POLITICS

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called out the federal government for largely vacating its role as antitrust regulator, saying it’s now up to California and other states to look out for consumers’ interests.

Bonta, the state’s top law enforcement officer, spoke Thursday at a Capitol Forum conference in Beverly Hills on antitrust issues and the future of Hollywood. His appearance came just days after the U.S. Department of Justice settled its case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster a week into a high-stakes trial, leaving state attorneys general to try to continue to fight that battle on their own.

The Justice Department’s about-face revealed a major fracture in antitrust enforcement. State attorneys general — particularly in Democratic-controlled states — say their role is becoming increasingly important to challenge alleged anti-competitive behavior.

President Trump has “abdicated the federal administration’s responsibilities to hold big corporations accountable to the law and protect a competitive marketplace,” Bonta said.

Bonta’s appearance comes as another major Hollywood merger appears to be sailing through its federal review with Trump’s tacit approval: Paramount Skydance’s proposed $110-billion deal for Warner Bros. Discovery.

The merger, announced late last month, has rattled Hollywood unions and some antitrust experts. It would combine legendary film studios, robust television production units and two prominent news organizations, CBS News and CNN, as well as dozens of cable channels.

“Paramount and Warner Bros. haven’t cleared regulatory scrutiny,” Bonta said. “My office has an open investigation into [the deal] and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”

California could bring its own lawsuit to block Paramount’s takeover, or join with other state attorney generals to launch legal proceedings to try thwart the deal or extract concessions — even if the Justice Department ultimately clears David Ellison’s deal.

Bonta outlined various concerns, including a continued contraction of Hollywood’s labor market, the consolidation of streaming services — Paramount+, HBO Max, Pluto and Discovery+ — and potentially higher prices and lower wages.

“There’s no industry as iconically California as the entertainment industry,” Bonta said. “It’s baked into California’s DNA.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta vowed to drill into Paramount Skydance’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

Paramount filed for Justice Department approval in December .

The maneuver started the regulatory review clock. And last month a key deadline for the Justice Department to raise concerns about Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner passed without comment from Washington.

Paramount has said it could finalize its deal by the end of September.

The architect of Paramount’s strategy, Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim, delivered his own keynote address, stressing the Ellison-family’s acquisition of Warner Bros. would not reduce competition and instead would be “a huge win for the creative community.”

“Paramount’s transaction with Warners is an opportunity to expand output, to grow the number of movies, shows and other content we are offering to the consumer,” Delrahim said, adding that will result in “more job opportunities,” including in Southern California, which is reeling from a production flight to other states and countries.

Delrahim conceded that Paramount was driven to buy Warner Bros. — it prevailed after Netflix bowed out — because Paramount is not big enough to compete in an industry dominated by technology giants.

He criticized the proposed Netflix deal, saying he doubted it would have passed regulatory muster due to Netflix’s strength in the streaming market.

Paramount still needs to win the support of Warner shareholders, and also gain regulatory approvals from the Justice Department, state attorney generals and overseas governments.

“This deal is a big win for Los Angeles, for California and for all communities that embrace filmmaking,” Delrahim said.

Tech mogul Larry Ellison has personally guaranteed the $45.7-billion in equity needed for the transaction . The company would have to take on more than $60-billion in debt — raising concerns among Hollywood workers about large-scale cost-cuts and layoffs.

“What is Paramount doing is …paying $110 billion to take out a rival,” said attorney Ethan E. Litwin, a former lawyer for TV networks, who also spoke at the conference. “When you take out a major rival in a highly concentrated industry … you are taking out competitors for projects. “

Bonta declined to say whether he would try to stop the Paramount-Warner merger.

Progressive State Leaders Committee, an affiliate of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, in December hired Rohit Chopra, a former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and former commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, as a senior advisor. He will help coordinate efforts as the group, including Bonta, wages antirust enforcement battles.

“The federal government is just not enforcing the law,” Chopra said during Thursday’s conference. “Our states are really the last line of defense.”

Spring has sprung on Leo Staples’ family farm in Oklahoma, and his Berkshire pigs couldn’t be happier about it.

Weighing in at about 550 pounds, Woody, his largest hog (named by a grandson after the “Toy Story” icon) plays “like a puppy” in his free-range paddock, Staples told me, gobbling up the rye, clovers and winter peas that have grown knee-high under the Southern sun.

Swine life on Staples’ sustainable family farm is a jarring contrast to the existence of a pig on one of America’s “intensive” corporate-owned mega-farms, where some sows are confined to cages so small they literally can’t turn around or take more than a step or two in any direction.

“It’s not necessary and it hasn’t proven to be good science,” Staples, a self-described conservative Republican, said of Big Ag porcine lockups. “It’s also cruel.”

That confinement is at the heart of a congressional fight over animal welfare standards that Staples — and California — is likely to lose, though we shouldn’t.

At issue is the Save Our Bacon Act, a sneak attack backed by foreign corporations currently hidden deep inside the farm bill. It would severely curb the ability of states to enact limits on animal confinement and maybe accidentally open the door for ending all kinds of state-level food safety laws.

The SOB Act, an apt nickname, would not only cripple small family farmers such as Staples (though its supporters claim it helps family farmers), it would negate the will of California voters, potentially introduce risk into the food chain, and turn greater power of our food supply over to China.

It would also limit consumer choice at a time when more Americans — from fans of far-right Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to far-left granola grandmas — are demanding a say in how their food is produced.

Let’s break that down.

What is the SOB Act?

For the vegetarian hard-liners out there, it is true that Woody himself will someday likely be bacon.

But, increasingly over the past decades, meat-friendly consumers have moved toward wanting animals to “live a really great life and have one bad day,” as Nate Beaulac, another conservative Oklahoma pork farmer, describes it.

In 2018, to further that aim, about 63% of California voters passed Proposition 12, which increased the space that breeding sows were required to have, from something about the size of a small car trunk to the size of a coat closet. We’re not talking rolling acres here — just enough room to turn around. Some of these sows are basically caged for the majority of their breeding life — years — and are about the size of a black bear.

But here was the real bite in Proposition 12: No pork from any state could be sold in California if it didn’t come from a farm that met the new standard.

Overnight, the corporate breeders were locked out of the Golden State market. They sued bigly, and lost bigly in 2023 at the Supreme Court, which upheld California’s right to impose the state standard.

Big Pork tried to revive the issue with the Supreme Court in 2025 and was rebuffed. Surprise, surprise, the drums started pounding for the SOB Act shortly after (though various legislative attempts have floated since Proposition 12 was passed) backed by a Midwestern congresswoman from a Big Pork state.

The SOB Act would negate Proposition 12 (and a similar law in Massachusetts) and forbid states from making laws regarding animal confinement, according to an analysis by the Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law.

That would emphatically overturn the will of the majority of California voters who want those standards.

But hey, Big Pork would make big bank.

“They want to limit American consumers’ ability to fight,” Beaulac told me. “They wanted to limit Americans’ ability to pursue any sort of change. And that is why me, not only as a farmer, but as an American and a capitalist, I’m strongly opposed to the Save Our Bacon Act, and in staunch support of Proposition 12.”

What Prop. 12 did

Beaulac was once a Californian himself, before heading to the Sooner State for college. He describes himself as a “Christian, capitalist, conservative environmentalist,” and a sustainable farmer who depends on consumers’ desire for healthy food to sell his pigs, chickens and cows.

Proposition 12, Beaulac said, “was a huge help to smaller farms, and the only people that it really hurt were the huge multinational conglomerates.”

“I mean very simply, we want the opportunity to compete,” he said.

Staples, Woody’s owner, who is also an expert in project management and environmental compliance from a previous career in the power industry, makes the case that the mega-farms can also come with mega-dangers.

“You have 100,000 pigs within two miles of each other, the chance of issues with a swine flu or natural disaster just increases,” he said. He points out that issues such as disease, groundwater contamination and waste disposal have already become problems for some large farms.

The flaws in the SOB Act don’t stop there.

The Harvard Law analysis points out that the loose language of the bill could have other consequences, maybe even gutting some state safety, labeling and cleanliness standards.

And some Republicans in Congress, including Californian Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim, oppose the measure and sent a letter to the Agriculture Committee late last year urging them to dump the act, pointing out that at least a quarter of Big Pork is owned by Chinese companies and does not represent American interests.

“Foreign-owned corporations — particularly those tied to adversarial nations — already hold a disturbing amount of control over U.S. agricultural assets,” the letter read, citing Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the United States.

The SOB Act “could further consolidate the influence of such foreign entities,” the letter‘s authors warned.

Armed with those arguments and others, Staples and Beaulac traveled to Washington recently to make their case against the SOB Act with lawmakers.

But, both men told me, they were met with a wall of lobbyists and money.

“It’s very eye-opening in terms of how many lobbyists are there every day,” Beaulac said. “The reality is Big Ag donates big money to the senators, and so when they need their bill to go through or they need a bill shut down, they’re going to have a lot more leeway than the small farmers.”

The lobbyists, Staples said, had the debate wrapped up tight long before the farmers even knocked the dirt off their boots and entered Congress.

“It was very obvious,” he said. “I was not prepared for what Big Ag had done, how they had prepared members of Congress to address the issues we wanted to address.”

Beaulac said he’s discouraged and fears the SOB Act will pass, but also isn’t giving up hope. He sees it as a bipartisan issue, and one he hopes for which people will stand up. This week, a social media post featuring a sad photo of a caged pig went viral, drawing attention across party lines.

“Blue, red. It doesn’t matter. People want healthy food,” Beaulac said. “They want to know how it’s raised. They genuinely care how they’re feeding their family, and it has nothing to do with who they vote for in November.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Thune Is in a Vise as Trump and Far Right Demand Fight on Voter Bill
The deep dive: The exodus of California’s tech billionaires from the Golden State to Florida’s Gold Coast
The L.A. Times Special: California could be attacked by drones because of Iran war, memo warns. Officials downplay threat
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

P.S. Here’s a post by right-wing commentator Michael Cernovich on the SOB Act, just a taste of how much some of the MAGA folks don’t like this measure.

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

WASHINGTON — Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, vowed retaliation Thursday against the United States and Israel and signaled that Tehran will continue to choke off the world’s most critical oil route, as the war strained global energy markets and raised new security concerns in the United States.

In his first public remarks since U.S.–Israeli strikes killed his father, former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mojtaba Khamenei swore revenge. The new leader, notably, did not appear in person for the televised statement. Instead, his written words were read aloud on Iranian state media.

“We will never retreat and vow to avenge the blood of our martyrs,” he said. “Our revenge will be never ending, not only for the late supreme leader, but also for the blood of all of our martyrs. … Those who killed our children will pay the price.”

The new leader expressed condolences to families who lost children in a strike on a girls school in Minab that killed more than 165 people, many of them children. He also warned that the war could expand, declaring that the continuation of the conflict “depends on the interests of the parties.”

The Associated Press, citing two sources, reported that outdated intelligence likely led to the United States carrying out the deadly missile strike on the elementary school. U.S. Central Command relied on target coordinates for the strike using outdated data provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency, according to a person familiar with the preliminary finding.

Khamenei indicated that Tehran would maintain its blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, a key choke point through which 20% of the world’s oil supply is shipped. He also said he believes in friendship with his country’s neighbors, but that attacks on U.S. military installations in the region will continue. He described maintaining pressure on the passage as a necessary part of Iran’s war strategy.

His remarks came as attacks continued to disrupt shipping and energy infrastructure across the Persian Gulf. The war sent oil up 10% Thursday as hostilities in Iran drag on.

Reports from the region said Iranian forces have intensified strikes on vessels attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving hundreds of ships stranded at its entrances and rattling global oil markets.

Two oil tankers were struck by explosives in Iraqi waters near the port of Basra. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed responsibility for the attacks, which killed at least one crew member and set both vessels ablaze, according to the Associated Press. A third unnamed vessel was reported to have been struck by an “unknown projectile” near Dubai and Jebel Ali, causing a small fire, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported.

The latest incidents come after drone strikes targeted fuel storage facilities across the Gulf, including at energy sites in Bahrain and at the port of Salalah in Oman, an important hub for tankers seeking to bypass the Strait.

“They will pay the price. We will destroy their facilities,” Khamenei said. “It is necessary to continue our defensive activity, including continuing to close the Strait of Hormuz.”

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed a broad bill on Thursday to make U.S. housing more accessible and affordable, a rare bipartisan effort in Congress to address a growing national problem.

The bill, which passed 89 to 10, would reduce regulations, regulate corporate investors and expand how housing dollars can be used to build affordable homes and rentals. It will now head back to the House, which passed a similar bill earlier this year.

“We have a housing shortage all across America,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who worked with Republicans to win overwhelming support from both parties for the legislation. “We need more housing of every kind. More housing for first-time home buyers, more housing for renters, more housing for seniors, more housing for people with disabilities, more rural housing, more urban housing, more, more, and more.”

The legislation, she said “will help drive down prices.”

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.), led the effort with Warren. He said ahead of the vote that the Senate could “do what so many people failed to do in this legislative body for the last few decades, and that is pass consequential legislation that makes it easier to become a homeowner.”

Roadblocks ahead for the legislation

Despite the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the Senate, It’s unclear whether the House will pass the legislation again — or if President Trump will sign it.

Trump has strongly backed the bill through the bipartisan negotiations, but he has also slowed its momentum with a declaration last weekend that he won’t sign any new measures unless Congress passes legislation that would require voters to show proof of citizenship and end most mail-in balloting. The Senate is expected to begin consideration of that bill next week, but it is unlikely to pass as all Democrats oppose it.

At the same time, House leaders have indicated that they are unlikely to accept the Senate version of the housing legislation and have suggested they could launch a formal conference process to negotiate a final deal between the chambers — a process that could take months.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said ahead of the bill’s passage on Thursday that conference negotiations are a possibility, “but obviously the quickest way to do this would be to pick up the Senate bill and pass it.”

If the White House wants that to happen, he said, “they’ll probably have to make that argument to House leadership.”

Making housing more attainable

The bill would give local governments more power on housing issues, allow banks to invest more in affordable housing and lift limits on the number of units in a public housing development that can receive private financing through Section 8 funding that helps rehabilitate properties.

“You’ve got many provisions in this bill that stop treating the U.S. like one single housing market and start giving local leaders the tools they need to fix their unique regional puzzle,” said Peter Carroll with Cotality, a company that tracks housing data.

The bill aims to make homebuilding easier by streamlining some regulations that require environmental reviews and inspections. It also eliminates a limit on a grant for emergency shelter beds and street homelessness outreach.

As many affordable housing developers are leaning on manufactured and modular homes that can be transported to areas that need housing, the legislation also lifts the requirement that they have to be built on a permanent chassis, making them easier to build and design.

Housing advocacy and policy groups say they wish the bill went further by investing money in building more housing and assisting renters.

“This legislation is the product of essentially senators and House members wanting to come up with something that could pass with both Democratic and Republican votes, which means it’s inherently less ambitious,” said Yonah Freemark, a researcher at Urban Institute.

Corporate investors

One of the more contested provisions of the bill would bar institutional investors from buying single-family homes — a top priority for Trump.

The bill defines such investors as any that directly or indirectly own 350 or more single-family homes. Investors of any size would not be required to sell single-family homes bought before the date that the bill becomes a law.

They would still be allowed to buy or build single-family homes if they rent them out, but would be required to sell them to an individual homebuyer after seven years and offer that buyer “price concessions” and give tenants a 30-day “first-look” period when the time comes to sell the home.

A need for reform

The U.S. housing market has been in a slump dating back to 2022, when mortgage rates began to climb from pandemic-era lows.

Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes have been hovering close to a 4-million annual pace now going back to 2023 — well short of the 5.2-million annual pace that’s historically been the norm. They slowed last year to a 30-year low and have remained sluggish so far this year, declining in January and February versus a year earlier.

A sharp run-up in home prices, especially in the early years of this decade, and a chronic shortage of homes nationally worsened by years of below-average home construction have left many aspiring homeowners priced out of the market.

Meanwhile, while the median U.S. monthly rent has been declining for more than two years, it was still 15.2% higher in January than it was at the start of 2020, according to data from Realtor.com.

The trends have ratcheted pressure on lawmakers this year, with midterm elections looming in November, to show they’re working on ways to make homeownership and rental housing costs more affordable.

Kramon, Veiga and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Kramon reported from Atlanta and Veiga reported from Los Angeles.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the dean of South Carolina’s Democrats, said Thursday that he will run for an 18th House term, a move that could position him as an influential elder statesman in Congress if his party regains the majority in November.

The decision by the 85-year-old lawmaker cuts against calls for generational change within the party. Clyburn is one of several veteran Democrats running again instead of stepping aside for younger politicians whose frustration increased in the wake of President Biden’s failed reelection campaign.

“I’m here today to say I do believe that I’m very well equipped and healthy enough to move into the next term, trying to do the things that are necessary to continue that pursuit of perfection,” Clyburn said at state party headquarters in Columbia. “And so I will run a very vigorous campaign.”

Clyburn is among the oldest Democrats serving in Washington, and the only member of the last Democratic leadership team who is looking to stick around. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland both plan to retire at the end of their current terms.

Clyburn said that he sought counsel from his three daughters before making his announcement. One of them — Mignon Clyburn, a former member of the Federal Communications Commission — said she was concerned about the political vitriol that her father would face in Washington.

“Her interest was in her daddy and what she thought I might be subjected to,” Clyburn said. “When Mignon finally had decided that she could live with it, I’m here.”

Clyburn said he heard from another woman that “‘we don’t listen to them people up there, and you should not. You should listen to the people down here, and we don’t want you to leave.’ And so I’m responding to the people that are here.”

Clyburn served as majority whip and assistant Democratic leader. Remaining in Congress for another term could give him a chance to serve alongside the first Black speaker of the House as Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York is in line for the gavel should Democrats win control. Clyburn for many years was the highest-ranking Black lawmaker in the House.

On Thursday, asked about the prospect of being able to advise Jeffries, Clyburn said the two spoke recently about a possible working relationship in the next Congress.

“He expressed an interest in my being a part of his leadership, if we were to take the House back,” Clyburn said. “It made me feel necessary.”

Four years ago, when Clyburn announced his bid for a 16th term, he told the Associated Press that he intended to keep campaigning as long as his health and support from his family remained stalwart.

“I’ve told them, if you ever see that I need to go to the rocking chair or spend my spare time on the golf course, let me know,” he said describing his daughters’ counsel.

Clyburn won his 2024 reelection by more than 20 percentage points. First elected in 1992, he represents the district that sweeps from areas around the capital of Columbia through rural central and eastern counties down to Charleston.

Should he serve an 18th term, Clyburn would become the longest-serving South Carolinian ever in the U.S. House. Time horizons are longer for the state’s U.S. senators, two of whom — Republican Strom Thurmond and Democrat Fritz Hollings — served 48 years and nearly 39 years, respectively.

Filing for election in this year’s elections in South Carolina opens Monday and closes March 30. South Carolina’s primary elections will be held June 9.

Whenever Clyburn does leave office, the competition to be his successor will be fierce. He is the only Democrat representing his state in Washington.

As to whether his 18th term could be his last, Clyburn called that an “open question.”

“I’m looking forward to the day that I can spend more time reading, writing and playing golf, and so this could very well be to my last term,” he said. “And it could very well not be.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — House lawmakers were digging into Jeffrey Epstein’s sprawling financial portfolio on Wednesday as a committee deposed his former accountant and tried to understand his connections to some of the world’s wealthiest men.

Richard Kahn, who worked closely with Epstein for years and now serves as an executor of his estate, appeared for the closed-door deposition on Capitol Hill. He told lawmakers that he had not personally seen evidence of Epstein’s sexual abuse, but provided a fuller picture of how Epstein acquired his wealth. The wealthy financier made hundreds of millions of dollars over two decades, during which he struck up friendships with some of the world’s most powerful men.

Kahn “was under the impression that Epstein made his money as a tax advisor and a financial planner,” said Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee. Lawmakers argued that a fuller picture of Epstein’s finances could help the public understand how, for years, he was able to get away with trafficking and sexually abusing underage girls.

“Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring would not have been possible without Richard Kahn, who managed Epstein’s money for years, authorized payments, including payments to victims and survivors,” said Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), who added that Kahn told them he was unable to recall details of some of the transactions and communications that he was asked about.

Kahn has said that he was unaware of Epstein’s sexual abuse and had not seen any of his victims.

Comer (R-Ky.) also said that lawmakers confirmed during the deposition that Epstein received significant amounts of money from former retail shopping chain executive Les Wexner, hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, tech entrepreneur Steven Sinofsky, investor Leon Black and the Rothschilds, a wealthy banking family.

None of those people have been accused of wrongdoing in their relationships with Epstein, but Democrats on the committee argued that anyone with ties to the wealthy financier should be scrutinized. Wexner was deposed by the committee last month, and Comer has also called on Black, among several others, to appear for transcribed interviews.

Kahn also told lawmakers that Epstein had financial ties to Ehud Barak, who was the prime minister of Israel from 1999 to 2001, according to Democratic Rep. Suhas Subramanyam. Barak has not been accused of wrongdoing and has said he regrets his friendship with Epstein.

Comer also said Wednesday that the committee has reviewed over 40,000 documents that it subpoenaed from JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank. Epstein was connected to at least 64 business entities, according to Comer.

Republican President Trump has strongly denied any wrongdoing in his own ties to Epstein, and Comer said that Kahn had never seen any financial transactions between Epstein and Trump. Comer said that Kahn is the latest witness to testify that they had never seen Trump doing anything wrong with Epstein.

“The investigation’s about getting the truth to the American people, trying to figure out how the government failed, answer questions we all have,” Comer said.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

SANTA FE, N.M. — Democratic-led states alarmed by the prospect of federal immigration officers patrolling the polls during this year’s midterm elections are taking steps to counter what they see as a potential tactic to intimidate voters.

New Mexico this week became the first state to bar armed agents from polling locations in response to President Trump’s immigration crackdown, a step being considered in at least half a dozen other Democratic-led states.

The moves highlight a deep distrust toward the Trump administration from blue states, which have been the target of his aggressive immigration tactics while threatened with military deployments and deep cuts in federal funding. Their concerns were heightened after the president suggested he wants to nationalize U.S. elections, even though the Constitution says it’s the states that run elections.

The Trump administration said it has no plans to deploy immigration agents to polling locations. Last month, the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol told a congressional committee “No, sir” when asked if they had any plans to guard polling places. The Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, Heather Honey, recently told secretaries of state it “is simply not true” that immigration agents will be at the polls this year.

But a group of eight secretaries of state wants that in writing from the nominee to succeed Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In a letter Monday to Trump’s new pick to lead the agency, Markwayne Mullin, the group pressed for assurances “that ICE will not have a presence at polling locations during the 2026 election cycle.”

Federal law already prohibits the deployment of armed federal forces to election locations unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States,” but Democratic lawmakers, election officials and governors remain concerned.

“The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters,” said Connecticut Democratic state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, co-author of a state bill to establish a 250-foot buffer from federal agents at local polls and other restrictions on federal intervention. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”

A potential clash between states and the federal government

Other bills seeking to ban immigration agents at the polls are pending in Democratic-led states, large and small, from California to Rhode Island.

In Virginia, lawmakers are weighing legislation that could prevent federal civil immigration officials from making arrests within 40 feet of any polling place or courthouse. But the provision on polling sites remains under negotiation, and it’s unclear whether it will be in the final bill.

The newly signed law in New Mexico prohibits orders that put any armed person in the “civil, military or naval service of the United States” at local polling locations and related parking areas, or within 50 feet of a monitored ballot box, from the start of early voting.

Under New Mexico’s new law, which takes effect in May and will be in place for the state’s June 2 primary, people who experience intimidation or obstruction at the polls from federal agents or military personnel can file a civil lawsuit seeking relief in state courts. State prosecutors and local and state election officials also can sue, and the courts can apply fines of up to $50,000 per violation.

It also prohibits changes to voting qualifications and election rules and procedures that conflict with New Mexico law, as Trump prods the U.S. Senate to approve a bill to impose strict new proof-of-citizenship requirements in elections nationwide.

Any state measures intended to counter federal election law will face legal hurdles because of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law.

“It could set up a direct clash between state governments and the federal government. We don’t know exactly how that’s going to go,” said Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the UCLA School of Law. “Given the supremacy clause, there’s only so much states can do.”

‘We will hold free and fair elections’

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said her own distrust of the Trump administration in election oversight stems from ongoing Department of Justice efforts to get detailed state voter data without explaining why and Trump’s continuing false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

“Do I believe the federal government and people in the White House? No,” said Lujan Grisham, who terms out of office at the end of 2026.

“We are sending a message to everyone: We will hold free and fair elections, and New Mexicans will be safe in every ballot location and that’s our responsibility,” the Democrat said Tuesday during a news conference. “The Constitution says the states run their elections, and that bill makes that painfully re-clear to the federal government.”

Federal seizure of ballots and election records is a growing concern

New Mexico Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature, voted in unison against the bill.

“I would question strongly why we have to do this other than just to have to poke the president in the eye,” state GOP Sen. Bill Sharer of Farmington said during floor debate.

State Sen. Katy Duhigg, an Albuquerque Democrat who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, said it’s “better safe than sorry with democracy.” She said she wanted to “make sure that there was some sort of tool that our local law enforcement would have at their disposal if something does happen, if the federal government does in some manner try to interfere with our elections.”

Connecticut’s bill, scheduled for a hearing later this week, also takes aim at federal attempts to seize ballots or other election material. It would require that state officials receive notification of such a move.

Blumenthal said state lawmakers can’t prevent seizures such as the January search by the FBI on an election center in Fulton County, Ga., a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. But he said, “there might be an opportunity for our state attorney general’s office or the secretary of the state’s office to challenge that.”

Lee and Haigh write for the Associated Press. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn. AP writer Oliva Diaz in Richmond, Va., and David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Republican and Democratic senators vented their frustrations with the lack of progress in funding the Department of Homeland Security, which is resulting in more Americans enduring long lines at airports around the country. It’s a problem that is expected to intensify as the impasse enters its fourth week.

Democrats stressed they were willing to fund some of Homeland Security, but not Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection, without changes in their operations. Republicans made clear that some of the Democratic demands were a non-starter. The result was that each party blocked the other’s proposal for temporarily resolving the standoff during an hours-long debate Wednesday on the Senate floor.

The stark divide over a shutdown that began on Feb. 14 was acknowledged by members on both sides of the political aisle.

“We are in a negotiation. However, we are not close,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said at one point. “You may think this is some issue that we think we’re going to turn to our political advantage, but I promise you, when we saw Renee Good and Alex Pretti killed, this became an issue that was beyond politics.”

“And there are a lot of us who are not going to provide resources to this agency that is acting in such a ways that makes citizens of the United States so unsafe.”

Some Republicans were just as adamant that they oppose some of the changes Democrats are seeking to make.

“Let me be clear, we are going to do nothing — nothing — that kneecaps ICE’s ability to enforce our immigration laws,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.).

Following the longest federal shutdown in the country’s history last year, Congress completed work on 11 of this year’s 12 appropriations bills. Only the bill for Homeland Security remains outstanding.

Democrats are seeking several changes at the department that include prohibiting ICE enforcement operations at sensitive locations like schools and churches, allowing independent investigations into alleged wrongdoing, requiring warrants to be signed by judges before federal agents can forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent, and requiring agents to wear identification and remove their masks.

A push for more talks

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said his side has made repeated overtures to Democrats on a funding bill. He said the last offer on Homeland Security funding came from the White House nearly two weeks ago and there has been no response from the Democrats.

“Usually, around here, in order to get a deal, there has to be a negotiation where the two sides sit down together,” Thune said. “And my understanding is that has been completely rebuffed by the senator from Washington.”

The senator Thune was referring to, Sen. Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she’s continued to talk with Republican colleagues, but those aren’t “real negotiations.” The White House needs to be at the table for that to occur. She said she needed assurance that Stephen Miller, the influential White House deputy chief of staff, would not upend any agreements that senators reach.

“I am willing to talk to people, but I’m not willing to sit in a room, have coffee, give away a few things and have Stephen Miller override whatever we all agree to,” Murray said. “ … We need to know the White House is serious.”

Homeland Security has been central to President Trump’s sweeping changes in immigration enforcement. Under Trump, the number of people ICE arrests and detains each month has climbed dramatically. The tactics that ICE has employed have generated alarm among Democrats, and some Republicans have also called for a more “strategic” approach.

During bipartisan negotiations earlier this year, appropriators agreed to a Homeland Security funding bill that did include more resources for de-escalation training and $20 million to outfit immigration enforcement agents with body-worn cameras. But that deal unraveled after the Pretti shooting in Minneapolis.

“My side was not going to stand down and say, ‘oh well, nothing happened,’” Murray said.

For the second time in two weeks, Murray offered a proposal to fund all of Homeland Security except for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, but Republicans objected.

Similarly, Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) offered a proposal to fund all of Homeland Security for two weeks so that federal workers could get paid and government operations could continue while the two sides negotiate their differences on immigration enforcement. This time, Democrats objected.

The result was the standoff continues, but lawmakers were at least talking to each other, perhaps one small sign of progress.

Shutdown strains air travel

The large majority of the more than 260,000 employees at Homeland Security continue to work but are going unpaid. It’s the second time in recent months they’ve had to work without pay after last fall’s record, 43-day shutdown. The most visible sign of the shutdown has been a shortage of Transportation Security Administration screeners at airports.

Houston’s secondary airport weathered the worst problems, with lines consistently lasting over three hours for much of Sunday and Monday. Passengers also had to wait more than an hour to get through security at several other airports, including in New Orleans and Atlanta.

Homeland Security in a social media post Wednesday blamed Democrats for a shutdown that “has led to HOURS long security lines at airports across the country, leading Americans to miss their spring break flights.”

Trade groups are also worried about the economic impact of the travel delays. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called on Congress to quickly approve a funding bill and end the department’s shutdown.

“Blocking operational funding and paychecks for those who help us travel safely is wrong and strains the air travel system,” said Neil Bradley, the business group’s executive vice president and chief policy officer.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

A longer version of this piece in Spanish was published on Marisela’s Substack.

After the systemic rupture that the US incursion of January 3 represents, chavismo has embarked on its third great metamorphosis, carrying out a profound reengineering in a context of tutelage and transactional pragmatism. In my view, the Venezuelan State is undergoing a deep transformation rather than facing an imminent transition to democracy. Nevertheless, the government of Delcy Rodríguez is pursuing this transformation with remarkable speed and bluntness.

The survival of the chavista system has required the sacrifice of its original forms, forcing a mutation that uses economic opening as social anesthesia and the sophistication of repression as a guarantee of stability.

From the oil embargo on Cuba to microeconomic measures that we will discuss in the following lines, these milestones are the material proof of a power that has chosen to fill itself with realism, and to sacrifice its traditional epic narrative.

The case of Alex Saab and friends

A most scandalous event over which public officials have remained silent is the alleged arrest of Alex Saab. Saab was removed as Minister of Industries and National Production on January 17. Although Delcy initially presented the move as a departure to assume new responsibilities, it ultimately marked the beginning of his demise in Venezuela. According to reports from The New York Times, La Nación, and Infobae, SEBIN agents detained Saab and businessman Raúl Gorrín, the owner of TV network Globovisión, who has long navigated sanctions and power and lost his media and political shield almost simultaneously with the capture of Maduro. The novel element in this second arrest of Saab is that reports describe an operation carried out with the knowledge and cooperation of the FBI. It would appear that the new leadership in Caracas is willing to hand over key figures to US authorities in exchange for validation and stability.

Both men immediately disappeared from the public radar. Two weeks later, the Spanish broadsheet ABC claimed that the Trump administration has demanded judicial cooperation from Delcy regarding nine figures close or formerly close to the government, including Maduro’s son (known as Nicolasito), Tareck El Aissami (arrested by Maduro in 2024) and, of course, Alex Saab and Raúl Gorrín. The report describes Saab as “the man who knows where the money is.” The dismissal on February 23 of Saab’s wife, Camilla Fabri (appointed vice minister for international communication a year earlier) reinforces the hypothesis of Saab’s detention.

In the mining sector, foreign capital has abandoned concessions due to the absence of minimal infrastructure and the suffocating control of armed groups.

In theory, the US would be seeking access to Saab’s testimony and archives in order to finish dismantling the money laundering and drug trafficking networks surrounding Maduro’s inner circle. Following his arrest in Cape Verde in 2020 and a prolonged legal battle in Florida over his alleged diplomatic immunity, Saab was released and sent back to Venezuela in December 2023 through a complex prisoner exchange. Upon arrival, he was granted a high political profile and appointed president of the International Center for Productive Investment, positioning him as the key operator for attracting foreign capital under sanctions.

The Saab-Gorrín case demonstrates that chavismo’s ongoing metamorphosis involves sacrificing the financiers who helped evade sanctions in previous years. Even after leading an intense campaign for Saab’s release in 2023, National Assembly president Jorge Rodríguez has shown no hesitation in serving in a government that makes him disappear on the orders of a foreign power. Ruling chavismo now seeks to present itself before Trump as a renewed, pragmatic actor and, above all, one unified under a centralized command without visible fractures. The official silence surrounding this issue stems from the fact that the capture of strategic allies buys the Rodríguez siblings time to manage the internal divisions this would inevitably generate.

Supervised economic liberalization

Since early January, the government has accelerated decrees and measures of economic opening that were previously unthinkable, such as the Hydrocarbons Law’s reform. The objective is to accelerate economic timelines in order to demobilize political demands. However, while the government is betting on a rapid economic rebound to pre-empt any possibility of opposition reorganization, a deep gap is beginning to emerge between the rhetoric of hope and the reality of purchasing power, which continues to deteriorate.

To assess the supposed implementation of these measures, I spoke with economist Manuel Sutherland to unpack the speculation that currently dominates public debate. According to his analysis, the exchange rate system has not undergone structural change: the allocation of foreign currency remains discretionary. Financial flows reveal a complex triangulation in which oil revenues are deposited in a fund in Qatar and then routed to an account at the US Treasury Department. From there, major banks acquire foreign currency through auctions restricted to the purchase of American goods. This process, executed in an opaque environment by private banks, occurs alongside discussions of tax exemptions for certain goods, such as vehicles.

Contrary to public perception, there has been no acceleration of privatization, while in the mining sector, foreign capital has abandoned concessions due to the absence of minimal infrastructure and the suffocating control of armed groups. What initially appeared to be a fast-tracked path toward economic recovery under American supervision now seems to be advancing at the same pace as, or even behind, political changes. The dissonance that once represented a danger for democratization (rapid economic liberalization coexisting with political stagnation) is not occurring. On the contrary, the slow economic rebound is unable to keep pace with the acceleration of political dynamics, which has gained renewed vigor through the mobilization of relatives of political prisoners. While the economy remains trapped in inertia and opacity, the political chessboard is being shaken by social pressure that the government appears not to have anticipated in its calculations for stability.

Amnesty and softer repression

By managing to adapt to this new scenario, chavismo shows it retains room of maneuver to ensure its permanence. This continuity is guaranteed by opening strategic pressure valves in response to the two main sources of coercion: internal social pressure and external pressure. The tactical softening of repression manifests itself as an unfolding of chavismo toward more sophisticated forms of exercising power. During the opening of the judicial year, the acting president delivered a striking speech announcing an amnesty law. The timeframe established for the law (1999-2025) functions as a symbolic rupture with the era that precedes her. All of this seeks to project renewed leadership based on the pillars of efficient technocracy and a pacifist façade.

The Amnesty Law thus operates as both a pacification mechanism and a transactional trophy for the Trump administration. A trophy meant to reduce the political cost of external pressure without implying any real dismantling of the repressive apparatus. It is a functional mutation that attempts to stabilize the system through a new version of authoritarian peace that can only be challenged if social pressure and mobilization manage to move beyond the mirage of this merely symbolic rupture.

Venezuela has ended up suffocating Cuba more effectively than the Helms-Burton Act.

However, attempts to “unify” the country through this law have had the opposite effect. Instead of extinguishing the spirit of struggle, it has revived it. On February 6, while the amnesty bill was still being debated, National Assembly president Jorge Rodríguez appeared at an infamous detention center before the mothers of political prisoners who were on vigil. Rodríguez established a novel form of blackmail: if the law were approved within a record seven days, their children could be released. None of this happened. The discussion was delayed, and once the law was enacted, the release process proved extremely slow. In addition, new cases of abductions and disappearances have emerged, while those who have been released leave prison without fear and determined to remain in the streets. None of this had been anticipated by Jorge Rodríguez.

This whole process, which is still ongoing, has brought the tacit recognition of political prisoners, the implementation of mass release measures, and the positioning of political prisoners within the public discourse—an issue the Maduro government always preferred to deny.

Oil embargo on Cuba and sales to Israel

The abrupt halt in crude shipments to Cuba—confirmed through maritime tracking by specialized firms—has also not been officially acknowledged by Venezuela. Reuters has been the leading outlet reporting the drop in shipments. According to its investigations, based on internal documents from the state oil company PDVSA and export data, Venezuela has prioritized cargoes destined for companies such as Chevron in order to secure foreign currency flows, leaving supply to Cuba in operational limbo. What is new? The beginning of a phase of energy suffocation for Havana led by Venezuela.

Despite the evidence of reduced shipments, neither Caracas nor Havana has issued statements acknowledging a suspension. What has been officially reported, however, is the dismantling of Cuban missions in Venezuela. Official Gazette No. 6,885 published decrees ordering the intervention, restructuring, and liquidation of emblematic social programs such as Mission Barrio Adentro and the Housing Mission.

In addition, international correspondents in Caracas, such as Sarah Kinosian, have reported the departure of Cuban medical personnel and military advisers. These reports cite internal sources in ministries and testimony from health workers who have been notified that their contracts are ending and that they must return immediately to the island.

Within a span of only a few minutes, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry published and then deleted from all its platforms a statement expressing solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran following recent bombings.

How long can the rupture between Caracas and Havana remain hidden in discourse? And what implications does it hold for the Latin American left, which has remained silent about Venezuela’s authoritarian drift in order to preserve a utopian narrative? The only official source regarding the oil embargo on Cuba came from Miguel Díaz-Canel, who admitted that “we are going to live through difficult times” and announced a plan to deal with “acute fuel shortages,” acknowledging that no crude has arrived since December. As one of history’s paradoxes, Venezuela has ended up suffocating Cuba more effectively than the Helms-Burton Act.

Another shift that also lacks official confirmation is the presumed resumption of oil sales to Israel, reported only by Bloomberg and maritime tracker Kpler. Although the government has dismissed these reports as fabricated news through its communications minister, the flow of roughly 200,000 barrels toward the Haifa refinery suggests a reality consistent with the scenario of tutelage and its geopolitical ramifications (Venezuela severed relations with Israel in 2009).

The erosion of the anti-imperialist narrative

An episode that occurred on March 1 offers a window into the speed with which the government has decided to push through a compliant policy shift and how it appears to be redefining its strategic ties. Within a span of only a few minutes, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry published and then deleted from all its platforms a statement expressing solidarity with the Islamic Republic of Iran following recent bombings.

The episode suggests a latent tension between the discursive inertia of certain officials and the logic of tutelage guiding the government’s current decisions. More than a mere coordination error, the incident could be interpreted as a symptom of constant monitoring of Venezuelan foreign policy by the US embassy in Caracas, or of unclear internal guidelines regarding this shift, where preserving negotiation channels with Washington must prevail over historical ideological loyalties.

The novelty of this shift lies not only in the rhetorical distancing, but in the fact that the internal fissure has become visible. For the first time in decades, the opportunity cost of maintaining a symbolic alliance with Tehran appears to be perceived by the political leadership as greater than the benefit of ideological consistency. This exercise in digital cleansing reinforces the hypothesis of a system that will prioritize the stability of financial flows guaranteed by American tutelage over the rhetoric of confrontation, marking a drastic departure from the alliances that once sustained chavismo.

The reality is that there has been a change in governmental behavior. Not only has the government implemented measures that clash with the historic conduct of a regime attached to the ideological agenda of the revolution, but it has also shown clear difficulty in the communication management of these measures. This suggests they may respond to a strategy of obedience to the occupying power while exploiting certain windows of opportunity for remaining in power.

Delcy Rodríguez’s government knows that exposing the measures recently adopted could generate even deeper cracks within the internal structures of chavismo. So now, in many instances, we just have silence.

WASHINGTON — Cuba’s top diplomat in Washington says Havana is prepared to enter diplomatic talks with the United States, reiterating the country’s willingness to engage even as tensions escalate with President Trump asserting that the island nation’s government could soon collapse.

“We are ready to engage with the U.S. on the issues that are important for the bilateral relation, and to talk about those in which we have differences,” Ambassador Lianys Torres Rivera, who leads Cuba’s mission in Washington, told The Times on Wednesday.

Any dialogue would need to respect Cuba’s sovereignty and its “right to self-determination,” the ambassador said.

“We are sure that it is possible to find a solution,” she said.

Her comments in a wide-ranging interview come at a particularly volatile moment for Cuba, which is under mounting economic pressure after the Trump administration imposed an oil blockade that has choked off the island’s energy supplies.

The measures have deepened a humanitarian crisis and prompted Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel to call for an “urgent” overhaul to the country’s economic model.

The situation in Cuba worsened after U.S. forces removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, allowing Washington to later cut off oil shipments from Venezuela to its longtime ally. The Trump administration later pressured other suppliers, including Mexico, to reduce deliveries.

“We are doing our best, and we are being very creative, but it has a serious impact,” Torres Rivera said of the blockade. “It is a collective punishment against the Cuban people.”

The White House this week framed Cuba’s worsening economic and humanitarian conditions as a potential opening to pressure Havana into negotiations.

“The country is obviously in a very weak place, economically speaking, the people are crying out for help, and the president believes and knows the Cuban regime wants a deal,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a news briefing Tuesday.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida) told the Miami Herald on Wednesday that the Trump administration had been having secret, high-level conversations with several people in former President Raul Castro’s inner circle, a similar approach that was taken in Venezuela before Maduro’s capture. (The operation to seize Maduro killed 32 Cuban officers stationed in the country.)

Cuban President Miguel Díaz -Canel, fourth from right, holds up a Cuban flag during a rally in Havana on Jan. 16, 2026, to protest the killing of Cuban officers during the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

(Ramon Espinosa / Associated Press)

Another report by the USA Today this week said the Trump administration was close to announcing an economic deal with Cuba that would ease travel restrictions, among other things. A representative with the Cuban government declined to comment on the report.

The White House has not specified what a deal may look like. But Trump has said the United States is interested in a “friendly takeover” and has suggested that the move would allow Cubans to visit the island, a place that many Cuban exiles have worried about returning to while the current regime is in place.

“It is just a question of time before a lot of unbelievable people are going back to Cuba,” Trump said at an event last week.

Several news outlets have reported that the Justice Department is examining possible federal charges against officials within Cuba’s government, a move that could prompt a change in the island’s government.

Torres Rivera said she is aware of the reports but said the “judicial accusations” are an “instrument of political coercion without any legitimacy.”

“It is not something we are losing sleep over,” she said.

As for the potential negotiations, Torres Rivera did not provide specifics but talked about restoring diplomatic ties somewhat to how they existed during the Obama administration.

“We are neighbors,” she said. “We have common challenges, common threats, and we can speak about all that, and we can speak on the basis of respect for each other’s sovereignty and each other’s right of self-determination. We are ready for that.”

President Trump has approached diplomacy with Cuba with a harsher tone.

“As we achieve a historic transformation in Venezuela, we’re also looking forward to the great change that will soon be coming to Cuba,” Trump said Saturday, one week after U.S. and Israeli forces attacked Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

He added: “Cuba’s at the end of the line. They’re very much at the end of the line. They have no money. They have no oil. They have a bad philosophy. They have a bad regime that has been bad for a very long time.”

Trump said that he has put Secretary of State Marco Rubio in charge of leading the talks with Cuba and that he believes a “deal would be made very easily with Cuba.”

Torres Rivera did not offer an opinion on Rubio being tapped to lead the negotiations. Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants who came to Florida three years before Castro’s brother, revolutionary Fidel Castro, rose to power in 1959. She reiterated that Cuba is “ready to engage” in talks regardless of who is leading them.

“We are not talking about persons, we are talking about the government and we are ready to engage with the U.S. to talk about the very important issues that we have in bilateral relations,” she said.

President Trump was uncommonly lucky in his first term, neither inheriting nor provoking a crisis of the sort that tests U.S. presidents, until COVID struck in his final 10 months. (He failed that test, contributing to his 2020 reelection defeat.) Trump 1.0 was bequeathed a growing economy from President Obama, and the incoming president assembled a roster of capable advisors who often acted to prevent him from doing nutty things at home and abroad.

Trump 2.0 made sure that no such human guardrails populated his second Cabinet, only genuflecting enablers. Unrestrained, he has presided over one crisis on top of another, all of his own making. Tariff mayhem and high prices. Armed agents and troops in American cities. Repeated violations of court orders. Demolition at federal agencies and the White House.

And now Trump has taken the nation to war against Iran in league with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. Depending on the moment and the audience, a contradictory Trump is either claiming the war is “very complete” or that much remains to be done to “decimate” Iran. On Wednesday he blithely told Axios, “Any time I want it to end, it will end,” even as U.S. officials planned further actions.

In any case, Trump’s war of choice and the killing of the supreme leader of Iran’s terroristic theocracy now has spawned another potential crisis, counterterrorism experts warn: the risks of retaliatory terrorist threats at home. And that is a threat, whether from homegrown extremists or sleeper cells of the sort that came alive for 9/11, that is likely greater because of the initial self-induced crisis of Trump’s second term: his whacking of the federal government.

Trump authorized Elon Musk’s destruction of the bureaucracy in the name of “government efficiency” and continues to exact retribution against any federal employee who had anything to do with investigating and prosecuting him during his interregnum. Longtime agents and operatives have been eliminated at the FBI, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and elsewhere. Especially at the FBI, counterterrorism experts with centuries of collective experience are gone and many who remain have been diverted to Trump’s top priority: mass deportations.

Consequently, the president who promised to “Make America Safe Again” has arguably made Americans less safe.

I raised this scary prospect just over a year ago as Trump’s teardown of the purported Deep State was underway. And now a Mideast war that Trump promised never to start has further incentivized Iran and its jihadi proxies to hit back, just as he’s diminished the nation’s early-warning systems.

Enough intelligence remains, however, that even in the days before Trump ordered the first strikes against Tehran, government analysts were picking up “worrisome signs” of Iranian plotting against U.S. targets, the New York Times reported. After the U.S.-Israel onslaught and death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28, the government intercepted a possible Iranian “operational trigger” to “sleeper assets” outside Iran, according to ABC News.

Counterterrorism expert Colin P. Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center, which focuses on global security and transnational terrorism, wrote this week in the Atlantic that U.S. agencies’ record of disrupting Iranian-backed plots in America was in jeopardy given the recent changes in funding, personnel and priorities. “Because of this,” he concluded, “the U.S. homeland is arguably more vulnerable than it has been in a long time.”

In a follow-up exchange of emails, Clarke told me, “Many of this administration’s moves have been myopic — shifting counterterrorism resources to immigration, firing FBI agents working counterintelligence, etc. A week before the U.S. went to war with Iran, the FBI Director Kash Patel was off gallivanting in Milan at the Olympics [where he struggled to chug a Michelob Ultra, a firing offense in its own right] when he should have been preparing for the potential for an Iranian response on U.S. soil.”

Patel’s preposterous partying with the U.S. men’s hockey team while war-planning was underway in Washington was widely, justifiably mocked. But it stands as a metaphor for the entire Trump administration’s cavalier attitude toward homeland security. Its abusive focus on both migrants and citizens protesting on the migrants’ behalf is a distraction from actual threats to the country.

Patel, like his boss at the Justice Department, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, has made plain in words and actions that the president’s political enemies are the real public enemies No. 1. One of Bondi’s first acts was creation of a “weaponization working group” to identify, fire or prosecute those in her department who’d investigated and prosecuted Trump, many of whom also had experience in domestic and transnational terrorism. The association representing FBI agents called her purges “dangerous distractions” from the work “to make America safe again.”

Days after starting the Iran war, when homeland security should have been on red alert, Trump fired his secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. Her costly cosplaying as the homeland’s heroine on horseback in anti-migrant videos, along with her penchant for luxury jets allegedly to transport deportees, was too much even for him.

Yet all three “national security” officials — Noem, Bondi and Patel — simply reflect Trump’s own warped approach and blasé attitude toward the homefront.

When Time magazine last week asked the commander in chief whether Americans should be worried about potential terrorist strikes at home, he replied, “I guess.”

“We plan for it,” he added. “But yeah, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”

The administration is planning for it all right. An extraordinary number of senior Trump officials have taken up residence in houses on military bases, including Bondi, Noem, the secretaries of State and Defense, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, and White House consigliere Stephen Miller.

The rest of us just have to keep our fingers crossed. I guess.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Erin Wagner lives in the Chicago suburbs but visits two bald eagles in Southern California’s Big Bear Valley nearly every day.

At work, the 41-year-old often plays a livestream featuring Jackie and Shadow on one of her monitors — a respite when she needs a break.

The avian power couple follows her home, keeping her company as she cooks dinner.

“We live in such a busy world, and things are always being thrown at our face, so sometimes it’s nice to just have a gentle reminder of nature and what else is out there in the world,” Wagner told me last week.

She is just one of many devoted fans; the eagles had the highest view count of any year-round nature livestream active on YouTube between last fall and this spring, said Rebecca Mauldin, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who studies social connectedness.

While the eagles’ following is singular, it’s part of a broader trend: surging interest in webcams that broadcast nature, unadulterated, minute by minute, in all its messy glory.

The number of 24/7 livestreams created per year swelled by about 3,000% between 2019 and 2025, Mauldin’s data show.

Jackie and Shadow’s livestream exemplifies “Slow TV,” a genre that began with a 2009 Norwegian broadcast of a seven-hour train trip. It took off, with other marathon programs featuring chopping firewood and knitting.

Nature looms large in the format. Millions tune into Sweden’s live coverage of an annual moose migration, and the same goes for a seasonal broadcast of bears chowing down on salmon in Alaska.

The appeal makes intuitive sense. In a world of quick camera cuts, sound bites and troubling headlines, Mother Nature’s rhythms can be a salve. And with many of us wound up in concrete urbanity, the livestreams offer instant transportation to the wild.

Following Jackie and Shadow takes patience. If they’re not hanging out at the nest, it’s a waiting game until they come back. Even when they’re there, there may not be much going on.

Entertainment “can be very artificial, it can be very packaged, and it can be very short,” said Jenny Voisard, media manager for Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that operates the cameras broadcasting the eagles. “This is long and slow and calm.”

Yet nature is unpredictable, another draw for viewers. This nesting season alone has brought plenty of drama, from the lovebirds losing their eggs to ravens to laying more not long after. Last week, I wrote about the couple’s shocking origin — it involves a love triangle! — and their rise to reality stardom.

Last year, Jackie and Shadow raised two chicks that went on to fledge: Sunny and Gizmo

(Friends of Big Bear Valley)

Research backs the vibes. Those who watch nature livestreams — from platypi to osprey — report a host of benefits, from uplifted mood to relaxation, said Mauldin, citing a literature review she-coauthored.

Others get jazzed about learning about a particular species, she said.

There may be limitations, though.

In terms of connecting to nature, “I lean toward the effect is stronger if you’re actually outdoors, or, you know, you’ve got a little ant crawling on your finger and watching it,” Mauldin said.

She highlighted another dimension I didn’t think of: Many “talk about how they’re developing strong online relationships, and you can see it in the chats or in the comments.”

Someone might comment that they had a bad day and are glad to be watching their favorite birds again, and another viewer will rally to support them. Then there are people who watch on their own, but gab about it later with a friend.

Friends of Big Bear Valley, with 1.2 million followers on Facebook, offers more than just updates on the eagles. It’s a buzzing community center where fans can share their thoughts and engage with one another.

Animals may also get something out of being watched: protection.

The eagle cam, for example, “sort of stokes the public’s imagination and interest in conservation,” said Thomas Leeman, deputy chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s migratory bird program in the Pacific Southwest. “They start to really care about whichever particular birds that they’re watching.”

Wagner, of Chicago, said her husband and 14-year-old son sometimes give her a hard time about how invested she is in Jackie and Shadow.

But her cat, Oscar, shares her fascination.

She recently posted a photo of the feline on Jackie and Shadow’s Facebook — looking intently at a TV where an eagle hunkered down on the nest.

“My new cat is just as obsessed as all of us,” she wrote.

More recent wildlife news

Big Bear’s celeb eagles continue to keep us on our toes. Jackie recently vanished from the nest for nearly 24 hours, sending fans into a panic — but eventually reunited with her eggs and mate, reports USA Today’s Michelle Del Rey.

While we’re on the subject of avian kind: Last week, I wrote about a pair of condors that appear to be nesting in Northern California, something not seen for a century. The Yurok Tribe is leading the effort to bring the large, endangered vultures back to their historic homeland in Humboldt and Del Norte counties.

As conservationists celebrate that win, the story for birds nationwide is not so rosy. A recent study found that North America is rapidly losing birds, and the loss is accelerating, largely due to intensive agriculture and warming temperatures, writes the Associated Press’ Seth Borenstein.

A few last things in climate news

Trump’s war on Iran has disrupted global oil and gas supplies. The conflict has kept ships that carry millions of barrels of oil a day stranded in the Persian Gulf, and key Middle East facilities have sustained damage, reports the Associated Press.

Oil prices have spiked, and Californians are paying the highest price at the pump in the nation. As my colleague Iris Kwok explains, that’s due to the state’s higher taxes and stricter requirements for cleaner, more expensive gas that pollutes.

Sticker shock at gas stations is expected to spur more Americans to consider hybrid or electric vehicles, according to fellow Times staffers Caroline Petrow-Cohen and Blanca Begert.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has released a legal opinion that sets the stage to approve a controversial oil operation off the Santa Barbara County coast, The Times’ Grace Toohey reports.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildlife and outdoors news, follow Lila Seidman at @lilaseidman.bsky.social on Bluesky and @lila_seidman on X.

A video circulating online appears to show signature collectors paying people to sign initiative petitions under other people’s names, according to officials, and now the state has opened an investigation.

The video, filmed by videographer JJ Smith, shows a long queue leading to a table set up at 6th and Mission streets in San Francisco. A man in line says they are being offered $5 to sign petitions. At the table, where there are lists with the information of apparent registered voters, a woman confirms the payment and — using a highlighter — instructs a person on the name and address that she is supposed to use.

“I get $5 too?” the videographer asks.

“Yeah,” says the woman.

“And what is it?”

“Just sign it,” she says.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Petitions connected to at least three ballot campaigns — including the billionaire-backed effort to thwart California’s proposed billionaire tax — appear in the video.

“I approached some people and asked them what they were there for,” Smith told The Times. “They told me they didn’t know what they were signing for, that they just wanted the $5.”

Smith said he watched the scene for hours and estimated that a few hundred people cycled through the line over roughly two hours.

Those running the table did not ask for anyone’s identification and gave no explanation of what was actually being signed, he said.

The video showed voter data from San Luis Obispo County that was both visible and, as details were spoken aloud, audible in the footage.

The county acted immediately after becoming aware of the video and initiated an investigation through the fraud unit of the California secretary of state’s office, said Erin Clausen, public information officer for the San Luis Obispo county clerk’s office.

Clausen noted that, although voter registration data can be legally requested from county election offices, the data in this case may have been used inappropriately. The county is also planning on reaching out directly to voters who were specifically mentioned or identified in the video, according to Clausen.

“The activity shown in the video, if verified, would violate California election law,” County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano said in a formal statement released Wednesday morning.

The secretary of state’s office confirmed it had opened a formal investigation.

“Under California law, it is illegal to give money or other valuable consideration to another in exchange for their signature on an initiative petition,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “ Those who abuse our system will be held accountable.”

The office is working with local officials and encouraged anyone with information to file a complaint.

One political committee, Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, confirmed its petitions were among those whose signature gatherers were allegedly paying people to sign and moved quickly to distance itself from the activity.

“Under no circumstance do we tolerate this type of activity in the signature gathering process,” said spokesperson Molly Weedn. “We’ve taken immediate action and have demanded that the signature gathering firm identify these circulators and reject their petitions.” Weedn said the collectors were subcontractors, not campaign employees, and that attorneys were contacting authorities.

That committee is funded by another group, Building a Better California, which was also among campaigns that appeared in the video. The other was for a proposed initiative called the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026. Representatives for the latter two have not responded to requests for comment.

Smith said this was not the first time he had witnessed this type of activity in the area.

“I saw something similar with ballots three days ago,” he said.

The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with information can submit a complaint to the Office of the California Secretary of State or contact their local county elections office.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

A majority of Los Angeles voters are undecided about the race for mayor, with support for incumbent Karen Bass at 20%, according to a new poll.

The poll by Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics found that about 51% of Angelenos have not made up their minds about who should lead the city for the next four years.

Spencer Pratt, a conservative reality TV star, came in second to Bass, at just over 10%. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a former Bass ally who shook up the field with her last-minute entry, polled at slightly more than 9%. Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller was supported by just over 4% of those polled, with leftist candidate Rae Huang at about 3%.

Although Bass had the most support among the candidates in the June 2 primary election, the poll showed that nearly half of Angelenos are unhappy with her performance. She was weakened politically by her handling of the devastating Palisades fire but has touted reductions in homicides and homelessness.

About 25% of those polled said they approve of the job Bass is doing as mayor, while about 47% disapprove. About 28% said they have no opinion or felt neutral.

The poll, based on interviews with 350 likely voters March 7-9, revealed just how up for grabs the mayoral election is, with less than three months before the primary.

“This is a wide open race,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former city council member and L.A. County supervisor who runs the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “The general narrative [of the poll] is that the mayor is not popular for somebody going into reelection, but the majority of people have not made up their mind whether they’ll come back to her or go to someone else.”

City Councilmember Nithya Raman meets with reporters after filing paperwork to run for mayor of Los Angeles.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Bass campaign spokesperson Doug Herman did not respond directly to the poll. But he said in a statement that the mayor “took on the challenge to change Los Angeles after decades of decline from long ignored issues; resulting in first ever back to back drops in homelessness, 60 year lows in homicides and an unprecedented 40,000 affordable housing units accelerated.”

Pratt said through a campaign spokesperson, “The Emerson poll confirms what we’ve been seeing on the ground — this is a two-person race for Mayor of Los Angeles between me and Karen Bass. Angelenos are frustrated with the direction of the city and it’s reflected in her low approval numbers. Our campaign is gaining real momentum as more voters look for new leadership focused on results and accountability. This race is just getting started.”

Raman’s campaign, however, said she’s the one gaining momentum.

“It’s clear that voters want change, and we’re gaining momentum for our campaign to make L.A. more affordable and to govern with urgency and accountability,” the campaign said in a statement.

The field of candidates did not take shape until the week of the February filing deadline. Billionaire developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath both flirted with a run before deciding against it, and former L.A. schoolsSupt. Austin Beutner dropped out after the death of his 22-year-old daughter. With no other major candidate opposing Bass, Raman filed her paperwork with hours to spare.

With petitions still being verified, 13 mayoral candidates have qualified for the June ballot. If no one gets 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two finishers will head to a runoff in November.

“This race could shift dramatically come June,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said in a statement.

Kimball cited the large percentage of undecided voters of all stripes — 67% of independents, 49% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans are undecided. Pratt is a Republican, and the other major candidates are Democrats in a heavily blue city.

Pacific Palisades resident Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, stands with supporters after announcing his run for Los Angeles mayor on the one-year anniversary of the Palisades fire in the Palisades Village on Jan. 7, 2026.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

The poll is not the first to show negative views of Bass.

Last year, after the Palisades fire, a poll of L.A. County residents by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs found that 37% held favorable views of the mayor, while 49% held unfavorable views.

The Emerson poll also featured questions on issues such as public safety and homelessness.

More than 82% of Angelenos in the poll said they feel very safe or somewhat safe in their communities, while about 17% said they feel not too safe or not safe at all.

On homelessness, the view was grimmer. Only 15% of Angelenos polled said that homelessness is getting better, while more than 55% said it is getting worse. Almost 30% feel it is staying the same.

Los Angeles has seen significant reductions in street homelessness for the last two years, after years of steady increases.

Bass has attributed the declines to her signature Inside Safe program, which clears encampments and places homeless people in short term housing.

“There is no doubt that Inside Safe, by bringing thousands of people inside and reducing street homelessness by 17.5 percent, has saved lives and helped drive this decline,” Bass said in a statement Tuesday.

The Emerson poll also asked California residents about the governor’s race. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) had the most support at slightly more than 17%, followed by Republicans Steve Hilton at just over 13% and Chad Bianco at more than 11%. Billionaire Tom Steyer came in at about 11%.

Nearly a quarter of California voters were undecided, according to the poll.

Paul Mitchell, a political data expert, called the Emerson poll flawed. Not enough Angelenos were polled, and the sample skewed too heavily toward young people, when older residents are more likely to vote, he said.

Mitchell called the poll an “amuse-bouche.”

“This tells all of the candidates [they] should be doing a poll,” he said.

A Christian engineer with L.A. County claims his bosses discriminated against him by forcing him to pass by a Pride flag on the way to his office, the latest legal challenge to the government’s policy of requiring many government buildings display the flag throughout June.

Eric Batman, a 24-year veteran of the Department of Public Works, sued the county March 10 for refusing to let him work remotely in June, when the rainbow-striped flag hangs in front of his department’s Alhambra headquarters.

It’s the second lawsuit to target the county’s 2023 policy ordering the raising of the “Progress Pride Flag,” a modified version of the traditional rainbow flag with additional stripes representing people of color and transgender and nonbinary people.

In May 2024, Jeffrey Little, an evangelical Christian county lifeguard, sued the county for requiring he work feet away from the flag. That case, filed by conservative Catholic legal group Thomas More Society, is ongoing.

Batman said he first asked to work remotely for the month of June in 2024 to avoid the flag, which he found “highly offensive,” according to the suit.

A supervisor rejected his request, according to the filing, noting the county was “committed to fostering an inclusive workplace, including for our LGBTQ+ employees.” The supervisor suggested he use another entrance, Batman’s suit claimed.

“They wouldn’t give it to him because the county said ‘Our interest is in inclusivity — regardless of whether or not that includes you,”’ said Daniel Schmid, an attorney with Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group representing Batman.

Liberty Counsel frequently takes on high-profile plaintiffs who oppose same-sex marriage, including the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

A spokesperson for the county’s public works department said she could not comment on the suit as it had not yet been served.

Attacks on multiple commercial ships in the waters around Iran on Wednesday increased global energy concerns, pushed nations to unleash strategic oil reserves and sparked fresh critiques of the Trump administration’s readiness for a war it started.

As Trump administration and U.S. military officials continued to claim increasing success and advantage in the conflict — and authorities downplayed a reported threat of drone attacks on California — leaders around the world scrambled to respond to the latest attacks and the International Energy Agency’s call for the largest ever release of strategic oil reserves by its members to help stem energy price spikes.

President Trump also faced renewed questions about a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school at the start of the war, after the New York Times reported Wednesday that a military investigation had determined the U.S. was responsible.

“I don’t know about it,” Trump said when asked about the report.

In an address Wednesday morning, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz had “all but stopped” amid the conflict, driving massive global competition for oil and gas in wealthier countries and fuel rationing in poorer nations.

He said the IEA’s 32 member nations have brought a “sense of urgency and solidarity” to recent discussions on the matter, and had unanimously agreed to “launch the largest ever release of emergency oil stocks in our agency’s history,” making 400 million barrels of oil available.

However, he said the most needed change is the “resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.”

A vendor pumps petrol from Iranian fuel oil tankers for resale near the Bashmakh border crossing between Iraq and Iran.

(Ozan Kose / AFP/Getty Images)

Several countries, including Germany, Austria and Japan, had already confirmed their plans to release reserves.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any U.S. plans to release its strategic reserves, or how much would be released. The U.S. is an IEA member.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that the U.S. has hit Iran “harder than virtually any country in history has been hit,” including by wiping out its naval fleet and eliminating other vessels capable of laying mines, and that he believes oil companies should resume shipments through the strait despite the recent attacks.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed the idea of releasing oil reserves in a Fox News interview.

“Certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for, because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world; we’ve got a transit problem, which is temporary,” Burgum said. “When you have a temporary transit problem that we’re resolving militarily and diplomatically — which we can resolve and will resolve — this is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those, to take some pressure off of the global price.”

Burgum said that while Iran is “holding the entire world hostage economically by threatening to close the strait,” Trump has made the consequences of such actions “very clear,” and “there’s a lot of options between ourselves and our allies in the region, including our Arab friends in the region, to make sure that those straits keep open and that energy keeps flowing for the global economy.”

The IEA did not provide details as to the release of the 400 million barrels, part of a broader reserve of some 1.2 billion barrels held by its members. It said the reserves “will be made available to the market over a time frame that is appropriate to the national circumstances of each Member country and will be supplemented by additional emergency measures by some countries.”

The agency said an average of 20 million barrels of crude oil and oil products transited the strait per day in 2025, and that options for bypassing the strait are “limited.”

While some tankers believed linked to Iran were still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, which under normal circumstances carries about 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas, Iranian officials threatened attacks on other vessels — saying they would not allow “even a single liter of oil” tied to the U.S., Israel or their allies through the channel, which connects to the Persian Gulf.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. and its powerful Navy would support commercial vessels and ensure the strait remains open to oil shipments, but that has not been the case.

Tankers wait off the Mediterranean coast of southern France on Wednesday.

(Thibaud Moritz / AFP/Getty Images)

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British military, reported at least three ships struck in the region Wednesday — including ships off the United Arab Emirates and a cargo ship that was struck by a projectile in the strait just north of Oman, setting it ablaze.

The Trump administration and the U.S. military, meanwhile, have been pushing out messaging about wiping out Iran’s ability to plant mines in the strait — posting dramatic videos of major strikes on tiny boats on small docks.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the leader of U.S. Central Command, said in a video posted to X on Wednesday morning that “in short, U.S. forces continue delivering devastating combat power against the Iranian regime.”

“I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: U.S. combat power is building, Iranian combat power is declining,” he said.

The U.S. has struck more than 60 Iranian ships, and just “took out the last of four Soleimani-class warships,” he said. “That’s an entire class of Iranian ships now out of the fight.”

Cooper said Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks have “dropped drastically” since the start of the war, though “it’s worth pointing out that Iranian forces continue to target innocent civilians in gulf countries, while hiding behind their own people as they launch attacks from highly populated cities in Iran.”

He also addressed the attacks on commercial shipping in the region directly, saying that “for years, the Iranian regime has threatened commercial shipping and U.S. forces in international waters,” and that the U.S. military’s “mission is to end their ability to project power and harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Other U.S. leaders called the U.S. war plan — and specifically its approach to protecting the Strait of Hormuz — into question.

In a series of posts to X late Tuesday, which he said followed a two-hour classified briefing on the war, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slammed the administration’s plans as “incoherent and incomplete.”

Murphy wrote that the administration’s goals for the war seemed to be focused primarily on “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories,” and without a clear plan for what to do when Iran — still led by “a hardline regime” — begins rebuilding that infrastructure, other than to continue bombing them. “Which is, of course, endless war,” he wrote.

Murphy also specifically criticized the administration’s plan for the Strait of Hormuz — which he said simply doesn’t exist.

“And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” he wrote. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it [to] say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open. Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.”

Ships in the strait remained under threat of various forms of attack Wednesday, as did much of the region as the war raged on.

There was an attack on a U.S. Embassy operations center at Baghdad’s airport, which officials attributed to a drone launched by Iranian proxies based in Iraq. No casualties were reported.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported the death toll there — from fighting between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters — had risen to 634 since last week, including 91 children. Another 1,500 people had been wounded, the ministry said.

Iranian authorities have said U.S. and Israeli attacks have killed 1,255 people since Feb. 28. That includes many Iranian leaders, including then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. U.S. officials have said Iranian attacks in the region have killed seven U.S. service members, with another 140 wounded.

CBS News reported Wednesday that dozens of those injuries were sustained by service members in the March 1 Iranian drone attack on a tactical operations center in Kuwait — which is also where six of the seven deaths occurred.

The outlet reported that the attack was more severe than the Trump administration has revealed, with more than 30 military members still in hospitals Tuesday with a range of battle injuries including “brain trauma, shrapnel wounds and burns.”

Threats extended beyond the Middle East, too — including to California, where law enforcement agencies were warned by federal authorities that Iran “allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack” on California using drones launched from a vessel off the U.S. coast.

However, sources told The Times that advisory was cautionary and not backed by credible intelligence.

Times staff writer Gavin J. Quinton, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

MIAMI — Voting technology firm Smartmatic is seeking to dismiss a criminal indictment for money laundering, blaming President Trump and his allies for seeking its prosecution as part of a “campaign of retribution” against those they blame for his 2020 election loss.

Smartmatic’s parent company, UK-based SGO Corporation, was added to a criminal indictment last fall previously charging several executives with paying $1 million in bribes to election officials in the Philippines.

In a motion to dismiss the indictment filed Tuesday, attorneys for Smartmatic said the company had been cooperating with the Justice Department since it first learned of its investigation in 2021, including by producing millions of pages of documents and making presentations to federal agents. A trial date for the executives, including co-founder Roger Pinate, had been set and the company believed that it was in the clear.

But when Trump returned to the White House, the Justice Department reversed course and decided to press charges against Smartmatic. Attorneys for the company said the decision was prompted by Trump’s demands to prosecute his perceived enemies and his “mantra” that Smartmatic helped rig the 2020 U.S. presidential election won by Joe Biden — allegations that are at the heart of a $2.7-billion lawsuit filed by Smartmatic against the president’s allies in the media.

“The prosecution of SGO furthers their collective false narrative that President Trump did not actually lose the 2020 election,” Smartmatic said in the filing in Miami federal court.

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

Attorneys likened the prosecution to the Justice Department’s targeting of Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a Salvadoran migrant who was criminally charged for conduct years earlier after he successfully sued the Trump administration over its decision to deport him.

In the years since the election, the filing states, “Smartmatic USA has exercised its right to hold those individuals and entities legally accountable for their deluge of defamatory statements and the attendant damage inflicts on its business, putting it squarely in the crosshairs for retribution.”

The criminal case against Smartmatic and its employees stems from payments, between 2015 and 2018, that were allegedly made to obtain a contract with the Philippine government to help run that country’s 2016 presidential election. Pinate, who no longer works for Smartmatic but remains a shareholder, has pleaded not guilty.

As part of the criminal case, prosecutors in August sought the court’s permission to introduce evidence they argue shows that revenue from a $300-million contract with Los Angeles County to help modernize its voting systems was diverted to a “ slush fund” controlled by Pinate through the use of overseas shell companies, fake invoices and other means.

They also accused Pinate of secretly bribing Venezuela’s longtime election chief by giving her a luxury home with a pool in Caracas. Prosecutors say the home was transferred to the election chief in an attempt to repair relations following Smartmatic’s abrupt exit from Venezuela in 2017 when it accused then-President Nicolas Maduro ’s government of manipulating tallied results in elections for a rubber-stamping constituent assembly.

Smartmatic was founded more than two decades ago by a group of Venezuelans who found early success running elections while the late Hugo Chavez, a devotee of electronic voting, was in power. The company later expanded globally, providing voting machines and other technology to help carry out elections in 25 countries, from Argentina to Zambia.

But Smartmatic has said its business tanked after Fox News gave Trump’s lawyers a platform to paint the company as part of a conspiracy to steal the 2020 election.

Fox said it was legitimately reporting on newsworthy events but eventually aired a piece refuting the allegations after Smartmatic’s lawyers complained. Nonetheless, it has aggressively defended itself against the defamation lawsuit in New York — arguing that the company was facing imminent collapse over its own internal misconduct, not due to any negative coverage.

Goodman writes for the Associated Press.

A dispute over the city of Los Angeles’ eviction defense program came to an end Tuesday when the City Council approved millions of dollars in funding for the next 15 months.

The program, Stay Housed L.A., started in 2021 and provides thousands of renters with legal representation in eviction proceedings as well as other services.

Tenant advocates feared that the new contract, which passed 12 to 1 and funds an initial portion of a three-year, $177-million contract, was under threat after City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto urged the council to reconsider it in a confidential memo last week.

Feldstein Soto said she had concerns about awarding such a large contract to Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which frequently sues the city over homelessness issues.

Legal Aid is the main legal service provider under the Stay Housed L.A. contract, which also funds Southern California Housing Rights Center for short-term emergency rental assistance, Liberty Hill Foundation for tenant outreach and Strategic Actions for a Just Economy to protect tenants from harassment.

The city’s Housing Department had recommended a three-year contract, but the council opted for a shorter period that can be extended.

Legal Aid has argued that its lawsuits against the city are unrelated to its eviction defense work under the Stay Housed L.A. contract.

“We are very relieved that our services can continue uninterrupted,” said Barbara Schultz, director of housing justice for Legal Aid, in an interview after the vote.

Feldstein Soto, who is running for reelection, said in a statement that her office wanted to make sure the city wasn’t giving a “blank check” to Legal Aid without requiring detailed reporting of finances and outcomes.

“The eviction defense program is a city program and is in zero jeopardy,” she said. “What is in question is a $177-million blank check to [Legal Aid] and its partners without the reports and invoice review that is required by law. That is an amount that exceeds the budget of numerous city departments.”

On Tuesday, the City Council added a requirement that the nonprofits in the program provide “performance metrics” including the number of tenants served, case outcomes and demographic data.

Schultz said that Legal Aid already provides monthly data to the city.

John Lee was the only councilmember who voted against the new contract, saying he was not comfortable with the new “transparency requirements.”

Since its inception, Stay Housed L.A. has opened about 26,000 cases overall, providing full representation for 6,150 cases and working on nearly 20,000 “limited scope” cases, according to data from Legal Aid. The original contract, which is set to lapse at the end of the month, was for about $90 million.

The program is funded by Measure ULA, the “mansion tax” passed by city voters in 2022. On Tuesday, the council included a provision that would allow it to cease funding the eviction defense program if Measure ULA were overturned.

WASHINGTON — Jill Biden is breaking her silence about Joe Biden’s decision to abruptly end his 2024 presidential reelection bid under pressure from Democrats concerned about his age, health and viability against Republican Donald Trump in a rematch of their 2020 campaign.

A political spouse for nearly 50 years, Jill Biden said she has never publicly discussed her feelings about the three-week stretch when her husband ended his political career, instead saving her thoughts for the pages of her soon-to-be-released memoir.

Gallery Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, on Wednesday announced that her book, “View from the East Wing: A Memoir,” is scheduled to be published June 2.

Jill Biden told the Associated Press in a brief telephone interview that the book is a “reflection of my four years as first lady” and that writing it was somewhat healing.

“It was kind of cathartic for me to write it, and I wrote about all the, you know, sometimes painful — but other times, most of it really beautiful moments that Joe and I shared during his presidency,” she said.

Jill Biden declined on Tuesday to discuss any of those moments, good or bad — including watching her husband work his way to the decision to end his five-decade-long political career by dropping out of the 2024 presidential race.

In an announcement video shared on Instagram, she said she wants to “set the record straight.”

The last chapter of her husband’s political career

In April 2023, then-President Joe Biden was 80 and the oldest president in U.S. history when he announced he was running for a second term. His age and fitness to serve another four years — which would take him to age 86 — became a source of concern for the public. Some fellow Democrats began to pressure him to step aside after he turned in a disastrous debate performance against Trump in June 2024 in which he struggled, in a raspy voice, to land his debating points and often appeared to lose his train of thought. Aides blamed the poor performance on a cold.

Joe Biden at first insisted that he would stay in the race, but after a few weeks he withdrew from the campaign and endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris, his vice president. Harris became the party’s presidential nominee but lost to Trump in the November 2024 election.

Jill Biden said that, with the book, “I have put things in perspective,” presenting what she describes as a “more balanced view” of her husband’s time as president.

The memoir is also a tribute of the sorts to women who, like herself, juggle multiple roles.

“It’s also a story about my being able to balance life, you know, as a working woman and as a mother, a grandmother, a first lady,” she said.

During her four years in the role, Jill Biden, 74, made history as the first first lady to continue the career she had before entering the White House. She had taught English and writing for decades at the community college level, and she continued teaching twice a week at a Northern Virginia school while serving as first lady.

Joe Biden ‘doing well’ after his cancer diagnosis

The former president’s office announced in May 2025 that he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer and that it had spread to his bones. He’s receiving treatment.

Jill Biden said it was “quite a shock getting the diagnosis” for her husband, who’s now 83.

“The fact that it is in his bones means that he will have cancer, you know, all his lifetime,” Jill Biden said. She said the doctors say he will “live out his natural life.”

“Like most retired couples, he’ll probably drive me crazy till the end of it,” she joked.

She said he visits Washington at least once a week for meetings or to give speeches.

A unique period in American history

The former first lady also writes in the book about serving during a unique period in U.S. history, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the aftermath of the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to the publisher.

Her husband was sworn into office on the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2021, just two weeks after a mob of Trump supporters, spurred by his false claims that the Republican lost because of election fraud, stormed the building in a violent attempt to keep lawmakers from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

Joe Biden’s first year in office was dominated by the federal response to the pandemic and, while he mostly stayed at the White House, Jill Biden wore face mask and traveled around the country to encourage people to get their vaccinations. She also continued her advocacy on behalf of military families, education and community colleges, cancer prevention and women’s health initiatives.

Before she became first lady, Jill Biden was second lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017, when her husband was Barack Obama’s vice president. She currently chairs the Milken Institute’s Women’s Health Network.

Jill Biden is also the author of “Where the Light Enters,” published in 2019, in which she writes about meeting Joe Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, and marrying and building a life with him. She also has written three children’s books.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Changes in Venezuela are slow and imperfect, but they are happening. The question is not whether chavismo will attempt to produce results that benefit Venezuelans, because it has no alternative. The real question is how it will do so and who is on the playing field trying to shape those outcomes.

The reform of the Hydrocarbons Law, the enactment of the Amnesty Law, and the proposed reform of the Mining Law seem to indicate that the vehicle for implementing the institutional measures demanded by the United States is the National Assembly. A National Assembly that lacks legitimacy and does not represent the majority of the country’s political sectors.

Two weeks ago, Tareck William Saab resigned from his position as chief prosecutor, and Alfredo Ruiz resigned as ombudsman. Both had held those posts since August 2017 and had used the justice system against those who think differently. Following their resignations, the National Assembly confirmed Larry Devoe as acting head of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público) and appointed Saab himself as acting ombudsman. While Saab’s resignation represented a step forward, appointing Saab as acting ombudsman was a direct violation of the Constitution. These dissonant signals only confirm that the Rodríguez leadership has no political will to move toward a democratic transition.

The process to appoint the heads of the Citizen Power branch has begun with the convening of the Evaluation Committee, and once again the academic world and civil society organizations have decided to participate. The nomination of Dr. Magaly Vásquez for chief prosecutor is a clear example and reflects the same logic that led human rights organizations to participate in the discussions around the Amnesty Law: when civil society comes together, it can take advantage of even minimal conditions to make itself heard and push decision-making toward, at the very least, more “palatable” outcomes.

Will a future democratic government treat the Amnesty Law as illegitimate? Will the hydrocarbon contracts signed by the interim government of Delcy Rodríguez be recognized?

In this process, as in the legislative debates mentioned earlier, there is an absence: the representation of all the country’s political actors. This absence (which includes a large portion of the opposition) is not simply an act of selfishness. On the contrary, their position is rooted in values and principles that prevent them from recognizing any legitimacy in the National Assembly. That stance deserves respect and admiration. However, it is worth asking whether that inflexible position is preventing them from becoming involved in processes that are producing real consequences for real people, inside and outside the country.

We know that these steps are not gestures of democratization. They appear instead to be targeted concessions designed to manage external pressure and preserve power. But achieving the appointment of a credible chief prosecutor or ombudsman could, even if only gradually, begin to rebuild a degree of institutional independence.

This leads me to ask those in the opposition who still remain on the sidelines: if we do not recognize these processes from their origin, what happens to their results when an eventual political change arrives? Will a future democratic government treat the Amnesty Law as illegitimate? Will the hydrocarbon contracts signed by the interim government of Delcy Rodríguez be recognized? Will the institutional reforms that may emerge within the framework of the path outlined by the US be rejected? These questions arise when one notices the absence of the main political figures, or when their presence remains limited to criticism.

These are not rhetorical or ill-intentioned questions. Nor is this about abandoning principles. Rather, it is about recognizing that civil society organizations need backing, especially from political parties and movements. As was demonstrated on July 28, 2024, when society’s desire for change translates into participation and is channeled by political parties, it becomes an overwhelming movement with the potential to materialize that will for change.

At the same time, we must be realistic: the response of opposition leaders cannot be unconditional recognition of the National Assembly. Structurally, it remains an instrument of authoritarian control. What can materialize, however, is support for civil society in the processes in which it is already participating. These expressions of support do not seek to legitimize lawmakers elected under questionable circumstances. Rather, they seek to recognize the work and struggle of the intermediary organizations that are fighting to open spaces for institutional life.

Turning this transition into a Venezuelan process requires Venezuelan actors to claim leadership over the institutional processes now unfolding.

A clear example of support could be the one mentioned earlier. The process to appoint the heads of Poder Ciudadano should not be rejected from the outset. Instead, those who have chosen to submit their candidacies before the National Assembly’s Evaluation Committee—and who possess the necessary technical and civic credentials—should receive public support, while their names are circulated in the public arena. Put more plainly: make noise about it. Doing so would increase the cost for the regime, in the eyes of the Trump administration, of selecting individuals who are the complete opposite: people without technical qualifications or chosen solely for political loyalty.

Choosing to support participation from an external position carries implications that become clearer with every issue appearing on the legislative agenda. The reform of the Mining Law presented this week, for example, cannot follow the path taken by the Hydrocarbons Law, which was approved without consultation, transparency or the participation of those who will bear its costs.

Venezuelan scholars, environmental organizations, and Indigenous communities must be sitting at the table in the discussions on the mining law. And the opposition, if it truly aspires to represent Venezuelans and not simply oppose the regime, could present its own reform proposals to the organizations that decide to participate in the process. In this way, participation would be effectively “outsourced.” The direct actors are not recognized, but the work of leading institutions is acknowledged.

What is at stake is more than a specific law or appointment. January 3 set in motion a process of transition in Venezuela that we hope will reach a safe harbor and conclude with free elections. But we cannot forget that there is also a risk that these changes will become little more than a negotiation between the US and remnants of chavismo. Turning this transition into a Venezuelan process requires Venezuelan actors to claim leadership over the institutional processes now unfolding. On one side, civil society must act as the principal driver. On the other, the opposition must decide whether it will remain on the margins or become an active ally.

Transitions are never perfect, because in most cases the preexisting institutions are not trustworthy. Yet decisions made within those institutions tend to be more durable than the circumstances that gave rise to them. Participating in a flawed process does not mean surrendering one’s principles. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of the moment, by contrast, allows others to shape what will become the legal and institutional architecture of the transition. And possibly, the political landscape of the coming decades.

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for a Sacramento DACA recipient who was deported to Mexico last month have filed a lawsuit against the federal government seeking her immediate return to the U.S.

Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, 42, was detained Feb. 18 during a scheduled interview for her green card application. She was deported to Mexico the next day, despite having active deportation protection through the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

According to the lawsuit, Estrada Juarez, who worked as a regional manager for Motel 6, was deported without being provided notice of a lawful removal order and without the opportunity to fight her case before an immigration judge.

“Maria’s deportation was unlawful and violated basic principles of due process,” said her attorney Stacy Tolchin. “She had a valid DACA status, she appeared for her immigration appointment as instructed, and she should never have been removed from the country.”

Estrada Juarez’s case garnered public attention and outrage from members of Congress, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), after being published in the Sacramento Bee.

According to her lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday,it’s unclear whether an order for her removal was ever issued. And even if one was issued, the complaint says, “Petitioner could not legally be removed from the United States while in DACA status.”

The complaint states that the one document Estrada Juarez received was a verification of her physical removal from the U.S. — not a removal order. The document states that she is barred from returning to the U.S. for 10 years because she had been ordered removed by an immigration judge.

The lawsuit calls that contention untrue — Estrada Juarez has never been in removal proceedings and has never seen an immigration judge. Her arrest at her immigration interview was the first time she learned she had been ordered removed in 1998.

The Department of Homeland Security told The Times that a judge had ordered Estrada Juarez’s deportation in 1998 “and she was removed from the United States shortly after.”

“She illegally re-entered the U.S. — a felony,” Homeland Security said. “She was arrested and her final order re-instated. ICE removed her from the U.S. on February 19, 2026.”

In 2014, Estrada Juarez went to Mexico using a travel permission for DACA recipients known as advance parole. She reentered the U.S. legally on Dec. 28, 2014.

According to the lawsuit, “reinstatement of removal requires an illegal reentry, and Petitioner’s last entry was on advance parole so would not fall under that ground.”

The lawsuit includes an emergency request for the federal government to facilitate Estrada Juarez’s return while the case is pending.

Estrada Juarez applied for legal permanent residency, or a green card, through her daughter, Damaris Bello, 22, a U.S. citizen. Her DACA status is valid until April 23, according to the lawsuit, and she has a pending renewal application.

Estrada Juarez said the U.S., where she lived for 27 years since her arrival at age 15, is the only home she has ever known.

“I followed the rules and showed up to my immigration appointment believing I was taking the next step toward stability,” she said. “Instead, I was taken away from my daughter and forced out of the country overnight.”

Jacob Ulibarri spent about six hours on New Year’s Day last year squashing hot spots where the Lachman fire had burned.

The rookie Los Angeles firefighter arrived sometime after 7 a.m., when the smoky areas were all over and easy to see. By the time the next crew swapped with his that afternoon, they were scarcer: “One every 30 minutes, roughly,” Ulibarri recalled.

At that point, Battalion Chief Martin Mullen, who was running the mop-up operation, had walked three laps around the perimeter of the fire. He recalled one hot spot he saw at about 10 a.m., which crews hit with water. Later in the afternoon, Mullen did his fourth and last loop and left the area for good.

He decided to leave the hoses out overnight, just in case.

Over the next two days, a series of communication failures and questionable decisions led crews to leave the area prematurely, with embers from the small Jan. 1 fire later reigniting into the devastating Palisades fire. A firefighter picking up hoses on Jan. 2 found crackling, red-hot coals in the dirt and warned colleagues that a more thorough mop-up was needed. Also that morning, a captain cautioned his chief that it was too soon to pick up the hoses. In yet another missed opportunity, crews apparently did not walk the entire perimeter of the burn scar after a caller reported smoke in the area on Jan. 3.

Because of the holiday, some were filling in for others outside of their normal assignments. Firefighters said they adhered to the LAFD’s strict chain of command and did not question higher-ups, while those in charge had fuzzy memories or shifted responsibility to others.

The revelations, contained in the sworn testimony of a dozen firefighters earlier this year as part of a lawsuit filed by Palisades fire victims, corroborate previous reporting by The Times and call into question the LAFD’s repeated claims that commanders left the fire “dead out.” More than a year later, with much of the Palisades still in ruins, LAFD leaders have refused to explain how or why the breakdowns occurred.

The LAFD employees mentioned in this story either could not be reached or declined to comment.

In a statement Monday, LAFD spokesperson Stephanie Bishop pointed to the alleged arsonist charged by federal prosecutors with deliberately setting the earlier fire. “The Lachman and Palisades Fire incidents would not be matters of discussion had this individual not allegedly initiated the original fire,” she said.

“It is important to allow the legal process to proceed without external influence or speculation. Offering running commentary on depositions outside of the courtroom risks compromising witness testimony, affecting the integrity of evidence review, and impacting ongoing judicial proceedings. We stand by the investigation conducted by the ATF,” Bishop added, referring to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Around 6 a.m. on Jan. 2, 2025

At the end of his 24-hour overtime shift, Mullen handed the reins to Battalion Chief Mario Garcia, recommending that the incoming chief scope out the fire perimeter.

“I told him I left him hose lines in place overnight. You need to walk that and make sure there’s nothing going up on there,” said Mullen, whose regular job is managing the LAFD’s 106 fire stations and 30 or so other buildings.

Before Garcia set foot on the burn scar, he put word out to station captains about the plan for the morning: Pick up hoses.

At Fire Station 19 in Brentwood, Capt. Alexander Gonzalez got a text from the chief’s aide, directing him to bring a “plug buggy” — a pickup truck used to carry equipment — “to help pick up hose.”

The plan reached Capt. David Sander at Fire Station 23 in the Palisades and Capt. Michael McIndoe at Fire Station 69.

McIndoe had reservations.

He told the chief’s aide that he thought the hoses should stay out longer. He had seen the forecast that day — a National Weather Service alert had warned of weather conducive to wildfires — and handling any lingering hot spots would be easier with hoses in place. The aide told him to take it up with the chief.

So McIndoe shared his concerns with Garcia over the phone.

Garcia “said something along the lines of, ‘OK. Let me go check it out, and then I’ll get back to you,’” McIndoe testified.

But the orders for the morning never changed.

8:30 a.m. on Jan. 2, 2025

After a briefing at Fire Station 23, Scott Pike and his partner took their ambulance to a cul-de-sac near the burn area. They spotted some hose dangling over a retaining wall covered in ivy.

An engine crew threw a 20-foot ladder to get over the wall. Soon, Pike said, they got another call and left.

“We were kind of making jokes, like, ‘It’s on us,’’’ recalled Pike, a firefighter normally assigned to a station in Sunland.

He grabbed his brush jacket, helmet and gloves and climbed over. He decided to hike to the end of the hose line — he was feeling good and thought he’d get a workout in.

Pike followed the main line — called the trunk line — which had hoses branching off in other directions. About 100 feet in, he saw where grass had burned. He navigated through culverts and climbed a steep hill of about 300 feet before hitting a hiking trail.

When he got to the end of the line, at about 8:45 a.m., he noticed a handful of smoky areas in heavier brush, and a hand line that wasn’t cut properly.

One ash pit was so hot he didn’t want to touch it, even with gloves. So he kicked it with his boot, exposing red-hot coals. He heard crackling and smelled smoke. He looked around, and there were no other firefighters.

We shouldn’t be picking up hoses, he thought to himself. Instead, we should be filling the hoses with water to do a more thorough mop-up.

He pinched the hose, directing any residual water to the ash pit. It steamed and crackled. He felt defeated when he only got a couple of gallons out, which wasn’t enough.

He slowed down, in case the pickup plan were to change because of his observations, and was relieved when more crews began hiking over.

“Hey, guys, are you seeing what I’m seeing?” Pike told a couple of firefighters. He was working an overtime shift away from his usual fire station, so he didn’t know them. “Like, maybe we should be charging these lines instead of picking them up.”

Since they were already there, he figured, some extra mop-up could save them work down the line if the fire were to reignite.

The firefighters shrugged him off and seemed eager to finish the assignment.

“They were like, ‘Yeah, I see what you’re saying,’ And then it was like, ‘We’ll tell one of the skippers. We’ll tell one of the captains.’ But, like, in the meantime, people were just very much like, just get the hose picked up,” Pike testified.

Shortly after, he saw a captain and raised the same concerns.

“That’s how I approached him, is like, ‘Hey, Cap … We have hot spots in general. We have some ash pits,’” Pike said. “That’s an alert to double-check the whole area and maybe we need to switch our tactics.”

Pike testified that it was not his job “to overstep and tell him what to do. He earned that rank.”

The captain suggested possibly bringing hand tools or a backpack filled with water up the hill to extinguish any hot spots.

Pike went back to picking up the hose while awaiting new orders, which never came.

The LAFD has declined to say whether the captain has been identified. Pike believed the captain was from Engine 69, which would have been McIndoe. But McIndoe told The Times he did not speak with Pike that day.

McIndoe said he also came across a smoldering ash pit during the couple of hours he was on the hill.

He retrieved a backpack with water from his engine, sprayed into the ground with a couple of gallons of water and dug up the dirt with his hand tool until he was satisfied it was cool.

At one point, he saw Garcia, the battalion chief, and brought up their earlier conversation.

“I just went up to him, and I said, ‘Hey, I hope you don’t think I’m just trying to get out of work,’” McIndoe said. “And he said, ‘No, that’s — that’s fine.’ Something along those lines, and that that’s all I can really recall.”

He said he was trying to tell Garcia that he believed “that the hose should stay up a little bit longer.”

By the time Gonzalez, who was backfilling that day at the Brentwood station, got to the scene, the operation was well underway, with half the hose already down the hillside.

“When I got there, it was just, it’s like a big daisy chain of hands pulling hose off and getting it down to the street. And rolling it, hosing it off and loading it into the plug buggy,” he testified.

He did not see smoldering that day. He testified that he went about 200 to 300 feet up, to where piles of hose were being dropped. “The next person brings it back down and that was it,” he said.

Some firefighters on hose pickup duty that day have not been deposed in the lawsuit. Aside from McIndoe and Pike, the four other firefighters who testified that they were at the burn scar on Jan. 2 said they did not see smoldering.

Garcia testified that at the burn scar, no one raised any concerns with him about the hose pickup. Nor did he see any need to leave the hoses at the site.

At 1:35 p.m. on Jan. 2, Garcia texted two higher-ups: “All hose and equipment has been picked up.”

Around 4:30 p.m., Garcia walked the area again with his aide to see if they had left any equipment behind. He saw no issues.

“We both walked the whole area,” Garcia said. “We went separate directions, but covered the whole area, and there was nothing that would bring any concern.”

11:51 a.m. on Jan. 3, 2025

Shortly before noon, someone called the LAFD about a grass fire in the burn area.

Engineer Edward Rincon, who had been on Engine 23 retrieving hoses the day before, pulled up to the same cul-de-sac. Once again, his crew threw the 20-foot ladder over the retaining wall. As on the previous day, he never entered the burn scar. He stayed with the engine while the captain and two firefighters went to scope out the area. He set the volume high on his radio to hear if they needed anything.

On the other side of the wall, Capt. Cesar Garcia walked for what he said was more than a couple of football fields, while the two firefighters went to different peaks to look around for smoke or fire.

“Everything is completely burned. I don’t smell anything. I don’t see any smoke. I don’t see any fire,” he testified.

He canceled another engine that was assigned to the call.

Firefighter Michael Contreras said he also didn’t see smoke. He said he could not see the entirety of the burn scar from his vantage point. He also said he did not suggest to his captain, Cesar Garcia, that they walk the whole perimeter.

“Is there a reason you did not?” a plaintiffs’ attorney asked.

“Again, would not be my lane to tell him that, you know,” he said.

Battalion Chief Mario Garcia was on duty again that day. Like Rincon, he stayed with his vehicle. Cesar Garcia said the chief pulled up a live feed on an iPad from two cameras on the mountain, which showed no smoke or fire.

An incident report shows they spent about 34 minutes on the call.

On the morning of Jan. 7, LAFD records show, a captain on duty in the Palisades called Fire Station 23 and told colleagues: The Lachman fire had started up again.