trump administration to end a program that offered temporary legal protections for more than 10,000 family members of citizens and green card holders.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said at a hearing that she planned to issue a temporary restraining order but did not say when it would be issued. This case is part of a broader effort by the administration to end temporary legal protection for numerous groups and comes just over a week since another judge ruled that hundreds of people from South Sudan may live and work in the United States legally.

“The government, having invited people to apply, is now laying traps between those people and getting the green card,” said Justin Cox, an attorney who works with Justice Action Center and argued the case for the plaintiffs. “That is incredibly inequitable.”

This case involved a program called Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, and affects people from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. Most of them are set to lose their legal protections, which were put in place during the Biden administration, by Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security terminated protections late last year.

The case involves five plaintiffs, but lawyers are seeking to have any ruling cover everyone that is part of the program.

“Although in a temporary status, these parolees did not come temporarily; they came to get a jump-start on their new lives in the United States, typically bringing immediate family members with them,” plaintiffs wrote in their motion. “Since they arrived, FRP parolees have gotten employment authorization documents, jobs, and enrolled their kids in school.”

The government, in its brief and in court, argued that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has the authority to terminate any parole program and gave adequate notice by publishing the termination in the federal registry. It also argued that the program’s termination was necessary on national security grounds because the people had not been property vetted. It also said resources to maintain this program would be better used in other immigration programs.

“Parole can be terminated at any time,” Katie Rose Talley, a lawyer for the government told the court. “That is what is being done. There is nothing unlawful about that.”

Talwani conceded that the government can end the program but she took issue with the way it was done.

The government argued that just announcing in the federal registry it was ending the program was sufficient. But Talwani demanded the government show how it has alerted people through a written notice — a letter or email — that the program was ending.

“I understand why plaintiffs feel like they came here and made all these plans and were going to be here for a very long time,” Talwani said. “I have a group of people who are trying to follow the law. I am saying to you that, we as Americans, the United States needs to.”

Lower courts have largely supported keeping temporary protections for many groups. But in May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million.

The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision came after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case.

The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota leaders urged protesters to remain peaceful Saturday as people gathered nationwide to decry the fatal shooting of a woman by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis and the shooting of two protesters in Portland, Ore.

On Friday night, a protest outside a Minneapolis hotel that attracted about 1,000 people escalated as demonstrators threw ice, snow and rocks at officers, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said during a news conference Saturday. One officer suffered minor injuries after being struck with a piece of ice, O’Hara said. Twenty-nine people were cited and released, he said.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stressed that while most protests have been peaceful, those who cause damage to property or put others in danger will be arrested. He faulted “agitators that are trying to rile up large crowds.”

“This is what Donald Trump wants,” Frey said. “He wants us to take the bait.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz echoed the call for peaceful demonstrations.

“Trump sent thousands of armed federal officers into our state, and it took just one day for them to kill someone,” Walz posted on social media. “Now he wants nothing more than to see chaos distract from that horrific action. Don’t give him what he wants.”

The demonstrations in cities and towns across the country come as the Department of Homeland Security pushes forward in the Twin Cities with what it calls its largest immigration enforcement operation yet. Trump’s administration has said both shootings were acts of self-defense against drivers who “weaponized” their vehicles to attack officers. Video of the Minneapolis shooting appeared to contradict the administration’s assertions.

Steven Eubanks, 51, said he felt compelled to get out of his comfort zone and attend a protest in Durham, N.C., on Saturday because of what he called the “horrifying” killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis.

“We can’t allow it,” Eubanks said. “We have to stand up.”

Indivisible, a social movement organization that formed to resist the Trump administration, said hundreds of protests were scheduled in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida and other states. Many were dubbed “ICE Out for Good,” using the acronym for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Indivisible and its local chapters organized protests in all 50 states last year.

In Minneapolis, a coalition of migrant rights groups called for a demonstration at Powderhorn Park, a large green space about half a mile from the residential neighborhood where the 37-year-old Good was shot Wednesday. They said the rally and march would celebrate her life and call for an “end to deadly terror on our streets.”

Protests held in the neighborhood have been largely peaceful, in contrast to the violence that hit Minneapolis in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by police in 2020. Near the airport, some confrontations erupted Thursday and Friday between smaller groups of protesters and officers guarding the federal building used as a base for the Twin Cities crackdown.

O’Hara said city police officers have responded to calls about cars abandoned because their drivers have been apprehended by immigration enforcement. In one case, a dog was left in the vehicle.

He said that immigration enforcement activities are happening “all over the city” and that 911 callers have been alerting authorities to ICE activity, arrests and abandoned vehicles.

Three congresswomen from Minnesota who attempted to tour the ICE facility in the Minneapolis federal building on Saturday morning were initially allowed to enter but then told they had to leave about 10 minutes later.

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison and Angie Craig accused ICE agents of obstructing members of Congress from fulfilling their duty to oversee operations there.

“They do not care that they are violating federal law,” Craig said after being turned away.

A federal judge last month temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing policies that limit congressional visits to immigration facilities. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by 12 members of Congress who sued in Washington, D.C., to challenge ICE’s amended visitor policies after they were denied entry to detention facilities.

The Trump administration has deployed thousands of federal officers to Minnesota under a sweeping new crackdown tied in part to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. More than 2,000 officers were taking part.

Some officers moved in after abruptly pulling out of Louisiana, where they were part of an operation in and around New Orleans that started last month and was expected to last until February.

Santana writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Allen Breed in Durham, N.C., and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

SEATTLE — A federal judge Friday blocked President Trump’s administration from enforcing most of his executive order on elections against the vote-by-mail states Washington and Oregon, in the latest blow to his efforts to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote and to require that all ballots be received by election day.

U.S. District Judge John H. Chun in Seattle found that those requirements exceeded the president’s authority, following similar rulings in a Massachusetts case brought by 19 states and in a Washington, D.C., case by Democratic and civil rights groups.

“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Atty. Gen. Nick Brown said. “The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.”

The executive order, issued in March, included new requirements that people provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and a demand that all mail ballots be received by election day. It also put states’ federal funding at risk if election officials didn’t comply.

Officials in Oregon and Washington, which accept ballots as long as they are postmarked by election day, said that could disenfranchise thousands of voters. During the 2024 general election, officials in Washington counted nearly 120,000 ballots that were received after election day but postmarked by it. Oregon officials received nearly 14,000 such ballots.

The judge found that Trump’s efforts violated the separation of powers. The Constitution grants Congress and the states the authority to regulate federal elections, he noted.

Oregon and Washington said they sued separately from other states because, as exclusively vote-by-mail states, they faced particular harms from the executive order.

Trump and other Republicans have promoted the debunked idea that large numbers of people who are not U.S. citizens might be voting. Voting by noncitizens is rare and, when they are caught, they can face felony charges and deportation.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The discussion of gay rights activist Roberta Achtenberg’s appointment as assistant secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development flared into passionate debate on the Senate floor Wednesday as conservative Republicans accused her of being a militant who would abuse her power and Democrats defended her with equal fury.

The San Francisco attorney and city supervisor was expected to be confirmed–but not before a phalanx of conservative Republicans led by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) challenged her record of gay activism and criticized her for purportedly leading a controversial fight to pressure the Boy Scouts of America into dropping a policy barring acknowledged homosexuals from serving as Scoutmasters.

Helms, who was quoted earlier as saying he opposed Achtenberg’s nomination because she is “a damn lesbian,” modified his objections on the Senate floor, arguing that his colleagues should reject the nominee “not because she is a lesbian, but because she is a militant activist who demands that Americans accept as normal a lifestyle that most of the world finds immoral.”

Waving a stack of letters of recommendation from organizations such as United Way, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) ardently defended Achtenberg’s record.

“Character assassination will not hold, whether it is in the press or in this beautiful hall,” Boxer said defiantly. “People who don’t know this woman and who admittedly don’t like her private life would try to destroy her. That has no place in . . . this great institution.

“If you are against a nominee, then you better come up with the truth, because what we heard here today from the senator from North Carolina saddens me deeply . . . and frightens me.”

The Senate’s discussion of Achtenberg, who is openly lesbian, marked the first time that a nominee’s sexual orientation has become an issue in a Senate confirmation process.

Helms, who had maneuvered behind the scenes to delay the Senate debate on Achtenberg, has already indicated that he will not attempt a filibuster to prevent a vote on her nomination. But an aide said that the senator wants to keep the debate going long enough “to have a thorough discussion of her nomination” in the hopes of persuading more than just a handful of Senate conservatives to vote against her.

Achtenberg’s nomination was recommended by the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in a 14-4 vote May 5. Although that suggested that enough Republicans would vote for her to prevent any attempts at a filibuster, Helms’ opposition meant that the debate was likely to extend at least into early next week.

As they took to the floor in the highly charged debate, Achtenberg’s supporters and critics painted sharply contradictory portraits of the 42-year-old woman and her suitability to head the office that enforces the nation’s fair housing laws.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a former mayor of San Francisco, recalled Achtenberg’s role as a city supervisor in pressing to end housing discrimination against families with children, minorities and gays and said that as an assistant secretary at HUD “she will speak out to make sure our housing laws are fairly enforced.”

But Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) argued that Achtenberg was unfit for the nomination because of an activist record of “intolerance, discrimination and vendettas against those who do not share her beliefs.”

Lott and other conservative Republicans took particular issue with Achtenberg’s stance against the Boy Scouts and the resolution she sponsored as a city supervisor urging San Francisco to withdraw $6 million in deposits from the Bank of America because it had donated money to the Boy Scouts, which she said discriminated against homosexuals as Scoutmasters.

“The Boy Scouts are not exactly a subversive organization . . . yet Roberta Achtenberg used her public position to threaten and extort any organization that had ties with the Boy Scouts,” Lott said.

But Boxer had a different interpretation. Rather than spearheading a battle for homosexual Scoutmasters, Boxer said, Achtenberg was one of 59 members of the United Way board who supported a suggestion by a task force, which she did not participate in, to drop funding to the Boy Scouts because of its discriminatory rules.

One of the most heated moments in the early debate came when Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.) demanded to know of Helms whether he had been quoted correctly in referring to Achtenberg earlier this month as a “damn lesbian.”

Helms said he could not recall whether he used the word damn . But pressed by an angry Riegle, Helms added he “may very well have said” that and he challenged Riegle to “make what you will of that.”

Helms then left the hall, but the debate continued with Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill.) lashing out at him and the other conservatives for employing tactics of “fear and divisiveness.”

“It demeans our body to have a member taking credit for being quoted as a bigot,” Moseley-Braun said, referring to Helms.

WASHINGTON – The austere House budget drafted by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that has come to define the Republican Party was approved Thursday on a strict party-line vote, as the GOP argues that a balanced budget should now be Washington’s top goal.

The blueprint is merely a proposal, without the force of law, but its overhaul of the Medicare program and steep reductions to other social safety net spending serves as the GOP’s opening salvo in renewed budget negotiations with President Obama. It was approved, 221 to 207, with no Democrats and 10 GOP defectors, largely conservatives or congressman in swing districts.

Republicans are anxious to reopen the debate over government spending with the White House even though some attribute the party’s setbacks in the November election to the plan from Ryan, the party’s former vice presidential nominee.

Ryan achieved the party’s goal of balancing the budget in 10 years, a promise House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) made to restive conservatives to win their votes on other matters.

To bring revenues and spending into balance by 2024, Ryan relied on deeply reducing federal spending as well as new revenue coming from the New Year’s tax deal that raised income tax rates on the wealthy.

The centerpiece of the GOP plan would turn Medicare into a voucher-like program for the next generation of seniors, those younger than 55. When they become eligible, at age 65, those seniors will be offered a voucher that can be applied either to the purchase of private health insurance or toward the cost of Medicare, though the voucher may not cover all the costs of the policy chosen.

The Ryan budget also cuts Medicaid, the health program for the poor and seniors in nursing homes, as well as food stamps, welfare programs and student loans, while largely preserving money for defense accounts.

While Ryan temporarily counts the tax hikes from the New Year, his plan would ultimately lower top tax income rates from 39.6% to no more than 25%, while closing loopholes and deductions. The top corporate rate would also be dropped to 25%. Ryan believes that lower taxes will spur economic growth and essentially pay for themselves; but critics say the lower rates cannot be achieved without asking middle-income families to give up popular income-tax deductions or else adding to the deficit.

Before approving the Ryan budget, the House dismissed alternative proposals, including one from the Democratic minority that sought to raise taxes on corporations and wealthier Americans, while putting that new revenue toward infrastructure and state jobs, as well as decreasing the deficit. Also rejected was a more conservative budget that would have balanced in four years, as well as proposals from the progressive caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

The Senate, which has not approved a budget in four years, is set to do so later this week. The blueprint from the Democrats is a similarly partisan document, and passage will put the House, Senate and White House on another collision course as they begin budget talks toward the next deadline, in summer, when Congress will be asked to raise the nation’s debt limit.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Twitter: @LisaMascaroinDC

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg giving you the latest on city and county government.

For a long time, Spencer Pratt refused to be put into a political box.

The reality-television-personality-turned-national-figure-turned-mayoral-candidate told the New York Times in October that he hated politics and didn’t identify with either major party. He “demurred” when asked by the Hollywood Reporter about his personal politics.

But the supporters who are beginning to line up behind Pratt have made one thing clear: MAGA has entered the Los Angeles mayoral race, just one day after “The Hills” alumnus announced he’s running.

Despite his nonpartisan statements, Pratt has become a darling of the right wing, meeting with influential Republicans across the country who have latched onto his sharp criticism of Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom over their handling of the Palisades fire.

On Thursday, Pratt, who lost his home in the fire, finally commented on his political affiliation, saying he has been a registered Republican since 2020.

“I wasn’t going to change it now just to check a different box,” he wrote on X. “This is a non-partisan race — there will be no D or R next to my name. As Mayor, I will not serve either party. I will work with anyone who wants to help the city. No labels necessary.”

The confirmation of Pratt’s political affiliation came as endorsements flowed in from across the country — and not from Democrats, for the most part.

Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who has launched a congressional investigation into the response to the Palisades fire, posted on X that he was “glad” Pratt decided to run for mayor. Scott has toured the Palisades with Pratt, and the two met in Washington, D.C., after Scott announced the investigation.

Pratt was also endorsed by Richard Grenell, who is President Trump’s Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions.

“I endorse Spencer Pratt for Mayor of Los Angeles and will help raise money for him. Transparency is what we need. Spencer has the passion and the drive to make positive change for Los Angeles,” Grenell wrote on X.

Closer to home, Pratt picked up an endorsement from Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Trump supporter and a Republican candidate for governor.

“LA needs him, California needs him. He’s got integrity and the backbone we need,” Bianco posted on X.

Roxanne Hoge, chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, said the group welcomes into the mayoral race “every common sense voice who stands for good governance and stands for representing the people over public sector unions and developers and NGOs.”

Hoge said she has a “great affinity” for Pratt, whom she called a personal friend.

“I support his willingness to speak up and be a voice for the voiceless,” she said.

Hoge said the county organization has not endorsed in the race.

Former City Councilmember Mike Bonin, who represented Pacific Palisades until 2024, said Pratt and Trump have many similarities.

“If you look at the model of who he is as candidate, it’s similar to Trump: the reality television background; his most visible communication presence is on Twitter, just as Trump’s was. And he’s sort of developing a candidacy around frustration and blowing the system up, just like Trump did,” Bonin said.

Bonin said Pratt’s entry into the race could be “perilous” for Bass.

The mayor has also tried to tie Pratt to Trump, seeking to position herself as the anti-MAGA candidate in a deep blue city.

“Donald Trump and Spencer Pratt are cut from the same cloth — two Republican, reality star villains running with MAGA backing, spewing disinformation and misinformation to create profit and division. Good luck with that in Los Angeles,” said Doug Herman, a spokesperson for Bass’ campaign.

Candidates will be judged by the people they associate with, Bonin added.

“Show me who you walk with and I’ll tell you who you are,” said Bonin, who is executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles.

Rick Caruso, a former Republican who registered as a Democrat when he ran against Bass in 2022, has tried to distance himself from Trump. Caruso said during his mayoral campaign that he never supported Trump for president or donated to his campaigns.

Caruso, a billionaire developer who is considering a run for either mayor or governor, said he hadn’t spoken with Pratt in months but that he was glad the social media influencer was joining the race.

“I think it’s great [that Pratt is running],” Caruso said. “I think the more people that actively get in government service the better.”

Pratt did not respond to multiple texts requesting comment. A member of his team said he is “currently embargoed from doing interviews because of other projects that were previously in play before he announced.”

A campaign staffer did not specify what the other projects were and said Pratt would be able to speak in early February.

State of play

— A YEAR OF FIRES: A year after two of the most destructive wildfires in California history erupted just hours apart, survivors marked the day in Altadena and Pacific Palisades with a mixture of anger and somber remembrance.

— ENTER PRATT: Spencer Pratt announced his candidacy for mayor of Los Angeles on the anniversary of the Palisades fire. Pratt and his wife, Heidi Montag, lost their home in the fire. Since then, the reality TV personality has become a vocal critic of Bass and Newsom.

— WATERED DOWN: LAFD Chief Jaime Moore admitted Tuesday that his department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire was watered down to shield top brass from scrutiny.

— REPORT AND REFINE: The head of the Los Angeles Fire Commission said Tuesday that a “working draft” of the after-action report was sent to the mayor’s office for “refinements” before it was published last October. She added that in her long career in civic roles, she had learned that words like “refinements” could mean troubling changes to a government report, made for the purpose of hiding facts.

— FINAL ADDRESS: In his final State of the State address, Newsom shifted from the problem-solving posture that defined his early years in office to a more declarative accounting of California’s achievements, casting the state as a counterweight to dysfunction in Washington.

— KILLINGS PLUMMET: There were 230 homicides in Los Angeles in 2025, according to the LAPD. That was a 19% drop from 2024 and the fewest the city has seen since 1966, when the population was 30% smaller.

— MAYORAL MOVES: Bass spokesperson Clara Karger is leaving the mayor’s office and heading to public affairs firm Fiona Hutton & Associates. Karger was with Bass’ team for nearly three years. Her departure comes months after Bass’ deputy mayor for communications Zach Seidl left. Seidl was replaced by Amanda Crumley.

— LA|DC|NYC: Anna Bahr, who worked as a deputy press secretary for former Mayor Eric Garcetti and then ran communications for Sen. Bernie Sanders, is headed to the Big Apple to run communications for newly elected Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program brought Angelenos inside in Skid Row and South Los Angeles this week. The program also partnered with Project Street Vet to provide veterinary care — including vaccines, medications and check ups — to nearly 30 pets belonging to Inside Safe participants, the mayor’s office said.
• On the docket next week: The City Council’s Committee on Public Works will get updates on the city’s graffiti abatement program as well as the city’s efforts to address illegal dumping and to repair pot holes.

Stay in touch

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

A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s move to freeze $10 billion in child-care funds in five Democrat-led states including California.

The ruling Friday afternoon capped a tumultuous stretch that began earlier this week when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told California officials and those in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York that it would freeze federal funding over fraud concerns.

On Thursday the states sued the administration in federal court in Manhattan. The states sought a temporary restraining order, asking the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s demands for large volumes of administrative data.

An attorney for the states argued Friday morning that there was an immediate need for funding — and that withholding it would cause chaos by depriving families of their ability to pay for child care, and would harm child-care providers who would lose income.

In a brief ruling, Judge Arun Subramanian said that “good cause has been shown for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal government’s effort has been viewed as a broad attack on social services in California, and jolted tens of thousands of working families and the state’s child-care industry. Providers told The Times that the funding freeze could imperil child-care centers, many of which operate on slim margins.

“The underscoring issue is that child care and these other federally funded social services programs are major family supports,” said Nina Buthee, executive director of EveryChild California. “They are essential infrastructure that our communities need and depend on, and should not be political tools. So the fact that this judge went in and blocked this very dramatic freeze, I think is only a good thing.”

In a trio of Jan. 6 letters addressed to Gov. Gavin Newsom, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was concerned there had been “potential for extensive and systemic fraud” in child care and other social services programs that rely on federal funding, and had “reason to believe” that the state was “illicitly providing illegal aliens” with benefits.

The letters did not provide evidence to support the claims. State officials have said the suggestions of fraud are unsubstantiated.

Newsom has said he welcomes any fraud investigations the federal government might conduct, but said cutting off funding hurts families who rely on the aid. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, about $1.4 billion in federal child-care funding was frozen per the letters from Health and Human Services.

“You want to support families? You believe in families? Then you believe in supporting child care and child-care workers in the workforce,” Newsom told MS NOW.

After Subramanian issued the ruling, Newsom’s press office said on X that “the feds went ghost-hunting for widespread ‘fraud’ (with no evidence) — and ended up trying to rip child care and food from kids.”

“It took a federal judge less than 24 hours to shut down Trump’s politically motivated child care cuts in California,” the account posted.

In instituting the freeze, Health and Human Services had said it would review how the federal money had been used by the state, and was restricting access to additional money amid its inquiries. The federal government asked for various data, including attendance documentation for child care. It also demanded beefed-up fiscal accountability requirements.

“Again and again, President Trump has shown a willingness to throw vulnerable children, seniors, and families under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against Democratic-led states,” Bonta said in a statement following the ruling. “Cutting funding for childcare and other family assistance is cruel, reckless, and most importantly, illegal.”

For Laura Pryor, research director at the California Budget & Policy Center, it is “a sigh of relief.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who is taking a tour of U.S. defense contractors, on Friday visited a Long Beach rocket maker, where he told workers they are key to President Trump’s vision of military supremacy.

Hegseth stopped by a manufacturing plant operated by Rocket Lab, an emerging company that builds satellites and provides small-satellite launch services for commercial and government customers.

Last month, the company was awarded an $805-million military contract, its largest to date, to build satellites for a network being developed for communications and detection of new threats, such as hypersonic missles.

“This company, you right here, are front and center, as part of ensuring that we build an arsenal of freedom that America needs,” Hegseth told several hundred cheering workers. “The future of the battlefield starts right here with dominance of space.”

Founded in 2006 in New Zealand, the company makes a small rocket called Electron — which lay on its side near Hegseth — and is developing a larger one called Neutron. It moved to the U.S. a decade ago and opened its Long Beach headquaters in 2020.

Rocket Lab is among a new wave of companies that have revitalized Southern California’s aerospace and defense industry, which shed hundreds of thousands of jobs in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. Large defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin moved their headquarters to the East Coast.

Many of the new companies were founded by former employees of SpaceX, which was started by Elon Musk in 2002 and was based in the South Bay before moving to Texas in 2024. However, it retains major operations in Hawthorne.

Hegseth kicked off his tour Monday with a visit to a Newport News, Va., shipyard. The tour is described as “a call to action to revitalize America’s manufacturing might and re-energize the nation’s workforce.”

Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson, a Democrat who said he was not told of the event, said Hegseth’s visit shows how the city has flourished despite such setbacks as the closure of Boeing’s C-17 Globemaster III transport plant.

“Rocket Lab has really been a superstar in terms of our fast, growing and emerging space economy in Long Beach,” Richardson said. “This emergence of space is really the next stage of almost a century of innovation that’s really taking place here.”

Prior stops in the region included visits to Divergent, an advanced manufacturing company in aerospace and other industries, and Castelion, a hypersonic missile startup founded by former SpaceX employees. Both are based in Torrance.

The tour follows an overhaul of the Department of Defense’s procurement policy Hegseth announced in November. The policy seeks to speed up weapons development and acquisition by first finding capabilities in the commercial market before the government attempts to develop new systems.

Trump also issued an executive order Wednesday that aims to limit shareholder profits of defense contractors that do not meet production and budget goals by restricting stock buybacks and dividends.

Hegseth told the workers that the administration is trying to prod old-line defense contractors to be more innovative and spend more on development — touting Rocket Lab as the kind of company that will succeed, adding it had one of the “coolest factory floors” he had ever seen.

“I just want the best, and I want to ensure that the competition that exists is fair,” he said.

Hegseth’s visit comes as Trump has flexed the nation’s military muscles with the Jan. 3 abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who is now facing drug trafficking charges to which he has pleaded not guilty.

Hegseth in his speech cited Maduro’s capture as an example of the country’s newfound “deterrence in action.” Though Trump’s allies supported the action, legal experts and other critics have argued that the operation violated international and U.S. law.

Trump this week said he wants to radically boost U.S. military spending to $1.5 trillion in 2027 from $900 billion this year so he can build the “Dream Military.”

Hegseth told the workers it would be a “historic investment” that would ensure the U.S. is never challenged militarily.

Trump also posted on social media this week that executive salaries of defense companies should be capped at $5 million unless they speed up development and production of advanced weapons — in a dig at existing prime contractors.

However, the text of his Wednesday order caps salaries at current levels and ties future executive incentive compensation to delivery and production metrics.

Anduril Industries in Costa Mesa is one of the leading new defense companies in Southern California. The privately held maker of autonomous weapons systems closed a $2.5-billion funding round last year.

Founder Palmer Luckey told Bloomberg News he supported Trump’s moves to limit executive compensation in the defense sector, saying, “I pay myself $100,000 a year.” However, Luckey has a stake in Anduril, last valued by investors at $30.5 billion.

Peter Beck, the founder and chief executive of Rocket Lab, took a base salary of $575,000 in 2024 but with bonus and stock awards his total compensation reached $20.1 million, according to a securities filing. He also has a stake in the company, which has a market capitalization of about $45 billion.

Beck introduced Hegseth saying he was seeking to “reinvigorate the national industrial base and create a leaner, more effective Department of War, one that goes faster and leans on commercial companies just like ours.”

Rocket Lab boasts that its Electron rocket, which first launched in 2017, is the world’s leading small rocket and the second most frequently launched U.S. rocket behind SpaceX.

It has carried payloads for NASA, the U.S. Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office, aside from commercial customers.

The company employs 2,500 people across facilities in New Zealand, Canada and the U.S., including in Virginia, Colorado and Mississippi.

Rocket Lab shares closed at $84.84 on Friday, up 2%.

The city of Los Angeles violated the state’s open meeting law when council members took up a plan to clear 9,800 homeless encampments behind closed doors, a judge ruled this week.

In a 10-page decision, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin said the City Council ran afoul of the Ralph M. Brown Act by approving the encampment strategy during a Jan. 31, 2024, closed session.

The encampment plan was part of a larger effort by the city to comply with a legal settlement with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, which had sued over the city’s handling of the homelessness crisis.

Kin, in his ruling, said the city is allowed under the Brown Act to confer with its attorneys in closed-door meetings to discuss legal strategy.

“However, what the City cannot do under the Brown Act is formulate and approve policy decisions in a closed session outside the public eye merely because such decisions are in furtherance of a settlement agreement,” Kin wrote.

Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, said her office had no comment on the decision, which was issued earlier this week.

The ruling delivered a victory to the Los Angeles Community Action Network, which advocates for homeless residents and had sued the city over the closed-door deliberations.

Lawyers for LA CAN have warned that the city’s goal of removing 9,800 encampments over four years has created a quota system that could make sanitation workers more likely to violate the property rights of unhoused residents. Under the agreement, the city must reach its encampment removal target this summer.

“The City Council approved an extremely controversial plan to clear almost 10,000 encampments entirely in secret,” said Shayla Myers, the group’s attorney. “They never disclosed the plan before they voted on it, or even after, and the only one they disclosed the plan to was the business community.”

Lawyers for the city have offered contradictory explanations for what transpired during the Jan. 31, 2024, meeting. Now, LA CAN is seeking a court order requiring that the city produce all records — including audio of the closed-door deliberations — to show what transpired.

The city’s strategy for clearing 9,800 encampments has become a major sticking point in its long-running legal battle with the LA Alliance. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ruled that a tent discarded by sanitation workers can only count toward the city’s numerical goal if its owner has been offered housing or shelter first.

Feldstein Soto’s legal team, in a memo to the council, said later that the judge had “reinterpreted” some of the city’s settlement obligations.

In this week’s ruling, Kin found that the city violated the Brown Act a second time in May 2024, when the council went behind closed doors to take up another agreement — this one between the city and L.A. County on the delivery of homeless services.

The LA Alliance first sued the city and county in 2020, alleging that too little was being done to address the homelessness crisis, particularly in Skid Row. The city settled the case two years later, agreeing to create 12,915 new shelter beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.

After that deal was struck, the city began negotiating an accompanying agreement with the LA Alliance to reduce the number of street encampments. Those talks dragged on for more than a year.

The LA Alliance ran out of patience, telling Judge Carter in February 2024 that the city was 447 days late in finalizing its plan and should be sanctioned. The group submitted to the court a copy of the encampment removal plan, saying it had been approved by the City Council on Jan. 31, 2024.

Video from that day’s meeting shows that council members went behind closed doors to discuss the LA Alliance case. When they returned, Deputy City Atty. Jonathan Groat said there was nothing to report from the closed session.

LA CAN demanded that the city produce any vote tally on the encampment plan. The city declined to do so, saying there was no vote.

“To this day, [we] still don’t know who voted for it, or even if a vote was taken at all,” Myers said.

Lawyers for the city have argued that they were not required to issue any report from that closed session meeting. They also have said that the Brown Act allowed the two agreements — the one on encampment removals and the other with the county — to be discussed behind closed doors.

Carter ruled last year that the city had failed to comply with the terms of its settlement agreement with the L.A. Alliance. On Tuesday, he ordered the city to pay $1.6 million to cover the group’s legal fees.

The judge also instructed the city to pay about $201,000 for fees incurred by LA CAN and the LA Catholic Worker, which have intervened in the LA Alliance case.

On Thursday, lawyers for the city notified the court that they intend to appeal the order to pay the various groups.

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Today Trump brought the heads of Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and many other oil giants into the White House. He talked about something like a $100 billion investment, promised U.S. protection, and warned Russia and China to keep their hands off. 

But there is a fundamental difference between systems imposed by the state (like China), versus the U.S. In China, if the top leader says “go build,” a company might grumble in private but it will die trying. In the U.S., you can’t order private companies to sink tens of billions into a country and just hope they salute. There are shareholders, lawyers, insurers, boards, and risk people involved. The oil tycoons will happily try to join forces, but the market is their true boss. Trump has to convince the private sector that the money will be safe and that’s exactly where up to this point, the new regime in Venezuela is still failing the test.

An oil project doesn’t get approved because someone “likes the idea” or gets mandated. First, the company tries to prove the oil is really there and worth extracting (surveys, test wells, production forecasts). Then they price the whole mess: what it’ll cost to fix old equipment or build new stuff, how long it’ll take, and what could go wrong. Finance teams run scenarios like a nervous pilot checking every gauge: oil prices, delays, tax changes, accidents, expropriation. Lawyers obsess over the contract details (who owns what, who can change the rules, where disputes get decided). And here’s the institutional reality check: if courts can’t be trusted, contracts are just paper, and if nobody can say who truly controls the police, the military, and the streets, then there’s no safeguard (especially if there’s reluctance to enact more force by the US). Only if the numbers still work after all that, and the risks can be insured or controlled, does the board sign off on the “final investment decision,” which is the moment the company stops talking and starts spending real billions of dollars. So from first study to first meaningful barrels, you’re usually talking 18–36 months for a brownfield restart (in existing/old facilities), and 3–7 years for a bigger rebuild or new development (which seems to be Trump’s appetite).

These things will be discussed behind closed doors, not in the media show presented today, and we’ll learn more soon enough.

Here’s a prospective roadmap, on what could happen, depending on the type of work:

6 months

The companies already present in Venezuela will probably invest quickly in debottlenecking (“low-hanging fruits”) that requires low investment and gradually increases production.

Most companies will commit to starting an exploratory technical and commercial feasibility process to assemble a development business plan for the country. This only requires bringing in a limited technical team, so upfront costs will be very low, and any of these companies can take the risk without long-term guarantees (if they lose that money and time, who cares). Trump will guarantee security for the personnel sent to Venezuela.

Based on private agreements around buying Venezuelan assets (privatization), new exploration, asset expansion, etc., Trump will instruct the interim leadership so that PDVSA and Congress enable those actions.

The first privatizations begin to be announced (the least complex and most obvious ones), those requiring the least purchase investment and the least production-recovery investment. I think this could happen even before free elections, because as Trump said, most of these companies are used to operating in some of the most sinister places in the world.

Engineering phases move forward to restore basic services needed to operate facilities (especially electricity supply). Stabilizing the country’s electrical system is fundamental for the oil industry.

6 to 18 months

Engineering advances for larger-scale projects that can meaningfully increase production. Again, this is very low-cost for the companies, and they take relatively little risk moving these forward even if they may have to cancel later.

Gradual production increases materialize as the debottlenecking projects (“low-hanging fruit”) come online.

FID (Final Investment Decision) might happen for some small or medium-sized projects, with U.S. guarantees that the government cannot expropriate them.

18 months +

This is where it gets interesting, because a democratic transition becomes fundamental for these companies to make FIDs to buy major PDVSA assets or execute greenfield projects (new plants, new infrastructure, etc.).

Remember: most of these companies are publicly traded. They will invest in projects with the highest returns at an acceptable level of risk. If the Trump administration cannot guarantee long-term stability through a healthy democracy, it’s likely these companies won’t risk huge sums of money.

The pace will also be dictated by expectations for oil prices at the time. If prices are expected to be low, investment will move more slowly.

This entire analysis also somewhat ignores the complexity of human talent in the country. It will be uphill to find the talent needed to execute these projects and operate the plants, and that could stretch timelines even further. Venezuela once had it, but it’s now dispersed all over the world (including Venezuela).

That’s why the political transition has to move fast. If Trump wants serious capital to be involved, the reforms have to be visible and irreversible, starting with unmistakable signals that the old regime’s habits are gone. A clean first step that could be an important signal: free every political prisoner. Not a symbolic handful. All of them. 

Big projects don’t live on election cycles, they live on 10–20-year timelines for ROI. If investors think the whole arrangement can be shaken up after the 2028 election (due to the Democrats retaining the White House), they’ll hesitate, or they’ll demand terms so protective that Venezuela’s interim regime won’t like them.

Venezuela’s economic restart and Venezuela’s political liberation are the same project. You don’t get one without the other. If the transition wants oil money to actually land it has to build the boring stuff that makes capitalism work: credible courts, enforceable contracts, and proof that the control of violence is achieved.

VATICAN CITY — In his most substantial critique of U.S., Russian and other military incursions in sovereign countries, Pope Leo XIV on Friday denounced how nations were using force to assert their dominion worldwide, “completely undermining” peace and the post-World War II international legal order.

“War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading,” Leo told ambassadors from around the world who represent their countries’ interests at the Holy See.

Leo didn’t name individual countries that have resorted to force in his lengthy speech, the bulk of which he delivered in English in a break from the Vatican’s traditional diplomatic protocol of Italian and French. But his speech came amid the backdrop of the recent U.S. military operation in Venezuela to remove Nicolás Maduro from power, Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and other conflicts.

The occasion was the pope’s annual audience with the Vatican diplomatic corps, which traditionally amounts to his yearly foreign policy address.

In his first such encounter, history’s first U.S.-born pope delivered much more than the traditional roundup of global hotspots. In a speech that touched on threats to religious freedom and the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and surrogacy, Leo lamented how the United Nations and multilateralism as a whole were increasingly under threat.

“A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies,” he said. “The principle established after the Second World War, which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others, has been completely undermined.”

“Instead, peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion. This gravely threatens the rule of law, which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence,” he said.

A geopolitical roundup of conflicts and suffering

Leo did refer explicitly to tensions in Venezuela, calling for a peaceful political solution that keeps in mind the “common good of the peoples and not the defense of partisan interests.”

The U.S. military seized Maduro, the Venezuelan leader, in a surprise nighttime raid. The Trump administration is now seeking to control Venezuela’s oil resources and its government. The U.S. government has insisted Maduro’s capture was legal, saying drug cartels operating from Venezuela amounted to unlawful combatants and that the U.S. is now in an “armed conflict” with them.

Analysts and some world leaders have condemned the Venezuela mission, warning that Maduro’s ouster could pave the way for more military interventions and a further erosion of the global legal order.

On Ukraine, Leo repeated his appeal for an immediate ceasefire and urgently called for the international community “not to waver in its commitment to pursuing just and lasting solutions that will protect the most vulnerable and restore hope to the afflicted peoples.”

On Gaza, Leo repeated the Holy See’s call for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and insisted on the Palestinians’ right to live in Gaza and the West Bank “in their own land.”

In other comments, Leo said the persecution of Christians around the world was “one of the most widespread human rights crises today,” affecting one in seven Christians globally. He cited religiously motivated violence in Bangladesh, Nigeria, the Sahel, Mozambique and Syria but said religious discrimination was also present in Europe and the Americas.

There, Christians “are sometimes restricted in their ability to proclaim the truths of the Gospel for political or ideological reasons, especially when they defend the dignity of the weakest, the unborn, refugees and migrants, or promote the family.”

Leo repeated the church’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia and expressed “deep concern” about projects to provide cross-border access to mothers seeking abortion.

He also described surrogacy as a threat to life and dignity. “By transforming gestation into a negotiable service, this violates the dignity both of the child, who is reduced to a product, and of the mother, exploiting her body and the generative process, and distorting the original relational calling of the family,” he said.

Winfield writes for the Associated Press.

GUATIRE, Venezuela — The United States and Venezuelan governments said Friday that they were exploring the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, and that a delegation from the Trump administration arrived in the South American nation Friday.

The small team of U.S. diplomats and diplomatic security officials traveled to Venezuela to make a preliminary assessment about the potential reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, the State Department said in a statement.

Venezuela’s government on Friday acknowledged that U.S. diplomats had traveled to the country and announced that it will send a delegation to Washington, but it did not say when.

In a statement, Delcy Rodríguez’s government said it “has decided to initiate an exploratory process of a diplomatic nature with the Government of the United States of America, aimed at the re-establishment of diplomatic missions in both countries.”

President Trump has placed pressure on Rodriguez and other former Maduro loyalists now in power to advance his vision for the future of the nation — a major aspect of which would be reinvigorating the role of U.S. oil companies in a country with the worlds’ largest proven reserves of crude oil.

The U.S. and Venezuela cut off ties in 2019, after the first Trump administration said opposition leader Juan Guaidó was the rightful president of Venezuela, spiking tensions. Despite the assertions, Maduro maintained his firm grip on power.

The Trump administration shuttered the embassy in Caracas and moved diplomats to nearby Bogotá, Colombia. U.S. officials have traveled to Caracas a handful of times since then. The latest visit came last February when Trump’s envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell met with Maduro. The visit resulted in six detained Americans being freed by the government.

Garcia Cano and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington. AP reporter Megan Janetsky contributed to this report from Mexico City.

A veteran producer at “CBS Evening News With Tony Dokoupil” was fired this week after raising concerns over the editorial direction of the program.

Javier Guzman, who has been with CBS News since 2017, was dismissed Wednesday from his position as senior producer, according to people familiar with the action who were not authorized to comment. A CBS News representative said the company does not discuss personnel matters.

Guzman is said to have expressed disagreement over the editorial direction of the evening newscast, which has undergone a revamp under CBS News Editor in Chief Bari Weiss. Guzman did not respond to a request for comment.

The sudden exit on the third day of Dokoupil’s tenure added to a growing perception that the program is off to an inauspicious start. Media industry newsletters and the tabloids have become repositories for unattributed comments from CBS News insiders who are unhappy with the changes.

The latest iteration of the storied newscast has generated negative feedback on social media for its content. On Tuesday, that included a breezy salute to Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a series of memes. It was a questionable choice coming days after a deadly U.S. military attack on Venezuela, where special forces captured the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.

The same episode was also blasted for a brief item noting the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The view of the historic event from five years ago was presented as a difference of opinion between President Trump and Democratic leaders in Congress.

The segments advanced the narrative among many media critics that Weiss is chasing after MAGA-friendly viewers and looking to please the White House as parent company Paramount pursues the takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. She joined the network in October after Paramount acquired her digital news site the Free Press, which often decries the excesses of the political left.

On Wednesday, the day after Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman was shot in her vehicle by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, “CBS Evening News” went ahead with a planned trip to Dallas as part of a multicity tour to promote Dokoupil as the new anchor.

While Dokoupil has said he wants “CBS Evening News” to focus more on the viewpoints of regular citizens and less on “elites” based in New York and Washington, his Dallas visit included a helicopter ride with Jerry Jones, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Cowboys. There was also a brief segment on the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders.

Dokoupil did score a newsworthy interview that day with ICE chief Tom Homan, who notably held back on commenting on the fatal shooting of Good while Trump and other administration officials rushed to call her a domestic terrorist. The program also quickly pivoted by flying to Minneapolis, where it focused heavily on the reaction of shaken Minneapolis residents and anti-ICE protesters to the incident.

Ratings for Dokoupil’s broadcast are slightly above the season-to-date average, according to Nielsen, but remain well behind “ABC World News Tonight With David Muir” and “NBC Nightly News With Tom Llamas.”

Dokoupil was co-host of “CBS Mornings” before joining “CBS Evening News,” where he replaced the anchor duo of John Dickerson and Maurice DuBois.

SACRAMENTO — California and its state-funded programs are heading into a period of volatile fiscal uncertainty, driven largely by events in Washington and on Wall Street.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget chief warned Friday that surging revenues tied to the artificial intelligence boom are being offset by rising costs and federal funding cuts. The result: a projected $3-billion state deficit for the next fiscal year despite no major new spending initiatives.

The Newsom administration on Friday released its proposed $348.9-billion budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1, formally launching negotiations with the Legislature over spending priorities and policy goals.

“This budget reflects both confidence and caution,” Newsom said in a statement. “California’s economy is strong, revenues are outperforming expectations, and our fiscal position is stable because of years of prudent fiscal management — but we remain disciplined and focused on sustaining progress, not overextending it.”

Newsom’s proposed budget did not include funding to backfill the massive cuts to Medicaid and other public assistance programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, changes expected to lead to millions of low-income Californians losing healthcare coverage and other benefits.

“If the state doesn’t step up, communities across California will crumble,” California State Assn. of Counties CEO Graham Knaus said in a statement.

The governor is expected to revise the plan in May using updated revenue projections after the income tax filing deadline, with lawmakers required to approve a final budget by June 15.

Newsom did not attend the budget presentation Friday, which was out of the ordinary, instead opting to have California Director of Finance Joe Stephenshaw field questions about the governor’s spending plan.

“Without having significant increases of spending, there also are no significant reductions or cuts to programs in the budget,” Stephenshaw said, noting that the proposal is a work in progress.

California has an unusually volatile revenue system — one that relies heavily on personal income taxes from high-earning residents whose capital gains rise and fall sharply with the stock market.

Entering state budget negotiations, many expected to see significant belt tightening after the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warned in November that California faces a nearly $18-billion budget shortfall. The governor’s office and Department of Finance does not always agree, or use, the LAO’s estimates.

On Friday, the Newsom administration said it is projecting a much smaller deficit — about $3 billion — after assuming higher revenues over the next three fiscal years than were forecast last year. The gap between the governor’s estimate and the LAO’s projection largely reflects differing assumptions about risk: The LAO factored in the possibility of a major stock-market downturn.

“We do not do that,” Stephenshaw said.

In some ways, it was just another campaign coffee: Los Angeles mayoral candidate Austin Beutner in a roomful of voters talking about his career and life accomplishments.

But this was no ordinary meet-and-greet. Beutner was standing inside a partially rebuilt house — with no doors, no windows and no drywall — in an area leveled by the Palisades fire. In the living room, about a dozen people spoke about what they had been through, from the frantic evacuation to the sight of smoldering ruins to the battle to get rebuilding permits.

Allison Holdorff Polhill, who owns the home, introduced Beutner — a former L.A. school superintendent — as the civic leader she would turn to first in a crisis.

“We were in the worst disaster that L.A. has ever experienced,” she told the group. “And we needed a leader that has experience with disasters and emergencies.”

The catastrophic Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead, has redefined the L.A. mayor’s race, expanding the field of candidates and creating a political minefield for Karen Bass as she seeks a second four-year term.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass speaks at a City Hall ceremony where flags are lowered to half-staff to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Palisades and Eaton fires.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

When the fire broke out on Jan. 7, 2025, Bass drew criticism for being in Ghana on a diplomatic mission. Once she returned, she was at odds with her fire chief and unsteady in her public appearances.

More recently, she has faced scrutiny over her handling of the recovery, as well as fire officials’ watering down of an after-action report that was supposed to identify mistakes in the firefighting effort.

The Times found that LAFD officials failed to fully pre-deploy engines to the Palisades amid forecasts of dangerously high winds and that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to leave the scene of a Jan. 1 blaze, even though it wasn’t fully extinguished. That fire rekindled a week later to become the Palisades fire.

Fernando Guerra, a political science professor at Loyola Marymount University, said he expects the disaster will be the No. 1 issue in the June 2 mayoral primary, resonating with voters well beyond Pacific Palisades.

To wage a competitive campaign, each of Bass’ challengers will need to make the fire and its aftermath “a reflection of what’s wrong with city government,” he said.

“It really does reflect on the readiness of the city, the responsiveness of the city, how is government working at the most basic level,” said Guerra, who also runs the Center for the Study of Los Angeles.

So far, Bass’ major challengers are embracing that strategy.

Beutner, who ran the L.A. Unified School District early in the pandemic, has accused Bass of failing to take responsibility for the city’s failures before and after the fire. On Monday, appearing with fire victims in Pacific Palisades, he called on the mayor to form a citizens commission to examine what went wrong.

Rae Huang, a community organizer who is challenging the mayor from the left, has expressed disappointment in what she called Bass’ “finger-pointing” — a reference to the mayor’s criticism, and ouster, of Fire Chief Kristin Crowley last year.

Then there’s reality TV star Spencer Pratt, an outspoken Bass critic, who launched a campaign rooted in his fury over the city’s handling of the fire — and the loss of his family’s home in the flames.

“I’ve waited a whole year for someone to step up and challenge Karen Bass, but I saw no fighters,” Pratt said in a social media post Wednesday. “Guess I’m gonna have to do this myself.”

Reality TV star Spencer Pratt, second from right, announced on Wedneday that he is running for mayor. He is suing the city over its handling of the Palisades fire, which destroyed his home in Pacific Palisades.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Still unclear is whether two formidable public figures will jump in — L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and real estate developer Rick Caruso, who lost to Bass in 2022. On Wednesday, Caruso said he will decide in the next couple of weeks whether he will run for mayor or governor.

Asked whether he might stay out of both races, Caruso responded: “I think that option is pretty much off the table now.”

As the city marked the one-year anniversary of the fires this week, Bass mostly kept a low profile, addressing the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club over the weekend and joining a private vigil at the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine.

While Pratt and hundreds of demonstrators were staging a “They Let Us Burn” rally in the Palisades, Bass stood solemnly outside City Hall as police officers lowered flags to half-staff. Bass spoke about grief and loss, but also the fact that more than 400 homes are being rebuilt.

“You see signs of hope everywhere,” she told the crowd.

Bass’ political team has taken a tougher approach, accusing her most outspoken critics — including Pratt, who is releasing a book later this month — of exploiting the disaster for political or even financial gain.

“For the first time ever we saw a major wildfire politicized by MAGA leaders and monetized by social influencers making tens of thousands of dollars per month and hawking books on the backs of a devastated community,” Bass campaign strategist Doug Herman said in a statement.

For much of the past year, Bass has faced criticism over the Fire Department’s deployment decisions and its failure to put out the Jan. 1 fire. She also has taken hits over the recovery, with residents saying she has not delivered on promises to waive permit fees for rebuilding homes lost in the fire.

Now, the focus has turned to a new and unsettling question: Did the city undermine its own effort to assess the Fire Department’s mistakes?

The Times reported last month that LAFD officials made changes to the after-action report that were so significant that its author, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse it.

“The fact that [Cook] is not willing to sponsor, or support, or endorse the report says a hell of a lot about the fact that there is no trust and clear leadership,” Huang said.

Bass told The Times on Wednesday that she did not work with the Fire Department on changes to the report, nor did the agency consult her about any changes.

L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath speaks at a rally in support of the county’s emergency rent relief program to help households who have lost income because of federal immigration enforcement.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

Horvath, who is running for a second four-year term as county supervisor, has also ripped the city over the report, saying wildfire victims feel “gaslit” — and deserve answers.

The supervisor, whose sprawling district includes the Palisades burn area, said she has been hearing from people asking her to run for mayor. She said she would prefer to continue in county office. But she voiced concern about the city’s future — not just its handling of the wildfire, but also the budget, the homelessness crisis and the delivery of basic services.

“I think people are hungry for a different kind of leadership,” she told The Times.

Pacific Palisades has not been a political stronghold for Bass. Although she won her 2022 race against Caruso by a 10-point margin, she trailed him by double digits in the Palisades.

Like many people across the region, the major mayoral candidates were directly impacted by the January fires or have family who lost homes — or both.

Beutner’s home was severely damaged in the Palisades fire, forcing him to live elsewhere for the past year. His mother-in-law’s home, also in the Palisades, was completely destroyed.

Bass has spoken repeatedly about her brother, whose Malibu home was destroyed in the Palisades fire. Huang’s 53-year-old cousin lost her Altadena home in the Eaton fire. Pratt, who is suing the city over the Palisades fire, said on social media that the flames consumed not just his home but also one owned by his parents.

Caruso, still a candidate-in-waiting, managed to save Palisades Village, the shopping center he opened in 2018, in part by securing his own private firefighting crew. But the inferno nevertheless destroyed the homes of his son and daughter, who are 26 and 29.

Real estate developer Rick Caruso on Wednesday unveils an installation in Pacific Palisades with three beams of light to mark the one-year anniversary of the fires.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

On the night the fire broke out, Caruso voiced his fury on live television about empty fire hydrants and the overall lack of water to douse the flames. Since then, he has offered a steady stream of criticism about the rebuilding process, including the mayor’s decision not to select a replacement for Steve Soboroff, who served 90 days as her recovery czar.

Caruso has spoken favorably in recent weeks about a few aspects of the recovery, including the reopening of classrooms and the quick removal of fire debris. He credited L.A. Unified and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, respectively, for those accomplishments — not the city.

“Frankly, the bright spots are under the leadership of other people,” he told The Times.

Beutner has been equally blunt. At last month’s campaign coffee, he said the city needs to convene a citizen panel similar to the Christopher Commission, which was formed weeks after the 1991 police beating of Rodney King. The panel assessed the LAPD’s handling of discipline, misconduct complaints, excessive force by officers and other issues.

“If you have a tragedy, you have public hearings, you have leaders who are empaneled with the money they need to ask tough questions of everybody — the mayor, her staff, the acting mayor, police, fire” and the Department of Water and Power, Beutner told the group. “What did you do, and what would you have done differently?”

Clara Karger, a spokesperson for Bass, said the city is already participating in a state investigation, which is being overseen by the Fire Safety Research Institute, into the Palisades and Eaton fires.

On top of that, she said, the fire department is commissioning an independent investigation into its response to the Jan. 1 fire that reignited into the Palisades fire. That blaze, known as the Lachman fire, was mentioned only briefly in the department’s after-action report.

“Mayor Bass wants all the information to ensure accountability and to continue implementing needed reforms, many of which are already underway from LAFD,” Karger said.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is running for a second term in the pivotal battleground state after a first term that put him on the Democratic Party’s radar as a potential presidential contender in 2028.

He made the formal announcement Thursday at an event at a carpenters’ union hall in Pittsburgh and, later, at a similar event in Philadelphia. Shapiro’s announcement demonstrated a unified party behind him — including introductions by the state party chair, labor leaders and top local Democratic officials — as he ticked off his accomplishments during a nearly 30-minute speech.

Shapiro warned that his opponents promise “darkness and division and extremism,” and — without mentioning President Trump by name — he slammed the “chaos and toxicity” emanating from Washington, D.C., that he said threatened livelihoods, rights and freedoms.

“Every step of the way, I’ve stood up for my fellow Pennsylvanians, sometimes in a court of law and other times simply refusing to back down, refusing to cast certain Pennsylvanians aside and always by speaking truth to power,” Shapiro said.

He added, “I will not let anyone mess with Pennsylvania and I will always have your backs.”

Although Shapiro hasn’t disclosed any ambitions for higher office, his reelection effort will be closely watched as another test of whether he’s White House material.

Ever since he won the governor’s office in a near-landslide victory in 2022, Shapiro has been mentioned alongside Democratic contemporaries like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and others as someone who could lead a national ticket.

Shapiro, 52, has already made rounds outside Pennsylvania. Last year, he campaigned for Democrats running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia, and he’s a frequent guest on Sunday talk shows that can shape the country’s political conversation.

He was also considered as a potential running mate for Kamala Harris in 2024. She chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz instead.

A pivotal first term as governor

Shapiro’s first term repeatedly put him in the spotlight.

He was governor when Pennsylvania was the site of the first attempted assassination of Trump; the capture of Luigi Mangione in the killing of United Healthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson; and the murder of three police officers in the state’s deadliest day for law enforcement since 2009.

Last year, an arsonist tried to kill Shapiro by setting the governor’s official residence on fire in the middle of the night. Shapiro had to flee with his wife, children and members of his extended family, and the attack made him a sought-out voice on the nation’s recent spate of political violence.

As Shapiro settled into the governor’s office, he shed his buttoned-down public demeanor and became more plain-spoken.

He pushed to quickly reopen a collapsed section of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia, debuting his new and profane governing slogan — “get s— done” — at a ceremony for the completed project.

He crossed the partisan divide over school choice to support a Republican-backed voucher program, causing friction with Democratic lawmakers and allies in the state.

Shapiro regularly plays up the need for bipartisanship in a state with a politically divided Legislature, and positions himself as a moderate on energy issues in a state that produces the most natural gas after Texas.

He’s rubbed elbows with corporate executives who are interested in Pennsylvania as a data center destination and thrust Pennsylvania into competition for billions of dollars being spent on energy, manufacturing and artificial intelligence.

A repeat winner in competitive territory

Shapiro has enjoyed robust public approval ratings and carries a reputation as a disciplined messenger and powerhouse fundraiser. For 2026, Pennsylvania’s Republican Party endorsed Stacy Garrity, the twice-elected state treasurer, to challenge Shapiro.

Garrity has campaigned around Pennsylvania and spoken at numerous Trump rallies in the battleground state, but she is untested as a fundraiser and will have to contend with her relatively low profile as compared with Shapiro.

Shapiro, meanwhile, keeps a busy public schedule and has gone out of his way to appear at high-profile, nonpolitical events like football games, a NASCAR race and onstage at a Roots concert in Philadelphia.

He is a regular on TV political shows, podcasts and local sports radio shows, and became a leading pro-Israel voice among Democrats and Jewish politicians amid the Israel-Hamas war, confronting divisions within the Democratic Party over the war.

He has tempered it with calls for more aid for Gaza’s residents and criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the war, but some activists argued against him being the party’s nominee for vice president in 2024.

Harris, in her recent book, wrote that she passed on Shapiro after determining that he wouldn’t be a good fit for the role.

Shapiro, she wrote, “mused that he would want to be in the room for every decision,” and she “had a nagging concern that he would be unable to settle for a role as number two and that it would wear on our partnership.” Shapiro disputed the characterization.

An audition on the 2026 campaign trail

In a September appearance on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” the host, Kristen Welker, asked him whether he’d commit to serving a full second term as governor and whether he’d rule out running for president in 2028.

“I’m focused on doing my work here,” he said, sidestepping the questions.

His supposed White House aspirations — which he’s never actually admitted to in public — are also mentioned frequently by Garrity.

“We need somebody that is more interested in Pennsylvania and not on Pennsylvania Avenue,” Garrity said recently on a radio show in Philadelphia. On Thursday, the Republican Governors Assocn. accused Shapiro of being “more focused on his political ambitions” than leading Pennsylvania.

For his part, Shapiro criticizes Garrity as too eager to get Trump’s endorsement to be an effective advocate for Pennsylvania.

In any case, the campaign trail could afford Shapiro an opportunity to audition for a White House run.

For one thing, Shapiro has been unafraid to criticize Trump, even in a swing state won by Trump in 2024. As governor, Shapiro has joined or filed more than a dozen lawsuits against Trump’s administration, primarily for holding up funding to states.

He has lambasted Trump’s tariffs as “reckless” and “dangerous,” Trump’s threats to revoke TV broadcast licenses as an “attempt to stifle dissent” and Trump’s equivocation on political violence as failing the “leadership test” and “making everyone less safe.”

Many of Shapiro’s would-be competitors in a Democratic primary won’t have to run for office before then.

Newsom is term-limited, for instance. Others — like ex-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg — aren’t in public office. A couple of other governors in the 2028 conversation — Moore and Pritzker — are running for reelection this year.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.