block

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states sued again Wednesday to block the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new nationwide rules for mail ballots, arguing they usurp state authority over elections at President Trump’s behest, expose voter information unnecessarily and threaten chaos in the rapidly approaching November election.

The Postal Service formally issued a 95-page “final rule” on Friday asserting that it was amending its mailing standards for mail ballots in federal elections to comply with Trump’s March executive order.

Trump demanded the rule changes as part of a broader plan to combat what he alleges — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud in the U.S., including by noncitizens voting through the mail. Election experts say there is zero evidence of such problems existing at scale.

“This mail-in voting rule is an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections, but as I’ve said before, this fight is far from over and we are confident that the facts and the law are on our side,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

The new postal rules require states to submit lists of eligible voters — including their names and addresses — to the Postal Service, and to use new ballot envelopes with digital barcodes that would allow the Postal Service to identify and reject ballots that don’t match those lists.

The rules do not give the Postal Service authority to dictate which voters may appear on state lists. However, the rules do acknowledge that the lists would provide state voter data to federal law enforcement for the first time, and would put those authorities in “a better position to identify any potential issues regarding compliance with federal law that may merit further investigation.”

Trump’s March executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security to use available federal data to compile its own state lists of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to compare them with the mail voter lists provided by the states to the Postal Service, and identify and pursue any ineligible voters.

Wednesday’s lawsuit follows a Monday decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that found an earlier challenge from the states was premature, in part because it sought court relief to a rule-making process that required nothing of the states and before the Postal Service had moved to implement any changes.

“On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to fully close the door on the President’s attempt to interfere in our election administration. Today, we’re taking legal action to stop this unlawful rule in its tracks and ensure that voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote,” Bonta said.

The White House did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the latest lawsuit.

However, it has defended Trump’s executive order as overdue and badly needed to secure U.S. elections, and hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the rule-making to proceed as “a major win for the security of American elections.”

“These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said.

The high court allowed the Postal Service to move forward with its work to comply with Trump’s order, but explicitly noted that it had reached no conclusions as to the legality of the pending rules.

Trump administration officials have said they are pursuing fraudulent voters, and have warned state election officials that they could face legal consequences personally if they don’t do everything in their power to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens.

Critics contend Trump’s executive order was devised as an end run around laws and a slew of recent court rulings blocking the Trump administration’s demands for state voter rolls — which states, including California, have refused to provide.

States have argued the administration’s demands are in bad faith, intended to bolster Trump’s baseless claims that U.S. elections are compromised rather than enhance election security.

In issuing its new rules, the Postal Service rejected a slate of concerns from critics who submitted comments on the proposed rules, including that the changes are being proposed far too close to the November election and will cost states and localities a huge amount of money to comply with.

It also rejected concerns that creating a single nationwide voter database — which has never existed before — will provide a massive new target for foreign adversaries and other bad actors interested in disrupting U.S. elections.

The Postal Service concluded that the cost to the states is outweighed by the benefits of the changes. It said it has sufficient staffing to implement the changes, and is ready to safeguard the database it builds using “multi-layered security controls.”

The lawsuit, brought by 24 state attorneys general and the governor of Pennsylvania, asks for immediate court intervention to halt the Postal Service changes from being implemented while the litigation continues.

“Let’s be clear: the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to regulate elections — not the President and not USPS,” Bonta said. “Ballots are an extension of our voices and we’re asking the court to ensure that every person has the right to make theirs heard.”

Independent voting rights groups have also sued to block the Postal Service rules from being implemented.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for President Trump to seek new limits on the use of mail ballots, but they are not likely to take effect this year.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the court’s conservatives granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked new federal regulations on states and their use of mail ballots.

It’s not clear, however, what happens now, since the midterm elections are less than three months away.

About 30% of the nation’s voters — and 80% of Californians — cast their ballots by mail in 2024. Trump, however, has long maintained the voting by mail leads to fraud, including voting by noncitizens.

The court’s order stressed the new regulations do not put new requirements on the states this year.

Trump’s executive order “is internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch,” the court said.

The Department of Homeland Security will compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are over 18 and eligible to vote.

“States are not required to use the Lists,” the court said, although they could lead to future prosecutions.

The most disputed provision could have authorized the Postal Service to restrict mail ballots to those who are on the Homeland Security lists, but that is a future proposal, not a rule that will take effect this year.

The unsigned order spoke for the six Republican appointees. The three liberals, all Democratic appointees, dissented into two separate opinions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Trump’s order was unlawful and should have been struck down. “It needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” she said.

“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. “Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”

Trump issued his executive order on March 31 with the aim of “ensuring citizenship verification” in federal elections. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued a few days later and said Trump sought to use the Postal Service to impose new restrictions on voting by mail. They also argued the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to regulate elections, not the president.

A federal judge in Boston and 1st Circuit Court agreed with the challengers and blocked Trump’s executive order from taking effect for the November elections.

The case on appeal was Trump vs. California because California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta was a leader of the Democratic state attorneys who sued.

New York City, United States – Mayor Zohran Mamdani is challenging a new law that would give New York City’s teaching aides a one-time $10,000 bonus, arguing it goes against the city’s collective bargaining laws.

On Wednesday, the bill, which was passed by New York City’s City Council, automatically became law because the mayor had opted not to veto it. Instead, Mamdani filed a lawsuit to block it because the City Council had enough votes to override his veto.

The bill, called the Respect Check Act, was backed by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), a labour union representing teachers across New York City’s public school system and was championed by City Council Speaker Julie Menin, who has often clashed with the mayor.

Teaching assistants are among the lowest-paid workers in the city’s school system, according to a statement released by Menin’s office on Wednesday. Their pay is as low as $32,000. According to MIT’s living wage calculator, the living wage in New York City is $79,469 for Manhattan, $67,558 for Brooklyn, $73,258 for Queens, $67,974 in Staten Island, and $60,341 for the Bronx.

When the bill passed in July, Mamdani argued that the law directly violated a state law called the Taylor Law, a nearly 60-year-old law that gives public sector workers the right to organise. The UFT, which endorsed Mamdani in July 2025 ahead of the city’s election, pushed back on the mayor’s claims. The group argued the City Council did not undermine collective bargaining.

“The City Council would not have introduced – let alone passed – this bill if it were illegal, and we would not have supported a bill that threatened our collective bargaining rights,” Michael Mulgrew, president of the UFT, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“This moment is an opportunity for Mayor Mamdani to create a new, fairer system and build the kind of city he said he wanted to lead. This administration must keep its promises, and we won’t stop until it does.”

The City Council crafted the law to avoid violating New York’s Taylor Law, a UFT representative told Al Jazeera.

Under a 2023 state appeals court ruling, additional payments to public employees are mandated to be independent of a worker’s regular salary and cannot be tied to collective bargaining, they argue.

“The Court of Appeals has found that the Taylor Law does not prevent a municipality from unilaterally providing an economic benefit,” Beth Norton, general counsel for the UFT, said in testimony in front of the City Council in 2025, provided to Al Jazeera.

Pushing back

New York City Hall sees it differently.

“Council labels these ‘stabilisation’ payments; they effectively function as stipends or salary bonuses and, regardless of terminology, are an additional form of compensation and, as such, a mandatory subject of bargaining,” the 18-page filing obtained by Al Jazeera said.

“I think the mayor is right that this sets a bad precedent,” Adin Lenchner, founder of the New York-based political consultancy Carroll Street Campaigns, told Al Jazeera.

“Him and his team are either posturing, negotiating, or using this as a moment to negotiate toward some other kind of deal. I think everyone would agree that, substantively and philosophically, this is aligned with the mayor’s public policy approach and his vision for the city,” Lenchner added.

“So, if I had to guess, this is, on the one hand, about not wanting to establish a bad precedent and, on the other hand, a step toward a longer-term negotiation.”

Citizens Budget Commission (CBC), a nonpartisan think tank, urged the mayor in July to veto the bill, arguing that City Council should not make this decision. It says the now-law would add $325m in city spending.

“The City should continue to determine employee compensation at the bargaining table, not the legislative chamber,” vice president for research at CBC, Ana Champeny, said in a press release in mid-July.

Mamdani echoed that sentiment when he was asked about the law earlier this month.

“Conversations around compensation are better left at the bargaining table,” Mamdani said in a news conference on August 6.

However, the mayor voiced support on the campaign trail for legislation that would provide support payments to these paraprofessionals. That legislation supported recurring payments, not a one-time payment.

“The version he supported last fall made the payment recurring; what passed last month only guarantees it for one year. That’s the line between then and now, so not much of a flip-flop,” Lenchner added.

“We will not allow the political process to replace the collective bargaining table. The City is filing a lawsuit to protect the right of every union to negotiate on behalf of its members, to fight for the workplace they deserve and ensure that workers – not politicians – determine their own futures,” Matt Rauschenbach, a spokesperson for the mayor, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“We will work towards a quick resolution that respects workers, protects the City’s finances, and ensures that the Council does not interfere with collective bargaining in the future.”

Rauschenbach declined to provide further comment.

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have given preliminary approval for a cryptocurrency venture tied to President Trump and his family to operate a digital-asset bank, a decision that has drawn immediate condemnation from Senate Democrats who are now pushing legislation to bar such an action.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, and nine other Senate Democrats introduced a bill Saturday that would bar the president, the vice president, their immediate family members and other senior government officials from owning or controlling banks.

The measure was proposed a day after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — which is part of the Trump administration — granted conditional approval for World Liberty Trust Co. to become a trust bank. The firm was founded in 2024 by two of Trump’s sons and the sons of Steve Witkoff, the Trump administration’s special envoy to the Middle East.

If the firm gets final approval, it would not act like a conventional bank and take deposits or make loans. Instead, the chartered bank would be able to issue and manage cryptocurrencies and digital assets. But the move would grant new financial powers to the Trump family’s crypto business, which has already shown to be profitable for the president in his first year back in the White House.

Trump’s financial disclosures show the president has earned more than $1.2 billion from crypto-related projects as he has pushed to deregulate the digital-asset industry. He hauled in more than $500 million from his World Liberty Financial business selling new crypto products and is a significant owner of the firm through an entity called DT Marks DEFI LLC, which holds about a 38% stake.

Aside from World Liberty Financial, Trump last year took in more than $600 million from sales of souvenir-type “meme” coins stamped with his likeness.

Trump’s crypto windfall has lately fueled Democrats’ argument that the president stands to personally gain from the same regulatory apparatus he oversees, and has led to acrimonious negotiations in Capitol Hill over how to regulate the industry.

The White House said Tuesday “there are no conflicts of interest.” But the recent decision by federal regulators in relation to World Liberty Financial is now giving more ammunition to Democrats, who have pushed for more ethical guardrails to crack down on the Trump family’s crypto ventures.

“This is the most brazen act of self-dealing our financial system has ever seen — and Congress cannot allow it to stand,” Warren said in a statement. “The Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act will close the door on this kind of unprecedented corruption.”

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) said the decision to allow a Trump-linked crypto firm to charter its own bank is “injecting risk into our financial system and fueling the Trump family’s business endeavors.”

“It is Congress’ responsibility and duty now to rein in this corruption and ensure that bank charters, deposit insurance, and other banking licenses cannot be handed out to entities influenced or controlled by any President’s family,” Alsobrooks said in a statement.

David Wachsman, a spokesperson for World Liberty Financial, disputed the criticism, saying the preliminary approval is “great news for consumer and investor protection advocates and for the American financial services industry.”

“Critics are missing the point: World Liberty Financial is running towards regulation and continuous oversight, not away from it,” Wachsman said in a statement. “World Liberty Trust Company’s national charter will ensure robust and permanent regulatory supervision from the OCC, a federal banking regulator, that will outlast the Trump administration.”

Wachsman said World Liberty will be required to provide weekly reports about its operations that will be subject to independent reviews. He added that federal banking laws such as anti-money-laundering rules and consumer protection statutes will be “directly applicable and enforceable.”

The White House did not comment directly about the administration’s involvement with the World Liberty application to charter a bank. But in a statement, the White House disputed claims that the president’s decisions in office have financially benefited him and his allies.

“All of President Trump’s investment holdings are in held in fully discretionary accounts managed by independent third-party financial institutions,” Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. “The President only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Kelly added: “There are no conflicts of interest.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court was urged Tuesday to block construction of President Trump’s huge new ballroom until Congress weighs in. A decision, perhaps only temporary, is likely by Friday.

Acting on his own, Trump had the East Wing of the White House torn down in October and ordered work to start on a massive new building that would dwarf the old executive mansion and seat 1,000 guests for dinner.

But a federal judge in Washington ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed in a 2-1 ruling on Aug. 7.

Those judges would stop the above-ground construction but put their decision on hold until this Friday. This gave the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation had sued, arguing that the president has no authority to erect new buildings on government property.

Federal law protects “historic buildings, parks, and places, including perhaps the most revered site in our nation: the White House and President’s Park,” the group told the court Tuesday. It is “more than the President’s residence” and “is owned by American people.”

The historic trust said Trump is moving quickly so as to bypass the law.

“Rather than obtain permission from Congress,” Trump and his appointees “have instead decided to try to outrun judicial review,” it said.

Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers have taken to describing the ballroom as a national security project.

Last week, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the justices they should throw out the “extraordinary and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex” because “a totally secure ballroom space … is vitally required by national security.”

He also contended it is too late for judges to intervene.

“Today, the project is 65% complete in its entirety, and moving quickly toward total completion. A concrete-and-steel superstructure stretches five stories deep and 70 feet high, and occupies nearly 50,000 square feet, with construction on and above the second-story level above ground.”

While the plans have changed, the “work has followed a single coherent design,” he wrote. “By now, it has passed the point where major changes to [that] design are feasible.”

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee who ruled on the lawsuits, agreed the White House may proceed with the underground work to create a safe and secure location for the president, his family and White House employees.

The solicitor general said a new and secure ballroom is also crucial for social gatherings and foreign dignitaries.

He said that if Leon’s ruling is “allowed to go into effect, the injunction would wrongfully install a single district judge as sole arbiter of what further construction is strictly necessary to protect the safety of the President, his family, staff members, and visitors to the White House, including foreign dignitaries, and presidents and prime ministers of other countries.”

Sauer also argued the lawsuit should be thrown out on the grounds that National Trust for Historic Preservation and its members have no standing to sue because they have not suffered a particular injury.

The D.C. Circuit judges split on that issue. Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, and Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee, ruled the plaintiffs had standing to sue. Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented and said the members of the historic trust did not have standing.

FairSquare says the FIFA president should not be able to run again under the world football organisation’s statutes.

Human rights organisation FairSquare has urged FIFA to rule that Gianni Infantino is ineligible to seek another term as the football governing body’s president, arguing he ⁠has already served the maximum three terms permitted under the body’s statutes.

FIFA presidents are limited to three terms in office. However, in 2022, Infantino successfully argued that his first spell in charge, which began when he was elected at an Extraordinary FIFA Congress ⁠in 2016 following Sepp Blatter’s resignation, should not count towards that limit because it completed an interrupted mandate.

In a letter sent to FIFA’s Governance, Audit and Compliance Committee (GACC) as reported by The Athletic, FairSquare said that interpretation was inconsistent with FIFA statutes.

“The complaint we have filed provides clear evidence that this is a clear breach of the rules and one that sets a very dangerous precedent,” FairSquare’s ‌Director Nicholas McGeehan told the Reuters news agency.

“The rules state clearly that three presidential terms is the maximum allowed; FIFA can’t simply circumvent this rule – which serves as a check on presidential power – by saying that his first term doesn’t count.”

Infantino is facing mounting scrutiny ahead of next year’s FIFA Congress, where he is expected to seek re-election for the 2027-31 cycle. The vote is scheduled to take place in Morocco on March 18.

Last week, UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF called for a review of Infantino’s conduct after FIFA proposed creating a $20bn subsidiary linked to its competitions, including the World Cup, to ⁠attract private investment. Sources with knowledge of the situation told Reuters that the three confederations viewed the letter ⁠as an opportunity for Infantino to quit with his dignity intact.

Several national associations have also voiced concerns. Scottish Football Association chief executive Ian Maxwell told the BBC on Monday that his federation would not support Infantino’s re-election.

Infantino, however, retains the backing of the African and South American confederations.

Questions over transparency

FairSquare also questioned the transparency of the 2022 ruling, saying the committee’s reasoning had never been made public.

“The fact they didn’t provide any reasoning to support this ⁠claim, and that they announced the apparent decision two days before the final of ⁠the Qatar 2022 World Cup, suggests that they knew full well that there was no basis to discount Infantino’s first term,” McGeehan said.

The letter to the GACC was drafted with assistance from Miguel Maduro, the former head of FIFA’s independent Governance and Review Committee, who said the governing body could not disregard its ‌own rules.

“The principle of term limits was a fundamental aspect of the 2016 reform aimed at limiting power and the rule introduced is clear: no FIFA president can serve more than three terms of office,” Maduro said in a statement.

“Trying to carve ‌out ‌an exception to such a rule for Mr Infantino reveals both a resistance to the principle of term limits and how some at FIFA conceive of rules not as rules but as obstacles to be circumvented.”

Aug. 15 (UPI) — Dozens of migrants were detained in Morocco on Saturday as they attempted to cross into the Spanish territory of Ceuta.

Moroccan officials said they intercepted some 111 people near the town of Fnideq, about 2 miles from the border, BBC reported.

Local police chartered buses to return them to other parts of the country, El Pais reported.

The attempted crossings come weeks after more than 60,000 people crossed the border into Ceuta, overwhelming the small territory.

At least 57 people died during the mass crossing.

Migrants were trying to enter Ceuta after the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that Spain cannot send home migrants inside their territory.

Earlier this week, Spain’s Civil Guard reported the possibility of another attempt by migrants to cross into the North African exclave.

Civil Guard officials said messages began circulating on social media sharing calls for another mass crossing on Aug. 15, Euro News reported.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has refused to block the Trump administration from taking steps to build 62 miles of international border wall along part of a Native American tribe’s reservation without its consent.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington denied the Tohono O’odham Nation’s request for a court-ordered halt to border wall construction on its 2.8-million-acre reservation. Leon ruled Friday that the tribe hasn’t established that a border wall will change its reservation boundaries without congressional authority.

The judge also rejected the tribe’s claim that the planned border wall would illegally trespass on its reservation.

“And in any event, I find that the Government’s interests in securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and ensuring public safety outweigh any surviving irreparable harms at this juncture,” Leon wrote.

The tribe released a statement late Friday strongly disagreeing with the decision.

“Too many critical issues were not adequately addressed, such as inevitable impacts construction will have on the Nation’s land and the permanent destruction of sacred sites,” Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Verlon M. Jose said. “The Nation will consider all possible options for moving forward, as this issue is simply too important to the O’odham.”

The O’odham reservation in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona abuts 62 miles of the Mexico border. The tribe has more than 37,000 members, including thousands who live in Mexico.

Building the border wall would lead to “significant devastation” on the reservation, including the destruction of mountain peaks that are sacred to the O’odham, tribe attorneys said.

“It would fray the ties between O’odham communities and families on opposite sides of the border, interfere significantly with O’odham religious rituals and practices, and destroy plant and animal resources sacred to the O’odham,” the lawyers wrote.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a proclamation reserving a 60-foot strip of public land along the U.S.-Mexico border for a buffer zone dubbed the “Roosevelt Reservation,” which was formed a decade before the reservation’s establishment.

Tribe attorneys say it is “fanciful at best” to suggest that border wall construction can be confined to a 60-foot-wide corridor.

During a July 22 hearing, Leon appeared to be skeptical that U.S. laws tip in favor of the tribe’s bid for a preliminary injunction, calling it an “extraordinary” request. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, said he couldn’t find a previous court ruling under comparable circumstances.

“This is a novel case with novel issues,” the judge said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Citing Hollywood’s already struggling production economy, two influential industry unions have jointly called on Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to settle their antitrust fight.

The Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — which represent a combined 200,000 union members — are turning up the political pressure to try to resolve the clash over the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger, which has already carved deep divisions throughout the industry.

The DGA and IATSE’s unusual missive comes as Paramount has been trying to drum up support for the deal and while
development projects reportedly are being put on hold. Paramount executives and others have decried the delay in deciding whether the deal moves forward. Bonta and Paramount are now poised to slug it out in an Oakland courtroom next spring.

“Our collective members are concerned about their futures, and the future of the industry,” DGA Executive Director Russell Hollander and IATSE President Matthew D. Loeb wrote Thursday in their three-page letter to Ellison and Bonta.

“We are aware of productions that have been put on hold or canceled altogether, leading to further reductions in available work for our members and other industry workers,” the letter reads in part.

The effort adds heat to a growing campaign urging Bonta to bend in his fight to block the industry- reshaping deal that would combine the Warner Bros. and Paramount film and television studios, HBO, CBS, CNN, HGTV and Comedy Central.

Earlier this week, California’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Xavier Becerra, said he favored a settlement. Republican Steve Hilton has decried the antitrust lawsuit as being politically motivated.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who leaves office next year, has stayed above the fray.

Paramount and Bonta’s office didn’t immediately comment.

The Writers Guild of America last month joined Bonta’s coalition of state attorneys general in filing lawsuits to upend the $111-billion transaction, saying the Paramount-Warner combination violates U.S. antitrust laws and would decimate the entertainment industry by erasing jobs and reducing pay.

At issue is the $81 billion in debt that Ellison would have to take on to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders for the keys to the studios and HBO.

WGA leaders and others have warned that level of debt would choke the two historic studios, creating a more devastating sequel to 2019‘s combination of the Disney and Fox studios, and the 2022 takeover of Warner Bros. by Discovery.

The union leaders conceded they weren’t merger fans, and they stopped well short of asking Bonta to throw in the towel.

Instead, they listed nine conditions — including requiring Paramount to maintain its operations in Hollywood and a commitment to make film and television shows in the U.S. — as part of any settlement.

The unions want Ellison to make an enforceable commitment that Paramount and Warner Bros. studios each release 15 films into theaters a year. They also want a 45-day theatrical window so that cinema chains can continue their rebound.

Some of the DGA and IATSE terms may be difficult for Ellison to swallow. Already, Paramount is looking to shave expenses to come up with the $81 billion promised to Warner Bros. shareholders. Sources have said Ellison’s suggestion to move Paramount from its picturesque Hollywood campus is designed, in part, to attract financial incentives from another state, such as Tennessee, eager to help with a relocation.

Among the conditions, the DGA and IATSE asked that Paramount’s and Warner Bros.’ motion picture units be kept as “as separate studios, with each studio maintaining its own production, distribution, marketing and exhibition groups as distinct divisions.”

One of the goals of the merger is to shave costs by consolidating overlapping business divisions and back-office functions.

The union leaders also want Warner Bros. television studio to operate independent from the Paramount and CBS production arms. They called on HBO to remain a linear television channel and available on third-party platforms, including Amazon.

Loeb and Hollander’s requests are designed to keep production jobs in the U.S.

They asked Ellison to commit to producing films and TV shows in the U.S. “at no less than the average percentage produced in the United States during the last five years” excluding 2020, the pandemic year, and 2023, when two strikes idled production.

“Our goal, with respect to the proposed merger, has always been to achieve an outcome that ensures a vibrant, competitive marketplace for the production, distribution, and licensing of film and television programming that serves the interests of consumers and filmmakers alike,” Hollander and Loeb wrote.

“We believe that these conditions, if secured through a binding agreement, will largely serve this purpose,” the said.

Bonta previously has said his preference would be structural remedies — divesting key business units — rather than “behavioral” compromises that could evaporate soon after the merger closed.

Should the two sides fail to hash out a settlement with conditions, Loeb and Hollander asked Ellison and Bonta to seek an earlier trial date for the legal showdown.

A federal judge set a March 2 date — despite Paramount’s request to hold the proceedings in November.

It will take someone better versed in finance, corporate law, family psychology and, perhaps, the impact of great wealth on brain chemistry than I to analyze the recent actions of Paramount Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison.

To a cultural journalist, however, it seems like he continues to make himself the best argument yet for opposing his company’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Mere days after taking to the media to insist that he is a misunderstood film buff who just wants to save Hollywood, he threatened to help destroy it.

If California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and state attorneys general from 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Colorado, refuse to negotiate a settlement of their antitrust lawsuit, Ellison said he will yank Paramount Studios, and potentially Warner Bros., out of California.

Um, OK, Ultron.

So that’s how Ellison wants to prove that he will be a steward of the flailing entertainment industry — by threatening to rip out a big part of its still-beating heart and implant it in Texas or Tennessee?

Will he be taking the Hollywood sign as well, to stick atop the Grand Ole Opry or, better yet, the Alamo?

Not only does this grant Bonta VIP access to the moral highground, it all but negates Ellison’s recent New York Times guest essay. Especially the part in which he wrote: “The states claim this deal will give one company too much influence over theatrical releases and cable operators, while the W.G.A. argues that our combined market power will hurt writers.”

If one man can decide, in a fit of pique, to scoop up a huge portion of the entertainment industry and float it thousands of miles away, I’d say that’s a decent argument for “too much influence.”

Also, good luck with the landing. Texas and Tennessee are both fine states with vibrant cities, undeniable corporate incentives and lower costs of living, but their draconian abortion laws and restrictive LGBTQ+ legislation may give many in the entertainment industry pause.

Still, according to Ellison, it’s Bonta and his gang who are trying to make things political, not him; in his essay, Ellison claimed that the suit is mostly about preventing his ownership of CNN, despite his insistence that (the hiring of Bari Weiss to oversee CBS News to the contrary) the news network would remain autonomous.

As a journalist, I would love to believe that Bonta and the other attorneys general are simply going to bat for the Fourth Estate; with President Trump openly longing for the day when Ellison controls CNN, it is no doubt a concern. But as Ellison seems intent on personally underscoring, the bigger issue is how to prevent a dwindling number of individuals from controlling enormous portions of an industry that not only employs millions, but also plays a vital role in shaping the nature of art and culture in this country and the world.

(Never mind the queasy fact that Ellison is being bankrolled by his billionaire father Larry, who is putting many, if not all, of his eggs in the AI basket, to the detriment of his employees.)

Shaping art and culture is, of course, precisely why Ellison wants to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, almost literally at all costs. When he first lost the bid for Warner Bros. to Netflix, he (and his dad) responded by offering enough money (including a $7-billion payout should the deal not clear antitrust regulation) to make Ted Sarandos blink. Money has always been a ladder to power and influence in this country, and the widening wealth gap, not to mention the current administration, has turned the ladder into a rocket ship. (See please Elon Musk.)

Ellison has continually stressed his love of cinematic storytelling. Under the proposed Paramount Warner, he promises to produce 30 theatrical films and 170 television series a year and create more work for everyone.

That would be lovely (if fiscally difficult) to believe. If only he hadn’t just tried to hold the state that gave birth to cinematic storytelling hostage by threatening to kidnap one of its kids.

As negotiating tactics go, it certainly undermines whatever public approval he hoped to gain with his “I’m just a guy, standing in front of the movie biz asking it to love me” bit.

Change is coming for Paramount Studios — the lot on Melrose Avenue — either way. If Paramount Skydance acquires Warner Bros., production will likely shift to the Warner Bros. lot, with Paramount leased or sold.

Now, it seems, Ellison is willing to have a fire sale — he’ll certainly need to raise a bunch of cash if he’s going to quickly flee to redder pastures. As for the thousands of local workers who depend on Paramount production to make a living, well, Ellison and his executives may be able to afford to relocate or (more probably) commute out of state, but most of the people who actually make movies and television cannot.

Business, of course, is business and it has become financially and politically fashionable to desert California to avoid whatever local law, regulation or tax you now find unfair. Tech mavens, including Musk, have ditched California for the Lone Star State. Ellison’s father recently took Oracle out of Redwood City, first to Austin, Texas, then to Nashville, workers be damned.

But Ellison taking Paramount and potentially Warner Bros. out of Los Angeles isn’t about business. It’s pure politics, of the savage, oligarchical variety.

Given the stakes, it’s difficult to imagine that some sort of deal won’t be struck that allows the sale to go through. But Ellison isn’t saving the entertainment industry, he’s leveraging it.

And if he has to spit in Hollywood’s face to save his own, well, apparently that’s fine too.

When I moved into my Leimert Park apartment about two years ago, an older woman rushed downstairs to greet me.

“I’m so excited,” she said, introducing herself as Cassandra. She had lived in the tight-knit apartment building for more than 20 years and watched plenty of people come and go. “I was worried about getting a crazy neighbor, but you seem great,” she added, hugging me tightly and handing me a tray of sandwiches to share with my friends who were helping with the move.

Over the next few days, I met my other neighbors, including Miss Rosita and Mr. Art. After a few shared meals, long conversations and traded favors, all of them became more than just the people next door — they became family.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

There’s a quiet comfort in knowing your neighbors, especially in a sprawling, sometimes lonely city like Los Angeles. That kind of connection is fading. A study by the Stanford Center on Longevity showed that the percentage of Americans who frequently interact with their neighbors — meaning they spend time with or talk to their neighbors more than once a week — declined among all age groups from 2017 to 2023.

We wanted to find people who are bucking the trend, so we asked readers to nominate the neighbors who make their corners of Southern California feel like home. The stories that folks shared are poignant, inspiring and might just make you want to walk over to the porch next door (or welcome mat across the hall) and introduce yourself immediately.

One of my favorite neighbors, Mr. Art, died last fall. He was a sweet retiree who’d tell me about his weekly fishing adventures and close my garage whenever I was in a hurry and would forget. Another neighbor called me the day he died, and we cried together, sharing our favorite memories of him. I’ll always be grateful to Mr. Art, who made my life better all because he once took the time to meet his new new neighbor.

Here are some of our favorite reader responses, edited for length and clarity. Each of the neighbors featured in this story will receive an L.A.’s Most Neighborly Neighbor certificate, illustrated by Cristina Spanó, whose art is shown above. Do you have a neighbor who goes above and beyond? Download and print your own certificate (PDF) and share it as a token of your appreciation.

He’s saved us from many, many parking tickets. She hosts the sweetest front porch chats.

Bill and Linda Melber.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

Neighbor: Bill and Linda Melber

Nominated by: Corrinne Harol

When were you neighbors? 1994 to now

What neighborhood did you live in? Santa Monica

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Corrinne, on how Bill and Linda show up as neighbors:

Linda and Bill are the most generous neighbors imaginable. Bill has taken out my trash bins for decades. It started when I was living in Canada for most of the year, but he still insists on doing it. He makes it his personal mission that no one gets a parking ticket for street cleaning on our block, going up and down the block twice a week to remind anyone who forgot. One time he called me about my car, but I was too far away to get back to move it. Bill had a key to my house, but the gate was locked. He climbed over the fence, got my car keys and moved my car for me! He also makes children’s toys that he distributes to any children on the block or that he encounters out and about.

His wife, Linda, is equally neighborly, hosting regular chat sessions on their lovely front porch and checking in on me whenever I have been ill, as she does to anyone in her orbit. They are truly a gift to the neighborhood.

He made me feel welcome when I was in culture shock

Tommy Bui and Hector Chavez.

(Tommy Bui)

Neighbor: Hector Chavez

Nominated by: Tommy Bui

When were you neighbors? 1996 to 2022

What neighborhood did you live in? Pacoima

Tommy, on how Hector has shown up as a neighbor:
The greatest neighbor I ever had was my childhood friend, Hector. I’m the child of Vietnamese refugees, and when they claimed asylum in Los Angeles, we were plonked into the cultural collision that was Spanish-speaking Pacoima. I was seemingly the only Asian child in a five-mile radius. I certainly stood out among the perfectly creased khaki pants and palm combs and top-buttoned flannels contrasted with my clueless bowl haircut and Ninja Turtle suspenders.

Confounding the astronomical unlikeliness, we got along like two peas in a pod. I got a crash course on Angeleno aesthetics and the ins and outs of the rough and tumble San Fernando Valley hurly-burly. I was a regular staple at his welcoming household. Simpatico and simply siblings by circumstance. Sunday dinners and holidays and “Sandlot”-like weekend street shenanigans. My youth was alarmingly idyllic with the hopped fences, bicycle slaloms through traffic and occasional near-misdemeanor mischief. Shoulder to shoulder alongside Hector, I wouldn’t trade a single moment of it.

Though no longer neighbors, we’re still navigating life’s milestones in our own corners of Los Angeles. We’re both new fathers and hurtling toward middle age completely agog at how quickly the time gallops by.

She gave me a gold turtle to make me feel better after my breakup

Fatine Ait-Haddou and Raynette Syfu.

(Fatine Ait-Haddou)

Neighbor: Raynette Syfu

Nominated by: Fatine Ait-Haddou

When were you neighbors? Since 2021

What neighborhood did you live in? Historic Filipinotown

Fatine, on how Raynette has shown up as a neighbor:

I had just moved into my new apartment after breaking up with a long-term ex. I was sobbing every single day. During my first intro with Raynette, she gave me a little gold turtle and said it would bring me safety, luck and calmness. I named it Lucky and I still have it. Raynette brings me meals all the time and checks on me whenever she hasn’t seen me for a few days. She even gave me a huge bag of her vintage clothes. One of the most insane things she’s done for me is give me a fake baby, one that was heavy and realistic. She said that because I lived alone and didn’t live near family, it could be nice to have additional family. [Laughs] Honestly, it was a very “her” move. She’s truly amazing and looks out for me. I couldn’t be more grateful.

He taught me new chess strategies — and life lessons

Ali Ras and Jemimah Yamamoto.

(Jemimah Yamamoto)

Neighbor: Ali Ras (born Fitz Albert Thomas)

Nominated by: Jemimah Yamamoto

When were you neighbors? From 2021 until his death in 2025

What neighborhood did you live in? Arlington Heights

Jemimah, on how Ali showed up as a neighbor:
I moved to Los Angeles in the summer of 2021. I was in my late 20s, and I was a bit unsure of my move. Even more so, I was unsure of the neighborhood I ended up in thanks to Facebook Marketplace. But as fate would have it, it revealed to me that I was destined to be there. I’d see an old man with his gray dreads and sing-songy voice as I would walk from parking my car on the street. One day, he introduced himself and over time we developed a relationship. Him, as my chess teacher, and me as his eager student. I’d bring over my chessboard and we’d play for hours on his porch. He’d always say I was too aggressive with my pawns and that I wasn’t afraid to lose them. He’d play slowly and deliberately. I never won a single game against him. I’d like to think that that itself was a lesson.

During my Saturn return, I was depressed and felt a bit lost. On days that felt the darkest, he would call. He would ask me how I was doing, and it would cut through all the facade of “I’m good.” It was the tone of his voice that made you want to be honest. His way of caring felt like a miracle because you don’t even have to explain anything to him, he would just know. At the time, his presence was exactly what I needed.

He was the only person I gladly let walk into my house unannounced

Eric Pendleton

(Kim Quitzon)

Neighbor: Eric Pendleton

Nominated by: Kim Quitzon

How long were you neighbors? More than 20 years

What neighborhood did you live in? San Fernando

Kim, on how Eric showed up as a neighbor:
“Uncle Eric” was more than just a neighbor; he was family. Walking through the door unannounced yelling “Hi, family!” across the living room. “I came to check on the backyard.” Every week he would mow the yards after he lost his job and took pride in landscaping the grass, but that was just the surface of what he meant to us. On the popular street of Orange Grove in San Fernando where crowds line up during Halloween, Uncle Eric was our honorary neighborhood watch. Rolling up and down the street on a new bike every day, checking in on every neighbor that would give him the time of day.

From watching the dogs when we were away to helping set up family parties, he was one of us. He just happened to live three doors down. Unfortunately, Eric passed away from cancer last year. The whole block was devastated, and we all held a potluck in his honor. We will miss him, and he truly is the epitome of an amazing neighbor.

She sat with me after my mom died while I cried

Pamela Yeh and Hilah Johnson.

(Pamela Yeh)

Neighbor: Hilah Johnson

Nominated by: Pamela Yeh

When were you neighbors? From 2017 until mid-2020 when she and her family moved to Austin, Texas. Over the years, we’d become close friends, so I was gutted by their move. The most amazing thing happened, though. In 2022, they moved back to L.A., just a few blocks away from us. They live about 10 minutes away from us now, but we still see each other all the time.

What neighborhood did you live in? West L.A.

Pamela, on how Hilah has shown up as a neighbor:
Hilah has shown up for me and my family in hundreds of ways over the years, but I want to tell you this one story. In September 2025, my mom, who had been living in an ADU we built in our backyard, died. She was my heart, and I was utterly crushed. I lived in a fog of grief and shock. Hilah came over and just sat with me while I cried and cried. She made the video montage of my mom for her memorial, which was extra difficult because a family member had all sorts of unreasonable demands. Eventually, she got me to go to a dance class, and we’re still dancing, one step at a time, at the wonderful local Flow Motion.

He’s the beloved ‘Fairy-Car-Father’ on our street

Rodrigo Mangrobang

(Leigh Ann Jackson)

Neighbor: Rodrigo Mangrobang

Nominated by: Leigh-Ann Jackson

How long have you been neighbors? Since I moved to Northeast L.A. 15 years ago

What neighborhood did you live in? Northeast L.A.

Leigh-Ann, on how Rodrigo has shown up as a neighbor:
Rod, as most of the block calls him, is a retiree who lives with his wife across the street from me. He spends a lot of time outside gardening and working on his cars and can seemingly sense whenever a neighbor is having car trouble. He’ll stop what he’s doing, bring over his tools and get to work, no questions asked. He’s not very chatty, but he speaks auto fluently! He saw me pull out of my driveway once and flagged me down to tell me I was headed for a blowout soon. He then instructed me to pull back into the driveway and patched the tire for me on the spot. I even watched him go outside to help a stranger whose car had broken down in the middle of the road. He’s our street’s Fairy-Car-Father.

She had the best local recs. Yelp couldn’t come close.

Sofie Ringold and Eileen Ogle

(Sofie Ringold)

Neighbor: Eileen Ogle

Nominated by: Sofie Ringold

When were you neighbors? From 2020 to 2025

What neighborhood did you live in? Sherman Oaks

Sofie, on how Eileen showed up as a neighbor:
When my husband and I bought our first home, the COVID vaccine hadn’t been released yet, and we didn’t meet any of our neighbors. A few days later, an older woman wearing a mask knocked at our door. She said that a package had been delivered and she didn’t want it to get stolen. The package had arrived only minutes earlier, so it was pretty clear she wanted to scope out her new neighbors, and during a time of social distancing, this was the perfect excuse. She introduced herself as Eileen. She lived next door with her partner, Judith. We exchanged numbers and said a friendly goodbye.

As the world slowly became more comfortable with social interaction, Eileen began introducing us to everyone on the block. Soon, while we were walking our dog around the neighborhood, people would stop us and ask if we were new. When we told them we lived next to Eileen and Judith, their eyes lit up. It was clear they were local legends. Like all first-time homeowners, we quickly ran into our share of problems. But who needs Yelp when you have neighbors who have already vetted every home service you could possibly need? Need a gardener? Call Eileen. HVAC needs maintenance? Call Eileen. Going away for the weekend and need someone to check on your cats? Call Eileen.

Sadly, Eileen passed away in December. A cloud hung over our street for weeks. Then on Christmas morning, the sun broke through and a rainbow appeared. My husband took it as a sign from Eileen.

He went from my flirty neighbor to my husband of 16 years

Brett Boyd and Sara Mortimer-Boyd.

(Sara Mortimer-Boyd)

Neighbor: Bretton Boyd

Nominated by: Sara Mortimer-Boyd

When were you neighbors? We became neighbors in 1996 until 1997, when we moved in together

What neighborhood did you live in? Silver Lake

Sara, on how Bretton has shown up as a neighbor:
Bretton would come to my door asking for things (cigarettes, food, etc.) while trying to flirt. I was very intrigued by him, but I didn’t think he was “my type” at the time. It was confusing at first. One day, he invited me upstairs to his apartment for coffee and breakfast, which became a regular thing. He got me addicted to coffee and to his amazing cooking. He started coming over to my apartment more and we became really close friends before becoming romantic. I remember one time he left for a few weeks to visit his parents, and I realized in his absence that I loved him and wanted to spend every day with him. We moved in together in 1997, got engaged in 2002 and have been happily married with children for the last 16 years. He still cooks dinner for our family every night at our home in Highland Park.

He helped organize a food train when my son was diagnosed with leukemia

Scott Marshall-Miller

(Scott Marshall-Miller)

Neighbor: Scott Marshall-Miller

Nominated by: Mev Blount

When were you neighbors? From 2006 to 2017

What neighborhood did you live in? Studio City

Mev, on how Scott has shown up as a neighbor:
My husband and I moved next to Scott and his husband when I was pregnant with our first child. Scott welcomed home his daughter nine months after mine was born, so we were new stay-at-home parents together. His husband is an incredible baker, and he and Scott were always bringing over plates of deliciousness. The chocolate croissant bread pudding is legendary! I was raised that you never return a plate empty so I’d bake something or add some homegrown veggies to the plate. That plate went back and forth through the hedges between our houses for years.

Both of our husbands traveled for work a lot, so Scott and I spent hours together, especially before bedtime and during the “witching hour” with our little ones. We’d sit on my front lawn, nursing half-glasses of Trader Joe’s finest Two Buck Chuck wine while his daughter and my two kiddos rolled around, wearing themselves out. Scott and I would knock on each other’s doors when the parenting was too much. He and I would always answer the door with an “Oh, it’s you. Come in. No one else can see me as a hot mess.”

When my youngest got leukemia at 7, Scott was part of my core group who ignored me when I said we didn’t need help. They organized a food train, and Scott was the one who set up a cooler on my front porch and insisted people drop food without knocking, knowing we were overwhelmed. He was always there when I needed to laugh or cry, and he made our L.A. suburb feel like the small Ohio town where I grew up. I still find glitter ground into our kitchen tiles from the Halloween when he made his daughter a purple witch costume. Sadly, Scott died suddenly in his sleep a few years ago. Tiny bits of glitter are embedded in our tiles, a bright reminder of Scott and the beauty and joy he brought to even the most mundane tasks. He made L.A. feel like home.

California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration Monday — one to block President Trump’s latest round of tariffs on international trading partners, the other to block his administration from sharing needy families’ personal data with immigration officials.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office brought the lawsuits alongside other Democratically led states, said they were both intended to rein in a lawless president pushing policies that threaten American families already struggling to afford basic necessities.

Bonta said the new tariffs are part of a “failed and illegal economic policy” that has previously been blocked in court. He alleged that the proposed data sharing was part of a broader and illegal “mass surveillance effort” by the Trump administration to target its political opponents.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the two lawsuits. But it has previously defended both tariffs and data-sharing policies as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda to improve the economic standing of American families.

Trump has defended his tariffs, and a previous set that was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, as necessary to fix years of unfair trading practices in which international partners took advantage of the U.S. However, many economists have determined that the cost of the tariffs are being passed on to U.S. consumers and contributing to the persistent inflation causing economic pain nationwide.

Trump, the White House and top officials in his administration have also defended the sharing of personal data among U.S. agencies, and from individual states to the federal government, as a commonsense way to reduce waste and fraud and to identify and remove people who are in the country illegally and consuming benefits intended for American families.

The administration has previously sought the personal data of Medicaid recipients, SNAP food assistance recipients, immigrants who have filed taxes with the Internal Revenue Service and registered voters in states across the country. All of those demands have also been challenged in court, with varying degrees of success.

Bonta’s office has now filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.

Tariff lawsuit

Trump’s latest tariffs, levies of between 10% and 12.5%, took effect late last month and apply to more than 80 countries, including some of the closest U.S. allies and largest trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. They followed a Trump administration announcement of new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, set to go into effect this month.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to unilaterally levy tariffs on trading partners were rejected by the courts in the face of similar legal challenges by California and other states. In February, the Supreme Court rejected a sweeping slate of tariffs Trump had imposed on an emergency basis. In May, the Court of International Trade turned back another set.

The Trump administration has said the president’s latest tariffs are authorized by a separate law not considered in the previous litigation — one related to combating forced labor in global trade.

The states’ lawsuit argued that the reliance on labor law was simply a “guise” used by Trump to impose new tariffs, and that “there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs” imposed.

Bonta brought the case alongside the attorneys general or governors of 24 other states.

Data-sharing lawsuit

California joined a similar coalition of Democrat-led states to file a lawsuit challenging the sharing of needy families’ data, in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit challenges a notice the Trump administration issued last month announcing the Administration of Children and Families would begin sharing the personal information of recipients in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to outside agencies — including with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement units.

A spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The program provides $16 billion in grants annually to the states, which use it to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Some 350,000 families in California receive support through the program each month, Bonta’s office said.

Bonta said the sharing of program data with Homeland Security would be a clear violation of the law establishing the fund.

“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” Bonta said in a statement.

During a morning news conference, Bonta said one of his concerns is that immigration officials will use data to target the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children who are legitimately receiving assistance through the program.

“They’re seeking Social Security information, marital status, income information,” he said. “We think that they might be interested in that information to potentially target parents.”

He said he also believes the data sharing is part of a much broader effort by the Trump administration to gather up as much data as possible in order to target individuals who do not conform with the administration’s political agenda, including on immigration policy and on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care.

“While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people,” Bonta said.

The lawsuit is just the latest in a much broader legal war over the Trump administration’s drive to force all kinds of federal and state social services and financial programs to share the personal data of benefit recipients and other program users.

California is fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from sharing personal data of Medicaid recipients with Homeland Security, though some of that data have already been shared.

California is also fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over the personal data of millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients. The demand came with a threat from USDA that it would cut off funding to states that don’t comply. Courts have blocked the suspension of funds, but some data have been shared.

Immigrant rights groups, including Los Angeles-based Inclusive Action for the City, are also suing to block a Trump administration plan to share IRS taxpayer data with Homeland Security. The Trump administration has said the data sharing would be used to target only criminals, but immigrant rights advocates have denounced it as an attempt to do just the opposite — to target immigrants who have been in the country and paid taxes for years.

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

July 31 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday turned down a request by Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, to block a Minnesota law banning nudification technology.

Minnesota in May became the first state in the nation to pass legislation banning the practice of using AI to digitally remove clothing from a pictured individual.

xAI, which develops the chatbot and image generator Grok, filed the suit over the ban Tuesday.

“The court respectfully denies the request for a temporary restraining order before tomorrow,” U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled on Friday. “xAI filed the motion on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect.

“Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate.”

The federal judge set a hearing on Aug. 19 to evaluate the lawsuit.

“See you in court, creep,” Gov. Tim Walz said in a statement on X, referring to Musk.

In its lawsuit, xAI argues that the Minnesota law “imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification.'”

“xAI accordingly does not contest Minnesota’s interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent,” the company wrote in court documents. “But the statute Minnesota enacted extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions.”

Minnesota’s law would apply fines of $500,000 to websites and apps providing nudification technology.

Musk’s company has faced intense scrutiny since a version of Grok, released in December, began generating thousands of sexualized images, including some that appeared to be of minors.

The company in January changed its policies, but Grok continued to generate sexualized images as late as April.

A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling that in nearly half of U.S. states halted President Trump’s executive order to create a federal list of eligible voters and limit delivery of mail ballots only to people on that list.

The ruling Saturday by judges of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s effort to move forward with the mail-in voting restrictions in 23 U.S. states that sued ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Trump issued an executive order in March for the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It also ordered the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.

Trump has claimed the proposed changes are necessary safeguards to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting, but state election officials argued they were ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.

Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged Trump’s order in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston. They argued that Trump’s order was unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the authority to set election rules.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani agreed and halted Trump’s order from being implemented for the Nov. 3 elections, but only in the states that have sued.

Trump’s executive order is part of his ongoing campaign to restrict voting access and raise doubts about the integrity of the election system before the November midterms.

The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately return an email seeking comment Sunday about the court ruling.

Bynum writes for the Associated Press.

Russian military bloggers have published what appears to be the first imagery showing the remains of a Ukrainian-operated Ruta Block 1 low-cost cruise missile following an operational strike. The weapon is another addition to an increasingly diverse arsenal that can hold targets even deep inside Russia at risk.

Photos that began circulating on Russian Telegram channels show wreckage consistent with the Dutch-produced Ruta Block 1. While the exact location and target of the strike remain unclear, the images represent the first publicly available evidence that the new long-range weapon has entered combat use.

The recovered debris includes fuselage sections, internal components, and part of the missile’s tailfin assembly. Although the imagery has not been independently verified, the remains appear consistent with the known design characteristics of the Ruta Block 1. The possibility cannot be ruled out entirely that the wreckage represents a previously undisclosed Ukrainian cruise missile design with broadly similar characteristics. Russian military bloggers claimed air defenses intercepted the missile, though that cannot currently be independently verified.

Footage purportedly showing a Ruta Block 1 missile flying toward its target has also appeared.

The Ruta Block 1 is a product of the Netherlands-based Destinus company, founded by the Russian exile Mikhail Kokorich. Earlier reporting indicated that the Block 1 was already being manufactured in the Netherlands and had been delivered to Ukraine since at least 2024.

A lot of people would be very surprised to learn how many of these Ukraine has received since at least 2025.

Also, whether or not you think it was the right call, the Dutch government has been extremely effective at keeping deliveries of these missiles, and especially their… https://t.co/3PESUlzE7U

— Fabian Hoffmann (@FRHoffmann1) July 23, 2026

Last month, then-Ukrainian Minister of Defense Mykhailo Fedorov announced that the Netherlands was paying for approximately 700 cruise missiles for Ukraine — almost certainly referring to the Ruta Block 1 — as part of a wider package worth more than $500 million.

According to the manufacturer, the Ruta Block 1 has a range of more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) and carries a payload of 150 kilograms (330 pounds).

The missile is ground-launched via a booster, then flies to its target at low altitude, using a combination of inertial, satellite, and visual navigation systems, providing resilience also in GPS-contested environments. The weapon is intended to strike high-value fixed targets and features pre-programmed terminal guidance.​

Unlike larger and more expensive cruise missiles, Ruta has been presented as a mass-producible weapon optimized for deep strikes against military infrastructure. The missile is designed around affordability and production scale, enabling Ukraine to conduct sustained long-range precision attacks while reducing reliance on scarce, more exquisite Western-supplied weapons. The Block 1 also comes with the major advantage that its turbojet engine is also manufactured by Destinus, so the company doesn’t rely on the United States for this part.

Engine No. 1000: Destinus reaches industrial-scale turbojet production in Europe

Ukraine has generally remained silent regarding operational use of many of its newest indigenous strike systems until well after they have entered service. Confirmation of the introduction of other long-range weapons often came first from Russian photographs of intercepted missiles or strike aftermath before official acknowledgment from Kyiv.

For Ukraine, the Ruta Block 1 forms part of a broader effort to diversify its expanding arsenal of deep-strike capabilities, alongside long-range drones, indigenous cruise missiles, as well as missile-drone hybrids. As production ramps up, these systems are playing an increasingly important role in sustained attacks against Russian energy infrastructure, as well as command centers, logistics hubs, airbases, ammunition depots, and defense-industrial facilities far behind the front lines. Ukraine is currently ramping up its long-range strikes on all fronts and doing major damage.

Destinus is also working on additional members of the Ruta family.

Earlier this year, the company presented the Ruta Block 2, which increases the missile’s range to over 800 kilometers (around 500 miles) and boosts its payload capacity to 250 kilograms (550 pounds).

Ruta B2 Flight Test | European Canister-Compatible Cruise Missile | Destinus

Meanwhile, the Ruta Block 3 will have a range of 2,000 kilometers (around 1,200 miles) with a 550-kilogram payload. Block 3 is expected to enter flight testing in 2027 and is also suitable for air launch.

As well as bolstering the Ukrainian arsenal, the Ruta Block 3 has relevance for European nations looking to build up their long-range conventional strike capabilities.

Ruta B3 and the Future of European Deep Strike

Russia’s extensive use of ground-launched missiles in Ukraine, along with its deployment of long-range weapons in Kaliningrad, has highlighted the deficiencies in Europe’s deep-strike capabilities as NATO seeks to strengthen conventional deterrence against Moscow. The Block 3 could be part of the answer to emerging requirements, including the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), which involves France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and which seeks to bring new systems into service in the 2030s.

Destinus is also working to expand its production capacity, including through a joint venture with Rheinmetall that will make use of that company’s manufacturing facilities in Germany.

Overall, the Ruta series is part of a wider trend toward lower-cost, highly producible cruise missiles, something also evidenced in the United States. Examples of these include CoAspire’s Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile-Extended Range (RAACM-ER), which you can read more about here, and the Family of Affordable Mass Missiles-Beyond Adversary’s Reach (FAMM-BAR) effort, which is seeking lower-cost designs with maximum ranges of 1,000 nautical miles or more.

Whether this particular missile reached its intended target or was intercepted remains unknown. What is clear, however, is that we have the strongest evidence to date that the Ruta Block 1 has transitioned from an announced development program into an operational weapon being employed against Russian targets.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

July 13 (UPI) — The attorneys general of 12 states sued Monday to block the proposed merger of Paramount and Warner Bros., saying it would undermine competition in the entertainment industry.

A news release announcing the lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James said Paramount Skydance Corp.’s purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. “would combine two of the five major film studios and two of the five major basic cable companies, creating a massive conglomerate in markets for basic cable and theatrical film releases.”

“For over a century, Paramount and Warner Bros. have competed to create movies and television that bring people together, inspire and sustain generations of artists, and help us understand the world,” James said. “This merger would destroy that competitions, creating a massive company with unprecedented power and influence over news and entertainment across the globe.”

The release said the merger would increase costs for consumers and put jobs at risk.

The lawsuit comes one month after the Justice Department approved the planned merger, saying it doesn’t harm consumers in the United States.

Warner Bros. shareholders gave their blessing to the merger in April after Paramount offered to buy the company for $31 per share — a deal worth $110 billion.

Joining New York in the lawsuit were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

Deadline reported that Paramount could threaten to leave California in retaliation for the state’s involvement in the lawsuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta described the two companies as “behemoths” in the entertainment industry and said their merger would lead to higher prices, lower quality and less content for consumers.

“California’s film and entertainment industry touches the lives of Americans daily — it comes into the living rooms of families, has a starring role in many young people’s first dates, and is a point of immense pride and employment for Californians up and down our state,” he said in a news release.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit Monday to block Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — a last-ditch effort to derail a deal that would transform Hollywood.

Tech scion David Ellison’s proposed merger has been hurtling toward the finish line after securing approvals from the U.S. Justice Department and numerous foreign governments. President Trump, an ally of Ellison’s billionaire father Larry Ellison, favors the deal. He is eager for a big shakeup at CNN, which is currently controlled by Warner Bros.

David Ellison now faces his biggest challenge yet as he attempts to build a new entertainment behemoth.

A Paramount representative did not immediately comment.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that the proposed merger would violate the U.S. Clayton Act, a century-old antitrust law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and increase costs for consumers.

“Consolidation here not only leads to higher prices — it also leads to fewer opportunities for important stories to come to life, and fewer ways for audiences to encounter stories, ideas, and perspectives beyond their own experiences,” Bonta said in a statement.

“California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets,” he said.

California and the 11 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Washington and Colorado, allege the merger would devastate the theatrical film business by combining two historic film studio rivals. The Ellison family would control such storied franchises as Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Batman, “Top Gun” and “Game of Thrones.”

The proposed purchase also would unite two prominent news organizations — CNN and CBS News.

The states have asked Paramount to delay the closing of its Warner Bros. takeover until the litigation can be resolved.

If Paramount refuses, Bonta said the coalition would seek a temporary restraining order asking a judge to hold up the merger, a move that would cause costly delays and escalate legal expenses for Paramount in their quest to finalize the deal.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired control of CBS-owner Paramount in August and, at the time, David Ellison touted the move of Paramount’s headquarters from New York’s Times Square to Hollywood.

Now, Paramount is reportedly threatening to leave California in the face of Bonta’s legal action.

If the merger goes through, Paramount would own four streaming services, including Warner’s HBO Max and the dominant U.S. cable TV channel owner with HBO, TBS, HGTV, Animal Planet, Food Network, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon.

The U.S. Justice Department last month approved the merger, saying the combination would likely bolster competition — not harm it. The agency’s decision had been expected because of Larry Ellison’s strong support of Trump.

In a show of confidence earlier this year, the Ellisons agreed to increase the payout to Warner investors should the regulatory approval process drag on. Those extra 25-cent-per-share payments begin with the October-December quarter, and would add more than $650 million in deal costs each quarter — giving David Ellison an increased incentive to quickly close the deal.

The proposed merger has sparked fears in Hollywood that it will bring thousands of job losses — similar to past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties.

Some theater owners, hard hit by the pandemic and production slowdowns, have expressed concerns the merger would lead to fewer films being made.

The new colossus would significantly dampen competition, Bonta and the other Democrat prosecutors argue. They pointed to the wide-release movie film distribution business, where Warner Bros. and Paramount control about 27% of the market.

After the merger just four companies — Paramount-Warner, Disney, NBCUniversal and Sony Pictures — would control 86% of the films that were widely released, Bonta said.

Paramount has said the deal will boost competition — not hamper it. Ellison has promised to continue releasing 30 films a year with a combined Warner Bros.-Paramount studio, roughly the current output of the two studios.

Ellison also vowed to protect the HBO brand.

Another concern is the licensing of basic cable TV channels, including CNN and HGTV, to pay-TV providers such as Charter’s Spectrum, DirecTV and Google’s YouTube TV. Warner Bros. is the second largest cable channel owner and Paramount is the third largest. Together their channels would represent about 27% of the market.

The typical threshold for antitrust concerns is at least 30% marketshare.

More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including Jane Fonda, Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Javier Bardem, Lin-Manuel Miranda and Mark Ruffalo, signed an open letter calling on Bonta to block the merger.

Some have expressed concerns about marrying CNN and CBS News following months of turmoil at CBS News since David Ellison hired journalist Bari Weiss as CBS News editor in chief. Last month, Weiss orchestrated a dramatic shakeup at the iconic “60 Minutes” news program, with top executives and three well-known correspondents tossed out.

The Ellison family recently shed its movie theater chain, which it picked up as part of the Paramount acquisition, to clear the way for the Warner deal.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is leading an effort by state attorneys general to block Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

The deal also faces opposition outside the U.S.
. The British culture minister in late June said she was weighing whether to intervene in the deal due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also has opened an investigation into Paramount’s proposed merger.

In April, a federal judge in Sacramento granted a request from Bonta and seven other attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, which freezes the merger of Nexstar Media Group, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5, and Tegna. The deal was designed to create the nation’s largest TV outlet group .

A larger group of state attorneys general also won a New York jury verdict against Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. Jurors found that Live Nation had illegally monopolized the live concert industry.

Bonta also has an ongoing case against Amazon for price fixing, which the company denies.

Still, legal experts say the states may face an uphill climb to detrail the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger because the arrival of Netflix, Amazon and Apple dramatically shifted the landscape.

The tech giants, which introduced consumer-friendly streaming options, have lessened the influence of traditional companies like Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount’s deal would mark the third time Warner has changed hands in the last decade.

AT&T bought the company in 2018 and then sold it to the smaller Discovery four years later. That deal left Warner Bros. burdened by debt, leading to deep cost cuts and setting the stage for the Ellison takeover.

On my way through Skid Row to meet up with Estela Lopez, things looked pretty much as they did when I spent time there more than 20 years ago and first heard the promises that things would be better soon.

Tents lined some of the sidewalks, making them unpassable. Some people wore the damage of physical or mental disease, addiction, poverty, or all of the above. Outreach workers with ID lanyards strode through the trash-strewn landscape like lifeguards working against endless tides of fresh emergencies.

When I arrived at Lopez’s office in the 700 block of Crocker Street, where she runs a business improvement district on behalf of 600 or so beleaguered merchants, she had just completed a tour of the neighborhood with John McKinney, a candidate for city attorney.

She held a note card in her hand and shared some numbers, telling McKinney that by her latest count, 131 of the 702 streetlights in the district were out, 27 children were living on Skid Row, and 72 RVs were parked in the area.

“I came out here because I think this symbolizes the greatest failure in government,” McKinney said. “I think it’s the result of bad law and bad policy. I think it’s the result of a lack of leadership and indifference to the way people are living out here. To me, it’s completely untenable.”

But will anything ever change?

It’s a question two people in particular need to address, and I’ll get to that in a minute.

A lot of people I trust and admire work tirelessly to make a difference on Skid Row, and they’re always eager to share the success stories of those who move through and move on. (I’ve got a column on that coming up soon.)

The long-standing problem is that Skid Row is both a social service center and a mecca of drugs and other vices, with traps on every block. And so it’s a neighborhood at war with itself, with some viewing Skid Row as one of the largest recovery centers in the country while others see a snapshot of social collapse.

Estela Lopez has reached out to me several times over the years. About illegal dumping. Typhus. Calls to City Hall that don’t get answered. About the relentless plague of fires, overdoses and assaults.

“Can you imagine, in 24 years, how many people I’ve seen dead on these streets?” Lopez asked me near her office last week.

Estela Lopez runs a business improvement district on behalf of 600 or so beleaguered merchants.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

When the local post office closed recently in part because of security issues, Lopez told The Times’ Melissa Gomez that “we have reached a point in this city where we are unable to address criminal activity. … It’s surrender.”

We walked to the corner of 8th Street, where paramedics had just pulled away from a medical emergency. Cars and pedestrians stopped at tents for brief transactions, leaving little doubt as to the nature of the business being conducted.

We passed a caged dog and saw a puppy on a short leash being loaded into a vehicle. There’s a lot of talk about dogs being bred and sold, and Lopez said she’s seen evidence of animals being mistreated.

On 7th Street we passed the charred residue of a recent fire. A half block east, four men were slumped on the sidewalk, hitting pipes. Lopez gets calls from exasperated merchants dealing with vandalism and with people blocking their storefronts.

“I’ve never seen so many people overdose right here,” said Sergio Moreno, who runs a check-cashing business and said his family has been in business going back to the ‘70s. He said he’s seen paramedics use naloxone to revive opioid users, only to see the same people go down again just days later.

“How can you run a business?” asked Moreno, who chairs the board of the business improvement district Lopez runs. “This business is our life. This is how we got through school, this is how we put our kids through school.”

And yet despite paying city taxes and BID fees, Moreno said, problems persist and his customers fear for their safety.

Dr. Susan Partovi, a street medic for 22 years, has been advocating for more proactive intervention for those in obvious distress. Partovi told me she recently saw a man rise from a gutter, pull down his pants and defecate in front of her. She called to get help for him but said neither paramedics nor police determined him to be gravely disabled.

Lopez walks past residents of Skid Row last week. By her latest count, 131 of the 702 streetlights in the district were out, 27 children were living on Skid Row, and 72 RVs were parked in the area.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“We have become complacent with having people lying in the gutter, having diarrhea, speaking nonsensically and putting their lives at risk,” said Partovi, whom I once accompanied as she administered long-acting anti-psychotic injections, arguing that people need clear heads to make better choices.

One sore point for Lopez is the Skid Row Care Campus in the 400 block of Crocker Street, which opened a little more than a year ago and offers all sorts of social services, meds that reduce drug cravings, and supplies that allow for safe use of drugs.

Lopez said she understands the theory of harm reduction: Engage people with a goal of getting them into treatment and back on track. But she wonders how successful such programs are, and argues that they become magnets for lawlessness.

As we talked, a young man approached and told Lopez he’d seen her airing her grievances on TV news.

“I’m wondering, what would be your solution?” he asked.

“I would hope that people could return to life in sobriety,” Lopez responded.

The man said he is “trying to elevate” himself, but that he’d been on a waiting list for housing for six months.

Lopez is tired of being on a waiting list, too.

“If something is working down here,” she told me, “you can’t prove it by me.”

Progress is undeniable, said Sieglinde von Deffner, a social worker and Skid Row coordinator for the Los Angeles County Department of Homeless Services and Housing. But given the “highly vulnerable” nature of the population, “the need is colossal,” she said.

A man stands among his belongings along 7th Street in Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“I have not yet met someone here who doesn’t want housing of some kind. We just don’t have enough affordable housing for everyone,” Von Deffner said, and long-term homelessness makes people harder to reach. “Now, if we could just stop the inflow.”

Dennis Culhane, a University of Pennsylvania professor who researches homelessness and served as an L.A. County consultant, said there are other ways to get people indoors than investing billions of dollars in new housing that takes years to build. Culhane said single adults who are not veterans, including the elderly and disabled, constitute a majority of the homeless population. But assistance is scarce.

“It’s like you have a famine, and you’ve only got food for 15% of the people,” Culhane said.

Rapid rehousing is critical for the newly homeless, he said. But it can take two years for them to qualify for Social Security disability, and once they do, the $1,000 a month “is completely deficient in the face of rising rents.”

Culhane recommends faster approval of SSI benefits and supplementing that income with additional sources of rental assistance. He believes there are enough vacancies at the low end of the housing market to make a sizable dent in homelessness without new construction.

Judy Mauricio, 65, who has been homeless for nine years, rests inside her tent next to her walker. She says her drug addiction has kept her on the street. She receives state disability funds and says she has cancer.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

As campaign season warms up, I’d like to know if Mayor Karen Bass and her challenger, Councilmember Nithya Raman, agree.

The mayor of L.A. is limited by a power split with the City Council, and the county oversees most addiction and mental health services. But Skid Row sits just a few blocks from the seat of city authority, and nobody has more power or responsibility to address the decades-long human catastrophe on Skid Row than the mayor.

Estela Lopez and the merchants deserve better. The people on the street deserve better. Thousands of housed residents deserve better.

Does Bass have a plan other than what’s currently in place? Does Raman have a better one?

If so, I’d like to hear the details, and I’m available.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The Times says senior officials in the Trump administration have urged Andy Burnham not to appoint the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, as chancello, externalr – because of his opposition to further drilling in the North Sea. The paper notes that Miliband’s allies insist he is the only candidate to lead the Treasury who is radical enough to turn around the economy. The Daily Telegraph carries a warning from the City, external that Burnham risks stifling investment unless he names his chancellor soon. The i Weekend says the former Greater Manchester mayor is being urged by some Labour MPs to “introduce a wealth tax on home owners in the South”, external, by replacing council tax and stamp duty with a proportional charge based on property values.

The Daily Express reports that armed police have formed a “ring of steel” around the England football team’s hotel, external in Mexico City. The Sun says the authorities there “seem determined” to prevent a repeat of the disorder that greeted Ecuador’s World Cup squad – who were kept awake by crowds “setting off fireworks, playing drums and chanting”. The Daily Mirror quotes a Mexico fan who warns England “will get a traditional Mexican welcome”., external

The Daily Mail says the family of the late Bobby Moore have launched a High Court “crusade” to get back the red football jersey he wore, external when he led England to their 1966 World Cup victory. According to the paper, his former wife, Tina Moore, has lodged a case against a businessman she believes either “has or has had possession of the shirt, or can help her recover it.” He denies having the garment.

The Guardian has a double-page spread on Taylor Swift’s wedding to Travis Kelce., external It notes the celebration “caused the closure of 11 streets” in Midtown New York – and says that on Friday the “first class lounges of Heathrow and JFK airports were crawling with celebrities” who were on their way to to the event.

The FT Weekend reports that two World War II foes have united, external, after a German defence company bought a firm that supplied gears for Spitfires. The paper says Huddersfield-based David Brown has been purchased by Renk, which created gearboxes for tanks in Nazi Germany.