board

PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday, as Washington looks to create fresh momentum for a U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Gaza that could be in danger of stalling before a complicated second phase.

Trump could use the face-to-face at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to try to leverage his strong relationship with Netanyahu and look for ways to speed up the peace process. Before that, Netanyahu met separately with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that Trump championed has mostly held, but progress has slowed recently. Both sides accuse each other of violations, and divisions have emerged among the U.S., Israel and Arab countries about the path forward.

The truce’s first phase began in October, days after the two-year anniversary of the initial Hamas-led attack on Israel that killed about 1,200 people. All but one of the 251 hostages taken then have been released, alive or dead.

The Israeli leader has signaled he is in no rush to move forward with the next phase as long as the remains of Ran Gvili are still in Gaza. Netanyahu’s office said he met with Gvili’s parents in Florida.

Now comes the next, far more complicated part. Trump’s 20-point plan — which was approved by the U.N. Security Council — lays out an ambitious vision for ending Hamas’ rule of Gaza.

Iran and other topics likely to come up

The two leaders also are expected to discuss other topics, including Iran, whose nuclear capabilities Trump insists were “completely and fully obliterated” after U.S. strikes on its nuclear sites in June. Israeli officials have been quoted in local media as expressing concern about Iran rebuilding its supply of long-range missiles capable of striking Israel.

There are many key facets of the ceasefire’s second phase that Israel’s leader doesn’t support or has even openly opposed, said Mona Yacoubian, director and senior adviser of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“This is going to be a really tall order, I think, for President Trump to get Netanyahu to agree,” she said.

“How he does that, what kind of pressure he puts on Netanyahu, I think, is going to be important to watch for,” said Yacoubian, who also said the two could exhibit ”a broader clash of approaches to the region.”

Next phase is complex

If successful, the second phase would see the rebuilding of a demilitarized Gaza under international supervision by a group chaired by Trump and known as the Board of Peace. The Palestinians would form a “technocratic, apolitical” committee to run daily affairs in Gaza, under Board of Peace supervision.

It further calls for normalized relations between Israel and the Arab world, and a possible pathway to Palestinian independence. Then there are thorny logistical and humanitarian questions, including rebuilding war-ravaged Gaza, disarming Hamas and creating a security apparatus called the International Stabilization Force.

The Board of Peace would oversee Gaza’s reconstruction under a two-year, renewable U.N. mandate. Its members had been expected to be named by the end of the year and might even be revealed after Monday’s meeting, but the announcement could be pushed into next month.

Netanyahu was the first foreign leader to meet Trump at the White House in his second term, but this will be their first in-person meeting since Trump went to Israel in October to mark the start of the ceasefire’s initial phase. Netanyahu has been to Mar-a-Lago before, including in July 2024 when Trump was still seeking reelection.

Much remains unsettled

Their latest meeting comes after U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, recently huddled in Florida with officials from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, which have been mediating the ceasefire.

Two main challenges have complicated moving to the second phase, according to an official who was briefed on those meetings. Israeli officials have been taking a lot of time to vet and approve members of the Palestinian technocratic committee from a list given to them by the mediators, and Israel continues its military strikes.

Trump’s plan also calls for the stabilization force, proposed as a multinational body, to maintain security. But it, too, has yet to be formed. Whether details will be forthcoming after Monday’s meeting is unclear.

A Western diplomat said there is a “huge gulf” between the U.S.-Israeli understanding of the force’s mandate and that of other major countries in the region, as well as European governments.

All spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details that haven’t been made public.

The U.S. and Israel want the force to have a “commanding role” in security duties, including disarming Hamas and other militant groups. But countries being courted to contribute troops fear that mandate will make it an “occupation force,” the diplomat said.

Hamas has said it is ready to discuss “freezing or storing” its arsenal of weapons but insists it has a right to armed resistance as long as Israel occupies Palestinian territory. One U.S. official said a potential plan might be to offer cash incentives in exchange for weapons, echoing a “buyback” program Witkoff has previously floated.

Questions about Gaza reconstruction

One displaced man in Khan Yunis, Iyad Abu Sakla, said Trump needed to urge Netanyahu to allow Palestinians to return to their homes. Under the agreement, most Palestinians are permitted in a zone just under half the size of Gaza.

“We are exhausted. This displacement is bad; it’s cold and freezing. Enough lying to us and enough insulting our intelligence,” Sakla said.

Israeli bombardment and ground operations have transformed neighborhoods across Gaza into rubble-strewn wastelands, with blackened shells of buildings and mounds of debris stretching in all directions.

Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are pressing for a negotiated deal on disarming Hamas and on additional Israeli withdrawal from Gaza before moving to next elements of the plan, including deployment of the international security force and reconstruction, three Arab officials said.

Three other officials, including two Americans, said the United Arab Emirates has agreed to fund reconstruction, including new communities, although they said plans have not been settled.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations between the various countries. The UAE did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Weissert, Mednick and Magdy write for the Associated Press. AP writers Darlene Superville in Washington and Lee Keath and Fatma Khaled in Cairo contributed to this report.

Authorities board vessel off Swedish coast after it suffered an engine failure.

Sweden’s customs service has said that authorities boarded a Russian freighter that anchored in Swedish waters on Friday after developing engine problems, and were conducting an inspection of the cargo.

The owners of the vessel, the Adler, are on the European Union’s sanctions list, Martin Hoglund, spokesman at the customs authority, said on Sunday.

“Shortly after 0100 (00:00 GMT) last night we boarded the ship with support from the Swedish Coast Guard and the police service in order to make a customs inspection,” Hoglund said. “The inspection is still ongoing.”

Hoglund declined to say what the customs service had found on board the ship.

According to ship-tracking service Marine Traffic, the Adler is a 126-metre-long, roll-on, roll-off container carrier. It is anchored off Hoganas in southwest Sweden.

EU and US sanctions

In addition to the Adler being on an EU sanctions list, the vessel and its owners, M Leasing LLC, are also both subject to US sanctions, suspected of involvement in weapons transport, according to OpenSanctions, a database of sanctioned companies and individuals, persons of interest and government watchlists.

Hoglund said the ship had left the Russian port of St Petersburg on December 15, but he said customs did not have any information about its destination.

The night-time operation was led by the Swedish Customs Administration along with the coastguard, National Task Force, Swedish Security Service and prosecutors.

In a previous incident, the Adler was boarded by Greek forces in the Mediterranean in January 2021. The operation was carried out under the auspices of the EU’s Operation Irini, which monitors the United Nations arms embargo on Libya.

Long Beach City College’s performing arts center is officially being named after Long Beach legend and LBCC alumna Jenni Rivera.

Last week LBCC’s Board of Trustees unanimously voted to name the new facility the Jenni Rivera Performing Arts Center.

“This naming recognizes not just an extraordinary performer, but a daughter of Long Beach whose voice and spirit transcended borders,” said Uduak-Joe Ntuk, president of LBCC’s board of trustees in a press statement. “Jenni Rivera inspired millions through her music, resilience, and advocacy. We are proud that future generations of artists will learn and create in a space that bears her name.”

Jenni Rivera Enterprises will donate $2 million over the next 10 years to the LBCC Foundation, with the bulk of the funds going toward scholarships and education programs, the Long Beach Post reported.

“Our family is deeply honored that Long Beach City College has chosen to memorialize Jenni in this extraordinary way,” said Jacqie Rivera, Rivera’s daughter and CEO of Jenni Rivera Enterprises, in a press release. “Long Beach shaped who Jenni was — as an artist, a mother, and a woman — committed to her community. Knowing that young performers will grow, train, and find their creative voice in a center that carries her name is profoundly meaningful to us.”

The performing arts center, which is scheduled to open in spring 2026, is the second honor the “Inolvidable” singer has received from LBCC. Earlier this year, Rivera was inducted into the LBCC Hall of Fame alongside actor/activist Jennifer Kumiyama and attorney Norm Rasmussen.

Rivera was born and raised in Long Beach, attending Long Beach Poly High School in the 1980s, where she got pregnant as a sophomore. She later graduated from Reid Continuation High School as class valedictorian. She went on to attend LBCC before transferring to Cal State Long Beach to get a bachelor’s degree in business administration.

She immediately put that degree to use as a real estate agent, while simultaneously working at her father’s recording studio and record label.

Her father, Pedro Rivera, was a noted singer of corridos. In the 1980s he launched the record label Cintas Acuario. It began as a swap-meet booth and grew into an influential and taste-making independent outfit, fueling the careers of artists such as Chálino Sanchez. Jenni Rivera’s four brothers were associated with the music industry; her brother Lupillo, in particular, is a huge star in his own right.

She released her first album, “Somos Rivera,” in 1992, launching a prolific career that was tragically cut short when Rivera and six others were killed in a plane crash in Mexico on Dec. 9, 2012.

The self-proclaimed “Diva de la Banda” was a self-made star with a veritable rags-to-riches story. She was a true trailblazer, a U.S.-born woman who took up plenty of space in the male-dominated world of música mexicana.

In 2015, Long Beach city officials honored the singer’s legacy by bestowing her name on a park in Long Beach. On display along a brick wall at the Jenni Rivera Memorial Park is a 125-foot-long mural honoring Rivera’s life and heritage.

The Hollywood Walk of Fame also honored Rivera with a star in 2024, which her five children accepted on her behalf.

“One of my mom’s favorite exes used to work in this vicinity. We would come and check in on him and she always dreamt — I remember sitting in the car, in her Mercedes, and she always dreamt, ‘I’m gonna have my star here one day,’” Rivera’s daughter Jenicka Lopez said at the star unveiling ceremony.

“I thought it was impossible after she passed away, but God has a beautiful way of proving people wrong.”

After steadily gaining power and influence for more than a decade, the watchdogs that provide civilian oversight of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department face an uncertain future.

A recent leadership exodus has left behind gaps in experience and knowledge, and a succession of legal challenges and funding cuts by the county have left some concerned that long-fought gains in transparency are slipping away.

“It is beginning to look like the idea of effective oversight of the Sheriff’s Department is a pipe dream,” said Robert Bonner, former chairman of the Civilian Oversight Commission, who announced in June that he was being pushed into “involuntarily leaving” before he completed pending work.

Current and former oversight officials have argued that the office of county counsel, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department have repeatedly undermined efforts to rein in law enforcement misconduct.

The cumulative effect, some advocates worry, is that the public will know less about law enforcement activity, and that there will be fewer independent investigations into deputies and department leaders alike.

“The Sheriff is committed to transparency in law enforcement,” the department said via email. “As we move forward it is essential to strengthen collaboration with the [Civilian Oversight Commission] while ensuring that the rights and safety of our personnel are protected.”

In recent years, oversight bodies have uncovered information about so-called deputy gangs, published reports on inhumane jail conditions and issued subpoenas for records related to on-duty use of force incidents.

Inspector General Max Huntsman’s sudden announcement last week that he was retiring from the position he’s held since its creation more than a decade ago completed a trifecta of departures of top law enforcement oversight officials this year.

In addition to Bonner’s departure, former Civilian Oversight Commission chairman Sean Kennedy stepped down from the body in February in response to what he described as improper county interference in the commission’s activities.

L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna, right, talks with Sean Kennedy during an event on April 5 in Baker. Kennedy left his position on the Civilian Oversight Commission earlier this year.

(William Liang / For The Times)

Kennedy and others have said the Sheriff’s Department has refused to comply with multiple subpoenas by the commission for personnel files and records related to deputy misconduct.

“The attack on integrity and on oversight capacity is threatening all of us in Los Angeles County,” Hans Johnson, who took over as chairman of the Civilian Oversight Commission following Bonner’s departure, said at a recent public meeting. “We look forward to making sure that oversight is preserved and protected and not muzzled and not unplugged or sabotaged.”

The Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors said in a statement that it maintains a “long-standing commitment to strong oversight.”

The Sheriff’s Department said only one request it has received from oversight officials this year remains pending.

“The Department remains committed to working cooperatively to provide all requested information as required by law,” the statement said.

On the state level, reform advocates recently scored what they described as a victory for transparency.

In October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill known as AB 847, which granted civilian oversight bodies across California the ability to view confidential law enforcement records in private sessions. L.A. County officials had previously balked at sharing certain sensitive files on sheriff’s deputies, and some reformers worry the new law may not go far enough.

Dara Williams, chief deputy of the Office of the Inspector General, said at a July public meeting that the Sheriff’s Department has a history of being “painfully slow” to respond to requests for records related to homicides by deputies. In one instance, she said, Huntsman’s office served the department with a subpoena in October 2024 “and we are still waiting for documents and answers.”

The Sheriff’s Department said it has hired an outside attorney who is “conducting an independent review” of its records to determine if “those materials actually exist and can be found.”

The department’s statement said it will abide by the law and that protecting confidential information “remains of the utmost importance.”

Some involved in oversight have also become the subject of probes themselves.

In June, the Office of the County Counsel said it was investigating Kennedy for alleged retaliation against a sergeant who had worked for a unit that had been accused of pursuing cases for political reasons during Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s tenure.

Kennedy has denied the allegations, telling The Times in June, “I was just doing my job as an oversight official.”

Budget cuts — some already instituted, others threatened — are also a concern.

Huntsman said earlier this year that the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors was reassigning or eliminating a third of his staff.

Former L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman listens during a hearing at Loyola Law School’s Advocacy Center on Jan. 12, 2024.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

He too left amid acrimony with county officials.

“The County has made it very clear over the past couple of years that they are not going to enforce the state oversight laws,” Huntsman told The Times. “Instead the county supports the sheriff limiting the flow of information so as to restrict meaningful oversight.”

The Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors said the changes implemented this year have had a “minimal” impact that “neither limits OIG’s responsibility nor their capacity.”

The possibility of eliminating the Sybil Brand Commission, which monitors L.A. County jails, was discussed in an August report to the Board of Supervisors. County officials said it would save about $40,000 annually.

Sybil Brand commissioner Eric Miller told The Times in September that he believes “the county is attempting to limit oversight of the Sheriff’s Department … to avoid lawsuits.” The department, he said, “is a powerful constituency within the county.”

In September, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta launched a state lawsuit over what he described as a “humanitarian crisis” inside L.A. County jails.

There are even concerns that the Sheriff’s Department is seeking greater control over local groups that facilitate conversations between deputies and members of the public — often some of the only opportunities for community concerns to be heard.

In the Antelope Valley, the Palmdale Sheriff’s Station Community Advisory Committee has been roiled by allegations that a local Sheriff’s Department captain appointed a new member without other members’ approval.

The chair of the committee, Georgia Halliman, resigned in October and committee member Sylvia Williams has alleged that the Sheriff’s Department captain tried to force her out.

“I was going to leave, but they need someone who’s real in there,” Williams told The Times. “You have to have an overseer.”

The department said it is reviewing the situation.

Melissa Camacho, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, said the county is at a crossroads.

“The main question right now is what is the county going to do?” she said. “Is this going to be a moment when the Board of Supervisors decides to actually invest in oversight?”

Warner Bros. Discovery has sharply rejected Paramount’s latest offer, alleging the Larry Ellison family has failed to put real money behind Paramount’s $78-billion bid for Warner’s legendary movie studio, HBO and CNN.

Paramount “has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” Warner Bros. Discovery’s board wrote in a Wednesday letter to its shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

“It does not, and never has,” the Warner board said.

For Warner, what was missing was a clear declaration from Paramount that the Ellison family had agreed to commit funding for the deal. A Paramount representative was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

The Warner auction has taken a nasty turn. Last week, Paramount launched a hostile takeover campaign for Warner after losing the bidding war to Netflix. Warner board members unanimously approved Netflix’s $72-billion deal for the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max.

In its letter, the Warner board reaffirmed its support for Netflix’s proposal, saying it represented the best deal for shareholders. Warner board members urged investors not to tender their shares to Paramount.

Board members said they were concerned that Paramount’s financing was shaky and the Ellison family’s assurances were far from ironclad. Warner also said Paramount’s proposal contained troubling caveats, such as language in its documents that said Paramount “reserve[d] the right to amend the offer in any respect.”

The Warner board argued that its shareholders could be left holding the bag.

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has argued his $78-billion deal is superior to Netflix’s proposal.

(Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/invision/ap)

Paramount Chairman David Ellison has championed Paramount’s strength in recent weeks saying his company’s bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and television studios, was backed by his wealthy family, headed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men.

In its letter last week to shareholders, asking for their support, Ellison wrote that Paramount delivered “an equity commitment from the Ellison family trust, which contains over $250 billion of assets,” including more than 1 billion Oracle shares.

In regulatory filings, Paramount disclosed that, for the equity portion of the deal, it planned to rely on $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as well as $11.8 billion from the Ellison family (which also holds the controlling shares in Paramount). This week, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners private equity firm pulled out of Paramount’s financing team.

Paramount’s bid would also need more than $60 billion in debt financing.

Paramount has made six offers for Warner Bros., and its “most recent proposal includes a $40.65 billion equity commitment, for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind,” the Warner board wrote.

“Instead, they propose that [shareholders] rely on an unknown and opaque revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding,” the board said.

Throughout the negotiations, Paramount, which trades under the PSKY ticker, failed to present a solid financing commitment from Larry Ellison — despite Warner’s bankers telling them that one was necessary, the board said.

“Despite … their own ample resources, as well as multiple assurances by PSKY during our strategic review process that such a commitment was forthcoming – the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop the PSKY offer,” Warner’s board wrote.

Board members argued that a revocable trust could always be changed. “A revocable trust is no replacement for a secured commitment by a controlling stockholder,” according to the board letter.

David Ellison has insisted Paramount’s Dec. 4 offer of $30 a share was superior to Netflix’s winning bid. Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, while Netflix has made a deal to take Warner’s studios, its spacious lot in Burbank, HBO and HBO Max streaming service.

Paramount’s lawyers have argued that Warner tipped the auction to favor Netflix.

Paramount, which until recently enjoyed warm relations with President Trump, has long argued that its deal represents a more certain path to gain regulatory approvals. Trump’s Department of Justice would consider any anti-trust ramifications of the deal, and in the past, Trump has spoken highly of the Ellisons.

However, Warner’s board argued that Paramount might be providing too rosy a view.

“Despite PSKY’s media statements to the contrary, the Board does not believe there is a material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger,” the Warner board wrote. “The Board carefully considered the federal, state, and international regulatory risks for both the Netflix merger and the PSKY offer with its regulatory advisors.”

The board noted that Netflix agreed to pay a record $5.8 billion if its deal fails to clear the regulatory hurdles.

Paramount has offered a $5 billion termination fee.

Should Warner abandon the transaction with Netflix, it would owe Netflix a $2.8 billion break-up fee.

Warner also pointed to Paramount’s promises to Wall Street that it would shave $9 billion in costs from the combined companies. Paramount is in the process of making $3 billion in cuts since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners took the helm of the company in August.

Paramount has promised another $6 billion in cuts should it win Warner Bros.

“These targets are both ambitious from an operational perspective and would make Hollywood weaker, not stronger,” the Warner board wrote.

Tesla’s board of directors has earned more than $3 billion through stock awards since 2004, an amount that dwarfs compensation at other major U.S. technology firms. CEO Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal has earned nearly $1 billion, while director Ira Ehrenpreis collected $869 million and board chair Robyn Denholm $650 million. Most of these windfalls came from stock options that appreciated dramatically as Tesla’s share price soared.

Why It Matters
The outsized compensation raises questions about corporate governance and board independence. Experts argue that such high pay could compromise directors’ ability to objectively oversee Tesla and Musk, as a large portion of their wealth is tied to stock performance rather than cash. Critics also note that Tesla is one of the few major firms where directors are paid predominantly in options rather than shares, magnifying upside potential with limited downside risk.

Stock Option Controversy
Tesla directors have received compensation primarily through stock options, rather than shares. This practice allows them to profit if Tesla’s stock rises without incurring losses if it falls, unlike restricted stock which better aligns interests with shareholders. Between 2018 and 2024, Tesla directors averaged $1.7 million annually despite suspending pay for four years, more than double the average of Meta directors, the next highest-paid among the “Magnificent Seven” tech companies.

Legal and Governance Issues
Tesla’s board suspended new stock grants in 2021 following a shareholder lawsuit alleging excessive pay. The board has also faced scrutiny in a Delaware court over Musk’s 2018 compensation package, with the judge ruling that excessive pay and personal ties compromised CEO-pay negotiations. The board proposed a new pay package for Musk in 2024 potentially worth $1 trillion in Tesla stock over the next decade.

Stakeholders include Tesla’s board members, CEO Elon Musk, shareholders, corporate-governance experts, and the wider investment community. Oversight and accountability are central concerns, as compensation structures can influence board decisions and shareholder trust.

Comparison With Tech Peers
Other major tech firms like Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Nvidia (“Magnificent Seven”) have also seen stock-based wealth increases for directors, but none have granted awards as concentrated or directly tied to board service as Tesla. Lifetime earnings for Tesla directors far exceed peers when factoring in appreciated stock value.

What’s Next
Governance experts suggest reforms such as paying directors in restricted stock rather than options, and greater shareholder oversight of compensation plans. Tesla’s board must navigate the delicate balance of incentivising directors while maintaining independence in overseeing Musk and the company. Legal proceedings and shareholder scrutiny over Musk’s latest pay package are ongoing and may influence future board compensation practices.

Additional Considerations
The analysis raises broader questions about tech-sector governance, the risks of incentive structures tied to stock performance, and the potential misalignment between directors’ personal wealth and long-term shareholder interests. Tesla’s board, given its outsized compensation, will remain a focus for regulators and investors alike.

With information from an exclusive Reuters report.