arent

After Gov. Gavin Newsom announced this week that the U.S. Department of Justice may be investigating his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, media and pundits pounced on millions in charity payments he has solicited for nonprofits, including ones she is involved in.

Those donations, known as “behested payments,” aren’t illegal in California, but, long before Newsom started asking for them, many have found them unsavory — with good cause. A behest, after all, is by definition a command or at least a strong suggestion.

Anytime a politician is commanding money, regardless of the purpose, there is at least the appearance that the giver — Meta, Google, Blue Shield for example — may expect something in return.

It may seem absurd that the Trump administration could be investigating Newsom for questionable ethics, when Trump has hawked everything from crypto-coins to sneakers from the Oval Office. But the problem Newsom now faces is that behested payments are actually skeevy, and legal or not, they make an excellent target for pummeling the presidential contender. Especially because some of the charities are tied to his wife.

“The Newsom case has blown it wide open, but this has been an issue for years,” Sean McMorris told me. He’s the transparency, ethics and accountability program manager at Common Cause, a nonpartisan organization that has been raising alarms over behested payments for more than a decade.

McMorris said that while these payments don’t violate any laws, they are “ripe for abuse” because companies and people likely aren’t ponying up cash just to be good citizens. If you or I called up PG&E and asked them to give a few million to our favorite cause, I doubt we’d have much luck, even if it involved kittens, puppies or small children in need.

The entire system, McMorris points out, “doesn’t really work unless you’re shaking down people who you know need things from you as a politician.”

Jerry Brown used behested payments to get millions for charter schools he supported. Lesser luminaries such as mayors (including Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti and Karen Bass, just to name the last three in L.A.) have used them for all kinds of stuff from jobs programs to fixing up official residences.

And it’s far from a Democratic thing. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, used them to pay for travel and after-school programs. Republican James Gallagher, who recently won a congressional seat, used them to fund computers for schools while he was in the state Legislature. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones has raised millions, including helping to get $800,000 in donations to fund a replica of a historic ship for the maritime museum in his San Diego district.

Trump himself could be considered king of behested payments, with his corporate-paid ballroom and birthday bash.

Literally, folks, find me a politician with an itty-bitty bit of clout, and I’ll show you a trail of behested payments stretching through their pet projects. For that reason alone, it’s unlikely that California legislators will take any action to curb them, especially now when doing so would appear as a criticism to Newsom and Democrats in general.

And, to be fair, behested payments can do a lot of good. Newsom supercharged behested payments during the pandemic, raising hundreds of millions for programs to get Californians through that social disaster.

For that reason and others, not all experts find them terribly troubling. Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor with an expertise in election and governance issues, points out that money in politics is nothing new and at least behested payments are (mostly) required to be acknowledged. Anything over $5,000 and the politician has to report it to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which keeps a public database.

That makes behested payments far more transparent than, say, dark money donations to a mysterious political action committee. And at least the money is going to a good cause, be it historical ships or computers for kids.

“I actually don’t think that they’re the evil mechanism that other people do,” Levinson said. “I mean, my feeling is like, let’s live in reality, right? People are going to want to give as much money to or close to powerful people as possible, and I think that we have a choice between money going to independent expenditure groups or political committees or going to nonprofits.”

So behested payments in and of themselves might not be much of a headache for Newsom. But some of the payments Newsom solicited went to nonprofits Siebel Newsom is involved with, and which have paid her a salary. That proximity is uncomfortable for many of us. There is no distinction for a behest given to a charity with direct ties to the politician, but maybe there should be.

Still, salaries being paid by behested payments also aren’t illegal, and it’s been done before, even by Newsom. Villaraigosa was paid through behested funds for his work as the state “infrastructure czar” back in 2022. Bass considered paying former L.A. Police Commissioner Steve Soboroff through behested-funded nonprofits for his work after the recent fires before public scrutiny pushed him to forgo the funds.

None of that is to say the Newsoms are off the hook in a federal investigation. Newsom’s office said that along with the FBI, agents from the IRS have been knocking on doors and asking questions. All of us — probably the Newsoms included — will just have to wait to see if the fine-tooth combs of the feds pick up any dirt.

If there is any lesson to be learned at this point, it’s about ambition and hubris. Behested payments are easy money for California politicians and business as usual — everyone does it. But maybe they shouldn’t. It’s not black or white.

Newsom is learning quickly what it means to have a powerful enemy like Trump, one who has shown he will use the full power of the American government for his own purposes. One who can tip the scales and slide white to gray and gray to felony.

Federal investigators do not like to come up empty-handed, and the wink-wink nature of behested payments creates just that kind of ambiguity that provides reasonable cause for investigation — a self-inflicted vulnerability that surely has every California politician nervous.

Beneath azure skies and fluffy white clouds, three giggling toddlers and their mothers arrive at a candy-colored water park in the town of CoComelon.

It’s the opening of “Fast Little Fishy Splash Water Park Adventure,” a three-minute episode of “CoComelon,” the popular children’s cartoon series that is perhaps as controversial as it is appealing to young children.

Moonbug Entertainment, the studio behind “CoComelon,” says the episode, which debuted on YouTube in May, is the result of a years-long collaboration with a UCLA think tank.

In an unconventional move for a privately held entertainment company, the studio released its child development guidelines on its website Tuesday. Moonbug’s head of communications Bao Nguyen said the company began to incorporate findings from the research into its creative process in late 2025.

“It’s a great example of what we’ve been trying to do,” said Rich Hickey, Moonbug’s chief creative officer, referring to the episode. “Inclusive storytelling and learning through play — they’re all evident within that episode.”

Nina and Cody, ecstatic about visiting their neighborhood splash pad, run through fountains and hop in kiddie pools, but protagonist JJ is a bit more skeptical.

With support from his friends and his mother, who offers him goggles and a pair of orange arm floaties, JJ decides to face his fears. He joins his friends under a tipping bucket, and — spoiler alert — realizes that he actually enjoys playing in water. (“I just love to swim, swim, swim,” he sings.)

The guidelines, called the “Moonbug Learning Principles Framework,” are informed by academic research and advise that Moonbug shows should help young viewers navigate “real life moments” and “model positive relationships among children and their friends and caregivers.”

Other priorities include creating shows that encourage kids to learn through play, as this helps them develop their imagination and creativity, and featuring characters from diverse backgrounds (“CoComelon’s” Nina is Mexican American, Cece is Korean American and Cody is Black) — and giving said characters depth — across all Moonbug shows.

“We’re a digital-first company and we realized that there may be some … hesitation to sharing online content with children,” Hickey said. “This is really to keep building on the trust we think we’ve built.”

“CoComelon” is Moonbug’s flagship preschool show, and the series’ origins date back to 2006 when commercial director Jay Jeon shared a YouTube video of an alphabet cartoon set to music. The videos began to revolve around toddler JJ in 2017.

By 2020, “CoComelon” was the most-watched YouTube channel in the world, averaging 3.5 billion monthly views. That year, the show made its streaming debut on Netflix — where it broke ratings records — and was bought by London-based entertainment company Moonbug.

Moonbug was then acquired by Candle Media, a firm led by ex-Disney execs Kevin Mayer and Tom Staggs, for a reported $3 billion. Disney+ has since obtained the exclusive streaming rights to “CoCoMelon.”

“CoComelon‘s” image woes aren’t new. The series has developed a reputation for keeping children glued to the screen, as seen in videos that have gone viral on social media of babies bolting to the television upon hearing the marimba theme song.

In 2020, a Guardian columnist wrote that “CoComelon” was “like crack” for a preschool child. A New York Times report in 2022 gave the public more insight into Moonbug’s audience development process, which included testing “CoComelon” videos on young children to make its shows as attention-grabbing as possible.

The program has been a hot topic on parenting forums. The exchange typically goes something like this: Someone asks if “CoComelon” is “bad” and a gaggle of parents weigh in. “Very overstimulating,” said a user in one Reddit thread. “It moves too fast for kids’ brains to process, which can cause a speech delay,” wrote another.

Asked to respond to the criticism, Hickey said he believes Moonbug makes “age-appropriate content” and produces a range of videos to cater to different moments throughout a child’s day, from slow bedtime videos to faster-paced ones meant to encourage movement, Hickey said.

In 2023, Moonbug recruited the Center for Scholars and Storytellers, a think tank at UCLA that bridges entertainment media and psychology research, to “create the best possible product” for its audience, Hickey said.

The center was tasked with analyzing Moonbug’s content and crafting the learning principles to guide the studio’s future preschool programming, which also includes the “Blippi” and “Little Angel” franchises.

A scene from Moonbug Entertainment’s “Blippi’s Job Show.”

(Jessica Perez / Moonbug)

Moonbug also asked the center to determine if there was research showing that audiovisual content could be addicting for preschoolers, said Yalda T. Uhls, an assistant adjunct professor of psychology at UCLA and executive director of the Center for Scholars and Storytellers. Uhls said the center’s review of existing peer-reviewed research found that there was no such evidence.

And despite oft-repeated claims that long-form content is better for kids than short-form content, “there isn’t really actually any evidence for that,” Uhls said. “It’s very inconclusive.”

The center found that preschool children struggle to learn as much from content with frequent cuts, though consuming it doesn’t impact their attention span negatively, Uhls said.

As such, the principles the center crafted recommend Moonbug “minimize distractions and tangential songs or storylines” when characters are navigating real-life situations to make sure it does not interfere with preschool children’s ability to learn lessons.

The center interviewed members of Moonbug’s creative teams and formed an advisory council of academic experts in child development to evaluate a selection of Moonbug’s episodes, assess the quality of socio-emotional learning and find areas for improvement, Uhls said.

“The content certainly had a lot of places where it could improve, but it wasn’t horrible,” Uhls said. “There was some learning within the episodes. … It wasn’t all good, it wasn’t all bad.”

Uhls said she recalled several instances of episodes modeling unsafe behavior, but declined to share specifics.

The center plans to continue to work with Moonbug to integrate child development research much earlier in the studio’s creative process and aid with the integration of the learning principles into its content slate, Uhls said.

Three weeks ago The Times published an article in which general manager Perry Minisian said the Angels are “very competitive” and “our best baseball is in front of us.” He then cited run differential and team ERA as examples. After getting swept by the Dodgers by a combined 31-3 the Angels had the worst run differential, worst won/loss record and are at or near the bottom in all pitching and hitting categories in MLB.

Since owner Arte Moreno believes that “winning is not a top priority,” he must be very pleased with both the work of his GM and the team’s performance so far this season. That the three games against the Dodgers were sold out was not because of fans’ desire to see this “very competitive” Angels team.

Rob Nelson
Dana Point

The Angels’ ultimate indignity is its own hometown newspaper doesn’t regard it highly enough to staff its games with a full-time writer. The Angels are irrelevant in Southern California and the owner isn’t self aware enough to realize it.

Ron Yukelson
San Luis Obispo

I just wanted to give praise to the Angels TV and radio broadcast teams. Even with the Angels having the worst record in baseball, and having suffered 10 straight losing seasons, the broadcast teams approach the games professionally and always with a positive attitude. As a lifelong Angels fan, it always reminds me of that saying “hope springs eternal.”

Steve Shaevel
Woodland Hills

BRITS are not confident in identifying some of the UK’s most famous landmarks – including Hadrian’s Wall, the White Cliffs of Dover and the Angel of the North.

A poll of 2,000 adults found 59 per cent struggled to name well-known sites across our native country, compared to 41 per cent who identified them correctly.

While 94 per cent could correctly recognise the Statue of Liberty in New York, 36 per cent were not able to name iconic landmarks closer to home, such as Hadrian’s Wall or St Paul’s Cathedral (35 per cent).

Angel of The North (20 per cent) and the White Cliffs of Dover (18 per cent) were also among those left unidentified.

However, 62 per cent admitted they want to learn more about British landmarks and local history.

The research was commissioned by Travelzoo, which is celebrating all the great places to see in the UK.

ABOVE PAR

Inside Europe’s largest mini-golf course in UK which even has its own waterfall

GO SEA

EVERYTHING you need to know about sewage and swim safety at UK beaches

The club for travel enthusiasts has teamed up with TV personality and keen explorer, Julia Bradbury, who said: “I have been lucky enough to visit almost every corner and coastline of our amazing country.

“From rugged peaks to gently rolling hills, fairy tale villages and vibrant cities.

“We have so much diversity packed into our island, I can’t imagine ever being bored exploring it, and I encourage others to discover the incredible places right on their doorstep too.”

The study also found cost was the biggest barrier to exploring local landmarks (43 per cent), followed by lack of time (34 per cent) and transport logistics (30 per cent).

Three in 10 (31 per cent) believe people are more likely to visit international attractions over UK landmarks.

When asked to place landmarks geographically, 38 per cent were unsure where Stonehenge was located, whereas 66 per cent could not correctly identify the region for Hadrian’s Wall, and 33 per cent struggled with Giant’s Causeway.

More than four in 10 respondents who had children (43 per cent) did not think their child could correctly name well-known UK landmarks off the top of their head.

Parents believed their children would be more likely to recognise the Statue of Liberty (74 per cent) and the Eiffel Tower (75 per cent) over Stonehenge (63 per cent) and The Angel of The North (42 per cent).

In addition, 81 per cent believe children need to learn more about UK landmarks and local heritage.

More than a third (34 per cent) said they would not know where to begin when it comes to exploring what is on their doorstep.

Almost three in 10 (29 per cent) believe they have visited more countries outside of the UK than they have counties across the country.

That may be set to change, as a fifth said they are planning to spend more time holidaying in the UK this year compared to previous years.

Ease and reduced stress compared with travelling abroad was cited as the main driver behind choosing a UK trip this year (27 per cent), followed by shorter travel times (25 per cent) and cheaper to stay in the country (22 per cent).

The coast topped the list of staycation destinations, chosen by 61 per cent, according to the OnePoll.com figures.

As a nation, Brits are willing to travel for short-break destinations, with journeys averaging almost four hours for a one to three-night getaway.

Cat Jordan, for Travelzoo, said: “These findings show there’s a real appetite to connect with what’s on our doorstep, but many people don’t always know where to start.

“In a country with so much to discover, it’s easy to overlook just how much is at our fingertips.

“With so much history, coastline, and culture spread across the UK, you don’t need a passport for it to feel like a proper break.”

Here’s a riddle for you: A conservative Republican senator, a top economic advisor to the Trump White House and a venture capitalist walk into a conference room at a financial conference and claim a new government program will be a boon for all American families.

Question: Do you think these people are looking out for your interests?

If you trust Sen. Ted Cruz, economic advisor Kevin Hassett and millionaire Brad Gerstner to do so, feel free to stop reading here.

If you’re skeptical, read on.

But keep in mind that Cruz (R-Tex.) was last seen in these pages promoting yet another big tax break for the 1%, Hassett appeared the other day on Fox Business arguing that while Americans are spending a lot more on gasoline, “they’re spending more on everything else too” on their credit cards, as if forcing households to max out their credit is a good thing; and Gerstner is, well, a millionaire tech investor.

At their panel discussion on May 4 at the annual Milken conference, Cruz, Hassett, Gerstner and their interlocutor, Michael Milken, talked as though the Trump accounts would be so fabulous for average American families that they would obviate the need for Social Security.

“Here’s the dirty little secret,” Cruz said. “Trump accounts are Social Security personal accounts.”

Milken echoed that thought: “Do you have the right to decide where your money goes, or should you be giving it to the government and [letting] them decide where it goes?”

That gave the game away — this is yet another effort by Republicans and conservatives to end a program they’ve been trying to kill, and to give Wall Street firms a bigger bite of your retirement resources.

Let’s start with a primer about the Trump accounts, which were part of last year’s GOP budget bill and will be open to investment starting on July 4.

The headline pitch for these accounts is that they’ll be seeded with a one-time $1,000 government contribution for children born from 2025 through 2028, unless Congress extends the government donation. Accounts can be opened for children born before or after those dates, but they won’t get the government donation.

Families can add up to another $5,000 in contributions every year until the child reaches 18, but those donations won’t be tax-deductible.

The money must be invested in low-cost stock index funds or exchange-traded stock index funds, and can’t be withdrawn for any reason without penalty until age 18. After that, the funds can be withdrawn without penalty for certain purposes such as educational expenses or the purchase of a first home. The accounts eventually become converted to conventional individual retirement accounts, or IRAs, and distributions will be taxed as ordinary income, though family contributions will be returned tax-free.

That $1,000 donation is the best feature of the accounts. But that may be their only good feature. For almost all the financial goals confronting average American families, such as saving for college or retirement, they’re inferior to tax-advantaged savings plans already on the books.

Like those programs, they’re much more advantageous for wealthier than to low-income families: Wealthier families typically have the wherewithal to make their annual contributions, and get a larger break from the tax deferrals of investment growth within the accounts because their tax rates are higher.

Though their promoters claim that the accounts will level the economic playing field for all families — “helping the bottom 10%,” Hassett said on the panel — that’s not the case. “Clearly, the program is structured to subsidize savings for those who already have the capacity to save, rather than meaningfully closing the wealth gap,” observes Sheryl Rowling of Morningstar.

Another drawback cited by economists and financial planners is that the accounts are locked into corporate equity investments. Before the beneficiary reaches age 18, the investment mix can’t be adjusted. That’s dangerous because portfolio concentrations in corporate shares are inherently risky.

“A high school senior who plans to enroll in college next year cannot change the investment to a lower-risk portfolio,” say, to a mix of equities and bonds, notes Greg Leiserson of the Tax Law Center at NYU. “If the market crashes the summer before she plans to enroll, the Trump Account is of greatly reduced use.”

Trump account promoters have massively overstated the potential wealth gains for ordinary Americans. At the Milken conference, Cruz said that a child with a Trump account will have about $170,000 in it when he or she reaches 18 and $700,000 at age 35. “And very quickly after that, you get into the millions,” he said.

Cruz did acknowledge that those figures apply to households that “contribute regularly.” In fact, they apply largely to households that contribute the maximum $5,000 every year.

The White House estimates of potential returns are based on questionable assumptions about stock market gains over the 18-year periods in which the accounts will grow on a tax-deferred basis.

According to the government’s own estimates, the account of a family taking the $1,000 seed money but making no contributions beyond that would have as little as $2,577 in their account after 18 years if stock market returns come to 5.4% over that period.

The government estimates, however, that the account would hold $730,395 if the family contributes the maximum every year and the stock market returns more than 18%. Another 10 years of growth at that level, and the account would grow to $1.9 million when the child reaches age 28.

The problem with long-term market estimates, such as the ones offered by the White House, is that they’re highly variable. No 18-year periods are the same. One thousand dollars deposited in a hypothetical account invested in a Standard & Poor’s 500 index fund would grow to about $6,600 if its 18-year lifetime culminated in 2025; if the 18 years ended in 2008, however, that deposit would have grown only to $3,960. In the 18-year period that ended in 1960, the account would have grown only to $2,940. What will the next 18 years bring? Who knows?

Variability like this, along with the sheer uncertainty of stock market projections for the future, helped sink George W. Bush’s 2005 attempt to convert Social Security into private accounts, which was also pitched as a key to minting millionaires by the millions through the magic of the market.

I asked the White House to respond to these criticisms. Spokesman Kush Desai called my questions “both a stupid and out-of-touch take,” asserting that the accounts are “already shaping up to make a generational difference for working-class children.”

The truth is that if Trump were really intent on taking steps to “strengthen the financial security of American workers” and creating a “path to prosperity for a generation of American kids,” as he claims to be, he and his GOP followers in Congress wouldn’t have scissored away the American safety net, which is what they’ve done.

They wouldn’t have imposed new work requirements and narrowed eligibility standards for food stamps, resulting in the exclusion of more than 3 million people from the program, a decline of 8%. They wouldn’t have cut nearly $1 trillion in funding for Medicaid over 10 years, jeopardizing coverage for 3.6 million young adults. They wouldn’t have allowed Affordable Care Act premium subsidies to expire, resulting in a drop in Obamacare enrollments of about 1.2 million Americans this year compared with last year.

If they really cared about educational opportunities for “a generation of American kids,” they wouldn’t have narrowed eligibility for higher education Pell grants, and wouldn’t slash research grants for universities coast to coast.

So how can families better prepare for college and retirement expenses? For education, 529 plans are probably preferable to Trump accounts. The investment choices are more flexible, withdrawals are tax-free at the federal level and sometimes at state levels if used for most education expenses, and there are no federal limits on contributions (contributions aren’t tax-deductible).

For retirement, advisers have been favoring Roth IRAs. Contributions are not tax-deductible, and this year can be made by couples filing jointly with taxable income up to $242,000 ($153,000 for singles) and are limited to $7,500 a year ($8,600 for those 50 and older). But withdrawals aren’t taxed if you’ve held the account for at least five years and you take the money out after you turn 59 1⁄2.

The bottom line, then, is this. Take the $1,000 if your child is eligible. As Rowling wisely advises, “Any time the government offers free money, you should take it.”

As for the rest, treat any claims offered by Trump account promoters as inherently suspect.

The Lakers understand the daunting challenge they’re about to face against the defending NBA champion Oklahoma City Thunder in the Western Conference semifinals.

Lakers coach JJ Redick referenced the great Chicago Bulls teams that won back-to-back championships in 1996 and ’97 and the Golden State Warriors teams that won titles in 2015 and ’17 when talking about the Thunder after practice Sunday.

“The Thunder is one of the greatest teams ever in NBA history,” Redick said. “It’s just the reality. They’re that good. I think our guys recognize that and respect that, and we know what kind of task we have in front of us.”

The Thunder had the best record in the regular season at 64-18. They were ranked first in defensive field-goal percentage (43.7%), first in defensive rating (106.5), first in net rating (43.7) and second in points given up per game (107.9).

They have the league’s reigning most valuable player in Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who is the leading candidate to repeat as MVP. He was second in scoring this season (31.1 points per game) and leads the postseason in scoring (33.8).

The Thunder just swept the Phoenix Suns in their first-round series. The Lakers eliminated the Houston Rockets in six games.

This season the Thunder beat the Lakers by an average of 29.2 points per game in sweeping the four-game set. So the Lakers are facing long odds to win this series, but they say they aren’t intimidated heading into Game 1 on Tuesday night.

“You can respect the team but you can’t fear them,” forward Jake LaRavia said. “You can’t come into the game fearing the opponent and then you’re just gonna come in and get punked. So, we respect how good this team is, but our goal is to win — win the games and win the series. So, our mindset stays the same.”

The Thunder have a reputation as a stingy defensive team — they were called for the seventh-fewest fouls per game (19) this season.

“They’re top five in every category that’s disruptive-base: steals, blocks, turnovers forced, all that stuff. And they don’t foul,” Redick said. “They somehow do all of that without fouling, which is one of the most remarkable things, I think, in NBA history.”

Gilgeous-Alexander is famous for drawing fouls. He took nine free throws per game this season, third-most in the league.

“Nobody’s been able to stop him all season,” Redick said. “So, you can hope and pray.”

Oklahoma City star Shai Gilgeous-Alexander drives against the Lakers during a Thunder win on April 2.

(Cooper Neill / Getty Images)

The Lakers had their own weapon at the free-throw line, but it’s unclear when Luka Doncic might return from injury. The All-Star point guard hasn’t played since sustaining a Grade 2 left hamstring strain against the Thunder on April 2.

Doncic was coming off a magical month, becoming the only player in history other than Michael Jordan to score 600 points in March.

Redick had no update on Doncic’s status — he remains out indefinitely.

But the Lakers got by the Rockets with LeBron James leading the way. He averaged 23.2 points, 8.3 assists and 7.2 rebounds in the six games. And star guard Austin Reaves, who also was injured in the April 2 game against the Thunder, returned to help beat the Rockets.

Still, few think the Lakers, who advanced past the first round for the first time since 2023, can get by the deep and talented Thunder.

“You could say nobody thought we were going to get past Houston, but everybody in this building believed,” Reaves said. “It’s the same mindset going into this. We obviously know the team that we’re about to face and how good they are and the problems that they can create for 48 minutes. So, we’ll have to lock in every single day, film, whatever it could be, to continue to get better and and pay attention to all the little details like they do.”

A much-anticipated debate featuring leading candidates in the Los Angeles mayor’s race is set for Cinco de Mayo before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. But it won’t include all the leading candidates.

The influential homeowners group has invited just incumbent Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, and not the three other top contenders Spencer Pratt, Adam Miller and Rae Huang.

The group explained its decision by saying that big, crowded debates can often feel chaotic.

“Rather than hosting a stage filled with a long list of candidates, we have chosen to invite these two leaders specifically because they represent Sherman Oaks on two critical — and complementary — levels of government. This format allows for a deeper, more meaningful discussion about the issues that directly impact our neighborhood and our city,” the group wrote in its description of the debate.

Some of the other top candidates took issue with being excluded.

“If the SOHA wanted a real debate on topics like public housing, a public bank, free and fast transit, and the things that matter to Angelenos all over the city, they should call off their gate-keeping process that keeps the system and the establishment protected,” Huang spokesman Emel Shaikh said in a statement.

From the Miller camp, spokesperson Jaime Sarachit called it “a missed opportunity for these voters not to hear directly from a candidate offering a different approach to solving L.A.’s biggest issues, especially on housing, homelessness and public safety.”

Pratt didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Angelenos could have a chance to see more of the major candidates the next day, May 6, for a televised debate featuring Colleen Williams and Conan Nolan of NBC4 and Enrique Chiabra of Telemundo 52. KNBC hasn’t yet confirmed the lineup, but the station said to participate candidates must have received at least 5% support in two reliable 2026 polls.

Homeless camp skirmish

Raman scouted out a Harbor Freeway overpass in South L.A. last month after parents at nearby 61st Street Elementary voiced concerns about a homeless camp that students had to pass on their way to school. Raman documented her visit with a post on Instagram, saying “these parents have tried again and again to get someone to listen to their needs — and again and again their concerns have fallen on deaf ears.”

But when City Councilmember Curren Price on Tuesday proposed making the area an anti-encampment zone under the city’s municipal code 41.18, Raman voted against the motion, which passed anyway.

Raman routinely votes against 41.18 zones, saying that reducing homelessness requires connecting people to housing.

“This provision at best shifts encampments around a neighborhood.” Raman said in a statement. “Our working protocols are dependent on that. However, enforcement alone does not drive reductions in homelessness. What works is connecting people to shelter and housing.”

That explanation didn’t stop Bass and Curren, who represents the area in question, from throwing shade Raman’s way.

“It is frustrating when efforts to move forward are met with opposition from those who are not fielding these calls, not hearing from parents, and not seeing these conditions firsthand,” said Price spokesperson Angelina Valencia-Dumarot.

Bass campaign spokesman Alex Stack chimed in: “Raman went to this very school to make an Instagram post about how nobody was helping them, and then turned around three weeks later and voted to allow the encampments to return.”

It’s Miller Time!

Adam Miller has scooped up a couple of names from Bass’ past.

Bill Burton, Miller’s senior advisor, who was a deputy press secretary under then-President Barack Obama — also moonlighted for Bass’ 2022 mayoral campaign as a stand-in for Rick Caruso during Bass’ debate prep, though he didn’t work for the campaign in a formal role.

Burton said during that campaign that the race between Bass and Caruso was “essentially a Democrat versus a Republican.”

Now, Burton is running the campaign for Miller, who voted for Caruso in 2022, though he describes himself as a lifelong Democrat.

Separately, Sarah Sheehan, who worked as Bass’ communications director on her 2022 campaign, is working as a consultant for the Miller campaign.

Sheehan said in a statement that the city needs an outsider.

“That is why I decided to work with Adam Miller,” she said.

Lauren Perez-Rangel, who also worked on Bass’ 2022 campaign as a spokesperson, is also working for Miller.

State of play

— BUDGET: Mayor Bass released her $14.9-billion spending plan Monday, which included a proposal to hire 510 police officers — roughly enough to cover retirements and resignations. The budget must be approved by the City Council, and will be the subject of weeks of hearings.

— COVER UP: The Department of Water & Power has drained the Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades to replace the damaged floating cover, frustrating residents who fear there won’t be water to fight potential wildfires.

— EYE OF THE STORMWATER: Los Angeles officials announced a $40-million project at MacArthur Park this week that’s aimed at turning rainstorm runoff into lake water — and maybe improving the park’s tarnished reputation as well. The project will also include new landscaping, walking paths and other features to enhance the location’s appeal as a park.

— LAHSA LAYOFFS: The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority announced Monday it plans to lay off nearly 300 employees, citing the county’s decision to withdraw funding and set up its own homeless services department.

— INTO THE BREACH: After the massive leak of LAPD files due to a data breach in the L.A. city attorney’s office, officials are seeking explanations from the city’s top lawyer. City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said she expected City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to appear before a council committee this week about the data leak. “When did the city attorney’s office become aware, what actions were taken, and why were city officials not notified promptly?” Jurado said. “Right now, we’re still left to question and trying to assemble the information.”

— CULTURE OF FEAR: In the LAFD, firefighters rarely question orders because doing so could invite retribution from bosses. That culture was evident in firefighters’ testimony about the Lachman fire, which reignited into the Palisades fire days later.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program was in Echo Park and Venice this week, bringing inside more than 40 Angelenos and clearing eight RVs and trailers off the streets.
• On the docket next week: The City Council will continue to meet to speak about Bass’ proposed budget.

Stay in touch

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

The Air National Guard is pushing Congress to boost fighter numbers as it seeks to modernize its aging inventory. With the Air Force at large feeling the effects of years of underinvestment in new fighters, and with China presenting a massive pacing challenge, the move is the latest effort to ensure that the service can keep up in terms of numbers and capability.

According to a report from Air & Space Forces Magazine, Air National Guard adjutants general from more than 20 states sent a letter to Congress last week that requests multiyear funding for the acquisition of between 72 and 100 new fighters each year.

These numbers would be a significant hike compared with recent years: not since 1998 has the Air Force bought more than 72 new fighters in a single year.

“The United States Air Force is the oldest, the smallest, and the least ready in its 78-year history,” the letter states. “We must build a fighting force that will win.”

Specifically, the letter urges the minimum annual purchases of the 48 F-35As and 24 F-15EXs, with a preferred goal of 72 F-35As and 36 F-15EXs.

While the letter was signed by Air National Guard leaders, these totals would be expected to furnish units of the Active, Guard, and Reserve components.

By comparison, the Air Force requested funding for 48 F-35As in Fiscal Year 2024, followed by 42 in 2025, 24 in 2026, and 38 in the proposed 2027 budget.

The Fiscal Year 2027 budget request also includes funding for the purchase of 10 F-35Bs and 37 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps and the Navy, which is already a notable uptick in planned acquisitions. At the same time, the F-35 program has faced worrisome delays in work on a new radar, as well as a host of other critical upgrades.

For the F-15EX, budget documents show the service requested 24 aircraft in 2024, 18 in 2025, 21 in 2026, and 24 in 2027.

A sustained annual buy of even 24 F-15EXs would represent an acceleration over current production plans for the Eagle II, after the Fiscal Year 2026 budget request increased the program of record from 98 to 129 aircraft, including funding for 21 jets in a single year. In its latest budget request, the Air Force provides no details about whether there may be any new changes to the planned total fleet size for the F-15EX.

One of those who signed the letter is Brig. Gen. Shannon Smith, head of the Idaho Air National Guard, who told Air & Space Forces Magazine that, “We are burning these jets and the airmen over time to support the joint force to accomplish the president’s goals with Epic Fury in this conflict with Iran.”

On top of the demands of combat operations, Brig. Gen. Smith warned that the Air National Guard fighter fleet is rapidly aging, meaning that “Most of the money will go to keep them flying. In a few years, they’ll be struggling to be flyable, let alone be relevant.”

While plans are in place to replace A-10s and F-15Cs, even older F-35As will need replacement before too long, Smith added. More urgent is the looming requirement to supersede the more numerous F-16s.

In total, the Air National Guard has 24 fighter squadrons, 11 of which have already received new fighters or are planned to. While some Guard F-16 units have transitioned to the F-35, there is no plan in place for the Guard’s remaining 13 Viper squadrons. Taken together, the Guard’s inventory constitutes close to half of all combat-coded F-16s.

In the past, thought has been given to a new light fighter, to balance the more costly and capable F-35 and, now, the F-47, although that would be extremely costly and take years. Another option would be to start buying new F-16 Block 70/72 jets, although the production line is already burdened by multiple export orders.

Even if Congress supports the Air National Guard chiefs’ recommendations and the budget is available, getting new jets on ramps will be far from easy.

As well as boosting capabilities and ‘combat mass,’ new fighters bring other advantages in terms of reduced maintenance demands, easier access to spare parts, longer airframe life, and overall higher availability.

The issue of spare parts is a critical one. Back in 2024, we looked at how, by the Air Force’s own estimates, hundreds of its aircraft are at risk of being left grounded due to a lack of spares, thanks to a $1.5-billion shortfall in its budget request.

However, meeting the aim of 72 to 100 new fighters each year would demand a significant uptake in production capacity, which is already stretched. With that in mind, the Air National Guard projects it could still take 10 to 15 years to re-equip units now flying older fighters.

One option to re-equip Guard and Reserve units would be to cascade fighters down from the Active component, but Air National Guard chiefs warn against this, too, since it only pushes recapitalization with new fighters further down the line.

What is unclear is how the Air Force’s plans for the F-47 sixth-generation fighter might play into this.

In 2023, then-Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall said that the service was working around a future force planning construct that included 200 of the sixth-gen combat jets.

At this point, however, there are still questions about how exactly the F-47 will fit into the Air Force’s future force structure and how many of the jets the service might actually procure. The jet was originally planned as a replacement for the F-22, but that appears to have changed, or is at least in limbo. It is by no means clear how long the F-22 will be around after the F-47 is introduced, but if the F-47 is delayed, it could come at the end of the F-22’s service life. If the Air Force intends to operate the two at the same time, at least for the earlier part of the F-47’s career, but delays in fielding it occur, this could also open up another gap in the combat mass.

Another factor is the service’s emerging plans for fielding its future fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones, which are being designed from the ground up to work in close concert with current and future crewed jets. In the past, the Air Force has signaled that it wants to buy over 1,000 CCAs. However, this number is understood to cover multiple CCA increments, with Increment 1 being procured in numbers between 100 and 150 units, at least to start with.

Ultimately, the CCA effort aims to drastically improve the tactical jet fleet combat mass, which could offset the dwindling fighter force, and active-duty F-35 and F-22 units will get them first. Thereafter, they could be quickly rolled out to fourth-generation jets, too. On the other hand, the CCA concept still has much to prove and is not without risk.

In the background to all this are the concerns within the U.S. military leadership at large about the significant advances being made by the Chinese military and, in this case, its air arms. The People’s Liberation Army Air Force is rapidly expanding and modernizing at a scale that threatens to surpass the United States in both numbers and capability. Warning signs of a massive fighter expansion include an apparent new J-35 factory and the many Chinese CCA programs.

As long as the U.S. government continues to procure aircraft at comparatively slower rates, China has the opportunity to race ahead and is already producing advanced fighters in large quantities, creating a growing imbalance in the Indo-Pacific region.

Clearly, there are very many factors at play, not least budgetary. However, in making their case to Congress, Air National Guard bosses are once again underscoring the continued demand for crewed combat jets within the service, and at the same time, highlighting some of the challenges in keeping the fighter force at the top of its game.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com