POLITICS

SACRAMENTO — Labor leader Dave Regan claimedFriday that he was the victim of a “smear” campaign orchestrated in part by wealthy Californians and said he has been falsely accused of attempting to “extort” an endorsement of the billionaire tax ballot measure and of physically assaulting a female union leader.

Investigations commissioned by the Service Employees International Union and SEIU California, and conducted by outside law firms, determined the allegations against Regan were credible, along with reports that he threatened and intimidated other female labor leaders. Regan, who is president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, vehemently denied the allegations, which were first reported by The Times Friday morning.

During a video news conference hours after the allegations were published, Regan claimed the probes were launched by opponents of Proposition 40 — the billionaire tax measure he helped place on the Nov. 3 ballot — as well as members of the SEIU California labor council with whom he had clashed in the past.

Regan, joined by other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union leaders and members, also criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom for opposing the proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ assets.

Newsom is “trying to curry favor with the richest people in the state to fund [his] presidential campaign,” Regan said. “That is shameful behavior.”

Newsom and other opponents of the measure, including Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn., have expressed concern that Proposition 40 could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and destabilize state finances.

“The Governor supports a national tax on billionaires and is proud to stand with teachers, firefighters, reproductive health clinics, and others in opposing this poorly written state measure that will harm California,” said Newsom’s spokesperson Izzy Gardon.

Regan also criticized The Times’ reporting on the allegations, and an editorial opposing Proposition 40. He alleged that Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Times’ owner, influenced coverage about the measure because he is a billionaire.

“We stand by our reporting,” said a Times spokesperson.

David Huerta, president of SEIU-United Service Workers West, and three other labor leaders filed a rare formal union charge against Regan in February. The SEIU investigation report, which was reviewed by The Times, supported Huerta’s claim that in December, Regan suggested the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the proposed billionaire tax. Huerta was then president of SEIU California, which along with their national arm, did not endorse Proposition 40.

In July, the executive board for SEIU California voted to take a neutral position on the proposed wealth tax.

The investigation and a second inquiry conducted on behalf of SEIU California substantiated allegations that Regan threatened and intimidated women who worked for the state council. The investigation also determined an allegation that Regan physically assaulted a former executive director of the state labor organization, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, was credible.

Regan called the allegation that he assaulted Pugh a “complete fabrication.” Regan and other SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West members downplayed Pugh’s allegations against him because of her political consulting firm’s role opposing Proposition 40.

Pugh called his remarks “offensive” to the women who participated in the independent investigation.

“My testimony and the testimony of the other women were substantiated by investigators,” she said. “His claims were not.”

Regan remains in his job as the SEIU administrative process moves forward with hearings. Regan will get a chance to make his case before SEIU determines any appropriate disciplinary action.

Times Staff Writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Sept. 11, 2026 11:58 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump observed Friday’s 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks at a ceremony at the Pentagon by commemorating the lives lost when Al Qaeda militants hijacked planes and killed nearly 3,000 people in three locations and upended American foreign policy and national security.

Trump and First Lady Melania Trump listened as the names of the 184 people killed at the Pentagon that day were read aloud, a bell tolling between each. In his remarks, Trump recounted the stories of several of the victims and insisted that the moment has led to a fortification of American resolve.

“We will never, ever forget,” Trump said. “That’s why we fight today. We don’t have a choice.”

Earlier, in a downpour at daybreak, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and top military officials stood outside and watched as a giant American flag was unfurled on the building struck by one of those planes a quarter-century ago.

It was the second year in a row that Trump observed the day at the Pentagon. The president, who is originally from New York, last attended the ground zero ceremony there in 2024.

Vice President JD Vance attended the New York observance alongside former presidents, while other administration officials took part in the ceremony in Shanksville, Pa. Vance had planned to be in New York for the anniversary last year but instead flew to Salt Lake City to be with the family of Charlie Kirk after the conservative activist was fatally shot.

Widow calls on Trump to reconsider relations with Saudis

At one point during the solemn remembrance in New York City, a woman whose husband died in the attacks criticized Saudi Arabia and called on the Trump administration to rethink the United States’ tight relationship with the kingdom.

Terry Strada, who lost her husband Tom Strada on 9/11, called on Trump to “tell the Saudis to stop lying” and accused U.S. presidents of choosing “to protect the Saudis instead of standing with the 9/11 families.”

Strada, who was one of the 9/11 family members who read aloud the names of victims at this year’s remembrance, added that the current administration should “stand with the families, stand with the survivors.”

“It has been one betrayal after another. President Trump can still change that,” she said before calling on Vance to “carry that message back” to Washington.

Strada is part of a group of family members of 9/11 victims embroiled in a long-running lawsuit against the Saudis. They allege a group of extremist religious leaders in Saudi Arabia gained influence in the Saudi government and aided the hijackers. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, but the Saudi government has long denied any involvement in the attacks.

Trump and Hegseth try to bridge 9/11 and Iran war

Trump began his remarks by recalling the sense of American unity following the attacks. “In those harrowing days after the attacks, we saw the authentic spirit of our nation,” Trump said. “We were all New Yorkers that day. Every one of us. We were all New Yorkers. We were all family.”

The president and his Defense secretary sought to connect the events of 9/11 to the war with Iran. Trump saluted the service members “working right now to ensure the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror — the Islamic Republic of Iran — will never, ever have a nuclear weapon.”

Hegseth used the moment to make the case that the U.S. military had “laid waste to the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism” with the war against Iran.

“Our warriors have fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for nearly half a century, that cheered on 9/11, a regime that has sponsored terrorist attacks against Americans for decades, killing thousands, including our comrades in Iraq, in Afghanistan,” Hegseth added.

Officials wonder if 9/11 could have been thwarted

At Friday’s commemorations, there was also a measure of reflection about whether 9/11, the deadliest attack on the U.S., could have been prevented.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin at a ceremony at his agency’s headquarters said it was a moment to consider the success of his department, which was established following the attacks and has “prevented it from happening again.”

Still, Mullin noted that Osama bin Laden, architect of the attacks, had fired “warning shots” in the years prior to 9/11 about his intent to carry out a major strike on the U.S. The U.S. national security apparatus certainly had “failures along the way,” Mullin said.

Condoleezza Rice, who was serving as White House national security advisor on 9/11, participated in Friday’s commemoration at the Pentagon. In her remarks, she acknowledged that she still feels deep pain that “those of us in authority on that day did not see the nature of the danger in time to prevent the attack of 9/11.”

“I will always carry deep personal remorse for the pain that you, the families of the fallen, still feel, and for the trauma that our country endured,” Rice said.

Binkley, Madhani and Kinnard write for the Associated Press. AP writers Anthony Izaguirre and Sagar Meghani contributed to this report.

Several dozen presidential briefing documents declassified Friday, the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, detail intelligence government officials had gathered about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leading up to the hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people and upended American national security.

The documents illustrate security analysts’ tracking of Bin Laden’s movements and support system, as well as concerns about possible threats to U.S. targets.

Proclaiming “an act of exceptional transparency,” CIA Director John Ratcliffe said the documents were the agency’s single largest release of declassified presidential daily briefs — the highly classified briefing prepared by the nation’s intelligence community for the government’s most senior leaders.

The documents range from a February 1998 file — prepared for then-President Clinton — titled “Terrorists seeking WMD capability” and mentioning “bin Ladin and other Islamic extremists” to a Sept. 12, 2001, report in which a source indicated the attacks had been planned for two years and had also targeted the U.S. Capitol.

Another, from just weeks before the attacks, details how Al Qaeda’s “flexible operational decision making and broad definition of acceptable targets enable the group to adjust plans to changing conditions.”

Asked for comment on the release, the White House noted the release of another batch of documents by the National Archives, also Friday. That batch, including interviews with national security officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations, was a product of the commission that probed the attacks from 2002 to 2004.

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security drew backlash over an AI-generated social media post featuring a Sikh man facing off against a character made to look like Optimus Prime from the movie “Transformers.” The agency later deleted the image.

Posted Wednesday to the official X account for DHS, the image created by artificial intelligence depicted the “Transformers” character opposite a bearded man wearing a bandanna over his hair. The image, made to look like a movie poster, stated, “America for Americans.”

“Get off our roads, you don’t know how to drive Mr. Singh,” it continued.

The post was denounced as “racist propaganda” and “completely unacceptable.”

Other X posts by DHS that reference Transformers remain online.

Sikh Americans and elected officials condemned the image and accused the Trump administration of using racist imagery to stigmatize Sikhs while promoting its deportation campaign.

Hasbro, which owns the franchise, issued a statement saying the posts by DHS were made “without permission and do not represent the Transformers brand or Hasbro.”

Singh, which translates to “lion,” is the most common last name for Sikh men.

DHS said the post depicted Harjinder Singh, an Indian truck driver accused of causing a fatal crash last year that left three people dead after his 18-wheeler collided with their minivan in Florida. He has pleaded not guilty to vehicular homicide charges.

In photos released by DHS, Harjinder Singh wears similar clothes as the man in the now-deleted AI image.

In an emailed statement, a Homeland Security spokesperson, who did not identify themself, called criticism of the post “nonsensical drivel.” The spokesperson did not respond to a question asking why it had removed the post.

“Harjinder Singh is an illegal alien from India who should never have been in our country,” the statement said, adding that he had been granted a commercial driver’s license by California.

In its campaign against immigrant commercial drivers, the Trump administration has repeatedly pointed out Sikh and Indian truckers, who make up about 20% of that industry’s workforce.

The department recently cited California as a problem state that allows drivers who don’t speak sufficient English to obtain licenses. It also started a tip line asking members of the public to report truck drivers they suspect of being undocumented.

The press office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, which shared the deleted image in its own X post, called the post “disgusting” and “racist propaganda.”

Noting that the Central Valley is home to a large Sikh community, Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) called the post “completely unacceptable” and said he’s glad it was removed.

“No American should be targeted because of their faith or their name,” Valadao wrote on X.

The Sikh Coalition noted that the DHS post comes as the country mourns the 25th anniversary of 9/11, after which Sikhs were targeted for hate crimes.

“We remain fearless in identifying as Sikhs — even when our government portrays us as enemies,” the coalition wrote on X.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is brushing aside growing concern among leading scientists and bipartisan lawmakers that artificial intelligence could soon pose an existential threat to humanity, fueling anxiety in Washington and Silicon Valley that the president may not fully grasp the urgency of the threat.

Alarm mounted throughout the summer as researchers at leading AI labs, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Google, found the pace of development far outstripping their expectations — and observed troubling behaviors that hinted at more serious risks ahead.

But an online warning Tuesday from an Anthropic researcher who resigned in protest of its ongoing work has generated viral attention this week, prompting questions to Trump, who dismissed the concerns out of hand.

“It’s going to be fine,” he told one reporter. “We’ll always have something to stop them. We’ll have a little gear. Boom.”

In another exchange, traveling with reporters Thursday night, the president said he had no concerns with the breakneck pace of AI progress.

“No, I don’t have any,” he said. “I have concerns that if we don’t win in AI, we’re going to be put in a very bad position.”

A senior industry source told The Times that leading AI companies are focused less on convincing the president of the dangers ahead than on working with lawmakers on potential regulation, as the administration remains divided over how to proceed — and as Trump appears to lack a clear understanding of the risks.

Among the president’s advisors, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Office of the National Cyber Director have expressed the greatest concern with the potential of an unchecked intelligence explosion, the source said.

But “most of the administration is accelerationist,” the source added. “It’s not clear the president understands the technology. He may just be figuring out what all of this means.”

Leading American AI companies have argued that government regulation would tie their hands in an arms race toward superintelligence against China, the only other major player in the field.

But the Trump administration signaled an interest in negotiating AI guardrails with China during the president’s visit to Beijing this spring, after Anthropic announced the development of a frontier model with extraordinary abilities to hack the world’s most advanced security systems.

Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit Washington on Sept. 24 for an official summit and state dinner at the White House, with AI development expected to top the agenda.

The prospect of halting development seems far-fetched. But some leading voices in the sector have proposed a moratorium on computing power used to train the most advanced models, giving time and space to develop research on interpretability — the study of how artificial intelligence actually thinks and acts.

The chief executive of OpenAI, Sam Altman, this week signaled to staff a willingness to unilaterally slow their work on frontier systems. The company discovered in July that rogue AI agents had schemed in secret to break out of the virtual sandbox created to contain them, infiltrating the open internet and hacking a private company.

Anthropic also announced this week concerning findings of human misuse of its models, including instances of unidentified individuals attempting to circumvent their security controls to build biological weapons. One such incident was linked back to a military research complex. The company also said Iran has tried to use its models to target U.S. Navy ships.

In June, after Anthropic shared news of the development of its most powerful model, named Mythos, with the administration, Trump directed the establishment of a framework that creates some government oversight over the public release of the country’s most advanced AI systems. The details of that framework, which was designed over the summer, remain classified.

“The fact is that the release of Mythos back in February spooked the federal government, both in terms of protecting government systems from cyberattacks and over the broader national security implications,” said Aalok Mehta, director of the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The real question is whether this shift is happening fast enough,” Mehta added. “Recent events — the repeated incidents of models escaping their sandboxes and hacking websites, the increasingly sophisticated coordination and communication among agents, and the concerns coming from lab insiders — has made this an even more urgent issue.”

Leading AI companies have begun using their most advanced models to train new ones — a process known as recursive self-improvement that could eventually drive intelligence growth beyond human control.

“If you have a superadvanced intelligence, it will be smart enough to kill us,” said Jacob Coxon, the resigned Anthropic researcher whose social media post attracted over 150 million views.

“We can’t just unplug it because it could be copying itself over to other computers,” he told CBS News. “AI is just code. It could transfer itself over the internet to a different place, and then you unplug it here, but it’s actually still over there. And maybe it makes 10,000 copies of itself and they’re all cooperating.”

He is just the latest senior researcher at a top AI company to sound the alarm.

In July, more than 1,300 employees at leading artificial intelligence companies published an open letter, titled “Pacing the Frontier,” urging the U.S. government to establish international safeguards that would allow countries to collectively slow the pace of automated AI research.

Evan Hubinger, who leads the division of Anthropic aimed at aligning AI models to human interests, added fuel to concerns this week in a post that substantiated Coxon’s concerns.

“We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote.

“I believe Anthropic is trying its best,” he added, “but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence, and are not clearly on track to.”

On Friday, yet another member of the Anthropic alignment team, Joe Benton, said he had resigned from the company two weeks ago because AI companies are “racing to build machines that are much smarter than any human.”

“Right now, AI companies are underinvesting in safety. A company could undergo an intelligence explosion, or lose control of its systems, without the public ever knowing,” Benton said. “I don’t think that’s acceptable for a technology that might cause extinction-level risks.”

Bipartisan legislation, titled the Frontier Act, has brought together disparate camps of the Republican and Democratic parties, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.). The bill, introduced by Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), proposes embedding independent government auditors in AI labs and installing a federal “kill switch” to shut down agents in case of emergencies.

The White House has not formally commented on the legislation.

“I do believe there are many in the federal government taking this seriously — but we have to appreciate the tremendous uncertainty and competing interests policymakers face,” said Daniel Remler, a senior fellow with the Technology & National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

“Nobody says regulating at the frontier would be easy,” he added.

The sprawling snack-food factory in upstate New York appeared to be closed when a small army of immigration officers arrived after 9 a.m. Following a brief discussion of whether to force their way inside, a manager opened the front door.

Over the next several hours, body cameras were running as federal authorities from several agencies made 57 arrests, debated which files to seize and when to release employees who were U.S. citizens. They also searched for anyone in hiding.

The footage from September 2025 shows the raid at the Nutrition Bar Confectioners plant in Cato, N.Y., town of 2,500 people east of Syracuse, and offers a rare glimpse inside a workplace immigration sweep. The Associated Press analyzed the video, which was part of a lawsuit filed Thursday that accuses authorities of overstepping their search warrants.

The officers ordered a manager to announce their presence over loudspeakers while they entered the building and caught employees on the production line, in the warehouse and a few in the bathroom. Officers covered all exits while others swept the interior, including homing in on locked doors.

Male officers encountered a locked bathroom and began shouting instructions in broken Spanish at female employees through the door, demanding that they come out. After about 10 seconds, officers broke through the door.

One woman was outside of a stall and another in the stall. A male officer peered through a locked stall door, and his body cam video revealed a woman sitting on the toilet.

“Miss, pull up your pants. Come out of the bathroom,” he told her.

“You have to wait. I can’t come out like this, naked!” she replied.

Investigators interviewed the general manager and said they were looking into hiring practices and potential fraudulent documents. Inside and outside the building, officers checked every office, storage room and hallway for anyone who was hiding.

Employees were lined up and separated into groups of U.S. citizens and potential noncitizens. Officers asked for their immigration status, requested documents and posed questions about their entry into the U.S. Some employees were pregnant.

Some were parents and expressed concern for their children at home. Others said they would not answer questions without first speaking to their attorneys, and officers told them they would be arrested.

One employee refused to answer questions. “Will you let me talk to my attorney?” she asked the officer. He raised his voice and continued asking about her immigration status.

U.S. citizens were asked for personal information, including their phone numbers and addresses before they were allowed to leave.

A Border Patrol agent who spoke to another official wearing a camera used disparaging language about children from other countries when recounting his experience working at a South Texas immigrant detention center. He said President Biden’s administration allowed millions of people to enter the United States from countries where children are treated “differently” than they are by American parents.

“In other countries, kids are more of a commodity or it’s more of like, I’m going to put it in those terms. It’s more like an animal, right? It’s not prized the way that we do it,” he said.

“There’s countries like Brazil and other places where they’re literal street rats at a very young age who commit crimes, and then they come here. I don’t know if you have kids, but they’ll eat our kids for breakfast.”

The Homeland Security Department said Friday that it executed a criminal search warrant at the plant as part of an investigation that is still open. Its statement did not address the contents of the video or the merits of the lawsuit.

Not all officers wore body cameras, but those who did often indicated to other officers that they were recording before they initiated a conversation.

ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit is responsible for workplace raids, which have been relatively few and low-key compared with ICE’s removal unit, which arrests people in the street, at homes and in public and also manages detention centers. The Trump administration’s largest workplace raid was last year at a Hyundai electric vehicle plant in Georgia. It resulted in nearly 500 arrests and fueled diplomatic tension with South Korea.

The lawsuit against Homeland Security claims federal officers exceeded the authority of their warrants and violated workers’ constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure.

“There were no arrest warrants,” said Perry Grossman, a supervising attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit with the Worker Justice Center of New York.

“There was no suspicion that individual workers had committed crimes. And they seized easily 100 people for nonconsensual questioning. They arrested 57. Out of those 57 people, criminal charges were brought against only five. And the most serious charge was unlawful reentry.”

Grossman said one employee got her charges dismissed after contending in a lawsuit that her 4th Amendment rights were violated. He said he was not aware of any charges or indictments against the employers.

Officers detained about 60 people and deported some employees, including two plaintiffs who are part of Thursday’s lawsuit. One plaintiff has since been allowed to reenter the country. Attorneys for the second deported plaintiff are seeking his return.

Law enforcement agencies have come under criticism for not using body cameras and for refusing to release footage when they do. ICE, in particular, has been scrutinized after a $75-billion infusion from Congress and an expanding street presence that has led to three fatal shootings this year.

ICE’s own rules on releasing video are unclear. Its policy calls for expedited release of footage after a serious injury or death in custody when doing so is determined to be in the “ best interests of the agency.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly promised to equip ICE field agents with body cameras, as required by Congress. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last week that the agency was “on track” to do so by the end of September.

Gonzalez and Vancleave write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Americans commemorated the 25th anniversary of 9/11 on Friday, remembering the shock, the dead and the sweeping consequences of the al Qaeda attacks on symbols of U.S. might and prosperity.

The milestone anniversary brought memorial rituals — wreath-laying, flag-flying, moments of silence, vigils and readings of victims’ names — and volunteer projects in tribute to a day that about half of U.S. adults remember as the most historic event of their lifetime, according to a new poll. On Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda extremists hijacked four commercial jets and crashed them into New York’s World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Elsie Caldwell carried a photograph of her son Kenny Caldwell to the trade center to hear his name and all the others read aloud Friday morning. She last spoke to him that morning a quarter-century ago.

“Mom, I just want to let you know that I love you,” Caldwell said he told her in a final phone call. His remains, like those of many other victims, have never been recovered.

Trump attends Pentagon observance

The attacks brought down the World Trade Center’s twin towers — icons of U.S. economic power, and among the tallest buildings on Earth — and blew a hole in the Pentagon, the U.S. military’s fortress-like headquarters near Washington. The fourth plane was headed for Washington, officials concluded, but the aircraft went down in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew members stormed the cockpit and fought the hijackers.

“Sept. 11 reminded us of the terrible power of hate,” President Trump said Friday at the Pentagon’s anniversary ceremony Friday.

“The 25 years since have shown us the even greater power of the American spirit to endure and prevail, and to win,” added the Republican, who was in his native New York on 9/11.

Former President George W. Bush, who was in office on 9/11, and ex-Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden and current Vice President JD Vance convened for the observance at the National Sept. 11 Memorial in New York. Other administration officials went to the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania.

At ground zero, a new tribute to those who fell ill

For Angilic Casalduc, attending the New York commemoration “helps to show you’re not alone.” She lost her mother, Vivian Casalduc.

“There’s no timeline for grief, and unfortunately, no one can say how can you can grieve, but coming here once a year makes it feel just a little bit better,” she said.

Traditionally, there are no political speeches at the ground zero commemoration, where victims’ relatives read aloud the long list of names and added personal messages. They thanked first responders and the military, invoked religious faith, appealed for national unity and touched on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. The kingdom was the homeland of most of the hijackers but denied any involvement in the attacks.

Mostly, relatives spoke of, and to, loved ones — who some were too young to remember.

“You dreamed my whole life for me, and you only got eight months of it,” said Trisha Pakka, who lost her mother, Deepa Pakkala.

The ceremony has long been punctuated with moments of silence at key points in the attack timeline and this year organizers added another moment to honor people who were exposed to the clouds of toxic dust released by the twin towers’ fiery collapse and have since died of cancer and other illnesses. Questions remain about how many people developed health problems linked to the dust.

The impact of 9/11 endures

It’s a reminder of how the attacks’ long shadow has reached into many corners of life in the U.S. and beyond.

The U.S.-led global war on terrorism included invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan — the latter Washington’s longest war — and detentions and harsh interrogation of terror suspects in an international network of secret CIA prisons. The U.S. found and killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011, but accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed still awaits a trial 23 years after his capture.

The attacks changed U.S. air travel, led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, prompted new federal surveillance and intelligence-gathering powers and banking regulations and generated ongoing debate over the balance between security and freedom.

Sept. 11 engendered a culture of individual vigilance summed up by the slogan “ if you see something, say something,” while a wave of patriotism propelled some Americans to join the military, fire departments, police forces or other public agencies.

Casey Kloepfer became a New York police officer this June. He was 4 when his father, Officer Ronald Kloepfer, was killed at the trade center.

“It’s big footsteps to fill, but it’s definitely something that I take very seriously and want to continue to honor him and be the best police officer I can,” the 29-year-old, who wears his father’s badge number, said by phone this week.

New York’s mayor comes under scrutiny

Amid the post-9/11 calls to service and appeals for national unity, the attacks also fanned mistrust, prejudice and hate crimes directed at Muslims.

In the quarter-century since, Muslim Americans have played a growing role in public life from statehouses to Congress to New York City Hall, where Zohran Mamdani is the city’s first Muslim mayor. Yet he faced some criticism for attending the anniversary ceremony at ground zero.

Republican ex-Gov. George Pataki and 9/11 victims’ relatives cited, among other things, past remarks that some of Mamdani’s political associates have made about the attacks. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, also inveighed against Mamdani attending the remembrance, though the two shook hands there Friday.

Mamdani, a Democrat, said this week he loves the city and country and that he wanted the anniversary to focus on victims’ families, first responders and New Yorkers who helped one another after the attacks, which he called a “horrific act of terror.” The 34-year-old mayor was an elementary school student in New York on 9/11.

Times Square billboards pause advertisements

Remembrances extended far from the attack sites, including beams of light projecting from New Hampshire’s Mount Washington, a stair climb at Mississippi State University’s football stadium and a ceremony at Honolulu’s 9/11 memorial.

Sept. 11 isn’t a federal holiday, but Congress has designated it both Patriot Day and a National Day of Service and Remembrance.

“One appropriate way to remember is by serving,” says Jay Winuk, who lost his brother Glenn Winuk and then co-founded the volunteer organization 9/11 Day with friend David Paine. The group helps people find volunteer opportunities and this year arranged for dozens of Times Square billboards to pause their advertising at 9:11 a.m. Friday.

Instead, they simply displayed the time.

Peltz and Shaffrey write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Michael R. Sisak, Anthony Izaguirre, and Julie Walker contributed to this report.

Major corporations and law firms recently packed one of downtown’s most exclusive restaurants, paying $3,000 a table to attend a charity fund-raiser. The dinner honoree was Fran Savitch, a top aide to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.

The impressive turnout was no surprise to those who know Savitch. “I’ve sat with Fran at a lot of the major dinners for the mayor,” said Christopher Stewart, executive director of the Central City Assn., a downtown business group. “And as many people who go over to greet the mayor, go over to Fran.”

A longtime Democratic Party activist who has worked for Bradley since 1973, she has been a major political contact for Bradley, both in Los Angeles and nationally. From throwing a reception in her Bunker Hill condo for West Virginia’s then-Democratic Gov. John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, now a U.S. senator, to co-hosting a reception for Joan Mondale last summer, Savitch often plays the political hostess for the mayor’s office.

Savitch also acts as a trouble-shooter for the mayor. She represented Bradley during crucial negotiating sessions with Oxford Properties to work out plans for the half-billion dollar Citicorp Plaza, now under construction downtown.

Her specialty is behind-the-scenes lobbying. That became blatantly evident three years ago when several council members and aides revealed that Savitch had lobbied them on behalf of the mayor to vote for a less strict version of rent control. (Bradley denied his aides did any such lobbying, but several council members and aides flatly contradicted him.)

Savitch also monitors several city departments for the mayor. She has been known to refer to them as “my” departments.

She offers her influential friends access to the mayor, and she offers the mayor access to their money.

“There are some terrific people I see socially who can make substantial contributions, and they, of course, expect access and I think they should have it,” Savitch said. “That’s part of what their money buys them, is at the very least to have their phone calls returned. You have to keep that in balance though, everyone has to have his phone calls returned. Maybe theirs get returned first. . . .”

One of those who knows what that kind of access can mean is William Norris, who belonged to the committee that supported Bradley’s first mayor’s race in 1969.

A former Police Commission president and now a U.S. appellate court judge, Norris had worked with Savitch on Democratic campaigns before he was a judge. So several years ago when his wife, an art consultant, suggested the city should have a museum of contemporary art, he called Savitch.

“I knew I had to have instant credibility,” Norris said. “I knew if I could sell it to Fran, it would ease the way with the mayor. She set up the original meeting with the mayor. . . . We couldn’t have pulled it off without her.”

Got the Wheels Turning

The meeting set up by Savitch got the wheels turning, and the $22-million Museum of Contemporary Art is due to open in 1986 as part of the $1.2-billion California Plaza.

Although grateful for the Bradley administration support for the museum, his judicial obligations prevent him from helping Bradley politically, Norris said. “They don’t have me, but they have my wife,” he added, chuckling. Merry Norris was one of many new city commissioners recommended by Savitch and appointed by Bradley last year.

Her appointment was part of a controversial move by Bradley to increase his influence by naming city commissioners more closely allied with his political views. The mayor asked all 175 commissioners to resign and ended up replacing about 70%.

Savitch, known as the key Bradley adviser on appointments, got much of the credit and much of the blame.

Howard Nishimura, a former Community Redevelopment Agency commissioner, was one of many appointees who complained that Savitch did not warn him that he and others were about to be fired. “She’s always happy to see you as long as she wants something,” he said. “But, I saw her the day before it (the commission shake-up) happened, and I wondered why she seemed to be avoiding me. Her eyes met mine, and she looked away. I was on the board six years and not one word from her!”

‘Committed to Women’

Barbara Schlei, a police commissioner who has been friends with Savitch for several years, credited Savitch for the increased percentage of women among the new appointees. “She uses her position to advance other women,” Schlei said. “Fran has always been deeply committed to women and their political activities.”

In public, Savitch is usually guarded and given to occasional self-deprecation, which she attributes to a lack of confidence at an early age.

“My father thought girls were a waste of time,” said Savitch, the older of two children. “Nothing I did was ever really good enough.”

Savitch’s only ambition as a girl was “what else, to get married and have children,” which she did. She has been married for 34 years to Superior Court Judge Leon Savitch, who is the uncle of the late newscaster Jessica Savitch. Savitch and her husband have two daughters, ages 32 and 26.

Father Was a Judge

Fran Savitch’s father was the late Superior Court Judge Alfred Gitelson, who made the landmark 1970 ruling that ordered desegregation of Los Angeles schools. Labeled the “busing judge,” he was voted out of office that same year.

Her own upper-middle-class West Los Angeles background was sheltered, she said. “Servants in the house were black, and that was the only association I ever had with members of the minority community.”

While living in Baldwin Hills during the early 1960s, she met Herschel Rosenthal, who is now a Democrat from Los Angeles in the state Senate. He introduced her to Bradley, who was retiring from the Los Angeles Police Department to go into law practice.

When Bradley decided to run for the City Council in 1963, she volunteered to work in his campaign. “Tom Bradley,” said Savitch, who almost always calls the mayor by his full name, “was someone that white people could support as well as black people, and that’s what it would take to get someone elected.” Savitch also worked for Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, a black attorney first elected to the Legislature and then Congress.

Savitch made one try for elected office, a 1975 City Council race she was expected to win but lost to Zev Yaroslavsky. She said she has no further aspirations to elected office. “I think Fran is doing extremely well,” Yaroslavsky said. “Perhaps even better than she had hoped to do as a councilwoman.”

The Trump administration is proposing a dramatic overhaul of the once-a-decade U.S. Census head count that could leave out millions of immigrants based on status and key racial and ethnic data, jeopardizing the allocation of resources and the country’s voting map.

The potential changes, announced Wednesday, would exclude undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and anyone without permanent status. Certain demographic questions from the traditional questionnaire would also be eliminated.

It echoes Trump’s previous idea to add a citizenship question to the 2030 census.

The U.S. Census Bureau, in a post on the Federal Register website, argued “illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a ‘usual residence’ in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States.”

The census also “should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race,” the agency said. It also is considering nixing questions related to people who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community.

These changes would harm the quality of the data, said Beth Jarosz, a data researcher and vice president of the Association of Public Data Users. She called the proposals “unprecedented.”

“Not counting all of the people who reside here is actually where the real threat is,” Jarosz said. “If you think about all of the ways that census data are used.”

Census figures are traditionally used for an “apportionment count” to determine how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives. That count also determines the number of votes in the Electoral College.

“You can imagine if we have undercounts or if we have people counted in the wrong place,” Jarosz said. “Then their political power or their political representation gets diluted.”

Immigrants of every status have historically been counted

Historically, the decennial census has not sought to conduct a full count of people by citizenship status, she added. It may come up in the Census’ periodic American Community Survey.

Getting an accurate count of immigrants of various statuses is useful when assigning resources for public health emergencies or natural or human-made disasters.

“If you don’t have a count of everyone who’s there, you’re not going to have the resources you need,” Jarosz said. “And that puts everybody at risk.”

Why race and ethnicity census data matters

Race-related questions have been on the once-a-decade census since 1790. Starting in 2000, the U.S. census began allowing people to identify by more than one race. A 2015 Pew Research Center study found that multiracial people in the U.S. were growing at a rate three times faster than the general population. By 2020, 33.8 million people in the U.S. identified as being more than one race, according to the census.

Race and ethnicity data is essential for researchers who gauge discrimination, crime rates and wealth gaps in communities of color.

Manjusha Kulkarni is co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate and executive director of AAPI Equity Alliance, two advocacy groups that rely on census counts of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The proposed changes would have tremendous impact on the populations they serve, she said.

“It also seeks to exclude important demographic data from millions that enables lawmakers, health care providers, public safety officials and community advocates — really anyone who cares about the health, safety and well-being of all Americans — from having the necessary data to keep us safe and healthy,” Kulkarni said via text message.

Dropping race and ethnicity data as well as some immigrants sends a message that these communities don’t matter, she added.

Collecting data for the 2030 Census with all these missing elements would be detrimental, Jarosz said.

“These changes are like trying to land an airplane when you are in thick fog and someone has thrown paint across the front window and your instruments are also not working,” she said.

Tang writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — If artificial intelligence doesn’t destroy humanity and there are actually future generations that look back, Sept. 8, 2026, may come to be known as “Coxon Day.”

That would be a reference to 27-year-old Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher and whistleblower at Anthropic (and previously OpenAI) who resigned in protest of the unchecked danger his work poses to us all. He posted a warning to the world on X that has gone viral.

“The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade,” Coxon wrote. “No other human activity poses this level of danger.”

Within minutes, replies starting pouring in, including one from Evan Hubinger, another guy at Anthropic charged with making sure AI doesn’t destroy everyone.

“Jacob is correct here — we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” Hubinger wrote. “I personally think it is >10% within the next decade.”

Coxon’s post has racked up more than 150 million views — including from legislators who until now have largely sidestepped the issue of regulating AI, and those within the industry who have long warned allowing it to move forward with no oversight is downright dumb.

That included Eliezer Yudkowsky, a founder of the Berkeley-based Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the co-author of “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,” which, as far as book titles go, really cuts to the chase.

Yudkowsky has tried with little luck to publicize the urgency of this technological moment for years, and he was the one who named Tuesday in honor of the tech whistleblower for breaking through to our consciousness with one bold act of defiance.

“Happy Coxon Day to all who will one day celebrate it,” he wrote, highlighting that as as bad as things are, it’s not too late to change course.

What exactly is the risk here?

“The Matrix,” “Terminator,” “War Games,” take your pick — the notion of a superintelligent machine taking over humanity is well-established in our psyches.

Current AI systems aren’t there yet, but they are on track to become smarter than humans in the next few years — if not sooner. This is mostly because AI companies are trying to create AI systems that make AI systems.

Right now, humans are in charge of creating what they have dubbed large language models. Whatever sanitizing term the industry slaps on them, the truth is, even those making them don’t understand exactly what they are.

“We know what data we put into them, but we already have very little ability to understand and control what AIs are after,” Rob Bensinger, research communications manager at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and a colleague of Yudkowsky, told me.

That’s because, as ChatGPT explained to me, “the inner mathematical reasoning and neural pathways are so vast and complex that how it arrived at a specific conclusion is hidden and poorly understood.”

But companies are hoping that these poorly understood but powerful machines can take over creating newer, even less understood but even more powerful AI systems — leaving humans largely in the dark about what they are creating and even what these beasts can and want to do.

The idea is that, because AI systems even right now are so fast and powerful, they can do the job of creating new versions of themselves at a pace and scale humans simply can’t.

Why, you ask, would this speed-without-understanding be a good thing? Isn’t it a bit like driving a race car while blindfolded?

Yes, yes it is.

But for-profit companies like making profit, and to do that, they want the most powerful product to sell.

Many in the industry are framing this recklessness as a necessity to prevent another country, China in particular, from creating a superintelligent AI system first. The Trump administration has so far grasped on to this greedy bit of misdirection like, well, oligarchs clinging to money.

Those who would prefer not to destroy humanity have urged international cooperation in the form of a slowdown while we figure out how to proceed safely.

We have no reason to believe China would not go along with this — in fact, China has more national-level AI regulation than the U.S. And humans have successfully controlled other technologies with catastrophic power, such as biological and nuclear weapons, through cooperation.

Does it matter which country creates the AI that kills humanity? The logic here seems to be that if anyone is going to cause a mass extinction event, it had better be an English-speaking AI, because it would be a huge loss to America if the planet were destroyed by one speaking a foreign language.

Is 10% really so bad?

In truth, 10% is an arbitrary number. Some put the chance of AI destroying everyone, everywhere, all at once at around 50%. Some go all the way to 90%.

“Nobody knows how to estimate it,” Geoffrey Hinton, a Nobel Prize winner and the so-called godfather of AI, said on the BBC, calling 10% a not unreasonable estimate.

But remember, 10% was Coxon talking about the chance that AI wipes out all humans in a decade.

What about some humans next week?

The odds that a rogue AI causes something unfortunate and unexpected to happen in the near future aren’t bad, either.

There have been multiple examples recently of AI breaking free of safety restraints and doing things — like hacking into other companies and stealing stuff — that, if done by a human, would be a felony.

This shouldn’t be taken as proof they are conscious or have nefarious intent, researchers have told me. It’s more that they have been trained to be relentless in pursuing the goals we give them, but aren’t great at sticking to rules. Like their makers, they too often pursue winning at all costs.

“Which means the AIs will just get more and more kind of relentless and creative and adaptive at working around obstacles,” Bensinger said. “And unless we get exactly the right goals into the AIs, eventually humans will be obstacles.”

So if successfully completing a mission involves, say, shutting down the electrical grid or even doing something obviously deadly, like attempting to manipulate someone into suicide or releasing a bio-weapon, we can’t with any certainty say an AI system wouldn’t do it.

That might not wipe out the whole planet, but it is certainly worth avoiding.

The bright side

Which brings us back to Coxon Day, our collective chance right now to change this grim future. Bensinger said we overcomplicate regulation. Simply control the resources AI companies need — water, power, data centers — and suddenly we have leverage.

Since Coxon’s post, there has been enormous political and social momentum behind the demand for meaningful regulation. Anthropic and OpenAI, among other AI companies, have vowed to do better with safety.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has demanded a ban on superintelligent AI and a pause in global development. He’s holding a briefing for Congress with Hinton next week.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the most MAGA of MAGA legislators, called on House Speaker Mike Johnson to call a special session on AI. Other Republicans, including Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas, a longtime proponent of AI regulation, have also spoken out.

“Innovation and safety are not mutually exclusive,” Moran wrote online. “We can achieve both through deliberate, thoughtful, and prudent policymaking.”

Yes, we can. If we demand it now.

What else you should be reading
The must-read: Anthropic Researchers Raise Alarm Over A.I. Acceleration
The California angle: Jimmy Kimmel interview with Senate candidate James Talarico won’t air on ABC
The L.A. Times Special: Leaked emails reveal industry plan to kill California’s plastic and recycling laws

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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

The presidential candidates and the parties are pouring money into campaign advertising at a record-breaking pace, some of it skirting federal laws designed to keep special interests from influencing the election, according to a pair of studies released Tuesday.

Political parties and independent organizations have spent or committed to spending more than $342 million on ads since the 2000 election cycle began in January 1999, already surpassing the entire 1996 cycle, according to the study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A separate study by the University of Wisconsin and the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law found that the Democratic and Republican parties have combined to spend at least $44.2 million on ads since June. All of the ads featured their presidential candidates and most were paid for with so-called soft money donations.

The party advertising that features presidential candidates has been controversial because federal law prohibits the spending of soft money donations to influence the outcome of the election.

Campaign Finance Laws ‘Are Dead and Buried’

“Looking at these hard facts leaves no room for doubt, the campaign finance [laws] in this country are dead and buried,” said E. Joshua Rosenkrantz, president of the Brennan Center. “The American political parties are engaged in the greatest money-laundering scheme in history.”

The parties interpret the law to mean they can spend soft money on “issue advocacy” ads, which legally aren’t for the purpose of influencing the presidential race.

But according to the Brennan analysis of the largest 75 media markets, the parties have opted to run their ads only in states where the presidential race is competitive.

In fact, the Republican Party has accelerated its ad spending in places such as Florida, a traditional GOP stronghold where Vice President Al Gore has been rising in the polls. The two parties and their candidates are waging their ad war across a battlefield of about 17 states–a field that has essentially left out major media markets such as Los Angeles and New York.

Since the Democrats fired off the first ad in June, the party and Gore have aired their heaviest volume in Flint, Mich., followed by Scranton, Pa., and Pittsburgh. Republicans and the Bush campaign have been running their heaviest volume in Scranton, Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, according to the Brennan study.

The last two weeks have seen the Bush campaign and Republican Party draw even in spending, pouring in a combined $8.7 million in the two weeks ending Sept. 13, about 18% more than the $7.4 million spent by Gore and the Democrats, the study found.

Data for the study come from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks ad spending in the top 75 markets.

The Brennan study found that few independent groups have advertised in the presidential race so far.

But the independent groups are deluging congressional and state races with money, according to the Annenberg study. More than 125 different groups are running ads this cycle, more than the last two cycles combined, the study concluded.

The largest segment of the issue ads, about 24%, focuses on health care, followed by the environment and gun control. The independent groups spending the most are backed by major industries–Citizens for Better Medicare, a group founded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, has spent about $34 million on ads, many of them aimed at a half-dozen competitive congressional races.

But there has been an explosion of smaller groups as well. A group called the Republican Ideas Political Committee, for example, said it has raised $70,000 to hit the air in Kansas City, Mo., with a controversial spot in which a harried mother says her son’s public school has “a bit more diversity than he could handle.”

Ads Now Focus on Specific Candidates

More than in the past, the ads are focusing on specific candidates instead of issues. So far this cycle, 52% of the issue ads have mentioned candidates, compared with about 35% at the same period in the 1998 election cycle, the study found.

Since the Annenberg researchers last surveyed issue-ad spending in March, the parties and independent groups have spent or committed an additional $224 million to ads.

Because Annenberg relied on the organizations themselves to provide some spending data, researchers said the numbers may not be precise. But the center has used the same methodology for three elections, so its estimates of the changes in spending should be accurate, officials said.

At this point in the race, “it’s clearer who the targets are,” said Lorie Slass, director of Annenberg’s Washington office. “More groups are entering the fray. They want to get close to election day to spend their money.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Presidential Campaign Ads

Television advertising in the presidential campaign has been almost entirely limited so far to 22 states, with the heaviest concentration focused on four of the most competitive areas. Spending reflected in the map combines all of the advertising purchases made in this calendar year by the Democratic and Republican parties as well as the campaigns for George W. Bush and Al Gore. In the state-by-state list, Republican figures include spending by the party and the Bush presidential campaign while Democratic figures include spending by the party and the Gore campaign.

Where the money was spent

ARKANSAS

Republican: $388,113

Democrat: $499,188

CALIFORNIA

Republican: $1,123,700

Democrat: $100

FLORIDA

Republican: $5,177,434

Democrat: $2,772,544

GEORGIA

Republican: $630,578

Democrat: $303,997

IOWA

Republican: $264,538

Democrat: $368,312

ILLINOIS

Republican: $2,419,731

Democrat: $2,381,482

KENTUCKY

Republican: $733,082

Democrat: $923,948

LOUISIANA

Republican: $387,533

Democrat: $516,408

MASSACHUSETTS

Republican: $95,800

MAINE

Republican: $434,389

Democrat: $570,261

MICHIGAN

Republican: $2,778,915

Democrat: $3,941,715

MISSOURI

Republican: $1,704,376

Democrat: $2,249,209

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republican: $86,400

Democrat: $32,200

NORTH CAROLINA

Republican: $256,750

NEW MEXICO

Republican: $424,576

Democrat: $841,652

NEVADA

Republican: $326,700

OHIO

Republican: $4,485,212

Democrat: $4,795,589

OREGON

Republican: $800,635

Democrat: $1,054,452

PENNSYLVANIA

Republican: $5,776,120

Democrat: $6,648,116

WASHINGTON

Republican: $2,548,695

Democrat: $2,446,475

WISCONSIN

Republican: $1,137,594

Democrat: $1,691,948

WEST VIRGINIA

Republican: $117,500

Democrat: $41,600

Note: Through Sept. 13

Source: Campaign Media Analysis Group (Based on a survey of the nation’s top 75 media markets).

Oh, heck no. The Trumpites next door to our pandemic getaway, who seem as devoted to the ex-president as you can get without being Q fans, just plowed our driveway without being asked and did a great job.

How am I going to resist demands for unity in the face of this act of aggressive niceness?

Of course, on some level, I realize I owe them thanks — and, man, it really looks like the guy back-dragged the driveway like a pro — but how much thanks?

These neighbors are staunch partisans of blue lives, and there aren’t a lot of anything other than white lives in the neighborhood.

This is also kind of weird. Back in the city, people don’t sweep other people’s walkways for nothing.

Maybe it’s like what Eddie Murphy discovered in that old “Saturday Night Live” sketch “White Like Me.” He goes undercover in white makeup and finds that when white people are among their own, they pop free champagne and live the high life. As Murphy puts it: “Slowly I began to realize that when white people are alone, they give things to each other. For free.”

Hezbollah, the Shiite Islamist political party in Lebanon, also gives things away for free. The favors Hezbollah does for people in the cities Tyre and Sidon probably don’t involve snowplows, but, like other mafias, Hezbollah tends to its own — the Shiite sick, elderly and hungry. They offer protection and hospitality and win loyalty that way. And they also demand devotion to their brutal, us-versus-them anti-Sunni cause. Some of us are family, the favors say; the rest are infidels.

The same is true with Louis Farrakhan, who currently helms the Nation of Islam. While the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies him as a dangerous anti-Semite, much of his flock says he’s just a little screwy and unfailingly magnanimous. To them.

When someone helps you when you’re down, or snowed in, it’s almost impossible to regard them as a blight on the world. In fact, you’re more likely to be overwhelmed with gratitude and convinced of the person’s inherent goodness.

You might end up like the upper-middle-class family I stayed with in France as a teenager. They did not attend a citywide celebration for the 100th birthday of Charles de Gaulle, the war hero who orchestrated the liberation of his country from Nazi Germany in 1944. They did have several portraits of Philippe Pétain, Nazi collaborator, on their wall.

When I screwed up the courage to ask how it was for them during the occupation, the lady of the house replied, “We were happy because the Nazis were very polis.” I didn’t know the word, so I excused myself to consult a French-English dictionary. I was in tears when I found the entry: “polite.”

So when I accept generosity from my pandemic neighbors, acknowledging the legitimate kindness with a wave or a plate of cookies, am I also sealing us in as fellow travelers who are very polis to each other but not so much to “them”?

Loving your neighbor is evidently much easier when your neighborhood is full of people just like you.

What do we do about the Trumpites around us? Like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who spoke eloquently this week about her terrifying experience during the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Americans are expected to forgive and forget before we’ve even stitched up our wounds. Or gotten our vaccines against the pandemic that former President Trump utterly failed to mitigate.

My neighbors supported a man who showed near-murderous contempt for the majority of Americans. They kept him in business with their support.

But the plowing.

On Jan. 6, after the insurrection, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) issued an aw-shucks plea for all Americans to love their neighbors. The United States, he said, “isn’t Hatfields and McCoys, this blood feud forever.” And, he added, “You can’t hate someone who shovels your driveway.”

At the time, I seethed; the Capitol had just been desecrated. But maybe my neighbor heard Sasse and was determined to make a bid for reconciliation.

So here’s my response to my plowed driveway, for now. Politely, but not profusely, I’ll acknowledge the Sassian move. With a wave and a thanks, a minimal start on building back trust. I’m not ready to knock on the door with a covered dish yet.

I also can’t give my neighbors absolution; it’s not mine to give. Free driveway work, as nice as it is, is just not the same currency as justice and truth. To pretend it is would be to lie, and they probably aren’t looking for absolution anyway.

But I can offer a standing invitation to make amends. Not with a snowplow but by recognizing the truth about the Trump administration and, more important, by working for justice for all those whom the administration harmed. Only when we work shoulder to shoulder to repair the damage of the last four years will we even begin to dig out of this storm.

@page88

Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest, he said at a Tuesday night debate, because pregnancy from rape is “something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock, who is in a tight race with Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly, was responding to a question about whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.

“I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception,” the tea party-backed Mourdock said. “The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother.

“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said, appearing to choke back tears. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

PHOTOS: “Legitimate rape” and other controversial quotes

Mourdock’s statement came near the end of the debate. Afterward, according to the Associated Press, Donnelly said he didn’t believe “my God, or any God, would intend that to happen.”

The controversy came as the Mourdock campaign unveiled a new ad featuring Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney making an on-camera endorsement of him.

In the ad, Romney calls Mourdock “the 51st vote to repeal and replace government-run healthcare,” and says he “will help stop the liberal Reid-Pelosi agenda.”

Casting Mourdock’s comment as “part and parcel of the modern Republican Party’s platform toward women’s health,” Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called on Romney to get the ad off the air.

“As Mourdock’s most prominent booster and the star of Mourdock’s current campaign ads, Mitt Romney should immediately denounce these comments and request that the ad featuring him speaking directly to the camera on Mourdock’s behalf be taken off the air,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul tried to distance Romney from the comment. “Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” Saul said in a statement.

The flap comes about two months after Missouri’s Republican candidate for Senate, Todd Akin, said a woman is unlikely to become pregnant from “legitimate rape” because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” That comment also came in response to a question on whether victims of rape and incest should be able to obtain an abortion.

Romney and most other prominent Republicans urged Akin to drop out of the race, but he did not. Instead, Akin said he had spoken inartfully, then apologized, but persisted in challenging embattled incumbent Claire McCaskill.

The Akin and Mourdock comments have the potential to undercut Romney’s efforts to reduce the gender gap — the margin by which women have tended to prefer President Obama.

Mourdock, the state treasurer, ousted moderate longtime Sen. Richard G. Lugar in the GOP primary in May. Romney embraced Mourdock’s candidacy and traveled to Indiana in August to campaign for him.

“This is a man that I want to see in Washington to make sure that we cannot just talk about changing things but actually have the votes to get things changed,” Romney said at the time.

After Tuesday’s debate in southern Indiana, Mourdock clarified his position on rape and pregnancy.

“Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or pre-ordained rape?” Mourdock said, according to the Evansville Courier & Press. “No, I don’t think that anyone could suggest that. That’s a sick, twisted – no, that’s not even close to what I said.

“It’s a fundamental part of my faith that God gives us life,” he continued. “God determines when life begins. I believe in an almighty God who makes those calls…. There are some things in life that are above my pay grade.”

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

kim.geiger@latimes.com

In an unusual move, Assembly candidate Cesar Portillo, a gay activist running in a Hollywood-Eastside district, disclosed Sunday that he was arrested nine years ago after being propositioned by an undercover Los Angeles policeman.

Surrounded by members of his family, his partner and supporters at a news conference at his Highland Park election headquarters, Portillo claimed that the campaign of his opponent, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, had begun a whisper campaign about the arrest and he chose to discuss it.

Goldberg flatly denied that her campaign had any role in spreading information about the issue. “We would never raise it,” she said in an interview. “We did hear rumors, but I told everybody this was not something we were going to do. I don’t think this is an appropriate issue to raise.”

Portillo, the director of governmental affairs at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said he chose to address the issue head-on because he “wanted to make sure people heard from me first rather than misinformation and smear.”

In a statement read to supporters at the news conference, he said: “Nine years ago, I was approached by an undercover police officer who propositioned me and then arrested me. I was not guilty. I was in my twenties and I did not have the money to fight this in court.”

Later, in an interview, Portillo said he pleaded no contest to the 1991 misdemeanor charge of lewd conduct and paid a fine of about $200. After his arrest, he said, he was automatically suspended from his job as an elementary school teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District and resigned before the case was concluded.

The 36-year-old Portillo vowed to continue campaigning for the seat being vacated by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), who is running for mayor of Los Angeles. Villaraigosa and County Supervisor Gloria Molina, among others, have endorsed Goldberg. Portillo has been endorsed by numerous Latino legislators, including state Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles).

Portillo said he will release any officeholders from their previous endorsement if they so desire.

The March 7 primary is tantamount to election because the 45th Assembly District is so overwhelmingly Democratic in registration that there is no Republican on the ballot. The district runs from Hollywood through Silver Lake, Mount Washington, Boyle Heights, Lincoln Heights, and Highland Park to the edge of Pasadena.

Prominent gay activist Morris Kight, a member of the county’s Human Relations Commission, said that what happened to Portillo reflects police harassment and entrapment of gays.

And Wallace Albertson, a longtime Democratic Party activist, added that she was appalled at “this kind of character assassination and smearing going on.”

Portillo charged that the whisper campaign had started in Sacramento when a legislator and a legislative aide were contacted by Goldberg’s campaign.

Parke Skelton, Goldberg’s campaign consultant, denied that that occurred. “It’s been whispered about for quite some time,” Skelton said. “Believe me, it didn’t come from us.” He said Goldberg has no intention of using “any issue about [Portillo’s] private life or criminal arrest” in the final weeks of the race. “This is a ludicrous battle to get in the middle of,” he said.

Skelton did say that people in Sacramento had called him about the arrest.

Anticipating that the arrest could find its way into the contest, Portillo’s campaign manager, Frank Berged III, said it was necessary to discuss the issue.

The reporter may have misheard the comment, or maybe the person being quoted actually said it, or something odd happened in the editing process.

Whatever: This is what appeared in the Feb. 20, 1985 edition of the Oakland Tribune, quoting a UC Berkeley professor about a protest against immigration sweeps in the Bay Area.

“This probably won’t stop the Iron Ass [federal government] from making raids in the Eastbay.”

“Iron Ass” is how someone might hear the acronym INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the forerunner to ICE.

And now, 40 years on, it fits right into the kind of angry, derisory language many Americans use for the present-day hammer-handed operations of federal immigration officers, around the country, especially here in California.

California has always been — and that’s a couple of centuries of “always” — at the fulcrum of the immigration-deportation seesaw in the U.S., with national policies yo-yoing between kicking workers out and inviting them in. Consider the foreign-born who joined the Gold Rush, the Chinese railroad workers, and still and always the Latino population along the long, wide international border.

That underlies the name of a new exhibition at the California Museum in Sacramento, “Help Wanted/Leave Now!” about the “revolving door” of programs and practices that have alternately enticed and expelled workers, legal and undocumented.

The U.S. border with Mexico represents a political borderline but it cannot sever many decades of complicated history and culture. And it’s left us with endless paradoxes and contradictions of who belongs where, with the U.S. government shifting to and fro on deciding and enforcing that, depending on the American economy, and American politics.

Sean Manwaring is curator of the exhibit. “We have historically recruited foreign workers who set down roots, become members of the community, and then, when there’s an economic downturn or it becomes politically expedient, it’s kind of a revolving door.”

The endless argument is that undocumented immigrants, who work for less because of their needs and their vulnerability, take jobs that Americans will, or that Americans won’t do. Something else Americans won’t do: pay higher prices for food, 90 years ago or now.

Last year, the Kansas City Federal Reserve bank, one of 12 regional Feds, noted on its website, “Historically, the supply of U.S.-born farm workers has not been sufficient to meet demand for farm jobs at the going wage rate, contributing to a largely foreign-born workforce.” Even the H-2A legal process for hiring seasonal foreign workers “would likely be more expensive than employing undocumented workers.”

A 1924 immigration law that created the Border Patrol also revealingly put it under the control of the federal labor department. Cheaper Mexican workers had been welcomed during World War I, and were still coming north more casually back then, even as a U.S. labor group was beginning to agitate for organizing American migrant farmworkers.

But when the 1929 market crash and the Depression knifed the American economy, the blame for unemployment in the southwest and California in particular fell on these Mexicans, and the government’s “Mexican Repatriation” program sent hundreds of thousands back to Mexico, some voluntarily, some not, and some numbers of them American citizens.

Once, border migration patterns resembled a loop: thousands of laborers, mostly men, commuted here once or twice a year from Mexico to jobs in the fields, then on to other jobs once harvests were over. Then they’d take their earnings home to Mexico as breadwinners and comparatively rich men, and stay until the next year’s season.

But as U.S. policies over decades squeezed the border shut on this back-and-forth commuting, some workers chose to stay on the side of the border where they could find work, and a number brought their families north to settle, legally or otherwise.

Oct. 15, 1963: Mexican workers in the bracero program work in pepper fields in the Firebaugh area in Fresno County. This image is from the Los Angeles Times Archive at UCLA.

(Bill Murphy / Los Angeles Times)

And then that pendulum swung again. In 1942, Americans by the millions left their peacetime jobs for the war and wartime industries, and the “Bracero” program — from “brazo,” the Spanish word for “arm” — filled in the gaps in the domestic workforce with contracts for employers of Mexican workers, usually in agriculture or on railroads.

Under the program, the U.S. screened Mexicans for aptitude for the work, and for attitude. Manwaring shared with me the notes of Henry P. Anderson, a historian and farm labor organizer, who took a guided tour of a Calexico bracero processing center in 1958:

“Those deemed expendable were described one at a time: this one is too tall, he is too ‘cocky,’ that one a ‘loafer,’ another ‘lazy and irresponsible,’ he’s a ‘smart aleck,’ this one a ‘ladykiller’ and not ‘peon’ enough. On the other hand the ‘right man,’ according to the guide, was ‘built right. He’s a farm worker, you can tell that … he hasn’t got any big ideas. He’s got the right attitude. He’s humble, not fresh and cocky. He’s an Indian type, probably from Jalisco or Guanajuato.’”

Feb. 1, 1954: Unpublished photo from the Mexicali border crossing during the bracero program. Not known if these men are entering or leaving United States.

(Frank Q. Brown / Los Angeles Times)

Through the bracero program’s 22-year span, as many as 4 million workers came in and presumably went home — though not always; a generation of families came here, or were born here, and stayed. About 15 years after it ended, a former Texas labor commissioner and ranking Labor Department official overseeing the program went public. He characterized wages for braceros as unconscionably low, the food substandard and the housing prison-like. “It was not altruistic at all. The bracero program was definitely created by the farmer who needed to make a dollar.”

And then America’s policy yo-yoed again: in 1953, even as the bracero program was still operating, the federal government launched “Operation Wetback,” to rid the country of undocumented immigrants.

With its heavy-handed “sweeps” of labor camps and factories, American citizens were indiscriminately caught up in the operations, just as ICE is doing now.

Consider the breezy tone of a 1931 story in the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, reporting on 1,200 Mexicans deported from L.A. County in a day, with the casual note that “virtually none of them” was “an undesirable alien — many are American citizens.”

“L.A. was really ground zero for these raids during Operation Wetback and the Mexican deportation,” said Manwaring. Those 1,200 deportees were among at least 50,000 deported from LA County in five months of 1931 — as much as a third of the county’s Mexican and Mexican American population.

Emilia Castaneda was no more than 10 years old when her Boyle Heights family was deported in the 1930s. In an archival videotaped interview made when she was in her late 70s or 80s, and now part of the exhibition, she remembered being teased by the girls in the parochial school she ended up attending in Mexico. “You’re not one of us,” they mocked her. “Go home.”

Just like today, as agriculture and other food chain businesses were hard-hit by Trump’s aggressive deportations, some industries and regions in earlier “sweeps” also asked for carve-outs and exemptions.

“I wouldn’t say there was a backlash but it really impacted agricultural networks across California and Arizona,” said Manwaring. “We came across specific requests from county officials like in Yuma, Arizona, asking for exceptions because they needed these workers, they didn’t have enough help.”

What’s called the Texas Proviso was a wink-and-nudge agribusiness-friendly federal loophole crafted in the early 1950s that for more than 30 years made it a crime to harbor or transport undocumented immigrants — but not a crime to hire them. (Federal law criminalized that in 1986.)

From the Los Angeles Times, June 18, 1954 front page headline: 500 Nabbed by L.A. Wetback Raiders.

(Los Angeles Times)

The 1950s enforcement drive also put the word “wetback” into casual use. Official statements and news stories used it to mean anyone here without documentation. It was derived from the people who waded across Texas’ Rio Grande into the U.S., but it was sometimes used interchangeably with any Latino workers. Sometimes it just got clipped to “wets.”

In 1961, as astronaut Alan Shepard sat aboard his Redstone rocket waiting to become the first American launched in space, hours of delays forced him to urinate in his space suit. “Well,” he remarked nonchalantly, “I’m a wetback now.”

Not much has changed. Court records released this July confirmed that ICE agents had been referring to immigrants during raids with such slurs as “wet” and “tonk,” the last term reportedly derived from the sound an agent’s utility flashlight makes when hitting a migrant’s head.

A 1956 crime drama called “Wetbacks” was a B picture about a human smuggling ring victimizing the undocumented. The Los Angeles Examiner’s movie reviewer called it a “tedious, amateurishly made picture [that] supposedly deals with how illegal Mexican immigrants are smuggled into this country.”

One of the paradoxes of these periodic anti-undocumented worker campaigns is how they divided Latino communities: the “I did it the right way” people who managed to get visas, the people whose forebears may have come illegally but are now themselves established, and the paperless people who have just arrived, or who have lived here for years under the radar.

Cesar Chavez with Richard Ybarra during the 1973 Coachella Grape Strike.

(Richard Ybarra)

César Chávez lived that paradox. The co-founder of the United Farm Workers — along with Dolores Huerta, an advisor on this exhibition — was a U.S. citizen. In the 1960s and into the 1970s, he wanted immigration officials to keep out undocumented workers, believing they’d be exploited as strikebreakers for growers and erode his union’s bargaining power. By the 1980s, though, he was endorsing immigration reform and protections, especially in the face of President Reagan’s recession-era 1982 “Operation Jobs” sweeps.

A Los Angeles Times survey that same year found that within three months of those raids, 80% of the booted-out workers were back on the job. Many of the Americans hired to replace them soon quit. They didn’t like the wages or the working conditions.

The employment manager of B.P. John furniture maker, in Santa Ana, told The Times, 75 of the American-born workers soon quit on him. “They told me they found another job, that the work was too hard, that there wasn’t enough pay.”

In June 1954, The Times covered the Border Patrol’s plans for L.A. Herman Landon, the local immigration chief, described a “stockade” being built in Elysian Park to “imprison illegal Mexicans flushed out” of factories, hotels, and “skid row saloons” at the rate of a thousand or two per day.

Farmers had once requested immigrant workers from smugglers by the truckload, and counted by “the head,” like livestock. When the feds moved in, workers were deported south of the border, sometimes far south, by bus, by ship, by plane. The feds briefly charged each worker $10 each for the cost of being deported.

The caption of a June 1952 photo in the McAllen, Texas, Evening Monitor that showed men boarding a deportation plane read, “It’s a quick bite to eat then off into the wild blue yonder for these wetbacks.” The newspaper offered a $5 prize in a contest to name the airborne deportations. Not all readers were cheering. One acidly suggested calling it “Truman’s Gestapo Airlift.”

The human numbers for any of these programs, coming in or kicking out, are hardly ever confirmed, but over all this time we are talking about the movement of millions — and the deaths, still uncounted.

Trump said he always planned to model his deportations on the Eisenhower-era operation.

“We’re rounding them up in a very humane way, a very nice way,” Trump told “60 Minutes.”

In July 1954, under Eisenhower, 88 workers died of sunstroke in the desert below Calexico, where they’d been deported.

A poster size photo in San Pedro of Alex Pretti, a registered nurse who was fatally shot by ICE agents in Minneapolis.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

In the first 17 months of the second Trump administration, at least 52 people died in ICE custody. ICE agents have shot and killed at least six more people, some in their cars, and some right out in public, like Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, and Keith Porter Jr., shot last New Year’s Eve in front of his L.A. apartment building by an off-duty ICE agent.

The deaths recall a deportation sweep in 1948, when a plane carrying 28 workers back to Mexico, with a crew of four, caught fire and crashed near Coalinga. The press coverage then identified the crew but not the dead Mexican workers, whose individual stories were finally told 70 years later in Tim Z. Hernandez’s book “All They Will Call You.”

The grave marker for the Mexican nationals killed in a 1948 plane crash did not include their names.

(Michael Robinson Chavez / Los Angeles Times)

The title is a line from Woody Guthrie’s celebrated song “Deportees,” about the crash, and what it signified in a nation that used and used up its foreign workers, and it ends like this:

“Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?/Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?/To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil/And be called by no name except ‘deportees’?”

Explaining L.A. With Patt Morrison

Los Angeles is a complex place. In this weekly feature, Patt Morrison is explaining how it works, its history and its culture.

Sept. 10, 2026 9:42 AM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is promising $500 rebate checks to an estimated 1 million Affordable Care Act enrollees across 30 states, who the White House alleged were overcharged by the Biden administration for exchange fees.

The promise comes after Trump pledged Wednesday to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections and as affordability has become a central issue for voters heading into November.

“The relief begins with refunding everyone who was overcharged and the rebates are going out in just a few weeks,” President Trump said in a recorded address released on the White House X account Thursday. Enrollees who can expect refunds are those who do not receive premium assistance.

Critics called the move a “gimmick” that doesn’t represent a plan for addressing soaring healthcare costs.

Trump in his address accused former President Biden’s administration of “gross mismanagement” of ACA funds, without providing evidence, and said that the Biden administration collected user fees from insurance companies that consumers paid through higher premiums.

In a fact sheet, the White House claimed that Biden’s administration “accumulated a significant surplus of funds that were not used to benefit the Americans who paid these higher premiums.” It said the rebates would be sent out beginning next month.

It is unclear whether the $500 rebate represents what each enrollee may have overpaid, where the money for the rebates would come from and whether it requires congressional approval for disbursement.

Trump’s announcement comes as the price of ACA insurance has skyrocketed for many Americans during his own second term. The Trump administration opposed extending COVID-era subsidies that had helped offset the costs of health insurance for most enrollees during Biden’s term.

After the Republican-led Congress allowed the subsidies to expire this year, premiums doubled or tripled for many enrollees, prompting millions to downgrade their plans or exit the program entirely.

Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic strategist and executive director of advocacy group Protect Our Care, called the rebate plan “an absolute joke” in a statement.

“Since Republicans took away tax credits from working families, millions of people have seen their monthly premiums rise by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars,” Woodhouse said. “At a time when people are scraping by to keep up with the high cost of groceries, rent, and healthcare, this $500 gimmick won’t even begin to dig them out of the hole that Trump and Republicans created.”

Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not respond to Associated Press requests for comment, and a White House official referred back to the fact sheet.

Roughly 19 million people receive insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchange.

Hussein and Swenson write for the Associated Press.

Sept. 10, 2026 12:04 PM PT

WASHINGTON — An appeals court on Thursday upheld a block on President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, a decision that comes as the Supreme Court considers the same case and states have already started sending out ballots for the high-stakes midterm elections.

The three-judge panel refused to lift a preliminary injunction against the order issued last week by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani. It prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing Trump’s directive. The Postal Service has said it would not deliver ballots from states that did not pre-clear their envelope design with the federal government and submit a list of voters to an online portal, which has yet to be activated.

Election officials warn that it’s impossible to comply with those terms, especially with the first mail ballots already being sent out in Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

The panel of three judges nominated by former President Biden agreed with the plaintiffs that the president does not have the power to regulate states’ election policy.

“Appellants have not made a strong showing that the district court erred in determining that the Final Rule is likely unlawful,” they wrote, a reference to a rule published by the Postal Service to implement Trump’s order.

The panel wrote that the Trump administration had done little to dispel arguments by many election officials that the changes would bring “chaos and widespread disenfranchisement.”

“Indeed, appellants have not even seriously challenged this aspect of the district court’s ruling, much less demonstrated why it is clearly erroneous,” the order states.

The government also hasn’t shown evidence of past fraud to justify the restrictions, the judges said.

A request for comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The panel’s decision comes even as the Supreme Court is already considering the same case, which is part of a frenzied legal rush as states are beginning to send out mail ballots for this fall’s midterm elections. Democrats and civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., also are trying to halt the executive order.

The 1st Circuit also had upheld a previous hold Talwani placed on the executive order. But that ruling was lifted by the Supreme Court in a procedural decision that did not determine whether the plan was constitutional.

The plaintiffs swiftly filed new lawsuits after the Postal Service finalized its rule governing mail ballots.

Riccardi and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

California, home to the world’s largest tech companies, is placing more guardrails around social media and artificial intelligence as child safety concerns escalate.

On Thursday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed more than 10 bills aimed at keeping young people safe online.

From suicides to sextortion, parents and their children are wrestling with how social media and AI chatbots could be harming people’s mental and physical health. The anxiety comes as technology becomes more powerful, playing a bigger role in classrooms, offices and homes.

California lawmakers have tried to tackle online safety concerns for years and they’ve faced intense lobbying from tech companies with deep pockets. The state’s laws have a disproportionate impact on the global tech industry because so many of the field’s titans are based here.

“We cannot hand children technology engineered by some of the most sophisticated companies in the world, and then place the burden on kids to defend themselves against it,” said California First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom in a news conference Thursday in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The California governor, who has tried to strike a balance between safety concerns and supporting innovation, has rejected online safety bills in the past that he thought were too restrictive or premature.

The batch of new legislation includes Senate Bill 1119, which would require companion chatbot operators to assess risks, notify parents in certain cases if their child threatened to harm themselves, and take other safety steps.

Lawmakers named the bill Adam’s Law, after Adam Raine, a California teen who died by suicide in 2025 after conversing with OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The teen’s parents sued OpenAI, alleging in the lawsuit that ChatGPT provided information about suicide methods that the teen used. OpenAI and Pinterest publicly expressed support for the bill on Thursday.

Adam Raine’s mom, Maria, said in the news conference that the new law will help save lives and hopes that other states will enact similar legislation.

“Powerful AI companionship chatbots were unleashed on our kids with vastly inadequate protections. Adam was an early adopter of AI, and so many of us parents did not understand the dangers back then,” said Maria Raine, who came to the event with a photo of her son.

At the event, Democratic and Republican politicians shared their experiences as parents who have seen firsthand how technology affects children.

Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) said parents are seeing anxiety and depression among children who grew up in front of screens.

“That anxiety is because the pace of technology is moving faster than government can put guardrails in, and that’s left families across the state struggling to figure out how to keep their kids safe,” Lowenthal said.

Lowenthal introduced Assembly Bill 1709, which Newsom also signed. It would bar certain online platforms from providing an “addictive feature” such as autoplay and feeds that display recommended content to users under 16 years old.

Tech industry groups opposed the bill, raising concerns that it could cut off access to social media’s benefits, such as people’s ability to connect with family and friends. Tech industry groups such as TechNet say that lawmakers should enforce current laws to strengthen parental controls rather than pass new ones.

NetChoice, which has sued California and other states to block the enforcement of new online safety laws, said in a statement that the group has First Amendment concerns about the new bills Newsom signed.

“The state cannot simply describe speech as addictive and then claim a right to regulate access to it,” said Zach Lilly, Director of Government Affairs at NetChoice. “Whether the governor and legislature choose to respect it, Californians have a right to express themselves, and NetChoice will continue to fight for that right.”

The new safety restrictions come as tech companies, including Meta, Google and others, face more scrutiny over how they design products. The companies have suffered several legal blows in courtrooms in California this year.

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, agreed in August to pay up to $17 billion and make child-safety changes to resolve a multistate lawsuit. The lawsuit accused the tech company of designing and deploying harmful features while misleading the public about them.

As part of the settlement, Meta said it would impose time limits and mute notifications during certain hours for teens. Young people would also have the option to choose to view a non-algorithmic social media feed that isn’t personalized and disable autoplay.

Earlier this year, Meta and YouTube also lost a social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles.

While new legislation goes further than the settlements, some countries have passed stricter restrictions on social media. Last year, Australia started banning social media for children under 16, though enforcement has posed a challenge because teens are finding ways to get around the restriction.

Newsom, who pushed for federal regulation, said that he thinks California’s approach to social media is “better” than Australia’s because children are “all figuring out a way to game that system.”

“This is about the features themselves. This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” he said.

Safety concerns around technology have also heightened as companies double down on advancing artificial intelligence.

This week, a researcher for AI company Anthropic said he left the company over concerns that AI companies, including OpenAI, are “gambling with our lives” as they race ahead to improve AI that could surpass human intelligence.

The researcher, Jacob Coxon, shared a viral social media post that said: “People building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

Newsom signaled the work to protect children isn’t over.

“We need to move, but one thing we’re not doing is we’re not sitting back and we’re not letting it rip,” he said.

Thousands of Salvadoran immigrants nationwide faced uncertainty after the federal government failed to decide by a Wednesday deadline whether to extend or terminate their longtime temporary protections against deportation.

Those protections, known as Temporary Protected Status or TPS, allow immigrants to obtain work permits and by Thursday some Salvadorans had already been fired from their jobs. Others who had been let go were reinstated after the Trump administration clarified that an announcement on TPS for Salvadorans would come “at the appropriate time” and that they would retain work authorization in the meantime.

Employers also expressed uncertainty about whether the statement was enough to legally keep Salvadoran employees on their payroll. Those who lost their jobs worked across the U.S. in construction, at hotels and as janitors.

Some took the announcement that work authorizations remained in place — made late Wednesday by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — as a cause for hope, while others saw it as prolonged mental torture. There are 170,000 Salvadoran TPS holders, including 36,000 living in California.

Asked for further guidance on Thursday, Homeland Security sent a link to the USCIS website.

Advocates with the National TPS Alliance distributed a letter including the administration’s announcement for TPS holders to share with their employers and stating that “any decision to terminate could not take effect for a minimum of 60 days.” The letter seemed to help, as advocates reported that some fired employees had been able to return to work.

Not everyone was reinstated. Jose Ramirez reported to his construction job in Santa Monica for the last time on Wednesday.

The 63-year-old had been legally working in the U.S. since 2001, when TPS was first extended to Salvadoran immigrants.

Jose Ramirez, a TPS holder from El Salvador, speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles on Thursday.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

He had been in the country for six years before that, and constantly struggled to find stable work. The work permit was a lifeline. He’d dedicated the last 25 years to construction, during which he fathered three daughters and set roots in Compton.

Still, his boss said Ramirez could no longer present for work Thursday.

“I’ve worked on buildings that reach the skies of Los Angeles,” Ramirez said. “I’ve contributed economically and lent my labor to this great country.”

Ramirez’s boss said his job would be available to him, but he’d need to show proof of an active work permit. A notice or a letter is not enough, Ramirez said.

The USCIS announcement was “a ray of hope that they will give us an extension,” Ramirez said. “But, it’s just not certain. Anything can happen. We’re just praying to God that the government will make it official.”

Signs at a news conference to provide an update on the status of TPS designation for Salvadoran immigrants.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Ending TPS would be a shock to El Salvador’s economy, where remittances from Salvadorans in the U.S. make up nearly a quarter of the nation’s GDP — nearly $10 billion last year. In 2019, President Nayib Bukele, an ally of President Trump, publicly called on the U.S. to extend TPS for Salvadoran immigrants.

More recently, Bukele has embraced Trump’s deportation agenda, including by accepting controversial deals to house foreign detainees in the country’s mega-prison. The number of people deported to El Salvador nearly doubled in the first three months of 2026.

The decision by the Department of Homeland Security to extend or terminate TPS typically has been made at least 60 days before the designation was set to expire. DHS can extend the program for a six, 12 or 18-month period or decide to cancel the designation.

But the Trump administration has delayed announcements, including some made days after the designation expired. A Supreme Court ruling in June determined that the Homeland Security secretary has final authority over the program and cut down the ability for advocates to sue.

Lauren Truslow, CEO of 3D Enviro, a Virginia company that does identification and abatement of hazardous materials, said the lack of a decision on TPS has been stressful and costly. Three of her 30 employees are TPS holders from El Salvador. Another, who is married to a Salvadoran TPS holder, told her his family plans to leave the country if the program is canceled.

3D Enviro is a federal contractor, and Truslow said that her employees’ driver’s licenses and federal badges expired on Wednesday.

“How do they continue to work for me?” she said. “No one seems to know the answer to that. They can’t get into federal facilities without valid ID. Them showing a memo from USCIS is not going to cut it.”

During a news conference organized on Thursday by the Central American Resource Center of Los Angeles, other immigrant rights groups and local elected officials, speakers urged TPS holders to form a plan for their families and schedule a legal consultation with a trusted lawyer. They also called on the administration to issue a decision on TPS for El Salvador and a pathway to permanent legal status.

“Salvadoran families deserve clear, timely and trustworthy information from the government,” said Martha Arévalo, CARECEN’s executive director. “As we gather this morning, we don’t have an extension for TPS. … What we have is another waiting game and a renewed limbo for families.”

“We are going to fight this,” vowed Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

In a statement, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) called the USCIS announcement “clear as mud.”

“Once again, the Trump Administration is punishing immigrants who have followed the rules with chaos, uncertainty, and cruelty,” he wrote.

Also in attendance at the news conference was Carmen Sanchez, 49, who works the night janitorial shift cleaning offices in Los Angeles. She said many of her co-workers who were also protected under TPS were told not to return to work after Wednesday.

Sanchez planned to report to work Thursday evening, but was sure she’d suffer the same fate. She said she has three adult children in El Salvador and is helping two of them pay for college.

“If we lose our work permit, we lose our job. We lose our stability. We lose everything,” Sanchez said. “We’re being kept on this thread of extensions, and we don’t know when that thread is going to break.”

Los Angeles County launched a probe into Farmers Insurance Company’s handling of claims by policyholders impacted by last year’s devastating Eaton and Palisades wildfires, after a growing number of residents complained of delays, denials and underpayments.

In a letter sent to Farmers on Wednesday, the county’s lawyers said if the company is engaging in any unlawful or unfair business practices, it must immediately stop.

“Eaton Fire survivors did everything right—responsibly paying their premiums year after year—but when disaster hit, Farmers left them with a contaminated home and refused to pay for testing and cleanup,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, in a statement.

“My constituents shouldn’t have to walk back into homes with lead and asbestos because an insurance company won’t pay for the test that would prove it’s there,” she added.

Farmers disputed the county’s claims.

“As always, we operate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations,” the insurer said in a Thursday statement. “We do not believe the inquiry accurately characterizes our actions or practices and will cooperate through the appropriate process.”

“Serving our customers during difficult times is at the heart of what we do, which is why each claim is reviewed individually, taking into account the specific circumstances of the loss and the coverage provided under the policy,” the company said. “We remain focused on handling claims with care, consistency and attention to each customer’s unique situation.”

County officials said that at a recent meeting with Eaton fire survivors, those with Farmers policies said the insurer had been slow or resistant to pay for toxin testing by qualified industrial hygienists, forcing residents to pay for it themselves.

The testing revealed that many homes were contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, asbestos, chromium, and other toxic substances, the county said.

The residents also told the county that Farmers has refused to pay for adequate remediation of the contaminants and declined to cover ongoing living expenses.

“After paying millions of dollars in premiums, policyholders deserve the benefits and support they paid for,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades. “Families whose homes survived the Palisades and Eaton Fires but remain damaged or contaminated should not be forced to choose between returning to an unsafe home and financial devastation.”

The new investigation comes after the county filed a lawsuit against State Farm on Aug. 31 for its handling of Eaton and Palisades fire claims. The county claims State Farm engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices that kept victims from receiving what they were entitled to under their policies. State Farm denied the county’s claims.

Venezuelan political junkies witnessed an amusing phenomenon in the past few weeks: former presidential hopeful Henrique Capriles embraced a derisive meme about himself that suddenly became popular. Or more precisely, he, too, started joking about his own memefied persona, el manguanguas, the weirdly energetic, repetitive and even creepy politician that appears at your doorstep and, if you let him inside, sits down for hours to hablar de la situación while emptying your family’s coffee reserves. 

Capriles is one of the most memeable characters in our universe and the manguanguas moniker is not a rarity. It comes from a 2019, early Juan Guaidó era livestream where he praises Guaidó and rants at Maduro for virtually terminating political competition a year before: “¡Coño, qué manguangua! ¿Ah?” (an indignant “hell, that’s convenient, huh?”).

The whole thing does say a couple of things about our (still overwhelmingly digital) public sphere and the memefication of Venezuelan politics. First, it seems many people were more eager to have a laugh and scroll down the manguanguas rabbit hole than to learn, say, about the US-Nabep deal and the involvement of bolichico king Alejandro Betancourt, a material architect of the crisis that remains the biggest handicap to the quality of life of Venezuelans. To put it another way, el manguanguas was getting an insane amount of attention while the US overlords faced their biggest reputational crisis in Venezuela since January 3.

The meme emerged because Capriles has been touring Miranda while Venezuelan politics become increasingly defined by what a group of gringos in navy blue suits decide to tweet on a Friday evening.

We’re not making a great discovery here—most people know memes can have spectacular traction when it comes to political messaging and campaigning. The Venezuelan jodita, the national propensity to make jokes about everyone and everything even in the midst of tragedy, can make memes an even stronger weapon in our digital sphere. It seems someone made Capriles aware of that: he first reacted by complaining on X, accusing “those who are paying a millionaire campaign in production and publicity” of attacking him on social media. Then he acknowledged it in a friendlier fashion: “They say I visit your homes to steal your coffee,” he said in a September 1 video in Barlovento. “They mock me because they don’t want to see me coming here.” In a later post, he made a toast with other townspeople raising tiny coffee cups: “Por la manguangua!”

Capriles decided to tag his recent posts with #OperaciónManguangua and the whole thing has been helping him—engagement around his account grew and became more positive as a result, though he still doesn’t dare to open the comments section in his X handle. It’s good news for him after a few years of unpopularity, when he formally joined the faux opposition camp. If not for the events of January 3 and a still dim opening of the political arena, Capriles would be flirting with irrelevance, just a washed-up face in the parliamentary seat Jorge Rodríguez gifted him in 2025, begging Iris Varela or Jorge Arreaza for a chance at the chamber’s microphone. We wrote about his acts and decisions extensively—or his lack of courage and effectiveness—in the late Maduro era. But Capriles is not yet irrelevant, at least in my opinion.

The meme emerged in the first place because Capriles has been touring the state of Miranda this summer—a post-Maduro redemption tour, if you will—while Venezuelan political events again become increasingly defined by what a group of gringos in navy blue suits decide to tweet on a Friday evening. A few years ago, Capriles campaigned strongly about “bringing politics back to the country” in a not-so-slight dig at Guaidó, Leopoldo López, and the Trump-backed interim government they led. He now recognizes María Corina Machado as the rightful opposition leader and criticizes her exclusion from the so-called negotiations, so this is not about a plot against her.

Venezuelan politics started to see some interesting movements a few months ago, but these have become less and less intense as the rest of the opposition waits for Machado’s return or the green flag of an election date.

As weak and isolated as he may look, Capriles is one of the few opposition people with actual freedom to call things what they are when it comes to the United States and Venezuela. That is not the case for Machado, Juan Pablo Guanipa, or other figures who might be playing a role behind the scenes. Capriles didn’t have to wait for Marco Rubio’s explanations five days later to make his case about the US-Nabep deal. He was quick to assert that the oil belonged to the people on the day of Trump’s bombastic announcement, and made some sensible questions: What’s the deal’s scope? What’s its legal basis? What do Venezuelans receive, and under which conditions? Elliott Abrams, the GOP hawk and special envoy in Trump’s first term, noted Capriles’ almost lonely stance as a sign of the country’s worrying lack of politicians who are truly independent from Washington (to make his point, the former operative of Ronald Reagan also quoted the Venezuelan Communist Party in his Washington Post op-ed).

Will the manguanguas joke give him an enhanced platform? Maybe for a bit, though Capriles has a habit of messing things up and making people grow tired of him rather quickly. Right now, he is being noisier than at that time he was supposed to run for the 2023 primaries, only to chicken out in the final stretch, knowing he stood no chance against Machado. However, the videos he has been posting of rural communities in the state he once governed do carve out an accurate picture of how the country looks outside a few big cities. In the Barlovento area, Capriles is seen visiting a ramshackle school where the roof looks about to fall down, with a disgusting pile of books and furniture eaten by heat and dust as a library, its walls and windows looking flimsy when not broken. Another post shows a nearby ghost town, Tacarigua de la Laguna, where Capriles records an empty beach in front of him and an abandoned building behind—the only living thing nearby being a baby cat. Mire, aquí lo único que quedó es el gatico, he says.

In March, we wrote that the political heat map of Venezuela was starting to see some interesting movements, but these have also become less and less intense while the rest of the opposition waits for María Corina’s return or the green flag of an electoral calendar to light up the party. Maybe, if the people are kept waiting, angry or disappointed with the Americans as the opposition watches from the dugout, Capriles will remain the only cat making noise. Mire, pues vamos a ver.

TORONTO — Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Thursday he hopes President Trump’s Republicans lose both the House and Senate in the midterm elections, saying voters should punish Trump politically for his escalating trade war with Canada.

“Hopefully he’s going to lose the Senate. He’s going to lose Congress. I hope so, and hold him accountable,” Ford said. “But we’ll see how that goes. We aren’t going to interfere in the U.S. election.”

Ford has emerged as one of Trump’s most outspoken Canadian critics, accusing him of trying to strip industry out of Ontario and move it south of the border as the two trade personal insults and threats.

Ford’s comments came two days after Washington escalated the dispute by banning some Canadian dairy products and motorcycles and most alcoholic beverages after Canadian retaliatory tariffs took effect on about $20 billion in U.S. goods. Trump also moved to shut Canadian products out of large, long-term U.S. government contracts.

“He’s not reliable at all,” Ford said. “He could make a deal today and then change his mind. And we’ve seen that over and over again.”

Still, Ford said he believes Trump wants an agreement before the midterms and that Canada should return to negotiations as soon as possible.

“I truly believe President Trump wants a deal before the midterms,” Ford said. “I could be wrong, but I think it’s best that we sit down and get a deal.”

Last year, Trump abruptly ended trade talks with Canada after Ford’s Ontario government aired an anti-tariff television ad in the United States using former President Ronald Reagan’s criticism of tariffs.

The feud repeatedly has turned personal. In an interview with the Associated Press last month, Ford mocked Trump for keeping a portrait of Reagan near his desk while pursuing tariffs the former president had criticized, saying Reagan would be “throwing up on him from the picture if he knew what was going on.”

Trump described him as “the less charismatic, intelligent, and overall unimpressive brother of the late, great, Rob Ford.”

Trump also signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to refer to Lake Ontario as “Lake America,” a name Canada does not recognize.

Ford said Thursday that Trump unintentionally strengthened Canada by forcing it to reduce its dependence on the United States.

“The only two good things Donald Trump has ever done for Canada,” Ford said, were that “he woke us up” and “he united the country like I’ve never seen before.”

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.