POLITICS

HOUMA, La. — For nearly 50 years, James Blanchard has made his living in the Gulf of Mexico, pulling shrimp from the sea.

It’s all he ever wanted to do, since he was around 12 years old and accompanied his father, a mailman and part-time shrimper, as he spent weekends trawling the marshy waters off Louisiana. Blanchard loved the adventure and splendid isolation.

He made a good living, even as the industry collapsed around him. He and his wife, Cheri, bought a comfortable home in a tidy subdivision here in the heart of Bayou Country. They helped put three kids through college.

But eventually Blanchard began to contemplate his forced retirement, selling his 63-foot boat and hanging up his wall of big green fishing nets once he turns 65 in February.

“The amount of shrimp was not a problem,” said Blanchard, a fourth-generation shrimper who routinely hauls in north of 30,000 flash-frozen pounds on a two-week trip. “It’s making a profit, because the prices were so low.”

Then came President Trump, his tariffs and famously itchy trigger finger.

Blanchard is a lifelong Republican, but wasn’t initially a big Trump fan.

In April, Trump slapped a 10% fee on shrimp imports, which grew to 50% for India, America’s largest overseas source of shrimp. Further levies were imposed on Ecuador, Vietnam and Indonesia, which are other major U.S. suppliers.

Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

Tariffs may slow economic growth, discombobulate markets and boost inflation. Trump’s single-handed approach to tax-and-trade policy has landed him before the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by summer on a major test case of presidential power.

Blanchard snacks on a bag of dried shrimp.

But for Blanchard, those tariffs have been a lifeline. He’s seen a significant uptick in prices, from as low as 87 cents a pound for wild-caught shrimp to $1.50 or more. That’s nowhere near the $4.50 a pound, adjusted for inflation, that U.S shrimpers earned back in the roaring 1980s, when shrimp was less common in home kitchens and something of a luxury item.

It’s enough, however, for Blanchard to shelve his retirement plans and for that — and Trump — he’s appreciative.

“Writing all the bills in the world is great,” he said of efforts by congressional lawmakers to prop up the country’s dwindling shrimp fishermen. “But it don’t get nothing done.”

Trump, Blanchard said, has delivered.

::

Shrimp is America’s most popular seafood, but that hasn’t buoyed the U.S. shrimp industry.

Wild-caught domestic shrimp make up less than 10% of the market. It’s not a matter of quality, or overfishing. A flood of imports — farmed on a mass scale, lightly regulated by developing countries and thus cheaper to produce — has decimated the market for American shrimpers.

In the Gulf and South Atlantic, warm water shrimp landings — the term the industry uses — had an average annual value of more than $460 million between 1975 and 2022, according to the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a trade group. (Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation.)

A boat moves up a canal in Chauvin, La.

Over the last two years, the value of the commercial shrimp fishery has fallen to $269 million in 2023 and $256 million in 2024.

As the country’s leading shrimp producer, Louisiana has been particularly hard hit. “It’s getting to the point that we are on our knees,” Acy Cooper, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Assn., recently told New Orleans television station WVUE.

In the 1980s, there were more than 6,000 licensed shrimpers working in Louisiana. Today, there are fewer than 1,500.

Blanchard can see the ripple effects in Houma — in the shuttered businesses, the depleted job market and the high incidence of drug overdoses.

Latrevien Moultrie, 14, fishes in Houma, La.

“It’s affected everybody,” he said. “It’s not only the boats, the infrastructure, the packing plants. It’s the hardware stores. The fuel docks. The grocery stores.”

Two of the Blanchardses’ three children have moved away, seeking opportunity elsewhere. One daughter is a university law professor. Their son works in logistics for a trucking company in Georgia. Their other daughter, who lives near the couple, applies her advanced degree in school psychology as a stay-at-home mother of five.

(Cheri Blanchard, 64 and retired from the state labor department, keeps the books for her husband.)

It turns out the federal government is at least partly responsible for the shrinking of the domestic shrimp industry. In recent years, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized overseas shrimp farming to the tune of at least $195 million in development aid.

Seated at their dining room table, near a Christmas tree and other remnants of the holidays, Blanchard read from a set of scribbled notes — a Bible close at hand — as he and his wife decried the lax safety standards, labor abuses and environmental degradation associated with overseas shrimp farming.

James Blanchard and his wife, Cheri, like Trump’s policies. His personality is another thing.

The fact their taxes help support those practices is particularly galling.

“A slap in the face,” Blanchard called it.

::

Donald Trump grew slowly on the Blanchards.

The two are lifelong Republicans, but they voted for Trump in 2016 only because they considered him less bad than Hillary Clinton.

Once he took office, they were pleasantly surprised.

They had more money in their pockets. Inflation wasn’t an issue. Washington seemed less heavy-handed and intrusive. By the time Trump ran for reelection, the couple were fully on board and they happily voted for him again in 2024.

Republican National Committee reading material sits on the counter of James Blanchard’s kitchen.

Still, there are things that irk Blanchard. He doesn’t much care for Trump’s brash persona and can’t stand all the childish name-calling. For a long time, he couldn’t bear listening to Trump’s speeches.

“You didn’t ever really listen to many of Obama’s speeches,” Cheri interjected, and James allowed as how that was true.

“I liked his personality,” Blanchard said of the former Democratic president. “I liked his character. But I didn’t like his policies.”

It’s the opposite with Trump.

Unlike most politicians, Blanchard said, when Trump says he’ll do something he generally follows through.

Such as tightening border security.

“I have no issue at all with immigrants,” he said, as his wife nodded alongside. “I have an issue with illegal immigrants.” (She echoed Trump in blaming Renee Good for her death last week at the hands of an ICE agent.)

“I have sympathy for them as families,” Blanchard went on, but crossing the border doesn’t make someone a U.S. citizen. “If I go down the highway 70 miles an hour in that 30-mile-an-hour zone, guess what? I’m getting a ticket. … Or if I get in that car and I’m drinking, guess what? They’re bringing me to jail. So what’s the difference?”

Between the two there isn’t much — apart from Trump’s “trolling,” as Cheri called it — they find fault with.

Blanchard hailed the lightning-strike capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as another example of Trump doing and meaning exactly what he says.

“When Biden was in office, they had a $25-million bounty on [Maduro’s] head,” Blanchard said. “But apparently it was done knowing that it was never going to be enforced.”

More empty talk, he suggested.

Just like all those years of unfulfilled promises from politicians vowing to rein in foreign competition and revive America’s suffering shrimping industry.

James Blanchard aboard his boat, which he docks in Bayou Little Caillou.

Trump and his tariffs have given Blanchard back his livelihood and for that alone he’s grateful.

There’s maintenance and repair work to be done on his boat — named Waymaker, to honor the Lord — before Blanchard musters his two-man crew and sets out from Bayou Little Caillou.

He can hardly wait.

WASHINGTON — After President Trump ordered strikes that led to the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, celebrations erupted in Venezuelan communities across the U.S.

But for many of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants facing possible deportation, their relief and joy were cut by the fear about what comes next from an administration that has zeroed in on Venezuelans as a target.

“Many of us asked ourselves, ‘What’s going to happen with us now?’” said A.G., a 39-year-old in Tennessee who asked to be identified by her initials because she lacks legal status. Even so, Maduro’s ouster gave her a lot of hope for her mother country.

Venezuelans began fleeing in droves in 2014 as economic collapse led to widespread food and medicine shortages, as well as political repression. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans are now living outside the country — including 1.2 million in the U.S.

Venezuelans migrants walk toward Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 2019.

(Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)

A.G. and her now-18-year-old son arrived at the southern border in 2019. Since then, she said, they have built a good life — they own a transport company with delivery trucks, pay taxes and follow the law.

Maduro’s fall left her with mixed feelings.

“He’s obviously a dictator, many people have died because of him and he refused to give up power, but the reason that they entered Venezuela, for me what President Trump did was illegal,” she said. “Innocent people died because of the bombs. I’m asking God that it all be for good reason.”

Dozens of Venezuelans and others were killed in the U.S. invasion — more than 100, a government official said — including civilians.

The Trump administration is framing its Venezuela operation as an opportunity for Venezuelans like A.G. “Now, they can return to the country they love and rebuild its future,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Matthew Tragesser.

Katie Blankenship, a Miami-based attorney with Sanctuary of the South who has represented many Venezuelans facing deportation, sees a less promising future.

“We’re going to see increased targeting of Venezuelans to force them to leave the U.S. into a political and socioeconomic environment that’s likely only more destabilized and subject to more abuse,” she said.

The Venezuelan community in the U.S. swelled, in part, because the Biden administration expanded pathways for them to enter the country.

Volunteer help a Venezuelan immigrant at the storage units from a volunteer-run program that distributes donations to recently arrived Venezuelan immigrants in need, in Miami, Fla., in 2023.

(Eva Marie Uzcategui / Los Angeles Times)

One of those programs allowed more than 117,000 Venezuelans to purchase flights directly to the U.S. and stay for two years if they had a U.S.-based financial sponsor and passed a background check. Other Venezuelans entered legally at land ports of entry after scheduling interviews with border officers.

By the end of the Biden administration, more than 600,000 Venezuelans had protection from deportation under Temporary Protected Status, a program used by both Republican and Democratic administrations for immigrants who cannot return home because of armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly referred to Venezuelan immigrants as criminals, singling them out more than any other nationality — in 64% of speeches, an Axios analysis showed. He has said repeatedly, without evidence that Venezuela emptied its prisons and mental institutions to flood the U.S. with immigrants.

One of Trump’s first acts as president was to designate the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Within two months, he invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport 252 Venezuelan men accused of being Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned and tortured despite many having no criminal histories in the U.S. or Latin America.

Later, the Trump administration stripped away protections for Venezuelans with financial sponsors and TPS, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling the latter “contrary to the national interest.”

In a September Federal Register Notice, Noem said that TPS for Venezuelans undercut the administration’s foreign policy objectives because one result of allowing Venezuelans in the U.S. was “relieving pressure on Maduro’s regime to enact domestic reforms and facilitate safe return conditions.” In other words, if Venezuelans returned home, that would pressure the government to enact reforms.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, along with U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, left, and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, right, participates in a news conference near Camp 57 at Angola prison, the Louisiana State Penitentiary and America’s largest maximum-security prison farm, to announce the opening of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that will house immigrants convicted of crimes in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, on Sept. 3, 2025.

(Matthew Hilton / AFP via Getty Images)

The administration has offered contrasting assessments of conditions in Venezuela. Noem wrote that although certain adverse conditions continue, “there are notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime.”

Throughout the year, though, the State Department continued to reissue an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately.

Conditions for Venezuelans in the U.S. grew more complicated after a man from Afghanistan was accused of shooting two National Guard members in November; in response, the administration froze the immigration cases of people from 39 countries, including Venezuela, that the administration considers “high-risk.” That means anyone who applied for asylum, a visa, a green card or any other benefit remains in limbo indefinitely.

After a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in September, the Justice Department appealed. In a support brief filed in December, the Justice Department cited escalating tensions with Venezuela.

David Smilde, a Tulane University sociologist and expert on Venezuelan politics, said that invading Venezuela could justify renewed use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The law says the president can invoke the Alien Enemies Act not only in times of “declared war,” but also when a foreign government threatens or carries out an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against the U.S.

“Now it will be difficult, I think, for the court to say, ‘No, you can’t use this,’” Smilde said.

With U.S. officials promising improved conditions in Venezuela and encouraging citizens to return, Smilde said, they could invoke the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport undocumented immigrants who don’t leave willingly.

“There’s several layers to this,” he said, “and none of it looks very good for Venezuelan immigrants.”

This couple from Venezuela shared their story of why they left their three children back in their home country and spoke of the the experiences of their travel to the United States at the Parkside Community Church in Sacramento on June 16, 2023.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Jose, a 28-year-old Venezuelan living east of Los Angeles, fled Venezuela in 2015 after being imprisoned and beaten for criticizing the government. He lived in Colombia and Peru before illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2022, and now has a pending asylum application. Jose asked to be identified by his middle name out of fear of retaliation by the U.S. government.

The news this week that an ICE agent had shot and killed a woman in Minnesota heightened his anxiety.

“You come here because supposedly this is a country with freedom of expression, and there is more safety, but with this government, now you’re afraid you’ll get killed,” he said. “And that was a U.S. citizen. Imagine what they could do to me?”

People visit a memorial for Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Jose qualifies for a work permit based on his pending asylum, but his application for one is frozen because of the executive order following the National Guard shooting.

The news of Maduro’s arrest was bittersweet, Jose said, because his mother and grandmother didn’t live to witness that day. He said his mother died last year of kidney failure due to lack of medical care, leaving him as the primary breadwinner for his two young sisters who remain in Venezuela with their father, who is disabled.

Still, he said he’s happy with what Trump has done in Venezuela.

“People are saying he’s stealing our petroleum,” he said, “but for 25 years, Cuba, China and Iran have been stealing the petroleum and it didn’t improve our lives.”

Many Venezuelans were encouraged by news that Venezuela would release a “significant number” of political prisoners as a peace gesture.

For Jose, that’s not enough. Venezuela’s government ordered police to search for anyone involved in promoting or supporting the attack by U.S. forces, leading to detentions of journalists and civilians.

“Venezuela remains the same,” he said. “The same disgrace, the same poverty and the same government repression.”

A.G. said she was heartened to hear Noem say Sunday on Fox News that every Venezeulan who had TPS “has the opportunity to apply for refugee status and that evaluation will go forward.” But the administration quickly backtracked and said that was not the case.

Instead, Noem and other administration officials have doubled down on the notion that Venezuelans without permanent lawful status should leave. Noem told Fox News that there are no plans to pause deportation flights despite the political uncertainty in Venezuela.

Tragesser, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, said the agency’s posture hasn’t changed.

“USCIS encourages all Venezuelans unlawfully in the U.S. to use the CBP Home app for help with a safe and orderly return to their country,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Angered by an MSNBC correspondent’s demeaning comment about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s daughter, aides to her presidential campaign said Friday that she might pull out of a debate planned by the cable network this month in Cleveland.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, cast as “beneath contempt” an on-air comment Thursday by MSNBC’s David Shuster, who said Chelsea Clinton is “sort of being pimped out” as she intensifies her campaigning for her mother.

NBC News announced Friday afternoon that Shuster had been suspended indefinitely over the remark, which a release called “irresponsible and inappropriate.”

Shuster apologized Friday morning on MSNBC for the term he applied to Chelsea. He issued a second apology on the MSNBC show “Tucker,” where he had uttered his comment while acting as guest host.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff has been critical of what it considers a hostile attitude toward her in MSNBC’s coverage, and the Shuster incident brought matters to a head.

Clinton is seeking more debates with Sen. Barack Obama as their race for the Democratic nomination has tightened, and as part of that strategy she agreed to take part in an MSNBC forum Feb. 26.

“We’ve done a number of debates on that network,” Wolfson said. “And at this point I can’t envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network, given the comments that were made and have been made.”

NBC News, in its statement, said it was working to keep the debate alive.

“Our conversations with the Clinton campaign about their participation continue today, and we are hopeful that the event will take place as planned,” the statement said.

Last month, another MSNBC talk show host, Chris Matthews, apologized after suggesting Clinton owed her political success to her husband’s philandering. “The reason she may be a front-runner [in the presidential race] is her husband messed around,” Matthews said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Wolfson on Friday referenced that controversy, saying, “At some point you really have to question whether or not there’s a pattern here at this particular network, where you have comments being made and apologies given,” he said. “Is this something that folks are encouraged to do or not do? I don’t know, but the [Shuster] comment was beneath contempt, and I think any fair-minded person would see it that way.”

On the “Tucker” show, Shuster said: “I apologize to the Clinton family, the Clinton campaign and all of you who were justifiably offended. As I said this morning on MSNBC, all Americans should be proud of Chelsea Clinton. And I am particularly sorry that my language diminished the regard and respect she has earned from all of us and the respect her parents have earned in how they raised her.”

NBC News, in its statement, said it “takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.”

Turning down a debate with the nomination in doubt would be a big step for Clinton, who feels such forums work in her favor, providing a chance to demonstrate her grasp of policy and to spotlight her experience. She has accepted offers to take part in four debates over the next month; Obama has agreed to take part in two, including the one in Cleveland.

—

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

matea.gold@latimes.com

—

Nicholas reported from Washington and Gold from New York.

WASHINGTON — After a day of partisan feuding over illegal immigration, Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed Thursday to commit $3 billion to gain “operational control” over the southern U.S. border within two years.

The money would be used to build more fencing, vehicle barriers, and camera and radar towers, as well as hire additional border and immigration agents.

The decision to attach the funding to the Homeland Security spending bill puts President Bush — who has said he would veto the overall legislation — in the uncomfortable position of opposing a popular initiative to improve border security.

The 89-1 vote came just two months after the Senate failed to pass a broad immigration bill amid an impassioned assault by critics who branded it as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. And it reignited the debate in the Senate over two of the thorniest issues: whether the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. should be allowed to become citizens, and whether enforcement alone can stem illegal immigration.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stressed that the $3-billion amendment to the $37.6-billion domestic security bill was just a start to overhauling immigration laws. “Democrats believe stronger border security is an important first step toward fixing our broken immigration system, and we will continue to work toward the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform,” he said.

The bill passed later Thursday, 89 to 4.

Republicans and Democrats had tangled on the Senate floor Wednesday over a more punitive version of the amendment. But Reid and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) came to a late-night agreement that eliminated some elements Republicans had backed, such as a measure allowing hospital workers and police to ask about immigration status.

“Some say we’ve tried enforcement. We really haven’t, in my view,” Cornyn said. “We can do it, it’s just a matter of political will.”

The amendment passed Thursday would pay for substantial increases in manpower — boosting the number of Border Patrol agents to 23,000 from the current 12,000 and adding customs and immigration agents, human smuggling investigators and deputy marshals.

It also would finance significant new fortifications along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico: 700 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and radar towers, and four unmanned aerial vehicles.

The measure would bolster other enforcement efforts as well: It would reimburse state and local governments for the cost of helping federal agents enforce immigration laws, improve systems to allow employers to check worker eligibility, and require the deportation of people who overstay their visas. The measure also would ensure that federal officials have the space to detain up to 45,000 illegal border crossers at one time.

“This $3 billion is as necessary for national security as any spending we do in Iraq,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the amendment’s author.

Graham had been a central supporter of the Senate’s failed immigration bill and had argued that the only way to overhaul the system would be comprehensively.

But in the wake of that bill’s demise and amid withering criticism from his constituents, Graham — who is up for reelection next year — began to argue that it was time to approach the immigration problem in stages.

On Thursday, he likened the decisive vote to pass his amendment to “having been robbed 12 million times and finally getting around to putting a lock on the door.”

Graham’s allies in the push for a comprehensive bill were critical Thursday. “The fact is that border security is an important part of a comprehensive package, and everyone knows that this is not the answer,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said.

But Cornyn, who voted against the comprehensive bill, said the approach to immigration reform would have to be an incremental one. He predicted that heightened enforcement would make it increasingly difficult for employers to find legal workers, leading businesses to pressure Congress to pass more comprehensive reform.

“Frankly, employers were not as vocal as they should have been” during the immigration debate, he said.

Kennedy was asked, within earshot of Graham, whether he agreed with Cornyn’s theory. “Say yes,” Graham suggested. Kennedy did not answer.

California’s two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, voted for the amendment.

The lone dissent came from Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), who objected to the level of “irresponsible and excessive” spending. Voinovich pointed out that the bill already contained $14.9 billion to pay for port, border and transportation security, as well as funding for first responders in emergencies.

Voinovich also noted that the Department of Homeland Security already spends one-third of its budget on border security and immigration enforcement, “a clear reflection of its priorities.”

The House earlier passed its version of the Homeland Security spending bill, and congressional negotiators will decide whether to include the additional border security spending in the final version.

Bush threatened to veto the Senate bill — which included $2.4 billion more than he had requested even before the $3-billion border amendment. Republican senators said the White House also opposed that amendment. But, they said, the addition of the border spending would make it harder for Bush to veto the bill.

The White House did not return calls for comment.

On Thursday, Reid sent Bush a challenge.

“The Senate demonstrated today that it overwhelmingly supports tough border security,” Reid said. “We hope the president shows us he shares our concern by dropping his irresponsible threat to veto the Homeland Security spending bill.”

—

nicole.gaouette@latimes.com

SACRAMENTO — Two statewide school construction bond issues and another proposal making it easier to pass local school bond measures went down to defeat in the Assembly Thursday, adding up to a bad day for schools in the Legislature.

In a battle between developer interests and the educational establishment, the Assembly refused first to accept Senate changes in an Assembly-passed $1.9-billion school bonds construction bill. Then it voted on another bond measure–$2.9 billion, also for school construction–but failed to muster a big enough majority for passage.

While there was disagreement over the size of the bond issue, the biggest fight was over the insistence of Assembly Democrats and educators that residential developers pay a larger share of the cost of school construction if voters reject the bond measure. Republicans sided with the developers.

The $1.9-billion bill was left in the hands of a two-house conference committee to try to work out a compromise in time to get it on the June primary ballot. The other bond measure could come back to the Assembly for a vote next week.

Gov. Pete Wilson issued a statement saying that he was “extremely disappointed” that Assembly Democrats “acted as roadblocks” to delay the statewide school bond issue.

“The school bond is crucial if we’re to provide classrooms for a grade school population that is increasing by 213,000 students a year,” the governor said. “Additionally, the bond will create jobs by bolstering the construction industry, which is in its worst slump since the 1982 recession.”

Also on Thursday, the Assembly, for the second time, rejected Wilson’s proposal to reduce from two-thirds to a simple majority the popular vote required for the passage of local school bond issues, many of which fail because of the two-thirds requirement.

Blocking passage of the bond measures adds new burdens to the state’s overcrowded public schools, proponents said.

“We need to build 20 classrooms a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for most of the next decade,” said Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria), the author of measure reducing the vote requirement.

O’Connell said the cost of school construction and modernization for the next decade would run between $15 billion and $20 billion.

The State Allocation Board currently has a backlog of $6 billion in approved applications from local school districts for school construction projects that are awaiting funding.

This board is composed of two assemblymen, two senators, the state superintendent of public instruction and the directors of the state departments of Finance and General Services.

The key issue in the controversy over the bonds is a 1986 law that allowed school districts to charge property developer fees to pay for schools, but limited the fees to $1.65 per square foot of residential development. One feature of the law was that if a statewide school bond issue failed, this limitation was to be removed, allowing local governments to charge developers more than the $1.65 cap in order to finance school construction.

However, the provision removing the cap, known as the “blow-up clause,” was suspended for school bond elections held in 1988 and 1990. Both bond issues were approved by voters.

Siding with developers, Wilson and Assembly Republicans want the suspension continued, but Assembly Democrats want to retain existing law.

“Who do you think is going to build schools, the tooth fairy?” complained Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin (D-Union City), the chairwoman of the Education Committee, regarding the exemption for developers. “There is no tooth fairy and Tinkerbell is dead.”

Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) was frustrated that the Assembly did not pass the $1.9-billion school bond bill.

Roberti agreed to put the issue before the two-house conference committee on Monday to work out a last-ditch compromise. But he warned that he opposed putting the issue before the voters if it required costly printing and mailing of a supplemental ballot pamphlet.

Secretary of State March Fong Eu previously said that the Legislature had to approve June ballot measures by March 7 or she might have to print an expensive supplemental voter ballot pamphlet. “I think Monday is the really real deadline,” said Roberti.

WAILEA, Hawaii — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that he would like to make the California Legislature part-time so lawmakers would not have as much freedom to create so many “strange bills.”

The Legislature “already doesn’t have enough to do,” the governor said, adding that full-time status was proving an obstacle to productive, responsible work.

“I want to make the Legislature a part-time Legislature,” the governor said. “Spending so much time in Sacramento, without anything to do, then out of that comes strange bills. I like them when they’re scrambling and they really have to work hard. Give them a short period of time. Then good work gets done, rather than hanging. That’s when they start getting creative with things.”

Schwarzenegger’s comments came during an interview at the Four Seasons resort here on the island of Maui, where he is vacationing with his wife, Maria Shriver, and four children. He did not explain what he meant by “strange bills,” nor did he say specifically how he might work to change the Legislature’s status.

As the governor mixed work with golf, weightlifting and swims off a stunning Pacific beach set against mountains, lawmakers and their staffs in the California capital worked to prepare bills on one of Schwarzenegger’s overriding causes, reform of the state’s $20-billion workers’ compensation system.

“While I’m out here working my ass off, he’s pontificating from Hawaii?” Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) quipped in Sacramento.

California’s Legislature began working year-round in 1966. The state is one of four with full-time legislatures, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania are the others. There are seven states where lawmakers put in roughly 80% of the time it takes to do a full-time job: Alaska, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Wisconsin.

Schwarzenegger used his movie background to illustrate the point. The best work got done in compressed time frames, he said. “Pre-production is three months,” he said. “You don’t have more than that…. Post-production is three months. And you have to be out next summer. Then people perform. ‘Oh my God, now we have deadlines.’ That’s when people perform best. Same with legislators. You have a deadline…. Everyone works. Works like a jewel.”

Among legislators, reaction to the idea was mixed.

Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg) said it would not work. “If things weren’t screwed up enough already, that would probably just finish them off,” he said, adding that it would further erode the Legislature’s influence — already waning due to term limits. “If you make it part-time, I think you will get a group of people that are even less focused on real public policy.

“The difficulty now is, these issues are too complicated, and there is no time to get into the meat of issues. A part-time Legislature is not going to solve that problem.”

Assemblyman John Campbell (R-Irvine) said the governor may be onto something.

“I’m torn,” he said. “I absolutely see his point. I think we are one of five states with full-time legislatures, and the argument against that system is that it just creates too many laws. By the time you get up and drive to work, you’ve probably broken five or six laws you don’t know about.”

The governor spoke in an outdoor dining area, sitting with Shriver and their two daughters, Katherine, 14, and Christina, 12. As he spoke, Katherine popped a croissant in his mouth; Christina tugged at his forearm. Earlier, the governor and Shriver sat alone at the table going over a daily news summary prepared by his staff. The hotel is a family favorite.

“Every time we try to go someplace else, we’re outvoted,” Shriver said.

“By the kids,” said Schwarzenegger.

He added: “It’s nice when you just come for a week in a vacation to know where you’re going and know where you can kick back and what the game room is like and where the kids can get their pizzas.”

Having just finished breakfast, the governor said, “We can sit here, and we can go out in the ocean and have a peaceful time. Every so often, someone has a long lens. But that’s the way it is.”

Schwarzenegger said he was not so tired that he needed time off, adding that with his children on spring break, it seemed like a good time for a family trip.

“When I left, I didn’t feel burned out or anything like that. I really don’t ever feel like I need a vacation, because my job is not what I consider a job. I’m having a great time doing it. But it gives us a chance to hang out together.”

And to talk. He said that he and Shriver spoke constantly about state issues.

Joking, he said that in reading about the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, he wondered whether California could export its troubled prison system.

He laughed. “Hey, we don’t have to have prisons in California. What about having them in Vietnam? What about having them in Mexico?”

Shriver jumped in: “No, no, no, no,” and said to a reporter, “Don’t write that down.”

Wearing a plain white T-shirt and shorts, Schwarzenegger said he had been in frequent contact with his office, working over details of a proposed workers’ compensation overhaul whose language is now being drafted. He said he was considering cutting short the trip and leaving as early as today to return to California and make sure the plan was ready for a vote by the Legislature next week. Though he is prepared to take a workers’ comp initiative to the ballot if a legislative deal falls through, he said that was not his first choice.

“It was always very clear that if we negotiate, that we will not [get] 100% of what was an initiative. But it will be maybe 50% of that. That’s what it comes out to be. The language is good. There will be people complaining that I have given up too much. Everyone will be saying, ‘He gave up too much.’ But that’s how you make a good, solid deal. Everyone gives up something.”

With lawmakers anticipating that a workers’ comp bill would be complete by Friday, the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee has scheduled a hearing for Monday morning at 10.

Republican lawmakers, meantime, are balking, according to both GOP and Democratic sources close to the negotiations. The Republicans contend that few of their concerns about workers’ comp have been addressed and that they have been cut out of the negotiating process. Though workers’ comp bills can be passed with only votes from the Legislature’s Democratic majority, Schwarzenegger would like Republican support.

Since the couple’s arrival on Friday, a steady stream of guests has been coming up to say hello. One woman passed him a handwritten letter to ask that he autograph a copy of his book “Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder.”

She told him that her son suffered from attention deficit disorder and was helped through a strict weight-training regimen. He can now bench-press 350 pounds, she said.

Schwarzenegger: “I haven’t bench-pressed 350 pounds in years.”

With the ocean in the background, a relaxed first couple talked about the first five months in office. They acknowledged that even some basic questions were still being sorted out — like Shriver’s title.

The governor likes the term “first lady.” Shriver does not.

Schwarzenegger: “It has to be first lady.”

Shriver, lowering her sunglasses and fixing him with a look: “It does?”

Schwarzenegger: “Yeah.”

Shriver: “No.”

Schwarzenegger. “In this case, we’ll stay with tradition.”

Asked how he believed the term was unfolding, Schwarzenegger turned the question over to Shriver.

People, she said, were paying “more attention to what’s going on now in the state. A guy just said, ‘Thanks for everything you’re doing in workers’ comp. We have a hotel, and our bills have risen threefold in the last year. Thank you for Propositions 57 and 58.’ ”

In turn, Schwarzenegger offered his admittedly biased evaluation of Shriver: She is “trying to balance obviously the first lady job with, at the same time, taking care of the fratzen: kids, the German word.”

In a two-celebrity marriage, it’s not always clear who is the bigger draw. As the couple walked arm-in-arm Monday through the resort’s Spago restaurant, the governor wearing a bright Hawaiian shirt, two young women nearby stopped and gawked.

“It’s Maria!” one said.

Times staff writers Evan Halper, Marc Lifsher and Robert Salladay contributed to this report.

The post of California lieutenant governor is a bit like the human appendix: It serves no necessary function and at times it can be a real pain. This is because the top two officials are independently elected and the rule in recent years has been to have a governor of one party and a lieutenant governor of the other. Lieutenant governors have at times caused mischief when a governor of the opposing party traveled out of state, leaving the No. 2 official as acting governor.

It appears, however, that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante will have a major role in the administration of the new governor, Democrat Gray Davis. Bustamante, a Fresno Democrat, stands to be the first lieutenant governor in modern California history to wield real clout.

Recent governors have treated their lieutenant governors with indifference or antagonism, even when they were of the same political party. The lieutenant governor has few official duties but one enormous responsibility: succeeding to the governorship if the chief executive dies or resigns.

Now there’s a new look in Sacramento. Bustamante, a former speaker of the Assembly, campaigned with Davis and became an integral part of his transition team, helping select the first appointees to Davis’ administration. This past week, Davis put Bustamante in charge of a key commission that will develop a plan to meet California’s infrastructure needs for the next decade.

Beyond that, Bustamante’s specific role in the new administration has yet to be spelled out. But he is expected to be the administration’s liaison with Mexico, a job in which he can perform a valuable service in shoring up California’s tattered relations with our southern neighbor.

Reformers keep trying to change the state Constitution so that candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run on the same ticket. But all such proposals have been defeated. For now, relations between the two officials must depend on how much the governor wants the No. 2 official to be involved.

So long as they serve independently, however, there is one constitutional change that is urgently needed: that the governor retain his powers when he leaves the state. The idea that the lieutenant governor becomes acting governor the minute the chief crosses the state line is a relic of stagecoach days. The Legislature should start the process to amend the Constitution to recognize this reality.

For now, at least, whenever Davis must leave California, it appears he will have a trusted ally–not an appendix–filling in for him. That is good for Davis and good for California.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump announced Saturday that he’s picked a battle-hardened commander who oversaw troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to be the nation’s next top military advisor.

If confirmed by the Senate, Gen. Mark Milley, who has been chief of the Army since August 2015, would succeed Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dunford’s term doesn’t end until Oct. 1. Trump said the date of transition is yet to be determined.

Trump tweeted the news, saying “I am pleased to announce my nomination of four-star General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the United States Army — as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing General Joe Dunford, who will be retiring. I am thankful to both of these incredible men for their service to our Country!”

Dunford is a former commandant of the Marine Corps and commander of coalition troops in Afghanistan. Milley commanded troops during several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trump’s decision, which he announced before leaving Washington to attend the annual Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia, caught some in the Pentagon by surprise Friday. Normally an announcement on a new chairman wouldn’t be expected until early next year. The officials said the Air Force chief, Gen. David Goldfein, was also a strong contender for the job, but they indicated that Milley has a very good relationship with the president.

Trump hinted earlier Friday that he would make an announcement Saturday, when he attends the game and is expected to perform the coin toss to decide which team gets the ball first. “I can give you a little hint: It will have to do with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and succession,” he said.

Milley is known as a charismatic, outgoing leader who has not been afraid to offer candid and sometimes blunt assessments to Congress. Last year, he admonished the House Armed Services Committee for its inability to approve a defense budget, slamming it as “professional malpractice.” And in 2016, he told lawmakers, in answer to a direct question, that women should also have to register for the draft now that they are allowed to serve in all combat jobs.

As the Army’s top leader, he helped shepherd the groundbreaking move of women into front-line infantry and other combat positions, while warning that it would take time to do it right. More recently, he has worked with his senior officers to reverse a deficit in Army recruiting when the service fell far short of its annual goal this year.

He also played a role in one of the Army’s more contentious criminal cases. While serving as head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., Milley was assigned to review the case of former Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who abandoned his post in Afghanistan and was held captive by the Taliban for five years.

Milley made the early decision to charge Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Bergdahl was eventually found guilty, reduced in rank to private, dishonorably discharged and fined $10,000, but was spared any additional prison time.

A native of Winchester, Mass., and a fervent supporter of the Boston Red Sox and other city teams, Milley received his Army commission from Princeton University in 1980. An infantry officer by training, he also commanded Special Forces units in a career that included deployments in the invasion of Panama in 1989, the multinational mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina to implement the Dayton Peace Accords, and the Iraq war.

The Milley move starts a series of military leadership changes in coming months, including successors in 2019 for Adm. John Richardson as the chief of Naval Operations, Gen. Robert Neller as commandant of the Marine Corps, and Air Force Gen. Paul Selva as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Trump also will pick a replacement for Milley as Army chief.

Goldfein began his term as Air Force chief of staff in 2016, so he wouldn’t be expected to step down until the summer of 2020.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday laid out a second-term agenda weighted heavily toward the creation of environmentally friendly jobs to rescue Los Angeles from its economic malaise but warned of serious pain ahead as the city digs out of a half-billion-dollar budget shortfall.

Delivering his fourth State of the City speech since taking office, Villaraigosa’s remarks struck the tone of a Democratic candidate for governor, with scorching critiques of both Sacramento lawmakers and Washington conservatives.

Villaraigosa denounced the “politics of no” as he called for a green technology hub along the west side of the Los Angeles River to attract new jobs and start-up companies.

“We need to build a future in which clean technology is as synonymous with Los Angeles as motion pictures or aerospace,” said the mayor, appearing at the Harbor City factory of Balqon Corp., which manufactures electric big-rigs for use at the city’s ports.

During his 33-minute address, Villaraigosa also promised to provide care for families decimated by job losses and foreclosures, to turn over failing L.A. schools to charter operators and to press ahead with his expansion of the Los Angeles Police Department. Portions of his ambitious agenda hinge on the city securing hundreds of millions of dollars from President Obama’s stimulus package.

By focusing so heavily on environmental themes, Villaraigosa delivered an upbeat message to accompany the dire scenario City Hall now faces: an estimated $530-million hole in its upcoming budget, two pension systems severely battered by investment losses and a city workforce that is being asked to choose between wage reductions or layoffs of thousands of employees.

“He found a way to give a realistic speech while still finding opportunities to be optimistic,” said Villaraigosa ally Richard Katz, who serves with the mayor on the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Villaraigosa called on the city’s powerful public-employee unions to embrace wage and benefit concessions, saying it was the only path to prevent layoffs and protect city services. The mayor, who will release his 2009-10 budget Monday, called for immediate action and warned residents that the budget shortfall could grow to nearly $1 billion next year.

At least one union leader was cool to the mayor’s suggestion, saying that his members preferred early retirement packages and “no steps backwards” on existing contracts. “The mayor’s proposals are off base,” Bob Schoonover, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 721, said in a statement.

As a centerpiece of his speech, Villaraigosa reintroduced his plan for a “green” industry corridor just east of downtown that would serve as a spawning ground for environmentally conscious businesses. The speech echoed Villaraigosa’s message during his recent reelection campaign, when he promised to make Los Angeles “the greenest big city in America.”

Over the last four years, Villaraigosa has pushed the Port of Los Angeles to replace up to 17,000 diesel trucks with cleaner-burning models. And at the Department of Water and Power, he has pressed officials to expand the utility’s reliance on renewable sources of energy — primarily wind, solar and geothermal power.

Villaraigosa’s green agenda, combined with his emphasis on public safety and concessions from public employee unions, could broaden his appeal to moderates in California, some political experts said.

“If you’re going to pick a statewide theme that will afford you safe ground, there’s probably no better topic now than the green movement and the environment,” said San Jose State political scientist Larry Gerston, who is keeping a close watch on the early political maneuvering of potential contenders in the 2010 governor’s race.

Still, Villaraigosa’s drive to create green jobs has hit some roadblocks in recent months. Measure B, the solar initiative that he backed in the March 3 election, narrowly went down to defeat despite the use of television commercials that featured the mayor.

Meanwhile, the union leader who largely conceived of the energy plan has been highly critical of Villaraigosa’s other environmental initiatives at the DWP, including efforts to secure solar power sources in the Mojave Desert and geothermal power in Imperial County. Brian D’Arcy, who heads the union that represents DWP workers, has also criticized some of Villaraigosa’s environmental allies, saying that they are more interested in their clean energy benefactors than they are in the needs of Los Angeles.

Either way, Villaraigosa’s emphasis on job creation and the environment only fueled speculation that he would use similar themes next year in a run for statewide office. “It sounded gubernatorial,” said City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who attended the speech.

—

phil.willon@latimes.com

david.zahniser@latimes.com

Times staff writer Maeve Reston contributed to this report.

NEW ORLEANS — Somewhat incongruously, Vice President George Bush, principal speaker here at last week’s 78th annual National Assn. of Realtors convention, called a press conference prior to addressing the meeting to discuss the Reagan Administration’s Operation Hat Trick II–dealing with the theme of international drug trafficking.

Convention officials and reporters recalled that he had addressed that issue when he appeared before the association’s 1981 convention in Miami.

Conceding that the subject of drugs was an important national issue, an association spokesman said, it was not of primary interest to the 15,000 attending the convention nor had it been four years earlier. He added that conference planners were surprised by the vice president’s choice of subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOANNE J. PARKER

West Los Angeles Chapter

California NOW Foundation, President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Twitter: @LisaMascaroinDC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State of play

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUICK HITS

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

Stay in touch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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