POLITICS

Xavier Becerra has spent nearly four decades in elected office. To some that speaks of extensive experience and a deep grounding in policy. To others, it smacks of political careerism and a long-term investment in the failed status quo.

Wired or tired?

It all depends on your perspective.

Becerra, a California native, emerged from the hothouse of Latino politics on Los Angeles’ Eastside. He was elected to the state Assembly in 1990, served 12 terms in Congress, was California attorney general and then, for nearly four years, ran the Department of Health and Human Services under President Biden.

It’s that latter stint that’s become a particular focus in the final days of California’s long and winding gubernatorial primary.

As Becerra surged from inconsequence to front-runner, opponents — led by chief Democratic rival Tom Steyer — have hammered Becerra’s performance in the Biden administration, suggesting he was AWOL during the COVID-19 pandemic and inept in his handling of unaccompanied migrant children, 85,000 of whom were supposedly “lost” on Becerra’s watch.

Politics is about persuasion and emotion, not rocket telemetry, so it’s not hard to figure out what’s going on.

“You look at Xavier and he seems to be perceived as a thoughtful, credible, trustworthy choice. That’s what I hear when I talk to regular people who aren’t political insiders,” said Darry Sragow, a Democrat strategist who’s spent decades running California campaigns. “So you see the people who want to take him out going after one of the words I just used here, which is ‘trustworthy’ and, to some extent, ‘credible.’”

A recent Steyer mail piece — which, naturally, features a grim-faced portrait of Becerra — accuses him of “mismanagement,” “scandal” and “incompetence,” and cites a 2024 quote from Susan Rice, a former Biden domestic policy advisor, describing the ex-Cabinet member as an “idiot.” (Apparently “bitch-a—,” another Rice epithet from the same Axios news report, was deemed unsuitable.)

The mail piece also quotes Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokesperson in the Biden administration, saying Becerra “was not effective in government,” though several people who worked in the White House could not think of any occasion, or any reason, Hinojosa would have meaningfully interacted with Becerra.

Pretty weak sauce. But at least Hinojosa, who delivered her gibe on one of CNN’s talking-head shows, was willing to publicly attach herself to the criticism.

Six former Biden administration officials were quoted by Politico “reacting with a mix of incredulity, mockery and resignation” to Becerra’s sudden ascendance in the governor’s race. Critics also unloaded to NBC News and other outlets. All of them spoke anonymously.

Therefore, it’s impossible to discern their motivations. Jealousy? Ego? An attempt to stay politically relevant?

Or maybe Becerra was, indeed, a feckless, flailing and thoroughly awful Cabinet member, deserving of scorn and shame.

Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff during the first two years of his presidency, doesn’t believe so.

“I think he did an excellent job as HHS secretary and I think the record shows that,” Klain said, citing, among other accomplishments, Becerra’s work helping negotiate a drop in the price of prescription drugs and expanding healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

On COVID-19, Becerra “wasn’t confirmed until several months into the Biden administration. Dr. [Anthony] Fauci had been on the job and was quite a well-known figure to Americans. So, of course, he became more the face of the COVID response.”

“On immigration,” Klain went on. “Xavier’s part was small and discreet. He wasn’t the secretary of Homeland Security. He didn’t run the border. He oversaw an office called the Office of Refugee Resettlement” responsible for processing children who crossed the border alone. “I was in meetings where he was a passionate and forceful advocate for these minors,” Klain said.

Still, there are legitimate questions, notwithstanding Becerra’s deflections — Trump! MAGA! Trump! — about his handling of the migrant children, some of whom died, suffered horrible abuse or were catastrophically injured, according to revelatory reporting by the New York Times. It’s worth noting, however, that Becerra inherited a plan to deal with unaccompanied minors that was drafted and phased in by Rice and her Domestic Policy Council.

There is an unhappy history between the two; apparently Becerra was not alone in drawing Rice’s ire. In 2022, an article in the American Prospect accused her of creating an “abusive and dehumanizing workplace,” in which Rice routinely berated others, including the Health and Human Services secretary.

On social media, Rice has made no secret of her continued contempt for Becerra, a display that carries no small whiff of ax-grinding and score-settling. She highlighted the refusal of Biden’s Homeland Security chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, to endorse Becerra in the governor’s race, though it would be surprising if Mayorkas, Biden, Kamala Harris or any high-level Democrat picked a favorite in such a fiercely contested primary.

Becerra “had big things to do and he got them done,” said Neera Tanden, who succeeded Rice as head of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council and has vigorously defended Becerra against attacks on social media.

“I am not on or coordinating with the Becerra campaign,” Tanden said. “I just know these attacks are ridiculous.”

If Becerra makes it past Tuesday’s primary to the November runoff, his career merits careful scrutiny — and not just those years spent in the Biden Cabinet. Many voters are still getting to know Becerra, who is the likeliest candidate to be California’s next governor. Anonymous quotes, drive-by commentary and incendiary mailers may be standard campaign fare. But voters deserve better.

WASHINGTON — Democrats have spent nearly two years trying to move past the 2024 presidential election. Now, Jill Biden’s new memoir is forcing them to relive it.

Her new book, “View from the East Wing,” which comes out Tuesday, is already drawing sharp rebukes from top Democrats, some of whom say it is a poorly timed and misleading account of the events that led to the demise of her husband’s presidency.

“Unhelpful … Ripping open a healing scab is never helpful,” John Morgan, a Florida trial attorney who was a major fundraiser for Biden’s 2024 campaign, told The Times. “In my opinion, she was the main problem. She loved the life and didn’t want it to end.”

Those type of frustrations erupted last week as the former first lady began promoting her book, including in a sit-down interview with CBS News airing Sunday, in which she said she thought the sitting president was having a stroke as she watched the 2024 presidential debate.

“I was frightened, because I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never,” Biden said. The moment “scared me to death,” she added.

For Democrats who had a similar reaction in real time, but who spent months being told by the Biden campaign that their concerns were overblown, her remarks landed like a gut punch. With the midterms around the corner, some bemoaned that Biden was relitigating a sore subject — particularly the question of who knew what about Biden’s aging and cognitive decline.

“What I care about is what happens going forward,” Dan Pfeiffer, a host of “Pod Save America,” a popular progressive podcast, said on the show Thursday. “What bothers me the most is not the timeline of events, but whether Democratic leaders now will ever reckon with the massive breach of trust that came because of how all of that was handled.”

Meghan Hays, a former White House aide to Joe Biden, said on C-SPAN’s “Ceasefire” that although she understands that Jill Biden is trying to sell books, her efforts are not helping the party ahead of the midterm elections.

“We have a lot of momentum in our favor … and when we get pulled back into conversations about age and the election in ‘24, it’s never gonna be a good place for Democrats,” Hays said. “I think it is a tough place to be.”

The Democratic Party found itself trapped in a similar dynamic earlier this month, when the Democratic National Committee released a long-awaited, 192-page report dissecting the 2024 loss. The committee’s chairman, Ken Martin, shared the postelection autopsy after coming under intense pressure from Democratic operatives, and apologized for how he handled its release.

The report faulted Kamala Harris and Democrats’ focus on “identity politics” but did not address Biden’s decision to seek reelection amid health concerns and the rushed selection of Harris to replace him on the ticket.

In her book, the former first lady writes that her goal is to be able to “set the record straight” about what happened during the debate and the months that followed that led to President Trump’s return to the White House, according to the Atlantic, which obtained a copy of the book ahead of its release.

At one point, she writes that she even suspected her husband may have been inadvertently impaired after taking cough syrup. In the CBS interview, Biden maintained that she never saw any signs of cognitive decline while he was the sitting president.

“He was the same, the essence of the same Joe Biden, but yeah, he was slowing down. He was getting older,” she said. “You know, it’s a very intense job. I think it ages you — quickly.”

Morgan, the former Biden fundraiser, said he does not believe the first lady is telling the truth in her memoir.

“If you like fiction it’s good,” Morgan said. He added that her claim that she had never witnessed her husband act in a similar way since the debate “defies the smell test.”

“His keys should have been taken long before that night,” Morgan said.

Michael LaRosa, a former press secretary for the first lady, called Democrats’ reaction to the new memoir “pretty grim.”

“There is a deep reservoir of frustration among ‘formers’ who believe she enables the culture around her and the President rather than challenging it,” LaRosa wrote. “So now they seem to be challenging her.”

Although many Democrats are publicly expressing their annoyance at the conversation Biden has resurfaced, others do not see the former first lady’s comments having an effect on the upcoming elections.

“This is not going to be part of a conversation in the election. It’s going to be part of a conversation in Washington because that is what Washington does, but this is not going to move the needle in New Hampshire or other states where it matters,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist who ran a pro-Biden super PAC during the 2020 election cycle.

Schale was blunt: “She is selling books.”

Even if that is the case, Republicans are taking notice.

In a Truth Social post on Friday, President Trump appeared gleeful to note that Biden was “finally admitting” that she did not know what was wrong with her husband during “our spectacular, and highly rated, 2024 Presidential Debate.”

The president lamented that the former first lady did not compliment his performance.

“In other words, as many have asked, did my strong performance in that debate cause him to plain and simple ‘choke,’ leading to his ignominious defeat, or were other reasons the cause? Nobody else knows the answer to that, BUT I DO!!!” Trump wrote.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court heads into the final month of its yearly term facing decisions on birthright citizenship, gun rights, transgender athletes and President Trump’s power over independent agencies.

Unlike in years past, the term’s most significant rulings were not left for the last week in June.

The court dealt Trump a major defeat in February by striking down his sweeping worldwide tariffs. The president is likely to suffer a second defeat when the justices reject his plan to revise the citizenship laws via an executive order.

Republicans won when the court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that favored a Black Democrat.

That decision has already shifted several congressional districts toward the GOP, but its greatest impact will be seen in 2028 and 2030.

Republicans are likely to prevail in two other pending cases.

One would free party committees to raise and spend more money to support their candidates. A second would change state laws to bar counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day.

The justices have 26 cases waiting to be decided before they go on a summer recess. Here are the major cases due for decision:

Trump and birthright citizenship

Does the 14th Amendment of 1868 mean what it says about who is a citizen?

It declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

The Supreme Court upheld that understanding in 1898, ruling that Wong Kim Ark, who was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen at birth. Congress adopted birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1940 and 1952.

But on his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order to deny citizenship to the newborns of parents who in the country unlawfully or temporarily on a student, work or tourist visa.

Judges blocked the order from taking effect, and in April, the justices gave a skeptical hearing to Trump’s lawyers as the president sat in the gallery.

The best outcome for Trump would be a ruling that rejects his executive order based on U.S. immigration law alone. Although a defeat, that could in theory permit Congress to revise the law and deny citizenship to the newborns of so-called “birth tourists.” (Trump vs. Barbara)

Guns and drugs

Can the government make it a crime for “habitual users of unlawful drugs” to have a gun, or does that violate 2nd Amendment rights?

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Texas case struck down this provision as unconstitutional, except for someone who is “under an impairing influence” of drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Trump administration appealed and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law against “habitual users of unlawful drugs,” including regular users of marijuana. (U.S. vs. Hemani)

In a second gun rights case, the court will decide whether Hawaii, California and three other states led by Democrats may forbid licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm into stores or private businesses open to the public unless they have the “express authorization” of the owners. (Wolford vs. Lopez)

Transgender athletes and school sports

Can states maintain separate sports teams for boys and girls “based on biological sex determined at birth” or does excluding transgender girls violate the Title IX law or the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

The justices heard appeals from West Virginia and Idaho after lower courts ruled they had discriminated against transgender girls, and most of them sounded ready to rule for the states.

The only question was whether the court will rule narrowly to uphold laws in the red states or go further to decide how Title IX applies nationwide. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. and Little vs. Hecox)

Trump and independent agencies

Can the president fire the leaders of special agencies who were given a fixed term by Congress?

For most of American history, Congress created new boards or commissions with a specific mission, such as regulating railroad rates in the 1880s or nuclear power in the 1970s. By law, these agencies are led by a bipartisan board of experts who had a fixed term and could be fired only for cause.

But Trump and the court’s conservatives believe the president has the executive authority to control the government and to fire agency officials — but with one exception. The majority wants to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. (Trump vs. Slaughter)

Separately, the court will rule on whether Trump had the power to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause. He alleged she engaged in mortgage fraud and dismissed her in a social media post. The justices blocked her removal and sounded ready to rule she deserved due process of law and a full hearing to contest the allegations. (Trump vs. Cook)

Temporary Protected Status

Can the Trump administration cancel legal protection for more than 300,000 Haitians and Syrians who are living and working in this country?

In 1990, Congress created this protected status for foreign nationals who could not return home safely because of armed conflicts or natural disasters.

The Obama administration extended protection to Haitians and Syrians. Last year, Trump’s then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to terminate it, but judges blocked her orders because it was still dangerous and unsafe in those countries.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued the law forbids “judicial review” of these executive decisions. (Mullin vs. Doe)

Campaign funds and political parties

Do the 50-year-old limits on how much political party committees can raise and spend to directly support their candidates violate the 1st Amendment?

During the Watergate era, Congress adopted limits on money in political campaigns, but the court has struck down the spending limits on free speech grounds. Left standing were the limits on direct contributions to candidates, including from political parties.

Republicans led by then-Sen. JD Vance sued, arguing the party limits were outdated and unwise in an era when super PACs are free to spend huge sums on campaigns. (National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC)

The court also will rule on the GOP’s bid to strike down laws in California and most states that allow for counting mail ballots that were postmarked by election day but arrive a few days later. (Watson vs. Republican National Committee)

WASHINGTON — Mired in a persistent cost of living crisis and an unpopular war with Iran, President Trump reached a perilous milestone last week, registering an approval rating of 34% in a top-tier poll — a record low less than halfway through his second term.

The results mark one of the sharpest polling collapses of any modern president. The data, from the Economist and YouGov, brings Trump back down to his political nadir, matching a number he hasn’t seen since the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack five years ago.

It follows on several other surveys published in recent days showing the president entering precarious political territory roughly six months ahead of the midterm elections, raising alarm bells in Republican campaign offices across the country over the party’s prospects in the fall.

It has also led pollsters to question long-standing assumptions about the president’s floor of support, wondering whether it is at risk of giving way.

“It’s harder to get lower, but it’s possible depending on what he does,” said Christopher Wlezien, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. “To get that number down, you are going to have to eat into his core.”

Trump’s base of support remains strong, reinforcing a long-standing theory among pollsters that partisanship now serves as a direct proxy for presidential approval. But softening Republican support on specific policy matters — including top voter priorities, such as the economy — have begun raising questions among experts whether further erosion is possible.

A New York Times poll found his approval at 38%, and a Politico poll recorded a similar erosion, driven by a majority of Americans — including 18% of Trump supporters — stating they are financially worse off than they were before he resumed office.

Roughly 2 out of 3 Americans oppose the war Trump started with Iran. And the coalition that swept him back into office — including a surge in support from Latino, independent and young voters — has effectively disappeared.

While the downward trend looks like a story of a presidency in perpetual trouble, political scientists see a more complicated picture.

“Polarization has raised the floor and lowered the ceiling for approval ratings,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston. “Dramatic swings are less common because approval ratings are now fixed to partisanship.”

The comparison to George W. Bush, whose numbers famously soared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and cratered into the mid-20s after Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war, is instructive of how polarization has changed in the Trump era.

Bush governed in a country capable of moving together, in favor or against a president, in response to major events. Americans are no longer swayed in that way when it comes to their views of the president, Rottinghaus argues.

“Approval ratings today are increasingly a measure of who the president is rather than what the president does,” he said.

Trump, in his own way, has seemed to nod at this dynamic. When challenged on his standing with the public, or when a Republican lawmaker breaks with him over a policy issue, he has made the argument that he and the MAGA movement are inseparable. In other words, that opposition to any decision he makes is opposition to the movement itself.

“MAGA is me. MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do,” Trump said in a January interview with NBC News when asked if his base supports long-term military interventions abroad.

Rottinghaus compared the questions about presidential approval as the “same as asking whether you’re Republican or not.”

“So why ask it,” he said.

Gallup, the organization that had tracked presidential approval for eight decades, announced earlier this year that it would stop publishing approval ratings of individual political figures, a shift that underscores how the traditional measure of a politician’s popularity has evolved.

When asked about the change, a Gallup spokesperson told the Washington Post at the time that “the context around these measures has changed.”

“They are now widely produced, aggregated and interpreted, and no longer represent an area where Gallup can make its most distinctive contribution,” the spokesperson added.

NEWARK, N.J. — New Jersey state police set up designated protest zones and vehicle checkpoints outside an immigration detention center in Newark on Friday, replacing federal immigration enforcement agents who have been clashing with protesters for days.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill said she sent in state police to bring order outside Delaney Hall as the demonstrations have intensified, with violence and arrests increasing as night falls.

“It has grown unsafe, and that’s completely unacceptable,” the Democratic governor said at a news conference announcing the new measures. “We need to take this opportunity to lower the temperature.”

As police erected protest barriers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who had formed a line in front of protesters moved inside the building’s perimeter fence.

New Jersey State Police Lt. Col. David Sierotowicz said ICE officers agreed to stand down with state police assuming responsibility.

Demonstrators had mixed reactions. Some staged a sit-in and refused to move into one of the new protest areas police set up using metal barriers and concrete blocks.

Rachel Cohen worried that demonstrators exercising their 1st Amendment rights were being silenced.

“It is not helpful to quell protest for the sake of a false peace,” she said. “There is no peace while we are torturing our neighbors on [the] government dime inside this facility.”

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, on social media, called the measures a “win for law and order” and noted that Sherrill had resisted sending state police for days.

The protests began a week earlier after immigrant advocates said detainees inside launched a hunger strike over poor living conditions at the 1,000-bed facility, which opened last May.

Demonstrators have been attempting to block people and vehicles from entering and exiting, linking their arms in a human chain and using trash cans, umbrellas and other items as makeshift shields and barricades.

ICE officers wearing helmets and tactical vests have used pepper spray and batons to try to disperse the protesters and clear the roadway for vehicles.

At least six demonstrators were arrested and accused of assaulting law enforcement officers Wednesday night, and more have been arrested on other nights, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Acting U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche shared images online Friday of bloody wounds and bruises sustained by ICE officers.

“These riots are clearly not ‘peaceful protests’ as you can see from the photos of these horrific wounds,” he said. “Assault a federal officer, you’ll be held accountable.”

Another demonstrator, Lisa O’Dwyer, said she was fine with the designated protest areas.

“I like to get my point across and stay safe at the same time,” the Westfield resident said.

Eyesha Marable, pastor at Mt. Zion AME Church in Millburn, agreed, even while acknowledging that there were “different schools of thought” among protesters.

“There are people here who are angry. Their family members are inside. Their friends are inside. People have been taken off the streets, out of their communities,” she said.

“We have to keep the peace,” Marable said. “The goal is to get our people free, to get them liberated, and we cannot do that if we’re fighting out here.”

State Atty. Gen. Jennifer Davenport said it was important to “de-escalate” the situation as “violence, either against protesters or by protesters, is unacceptable.”

Sherrill said she did not want to give ICE a pretext to expand operations in the state, noting that federal immigration officers around the country have killed and injured protesters in recent months.

“We all need to do everything we can to cool things down now,” she said.

The governor and other Democratic officials tried to visit detainees Monday but were denied entry.

Democratic members of Congress from New York City, however, were able to tour Delaney Hall the day after that. They reported dire conditions, with detainees being fed small portions of often spoiled food and their varied medical needs going ignored.

Families and supporters of detainees also say their loved ones have also been subjected to pepper spray and physical force in retaliation for their hunger strike and the protests outside.

Marcelo and Shaffrey write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and Newark, respectively.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday gave his endorsement to a January study by the Department of Health and Human Services that calls for cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every American child.

An executive order from Trump directs federal agencies to align their policies behind the study, which recommended an overhaul long called for by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The study found that the United States recommends more childhood vaccines than many peer nations.

The Trump administration previously moved to narrow the number of recommended childhood vaccines in response to the report, but the move was blocked by a federal judge in Massachusetts. The administration is appealing the decision.

The study recommends vaccinating all children against 11 diseases. Several others would be recommended only for high-risk groups or when doctors recommend them in what’s called “shared decision-making.” That includes vaccines for flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, some forms of meningitis and RSV.

Trump’s order adds weight behind the study at a time when the administration had appeared to be trying to shift focus away from Kennedy’s more contentious vaccine policies and toward topics with more widespread support among medical professionals, such as healthful eating.

The order directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the study and “take any appropriate steps” to update its vaccine recommendations. It says the CDC should “provide maximum flexibility to parents and doctors” and directs agencies to make sure all actions, regulations and funding are aligned with the study.

The order adds that any changes should ensure that Americans retain their current access to vaccines.

States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration’s guidance on vaccines.

Trump directed the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out the study in December.

Kennedy is a longtime activist against vaccines and has sought ways to inject his skepticism about the shots into national guidance, running counter to the overwhelming consensus of medical experts. Last year, he announced the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, though public health experts said they saw no new data to justify the change.

Last June, he fired a 17-member CDC vaccine advisory committee and later installed several of his own replacements, including vaccine skeptics.

The January report found that vaccine recommendations for American children had increased in recent decades. It also highlighted countries where no vaccines are required to attend school.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — American businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.

The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge’s order to allow all companies that paid the illegal import taxes to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.

Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after American importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.

Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion — more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the illegal tariffs on imported goods — were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.

The administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge has scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn’t require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.

Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott’s deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify in court. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his own authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court’s ruling entitled “all importers of record’’ to refunds.

“For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court’s universal injunction,” the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move “as quickly as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed some 485 pending trade court complaints to assert their rights to refunds.

In a terse reply Friday, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February.

“This case involves $166 billion,” the judge wrote. “It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties.”

Some national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart’s $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.

Some smaller companies told the Associated Press that the partial refunds they’ve received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs, reducing debt or just keeping the lights on after more than a year of uncertainty and additional import costs.

Jay Foreman, chief executive of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days this month. He took the initial repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a “total slow roll.”

“It’s time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations,” Foreman said.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Sacramento — Paul Taybi is part of the 1.5%.

The 59-year-old retired founder of a data analysis company from El Cerrito is among that percentage of the wealthiest Californians paying the higher income tax rates that voters approved four years ago.

Now, with those rates set to expire, a coalition of teacher and service worker unions, medical groups and others are pushing Proposition 55, a ballot measure that would extend these higher taxes on the the highest earners through 2030.

Taybi isn’t happy about it. He said he plans to raise rents in the four Bay Area properties his family owns and ultimately move out of state in the coming years if the measure passes.

“I have no problem paying more taxes than a poor person does,” Taybi said. “But we’ve reached the point where my behavior has changed. It will change more. And a lot of people like me will say, ‘That’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.’”

If voters approve Proposition 55, the state will continue depending on Taybi and other wealthy Californians to fund a significant portion of schools, parks, road repairs, police, prisons and many other government services. Those paying the higher rates, which kick in for single and joint filers making more than $263,000 and $526,000 a year respectively, contributed almost $34 billion in income taxes in 2014, roughly a third of all state general fund revenue.

California’s reliance on the wealthiest taxpayers means the state is especially vulnerable to their bottom lines.

When presenting this year’s revised budget plan in May, Gov. Jerry Brown carried with him a chart titled, “Unpredictable Capital Gains,” noting how the state’s revenues were highly dependent on booms and busts in the economy. California’s finances, he said, are a “zig-zag reality.”

“In order to manage this budget,” Brown said, “it’s like riding a tiger.”

In the same presentation, Brown estimated that if Proposition 55 didn’t pass, the state would have a budget deficit in the next three years, which could lead to a new round of cuts in education, health and social services programs.

Updates from Sacramento »

Though much more muted than before, the basic message is the same as it was in 2012.

Back then, the state remained at the height of a prolonged budget crisis. Brown and other proponents warned of massive cuts unless voters passed Proposition 30. The measure primarily raised income tax rates by 1% to 3% for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Under Proposition 30, the current tax rate is 10.3% for single filers earning between $263,000 and $316,000 in annual taxable income, 11.3% for those between $316,000 and $526,000, 12.3% for those between $526,000 and $1 million and 13.3% for those earning $1 million or more. The final 1% at the highest tax rate goes toward a mental-health fund that’s been recently retooled to pay for a $2-billion bond to help house the homeless.

Brown and other supporters pitched Proposition 30 as a Band-aid to carry the state through the worst of its financial calamities. Those higher income tax rates are set to expire in 2018. If Proposition 55 passes, the higher rates would be in place for 18 years.

The governor hasn’t taken a formal position on Proposition 55 and maintains he could balance the budget with or without it.

“I said it was temporary when I started, when I got Prop. 30 passed — I helped to pass it — and I think I’ll leave it there,” Brown said at the May budget presentation.

Some high earners who voted for Proposition 30 now say they’re opposed to the new measure because they were promised that the tax hikes would expire.

“I’m just incensed because I feel like a sucker,” said Martin Schwartz, 63, an electronics repair store owner in Chatsworth, who has paid the higher rates.

But supporters of the measure argue that the state’s still shaky revenues justify continuing to tax those in the top income brackets at higher rates.

“Have we stopped bleeding since 2012? Yes, but the problem still exists,” said Shay Lohman, president of the teacher’s union in the Rowland Unified School District in Los Angeles County. “The wound is still there.”

Increased tax revenues have also brought significant benefits. Since Proposition 30 passed, Lohman’s district brought back an elementary school music program that had been cut during the recession and is planning to start a dual-language Mandarin-English program next year, he said.

“Money has allowed something like that to happen,” Lohman said.

Though the income tax provisions are the same, Proposition 55 has some differences from Proposition 30. The new initiative does not extend a quarter-cent sales tax hike set to expire at the end of the year. It directs more of the money to the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare program for low-income residents. The measure will raise $4 billion to $9 billion a year, depending on the economy and stock market, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The campaigns for Propositions 30 and 55 are different as well. Four years ago, business and taxpayer groups mounted a robust effort, spending millions, including running television advertisements, to oppose the tax and support a second, unrelated ballot measure.

This time, opponents have only raised $3,000, according to the state campaign finance reports, while supporters have collected almost $53 million, primarily from the California Assn. of Hospitals and California Teachers Assn.

In pro-Proposition 55 television advertisements, advocates including state Controller Betty Yee argue the measure will prevent education cuts without raising taxes.

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll last month found 57% of registered voters were in favor of the measure. The poll even found support from a majority of those making more than $100,000 a year.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Follow me at @dillonliam on Twitter

ALSO

Can Gov. Jerry Brown keep the promises he made with Proposition 30?

Gov. Jerry Brown sends lawmakers revised California budget with less money to spend on new programs

Voters will likely be asked for 12 more years of higher income taxes on the wealthy

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

Los Angeles City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez has had some pretty tough words over the years for Mayor Karen Bass and her administration.

Rodriguez, who is running unopposed in Tuesday’s election, repeatedly criticized Bass’ Inside Safe program, which moves homeless people indoors, saying it lacked financial oversight. She voted against the mayor’s budget last year, saying too much was going to Inside Safe. She was especially harsh in the wake of the Palisades fire, saying that Bass’ team botched the first few months of the recovery.

That might make her an ideal person to endorse Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running to unseat Bass in Tuesday’s primary and has leveled similar critiques. Instead, Rodriguez has emerged as an unexpected ally of the incumbent.

During the campaign, Rodriguez has appeared with Bass at events in Eagle Rock, Pacoima and even Sherman Oaks, located in Raman’s district. She popped up in a campaign flier from Latinos Por Karen Bass. And she’s been dinging Raman over everything from economic development to policies around outdoor barbecues.

Rodriguez explained her decision to support Bass in an interview, saying she views the incumbent as being far more willing to entertain opposing views than Raman — and understands that “not everyone thinks the same way.” Bass also is more consistent on the issues, Rodriguez said.

Raman, by contrast, has shifted her positions on police spending, the tax hike known as Measure ULA and even who should be the next mayor, jumping into the race after she endorsed Bass, Rodriguez said.

“I don’t know what she stands for,” she said.

Raman’s campaign declined to comment on Rodriguez’s remarks. But former former Deputy Mayor Rick Cole, a Raman supporter, said he is surprised to see Rodriguez line up behind Bass, given how critical she has been over the years.

“Monica is a self-described maverick, so it’s ironic that she’s thrown in with the establishment on this. But sometimes personalities play a role,” he said.

Rodriguez had been talked up at one point as a possible opponent of Bass in this year’s election. If Bass wins a second and final term, the mayor’s race would be wide open in 2030.

Pratt accuses Bass of electioneering

It was a small yet upbeat event staged by Bass’ reelection campaign: The mayor, accompanied by supporters chanting “four more years,” walking up to an official drop box and putting in her ballot.

That miniature rally, staged last weekend near the city’s Memorial Branch Library, was captured on video and circulated by Bass’ campaign. But it has drawn a complaint from mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, who accused the mayor of violating a state law prohibiting electioneering near a polling place or voter drop box.

In a complaint filed with the city clerk, Pratt attorney Peter McNulty said Bass and her supporters improperly solicited votes, waved campaigns signs and “engaged in blatant electioneering” near a voting location.

“Such clear violations of electioneering restrictions show a reckless disregard for the rule of law and an apparent belief that she need not comply with relevant restrictions that apply to all other candidates,” he wrote.

The Bass campaign pushed back on those allegations, saying the video features footage from two locations near the drop box. The portion that featured the Bass campaign signs was filmed 200 feet away — twice the distance required by law, said Alex Stack, a Bass spokesperson.

“Spencer is just mad that his supporters are AI cartoons and we have real Angelenos,” he said. “We follow the rules.”

Pratt’s lawyer said in his letter that he wants the city to investigate. He also filed a complaint with the state, citing the state election law that prohibits the dissemination of “visible or audible electioneering information” near a polling place or drop box.

Feldstein Soto flames Airbnb

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has been getting hit from both directions over the last few weeks.

On one side, a committee with at least $450,000 in funding from the Consumer Attorneys of California has been pumping out campaign ads promoting her opponent, Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy. On the other, a campaign committee heavily bankrolled by Airbnb is running ads for Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney, another opponent in the race.

Feldstein Soto has countered with a television ad that highlights her office’s lawsuit against Airbnb, which accuses the company of engaging in price gouging after the Palisades fire. Staring into the camera, Feldstein Soto said Airbnb and other special interests “are spending millions to try and get rid of me.”

“They think L.A. belongs to them,” she says. “I know it belongs to you.”

Feldstein Soto had raised about $860,000 for her campaign through May 16, compared with about $680,000 for Roy and about $122,000 for McKinney. But those fundraising efforts, which face strict limits under the city’s ethics laws, have been overshadowed by the unlimited spending from Airbnb and the others.

Angelenos for Progress, a pro-McKinney committee sponsored by the Central City Assn., received at least $2.1 million from Airbnb over the last month, pouring that money into campaign videos and television ads.

Justin Wesson, senior public policy manager for Airbnb in California, said in a statement that McKinney’s campaign platform is “focused on keeping Los Angeles communities safe and vibrant, including for Angelenos who share their home and their guests that contribute to the local economy.”

In recent weeks, Airbnb has been pushing the city’s elected officials to loosen L.A.’s home-sharing regulations, by allowing owners of second homes to lease their properties on short-term rental platforms.

Airbnb has put big money into other committees, including those that support Tim Gaspar, who is running to replace Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, and Jose Ugarte, who is running to replace Councilmember Curren Price.

Team Raman woos Huang, without success

We mentioned a few weeks back that Raman supporters have been noisily demanding that mayoral candidate Rae Huang drop out of the race, saying she was siphoning left-of-center votes away Raman. Turns out Raman’s campaign was trying to persuade her to pull the plug as well.

Raman campaign strategist Jeff Millman reached out to Huang advisor Bill Przylucki earlier this month about getting the community organizer to drop her mayoral bid, according to Huang spokesperson Emel Shaikh.

The overture from the Raman camp, first reported by LA Material, took place after the May 6 NBC LA debate but before a Fox debate planned for the next week, Shaikh said.

“She never really entertained the idea,” Shaikh said.

Raman, speaking with reporters on Friday, said she knew that people from both campaigns were conferring.

“I’m sure [Huang] was aware of it as well,” she said. “And I think we were really talking about how to achieve a bold, progressive vision for Los Angeles. Both of us got into this race because we felt a deep sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo.”

Millman, a veteran of L.A. politics, worked for former Mayor Eric Garcetti and was a spokesperson for Austin Beutner’s mayoral bid before his campaign ended in January. After Beutner dropped out, he moved to the Raman campaign. Przylucki is the former executive director of the progressive nonprofit Ground Game LA.

Supporters of Raman contend that Huang doesn’t have a path to victory — and could deprive Raman of a chance to compete in the Nov. 3 runoff. Asked whether she feels the same way, Raman said she is focused on getting her voters to the polls.

At this point, Raman is neck and neck with Bass and slightly ahead of Pratt, according to a poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which was co-sponsored by The Times.

State of play

— A THREE-WAY RACE: Bass, Raman and Pratt are locked in a tight three-way contest, with the mayor holding a statistically insignificant lead in the run-up to Tuesday, the latest UC Berkeley-L.A. Times poll found. Bass had 26% support from likely voters, followed by Raman with 25% support and Pratt at 22%.

Bass, appearing at City Hall Thursday, said she’s not worried about failing to make the top two, telling an audience there are many polls that show different results. “I feel confident about Tuesday,” she said.

— AN EMBATTLED MAYOR: The Times took a look at Bass’ first term and the events that have put her political future in peril. Although some point to the city’s handling of the massively destructive Palisades fire, others say her troubles go much deeper.

— READING THE ROOM: While Bass has had difficulty managing the city, Raman faces a different issue: her struggle to forge working relationships with colleagues and allies. No one on the council, including those backed by the DSA, have endorsed her. Raman allies downplayed the issue, saying her strength is her independence.

— CUTTING CRIME: Even with L.A. experiencing fewer murders than at any point in 60 years, crime remains a potent issue in the mayor’s race. Pratt has been portraying the city as a lethal hellscape. Meanwhile, even some of Bass’ supporters have been shocked by how “aggressively pro-police she has been,” said former Councilmember Mike Bonin, who heads the Pat Brown Institute at Cal State, LA.

— DOWNTOWN IN THE DUMPS: Meanwhile, downtown business owners say they are struggling with crime, homelessness and aging infrastructure — all issues that have become central to the mayor’s race.

— LOVE, MOM: The mother of city controller candidate Zach Sokoloff has pumped at least $7.5 million into an independent expenditure campaign supporting him as he seeks to unseat City Controller Kenneth Mejia. The incumbent has accused the Sokoloff family of trying to buy the seat. Sheryl Sokoloff has declined to comment.

— SHERIFF SHOWDOWN: Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna is in a rematch against former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, while also facing six other opponents. (Villanueva was unseated by Luna in 2022.) The top two vote getters will head to the Nov. 3 runoff.

— WAITING FOR THE WAGE: The council finalized its plan to delay a series of minimum wage hikes for hotel and airport workers this week, ensuring that the wage won’t reach $30 until January 2030 instead of July 2028.

— D&D AND DSA: Democratic Socialists of America, whose L.A. chapter is campaigning for five candidates in the city election, took in $30,000 at a Dungeons & Dragons-themed fundraiser. The candidates took part in the action, playing fantasy characters who still keep one foot in the political world.

— CALLING THE COPS: Looking to prevent copper wire theft, the Department of Water and Power is seeking to create its own police force.

— OUT OF THE FRYING PAN: The council on Wednesday confirmed Gabrielle Amster as the latest general manager for the animal services department, which oversees the city’s network of animal shelters. Amster had been serving as vice president of shelter engagement for DocuPet, a national pet registration business, according to her resume.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? Bass’ signature initiative to tackle homelessness did not launch any new encampment operations this week.
• On the docket next week: The election, obviously! If you haven’t cast a ballot by mail, make sure you show up at a voting center!

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.

Venezuela is far from being the only country in the Americas where State institutions have been used to crack down on independent media and protect the interests of ruling elites. In Guatemala, the case of journalist José Rubén Zamora became one of the clearest examples of how prosecutors, courts and political power can converge to silence investigative journalism.

In early April 2025, I interviewed Ramón Zamora, son of Guatemalan journalist and elPeriódico founder José Rubén Zamora. His arrest following years of investigations into alleged government corruption led to the newspaper’s closure and the persecution of people close to him. During our conversation, Ramón Zamora described how Guatemala has developed a tacit network of complicity between State institutions and political authorities, a system that raises broader questions about this new form of power in Latin America and may also help explain how the chavista State in Venezuela operates.

After elPeriódico published two investigations on May 2 and May 3, 2021 into apparent cases of corruption in the government of former President Alejandro Giammattei, the media outlet was subjected to legal persecution that culminated in the arrest of Rubén Zamora, who had dedicated his work to investigating corruption in the Central American country. 

The persecution began with an investigation into alleged bribery by the newspaper to obtain information related to the publications. The judge who heard the case dismissed it. Later, in 2022, an investigation into money laundering related to the sale of works of art owned by Zamora to cover elPeriódico‘s costs was reopened, leading to his arrest.

The imprisonment of Zamora caught the attention of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. In their 2022 and 2023 annual reports, the IACHR requested information from Guatemala regarding the country’s human rights situation and recalled that Zamora has benefited from precautionary measures since 2003 due to risks linked to his journalistic work. Guatemala rejected parts of the assessment as lacking objectivity. Amnesty International described Zamora as a prisoner of conscience and condemned his detention. Zamora was granted house arrest for the second time on February 12, 2026.

Reducing chavismo to a simple narco-structure simplifies the scope that the organization can have, since apparent drug trafficking would not be the essence of the system but rather an activity within it.

During the arrest and initial detention of journalist José Rubén Zamora in 2022, Guatemala was governed by Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative president whose administration faced strong criticism from international organizations over corruption, institutional deterioration, and pressure against journalists and anti-corruption actors. Since January 14, 2024, Guatemala has been governed by Bernardo Arévalo, a progressive and anti-corruption reformist whose presidential term is scheduled to end in January 2028.

His son, Ramón Zamora, says that his father’s persecution is the result of an unwritten agreement between various powerful sectors within the State that aim to protect their interests.  “In Guatemala, there is something my father called the “Pact of the Corrupt.” The Pact of the Corrupts is a tacit agreement that forms a network of corruption spread across political parties and institutions, where those who reach positions of power must govern according to the pact.”

This explanation describes the composition of a de facto cross-cutting network, which has political parties, institutions, and security forces under its control, punishing dissent as a means of survival, subjecting its detractors to exile, imprisonment, and discredit.

“The judge presiding over the case ordered an investigation into my father’s defense attorneys and witnesses, causing his lawyer to go into exile just five days after his arrest. Currently, six of the twelve lawyers who have defended my father have been detained,” says Ramón, who is also outside Guatemala with his mother after the court issued an arrest warrant against both of them. 

“They also persecuted my family. My mother and I were outside Guatemala visiting the United States when the judge handling my father’s case issued an arrest warrant against us, so we decided not to return.”

But how can the Pact explain the nature of the chavista State?

Corruption as political capital

Chavismo is not exclusively a militarized organization or simply a drug trafficking operation. As in Guatemala with the Pact of the Corrupts, the institutions of the chavista State are co-opted and work in the tacit interest of their members, where one of the main means of maintaining the pact is loyalty based on impunity, while corruption operates as political capital.

Consequently, the exercise of power is not oriented toward citizens or the satisfaction of public demands, but rather toward preserving the internal balance of the Pact itself. Governing involves administering concessions, distributing power quotas, and avoiding any decision that could alter the network of interests that sustains the regime. Reforms, when they exist, do not constitute a project of institutional transformation but are carefully calibrated to avoid destabilizing the architecture of loyalties on which the system rests.

This model of governance, the pacted State, is complemented by a logic of repression, combining massive and indiscriminate terror against actors whose actions threaten the balance of the pact. Similar dynamics can be observed in regimes such as Russia, Belarus, Nicaragua, and several Central Asian States. Journalists, judges, political leaders, and internal and external dissidents are the main targets of a system of coercion designed not to mobilize the masses, but to send clear and disciplining signals to those who break the pact. The selectivity of repression does not mitigate its severity. On the contrary, it makes it more efficient and functional in sustaining the apparatus of power.

Reducing chavismo to a simple narco-structure simplifies the scope that the organization can have, since apparent drug trafficking would not be the essence of the system but rather an activity within it. The Venezuelan State has become a web of systematic corruption that makes crime a functional activity of power.

The stability of the system is due to a network of mostly informal agreements between civilian, military, and economic actors who share a common interest: preserving an order in which rupture is more costly than continuity.

In this context, ideology ceases to serve as the system’s organizing principle and takes on a strictly instrumental role. It is not the compass that guides the action of power, but rather an adaptable rhetorical resource used to justify decisions already made to sustain the pact. Chavismo does not act primarily to carry out an ideological project, but rather to preserve a balance of interests between civilian, military, and criminal elites, in which ideas can mutate without the system suffering. Ideology, thus, does not guide the organization: it accompanies it, decorates it, or excuses it, but does not determine it.

The thesis of a pacted State suggests that authoritarian stability rests not only on repression or ideology, but on a shared understanding among political, military, and economic elites that preserving the existing order is preferable to risking rupture. Such systems can appear remarkably resilient precisely because their survival depends less on ideological coherence than on the mutual guarantees exchanged within the ruling coalition.

The notion of a pacted State helps explain why chavismo has shown a capacity for survival that goes beyond personalistic or circumstantial explanations. The stability of the system is due to a network of mostly informal agreements between civilian, military, and economic actors who share a common interest: preserving an order in which rupture is more costly than continuity. As long as that calculation remains valid, the system does not collapse; it adapts, reconfigures itself, and absorbs pressures without altering its fundamental logic. Yet the resilience of pacted States is not immutable.

Such systems begin to weaken when influential actors within the ruling coalition conclude that the regime can no longer guarantee protection, resources, or political survival. Economic decline, succession disputes, international pressure, social unrest, or weakening coercive institutions can alter the cost-benefit calculations sustaining the pact. Similar dynamics were visible in Eastern Europe after November 1989, when regimes in the German Democratic Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria rapidly collapsed once the elite coalitions sustaining them began to fracture internally, a process that would also unfold in Albania.

History suggests that pacted States often project an image of permanence precisely until the internal understandings sustaining them begin, almost imperceptibly, to dissolve.

Venezuela is becoming increasingly important in Colombia’s presidential election, though not necessarily from a policy perspective. The three leading candidates are not offering radically new approaches toward Caracas. Instead, they broadly accept that Colombia will not shape Venezuela policy in a vacuum, but within a regional framework increasingly defined by Washington.

Even among the Colombian Right, the differences are narrower than the rhetoric sometimes suggests. Some candidates favor preserving parts of the thaw in relations initiated under Gustavo Petro, while others align themselves more openly with the Trump administration’s emerging three-phase approach toward Venezuela, combining pressure, negotiation, and eventual normalization while maintaining support for María Corina Machado and the democratic opposition.

The real competition is happening elsewhere.

As Bogotá increasingly adapts itself to strategic realities designed in Washington, Venezuela has become less a matter of concrete policy and more a source of symbolic legitimacy inside the Colombian Right. The question is no longer simply who has the best Venezuela strategy, but who is most closely aligned with the hemisphere’s most internationally legitimized anti-chavista figure.

Both Paloma Valencia and Abelardo de la Espriella have sought proximity to Machado, likely recognizing her growing political value among Colombian-Venezuelan voters and sectors of the Colombian Right that increasingly view her as a hemispheric democratic symbol after July 28, 2024. Early in the electoral cycle, both candidates publicized meetings with Machado and members of her team, presenting themselves as politically aligned with the Venezuelan opposition’s struggle. Valencia recently traveled to Panama to meet Machado personally, while De la Espriella has repeatedly emphasized his relationship with anti-chavista circles to position himself as part of a broader regional conservative realignment.

Yet the two candidacies embody very different political instincts.

Support from figures close to Machado, Trump-world Republicans, Miami exile networks, and conservative media ecosystems now carries political value extending far beyond Venezuela itself.

Valencia represents a more traditional conservative internationalism tied to institutional anti-chavismo, democratic legitimacy, and Atlanticist conservatism. De la Espriella, meanwhile, has increasingly embraced a far more populist style of politics, openly presenting himself as a Colombian version of Nayib Bukele that promises to build ten CECOT-style mega prisons in Colombia.

That contradiction becomes particularly striking when placed alongside one of the defining professional relationships of De la Espriella’s career: his representation of Alex Saab during the height of the CLAP era. Saab became one of the clearest symbols of late-stage chavismo’s corruption architecture, embodying the opaque financial networks, sanctions arbitrage, and humanitarian corruption that increasingly defined the Maduro era.

The irony of Saab’s former lawyer attempting to embody Colombia’s hardest anti-chavista and anti-corruption posture is difficult to ignore. But the contradiction also reveals something deeper about contemporary Latin American politics, where anti-establishment rhetoric and proximity to opaque power structures are no longer necessarily disqualifying contradictions.

The contradictions are perhaps most visible within parts of the Venezuelan opposition’s own media ecosystem. Some anti-chavista pundits spent years cultivating reputations as uncompromising anti-corruption crusaders, often accusing opposition figures of moral weakness, accommodationism, or hidden financial interests. Their enthusiastic support for Abelardo de la Espriella, despite his long professional relationship with Alex Saab during the height of the CLAP era, suggests that ideological affinity and political aesthetics are increasingly overriding the moral rigidity that once characterized parts of anti-chavista discourse.

Venezuela’s role in the Colombian election is not primarily about foreign policy. It is about political identity.

At the same time, other sectors of Machado’s broader international coalition appear more naturally aligned with Valencia’s institutional conservatism. The result is an increasingly visible fragmentation within the anti-chavista ecosystem itself, one that reflects broader tensions inside the Latin American Right between institutional conservatism, populist maximalism, and Bukele-style punitive politics.

Washington has only reinforced those dynamics. As the US once again becomes the principal external actor shaping Venezuela’s political future, different Colombian candidates increasingly compete to position themselves as the preferred interlocutors of the emerging regional order. Support from figures close to Machado, Trump-world Republicans, Miami exile networks, and conservative media ecosystems now carries political value extending far beyond Venezuela itself.

In that sense, Venezuela’s role in the Colombian election is not primarily about foreign policy. It is about political identity.

And perhaps more importantly, it may also offer a glimpse into the future political terrain of a post-transition Venezuela itself. If chavismo eventually collapses or evolves into some form of negotiated transition, the country will not emerge into a region defined by liberal democratic consensus. It will emerge into a hemisphere shaped by Bukele, Milei, Trumpism, social media maximalism, and deep public exhaustion with traditional political elites.

The rise of figures like De la Espriella suggests that the post-chavista Right may not necessarily resemble the liberal democratic opposition that spent decades fighting chavismo. It may instead reflect a harsher, more punitive, and more performative political culture, one forged not despite the region’s prolonged crises, but because of them.

With just days left to campaign and polls putting him in an unexpectedly strong third place — maybe even second — Tom Steyer is down-not-out. But Riverside’s favorite MAGA sheriff and Republican contender Chad Bianco is almost definitely shoulders-to-the-mat done.

That means there’s no chance of a Republican sweep in this blue state, and suddenly, what has up until now been a pretty dry governor’s primary race has turned into one that has a slim-but-genuine chance at a surprise ending — two Democrats on the November ticket.

“It’s a low probability,” political data guru Paul Mitchell told me, “But there’s always a chance.”

He puts it somewhere under 10%. But stranger things have happened. Spencer Pratt, for instance.

Those of you who have hung on to your ballots like winning lottery tickets, and those who plan on voting in person, will largely decide what happens next: An Xavier Becerra-Steve Hilton top two is a virtual election for Becerra since there just aren’t enough Republican voters in the state to carry a general election. A Becerra-Steyer face-off would force both candidates to define a vision of California beyond generic liberal ideas.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing California have that Dem-on-Dem showdown so that voters of all parties (or none) have the chance to pin these would-be leaders down on the details of their policies. So far, this election has been light on the specifics, but the state faces real problems — from a failing healthcare system to gas prices that literally mystify even lawmakers.

Everything changes when a candidate becomes a winner, so maybe it would be good for democracy to have an old-fashioned war of ideas in this moment when the future of California holds so many unknowns.

Is Steyer just a billionaire dilettante trying to buy an office? Is Becerra beholden to the many corporate interests who have funded his campaign? Those are just the top-line questions many voters still have.

“There’s lots of shades of blue,” pointed out Chad Peace of the Independent Voter Project, on a press call to support open primaries. “When we only look at things as, ‘Oh, there’s red and there’s blue,’ we forget that.”

But voters remain nervous, and the ballot is still packed — along with the top three, former Rep. Katie Porter and San José Mayor Matt Mahan are still campaigning, though with falling support.

Voters, Mitchell said, “are really thinking about the implications” of their vote, and perhaps don’t want to throw it away on a candidate they perceive as having no chance. That’s why the new polls showing Steyer as a contender have the potential of stirring up momentum, especially for voters who originally saw themselves filling in the bubble for one of those candidates on the decline.

Recent polls have put Steyer in a near-dead-heat with Republican front-runner Hilton, both hovering slightly above or below 20%. Becerra, the former California attorney general and a former Biden Cabinet secretary, leads them both by a few points, especially among Latino voters. As my colleague Gustavo Arellano has pointed out, Becerra would be the state’s second Latino governor, after Romualdo Pacheco, who held the office for 10 months in 1875.

“A Dem-Dem race, maybe we’ll get more people involved, because it’s going to be a harder fight, you know?” Diane McClure told me. She’s a board member of the California Nurses Assn., which endorsed Steyer early — in large part because he supports a plan for single-payer health insurance, which that union has long fought for.

McClure, of course, would love to see Steyer take the top spot in that easy-win scenario against Hilton, though that seems doubtful. But a Steyer-Becerra race?

“Maybe it’s a good thing, maybe it’ll wake some people up,” she said.

For his part, Steyer is staying the course. At a Sacramento stop Friday, he bounded around chatting with about four dozen mostly union supporters, wearing trademark Nikes, this time a vintage pair with a tartan plaid swoop.

“Four days,” Steyer said when he finally took the microphone. “I really need you to stand with me. But let me say this: you stand with me, I stand with you.”

Unlike his debate performances, Steyer is passionate, and, though it seems unlikely based on his television appearances, has an amiable charisma dotted with a fair amount of light profanity.

“Make a decent living, buy a house, have a great education for your kids, and retire,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to build here. We can easily do that. When people say that’s not possible, bull—, that’s bull—.”

It was enough to sway Ricky Carter, one of the few non-union members in the room, who was invited because his wife, Barbara, was on a prayer chain with another invitee. An older Black man originally from South Los Angeles, Carter represents a demographic where Steyer has growing popularity.

“I believe him. He got it right in here,” he said, pounding a fist over his heart. “It ain’t about no color, creed and race. … It’s about the people.”

Indeed, elections are about the people, though it doesn’t always feel like it. But suddenly, this one does.

In a few days, Los Angeles voters will be casting ballots for city attorney — and in a few months, they could be voting to sharply diminish the city attorney’s authority.

The city’s Charter Reform Commission has proposed splitting the city attorney’s office into two parts — an elected city prosecutor, charged with handling criminal misdemeanors, and a mayor-appointed and City Council-confirmed city attorney who would represent the city in civil cases and advise the mayor, city council and city departments.

The City Council is reviewing the recommendation as part of sweeping changes to city government, including expanding the council from 15 to 25 seats, which could go before voters in the Nov. 3 general election.

The proposed changes to the city attorney’ office, however, come in the midst of a heated primary campaign, where incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto is up against three challengers, including a state deputy attorney general and a deputy district attorney.

Both of those challengers say plans to bifurcate the city attorney’s office are rooted in longstanding conflicts between Feldstein Soto and the City Council.

Council members have expressed frustration over her handling of rising costs from an outside law firm, where the payout amount has grown to nearly $7.5 million — with some attorneys billing the city roughly $1,300 an hour.

And last year, City Council took a 12-0 vote to direct Feldstein Soto to withdraw an effort to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

“When I first heard about this idea, I thought it was probably the greatest indictment of the current city attorney that I’ve heard yet,” said John McKinney, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who is running for city attorney in Tuesday’s primary.

McKinney opposes the bifurcation, saying it will cause overlap and confusion. “If she was doing a good job … we wouldn’t even be having this discussion,” he said.

Marissa Roy, another candidate in the race, hasn’t taken a position on bifurcation but said Feldstein Soto’s actions triggered the proposed change.

“The only reason that bifurcation, or splitting the city attorney’s office, is even going to be going before voters is because we’ve had an incumbent city attorney who has gone so rogue to politicize the role,” said Roy, a deputy state attorney general.

Roy said accused Feldstein Soto of inappropriately blocking an affordable housing project in Venice. And in her office’s role of drafting ordinance language, Roy said, Feldstein Soto has returned to city council ordinance language that isn’t “faithful to the intent of the drafter.”

Feldstein Soto said the proposal to bifurcate the office has nothing to do with her performance.

“This issue comes up every single time charter reform comes up,” Feldstein Soto said. “To me this is all political opportunism.”

Feldstein Soto has opposed the split, and former city attorneys have also come out against it, saying an appointed position threatens the independence of the city attorney’s office, takes away from voters the right to elect a city attorney and could cost taxpayers money in order to split the office.

In a March letter to the Charter Reform Commission, Feldstein Soto said an attorney “serving at the pleasure” of the mayor and city council would face an “innate, human pressure to harmonize legal advice with the political goals of the appointing officials.”

“I have been able to provide honest, accurate legal advice to the Mayor, City Council, Controller and departments — even when that advice is unwelcome — precisely because I am an independently elected officeholder with an ultimate duty to the public,” she wrote. “An appointed City Attorney, serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, faces enormous political pressure on all of these issues, behind closed doors, cloaked in privilege without an independent voice.”

Burt Pines, a former city attorney who served from 1973 to 1981, deeply opposes the bifurcation proposal, citing the threat to independence as the largest issue at stake. As city attorney, he said, he was empowered to tell city officials when a proposed action was unlawful and refuse to support it.

“You want to be able to call the shots as you see them, true to the law,” Pines said in an interview.

Advocates say other cities have bifurcated offices, and splitting it could reduce conflict and provide a clear delineation of roles.

After consulting with experts and good governance groups, the commission agreed the benefits of bifurcation outweighed the negatives, and it passed unanimously by the commission.

“It was easy to get consensus on this,” said Raymond Meza, chair of the commission. The commission’s proposal calls for the city attorney to be nominated by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council.

In its report, the commission said that “the current structure creates conflicts when the same office advises the city and prosecutes cases. Separation provides clearer roles, reduces conflicts, and allows each function to be performed effectively.”

Other cities have different models for the city attorney’s office: Long Beach has a similar model with bifurcated duties, while New York City has legal representation split up several ways. The San Francisco City Attorney provides legal representation for the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office handles criminal cases in the city and county.

Mike Bonin, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute, said he has seen the question of splitting the office come up with at least three different city attorneys to varying degrees.

“Given that the city attorney is an elected position, there’s always going to be somebody who doesn’t like them,” Bonin, a former city council member, said. “You need to divorce the question from the occupant and focus on the role — the charter is not about a particular person, the charter is about the function of the office.”

Well, I gave him a chance, offering my services.

I was willing to give the young novice a primer on what a mayor can and can’t do, and let him know City Hall is a reality show like no other he’s been on. But Spencer Pratt didn’t call me in response to my column last week.

I did, however, hear from a slew of his most ardent supporters.

Steven C. had this to say: “You’re a left-wing idiot, and … it’s time for you to retire. You’re a joke!!! You always have been!!! God bless Spencer Pratt and the 45th and 47th President of the United States Donald Trump!!!!!”

You may be onto something, Steven!!! I’ve been thinking about retiring!!!! But then a former reality TV star like Pratt comes along and tells Vanity Fair he had a chat with God, who told him He wants Pratt to be mayor of L.A!!!!! With people like this running for office, how can I retire?!!!!!

R.W. wrote to say: “You say Spencer has never done anything in his life…What credentials do you have? From what I’ve read about you, you are a lousy commie journalist who has never accomplished anything in your life!!”

Just recently, R.W., I replaced a broken toilet tank flush valve and I learned two Willie Nelson songs on the guitar. That’s not nothing.

Peter did not mince words: “Your piece on Pratt is a hit piece filled with bull— . You should go f— yourself before someone takes you out, which is the appropriate response to a s—bag like yourself. So please f— off and drop dead, which is exactly what you deserve.”

Peter, I did drop dead once. Cardiac arrest. While on the other side, I saw God, who told me to snap out of it because He was going to tell Spencer Pratt to run for mayor. Who knew God had a defibrillator?

All of these, by the way, were actual emails, and there were many more just like them. But it’s only fair to note that despite the fulminating knucklehead wing of Pratt’s posse, he’s tapped into a justifiable sense of frustration with City Hall, given homelessness, the Palisades inferno and budget issues that squeeze all manner of basic city services.

That’s why Mayor Karen Bass is paddling furiously, trying to keep her political career afloat. In the latest UC Berkeley-L.A. Times poll, Bass is at 26%, Nithya Raman at 25% and Pratt at 22%. That’s so tight, it appears that no one will get the 50% needed to win outright, and if we get a top-two runoff, it’s not clear who will go to the dance.

So as we close out the primary, with the election on Tuesday, five talking points come to mind.

Which candidate knows the city best?

Los Angeles has 114 distinct neighborhoods spread across 470 square miles (that’s 10 times the size of San Francisco), with an estimated 220 languages spoken. Diversity is a defining characteristic, and roughly half the population is Latino, which makes it a shame there’s no Latino candidate for mayor, especially given the raids and roundups by President Trump.

A mayor doesn’t have to speak six languages and know every corner of the city, but residents want to be seen and heard, and feel like they’re understood and represented.

Raman is well-versed on homelessness policy, and she’s spot-on about the need for greater urgency in problem-solving, but as my colleague Noah Goldberg reported, constituents in her district complain that they haven’t seen enough of her.

As I said, Pratt has wisely targeted municipal failure. But in the realm of outsider candidates with Republican credentials, Rick Caruso, who ran against Bass last time, was comfortable whether he was in the Valley, South L.A. or anywhere in between. And he easily connected with people. Would Pratt be a tourist in his own city?

By virtue of her job the last four years, Bass — who raised a blended Black and Latino family — knows the city best, although her unfavorability rating is a big problem.

What about the other candidates?

In the aforementioned poll, minister and housing activist Rae Huang had 9% and former educational technology businessman Adam Miller had 5%. Virtual unknowns, neither had a legit chance of winning, but they could be spoilers for one of the top three candidates.

I spoke to both, and if you’re undecided, you should read up on them before voting. On Huang’s website, the first words are “Homes are for people, not profit.” Miller wants to bring his success in the business world to City Hall, and when you consider his policy agenda along with his nonprofit work with veterans and homelessness, he’s a better candidate than Pratt.

But he wasn’t on a reality TV show.

Democrats ruined L.A. and California, right?

If only I had a nickel for every time a reader suggested that.

By 101 measures, Los Angeles is one of the great cities of the world and California has built the world’s fourth-largest economy while leading on climate change, so apocalyptic diagnoses are a bit off the mark.

Also, local elections are nonpartisan. You don’t run for mayor as a D or an R.

And yet it’s true that Democrats and their policies and sensibilities rule the day, and they have a lot to answer for in Los Angeles and in California.

But would the same critics suggest that in conservative cities like Fresno and Bakersfield, which have their own homelessness and other problems, Republicans are to blame?

When it comes to housing, poverty, healthcare and streets occupied by people who are addicted or mentally ill, the failures go back decades, touch all levels of government, and cross party lines.

Have I given up on Los Angeles?

When I pointed out that Pratt seemed unaware of these complexities, and of the structural limits of mayoral power, readers suggested he was rising to the challenge while I was giving up on L.A.

Not at all. I care about L.A. enough to hold its leaders to a higher accountability, and to scrutinize posers and pretenders who think they can do a better job.

My advice for the next mayor.

Fix what’s broken, celebrate what works and take responsibility for what doesn’t.

Now let me try one more time:

Spencer, give me a call.

You can’t tell us you had a conversation with God about running for mayor and not share more details.

Did God scold you for referring to the mayor as Karen “Basura,” which means trash in Spanish?

Did He say we should pull out of the ‘28 Olympics, or have any advice on how to fill potholes and fix sidewalks?

If you’re having regular conversations about City Hall with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we’re dying to know:

On homelessness, what would Jesus do?

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Spencer Pratt is a showboat, a loudmouth, a troll and a self-proclaimed villain who seems willing to say anything in his quest to be the next mayor of Los Angeles.

Little wonder that his critics rolled their eyes when the former reality television star told CNN host Elex Michaelson a few weeks ago that his campaign role model is Jesus Christ, because “he was a politician.” How on earth did Pratt — a man who tosses insults with the ease of someone spitting loogies — come off boasting that his political hero was the Prince of Peace?

But anyone who ridicules the exchange as a blasphemous moment by a deluded wannabe isn’t paying attention — which is exactly the error that has allowed Pratt to storm L.A. politics. He isn’t running on an explicitly Christian message — that would be risky in a city with large Jewish, Catholic and secular constituencies. But the proud born-again evangelical is channeling the zeal of an old-fashioned tent revival, even if some of his rhetoric falls far outside the bounds of the Good Book.

In his recent memoir, Pratt recounted his conversion — actor Stephen Baldwin baptized him in a river during the 2009 season of the reality show “I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here.” Before that, his Christianity had consisted of wearing a black diamond cross necklace he described as “thirty grand of Jesus bling” bought from a Beverly Hills boutique. Pratt credits his faith with providing direction at a low moment in his life, as he embraced Jesus with such fervor that a pastor told him to stop joining altar calls so much during church services — once was enough.

“I needed the receipt stamped weekly,” Pratt wrote, “like a parking validation, just to make sure it stuck.”

Seventeen years later, he’s still seeking that affirmation.

The memoir comes off as a millennial version of “The Confessions of St. Augustine” — perhaps the most famous literary example of someone who saw their wreck of a life not as a series of mistakes to apologize for but as necessary failures on the road to grace. That’s why Pratt and his followers don’t see his sketchy past as a disqualifier, but rather his biggest strength. Only someone who says he was reborn in the inferno of the Palisades fire could possess the clarity and willpower needed to bring salvation to an accursed land, they argue.

In another era, Pratt would have been a welcome edition to the roster of bombastic Southern California preachers a la Aimee Semple McPherson, Chuck Smith and Gene Scott, as well as radio titans such as George Putnam and John Kobylt. His claims that only he can deliver us from damnation and that we need to repent of City Hall’s status quo at the ballot box are nothing less than a modern-day gospel to his followers. Pratt feels the pulse of L.A.’s civic malaise far better than Mayor Karen Bass or another of his opponents, City Councilmember Nithya Raman. Like any good pastor, he knows how to distill that discontent into soundbites and stories.

That’s why the self-designated “Pratt Daddy” has cast this moment in L.A. history as a modern-day Armageddon, urging voters to wage war against apostates and usher in a Second Coming, lest the city continue its supposed descent into hell. He admits in his memoir to holding “epiphanies and apocalyptic visions” in equal measure — no wonder he told a Canadian podcaster in March that life for him is a “spiritual battlefield” where “however I can be to stop evil at this point feels like a purpose.”

Spencer Pratt is shown on a television while journalists work during the 2026 Los Angeles mayoral debate at Skirball Cultural Center on May 6.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Far from me to criticize someone’s faith. But I urge Pratt to reacquaint himself with the words of the messiah in whose path he professes to follow. Humility, frugality, turning the other cheek — it’s what Jesus taught and what Pratt has long rejected.

Nowhere does Pratt need more of refresher on Jesus’ lessons than when it comes to homeless people.

Instead of offering compassion or viable initiatives, Pratt consistently calls the unhoused “zombies,” “vagrants,” “drug addicts” and “bums,” with a particular fixation on the naked ones. He vowed to ABC 7 recently that he would push people off L.A.’s streets and onto federal land — like herding stray wildlife. The mayoral hopeful added that “scam homeless nonprofits” exacerbate homelessness, which must have been news to Scripture-based organizations such as the Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Union Rescue Mission and the Salvation Army, which have been trying to help homeless people since before Pratt was born.

Pratt also told ABC 7 reporter Josh Haskell that most of L.A.’s homeless are not locals.

“These people, when I unplug them … they’re all going to Seattle, where the mayor will welcome them,” Pratt proclaimed.

Jesus would not only roll out the welcome mat for homeless people — he would embrace them.

Spencer, what New Testament book says that your crude campaign against the most destitute among us is holy?

Christ never looked down on itinerants, famously saying, “The Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” In the Book of Mark, when Jesus sent his disciples out into the world, he told them to bring no food or money, because good people would take care of them.

“And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them,” Jesus said.

Christ did do some name calling, but his ire was directed at the powerful, the braggarts, the hypocrites — the Pratts of his time. The Nazarene saved his kindest words for the meek, the poor, the peacemakers — who are sorely lacking in Pratt’s caravan of disaffected liberals, Trumpers and the wealthy. Christ didn’t offer counsel to the comfortable but to outcasts — lepers, prostitutes, people possessed by demons or afflicted with disease — whose modern-day contemporaries live on our streets and whom Pratt World blames for all of L.A.’s ills.

Jesus especially embraced outsiders — the Canaanite woman he initially compared to a dog because she sought help for her daughter, the Samaritan lady at the well, the Roman centurion in the Book of Matthew of whom Jesus proclaimed, “I have not found so great faith” anywhere in Israel. Pratt would have rounded up all of them in donkey carts and dumped them in Babylon, if he had been around back then.

I understand how frustrating it is to see homeless encampments in neighborhoods and to deal with unhoused people who disrupt one’s day, as my wife does at her restaurant in Santa Ana. But whenever annoyance gets the better of me, I remember what Jesus told his followers: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,” warning that he would keep this in mind on Judgment Day.

Those who didn’t take his advice? “Depart from me, ye cursed,” Christ thundered, “into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Christianity — and good society — calls for us to look to our better angels, not to demonize others, as Pratt regularly does. He knows this too.

“When the whole world hates you,” Pratt wrote, “it’s comforting to think at least the big guy upstairs has your back, so long as you repent.”

But repentance means admitting you’ve done wrong. Instead, Pratt is doubling down on his anti-homelessness nastiness as more and more people join his crusade.

Let’s see how many Angelenos embrace this false prophet on election day.

With California facing increasingly destructive wildfires, experts and officials have long urged the strategic removal of dense, flammable vegetation that can erupt into particularly destructive flames from a lightning bolt or the spark of a power line.

But after years of record investment by the state in such wildfire risk mitigation, two key money sources are drying up, potentially reducing the state’s annual budget for vegetation removal by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Wildfire resiliency advocates are warning that the loss of these funds will leave the state vulnerable to devastation, and are calling on California’s next governor to take that threat seriously.

Currently, California relies heavily on two funding sources for wildfire mitigation work: A state program that charges polluters for their emissions and a climate bond approved by voters in 2024.

Late Friday, however, state officials adopted a new structure for the emissions program, called cap-and-invest, that analysts say will likely reduce wildfire mitigation funding by $200 million per year. At the same time, the governor’s latest budget proposal puts the state on track to allocate the majority of the climate bond’s $1.5 billion in wildfire prevention money within just three years.

As a result, California could go from routinely pulling more than $600 million a year from these sources, to just $150 million, according to an estimate from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition — a group of more than 80 organizations representing conservationists, business owners, fire officials and tribal leaders.

The coalition is urging the state to find new sources of funding for the work.

“We have the scientists, we have the technicians, we have the advocates,” said Michelle Decker, who is on the coalition’s executive committee and serves as president and CEO of the Inland Empire Community Foundation. “We see this problem. We can get ahead of this problem. It is a revenue issue.”

California wildfires have become increasingly costly. The 2025 L.A. fires alone caused an estimated $250 billion in damage and economic loss. Insurance companies have already paid out $22.4 billion.

In attempt to reduce the risk of damage to communities and ecosystems, the state has employed a wide range of tactics. These includes fortifying homes against wildfires, replanting fire-ravaged forests and thinning out vegetation with prescribed burns, goat grazing and manual thinning with heavy machinery to reduce the intensity of potential fires.

Research suggests wildfire mitigation work pays off. A recent analysis of 285 fires in the western U.S. found that every dollar spent on landscape projects saved about $3.75 in wildfire damage.

But as funding from cap-and-invest and the climate bond dwindle, the state must increasingly turn to Cal Fire, which devotes only a small portion of its budget to mitigation work.

“This is not an issue that can be pushed off to a timeline based solely on politics,” said Steve Frisch, a founding member of the coalition and president of the Sierra Business Council. “Fire happens whether we want it to or not.”

After a series of destructive wildfires in Northern California and the 2017 Thomas fire in Southern California, the state legislature began to explicitly focus on funding wildfire mitigation.

In 2018, lawmakers directed $200 million per year of cap-and-invest funds to wildfire mitigation projects.

As the Woolsey fire in Southern California and the Camp fire in Paradise raged later that fall, Trump accused the state of “gross mismanagement” of forest lands and threatened to cut off federal funds unless it was corrected.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the legislature, with a significant budget surplus, began earmarking even more funds, leading to a peak of $1.1 billion in wildfire mitigation investments during the 2021-2022 fiscal year.

After the surplus dwindled, the legislature opted in 2024 to put a $10-billion climate bond in front of voters — $1.5 billion of which was dedicated specifically for wildfire mitigation work.

Newsom has since pointed to this high state funding to call on the federal government to step up its own investments into forest management work.

The federal government manages 57% of all forests in the state. While the U.S. Forest Service spent $3.1 billion mitigating wildfire conditions in the state over the last few years, California spent $4.3 billion, according to the California Forest Resilience and Wildfire Task Force.

However, the state has already allocated about $600 million of the climate bond’s wildfire mitigation pot for the 2024-2025 and current fiscal years. The latest budget proposal would allocate more than $300 million for this upcoming fiscal year. While many advocates support allocating the money quickly, it leaves little for future years.

Once that money is spent, California has to pay off the $10 billion bond with interest. The result is an estimated price tag of $16 billion, paid in roughly $400 million increments every year, for 40 years, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

As for the cap-and-invest funds, a fraught months-long debate at the California Air Resources Board on how to extend the program beyond 2030 resulted in a compromise that will cut the revenue it generates in half, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates.

Since other projects get priority — including $1 billion every year for California’s high-speed rail project — the new proposal would “likely leave no funding” for the wildfire and forest resilience line item, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found.

Cal Fire still holds a modest annual budget for wildfire mitigation work. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the agency had $500 million for forest management and fire prevention that was not directly tied to cap-and-invest or the bond — up from about $65 million two decades prior.

As for the federal government, independent analyses by Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and NPR found that Forest Service wildfire mitigation work is on the decline amid federal staffing cuts. The Forest Service claims the decrease in work was primarily due to poor weather conditions for activities like prescribed burns and staff being occupied with firefighting.

Both the state and federal government’s investments pale in comparison to the spending of California’s investor-owned utilities. In 2025 alone, the utilities planned to spend more than $9.2 billion on preventing their equipment from sparking the next devastating wildfire, primarily funded by Californians’ electricity bills.

Times staff writer Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

Democratic and Republican candidates vying to replace Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom have been sparring on televised debates and exchanging campaign attacks since April to garner the attention of voters statewide.

The candidates include a Riverside County sheriff, a former senior advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, a former Los Angeles mayor, a billionaire hedge fund founder and two former members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Recent polls showed that the leading Democratic candidate is Xavier Becerra, a former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services whose campaign is focusing on affordability and housing for what he calls “working Californians.” Vying for one of the top two spots in the June 2 primary are Republican contender Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator who was endorsed by President Trump, and Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer, a hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior.

Here is what the top candidates have said on important topics such as immigration, housing and homelessness, affordability and the entertainment industry.

Immigration and ICE

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that began in California last summer have been hotly debated by Democratic and Republican candidates.

Here is what the candidates said during a debate in May or stated on their websites, as well as some criticism they have faced during the campaign.

• Xavier Becerra vowed to protect and lead the state against the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrants and marginalized communities. Becerra’s rivals have accused him of failing to protect migrant children when he served as Health and Human Services secretary under the Biden administration.
• Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco opposes “sanctuary city” laws that block local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents, calls for the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants and says the border must be secured. But he has also faced criticism from fellow Republicans for supporting a pathway to citizenship for lawful, working undocumented people and telling his constituents that his deputies were not taking part in Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
• Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, who legally immigrated to the United States from the United Kingdom, opposes California’s state and local sanctuary policies, and said the state must cooperate with the federal government because the governor’s job is to enforce laws, whether the governor agrees with immigration enforcement activity or not.
• San José Mayor Matt Mahan plans to demand ICE officers be unmasked, vows to go after agents and immigration agency leadership when they violate the constitution and shield communities from unwarranted harassment.
• Former Congresswoman Katie Porter said California should enforce its sanctuary laws statewide, “so we don’t have crazy cowboys taking the law into their own hands.”
• Billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer wants to strengthen California’s laws to ensure law enforcement agents can’t profile Californians based on their race, ethnicity, language, occupation or location. He also wants legislation that will grant the state attorney general the authority to hold ICE agents accountable for violent and illegal acts on the job. He supports abolishing ICE. But he has faced heat on the campaign trail for his former hedge fund’s investment in the Corrections Corp. of America, now known as CoreCivic, which operates private prisons around the nation that are housing people picked up by federal immigration agents. Steyer has repeatedly expressed remorse about his former firm’s ties with the company and said he personally ordered the divestment from private prisons before he sold his stake in the hedge fund.
• State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond says he plans to levy a new tax on companies that operate ICE detention centers, fight to abolish ICE, protect California’s sanctuary laws and work with Congress to establish a pathway to citizenship.
• Former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supports helping law-abiding immigrants and said violent criminals have been deported under the state’s sanctuary laws, despite claims to the contrary by Republican candidates.

Housing and homelessness

Here’s what each candidate said about the need to address the state’s housing shortage and its stubborn homeless problem:

• Becerra said he plans to cut “unnecessary red tape” and speed up “approvals for projects that meet affordability and environmental standards.” On homelessness, Becerra said he wants to establish a $150-million annual homelessness prevention fund to pay rents and fight eviction or foreclosure.
• Bianco said he wants to end “overregulation of our building industry” and eliminate the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Commission and the California Air Resources Board. On homelessness, he wants cities to clear encampments and prioritize mental health and substance abuse treatment. He wants to force people to accept drug treatment “when necessary.”
• Hilton proposes to reform the California Environmental Quality Act so that only government prosecutors can sue, preventing private individuals and organizations from stopping or delaying new housing projects. He also said he believes rent control measures reduce the incentive to build housing and wants to restructure or eliminate them. On homelessness, Hilton wants to build more low-cost group shelters instead of permanent housing.
• Mahan said he wants to lower developer fees and taxes for infill housing. Mahan also said more homes should be built off-site in California-based factories, making them cheaper than building them on site. On homelessness, Mahan wants to make the state’s Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant permanent and fund it at $1 billion a year.
• Porter said she would “greenlight innovative building strategies, shred unnecessary red tape and create incentives” to build needed housing. On homelessness, Porter wants more interim housing, emergency rental assistance and rapid rehousing programs.
• Steyer is pledging to make it harder for large corporations to buy up the state’s housing stock and wants to encourage cheaper methods of home construction. On homelessness, Steyer wants to expand interim housing options and homeless services.
• Thurmond said he wants to build 2 million new homes for “working Californians,” on 75,000 acres of surplus land that local school districts own. On homelessness, Thurmond wants to increase the number of housing units that include mental health and substance abuse services.
• Villaraigosa said he wants to cut development fees and reform CEQA to speed housing development, particularly for infill housing. On homelessness, Villaraigosa wants to double the state’s investment in Newsom’s Homekey program to build an additional 10,000 units of permanent supportive housing over five years.

A comprehensive guide on the candidate’s full views on housing and homelessness is here.

What the candidates have said about affordability

The candidates offered their ideas for making California more affordable during debates in April and May as well as on their websites.

• Becerra said he will stand up to price gouging and unjustified rate hikes and use the power of the state to lower prices “where the market has failed.”
• Bianco says he wants to cut taxes for working families and businesses, stop the “over-regulation on California’s economy,” support job growth and unleash the state’s energy resources to lower the price of gas and utilities.
• Hilton said he wants to eliminate income taxes on people who earn less than $100,000 and on the first $100,000 for Californians who earn more than that. He also wants to end California’s current tax on tips to ensure tipped workers keep more of their earnings.
• Mahan said he wants to enact a “Gas Tax Holiday” that ends or reduces the tax on gas. He also wants to remove barriers to building affordable housing by putting a cap on fees charged for new housing construction.
• Porter supports single-payer healthcare, providing free child care and college tuition and making wealthy corporations pay their “fair share” in taxes. To pay for it, Porter would impose a progressive corporate tax, meaning more profitable businesses and corporations would pay a higher rate. She also supports ending income taxes for those who earn less than $100,000.
• Steyer called himself the only candidate who is “willing to take on the corporate special interests” that drive up the cost of living in the state. He said he would like to lower gas prices as well as streamline permitting, reform zoning and enforce laws to build affordable homes faster. He also supports single-payer healthcare.
• Thurmond wants to provide a tax credit to make it easier for Californians to pay for the rising cost of gas, groceries and housing. He plans to establish a universal childcare program and provide low-cost loans to help small businesses make improvements at their firms.
• Villaraigosa plans to support a California Fuel Affordability Guarantee to cap gas prices for working families.

The entertainment industry

Here’s what some candidates have listed on their campaign websites about their ideas to support California’s entertainment industry.

• Becerra supports state requirements that mandate productions disclose how AI is being used, cutting the “bureaucratic friction” of getting a filming location permit and vows to uphold the state requirement that ensures digital platforms share meaningful performance data with the cast, writers and directors.
• Hilton wants to restore California’s competitive edge as a place for productions by creating financial incentives for film productions, cover the initial and technical costs associated with the development of a film or television project and reserve funding for independent and mid-budget projects.
• Mahan said he plans to expand and modernize production incentives, make them more competitive and ensure the protections are for everyone who works on a film or television project from the technical crew to writers, directors and actors.
• Steyer said he would like to block corporate mergers in entertainment, defend and expand film tax credits and eliminate the regulations and hurdles for permitting and logistics that “slow down productions.”

Times staff writers Seema Mehta, Nicole Nixon and Andrew Khouri contributed to this report.

The top candidates for California governor crisscrossed the state Friday, all venturing to friendly political territory to woo voters and undermine their rivals as the June 2 primary election fast approaches.

The top Republican in the race, former Fox News host Steve Hilton, spent the day railing against transgender athletes before a high school track event in the Central Valley, an event sure to appeal to his base of President Trump supporters.

The front-running Democrats, former Biden administration Cabinet member Xavier Becerra and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, rallied one of their party’s most influential constituencies: union members.

While both stuck with mostly an upbeat message and reiterated promises to lift up Californians struggling to make ends meet, Steyer afterward accused Becerra of being “a corporate Democrat who’s taking money from all these big corporations” who “doesn’t want to change things.”

Steyer’s had good reason to go after Becerra.

A new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times showed Becerra leading the race with 25% support from likely voters, followed by Hilton at 21% and Steyer within striking distance at 19%. The two candidates who finish in first and second place in the primary will advance to the November general election, leaving the third-place finisher on the sideline.

Though he told reporters Friday morning that “I don’t pay attention to polls,” Steyer was energetic at a Northern California campaign event, where he held a private meeting with leaders of a union representing long-term caregivers. In brief remarks at the offices of SEIU Local 2015, Steyer described the race as a choice between a billionaire champion of working people and the corporate-backed Becerra.

“Does California work for Californians or does California work for corporations? The corporations think it works for them. They want it to continue to work for them and they’re putting up tens of millions of dollars to make sure they continue to make record profits,” he told dozens of home-care workers, teachers, construction workers and nurses at the West Sacramento gathering.

Groups including PG&E, the California Assn. of Realtors and the California Chamber of Commerce have spent more than $34 million opposing Steyer’s candidacy. The former hedge fund manager has pledged to lower energy bills by breaking up large electric utility monopolies.

As a billionaire who has so far poured $216 million of his own money into his gubernatorial campaign, Steyer has faced skepticism from some left-wing and working-class voters. But he is endorsed by progressives, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-San Jose), and unions including the California Nurses Assn. and both major teachers unions.

“I voted for Tom. I was looking for a change,” said Alvenia Scott, a union board member who works as an in-home caregiver to her disabled sister.

“He really has some good ideas,” she said, adding that she had more qualms about Steyer’s lack of government experience than his wealth. “He made his way in life, more power to him.”

Hundreds of miles south in the Inland Empire, Becerra pledged to be on the side of unions if he is elected governor and urged voters to turn in their ballots in what has so far been a remarkably low-turnout election.

“I am with you. When I become governor and I sit behind that desk, you’ll have a union man sitting at that desk,” Becerra told about 500 people at the United Food and Commercial Workers hall in Bloomington.

He asked the crowd if they had cast their ballots and noted that not everyone raised their hand.

“Less than one in five Californians have actually cast their vote so far. We got to get that number way, way up,” he said, arguing that the election is about “sending a message all across the country that California will be counted, that California cannot be neglected, and that California will not take a knee to anyone in Washington, D.C.”

Only 12% of the state’s registered voters have cast ballots as of Thursday evening, according to the election tracking firm Political Data Inc.

Community college counselor Diego Rodriguez, 32, said he decided to vote for Becerra in recent weeks after seeing the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary’s momentum in the race and researching his record.

“Also just his story. As someone who works in higher education, and seeing how Xavier, being first-generation, has benefited from higher education, and how he advocates for higher education,” the Rialto resident said. “Additionally, today, him being here at a labor union and advocating for the working class and labor, I think, is very important.”

Rodriguez said he first started looking into Becerra after he was among the candidates excluded from a USC debate that was ultimately canceled.

“I think that people became aware of him more because of that,” Rodriguez said. “There was a lot of conversation online regarding that, but I think it allowed the spotlight to be brought onto him and it made people aware of his record.”

At a campaign stop in Clovis in the central part of the state, Hilton marveled that his campaign had spent only about $2 million in campaign advertising but was still polling above Steyer, according to the latest Berkeley IGS survey.

“We’re feeling confident,” said Hilton, standing in a suburban stretch of the city. Still, he warned that voters need to get out to support him and avoid a “complete disaster for California” of two Democrats advancing to the November election.

Hilton, who was endorsed by Trump in April, joined other politicians and leaders in Clovis in opposing trans athletes from competing at the 2026 CIF State Track & Field Championships.

The group met near where the championship events were scheduled to take place this weekend.

Asked why he was focusing on sports and gender in the final days of the race, Hilton said it’s “one of the main issues” that come up at town halls. If elected, he said he would seek to overturn the state’s 13-year-old law that allows students to participate in school activities and use facilities such as bathrooms based on their gender identity.

Hilton argues the law violates the state Constitution and will “suspend” it while he initiates legal proceedings to overturn it.

He also praised Spencer Pratt, a Republican and former reality TV star who is running for Los Angeles mayor, saying his candidacy has brought “excitement and energy” to the state’s primary election.

“For a long time in California, there’s been this sense that it’s all inevitable — there’s nothing you can do, Democrats run this place, just the way it is,” Hilton said. “I think that that’s changing. I think there’s this sense that something’s happening.”

DES MOINES, Iowa — The former superintendent of Iowa’s largest school district who was arrested last year in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown was sentenced Friday to two years in prison.

Ian Roberts is likely to be deported to his native Guyana in South America once he serves the sentence. He pleaded guilty in January to falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen and illegally possessing firearms, which together carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. His lawyers had proposed that he be put on probation “to facilitate his removal from the United States,” but prosecutors had argued that his likely deportation should not be a factor.

Prosecutors alleged Roberts knowingly lacked employment authorization for nearly all of his two-decade career in urban education and submitted a counterfeit Social Security card when he was hired as superintendent of the Des Moines public school district, which serves 30,000 students.

Roberts’ stunning case bookended the school year. His September arrest occurred as President Trump’s administration was sending increased numbers of federal immigration officers into American cities to round up immigrants.

Des Moines Public Schools said last month that it revised its conflict-of-interest policy after an audit found Roberts awarded district business to a consulting firm he worked for, affirming findings first reported by the Associated Press in the weeks after federal immigration officers detained him.

Roberts was in his school-issued vehicle when officers stopped him on Sept. 26 in a targeted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation. He allegedly fled before he was located with the help of state troopers. Authorities said a loaded handgun was wrapped in a towel under the seat and $3,000 in cash was in the car. Three other weapons were recovered during a search of his home.

In a court filing, attorneys for Roberts said he has dedicated his life in the U.S. to public service and has not been a threat to public safety. After Roberts married a U.S. citizen, his attorneys said, he was denied lawful permanent residency because he failed to disclose that he had been arrested. He said he did not think he needed to because the charges against him were dropped.

“While Dr. Roberts tried to adjust his status three more times, this initial mistake by Dr. Roberts sealed his fate,” his attorneys wrote. “In the background of his career for the next 24 years, this denial of his adjustment of status haunted Dr. Roberts like a ghost, eventually derailing his life and career.”

Dozens of people submitted letters on Roberts’ behalf to dispute how he has been portrayed and provide details of his positive impact. His lawyers wrote that he likely faces deportation to Guyana, where he will “be left without his career, without his wife, without his children, in a country where he has not lived for thirty years.”

In recommending a three-year sentence, prosecutors described a yearslong and deliberate misrepresentation of his legal status. Prosecutors said a reduced sentence is not appropriate just because Roberts is likely to be deported.

They said they do not know what documents Roberts presented to show eligibility for work dating back to 2008, years before he was approved for temporary status in 2018, but he “deliberately obtained employment without work authorization at school after school, within state after state.”

Fingerhut writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Friday called former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi’s interview with the House Oversight Committee about her handling of the Epstein files a “sham” and a “coverup,” and said she refused to answer numerous questions about President Trump in the closed-door session with lawmakers.

“It’s a sham in there. They’re not answering any questions,” Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) told reporters during a break from the interview.

Bondi was joined in her interview by attorneys from the Department of Justice, including Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who intervened to prevent answers to some questions about Trump, Democrats said.

“The DOJ is in there right now stopping questions about President Trump and about what happened in the release of these files,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

He said Bondi, who was not under oath, declined to answer five questions he posed about the president.

The committee said it will release a transcript of the interview, which was not recorded on video.

The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March to appear for a deposition when she was still in office, but she didn’t initially comply, agreeing to the voluntary interview only after Democrats filed a resolution last month seeking to hold her in contempt.

Dhillon, a San Francisco attorney and longtime Republican activist who has been floated as a potential future attorney general, wouldn’t say whether she expressly prevented Bondi from answering questions about Bondi’s interactions with the president.

“There were ground rules laid with the committee before we walked in there and we simply wanted to stick to those,” Dhillon said.

Garcia said that Bondi blamed Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, then her deputy, for problems with the release of the files.

Bondi, who didn’t meet with reporters after her interview, disputed Garcia’s characterization.

“NOT TRUE. I praised Acting AG Blanche’s management of this Herculean task. I said his ethics are beyond reproach and that he is an incredible Attorney General,” Bondi wrote on X.

The department was criticized for not releasing the files as quickly as required under a law passed last year mandating release of all records from the department’s investigations into sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who died in federal custody in 2019.

The department also came under fire for failing to redact the names of some of Epstein’s victims, while redacting the names of some of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators, as well as for its removal of some of the files it initially posted.

A group of Epstein victims who spoke with reporters in front of the closed doors of the Bondi interview criticized the department’s rollout of the files and the department’s lack of communication with victims.

“Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche have derailed the lives of so many survivors,” said Dani Bensky, who said she was abused by Epstein when she was a 17-year-old high school student in New York City.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M) said that in the interview, Bondi acknowledged she had never met with any of Epstein’s victims.

In Bondi’s opening statement, reviewed by The Times, she acknowledged issues with the rollout of the files, but defended the administration’s handling of the release.

“There were redaction errors,” Bondi’s opening statement said. “But since day one of this process, this Department has been committed to accountability and transparency.”

Bondi was fired by Trump on April 2 and faced questions throughout her tenure about the department’s investigations into Epstein.

In February 2025, she claimed on Fox News that she had a copy of Epstein’s supposed client list, showing the names of the financier’s high-powered friends that he had directed girls to have sex with.

But in July 2025, as Trump faced questions about his relationship with Epstein, whom he knew socially, the Justice Department closed its investigation into Epstein’s alleged crimes and said no such client list existed.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act soon after, requiring the Justice Department to release all of the records from its investigation into Epstein. Despite initially opposing it, Trump signed it into law on Nov. 19, 2025.

When asked about what Trump might have known about Epstein’s crimes, Bondi said she did not know, according to Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.)

“I’m not certain of the extent of his knowledge,” Bondi said, according to Walkinshaw.

Bondi responded to Walkinshaw’s claims, writing on X: “MISREPRESENTATION by Walkinshaw. What the world knows to be true is President Trump banned Epstein from Mar a Lago decades ago bc Epstein was a despicable creep!!”

Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Democrats would seek to speak with Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel next about the handling of the Epstein files and the department’s investigations into Epstein and his alleged co-conspirators.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) was the only Republican member of Congress to attend the interview and Democrats called out their Republican colleagues for not joining.

“I have an election in four days, a very important one,” said Min, the Democrat from Irvine. “But I’m here, rather than in my district, because this is important.”

MIAMI — The Trump administration has extended protections shielding about 11,000 Lebanese from deportation, allowing them to stay and work in the United States for another six months.

The decision, announced Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security, marked a rare reprieve for people protected by temporary measures that have been harshly criticized by Republicans. The extension comes amid ongoing fighting in southern Lebanon between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters.

The decision was automatic, meaning that the administration missed the deadline by which it was supposed to decide on whether to extend the measure called Temporary Protected Status for Lebanese people living in the U.S. who are covered by the program. By statute, the status automatically extends for six months if the department misses the deadline.

It was an unusual outcome for an administration that has canceled the protections that had covered people from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua and Syria from deportation.

TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife, giving people authorization to work in increments of up to 18 months. More than 1 million immigrants from 17 countries were protected by TPS at the beginning of the Trump administration, after the Biden administration greatly expanded its use.

The program has been at the center of a controversy.

Republicans and critics of TPS argue that the program and its protections deviate from their original temporary intent, taking on a quasi-permanent character when extended. Its defenders assert that it is a fundamental humanitarian program that prevents vulnerable individuals from being forced to return to dangerous conditions.

The DHS notice said that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has led the department for the last two months, “were unable to make an informed determination on Lebanon’s TPS designation.”

The extension allows existing beneficiaries to keep their protections through Nov. 27, “if they still meet the eligibility requirements for TPS,” according to the notice. The work permits that were already issued for Lebanese TPS holders will be valid until the same day.

This is the second time the Trump administration has automatically extended a TPS designation. The first happened nearly a year ago with South Sudan, but the protections were terminated in November 2025, after the six-month extension period.

There are dozens of lawsuits challenging the termination of TPS at federal courts in different states. The Supreme Court is set to make a decision on TPS that protected Haitians and Syrians during the summer, and the result is expected to have an impact on all the other cases.

Advocates welcomed the extension.

“Extending Temporary Protected Status means Lebanese nationals in the United States will not be forced back into dangerous conditions but allowed to stay and continue supporting their families and contributing to their local communities,” said Kelly Razzouk, vice president of policy and advocacy at the International Rescue Committee.

José Palma, national coordinator of the National TPS Alliance — an advocacy group that has fought in federal courts against the cancellation of TPS for several countries—welcomed the extension of protections for the Lebanese.

“But we need to find a permanent solution for all TPS beneficiaries,” he warned.

Salomon writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Friday that President Trump’s name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center and blocked the administration from closing the cultural and arts venue for major renovations.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Kennedy Center board’s March 16 vote to close the facility was “ill-informed and seemingly preordained” with no regard for its legal obligations.

“The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one,” he wrote.

Cooper also concluded that the board “overstepped its statutory bounds” by unilaterally adding Trump’s name to the center. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it, he said.

Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, said Friday the institution is “confident that on appeal the court will uphold the Board’s will to recognize President Trump’s historic contributions to our nation’s cultural center.” She said the decision would be reviewed “carefully.”

“Though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”

Cooper held hearings in late April for parallel lawsuits challenging the project. One was filed by a group of cultural and historic preservation organizations. The other was brought Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who serves as an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board. He ruled in favor of Beatty’s request but rejected the other challenge.

Justice Department attorneys said renovation plans for the building are limited in scope and well within the board’s authority to make without needing outside approvals.

The plaintiffs worry the president and his board allies will flout preservation rules designed to maintain the building’s historic fabric. In earlier statements in court hearings, attorneys for Beatty and the preservation groups raised doubts about the limited scope of the project, pointing to Trump’s statements that he would “fully expose” the building’s steel skeleton. Beatty has said she was “very fearful that we’ll see what happened with the East Wing and what happened with the Rose Garden” if the center is closed and the renovations allowed unsupervised, referring to major changes the president has made at the White House.

Trump, a Republican, has taken a keen interest in the Kennedy Center’s operations since he returned to White House last year. He installed a handpicked board that named him chairman. His name was added to the facade of a building that is considered a living monument to President John F. Kennedy.

The Kennedy Center has kept up performances ahead of the closure, though at a much slower pace than in previous years. Trump attended the premiere of the musical “Chicago” in March and other shows, including “Moulin Rouge” are slated for June.

Bill Maher, the comedian who has had an up and down relationship with Trump, is expected to be awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on June 28, an event that was anticipated to be one of the final big moments at the Kennedy Center before the closure.

Cooper was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Obama.

Kunzelman and Sloan write for the Associated Press.