POLITICS

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.

WASHINGTON — Russia is emerging as one of the few early economic beneficiaries of the war with Iran, as disruptions to energy infrastructure drive up demand for Russian exports and the world casts its gaze to the Middle East and away from Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

The U.S. and its European counterparts slapped severe sanctions on Russia in March 2022, barely a month into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The effect was a stranglehold on Russia’s exports, depriving Putin’s war effort of at least $500 billion, experts say. But over the last week, as President Trump’s war in the Middle East choked energy markets worldwide, the White House began easing its restrictions on Moscow.

“It is traitorous conduct for you to help Russia,” California Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said on X, demanding the Trump administration reverse course. “Russia is giving intelligence info to Iran that helps Iran target American forces.”

Crude droplets rained over Tehran after Israeli airstrikes decimated oil depots, draping the Iranian capital in a dense smog. Iranian counterattacks have also targeted refineries and oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Crude oil prices have surged, and traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has all but ceased, sending energy importers in search of alternate sources.

Those spikes are giving Russia, one of the world’s largest oil and gas exporters, a rare advantage. After spending a decade as the world’s most sanctioned nation over his aggression in Ukraine, Putin is finally starting to regain some leverage in global markets.

“In the current economic situation, if we refocus now on those markets that need increased supplies, we can gain a foothold there,” Putin said at a meeting at the Kremlin on Monday, according to Russian state media. “It’s important for Russian energy companies to take advantage of the current situation.”

On March 4, the Treasury Department issued a temporary 30-day waiver allowing Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil. The appeal by the Trump administration was described as a way to ease demand for Mideast oil, but was criticized as a reversal of sanctions placed against Putin meant to deny him the capital needed to fund his occupation of eastern Ukraine.

Now, Moscow is poised to press that advantage further, after Trump said Monday he will further lift sanctions on oil-producing countries to ease the trade friction and reintroduce additional oil and gas supplies. The only countries with U.S. oil sanctions are Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

“So, we have sanctions on some countries. We’re going to take those sanctions off until this straightens out,” Trump said at a news conference at his golf club in Doral, Fla. “Then, who knows, maybe we won’t have to put them on — they’ll be so much peace.”

The surprise concession to Moscow comes as reports suggest Russia is assisting Iran in targeting U.S. personnel.

Trump’s announcement followed an unscheduled hourlong call with Putin about the situation in the Middle East.

The war has also set the stage for Russia to make gains in Ukraine, as hostilities draw the global spotlight away from Kyiv and its struggle to hold back the bigger Russian army. U.S.-brokered talks between the two adversaries have been sidelined as Washington shifts focus to its war in Iran.

“At the moment, the partners’ priority and all attention are focused on the situation around Iran,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on X. “We see that the Russians are now trying to manipulate the situation in the Middle East and the Gulf region to the benefit of their aggression.”

Putin is unlikely to intervene militarily on Iran’s behalf, according to Robert English, an international foreign policy expert at USC. Instead, Putin is expected to play his position carefully, reap the economic rewards, and keep focused firmly on Ukraine at a time when key air defense systems are diverted from Ukraine to the Persian Gulf.

“Russia is winning the Iran-U.S.-Israel war, at least so far. Oil and natural gas prices have soared, filling Putin’s Ukraine war chest,” he said. “Russia is gathering forces for a big spring offensive in Eastern Ukraine, and it’s not even front-page news.”

Ukraine has dispatched drone interceptors and ordered its anti-drone experts to pivot from their war with Russia to help Western allies help intercept Iranian attacks. Zelensky’s allegiance may not pay off, English said.

“When will Ukraine see the benefits of helping the U.S. with anti-drone technology? No time soon, apparently,” he said.

Even several weeks of interruption in Gulf energy supplies could bring the largest windfall to Russia, the Associated Press reported, citing energy analysts.

The economic turmoil caused by the war has exposed vulnerabilities in Europe’s energy system, particularly its lingering dependence on Russian fuel.

Despite sanctions, the European Union remains a major purchaser of Russian natural gas and crude oil. Russian gas accounted for approximately 19% of E.U. gas imports in 2025. Allied Europeans have agreed to completely stop importing Russian liquefied natural gas, oil and pipeline gas by late 2027.

Putin expressed no desire Monday to rescue the European market now that U.S.-Israeli escalations and Iranian retaliation have choked oil production and shipping. The Russian president instead proposed to divert volumes away from the European market “to more promising areas” like the Asia-Pacific region, Slovakia and Hungary, which he said were “reliable counterparties.”

European leaders have been criticized for being “stunned, sidelined, and disunited” since hostilities began in late February. Excluded from the initial military planning by the U.S. and Israel, Europe entered the conflict with gas storage at only 30% capacity, the lowest levels in years. Instead of bold action, English said, European leaders have quarreled over internal divisions and rivalries.

“Sky-high energy prices are the underlying cause of many of these frictions, as Europe struggles now more than ever to find affordable alternatives to the cheap Russian petroleum,” English said.

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, told European leaders in Brussels on Tuesday that rising energy prices and the world’s shifting attention risk strengthening the Kremlin at a critical moment in the war in Ukraine.

“So far, there is only one winner in this war,” Costa said. “Russia.”

Pollyanna partisans of a constitutional amendment to mandate a federal balanced budget have no duty to come forward with plans to help Gov. Wilson and the Legislature draft a balanced budget for fiscal 1992-93. But if they have any ideas they ought to share them.

Obviously, the feds can’t help; their actions cost us $1 billion in daily interest. Our national debt increases by $400 billion or more each year.

California’s fiscal 1991-92 budget cut spending, devoured snack taxes and bottled water, but still came up about $4 billion short. Add that deficit to a shortfall of about $6 billion for fiscal 1992-93 and anyone sees our problem budget needs resuscitation.

Not to worry. A number of legislators have proposed a novel and painless method to balance the state’s budget. They propose to spread the deficit over two years. A two-year budget balances fiscal 1992-93 and spreads deficit payments over 24 months. This program replenishes wealth. If deficits continue to rise and revenues fall, the two-year budget precedent opens budgetary gamesmanship to three- or four-year budgets.

Problem budgets? No problem. God bless the wizards of Sacramento.

JIM SKEESE, San Diego

WASHINGTON — Some 140 American service members have been wounded since start of the Iran war, with eight of them “severely injured” and receiving medical care, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

“The vast majority of these injuries have been minor, and 108 service members have already returned to duty,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement.

The casualty toll adds to the seven American troops killed so far in the war, which entered its 11th day with no clear sign of slowing down as U.S. officials indicated that the military campaign was likely to intensify.

Iran, too, took new actions that could escalate the conflict, reportedly laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, a potentially devastating development for the global energy market.

President Trump said that if Iran put mines in the strait and did not remove them immediately, the U.S. military would hit Iran “at a level never seen before.”

“If, on the other hand, they remove what may have been placed, it will be a giant step in the right direction!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The warning was yet another escalation that came after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday would bring the “most intense day of strikes” inside Iran, a fighting tempo that is at odds with Trump’s own assessment that the war is “very complete” and could end “very soon.”

At a Pentagon news conference, Hegseth said “the most fighters, the most bombers, the most strikes” would be deployed, but declined to say how much longer U.S. forces would be expected to fight in the region. He instead said the president will be the one to “control the throttle.”

“It’s not for me to say whether this is the beginning, the middle, or the end. He will continue to communicate that,” Hegseth told reporters.

That deference places the focus squarely on Trump, who a day earlier delivered mixed signals about the duration of the war, telling reporters at one point that the war is “very much complete” and a later time that it is “the beginning of building a new country.”

At a briefing on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the U.S. military was “way ahead of schedule” on reaching its objectives in Iran, but reiterated that the president alone will decide what victory looks like.

“President Trump will determine when Iran is in a place of unconditional surrender and when they no longer pose a credible and direct threat to the United States of America and our allies,” Leavitt said.

The president’s shifting positions on the war’s conclusion have played out as Trump threatens to hit Iran “twenty times harder” if it attempts to halt the flow of oil in the Strait of Hormuz, a key channel for the world’s oil supply — and as Democrats in Congress says they are growing concerned about the possibility of Trump sending U.S. ground troops inside Iran.

“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters after being briefed on the Iran war.

When asked about Democrats’ concerns, Leavitt said Trump “wisely … does not rule options out as commander-in-chief.”

“I would hesitate to confirm anything that a Democrat says right now about the president’s thinking,” she added.

U.S. says Iran’s fire power is diminishing

As Washington plans out its next steps, the war has shown little signs of slowing. U.S. military officials say Iran’s military capabilities are eroding under sustained strikes that have targeted “deeply buried missile launchers” and made “substantial progress toward destroying” Iran’s navy.

Hegseth said “the last 24 hours have seen Iran fire the lowest amount of missiles they have fired yet.”

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that Iran’s ballistic missile attacks “continue to trend downward 90%” since the start of the war, and that drone attacks have decreased by 83%.

U.S. forces are also targeting Iran’s “industrial base in order to prevent the regime from being able attack Americans, our interests and our partners for years to come,” Caine said.

Caine said the Iranian military is adapting to the U.S. strategy, but remains confident in Washington’s ability to overpower Tehran. “They are adapting, as are we, of course. We have very entrepreneurial war fighters out there,” he said. “We are watching what they are doing, and we are adapting faster than they are.”

Asked whether Iran had proved to be a stronger adversary than anticipated, Caine said: “They are fighting, and I respect that, but I don’t think they are more formidable than what we thought.”

Iran, meanwhile, has refused to bow down to Trump’s demands and has issued warnings of its own.

Ali Larijani, Iran’s top national security official, called Trump’s threat against their targets on the Strait of Hormuz “hollow” and told him that he should instead focus on taking care of himself so that he is not “eliminated.”

Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammed Bagher Qalibaf, however, said Iran was determined to keep fighting and was “definitely not looking for a ceasefire.”

“We believe that the aggressor should be punched in the mouth so that he learns a lesson so that he will never think of attacking our beloved Iran again,” Qalibaf said.

New attacks on neighbors

Meanwhile, Iran launched new attacks at Israel and gulf Arab countries. In Bahrain, authorities said an Iranian attack hit a residential building in the capital, Manama, killing a 29-year-old woman and wounding eight people.

Saudi Arabia said it destroyed two drones over its oil-rich eastern region and Kuwait’s National Guard said it shot down six drones. In the United Arab Emirates, firefighters battled a blaze in the industrial city of Ruwais — home to petrochemical plants — after an Iranian drone strike. No injuries were reported.

In Tel Aviv, explosions could be heard as Israel’s defense systems worked to intercept barrages from Iran.

Along with firing missiles and drones at Israel and at American bases in the region, Iran has also targeted energy infrastructure and traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for traded oil, sending oil prices soaring. The attacks appear aimed at generating enough global economic pain to pressure the U.S. and Israel to end their strikes.

Brent crude, the international standard, spiked to nearly $120 on Monday before falling back but was still at around $90 a barrel Tuesday, nearly 24% higher than when the war started on Feb. 28.

“The president and his energy team are closely watching the markets, speaking with industry leaders and the U.S. military is drawing up additional options, following the president’s directive to continue keeping the Strait of Hormuz open,” Leavitt said. “I will not broadcast what those options look like but just know the president is not afraid to use them.”

So far, the president has offered to have the U.S. Navy escort oil tankers.

The White House has insisted that soaring gas prices are temporary, but the shock in the energy markets has already prompted the Trump administration to lift oil-related sanctions on some countries, including Russia.

“We are going to take those sanctions off until this straightens out,” Trump said Monday. “And then who knows, maybe we won’t have to put them on because there will be so much peace.”

The war has created an opportunity for Russia to make gains in Ukraine, as hostilities draw the global spotlight away from Kyiv and its struggle to hold back the bigger Russian army. U.S.-brokered talks between the two adversaries have been sidelined as Washington shifts focus to its war in Iran.

As Russia enjoys economic gains from the war-fueled energy crisis in the Middle East, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been gathering forces for a renewed offensive in eastern Ukraine.

Key air defense systems have already been diverted from Ukraine to the Persian Gulf, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has dispatched drone interceptors to the region and ordered anti-drone experts to pivot from their war with Russia to help Western allies help intercept Iranian attacks.

“At the moment, the partners’ priority and all attention are focused on the situation around Iran,” Zelensky said on X. “We see that the Russians are now trying to manipulate the situation in the Middle East and the gulf region to the benefit of their aggression.”

Times staff writers Gavin J. Quinton and Michael Wilner, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report, which also includes reporting from the Associated Press.

PHOENIX — The Republican leader of Arizona’s state Senate said Monday that he has handed over records related to the 2020 presidential election to the FBI in the latest sign that the Trump administration is acting on the president’s long-standing falsehoods about a race he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Senate President Warren Petersen said in a social media post that he complied “late last week” with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to a controversial audit of the election in Maricopa County that had been ordered by legislative Republicans.

“The FBI has the records,” Petersen said.

He did not immediately respond to requests for additional comment, and a spokesperson for Senate Republicans said in an email that Petersen “does not have anything to add outside of his X post at this time.” The FBI office in Phoenix did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It marks the second time this year that the FBI has obtained records related to the 2020 election from the most populous county in a presidential battleground state, both of which Trump lost as he sought reelection. In January, the FBI seized ballots and other records from Georgia’s Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, after the Justice Department sought a search warrant from a judge. The search warrant affidavit showed that the request relied on years-old claims, many of which had been thoroughly investigated and found to have no connection to widespread fraud.

Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes, a Democrat, issued a scathing statement in response to Petersen’s post, noting that multiple audits, independent investigations and legal challenges related to the 2020 presidential election found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have affected the outcome.

“Warren Petersen knows all of this. He has known it for years. He spread false stories of election fraud in 2020, and he remains an unrepentant election denier,” Mayes said. “What the Trump administration appears to be pursuing now is not a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. It is the weaponization of federal law enforcement in service of crackpots and lies.”

A firm hired by Republican lawmakers spent six months in 2021 searching for evidence of fraud in the previous year’s presidential election, a process experts said was marred by bias and a flawed methodology. It explored outlandish conspiracy theories, such as dedicating time to checking for bamboo fibers on ballots to see if they were secretly shipped in from Asia.

The audit ended without producing proof to support former President Trump’s false claims of a stolen election — and in fact found that Biden received 360 more votes than stated in the certified results for Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.

The firm, Cyber Ninjas, also acknowledged that there were “no substantial differences” between its hand count of the ballots and the official count.

Previous reviews of the 2.1 million ballots by nonpartisan professionals who followed state law found no significant problem with the 2020 election in Maricopa County, which was run by Republicans then and now. Biden won the county by 45,000 votes and went on to win Arizona by 10,500 votes.

Federal officials took different routes to obtain election records in the two states. The Georgia case involved a judicially approved search warrant that required the FBI to articulate grounds that probable cause exists to believe a crime was committed. In Arizona, the FBI relied on subpoenas, a law enforcement maneuver that does not require judicial sign-off or prosecutors’ assertion there’s probable cause of a crime.

The investigations into the 2020 election come as the Justice Department has clashed with a number of states, including some controlled by Republicans, over access to detailed voter data that include names, dates of birth, addresses and partial Social Security numbers. Election officials have expressed concerns that providing the information would violate both state and federal data privacy laws, and that it could be used to remove people from state voter rolls.

Arizona is among the states the Justice Department has sued to obtain the voter information. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, suggested that at least some Maricopa County voter files could be among the records Petersen gave the FBI. In a statement Monday, Fontes said his office was considering legal options “to secure personal voter information in the 2020 data that was shared.”

Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the secretary of state, said the office is assessing what was released to the FBI.

“This could be an end run by the Department of Justice to obtain unredacted voter files,” she said.

Kelety writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — As Congress responds to President Trump’s attack on Iran, lawmakers who served on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan are making their voices heard in a war debate that has taken on intensely personal meaning.

Many admit mixed feelings, taking satisfaction in seeing vengeance taken on the leadership of an Iranian regime that has targeted U.S. service members for decades, yet fearful that another generation of soldiers could soon face the same combat experiences that they did.

“Do I take gratification? You know there’s the Marine side of me: Yeah, of course,” said Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, whose company suffered some of the heaviest losses on the U.S. side during the Iraq War. “I know they killed a lot of American soldiers, American Marines. But do I also understand that I have a responsibility not to let my lust for revenge drive my country into another war?”

Experiences in the post 9/11 wars are also coloring the decisions of the Trump administration, given that top officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, were once deployed to Iraq.

Gallego, like others on Capitol Hill, leaned heavily on his firsthand experience of fighting in the wars after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as he assessed the Iran conflict. Lawmakers wore bracelets etched with the names of friends killed in battle, told stories of coming under attack from Iran-backed militant groups and reflected on their own life-changing injuries suffered during combat.

Veteran lawmakers are wary of war

While the initial votes on Iran saw Congress divide mostly along party lines, with Republicans backing Trump’s actions and Democrats warning of an extended conflict, veterans in both parties share deep reservations about entering the conflict.

“As somebody who knows a lot of friends that didn’t come home and a lot of Gold Star families, that’s why the week before the attack, I was actually one of the ones that was talking about caution and why we needed to avoid at all costs getting into another long, drawn-out Middle Eastern war,” said Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona, a former Navy SEAL who left college to enlist the week after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Crane said his concerns were partially assuaged by briefings from the Trump administration that indicated to him the president is not planning a drawn-out war. He voted against a war powers resolution that would have halted attacks on Iran unless Trump got congressional approval.

But Crane said wars are never straightforward. “I’ve been on military operations that did not go to plan many times, and so I understand the nature,” he said, adding that he was calling for the Trump administration to approach the conflict with “humility and caution.”

Gallego and other Democrats worried that it was too late for that approach. They paid tribute to the six U.S. military members who were killed in a drone strike in Kuwait and worried that there could soon be more American casualties. A seventh service member died on Sunday from wounds suffered during a March 1 attack in Saudi Arabia.

“War is dirty, and mistakes happen,” Gallego said. The longer the conflict drags on, he added, the greater the chance there will be for U.S. military members to be killed. He experienced that firsthand in Iraq when friends would be killed by seemingly random shots from enemy combatants.

Still, many Republicans argued that it was necessary to attack Iran to stop a regime that for decades has helped train and arm militant groups throughout the Middle East. Republican Rep. Brian Mast, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, led the debate on the House floor against the war powers resolution.

Mast, who served as an Army bomb disposal expert, now uses prosthetic legs after receiving catastrophic injuries from an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan. “Me especially, many of my other colleagues, no one wants to see our military go into combat or war,” he said.

Then he added, “But Iran’s terror, which has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, it has to stop.”

Trying to push soldiers to forefront of war debate

Important questions loom for Congress as the conflict with Iran unfolds and spreads to other parts of the Middle East. The price of the operation is already likely running into the billions of dollars, likely forcing the Trump administration to soon seek billions in funding from Congress. The outbreak of war has also scrambled global alliances and the future of U.S. foreign policy.

Shadowing it all is the potential of another drawn-out conflict. Lawmakers said they owe it to their fallen comrades to ensure that doesn’t happen.

“To me, it’s to speak out. It’s to say another generation should not go fight in an open-ended, ill-conceived regime change war in the Middle East,” said Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan, his hand moving to a bracelet etched with the names of friends who were killed during his two Army combat tours in Iraq.

Others remembered how frustrated they became with Washington during their service, especially as soldiers tried to fight with insufficiently armored vehicles and not enough troops.

“I know what it was like to be on the very end of the receiving line of the decisions made in Washington,” said Democratic Rep. Jason Crow, who entered the Army as a private before being promoted to a captain and deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Crow said that front-line soldiers often suffered “because people stopped asking tough questions. People stopped being held accountable. Congress stopped voting on it.”

Another veteran, Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, said that was one of the reasons she sought a congressional seat in the first place. As a Blackhawk helicopter pilot with the Illinois National Guard, Duckworth lost her legs when her helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.

“I ran for Congress so that when the drums of war started beating once again, I’d be in a position to make sure that our elected officials fully considered the true cost of the war,” she said. “Not just in dollars and cents but in human lives.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

As anxiety mounts among California Democrats about the potential of a Republican being elected governor, the state party will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling to assess the viability of the sprawling field of candidates hoping to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to plans released Tuesday.

The move comes after nearly every Democratic candidate refused party leaders’ call last week to withdraw from the race to avoid splitting the vote in the June primary — an outcome that could lead to a Republican being elected to statewide office for the first time in two decades.

“Candidates have filed, and now they’ve got the opportunity to showcase their viability, their path to win. I want to simply ensure that everybody has information to fully understand the current state of the race,” said Rusty Hicks, the leader of the California Democratic Party.

As campaign season ramps up, the series of six polls will allow “candidates, supporters, the media, voters, anyone and everyone to have a clear understanding of what is or is not happening in this particular race,” he said.

The filing deadline to appear on the June 2 ballot was Friday. Three days earlier, Hicks released an open letter urging candidates who did not have a path to victory to withdraw from the race. Of the nine prominent Democrats who had announced runs for governor, only one heeded his call: former state Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

That means the eight other candidates’ names will appear on the ballot, regardless of whether they decide to later drop out. And that creates the possibility of a Republican winning the race because of how California elections are decided.

The state has a voter-approved top-two primary system, under which the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

Two prominent Republicans will appear on the ballot: former conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Even though Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, and the state’s electorate last elevated Republicans to statewide office in 2006, it is mathematically possible for Democrats to splinter the vote, allowing the two GOP candidates to advance.

Under such a scenario, not only would Republicans be guaranteed the leadership of the nation’s most-populous state, but Democratic voter turnout also would probably be depressed in November, potentially affecting down-ballot races such as those that could determine control of Congress.

Hicks’ call last week prompted concerns among candidates of color, including former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, that the effort was aimed at every nonwhite candidate in the race.

The state party chairman responded that his letter was not aimed at any specific candidate.

“It’s not something I lose sleep over,” Hicks said when asked about the racial claims. But he added that the voter surveys will be conducted by Los Angeles-based Evitarus, the state’s only Black- and Latino-led full-service polling firm, and will oversample historically underrepresented communities: Latino, Black and Asian American voters.

Hicks said the polling will cost “multiple six figures” but did not specify the exact amount.

The first poll will be released on March 24, and then five additional surveys will come out every seven to 10 days until voters start receiving mail ballots in early May.

“We’re putting this forward to ensure everyone is armed with the information they need to clearly have an eyes-wide-open assessment of where the state of the race currently is between now and when ballots land in the mailboxes of voters,” Hicks said.

California voters are being urged to put a poison-pill effort on the November ballot that would nullify a controversial proposed tax on the state’s billionaires.

Neither proposal has yet qualified for the ballot — supporters of each need to gather the verified signatures of hundreds of thousands of voters. But petitions that have been mailed and texted to California voters in recent days demonstrate the stakes in a contest that has drawn tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending.

“Government has wasted billions of our tax dollars on homelessness and many other failed programs with little to show for it,” reads the new mailing to voters. “We can’t afford more wasteful spending!”

The proposal is aimed at countering a proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires assets that would fund healthcare for the state’s neediest residents, but opponents say it would lead to lost tax revenues as California’s wealthiest flee the state.

Mailers and texts recently sent to voters describe the new proposal as an effort to create a more accountable, transparent and effective state government that would require auditing of new state taxes and ensuring they comply with existing law.

The small-font description of the proposed initiative included in the mailing specifies that any new tax enacted after Jan. 1 must be deposited into the state’s general fund and conform with current state tax policy, which is an oblique reference to a prior voter-approved ballot measure requiring that a significant portion of the state’s tax revenue be spent on education.

If competing proposals appear on a ballot and are successful, the one that receives the most votes nullifies the other. There are other ballot measure proposals aimed at thwarting the billionaires tax.

The mailers and texts were funded by a committee called Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, which was funded by another group, called Building a Better California, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

Earlier this year, the latter group received a $20-million donation from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, $2 million from former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and $2 million from Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, among donations from other Silicon Valley leaders, according to fundraising disclosure reports.

Attempts to reach spokespeople connected with the effort were unsuccessful Monday night.

Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the primary union backing the billionaire tax, decried what she described as an effort by a small number of the state’s wealthiest residents to avoid paying their fair share.

“So far, those few billionaires are failing,” she said in a statement. “Despite the expensive and wasteful tactics by a small group of billionaires that aim to deny voters a choice on the billionaire tax in November, our growing coalition and volunteer base is on track with signature collection and gaining momentum. The public is crystal clear on the fact that keeping ERs and clinics open is more important than billionaires getting more tax breaks.”

California’s budget is notoriously volatile because it is largely dependent on taxes paid by its wealthiest residents. Revenue hinges on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, all of which are grossly unpredictable.

The billionaire tax would cost more than 200 of the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

The proposed tax would retroactively apply to billionaires’ assets as of Jan. 1, and has already prompted some of California’s wealthiest residents to leave the state. It has also created a wedge among Democrats. Some argue that it is necessary to address tax inequities that benefit the rich and harm everyone else. Among the supporters is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who kicked off the billionaire tax proposal drive in February.

But others, notably Gov. Gavin Newsom, oppose the effort, saying policies that vary by state would drive innovators and businesses outside of California.

The California State Bar has charged a founding partner of Downtown LA Law Group, a law firm at the center of a scandal that has embroiled Los Angeles County’s historic sex abuse settlement, with signing up dozens of clients in states where none of the firm’s lawyers were licensed to practice.

The bar charged Salar Hendizadeh, who left the firm this fall, on March 5 with helping one of Southern California’s largest personal injury law firms sign accident victims across the country, despite lacking attorneys who could litigate the cases in other states. Hendizadeh was charged with eleven counts, including deceptive advertising and charging illegal fees.

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement the allegations, if proved, “represent dishonest and illegal conduct.”

Hendizadeh and a spokesperson for Downtown LA Law Group did not provide a comment Monday.

The firm had roughly 40 clients in Texas, where it operated under the name “Lone Star Injury Law Firm” and branded itself “Texas’s #1 Injury Law Firm,” according to the complaint.

The firm had one L.A.-based attorney licensed to practice in Texas, Darren McBratney, but he left the firm in early 2022. The bar claims the firm refused to remove the attorney’s name from its website for years, ignoring a cease and desist letter from McBratney’s new employer.

Typically, attorneys can take cases in states where they’re not licensed, but they need to partner with local counsel or get permission from the court. In many cases, the bar alleged, DTLA made no effort to do so and left their out-of-state clients in the lurch.

The firm told a Maryland car crash victim her case was worth $1 million and encouraged her to see a California spinal surgeon who charged roughly $300,000 for surgery, according to the complaint. She fired the firm after she got a settlement offer of $160,000 — not enough, she believed, to cover her medical fees, the complaint said.

Attorneys signed up a Tennessee client who was injured at a Nashville rental car business, but the one-year statute of limitations ran out before they filed the case, the bar complaint said. The firm offered to pay for all of his medical bills and one year of physical therapy “as a form of restitution,” according to the complaint.

The charges come as DTLA faces another pending investigation from the State Bar in connection with thousands of sexual abuse lawsuits the firm filed against Los Angeles County, along with a probe from the district attorney’s office. Both have said they are looking into allegations surfaced by The Times last fall that DTLA paid clients to file claims, some of which were allegedly fabricated, that became part of a $4-billion settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. The firm has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing.

The firm was founded by three longtime friends: Daniel Azizi and Farid Yaghoubtil, who are cousins, and Hendizadeh, a friend from elementary school. They began working together in August 2013, the month Hendizadeh got his California bar license, according to the complaint.

The bar complaint charges only Hendizadeh, though it also mentions Yaghoubtil, who shared the responsibility for marketing and client intake, according to the complaint.

The bar says Yaghoubtil repeatedly asked for a referral fee from a woman injured in a Michigan drugstore after she dropped the firm for allegedly taking too long to file her lawsuit. The client had to find her own attorney, the bar said, eliminating the need for a referral fee.

“Why would you tell the lawyers to not pay us a referral fee? That makes no sense.” Yaghoubtil texted the woman on Aug. 16, 2022. “But why not let us get the referral fee? Very sad. Have a nice night.”

The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles routinely sues the city — and wins.

In the last two months, the nonprofit has notched victories in three lawsuits over the city’s handling of the homelessness crisis.

Legal Aid also defends tenants at risk of eviction as part of the city and Los Angeles County’s Stay Housed L.A. program.

Last Tuesday, the City Council was set to vote on a $177-million contract for Legal Aid to continue representing tenants for the next three years, with other groups providing related services.

But the night before the vote, City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto sent a confidential memo to council offices recommending that council members “reconsider the award of such a large contract to a frequent litigant against the city,” according to a portion of the memo obtained by The Times.

On the day of the scheduled vote, the council delayed it for a week, until Tuesday.

“[Legal Aid’s] mission includes improving the lives of our client communities through systemic change, which sometimes means filing litigation against government entities engaging in illegal conduct,” Barbara Schultz, director of housing justice for Legal Aid, said in an interview.

Schultz said that Legal Aid’s litigation and eviction work “are entirely separate.”

Through a spokesperson, Feldstein Soto declined to comment. She is running for reelection this year.

The contract, which would last for three years, would award nearly $107 million to Legal Aid for eviction defense and prevention, $42 million to the Southern California Housing Rights Center for short-term emergency rental assistance, nearly $22 million to Liberty Hill Foundation for tenant outreach and close to $7 million to Strategic Actions for a Just Economy to protect tenants from harassment.

The battle over the contract has serious implications for Los Angeles tenants at risk of eviction, Schultz said.

Legal Aid, which has participated in the program since its inception in 2021, will have to stop accepting new clients if the contract does not pass on Tuesday. Each month, about 160 tenants will be without legal representation and about 575 more won’t get advice that could help them avoid eviction proceedings, Schultz said.

Schultz said that Legal Aid subcontracts some of the legal work in the program to groups such as Bet Tzedek and Inner City Law Center.

“We get 600 to 800 eviction filings each month in our district alone. If council doesn’t act, those families will have no help from the city,” City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez said in a statement.

The Stay Housed L.A. program 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.

Measure ULA, the “mansion tax” passed by city voters in 2022, includes funding for the program.

Last June, Feldstein Soto tried to block the City Council from extending the contract without a competitive bidding process, a core tenet she has preached as the city’s elected legal counsel.

At the time, some City Council members grumbled, but still, they opened the contract to bidders.

Months later, the city Housing Department awarded the contract to Legal Aid and the other organizations before sending it to the City Council for approval.

“Our understanding of the city’s contracting process is that it is trying to get the best services it can at the best value and not using the process to influence the political or legal activities of nonprofit advocacy organizations,” Elizabeth Hamilton, deputy director of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, which has also filed lawsuits against the city, said in a statement.

Feldstein Soto’s confidential memo cited other potential issues with the contract, calling for an audit of Stay Housed L.A. and asserting that a confidentiality clause in the original contract might violate state public records laws.

Recently, Legal Aid has scored several victories against the city.

In January, a judge ruled that the city violated the state’s open meeting law when council members made a plan behind closed doors to sweep 9,800 homeless encampments. Legal Aid represented the plaintiffs in that case.

In February, with Legal Aid also serving as plaintiffs’ counsel, a judge ruled that the city lacked the legal authority to carry out a state law allowing the dismantling of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000.

That same month, Legal Aid scored another victory when a federal judge found that the city violated homeless people’s constitutional rights by seizing and destroying their property during encampment cleanups.

HARTSVILLE, S.C. — Rachel Minus is not impressed by the Democratic presidential candidates. They’re just recycling tired talking points for African American voters like her, she said — with one curious exception.

The South Carolina millennial is all in for Tom Steyer, a Bay Area billionaire who’s been caricatured by critics as the definition of a rich, entitled white guy.

“I get the feeling he cares about us,” Minus said, as she waited for Steyer to take the stage here at the Jerusalem Baptist Church, a black congregation dating to the late 1800s. “The other candidates say things that are lip service. We have seen it year after year with the Democratic Party. So when they keep repeating the same talking points, you listen to it and it falls on deaf ears. He’s genuine.”

That sentiment is especially significant in a state where about 3 in 5 Democratic voters in the presidential primary four years ago were African Americans. Steyer’s aggressive spending here and in Nevada bought enough support in state polls to allow the former hedge-fund manager to qualify for last week’s nationally televised Democratic debate, much to the annoyance of some rivals and a chorus on social media.

As a campaigner, his personal politicking is uneven and he is prone to rambling. His one viral moment came when Steyer was caught on camera post-debate, awkwardly trying to greet rivals Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren even as the two were in the middle of a heated, private exchange.

“You got caught in the crossfire!” Congresswoman Alma Adams joked at a news conference Saturday morning next door in Charlotte, N.C. (The event was about Steyer’s plan for investment in historically black colleges and universities, but the two never got around to talking about the endorsement or the policy details.)

Steyer knows something about organizing in minority communities. In the years before running for president, he built a national advocacy machine that galvanized community activists, registered young voters and persuaded Californians to raise billions in taxes — all to advance the causes of social justice, action against climate change and affordable healthcare.

Although Washington insiders generally dismiss his recent momentum as likely to be short-lived, some of this area’s political denizens aren’t so sure.

“People are saying, ‘This guy, maybe we ought to look at him,’” said Bruce Ransom, a political science professor at Clemson University. “Is it enough to prevail in February? Doubtful. But if the candidates come into the election here all bunched up and he has an established foothold, then who knows?”

A recent Fox News poll showed that Steyer has moved into second place in South Carolina, with 15% support among likely Democratic primary voters. While that’s 21 percentage points behind former Vice President Joe Biden, Steyer is running a “high-tech, high-touch” campaign, said Antjuan Seawright, a South Carolina political strategist unaffiliated in the race. “He’s got some soldiers on the field who know how to do war in South Carolina.”

Ninety percent of the campaign’s nearly 100 organizers are from South Carolina. They are in all of the state’s 46 counties, and more than half are organizing neighborhoods within 10 miles of where they were born. “Instead of bringing in folks from other states who need to learn the lay of land, our team is literally organizing their friends, their family and their neighbors,” said Brandon Upson, Steyer’s national organizing director.

Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin, a national co-chair of rival Michael R. Bloomberg’s campaign, said he’s received more mail from Steyer than all the other candidates combined. (Bloomberg made a strategic decision to not compete in South Carolina, focusing his campaign instead on bigger states that vote later.)

At events in both North and South Carolina over the weekend, Steyer told diverse crowds that the media has gotten him all wrong. “I know that when I’m described in the press, I’m often described as a rich person or a billionaire,” Steyer told black leaders in Charlotte. “I think I’m a different person from that two-dimensional stereotype.”

He talked of his mother’s work as a tutor in a Brooklyn detention center. He stressed the community bank in Oakland that he ran with wife Kat Taylor, who puzzled some attendees at Steyer’s events by abruptly bursting into song, sometimes Billy Joel’s “Summer, Highland Falls,” when she introduced him. At every stop, he talked of the urgency of reparations for descendants of enslaved people. Steyer is not the only candidate emphasizing issues of race but he is doing so most persistently in South Carolina.

The anger Steyer seems to instill among President Trump’s supporters in inland South Carolina so intrigued Democrat Paula Wise, an African American insurance company employee, that she came to see him over the weekend. “It tells me this is somebody I really need to look at,” she quipped.

Not one of the many Democratic voters interviewed in the state were troubled by Steyer’s use of his deep bank account to gain traction.

“It is like a knife,” said Shalon Jordan, 40, a tax preparer in Hartsville. “You can use the knife to hurt somebody. Or you can make a great meal. If he is going to make a great meal with his billions, then that is a good thing.”

Supporters talk openly about the transactional nature of politics. As Johnnie Cordero, the head of the Democratic Black Caucus of South Carolina, announced his endorsement in Florence, he praised the hiring Steyer has done — from the Democratic Black Caucus of South Carolina.

“Part of what makes you a serious candidate for African Americans in South Carolina is the fact that you put your money where your mouth is,” Cordero said. “Why is it alright for a billionaire donor to support the Democratic Party, but that same billionaire donor cannot put his money where his mouth is and support a campaign for himself?”

Steyer raised the topic of his hedge-fund fortune only to press his case that he, as a financial titan, can best call out Trump as a fraud. And he distinguished himself from the other billionaire in the race, former New York Mayor Bloomberg.

“We have totally different backgrounds and experiences,” Steyer said as his campaign bus rolled through rural South Carolina. “If someone as rich as Bloomberg wants to represent Democrats … he especially needs to embrace a wealth tax.” Bloomberg, whose fortune dwarfs that of Steyer, says rich people should pay higher taxes, but he has pilloried wealth-tax proposals as Venezuelan-style socialism.

Both Steyer and Bloomberg emphasize the “climate emergency” more than other candidates. After a spate of natural disasters in the South, the issue seems to be catching on for Steyer. “Four years ago that may not have resonated here,” said Benjamin, the Columbia mayor. “Now it resonates a lot. We have seen several years of what were supposed to be ‘once in a lifetime’ events.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and Tom Steyer at a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event in Columbia, S.C.

(Sean Rayford / Getty Images)

Steyer is betting that his money will enable him to outlast Biden, who enjoys the most support among African American voters of any Democratic candidate, and that a weak showing by the former vice president in Iowa or New Hampshire, the first states to vote, will weaken Biden’s base of support in the South.

It’s a long-shot gamble, but Steyer takes encouragement from voters like Wes Simmons, a 64-year-old business consultant who was among the roughly 200 people in Charlotte who came to hear him Friday night.

“Biden is showing his age,” Simmons said. “He is not as sharp, not as quick. And Trump is a mean-spirited campaigner. There are folks wondering, what is the alternative? What else is out there?”

WASHINGTON — Alexander Butterfield, the White House aide who inadvertently hastened Richard Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal when he revealed that the president had bugged the Oval Office and Cabinet Room and routinely recorded his conversations, has died. He was 99.

His death was confirmed to the Associated Press by his wife, Kim, and John Dean, who served as White House counsel to Nixon during the Watergate scandal and went on to, along with Butterfield, help expose the wrongdoing.

“He had the heavy responsibility of revealing something he was sworn to secrecy on, which is the installation of the Nixon taping system,” Dean said. “He stood up and told the truth.”

As a deputy assistant to the president, Butterfield oversaw the taping system connected to voice-activated listening devices that had been secretly placed in four locations, including Nixon’s office in the Executive Office Building and the presidential retreat at Camp David.

Butterfield later said that, besides himself and the president, he believed that only White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, a Haldeman assistant and a handful of Secret Service agents knew about the taping system.

“Everything was taped … as long as the president was in attendance,” Butterfield told Watergate investigators when testifying under oath during a preliminary interview.

The tapes would expose Nixon’s role in the cover-up that followed the burglary in 1972 at the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building. To avoid impeachment by the House, Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974, less than a month after the Supreme Court had ordered him to surrender the relevant tapes to the Watergate special prosecutor.

Butterfield believed he’d had a hand in the president’s fate. “I didn’t like to be the cause of that, but I felt that I was, in a lot of ways,” he said in a 2008 oral history for the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

Butterfield, a college friend of Haldeman’s at UCLA who had contacted him to ask about opportunities in the new Nixon administration, served as a deputy assistant to Nixon from 1969 to 1973. In that capacity, he worked under Haldeman and, among other duties, was secretary to the Cabinet and helped oversee White House operations.

The Air Force veteran had left the White House to become administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration when Senate committee staffers privately questioned him on July 13, 1973, during their investigation of the Watergate break-in. A routine question about the possibility of a taping system had been prompted by former White House counsel John Dean’s testimony that he believed a conversation he had had with Nixon may have been recorded.

When Butterfield acknowledged that a taping system indeed existed, he was brought before a public hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. The public revelation on July 16, 1973, of a taping system designed to record all the president’s conversations stunned Nixon friends and foes alike. The tapes promised Watergate investigators a rich vein of evidence in their quest to determine what Nixon and others knew about the break-in — a great deal, as it turned out.

Efforts by investigators to gain access to the tapes sparked a yearlong legal battle that was resolved in July 1974 when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to give them up.

The thousands of hours of tapes made public over the years — they are now controlled by the National Archives — provide a unique, if often unflattering, view of Nixon. His words exposed a bad temper, vulgar language, bigoted racial and religious views, and unvarnished opinions about national and international figures.

“I just thought, ‘When they hear those tapes …’ I mean, I knew what was on these tapes … they’re dynamite,” Butterfield told the Nixon Library. “I guess I didn’t foresee that the president might be put out of office or impeached, but I thought it would be a perilous few years for him. I guess I couldn’t conceive of [Nixon] being forced out of office. It had never happened before.”

Butterfield later said he believed that Nixon’s successor, President Ford, fired him as FAA administrator in 1975 as part of an agreement worked out between the Nixon and Ford staff members. He said he had heard from White House friends that he had been targeted shortly after his testimony to the Senate committee.

After leaving the FAA, Butterfield worked as a business executive in California. He earned a master’s degree from UC San Diego in 1994.

Alexander Porter Butterfield was born on April 6, 1926, in Pensacola, Fla.

He left UCLA to join the Navy and later earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Maryland in 1956 and a master’s degree from George Washington University in 1967.

In 1948, he joined the Air Force and served as an instructor at a base near Las Vegas during the Korean War and later served in Germany. In Washington, he was a military assistant to the special assistant of the Defense secretary in 1965 and 1966 and later served as senior military representative of the U.S. and representative for the commander in chief, Pacific Forces, Australia. He retired at the rank of colonel after 20 years in the Air Force.

Butterfield was unsparing in his criticism of the former president in later years. Although he commended Nixon’s achievements in foreign affairs, he considered his former boss “not an honest man” and “a crook” and believed that Nixon knew about the Watergate break-in before it occurred and was the architect of the ensuing cover-up.

Butterfield found himself “cheering … just cheering” the day Nixon resigned, he told the Nixon Library, because “justice had prevailed.”

“I didn’t think that it would for a while,” he said. “This guy was the ringleader.”

Daniel and Tackett write for the Associated Press. Daniel, the primary writer of this obituary, retired from the Associated Press in 2023.

Jordan Rivers, who is running to represent a harbor-area district on the Los Angeles City Council, said he will continue his campaign after a report surfaced that he stabbed a neighbor when he was 12.

Rivers, 22, is the sole challenger to incumbent Tim McOsker in the June 2 primary election.

In a lawsuit, Nicholas Parszik and his parents alleged that Rivers stabbed Nicholas, then 8, while the two boys were playing video games in the garage of Nicholas’ San Pedro home on July 30, 2016.

Rivers “stabbed Nicholas repeatedly around the neck and shoulder areas,” inflicting “severe and life threatening physical and emotional injuries,” the lawsuit said.

On Monday, Rivers said it was an “accident” that happened a decade ago.

“I do not believe that past situations or indeed past mistakes define or determine who a person is or what they are,” he said in a statement.

Rivers, who is Black, said that an initial media report about the lawsuit had “a racial undertone” and seemed meant to damage his reputation ahead of the election.

The California Post first reported the lawsuit on Monday, which was also the last day for candidates to withdraw paperwork to run for office.

McOsker is seeking a second term representing District 15, which includes Harbor City, Harbor Gateway, San Pedro, Watts and Wilmington.

“I am saddened and troubled that this happened here in our community, and my heart breaks for the victim and his family. I hope they have gotten the care needed. My office will be here to provide advocacy and support for anybody who has been traumatized by this incident,” McOsker said in a statement.

Asked whether Rivers should withdraw, McOsker campaign consultant Dave Jacobson said, “Only Mr. Rivers could decide whether to run, and only he can decide whether he should stay in the race.”

Rivers, who listed his occupation as “community organizer” on campaign filings, has not reported any campaign donations. By Dec. 31, McOsker’s campaign had raised over $190,000, according to the city’s Ethics Commission.

Juvenile criminal records are sealed. Rivers said that law enforcement “got involved” but that he did not serve time in juvenile hall.

Paul Parszik, Nicholas’ father, said he was doing dishes when he heard screaming from the garage and Nicholas ran into the house with stab wounds on his neck and shoulders.

Paul Parszik recalled shoving his fingers into the wounds to staunch the bleeding.

Nicholas fully recovered and is about to turn 18, his father said, but still has physical scars.

In an interview with The Times, Rivers denied attacking Nicholas. He said he had been cooking and accidentally brought a cooking knife to the younger boy’s home.

He forgot that he had put the knife under a video game controller, and the two began “play fighting,” he said.

Rivers said he didn’t notice anything was wrong until Nicholas was already injured.

Rivers’ mother, Eunice Rivers, wrote in a 2016 filing in the lawsuit that her son “was eating an apple and had a small peeler in his hand to cut his apple when the Plaintiff started wrestling with the Defendant. While wrestling Plaintiff Nicholas was injured.”

Eunice Rivers settled the case, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, for $10,000 in 2018. The settlement did not include an admission of fault.

In an October court filing, Paul Parszik claimed that Eunice Rivers never paid the settlement and owes $7,941.71 in interest.

Parszik said the lawsuit was primarily intended to pressure the Rivers family to move away, which they did not do.

He plans to attend Rivers’ campaign rallies.

“I can’t wait to go home and go to his first rally and say, ‘Hey, you stabbed my kid and you have no remorse,’” he said.

Dozens of civilians, including children, wounded by an Iranian drone strike in Bahrain. France deploying warships to secure shipping commerce in the Strait of Hormuz. Australia taking heat from President Trump over its handling of the Iranian women’s soccer team. Markets across Asia plunging as the price of oil surged.

Lebanon reporting half a million people displaced by fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. State Department telling nonessential staff to get out of Saudi Arabia after attacks there killed workers from India and Bangladesh. Ukrainian anti-drone experts turning their attention from their war with Russia to help intercept Iranian attacks. The defense minister of ever-neutral Switzerland saying his country believes the U.S.-Israeli war violates international law.

In less than two weeks, the Trump administration has instigated a truly global conflict — and with no quick and clear path to resolution, despite Trump insisting to congressional Republicans gathered at his Miami resort Monday that it would be a “short term excursion.”

“Short term! Short term!” Trump said in a bullish speech about the conflict, in which he said “the world respects us right now more than they have ever respected us before.”

“We’re counting down the minutes until they will be gone,” he said of Iran’s remaining leadership, while adding that the U.S. “will not relent” until Iran is “totally and decisively defeated.”

The war is not isolated to Iran, though it has certainly caused devastation there — with more than 1,300 deaths reported and toxic clouds from strikes on fuel depots hovering over Tehran, a city of some 10 million people.

The war’s effects also are not limited to the Middle East, though they are widespread there — as Israel has pushed into Lebanon and Iran has launched a wave of retaliatory strikes on U.S. allies across the Persian Gulf. The fighting has grounded regional air traffic, threatened desalination facilities that provide drinking water to millions and undermined the safe reputation of modern metropolises such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Unlike the recent U.S. incursion into Venezuela to capture and oust President Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. war on Iran has been met with stiff resistance militarily, drawn in a slew of allies, reignited proxy battles, drastically destabilized the oil trade and shifted dynamics between the U.S. and other major powers such as China and Russia.

China, which gets upward of 50% of its crude oil imports through the Strait of Hormuz, has largely stayed out of the conflict, though China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Sunday that the war “should never have happened” and “benefited no one.”

Trump said Monday that the U.S. is less harmed by strait disruptions, and was “really helping China” by securing the strait.

Russia, meanwhile, has emerged the lone winner of energy disruptions in the region, said Robert David English, a UCLA international policy analyst — as the Trump administration considers reducing oil sanctions on Russia to take pressure off of Mideast sources.

Trump said he had a “good talk” with Russian President Vladimir Putin about Iran on Monday. He also said the U.S. was going to suspend sanctions against other countries in order to alleviate strain on oil markets while the Iran conflict persists, but did not provide specifics.

The scope of the war has been dictated in part by Iran, which has historically limited its responses to U.S. strikes but warned after the U.S. bombed its nuclear sites last summer that it would treat any new attacks — large or small — as an act of war, and respond in kind.

Its strikes on U.S. facilities and allies throughout the region reflect that strategy, and are aimed in part at making the war more politically costly for the U.S. by straining global markets and its regional allies, experts said.

However, “you can’t attribute the increasingly global characteristics of the conflict solely to an Iranian strategy, because wars in this region tend to spill over the longer they last, with unintended consequences” including “bringing in all kinds of actors that don’t want to be involved,” said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

That can serve as a deterrent to starting wars in the region, he said, but “also makes them more difficult to wind down.”

The surge in oil prices to nearly $120 a barrel Monday — before a remarkable reversal to below $90 by the time U.S. stocks closed — is one of the furthest-reaching effects of the war, and one that clearly had Trump’s attention.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” Trump wrote on social media Sunday.

How long prices will remain elevated or volatile is a matter of debate, but Trump’s “short term” projections have been undercut by increasing strikes on oil and gas facilities in the region.

“If you can tolerate oil at more than $200 per barrel, continue this game,” Ebrahim Zolfaghari, a spokesperson for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Sunday.

Prices at the pump have surged for average Americans, some of whom were attracted to Trump’s candidacy because of his promises to avoid foreign wars and focus on driving down the cost of living for U.S. citizens.

Now, Trump and other administration officials are facing questions about their own role in putting the world at war, and offering various different justifications. They’ve asserted without proof that the U.S. faced an imminent threat of attack from Iran. Trump has repeatedly hinted that his goal was removing the government.

President Trump speaks at the Republican Members Issues Conference on Monday at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

In the meantime, Iran has shown no signs of bowing to Trump, rejecting his calls for “surrender” and for him to have a say in naming their next leader. Iran installed Mojtaba Khamenei after Trump said the hard-liner son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be “unacceptable.”

The choice was hailed by the president of Azerbaijan and the leader of Yemen’s Houthi rebels, among other allies.

To date, seven U.S. service members have been killed in the conflict, according to U.S. officials. Every day, U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $1 billion in war costs, according to one estimate. Democrats have slammed Trump for both.

“This war is coming from the same President that is building a $400 million ballroom in the White House. The same President that says $100 for a barrel for oil is worth it. The same President that doubled healthcare premiums for millions of Americans. But we have money for another endless war?” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote Monday on X.

Other world leaders focused on the global economic impact.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which transports about 20% of the world’s oil, has nearly halted, while producers in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates ceased oil operations without open routes for export.

In response, French President Emmanuel Macron suggested French and other allied naval assets could escort oil tankers in the strait, shifting the security burden there from Washington onto Europe, leaving European vessels vulnerable to hostilities and potentially drawing the European Union deeper into the conflict.

Already, they’ve agreed to allow the U.S. to use bases in their territories, though the U.S. and Spain got into a spat after Spain rejected U.S. use of its bases and Trump threatened U.S. trade with the country.

Macron on Monday also threw additional military support behind Cyprus, following a meeting with Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis at a Cyprus air base.

France will dispatch an additional 11 warships to operate across the eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, Macron said, after an Iranian drone struck a British military base on Cyprus on Monday.

“When Cyprus is attacked, it is Europe that is attacked,” Macron said.

Located just 150 miles from Israel in the eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus has emerged as a strategic — and exposed — nerve center in the U.S. offensive against Iran. It hosts vital British military bases and acts as an intelligence, surveillance, and logistics hub in countering Iranian influence and proxy attacks.

Britain’s Defense Secretary John Healey said Monday that the United Kingdom was conducting air defense to support the UAE, and that Typhoon jets had taken out two drones — one over Jordan and the other headed to Bahrain.

Trump suggested Monday that the U.S. was on the path toward victory, but acknowledged it had not accomplished all of its goals.

“We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough,” he said — adding the conflict will end “pretty quickly.”

He said Iran had been “very foolish, very stupid” when it attacked its neighbors, hurting its own chances of success in resisting the U.S.

“Their neighbors were largely neutral, or at least weren’t gonna be involved, and they got attacked,” Trump said. “And it had the reverse effect. The neighbors came onto our side, and started attacking them.”

Iran may still attempt to widen the conflict’s economic and geopolitical impact to keep up pressure and push for a ceasefire in its favor, but that could also backfire, said Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations.

“Iran’s becoming increasingly like North Korea in this sense,” he said, “isolating itself further.”

One of the fundamental issues that a Constitution must regulate is what happens when the head of State is absent. The most important scenario is how to proceed when the president’s absence is absolute, that is, when it is known that he will no longer serve as president permanently.

So what should happen in Venezuela when the president of the republic is absent?

The two scenarios of presidential absence: Under the 1999 Constitution, there are two scenarios of presidential absence: temporary absence and absolute absence. The Constitution implicitly categorizes all scenarios of absence into one of these two: either the president is temporarily absent, or the president is absolutely absent. The Constitution assigns different consequences to each scenario.

Constitutional rules regarding temporary absence: If the absence is temporary, the vice president fills the vacancy for a period of 90 days, which may be extended by the National Assembly for up to another 90 days. If the temporary absence extends beyond 90 days, the National Assembly may, by a majority vote, consider the absence to be permanent (Article 234). After these 90 or 180 days have elapsed, depending on whether or not the period is extended, the absence must necessarily be considered permanent. Consequently, in accordance with Article 233 of the Constitution, elections must be held within 30 days of the permanent absence.

Constitutional rules regarding permanent absence

If the absence is permanent and occurs within the first four years of the constitutional term, elections must be held within 30 days of the permanent absence (Article 233). The Constitution lists, in a non-exhaustive manner, the circumstances of absolute absence (that is, there may be other reasons, such as the president’s removal and imprisonment abroad): death, resignation, or removal from office decreed by a TSJ ruling; permanent physical or mental incapacity certified by a medical board appointed by the TSJ and approved by the National Assembly; abandonment of office, declared as such by the National Assembly; and referendum recall of the president.

The Constitution distinguishes how to proceed in the event of the president’s absolute absence depending on the time elapsed since the beginning of the presidential term.

Under the 1999 Constitution, there is no constitutional provision that supports Maduro’s forced absence. His absence is either temporary, to which the rules of temporary absence must be applied, or permanent, to which the Constitution also says what to do.

When the president-elect becomes absolutely absent before taking office, a new universal, direct, and secret election will be held within the following 30 consecutive days. While the new president is being elected and takes office, the president of the National Assembly will assume the presidency (this was the rule used analogously to support then-Speaker Juan Guaidó as interim president in 2019).

If the president’s permanent absence occurs during the first four years of the constitutional term, a new universal, direct, and secret election will be held within the following 30 consecutive days. While the new president is being elected and takes office, the executive vice president will assume the presidency. In the aforementioned cases, the new president will complete the corresponding constitutional term. If the permanent absence occurs during the last two years of the constitutional term, the executive vice president will assume the presidency until the end of that term.

Maduro’s absence occurred within the first four years of the presidential term.

What the Supreme Tribunal of Justice has said

What has been the TSJ’s position on Maduro’s absence and the constitutional consequences of that absence? First, it issued a ruling on January 3rd ordering that Delcy Rodríguez, as executive vice president, assumes and exercises, in an “acting” capacity, all the powers, duties, and faculties inherent to the office of president.

It characterized Maduro’s absence as “forced.” However, it did not specify whether this absence is temporary or permanent.

Therefore, the Constitutional Chamber considers that Maduro is in a forced absence, which must be filled by Delcy Rodríguez.

Under the 1999 Constitution, there is no constitutional provision that supports Maduro’s forced absence. His absence is either temporary, to which the rules of temporary absence must be applied, or permanent, to which the Constitution also says what to do. There’s no situation such as “forced absence”. That “forced absence” of Maduro, from which the “interim” presidency of Delcy Rodríguez derivates, is based only on the sentence issued by the Constitutional Court on January 3.

Furthermore, Rodríguez is simultaneously holding the acting presidency (and therefore cannot be considered executive vice president) and the Ministry of Hydrocarbons. In Venezuela, ministers are appointed by the president. Therefore, the only person who could remove Rodríguez as minister is Rodríguez as President. A constitutional absurdity.

If the extension is declared, it will expire on July 3. From that day, 30 days must elapse within which the presidential election must be held.

There’s an additional peculiarity: in Official Gazette No. 6,963 of January 14, a ruling was announced by which the Constitutional Chamber supposedly had the authority to “determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the event of the forced absence of the President of the Republic.” That is, the Constitutional Chamber was or is going to issue a posterior sentence to define the constitutional route after Maduro’s absence.

However, at the time of writing, this ruling has not been published on the Supreme Court’s website. This is an anomaly, since the general rule is that when a ruling is published in the Official Gazette, it has already been published on the Supreme Court’s website several days prior. Something happened within the regime that led its leaders to decide it would be better not to publish such a sentence.

We can assume that the acting president and the Supreme Tribunal of Justice consider Maduro’s absence to be temporary. Under that scenario, according to the Constitution, on April 3, 2026, the National Assembly could extend Delcy Rodríguez’s acting presidency for another 90 days.

If it does not, the Constitution requires us to assume that Maduro is permanently absent, and elections must be held within the following 30 days.

If the extension is declared, it will expire on July 3. From that day, 30 days must elapse within which the presidential election must be held.

Any other solution has no basis in the 1999 Constitution.

And that is something that should be discussed.

The pet did a neat trick: Before a room filled with heads of state from across Latin America, Little Marco spoke Spanish.

His owner — well, his soul’s owner at least— grinned and joked, “I think he’s better in Spanish” than in English. Following President Trump, it was Pentagon Pete’s turn to tease Little Marco.

“I only speak American,” Secretary of Defense Hegseth cracked. The auditorium stayed quiet save for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who meekly protested, “I only speak Cuban.”

Trump gave him a pat on the back. Good boy, Marco.

The exchange, which happened over a weekend dominated by the war with Iran, was brief yet said so much about the times Latinos live in. Rubio, the most powerful Latino politician in U.S. history, might as well have been to Trump and Hegseth the Chihuahua that says “Yo quiero Taco Bell.” The man who has played an oversized role in pushing a president who campaigned against costly foreign wars and chaotic regime changes to do both was brought back down to an undignified size.

Little Marco indeed.

Here’s a reminder that no matter how high and mighty you get in Trump’s White House, a Latino is still an exotic “other.”

Tokenizing someone is always an ugly thing — yet Rubio deserves no tears. He has made a career out of wearing his latinidad like a shiny guayabera when convenient, long casting himself as the boy-faced exception to the corrupt, ineffectual Latino politician archetype. That stance has fueled a 27-year career — Florida speaker of the House, U.S. senator, former presidential candidate, secretary of State and national security advisor. That has made many conservatives and more than a few Latinos feel he’s not just capable of a strong White House run but that he could even win were he to do so.

All it cost Rubio was his morals and backbone. All he had to do was roll over.

We Latinos deserve better — and yet we kind of don’t.

The story liberals and conservatives have always told about America’s largest minority is that we would irrevocably change the United States — the former group maintained it would be for the better, the latter insisted we would cause this country’s downfall. Rubio proves that at our worst, Latinos show that in our rush to assimilate and be embraced, we often become the worst kind of Americans.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks as President Trump during a NATO summit in June in the Hague.

(Brendan Smialowski / Pool Photo)

We’re the ones whom the American psyche sees as perpetual invaders, yet we sign up by the thousands for the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies in Trump’s deportation Leviathan. Even as Trump slimed Latinos during his first term and his years out of office, an increasing number of us warmed up to him — surely, he was referring to other Latinos — until Trump captured more of our votes in 2024 than any Republican presidential candidate ever.

It takes a certain type of person to go from child of Cuban immigrants — the favorite son of an exile community that transformed Miami from a retiree haven into one of the capitals of Latin America — to tell European leaders last month that they and the United States “opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people.”

It takes the worst kind of Latino.

I called Rubio a vendido in a previous columna after he cheered on the extrajudicial capture of Venezuelan despot Nicolás Maduro. He’s definitely still a sellout — what else to call someone who once fiercely opposed Trump but now sidles up to him like a cockapoo? But the most pathetic part about Rubio’s rise is that his followers see him as the culmination of the long-held dreams of Latinos that things would become better for our ancestral Latin American countries and ourselves once one of us was charge.

Alas, no. He’s living up to a realpolitik maxim attributed to various Latin American caudillos: For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.

Strongmen like El Salvador and Argentina presidents Nayib Bukele and Javier Milei get coddled and receive foreign aid; college students on study visas who criticize the Trump administration get nabbed by la migra. Rubio is overseeing a foreign policy that currently has the U.S. dictating how Venezuela will be governed, is bombing Iran like the country was a game of Pachinko and is slowly choking Cuba into collapse. He’s the unholy child of Bush-era neoconservativism and MAGA — and Rubio is just getting started.

That’s how he set himself up to be used as Latino punch line by Trump and Hegseth. The setting: the inaugural meeting at a Trump golf course near Miami of the Shield of the Americas, a coalition of Western Hemisphere countries ostensibly assembled to fight drug cartels. It resembled one of those lesser super-groups in the Marvel Cinematic Universe — you got Costa Rica instead of Mexico, Bolivia instead of Brazil. The group even has a crappy logo. You know how unserious the confab was when Trump’s point person for this is Kristi Noem, whom he literally had just fired as Homeland Security secretary.

After Trump rambled through a short speech, it was Rubio’s time to offer remarks. Here was a chance for the secretary of State, the man the Atlantic recently called “bright and well spoken,” to channel his inner Simón Bolivar or José Martí. The secretary of State thanked everyone present in English, but not before praising Trump for his “bold leadership” and bragging that the president is “one of the most historic figures in American history.”

Then Rubio looked back at his beaming master.

President Trump signs a proclamation committing to countering cartel criminal activity at the Shield of the Americas Summit on Saturday at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla.

(Rebecca Blackwell / Associated Press)

“You all right if I — “ he began before Trump cut him off with a magnanimous, “Sure. Please.”

That’s when Little Marco spoke in flawless Spanish. Rubio’s comments weren’t much different from what he said in English, save his remark that what they all planned to do by following Trump “will make future generations grateful for the work we are doing today.”

That last statement sums up Rubio. For centuries, Latin America has yearned for prosperity and peace free from American interference. This hope has fueled revolutions, music, film, culture and all the best things the region has produced only to have U.S.-backed tyrants crush those movements.

That’s the torch Rubio now proudly carries.

“All my life I’ve been in a hurry to get to my future,” he wrote in his 2013 memoir, “American Son.” Rubio’s future is now. And our present — not just Latinos, but all Americans — is worse because of it.

Dios mío.

Scott MacFarlane, a high-profile hire for CBS News five years ago, announced Monday he is leaving the network.

MacFarlane told colleagues in an email that the departure is his decision.

“I will always value the opportunity I had to work alongside the talented and committed professionals here,” MacFarlane said. “I’m proud to have had the words ‘CBS correspondent’ next to my name and always will be.”

MacFarlane added that he looks forward to “some independence and finding new spaces to share my work in line with my personal goals.”

MacFarlane is the first significant name to depart CBS News since parent company Paramount won its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery on Feb. 27. CBS News is likely to be combined with Warner Bros. Discovery‘s CNN if the deal gets regulatory approval.

Journalists at CBS News have also been concerned over the moves by Bari Weiss, the contrarian opinion writer and founder of the digital news site the Free Press who was brought in as editor in chief of the division. Weiss was recruited by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison with a mandate to move CBS News to the political center.

Weiss is expected to make significant changes to “60 Minutes” and other CBS News programs in the coming months.

Executives at other TV news organizations say privately that they are seeing a heavy influx of resumes from CBS News journalists due to the upheaval at the company.

MacFarlane covered Congress and the Justice Department. CBS viewers saw him featured during extended network coverage of the State of the Union addresses and election nights.

MacFarlane was in Butler, Pa., during the assassination attempt of President Trump in July 2024. He reported the first accounts of the shooting scene and emergency responses moments after the shots were fired.

Before arriving at CBS News, MacFarlane served for eight years as an investigative reporter for WRC-TV, the NBC station in Washington, D.C.

The Times has covered Kamala Harris’ political career since 1994, when then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown appointed her to the California Medical Assistance Commission.

Since then, we’ve written 2,229 articles on Harris, who is a California native, received her law degree here and became the first woman and Black American to serve as the state’s attorney general. She’d later become the first South Asian American elected to the U.S. Senate, and only the second Black woman ever to serve in the 100-member body. She has been the sole Black woman in the Senate during her four years there.

The Los Angeles Times is introducing “Covering Kamala Harris,” a beat dedicated to her historic rise to the White House. She is the first vice president who is Black, South Asian American and female.

This news enterprise beat will be anchored by White House reporter Noah Bierman, who joined The Times in 2015 after reporting on politics and other topics at newspapers including the Miami Herald and Boston Globe. He will also write a special edition of our Essential Politics newsletter focused on Harris every other Wednesday.

Throughout the year, we’ll continue to add resources to our coverage with the goal of being the most comprehensive and authoritative news source as we chronicle Harris’ first year.

Interested in following our coverage? You can find the “Covering Kamala Harris” section on our site and sign up for Essential Politics, of which Bierman will write a biweekly edition. And follow our new stand-alone Instagram account, @latimeskamalaharris, for more updates.

Kimbriell Kelly is the Washington bureau chief at the Los Angeles Times.

SACRAMENTO — One unique perk California kids enjoyed for generations was tuition-free college. Now, a candidate for governor promises to bring that back. And bravo for her.

The candidate, former congresswoman Katie Porter of Orange County, even suggests a way to pay for her bold pledge. That’s unusual for a politician. It’s normal to promise the moon without specifying how to get there.

She‘d raise the corporate income tax a notch.

OK, it’s very unlikely to ever happen.

The powerful business lobby would scream, even though California companies would benefit from a more educated workforce.

And California’s public universities would probably cry about their revenue streams having to rely on unpredictable corporate profits rather than the pocketbooks of students’ parents.

But at least there’s a potential governor who’s advocating tuition-free higher education and proclaiming it to be a priority.

Why is this Democrat, a UC Irvine law professor, pushing the issue? Tuition cost doesn’t show up anywhere on voter lists of important concerns. But California’s high cost of living is a gigantic gripe. And “affordability” these days is one of the most overused words in any politician’s vocabulary.

“When we talk about affordability, there’s lots of talk about the problem, but people want to hear what [candidates] would do about it,” Porter told me over coffee last week. One thing she’d do is eliminate much of the tuition at public universities.

Another reason for making college tuition-free again, she said, is that “it was a promise made to the people” by the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

But that was 66 years and nine governors ago. A lot has changed.

Actually, tuition-free public higher education was a California birthright long before Gov. Pat Brown’s master plan.

Policymakers regarded tuition-free college as a sound economic investment. It was in the state’s self-interest to produce highly educated innovators and skilled professionals to grow the economy. The middle class expanded, with people landing good-paying jobs that resulted in higher tax revenue for state coffers.

That didn’t mean college was free — and it wouldn’t be under Porter’s plan. There’s still housing, meals, books and annoying fees.

But Sacramento switched priorities in the 1970s, spending tax money on other things: enhanced welfare, healthcare and specifically K-12 schooling.

Free tuition existed before the creation of Medi-Cal healthcare, which now eats up 20% of the state general fund. It also was prior to Proposition 13 in 1978 that dramatically cut property tax revenue for K-12 schools. The state felt obliged to make up the difference.

Naysayers contend California can’t possibly afford to educate students today without their paying tuition. Nonsense. The state could happily afford it long before we expanded into the world’s fourth largest economy. It’s about priorities.

And today, free tuition could be the PR tonic California needs to brighten its faded image across America. It could attract middle-class families to California and keep those already here from fleeing.

Porter promised a return to yesteryear in a speech that was a far cry from old-time political rhetoric. Addressing more than 2,000 delegates at a recent Democratic state convention in San Francisco, she held up a whiteboard with two words in large letters: “F— Trump.”

And she led the delegates in shouting “F— Trump.”

That was a bit of a turnoff for this old traditionalist, who thinks politics has gotten too coarse and foul-mouthed.

I asked Porter what prompted the profanity and whether she had any regrets.

No, she answered. Candidates were allotted only four minutes to speak and “I was economical with my time.

“I wanted to be very clear in the first 15 seconds that I would fight Trump. I wanted the other three minutes and 45 seconds to be about all other stuff.

“Some people just want to talk about Trump because they don’t want to talk about our own problems.”

Plowing into her speech, she quickly promised to “deliver single-payer healthcare, less-expensive housing, free childcare for all, zero tuition at our UCs and CSUs, and [elimination of] income tax for those earning less than $100,000.

“Those are real affordability solutions.”

Right. But no specifics. How does a state wading in red ink afford all that?

I pressed her when we met later. She didn’t have time for details at the convention, she said. But this is her plan on tuition:

Free tuition only for California residents who are undergrads. And only in their third and fourth years at the University of California and California State University. If they desired free tuition in their first two years, they could attend community college.

Many community colleges already waive course fees for full-time, first-time students. Kids are better educated in their first two years at community college anyway, the UC professor said.

Many liberals complain that free tuition would waste tax money on rich kids who don’t need it.

“I’m a believer in universal programs” that don’t base eligibility on income, Porter said. “Something I learned in Congress. You know what never gets cut? Universal programs such as Social Security and Medicare.”

Anyway, she added, “Kids from really wealthy families go to Harvard or USC or other options.”

Public school tuitions are bargains in California compared to other states and private universities.

At UC, annual tuition is roughly $14,900 and at CSU it’s around $6,500. Without tuition, UC would lose roughly $5.9 billion and CSU $3.7 billion, state budget officials say.

But under Porter’s plan, the universities would lose much less. They’d still collect tuition from freshmen and sophomores and hefty levies from non-Californians. Also student aid could be cut back if kids weren’t saddled with tuition.

Hiking the corporation tax from 8.84% to 9.5% “would generate way more than I need for tuition-free,” Porter said. “I would use any extra money for free childcare.”

Political promises often aren’t worth a nickel. But tenacious and feisty Porter’s free tuition pledge might be worth at least a few bucks. And, maybe some votes.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Veteran Rep. Darrell Issa decides not to seek reelection in new Democratic-leaning district.
Internal combustion: Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out.
The L.A. Times Special: Yes, Republicans have a chance in California governor’s race. Here’s our expert analysis.

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

SACRAMENTO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a national public health leader by staking out science-backed policies in contrast with the Trump administration.

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “the dangerous politicization of science,” Newsom hired her to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the West Coast Health Alliance, a regional public health agency, whose guidance the governors said would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the first state to join a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Trump officially withdrew the United States from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and Health and Human Services declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the COVID era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public health guided by science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has excoriated federal officials for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, warning that the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request, but Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and prevention efforts. The White House last year proposed cutting Health and Human Services spending by $33 billion, including $3.6 billion from the CDC. Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing and education, were axed.

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back more than $600 million in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, the states sued and a judge temporarily blocked the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Assn. of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for more than half of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3-billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding cuts hurt all

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the county has announced the closure of seven public health clinics that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. eliminated measles in 2000 but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had 2,281 confirmed cases last year, the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at schools, airports and Disneyland.

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Assn., a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust vaccine schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a more robust vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition suing the Trump administration over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza and COVID-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and several other East Coast states banding together to create the Northeast Public Health Collaborative.

Hilliard, of Health and Human Services, said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing red states

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year signed a bill authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

Two years after Huntington Beach residents voted to effectively ban Pride flags from being displayed on city property, the conservative coastal city could be represented by a gay member of Congress and outspoken critic of President Trump — Rep. Robert Garcia.

That twist of fate came after last year’s unprecedented mid-decade rejiggering of California’s congressional districts.

Voters in November overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50 — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to neutralize Republican gerrymandering in Texas — to help Democrats win control of the House this November and put a meaningful check on the Trump administration.

The political tremors triggered by the ballot measure already have reshaped California’s political landscape.

Veteran Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of northern San Diego County, an incessant thorn in the backside of President Obama, has called it quits. Northern California Rep. Kevin Kiley has shed his GOP label to run as a political independent. And two Republican congressional incumbents find themselves in a political death match in a newly crafted district straddling Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The new 42nd District remains anchored in Garcia’s home base of Long Beach. But under the new lines, it has swapped out Southeast L.A. communities such as Downey and Bell Gardens for the more MAGA-friendly cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach.

“I say that every time a district crosses the L.A.-Orange County border, a Democrat gets its wings,” said Paul Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew the new lines for Democrats. “Drawing the Long Beach district to go down to Huntington Beach meant that you’re giving Robert Garcia a community that, in its elected City Council, has been real anathema to who he is as a person, being an out gay member of Congress.”

The change means Garcia’s district shifts rightward with a lot more Republican voters, but still has a Democratic majority. Former Vice President Kamala Harris would have still won the new district in the 2024 presidential race by 13 points, making Democrats confident that it’s still one where Garcia could win.

As the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Garcia is poised to win more power in pushing back against the Trump administration if historical precedent holds and Democrats win back the House majority in November.

Garcia was unavailable for an interview, but many of the new voters he will have to court are represented by Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who won the closely divided Orange County seat in 2024 and now faces a slightly bluer voting base in his newly configured district.

“I have a lot of voters to introduce myself to,” said Min, who described himself as “progressive for Orange County” because he cares about protecting civil rights but often aligns with law enforcement and small-business interests.

“The message [to new voters] is that you may not always agree with me, but that I will try my best to do what I say. I will fight to deliver on the promises I make, I will fight for the values that I represent myself as caring about. And I listen to my constituents,” he said, noting that he recently held his seventh town hall since he was elected.

In a neighboring Orange County district, Republican Reps. Young Kim and Ken Calvert are going to battle for control of the region’s only safe Republican seat post-Proposition 50. That district also crosses county lines — into Corona, Chino Hills and other parts of western Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Republicans may be dismayed to see the two popular party leaders battling it out in what promises to be a brutal and expensive election.

Republican “primary voters are looking for how to distinguish between two of the same flavor,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political strategist. “Republican voters are going to like both of them, so how do you make that judgment?

“Often, it comes down to who their friends are,” he said, noting that endorsements from interest groups and other elected officials are usually more valuable in primaries than general elections.

A handful of Democratic candidates have also declared for the seat, which campaign strategists said could split the liberal vote and allow both Calvert and Kim to advance to the general election ballot.

Issa bids farewell, Kiley drops GOP label

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) listens to testimony from witnesses during a House Oversight Committee hearing entitled “Reviews of the Benghazi Attack and Unanswered Questions,” in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in 2013 in Washington.

(Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

Issa’s decision to forgo a run for reelection came as a surprise Friday, even though speculation has swirled about his future after the newly drawn congressional districts put him in a seat where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans. That was a major downgrade from his current district, which swallows up right-leaning eastern San Diego County and the conservative pockets of Temecula and Murrieta.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa said in a statement. “But after a quarter-century in Congress — and before that, a quarter-century in business — it’s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Democrats celebrated the departure of Issa, who helped fund the successful 2003 recall of California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, and led the congressional investigation of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi during the Obama administration.

“After over two decades of disastrous representation, Darrell Issa is once again running for the exits — and good riddance,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Several Democrats had already announced plans to challenge Issa, including San Diego City Councilmember Marni Lynn von Wilpert.

Proposition 50 also split the sprawling district held by Kiley, a Republican from Rocklin, into six pieces, leaving the Northern California congressman and frequent Newsom critic with few good options.

Over the following months Kiley posted on social media to announce — like the dating show “The Bachelor” — where he would not run until it came down to two districts: a safe Republican seat that would force Kiley into a primary with longtime Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) or a district with a 9-point Democratic registration advantage.

Kiley chose to avoid challenging McClintock and delivered his final rose to the new 6th District along with a twist: On Friday the congressman announced he would run as an independent candidate rather than a Republican.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) in his office in Washington in 2025.

(Richard Pierrin / For The Times)

In a lengthy social media post and accompanying video, Kiley said he has become “frustrated, sometimes disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress” and that he answers to constituents, “not party leaders.”

But without a political party behind him, Kiley’s campaign is “entirely his burden,” said Republican strategist Matt Rexroad. “He’s not going to get the party endorsement. He’s really on his own.”

Without a letter denoting a political party next to their name on the ballot, independent candidates have historically gotten lost in the mix.

One other candidate, a Christian author named Michael Stansfield, confirmed Friday that he filed to run for the seat as a Republican, giving Kiley automatic competition for conservative votes.

Several Democrats have already announced campaigns for the seat — which lumps conservative suburbs of Sacramento with liberal-leaning ones closer to the capital city — including former state Sen. Richard Pan, Sacramento Dist. Atty. Thien Ho, West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero and Lauren Babb, a public affairs leader for Planned Parenthood clinics in California and Nevada.

The race could revive a pandemic-era rivalry between Kiley and Pan, who tussled over vaccine and public health rules while serving in the state Legislature.

New districts, new challengers

For some longtime Democrats such as Rep. Brad Sherman, the addition of new GOP voters could help them fend off challenges from younger progressive candidates.

Half a dozen Democrats, mostly younger progressives, have filed paperwork to challenge Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), 71, who has represented parts of the San Fernando Valley for nearly 30 years.

The 32nd District remains solidly blue post-Proposition 50, but a nearly seven-point swing to the right “makes it less likely that two Democrats go to the general, which makes it less likely that [Sherman] would get beaten,” said Mitchell.

It’s a similar story for Reps. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), who are all in their 70s and 80s and facing younger, more progressive challengers.

While gaining more conservative voters may help some incumbents avoid facing another Democrat in November, the threat of such a faceoff is pushing them to be more active on the campaign trail, Rexroad said.

“You’re seeing more activity by Doris Matsui and Mike Thompson and John Garamendi as a result of them being challenged, because they like their seats and they’d like to hold on to them,” Rexroad said.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump promised that 2026 would be a bumper year for economic growth, but instead it has kicked off with job losses, rising gasoline prices and more uncertainty about America’s future.

In his State of the Union address less than two weeks ago, the Republican president confidently told the country: “The roaring economy is roaring like never before.” The latest batch of data on jobs, pump prices and the stock market suggests that Trump’s roar has started to sound far more like a whimper.

There is a gap between the boom that Trump has predicted and the volatile results he has produced — one that could set the tone in this year’s midterm elections as he tries to defend his party’s majorities in the House and Senate. With Trump’s tariffs uncertainty ongoing, the war in Iran has suddenly created inflationary concerns regarding oil and natural gas.

The White House says it is still early in the year and stronger growth is coming.

No signs of a jobs boom

“WOW! The Golden Age of America is upon us!!!” Trump posted on social media Feb. 11 after the monthly jobs report showed gains of 130,000 jobs in January.

Since then, the job market has evaporated in worrisome ways.

Friday’s employment report showed job losses of 92,000 in February. The January and December figures were revised downward, with December swinging to a loss of 17,000 jobs. Monthly data can be rocky, but a trend has emerged that shows an enduring weakness. Without the healthcare sector, the economy would have shed roughly 202,000 jobs since Trump became president in January 2025. His administration notes construction job gains outside of the housing sector, which it says point to future hiring growth.

Trump often claims that jobs are going to people born in the United States, rather than to immigrants. But the latest report punctured some of that argument.

The unemployment rate for people born in the U.S. has climbed over the last 12 months to 4.7% from 4.4%. This means a greater share of the people who Trump said would get jobs because of his immigration crackdown are, in fact, searching for work.

Prices at the pump are going up

“Slashing energy costs is among the most important actions we can take to bring down prices for American consumers,” Trump said in a February speech in Texas just before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. “Because when you cut the cost of energy, you really cut — you just cut the cost of everything.”

The president has repeatedly told Americans that keeping gas costs low would be key to defeating inflation. He has talked up the decline, citing figures that were far below the national average to persuade the public that driving was getting cheaper.

But the strikes against Iran that began Feb. 28 have, for the moment, crushed that narrative. Prices at the pump have jumped 19% over the last month to a national average of $3.45, according to AAA. The investment bank Goldman Sachs warned in an analyst note that, if higher oil prices persist, inflation could rise from its 2.4% reading in January to 3% by the end of the year.

The administration is banking on plans to contain any energy price increases, essentially betting that either the conflict will end shortly or the administration can succeed in getting more tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump advisors on Sunday sought to assure anxious Americans that surging fuel prices are a short-term problem.

“We never know exactly the timeframe of this,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “But in the worst case, this is a weeks, this is not a months thing.”

Stocks are off their highs

“You know, we set the all-time record in history with the Dow going to 50,000,” Trump said Thursday at the White House.

This frequently repeated talking point has grown stale. The Dow Jones industrial average, one of Trump’s preferred measures of success, has dropped 5% over the last month. Stocks are up during his presidency, just as they were when Democrat Joe Biden was president. The recent decline could be reversed if the war with Iran ends and companies see solid profits over the next year and beyond. The recent dip, however, should be a warning sign as the administration has stressed the importance of more people investing in the stock market through vehicles such as “Trump accounts” for children.

The stock market has become a barometer of how people feel about the economy, with stock investors tending to have more confidence and those without money in the markets being more pessimistic.

Joanna Hsu, the director of the University of Michigan’s surveys of consumers, noted that in February a “sizable” increase in sentiment among people owning stocks “was fully offset by a decline among consumers without stock holdings.”

Productivity is up, but workers aren’t benefiting

Trump can point to a win in that the economy has become more productive — generating more value for each hour of work. That is a positive sign for long-term growth in the U.S. and a reflection of its strong tech sector.

Business sector labor productivity climbed 2.8% in the fourth quarter of last year, the Labor Department reported Thursday. But the challenge is that the gains might not be spread to workers in the form of higher pay as labor’s share of income last year fell to the lowest level on record, noted Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project, a nonprofit aligned with liberal economic issues.

Economy grew at a faster pace under Biden

“Under the Biden administration, America was plagued by the nightmare of stagflation, meaning low growth and high inflation — a recipe for misery, failure and decline,” Trump said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January.

The scoreboard tells a far different story, one that makes Biden’s track record in 2024 look better than Trump’s performance last year. The U.S. economy grew at a 2.8% pace during Biden’s last year, compared with 2.2% under Trump in 2025.

As for inflation, the primary measure used by the Federal Reserve is the personal consumption expenditures price index. It was 2.6% in both 2024 and 2025.

Trump has staked his economic argument on doing better than Biden. But while he has avoided the inflation spikes that haunted Biden’s presidency — amid the height of the COVID-19 pandemic — Trump has not delivered stronger growth or more hiring.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.