California

Nov. 17 (UPI) — Authorities in central California said divers have recovered the body of a 7-year-old girl who was swept into the ocean by massive waves on Friday.

Her body was recovered by a volunteer diver at 1:20 p.m. PST Sunday about a half-mile north of where she went missing at Garrapata State Park, California State Parks said in a statement.

Officers with the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office had responded Friday to reports of a water rescue at Garrapata State Park Beach.

The sheriff’s office said in a statement that her father Yuji Hu, of Calgary, Alberta, had attempted to save the unidentified child from waves estimated to be as tall as 20 feet. As he reached for her, both were swept out to sea.

A beachgoer and an off-duty California State Parks officer were able to bring Hu back to shore and initiated CPR. Hu was transported to the hospital, where he was later pronounced dead, the sheriff’s office said.

The mother who had entered the water to attempt a rescue of her own was treated for hypothermia and released, while a 2-year-old child who was present was not injured.

A search was then launched for the missing girl, who was initially reported to be 5 years old, involving multiple agencies.

“The family has expressed their gratitude to all agencies, personnel and community members in the search and recovery efforts. They continue to request privacy and do not wish to make further statements at this time,” the sheriff’s office said.

Stenciled on sidewalks, projected on buildings and tweeted in hashtags, a one-word message will greet California Democrats as they arrive in Sacramento for their party convention this weekend: Persist.

It’s not a guerrilla marketing campaign for a politician or a product. It’s the brainchild of a crew of top Democratic strategists — all women — who were seeking a cathartic way to channel their grief over the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

What started as an internal support group has become a multi-pronged effort to promote female empowerment, capped off by a 5-foot-8, 400-pound bronze figure of a defiant young girl perched on the roof of the Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Sacramento — the West Coast’s own version of the Wall Street “Fearless” statue.

Here’s how the effort evolved:

Democratic strategists commissioned their own version of the Wall Street “Fearless” statue. (Melanie Mason / Los Angeles Times)

(Melanie Mason / Los Angeles Times)

The inspiration

The word “persist” took on new political meaning in February, when GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cut Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren off from speaking, offering as an explanation, “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless she persisted.”

But it was a month later, when a statue of an assured girl facing down the iconic Charging Bull statue appeared on Wall Street, when Angie Tate decided to act.

The “Fearless Girl” statue stands facing the Charging Bull statue as tourists take pictures in New York on April 12. (Jewel Samad / AFP/Getty Images)

(JEWEL SAMAD / AFP/Getty Images)

Tate, chief fundraiser for the California Democratic party, saw a picture of the “Fearless” statue before her morning walk to the office. By the time she arrived, she had the makings of a plan — and was quickly drafting friends to join.

“There was a morning when there were a lot of texts from Angie,” recalled Robin Swanson, a veteran Democratic communications consultant.

Tate’s idea was to make their own version of “Fearless” for the West Coast. Within weeks, they had found a model for the statue — the 5-year-old daughter of Democratic strategist Dana Williamson — and two anonymous donors to cover the $16,000 tab.

The message

The organizers of the campaign have their own definitions of what it means to persist.

“It’s a symbol that we can all choose our own path if we continue to stand, even when it’s really hard,” Tate said.

For Swanson, the word carries a political connotation after last year’s presidential election.

“For me, I am inspired by Hillary Clinton — inspired that every day she gets out bed and has something to say,” Swanson said.

Children of the “Persist” campaigners pose at the California Democratic Party headquarters. (Jeff Walters)

But she and her colleagues hastened to make clear that their message was not limited to partisan politics.

“I was picturing a little girl in a classroom afraid to raise her hand,” said Williamson, who is an advisor to Gov. Jerry Brown. “We want this next generation to see powerful images of strong women and girls so that they believe very early on that [they] not only can they speak up, but that they should.”

The clues

A completed stencil in Sacramento. (Melanie Mason / Los Angeles Times)

Robin Swanson stencils “persist.” (Melanie Mason / Los Angeles Times)

In the run-up to this weekend’s party convention, the Persist campaign planners steadily dropped hints about their effort. They launched a website and encouraged women to share their own stories about persistence on social media. They recruited heavy-hitter friends in California politics — including former First Lady Maria Shriver, Brown’s top aide Nancy McFadden, influential labor and Democratic Party figures, even Colusa, the governor’s dog — to reference the campaign on their Twitter feeds.

The big reveal

Finally, on Friday morning, the “persist” statue was installed on top of the Democratic Party headquarters in Sacramento — which had its roof reinforced to accommodate the new addition.

The references to the campaign will crop up throughout the convention, including on fliers slipped in delegate goody bags and in planned mentions in speeches by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Kamala Harris.. But organizers are hoping the campaign endures beyond the weekend; they’ll continue to collect stories on their website and have discussed potential for other art installations across the state.

For now, their statue now peers out from the corner of the building to passersby.

“Little girls need something to look up to,” Swanson said. “They can literally look up at the statue of ‘persist’ and say ‘I can persist.’ Frankly, we all need a little reassurance ourselves.”

UPDATES:

1:30 p.m. This article was updated to include planned references to “persist” in convention speeches by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Kamala Harris.

This article was originally published at 1:20 p.m.

The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

Barabak: It shouldn’t.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

I’d wager more than a penny on that.

SATURDAY’S RESULTS

SEMIFINALS

OPEN DIVISION

#1 Sierra Canyon d. #5 Marymount, 25-18, 19-25, 25-22, 25-23

#2 Mater Dei d. #3 Torrey Pines, 25-23, 25-22, 19-25, 25-23

DIVISION I

#1 Harvard-Westlake d. #12 Bishop Montgomery, 22-25, 25-16, 25-23, 24-26, 15-8

#3 Santa Margarita d. #2 Temecula Valley, 25-17, 22-25, 25-19, 25-23

DIVISION II

#1 Bakersfield Liberty d. #12 La Canada, 25-7, 25-16, 23-25, 25-18

#3 Cypress d. #7 Carlsbad, 23-25, 21-25, 25-22, 26-24, 15-10

DIVISION III

#1 Academy of Our Lady of Peace d. #4 Santa Fe Christian, 25-23, 22-25, 25-22, 25-21

#3 Mission Vista d. #2 Bakersfield Frontier, 27-25, 25-21, 25-18

DIVISION IV

#12 Capistrano Valley Christian d. #1 Nipomo, 36-34, 25-23, 26-24

#2 Mammoth d. #3 Granada Hills, 19-25, 25-23, 25-18, 19-25, 15-10

DIVISION V

#4 Elsinore d. #8 Panorama, 25-14, 25-27, 25-11, 25-18

#2 Morro Bay d. #11 Nogales, 25-16, 25-18, 25-16

TUESDAY’S SCHEDULE

(Matches at 6 p.m. unless noted)

Regional Finals

OPEN DIVISION

#2 Mater Dei at #1 Sierra Canyon

DIVISION I

#3 Santa Margarita at #1 Harvard-Westlake

DIVISION II

#3 Cypress at #1 Bakersfield Liberty

DIVISION III

#3 Mission Vista at #1 Academy of Our Lady of Peace

DIVISION IV

#12 Capistrano Valley Christian at #2 Mammoth

DIVISION V

#4 Elsinore d. #2 Morro Bay

Note: State Championships on November 21-22 at Santiago Canyon College.

An indictment unveiled this week charging Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff with political corruption threw California’s top political circles into chaos — and stirred speculation in the state capital about what triggered the federal investigation.

Authorities have not revealed any targets beyond Dana Williamson and two other influential political operatives associated with the state’s most powerful Democrats, all of whom are accused of fraud and siphoning campaign funds for personal use.

But details contained in the indictment and other public records indicate that the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice had a keen interest in Williamson and other operatives’ involvement in the handling of a legal case involving “Corporation 1.” The facts revealed about “Corporation 1” match details of a controversial sex discrimination investigation that the state of California led into one of the world’s largest video game companies, Santa-Monica based Activision Blizzard Inc.

Williamson — an influential deal-maker and one of the state’s premier Democratic political consultants before and after she ran Newsom’s office — was arrested on corruption charges Wednesday. Two longtime associates, lobbyist Greg Campbell, a former high-level staffer in the California Assembly, and Sean McCluskie, a longtime aide to former state Atty. Gen. and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, have agreed to plead guilty to related charges.

After Williamson pleaded not guilty in a tearful court appearance Wednesday, her attorney, McGregor Scott, said that federal authorities had charged his client only after first approaching her to seek help with a probe they were conducting into Newsom, the nature of which remains unclear. Williamson declined to cooperate.

The governor has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Still, Republicans already are using the indictments to attack Newsom, who has openly said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Williamson’s attorney did not offer any specifics on what federal officials may have been investigating.

But numerous threads in the indictment echo details in the Activision saga.

Williamson and Campbell both worked as advisors to Activision Blizzard, according to financial disclosures on file with the state. Williamson reported receiving income from the company prior to her appointment in Newsom’s office, state records show. According to records first filed earlier this year, Campbell disclosed that his lobbying firm started being paid by Activision around the time Williamson joined the governor’s office. Activision reported paying $240,000 to his firm in 2023 and 2024. The amount Williamson was paid from Activision was not disclosed.

Activision officials did not respond to emails requesting comment. Lawyers for Williamson, Campbell and McCluskie also did not respond or declined to comment.

The state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing in 2021 sued Activision Blizzard, which distributes video games such as “Call of Duty” and “Candy Crush,” alleging that company officials discriminated against women, paid them less than men and ignored reports of egregious sexual harassment.

The complaint alleged that the company: “fostered a pervasive “frat boy” workplace culture that continues to thrive. In the office, women are subjected to “cube crawls” in which male employees drink copious amounts of alcohol as they “crawl” their way through various cubicles in the office and often engage in inappropriate behavior toward female employees. Male employees proudly come into work hungover, play video games for long periods of time during work while delegating their responsibilities to female employees, engage in banter about their sexual encounters, talk openly about female bodies, and joke about rape.”

Activision officials denied the allegations.

The allegations also were investigated by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Activision Blizzard agreed to a consent decree, approved in March 2022, with the agency that required the company to set up an $18-million fund for employees who experienced sexual harassment or discrimination, pregnancy discrimination or retaliation.

Just weeks later, the case drew national attention again when the lawyer overseeing the case for the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Janet Wipper, was fired by the Newsom administration, and her chief deputy resigned and alleged that she was doing so to protest interference of Newsom’s office in the investigation.

“The Office of the Governor repeatedly demanded advance notice of litigation strategy and of next steps in the litigation,” the deputy, Melanie Proctor, wrote to her colleagues. “As we continued to win in state court, this interference increased, mimicking the interests of Activision’s counsel.”

A member of Activision’s board of directors contributed $40,200 for Newsom’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign, and an additional $100,000 to a committee opposing the 2021 recall campaign against Newsom — an effort that failed.

Newsom’s office denied it was meddling. “Claims of interference by our office are categorically false,” Erin Mellon, Newsom’s then-communications director said at the time.

As case continued to grind through Los Angeles Superior Court, the company stepped up its lobbying presence in Sacramento, according to disclosures filed with the state. Documents show Activision began paying Campbell starting in late 2022 to lobby on its behalf.

Around this time, Newsom announced that he was hiring Williamson to be his chief of staff.

In December 2023 the state announced it had reached a settlement agreement with Activision for $54 million, with the bulk of the funds going to compensate women who had been underpaid. The company did not admit any wrongdoing.

The FBI has made inquires about the Activision settlement, though the focus of the inquiry is unclear. When reached last week, Calabasas attorney Alan Goldstein, who handled a sexual harassment suit against Activision, said he received call from an FBI agent looking to probe California’s settlement — but that he couldn’t recall a “substantive conversation.”

Federal investigators were also looking at how Campbell, Williamson and another Sacramento political consultant, Alexis Podesta, conducted their affairs. In unveiling their charges this week, the U.S. Attorney’s office said the investigation began more than three years ago. All three consultants were members of the Sacramento-based Collaborative, a cooperative of top Democratic political operatives.

Podesta from 2017 to 2020 served as secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, which included the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing — the agency that launched the investigation of Activision in 2018.

Williamson received a federal subpoena for information about her handling of a government loan her business had received during the pandemic, according to details in the indictment. The indictment accused Williamson of spending vast sums on luxury items — including a Gucci bag, Chanel earrings and a $150,000 Mexican birthday vacation and party, plus yacht rental and private jet travel — and then claimed them as business expenses on her taxes.

She and Campbell had also allegedly conspired with McCluskie to siphon money from Becerra’s dormant campaign account to pay McCuskie’s wife for a fake, “no-show” job working for Williamson. When Williamson went to work for Newsom, the indictment alleges, Podesta took over handling the pass through payments.

By June 2024, someone in the circle was cooperating with federal investigators and wearing a wire, recording Williamson’s private conversations, according to transcripts included in the indictment.

On Nov.14, 2024, according to the indictment, FBI agents interviewed Williamson, questioning her about the Becerra campaign funds and about the pandemic funds.

Investigators also asked her about her actions “while serving in public office to influence the litigation involving the State of California and a former client –Corporation 1,” according to the indictment. The indictment doesn’t identify Corporation 1., but details match the Activision litigation. The indictment notes that Corporation 1 was Williamson’s former client and that it was involved in settlement discussions over a lawsuit with the state in 2023. It also references a state lawyer who had been fired in connection with the litigation.

Williamson, according to the indictment, told the FBI she did not pass any inside information to Campbell or other associates outside the government. But based on their recorded conversations, the indictment said, investigators believed that was not true.

They alleged that in January 2023, Williamson, shortly after starting as Newsom’s chief of staff, revealed to Podesta that she had “told a high level government attorney to … get [the case] settled.”

The indictment notes that “Corporation 1” was not only Williamson’s former client, but also now Podesta’s current client.

In June 2024, Williamson complained to Podesta that someone had submitted a California Public Records Act request seeking information about meetings and communications between Newsom officials and the company, according to the indictment.

Proctor, the state attorney who resigned in 2022 and had alleged that the Newsom administration was meddling in the Activision case, posted on her Bluesky social media account in July that she had submitted a public records request on May 29, 2024. She also posted the response from Newsom’s office, showing a meeting in January 2024 in the governor’s office between Williamson, Podesta, and Robert Kotick, the former Chief Executive of Activision.

In their June conversation, according to the indictment, Williamson told Podesta “I just wanted to alert you to the PRAS that we’re starting to get,” the indictment stated. (PRAs refer to public records requests.)

“Yeah. Ugh. F— her. They really don’t know who they are messing with,” Podesta responded.

“They really don’t,” Williamson said.

Podesta, who is identified in the indictment as “Co-Conspirator 2” was not charged. On Thursday she sent a message to numerous associates offering her take on the situation.

“While I cannot discuss the details of the ongoing investigation, I want to state plainly that I have always conducted myself –and my business–with integrity.” She also said that she continued to “cooperate fully with federal authorities.”

On Friday afternoon, McCluskie and Campbell appeared in federal court in Sacramento to be arraigned on conspiracy charges in back-to-back proceedings.

Both men had previously reached plea agreements with prosecutors, and will be back in court to enter those pleas, Mcluskie in late November and Campbell in early December.

Prosecutors did not seek detention for either man, but they were ordered to surrender their passports and avoid associating with other co-conspirators.

In brief remarks to reporters, Campbell’s attorney, Todd Pickles, said that his client “takes full accountability for his actions” and would “in appropriate time further discuss the charges.” But, Pickles noted, those charges “do not include Mr. Campbell engaging in advocacy or lobbying on behalf of any client.”

Times staff writers Katie King and Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

When I broke into journalism years ago as a fledgling Whittier-based high school sports reporter, one of my favorite side hobbies was asking locals what made their city famous.

Downey was always an interesting test case.

Some said Downey’s claim to fame is the oldest standing McDonald’s, or the Stonewood Mall, with some students boasting the rivalry between Downey and Warren high schools. Some have also cited the title of the “Mexican Beverly Hills,” which I and colleague Gustavo Arellano have always considered more appropriate for Whittier.

What wasn’t mentioned enough about Downey, particularly among the high school-aged students I spoke with, was the city’s ties to the Space Shuttle program. It was somewhat remarkable given the city’s “Home of the Apollo” nickname.

Downey’s reputation, especially among its younger residents, may reset soon thanks to a groundbreaking this Monday to announce the latest upgrade to the Columbia Memorial Space Center, a space museum that opened in 2008.

Benjamin Dickow, the center‘s president and executive director, spoke with The Times about what to expect Monday and beyond.

What’s happening Monday?

Astronaut Garrett Reisman, former Rockwell International and Boeing employees and area dignitaries will take part in a groundbreaking for an about 40,000-square-foot expansion to the existing museum.

The museum’s centerpiece will be a 122-foot-long, 35-foot-tall Downey-made space shuttle mock-up named the “Inspiration,” which is not available yet for public display.

The event begins at 10 a.m., rain or shine, and is located at 12400 Columbia Way in Downey.

For more information, check out https://www.columbiaspacescience.org/

A rendering of the completed front entrance of the museum.

(Nadia Gonzalez, on behalf of the Columbia Memorial Space Center)

Space Center changes and expansion

Dickow said the center was in the middle of completing the first of three phases, to be finished before the L.A. Olympics.

“Once the major construction really gets going, it’s about an 18-month process,” he said, “but if something happens with the shuttle, it’s going to add some time.”

Part of the first phase began in October 2024, when the partially-covered wood and plastic model was paraded down Bellflower Boulevard from a city maintenance yard to a temporary housing unit.

The expansion, known as the Downey Space Shuttle Exhibit and Education Building, would include a new two-story, 29,000-square-foot space shuttle museum, event courtyard, STEM building and courtyard, children’s outdoor classroom, pavilion, lawn and other amenities.

The space shuttle mock-up is also undergoing a “process of rehab and refurbishment,” according to Dickow, but is in “generally great shape.”

“The main work is getting it ready for the public, where visitors will be able to enter and get a sense of what it’s like inside a space shuttle,” Dickow said.

Astronauts would typically access the flight deck, mid-deck and crew compartment through a hatch, according to Dickow.

According to renderings, guests will instead enter through a much more accessible stairwell that puts visitors inside a cargo bay.

A rendering of the space shuttle mock-up, dubbed “Inspiration,” at its place in the center of the museum expansion.

(Nadia Gonzalez, on behalf of the Columbia Memorial Space Center)

What is the mock-up and what’s its tie to Downey?

The shuttle mock-up’s history with Downey spans decades.

North American Rockwell International, now part of Boeing, built the prototype in 1972 at its Downey facility. The space shuttle became the world’s first reusable winged orbiting spaceship.

In total, 12,000 workers developed and manufactured the shuttle at the program’s peak on a sprawling 120-acre campus.

From April 12, 1981, through July 21, 2011, NASA fleets of shuttles flew 135 missions and helped build the International Space Station.

One of those shuttles — Endeavour — was hauled into the middle of its future home, the Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center at Exposition Park, in January 2024.

That museum is also expected to be open before the Olympics.

“This is going to be something that the L.A. area will be able to show off to people from around the world and I want to make sure we’re a part of that,” Dickow said. “Downey and Southeast L.A. sometimes don’t get a lot of the spotlight and this is something that we’ll be able to put out there.”

The week’s biggest stories

Pedestrians cross the street in downtown Los Angeles under light rain on Friday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

SoCal treads through stormy weather

Rebuilding after January fires

Opposition to immigration forces in California

A Sacramento corruption bombshell

• The federal fraud case against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff and other well-connected aides is entangled with one of California’s — and the country’s — most powerful political circles.
• Dana Williamson, who joined the governor’s office in early 2023 and departed late last year, was arrested Wednesday and faces charges of bank and tax fraud.

Explosive Epstein emails about Trump

• Donald Trump “knew about the girls” and “spent hours at my house,” Jeffrey Epstein wrote in emails.
• See what’s in the emails released by House Democrats on Wednesday.

More big stories

This week’s must-read

More great reads

For your weekend

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Going out

Staying in

L.A. Timeless

A selection of the very best reads from The Times’ 143-year archive.

Have a great weekend, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
June Hsu, editorial fellow
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected]. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

Nov. 14 (UPI) — Rainstorms that are forecast to bring up to 8 inches of rain to Southern California through Saturday have triggered flood watches in fire-ravaged locales in Los Angeles, San Diego and nearby areas.

Two bouts of rainstorms are predicted to bring between 1 inch and 3 inches of rain on Friday to areas that are still affected by wildfires in January, NBC News reported.

More than 23 million people live in the risk zones as rain began falling on Friday afternoon and already created muddy conditions in areas due to the lack of ground cover because of the January wildfires that decimated many areas in and around Los Angeles and San Diego County.

Officials at Los Angeles International Airport reported about an inch of rainfall in an hour on Friday, and Highway 101 had up to 6 inches of mud accumulation that caused at least one vehicle to get stuck.

A second storm system that includes high winds and between 2 inches and 8 inches of rainfall is expected to impact the area through Saturday as the storms intensify.

Ventura County officials issued an evacuation warning for Thursday to Sunday in the area affected by the Mountain Fire in January.

Also under evacuation warnings are those in Camino Cielo, Matilija Canyon and North Fork.

The heaviest rainfall is expected late Friday night and into Saturday, which has triggered a flood watch from 4 a.m. PST to 10 p.m. on Saturday, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Mud flows and debris fields could impact burn areas from January’s wildfires in and near Eaton, Hurst, Kenneth, Palisades and Sunset.

The rainfall could cause extensive damage and possibly become life-threatening, but it also is expected to end Southern California’s annual fire season.

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court may reveal Thursday whether it intends to uphold Proposition 8, and if so, whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain valid, during a high-stakes televised session that has sparked plans for demonstrations throughout the state.

By now, the court already has drafted a decision on the case, with an author and at least three other justices willing to sign it. Oral arguments sometimes result in changes to the draft, but rarely do they change the majority position. The ruling is due in 90 days.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who wrote the historic May 15, 2008, decision that gave same-sex couples the right to marry, will be the one to watch during the hearing because he is often in the majority and usually writes the rulings in the most controversial cases.

Most legal analysts expect that the court will garner enough votes to uphold existing marriages but not enough to overturn Proposition 8. The dissenters in May’s 4-3 marriage ruling said the decision should be left to the voters.

One conservative constitutional scholar has said that the court could both affirm its historic May 15 ruling giving gays equality and uphold Proposition 8 by requiring the state to use a term other than “marriage” and apply it to all couples, gay and straight.

“The alternatives are for the court to accept Proposition 8 and authorize the people to rewrite the Constitution in a way that undermines a basic principle of equality,” said Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec. If the court overturns Proposition 8, “that is the short course toward impeachment.”

The court is under intense pressure. Opponents of gay marriage have threatened to mount a campaign to boot justices who vote to overturn the initiative. The last time voters ousted state high court justices was in 1986, when then-Chief Justice Rose Bird and two colleagues lost a retention election.

On the other side, the Legislature has passed two resolutions opposing Proposition 8, and protests are being planned statewide to urge the court to throw out the measure.

Thousands are expected to descend Thursday on the San Francisco Civic Center to watch the hearing live on a giant outdoor screen, just steps from the courtroom where the justices will be prodding lawyers in a jammed courtroom.

“It is one of the most important cases in the history of the California Supreme Court,” said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. “The core tenet of our constitutional democracy is that fundamental rights of historically disadvantaged minorities are not dependent on the whim of the majority.”

The challenges to the initiative are based on novel legal theories. Gay rights lawyers argue that the measure was an illegal constitutional revision, rather than a more limited amendment. The court has struck down constitutional amendments passed by voters as impermissible revisions only twice in its history, and there are relatively few precedents on the subject.

“While no case forecloses the revision argument, there is no case that really supports it, and most of the cases mildly cut against it,” said UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar.

Upholding existing same-sex marriages would be a lower hurdle for the court, Amar and other scholars said.

“There is enough ambiguity in Prop. 8 that the court could easily interpret the measure as not applying to existing marriages,” Amar said. “That is a legally plausible interpretation, and it is so clearly the just interpretation that I think getting four votes for that seems easier.”

State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s office will ask the court to uphold the marriages and strike down the initiative as an illegal repeal of an inalienable right without compelling justification. Brown’s argument is even more novel than the revision challenge, which his office said had no merit.

The Proposition 8 case has attracted more friend-of-the-court briefs than the marriage dispute that led to last year’s historic ruling — the previous record-holder. Most of the outside groups that have weighed in have asked the court to overturn the initiative.

Pepperdine’s Kmiec said replacing the word “marriage” with another term would both leave intact the court’s May 15 ruling and deter a recall campaign that could damage the court as an institution. He said couples could still marry in their religious communities.

That would “restore a religious meaning to a word that is a religious word,” he said. Kmiec, a Catholic, said he reluctantly voted for Proposition 8 “because of the instructions of my faith community” but felt “entirely unsatisfied” with the outcome.

“I am not sure Ron George wants to be remembered as the chief justice who denied the principle of fundamental equality,” the law professor said. “It is not a legacy we should ask anyone to live with, and it is wholly unnecessary.”

George, a moderate Republican, is considered a swing vote on the court and, until the marriage decision, was widely regarded as cautious. Scholars have said the marriage ruling would be pivotal to his legacy on the court.

“It is difficult to imagine, although obviously plausible, that the majority of justices who ruled in the marriage cases would so quickly endorse an undermining of at least a significant portion of their ruling,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Pepperdine law school Dean Kenneth Starr, hired by the Proposition 8 campaign, will urge the court to uphold the measure and declare that existing same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Benefits, such as inheritance, acquired by couples during their marriages would not be taken away, but couples would have to register as domestic partners to protect their future rights.

“The people ultimately decided,” Starr wrote in his final brief in the case. “Under our system of constitutional government, that is the end of the matter.”

—

[email protected]

Times staff writer Jessica Garrison also contributed to this report.

The hearing is scheduled to be shown live from 9 a.m. to noon Thursday on the California Channel, available to cable customers. (A list of local channel numbers for this service is available at www.calchannel.com/channel “> www.calchannel.com/channel /carriage/ .) The hearing also will be streamed live on www.calchannel.com .

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that will require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and their impacts on climate change.

One of the laws is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and the emergency appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.

Their lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the state would be forcing companies to speak on its preferred topic.

“In less than eight weeks, California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change,” they said in an appeal that also spoke for the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

They say the two new laws would require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.

“Both laws are part of California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior,” they said. Their aim, according to their sponsors, is to “make sure that the public actually knows who’s green and who isn’t.”

One law, SB 261, will require several thousand companies that do business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they may reduce that risk. A second measure, Senate Bill 253, which applies to larger companies, requires them to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations could impact the climate.

The appeal argues these laws amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

“No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change,” they argue.

The emergency appeal was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The companies have tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a suit in Sacramento, while the Chamber of Commerce sued in Los Angeles.

In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to block the laws on the grounds they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses are routinely required to disclose financial data and factual information on their operations.

The business lawyers said they had appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for an injunction, but no action has been taken.

Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.”

The justices are likely to ask for a response next week from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal.

She’s a little bit country; he’s a little bit rock ‘n’ roll.

And me? I’m a little bit stunned. Two politicians have emerged, against all odds, to surprise and impress us this year: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

You’d be hard-pressed to find two Americans less similar — politically, culturally, geographically, maybe even molecularly. These two occupy opposite poles. She’s NASCAR and CrossFit. He’s electric vehicles and Pinot Noir. They shouldn’t have much in common, but lately, both have done the unthinkable: They’ve taken on President Trump and lived (politically) to tell about it.

Let’s start with Greene because, honestly, she’s more fun.

For years, MTG was seen as an embarrassment. The QAnon congresswoman. The “Jewish space laser” lady. The lawmaker who, just two years prior to winning her House seat, questioned whether a plane really hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

She harassed a then-teenage Parkland survivor and coined the immortal phrase “gazpacho police,” apparently confusing the soup with Nazi secret police.

But then, something strange happened: Greene started making sense. Not “agree with her at dinner” sense, but the “wait, that’s not totally insane” kind.

She blasted Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, which — if you take the “America First” philosophy literally and not just as performance art — is consistent with her beliefs. And in a time when selling out is perceived as being shrewder than standing for something, the mere act of holding a consistent position is a virtue.

MTG also called out her own party for blocking the Epstein files, and volunteered to walk “on the House floor and say every damn name that abused these women.”

And in an act of shocking populist coherence, she ripped into Republicans for letting Obamacare subsidies expire: “Health insurance premiums will DOUBLE,” she thundered on X, adding: “Not a single Republican in leadership talked to us about this or has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!”

Trump, naturally, took all this personally. “I don’t know what happened to Marjorie,” he said, recently. “Nice woman, but she’s lost her way.” To which Greene, never one to back down, fired back: “I haven’t lost my way. I’m 100% America First and only!”

The thing I’m liking about Greene isn’t just that she’s standing up to Trump — although, I admit, it’s fun to watch. But what’s really refreshing is that she’s a true believer who got elected, got famous and yet continues to believe.

Which brings us to Gavin Newsom.

Newsom has always been the poster boy for everything people hate about California — a man who looks like he was genetically engineered by a Napa Valley venture capitalist to play a slick politician.

The “important” coiffed hair. The smug grin. The French Laundry dinner during COVID-19, while the rest of us were holed up in our houses microwaving Lean Cuisines.

Once upon a time, he and his then-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, posed on a rug for a Harper’s Bazaar spread where they were dubbed “The New Kennedys.”

Enough said.

If Greene is the quintessential MAGA mama, Newsom is the slick bro you want to throat punch. But somehow he has had a banner year.

Newsom stood firm against ICE raids and troop deployments in Los Angeles. Then, he trolled Trump with online memes that actually landed.

After Texas Republicans tried to grab five congressional seats for the GOP, Newsom shepherded Prop. 50 through California — an amendment to the state constitution aimed at mitigating Texas’ gerrymandering by redrawing maps to help Democrats even the score.

Then, he waltzed into Houston for a celebratory rally — some political end zone dancing on the opponents’ home turf, just to twist the knife.

Like Greene, the guy has moxie.

And here’s the thing I’m learning from the Trump era: Guts come from the most unlikely places, and looks can be deceiving.

You never know when some heroic-looking leader will fold like a cheap suit, just like you never know when some “heel” out of central casting for villains will turn “face” and rise to the occasion.

I don’t mean to sound naive. I’m not proposing a Newsom-Greene 2028 unity ticket. (Although … tell me you wouldn’t watch that convention.)

The odds are, both of these figures will disappoint me again, probably by next Thursday. Life is complicated, and it’s sometimes hard to disentangle heroism from opportunism.

Indeed, some have speculated that MTG’s sudden streak of independence is the result of Trump putting the kibosh on a “Greene for U.S. Senate” bid in Georgia. And as for Newsom — is his show of toughness an act of patriotism, or a prelude to his own presidential campaign?

Frankly, that’s a difference without a distinction.

For now, here’s what is clear: These two political figures have shown a flash — a glimmer — of something like backbone.

And in the year of our Lord 2025, that’s rarer, and more valuable, than almost any commodity in politics.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Nov. 14 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing California over its recently voter-approved congressional maps, alleging they are an unconstitutional “power grab.”

Earlier this month, Californians approved Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s redistricting initiative, introduced in direct response to Texas’ effort to create new congressional maps that favor Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

While Texas Republican lawmakers pursued an unprecedented mid-cycle redraw without voter approval, President Donald Trump and his allies have been critical of the California move. Democrats counter that they are trying to protect the state’s representation in Congress, accusing Trump — who pressured Texas to pursue the new maps — of undermining democratic norms.

Federal prosecutors on Thursday filed the lawsuit against Newsom over California’s redistricting plan, alleging that it racially gerrymandered congressional districts in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Gov. Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

According to the lawsuit, federal prosecutors accuse California’s Democratic leaders of manipulating congressional maps to bolster “the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

“Our Constitution does not tolerate this racial gerrymander,” the 17-page court document states.

“No one, let alone California, contends that its pre-existing map unlawfully discriminated on the basis of Race. Because the Proposition 50 map does, the United States respectfully requests this court enjoin defendants from using it in the 2026 election and future elections.”

Texas’ GOP-controlled legislature in August passed its new maps that are projected to give Republicans as many as five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

Democrats have criticized this move as Trump trying to create more red seats to keep control of the House, which the GOP now narrowly holds.

Texas has 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 25 of which are filled by Republicans.

California, which has 52 House districts — 43 of them held by Democrats — responded with Proposition 50.

Republicans hold a 219-214 majority of the U.S. House of Representatives, with two seats vacant.

Several states — led by both Republicans and Democrats — have since announced efforts to redraw their maps, setting off a gerrymandering arms race ahead of 2026.

“These losers lost at the ballot box, and soon they will also lose in court,” Newsom’s office said in a statement in response to the Trump administration lawsuit.

THURSDAY’S RESULTS

Quarterfinals

DIVISION I

#1 Harvard-Westlake d. #9 Long Beach Poly, 25-13, 21-25, 22-25, 25-11, 15-11

#12 Bishop Montgomery d. #4 West Ranch, 23-25, 23-25, 25-19, 25-18, 15-9

#3 Santa Margarita d. #6 Coronado, 25-21, 25-20, 25-17

#2 Temecula Valley d. #10 Bakersfield Centennial, 25-17, 22-25, 25-19, 25-23

DIVISION II

#1 Liberty d. #9 Arroyo Valley, 25-20, 25-19, 25-20

#12 La Canada d. #13 Ventura, 17-25, 25-15, 25-21, 23-25, 15-10

#3 Cypress d. #6 Scripps Ranch, 20-25, 21-25, 25-15, 26-24, 15-13

#7 Carlsbad d. #15 Dana Hills, 25-14, 25-17, 22-25, 18-25, 15-13

DIVISION III

#1 Academy of Our Lady of Peace d. #8 Royal, 25-21, 25-11, 25-22

#4 Santa Fe Christian d. #5 Patrick Henry, 25-13, 25-7, 25-16

#3 Mission Vista d. #6 Ontario Christian, 25-19, 19-25, 25-13, 21-25, 15-7

#2 Frontier d. #7 Chadwick, 25-20, 25-18, 35-23

DIVISION IV

#1 Nipomo d. #8 Grant, 24-26, 25-22, 27-25, 25-21

#12 Capistrano Valley Christian d. #13 West Valley, 25-13, 25-12, 25-22

#3 Granada Hills d. #5 LA University, 25-23, 25-17, 25-22

#2 Mammoth d. #10 Rock Academy, 25-20, 25-12, 25-21

DIVISION V

#8 Panorama d. #1 East Valley, 25-23, 20-25, 21-25, 25-21, 15-12

#4 Elsinore d. #5 Artesia, 21-25, 26-24, 25-17, 25-19

#11 Nogales d. #3 O’Farrell Charter, 3-2

#2 Morro Bay d. #10 South El Monte, 25-10, 25-21, 25-18

SATURDAY’S SCHEDULE

SEMIFINALS

(Matches at 6 p.m. unless noted)

OPEN DIVISION

#5 Marymount at #1 Sierra Canyon

#3 Torrey Pines at #2 Mater Dei

DIVISION I

#12 Bishop Montgomery at #1 Harvard-Westlake

#3 Santa Margarita at #2 Temecula Valley

DIVISION II

#12 La Canada at #1 Bakersfield Liberty

#7 Carlsbad at #3 Cypress

DIVISION III

#4 Santa Fe Christian at #1 Academy of Our Lady of Peace

#3 Mission Vista at #2 Bakersfield Frontier

DIVISION IV

#12 Capistrano Valley Christian at #1 Nipomo

#3 Granada Hills at #2 Mammoth

DIVISION V

#8 Panorama at #4 Elsinore

#11 Nogales at #2 Morro Bay

Note: Finals (all divisions) Nov. 18 at higher seeds.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom flew around the country last year campaigning for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, his chief of staff Dana Williamson — known as one of California’s toughest political insiders — was not only helping to helm the ship in Sacramento, but under criminal investigation by federal law enforcement.

The resulting criminal case, which splashed into public view with Williamson’s arrest Wednesday, does not implicate Newsom in any wrongdoing. Williamson’s alleged misdeeds occurred in private work prior to her joining his staff, and his office said it placed her on leave in November 2024 after she informed him she was under investigation.

Nonetheless, the bombshell allegations struck at the center of the political power circle surrounding Newsom, rattling one of the nation’s most prominent and important hubs of Democratic state power at a time when President Trump and his Republican administration wield power in Washington.

Williamson was charged with bank and tax fraud for allegedly siphoning campaign and COVID-19 recovery funds into her and an associate’s pockets and claiming personal luxuries as business expenses on tax forms. According to the indictment, the campaign funds were drawn from a dormant state account of another top California Democrat: gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra.

Two other well-connected aides in state politics were also charged — and struck plea deals confirming the scheme — while a third, with deep ties to one of the most well-connected circles of political and business consultants in the country, appeared in charging documents as an uncharged co-conspirator.

Williamson’s attorney McGregor Scott, a former U.S. attorney in Sacramento, told The Times on Wednesday that federal authorities had approached Williamson more than a year ago, seeking help with some kind of probe of the governor himself.

“She told them she had no information to provide them, and then we wind up today with these charges,” Scott said. The nature of that alleged probe is unclear.

Newsom’s office on Thursday said it was “not aware of any federal investigation involving the governor.”

Lauren Horwood, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento, said she could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation involving Newsom, in accordance with Justice Department policy. None of the charging documents released in the cases against the three aides mention Newsom.

A loquacious liberal foil to Trump and likely 2028 presidential contender, Newsom has been in Brazil since Sunday and on Wednesday left for a planned trip into the Amazon with a small delegation after attending the United Nations climate summit known as COP30. He left the conference before news of Williamson’s arrest, and could not be reached directly by The Times for comment.

In his absence, Newsom’s representatives have tried to draw a connection between the federal case and the contentious relationship between California and the Trump administration, though offered no evidence that the investigation was influenced by the White House.

“At a time when the president is openly calling for his attorney general to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one’s peers,” a Newsom spokesperson said Wednesday.

“Under the Trump administration, the DOJ routinely targets the state, which has resulted in us suing the federal administration 46 times,” a Newsom spokesperson said Thursday.

Trump and his administration have been accused of using their power — and control over the Justice Department — to go after his political enemies. Charges reportedly deemed weak and unfounded by career prosecutors have been brought forward anyway against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, while Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is being investigated for years-old occupancy claims in mortgage documents. All have denied wrongdoing.

The case against Williamson and the other California aides, however, is something different — originating years ago under the Biden administration.

“Today’s charges are the result of three years of relentless investigative work, in partnership with IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel said Wednesday.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, rejected the notion that the case was in any way driven by the Trump administration or politically motivated.

“What an absurd claim to make when public reporting has already noted that this investigation began under the Biden DOJ,” Jackson said. “The Trump administration is restoring integrity and accountability to the Justice Department.”

Prosecutors also have plea deals with two of the primary suspects in the case, in which they corroborate some of the allegations.

According to the 23-count indictment, unsealed Wednesday morning, Williamson conspired with Sean McCluskie — a former top aid to Becerra — and lobbyist Greg Campbell to bill Becerra’s dormant state campaign account for bogus consulting services. The three allegedly used shell companies to funnel money out of the campaign fund starting in 2022.

Federal authorities alleged the bulk of the payments were made to McCluskie’s wife, who did not actually provide consulting services, and deposited into an account accessed by McCluskie. Becerra, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, said Wednesday’s charges alleging “impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch,” and that he was cooperating with authorities.

In addition, Williamson was charged with falsifying documents for a COVID-era small business loan, and with claiming luxury goods and services — including a $15,353 Chanel purse, $21,000 in private jet travel and a $150,000 birthday trip to Mexico, complete with an $11,000 yacht trip — as business expenses on her tax returns, federal prosecutors said.

Williamson appeared in federal court in Sacramento on Wednesday afternoon, and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Williamson’s attorney said he has been in “regular communication” with federal prosecutors about the case for some time, and had asked to meet with prosecutors to “present our side” before any charges were brought, but that request “was not honored.”

Instead, officials “chose grandstanding instead of the normal process” and arrested Williamson at home Wednesday, despite her being seriously ill and in need of a liver transplant, Scott said. Williamson could not be reached for comment directly.

Williamson previously worked as a Cabinet secretary to former Gov. Jerry Brown, who also could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The case against Williamson is bolstered by acknowledgments of guilt from at least two others.

McCluskie — a former chief deputy attorney general of California when Becerra was attorney general — pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and is cooperating with authorities, court filings show. He could not be reached for comment.

Campbell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to defraud and commit offenses against the U.S. government. Campbell’s attorney Todd Pickles said his client “takes full accountability for his actions and is cooperating fully with the legal process.”

The case also involves another longtime California political insider: Alexis Podesta, a former secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency who Newsom appointed to the State Compensation Insurance Fund board of directors in January 2020. A spokesperson for the board confirmed Podesta remained a member as of Thursday morning.

Bill Portanova, Podesta’s attorney, confirmed to The Times that Podesta is the person identified as “Co-Conspirator 2” in charging documents — including McCluskie’s plea agreement, which alleges she funneled the campaign funds to him.

Portanova said Podesta inherited responsibilities for handling the Becerra account from Williamson when Williamson left to become Newsom’s chief of staff. Podesta did not perceive anything “unusual about the accounts, how they were set up or who had set them up,” so continued making payments as previously arranged, Portanova said.

However, “when confronted with the information that it was improper payments,” Portanova said, she immediately stopped the payments, and “has been fully cooperative with the federal authorities at every stage of these proceedings.”

He said she is not charged, and “should not be charged” moving forward. He otherwise declined to comment, as “investigations are ongoing.”

Podesta had close ties to some of the most influential Democratic political consultants in California, adding to the intrigue surrounding the case.

In September 2020 — about eight months after Newsom had appointed Podesta to the insurance board for workers’ compensation — Politico reported on a new “influence superteam” of Democratic political consultants forming in California.

The project, it said, would be called the Collaborative. Among its “architects” were Williamson and Campbell, as well as Jim DeBoo, another former Newsom chief of staff. Its managing director, the outlet reported, would be Podesta.

Among its enlisted consultants, it said, would be Sean Clegg of Bearstar Strategies, another senior advisor to Newsom, and Shannon Murphy, of M Strategic Communications, who has ties to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

DeBoo, Clegg and Murphy have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

“Bearstar participated in a joint marketing press release with the Collaborative and worked on one campaign with the Collaborative’s members in 2022. Bearstar and its partners had no interest, stake or other involvement with this entity,” David Beltran, a representative of Bearstar, said in a statement Thursday.

Murphy also released a statement about the enterprise: “Five years ago, our firm participated in a joint-marketing effort. We had zero ownership or role in the business entity that was created and had no knowledge of its finances or operations until yesterday’s news stories.”

DeBoo did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Members of the Collaborative advise some of the largest companies in not just the country, but the world.

The Collaborative’s website was recently scaled down to a simple landing page, but it previously touted itself there as “the hub for the most talented public affairs, campaign, crisis management, communications and lobbying firms in California,” providing clients “the ability to choose one or several firms that work together — rather than compete — to provide their clients with the best possible outcomes.”

The website led with what it called a proverb: “If you call one wolf, you invite the pack.”

The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.

The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that changes the state’s congressional boundaries to give Democrats a shot at winning five seats currentlyheld by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Latino voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.

Proposition 50 was Newsom’s response to Trump’s maneuvers in Texas, where Republicans rejiggered districts in hopes of picking up five seats of their own ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when House control will be on the line.

Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, a win that would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans currently hold 219 seats, to Democrats’ 214.

The showdown between the nation’s two most populous states has spread nationally, with Missouri, Ohio and a spray of other states either adopting new district lines to gain partisan advantage or considering doing so.

The national implications of California’s ballot measure were clear in both the money it attracted and the high-profile figures who became involved. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into the race, including a $5-million donation to opponents from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super political action committee tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Former action movie star and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the measure, while former President Obama, a Democrat, appeared in ads supporting it, calling it a “smart” approach to counter Republican moves aimed at safeguarding House control.

The contest provided Newsom with a national platform when he has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028.

Richer and Blood write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Chicago.

I stood atop a lookout point in the heart of Los Angeles County watching the sunset paint downtown L.A. a deep orange.

I was amazed to be alone in the outdoors just before 5 p.m. in America’s second-largest city. I took in more of the panoramic view before me. I could see Mt. Baldy turning a hazy pink as the sun coated the rest of the San Gabriel Mountains in a scarlet hue. I spotted thick clouds moving in over the South Bay. It’d be foggy later.

I’d usually need to travel to Griffith Park or Debs Park for similar views, but that evening’s location was the lesser-known Elephant Hill Open Space, a rolling landscape in El Sereno that local activists hope becomes L.A.’s next great park. But that’s only if they can save it in time.

Mt. Baldy is visible in the distance from a hiking trail in Elephant Hill Open Space in El Sereno.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Elephant Hill Open Space is a 110-acre plot of undeveloped land in El Sereno that residents have advocated, for more than 20 years, to be developed into a public park like nearby Debs Park or Ascot Hills with hiking trails, benches and overlook points.

For years, local activists have beat back developers who wanted to build luxury homes, tried to curb illegal dumping and attempted to persuade off-road enthusiasts who have (illegally) carved deep scars into the hillsides to recreate elsewhere.

Their final challenge, though, if the entire 110 acres is to be saved from development, is persuading about 200 different land owners to sell their parcels of Elephant Hill to a public agency — and at fair market rate.

Newly installed steps near the Elephant Hill test plot lead hikers toward panoramic views of L.A. County.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

About 25 acres are owned by government agencies. Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority, a local government agency focused on protecting open spaces, manages 8.37 acres at Elephant Hill and is in the process of buying another 2.4 acres. The city of L.A. owns about 15 acres after buying around 20 acres in a 2009 settlement with a developer who wanted to build luxury homes on the hillsides. (The city later sold five acres to MRCA.)

In recent years, MRCA has received about $4.2 million, including $2 million last month from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, to research and buy more land, build a 0.75-mile trail to bring in more hikers, and install gates and boulders to prevent illegal off-roading.

Sarah Kevorkian, deputy chief of wildfire resilience at MRCA, said her agency is required by law to buy land at fair market rate, making it hard to compete in a “cutthroat” market with private developers who can offer landowners more money.

“The number of individual landowners is an added layer of complexity, and I don’t think that exists in other places, not like this,” Kevorkian said.

A view looking east from Elephant Hill’s new hiking trail.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Still, she remains optimistic, regularly checking land sales websites to see whether any Elephant Hill owners have posted their properties. Community members are quick to call her if they see a “for sale” sign go up.

“I immediately will call,” Kevorkian said. “I called this one person, and they said, ‘Yeah, we have an offer, we’re going with it.’ … I said, ‘If anything changes, call me back.’ They didn’t, but I just had a feeling.”

The land was next to the hiking trail that MRCA was installing. It’d be such a perfect parcel to snag.

Kevorkian called the property owner back a few weeks later, and they told her the deal had fallen through. “It was such an awesome win,” she said.

Mt. Wilson is visible from the Elephant Hill Open Space in El Sereno.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

And anyone who visits can easily see why.

I first visited Elephant Hill a few weeks ago with Elva Yañez and Hugo Garcia, co-founders of Save Elephant Hill. They started their efforts in late 2003 to try to fight off private developers. Both live within walking distance of the open space.

We started our hike on the western side of Elephant Hill, with an aim of seeing the beginnings of Elephant Hill’s first official hiking trail, which MRCA expects to complete next year with way-finding signage, boulders and more.

We headed up the steep terrain, quickly passing the latest disputed development — a truck garden that’s drawn the ire of Save Elephant Hill and other conservation groups for its owner’s choice to chop down protected native trees, as reported by L.A. Taco.

A tree canopy provides shade over the hiking trail in Elephant Hill Open Space in El Sereno.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

We took the trail’s switchbacks and then paused to catch our breaths in the shade of hollyleaf cherry, black walnuts and other trees creating a dense canopy. There, the hills blocked the noise from the roads and city. It’d be the perfect place for a picnic table, bench or both.

Next, we walked down newly installed steps to reach the Elephant Hill test plot, a lush experimental restoration garden where volunteers have planted hundreds of native flowers and shrubs and close to 100 trees. The land looks grateful.

Bees buzzed around the sugar bush and coyote brush. Unlike other parts of the park that remain overwhelmed with invasive mustard, trees of heaven and castor bean, this area is thriving with drought-tolerant and, in some cases, fire-resistant native plants.

A native sunflower in the test plot garden, from left, a shaded path in Elephant Hill, and a white-crowned sparrow perched in the test plot garden.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Yañez said during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, she and Garcia realized they needed to expand their list of allies for Elephant Hill. “We’re not naturalists. We’re not traditional environmentalists. We’re not native plant people,” she said. “We realized at a certain point that we have to activate this space. We have to get people on it to start building that support.”

Joey Farewell, an estate planner who lives nearby and manages the test plot, said, with Yañez and MRCA’s blessing, the test plot volunteers installed the garden in fall 2022 and have seen it thrive, largely without watering outside of what’s needed to first establish new growth.

The test plot started as 3,000 square feet and has expanded to 10,000 square feet of native plant, said Jennifer Toy, director of nonprofit Test Plot, which has 16 experimental gardens around L.A. At Elephant Hill, volunteers have cleared about 20,000 square feet of invasive species, she said.

“It’s not a huge area, but each year we think about” what they can do next, Toy said. “It’s a work in progress.”

And it’s a powerful proof of concept of what Elephant Hill could look like with investment.

Farewell, who is the conservation co-chair of the L.A. and Santa Monica Mountains chapter of the California Native Plants Society, said most people don’t realize what a dynamic landscape Elephant Hill is, including its water features.

“My kids would play by the brook” after heavy rains, Farewell said. “You could reach your hand into one of the springs that fed the stream and feel the water bubbling out of the ground.”

The view of downtown L.A. from a high point at the Elephant Hill Open Space in El Sereno.

(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)

Yañez wants more local children to have similar experiences. Elephant Hill sits among a neighborhood plagued by environmental racism, she said. Green space isn’t readily available, but with the development of Elephant Hill into a park, it could be.

Yañez said she understands the need for more housing in L.A., but Elephant Hill has repeatedly proven an unsafe option. In the late 1980s, townhouses in a nearby development started falling into the ground, causing major structural damage. Around 2006, a developer was using a backhoe to build a fence around his property when the heavy machinery fell deep into a spring. Neighbors referred to it as a “sinkhole.”

“When you look at the big picture of climate change and lack of access to park space in communities like El Sereno, it’s kind of a no-brainer — and it’s very difficult to build here. In fact, it’s not safe,” Yañez said. “All the factors come together and make a pretty strong case on their own for conservation. Plus, I think the community deserves access to open space on these hillsides.”

3 things to do

Volunteers repair habitat in the Bolsa Chica Conservancy in Huntington Beach.

(Erika Moe / Amigos de Bolsa Chica)

1. Address messy nests in Huntington Beach
Amigos de Bolsa Chica needs volunteers from 8:15 to 11:30 a.m. Saturday to restore nest habitat for the threatened western snowy plover and endangered California least tern. Participants will remove invasive and overgrown plants in an area of the reserve off-limits to the public. Register at amigosdebolsachica.org.

2. Craft s’mores ’round the campfire in Culver City
The Nature Nexus Institute will host a fall harvest event from 1 to 3 p.m. Saturday at the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook featuring a campfire and drum circle. Guests can also take guided nature strolls, listen to storytelling and make s’mores around a campfire. Register at docs.google.com.

3. Nurture native plants in the Hollywood Hills
The Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife needs volunteers from 9 to 11 a.m. Saturday for a habitat restoration project in the Hollywood Hills. Participants will weed and water young native wildflowers, trees and shrubs, and install humane protection from deer and gophers. Register at clawonline.org.

The must-read

A sign stands in the middle of the fire-ravaged remains of the ranch house at Will Rogers State Historic Park in Pacific Palisades. The park reopened Saturday.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Hikers rejoice! Will Rogers State Historic Park reopened Saturday after being closed for 10 months following the devastating Palisades fire in January. Times staff writer Hailey Branson-Potts reported that 4.2 miles of the park’s trails are now open while 4.8 miles remain closed. Unfortunately, the segment of the Backbone Trail — a 67-mile trek from Point Mugu State Park to Will Rogers — that runs through the park will remain closed because the fire destroyed the Chicken Ridge Bridge. The Rivas Canyon Trail and Rustic Canyon Trail will also remain closed. The looping trail to Inspiration Point will be partially open, although parks officials might sometimes close it for trail work.

I am glad, slowly but surely, we’re getting to return to some of our favorite places closed by fire.

Happy adventuring,

P.S.

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s — no, it’s a bird! It appears that a bald eagle was spotted flying over the Audubon Center at Debs Park last Thursday. “Could it be?!” the Audobon Center posted on Instagram. The answer is yes, it really could have been! On the citizen science app iNaturalist, users have reported almost 1,000 bald eagle observations in L.A. County, including one over Debs Park in 2017 and others in nearby Glassell Park and Pasadena. Perhaps the Steve Miller Band was correct about our national bird’s flight pattern: “I want to fly like an eagle / To the sea.” May your spirit carry you through this week, friends!

For more insider tips on Southern California’s beaches, trails and parks, check out past editions of The Wild. And to view this newsletter in your browser, click here.

Next time you’re driving the Grapevine and nearing the forest of oil rigs on the outskirts of Bakersfield, look for a six-story guitar.

That would be the Hard Rock Casino Tejon, whose opening on Thursday brings industrial-strength Indian gaming — and some Hollywood pizzazz — to a territory better known for cowboy hats, farmland and petroleum extraction.

The Tejon casino stands in the rural community of Mettler, near the convergence of Interstate 5 and State Route 99 — “a stone’s throw away” from Los Angeles, suggested Hard Rock Casino Tejon President Chris Kelley.

In effect, the casino is a $600-million bet by leaders of Hard Rock International and the Tejon Indian Tribe that they can grab a central role among the many Indian casinos in Southern California.

The property is the first full-scale gaming and entertainment destination in Kern County.

(Makenzie Beeney Photography for Hard Rock International)

A wind sculpture at the entrance of the casino.

(Cristian Costea for Hard Rock International)

The draw? Most notably, 150,000 square feet of gaming space — including 58 table games and more than 2,000 slot machines — putting it among the largest casinos in Southern California, on par with many along the Strip in Las Vegas.

And, of course, because this is a Hard Rock venture, there are pop music artifacts on display. Among them: the blue hooded velvet mini dress Sabrina Carpenter wore in her “Please Please Please” music video, signed guitars from Sheryl Crow and Bonnie Raitt, Beck’s tambourine and Natalie Cole’s orange high heels.

The casino also includes four restaurants serving Asian street food, tacos, pizza and American comfort food (especially Nashville hot chicken) — and a bonus feature. At select hours, Kelley said, staff will put up a divider to create Deep Cut, a fancier “speakeasy restaurant” that will emphasize steak and seafood.

“This is something no other Hard Rock Cafe has … a restaurant within a restaurant,” said Kelley, leading a tour in the days before opening.

Live-action table games include blackjack, craps, roulette and baccarat.

(Makenzie Beeney Photography for Hard Rock International)

Plans for the second phase of the project will include a 400-room hotel and spa on-site, along with a 2,800-seat Hard Rock Live venue designed to host concerts, sporting events and ultimately make Kern County a premier destination for travelers and fans. Officials declined to share a timeline for this next installment.

Though its global empire began with a London cafe in 1971, Hard Rock International has been owned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida since 2007. The company’s native ownership was “a major influence” on the Tejon tribe’s decision to team up, said Tejon Tribal Chairman Octavio Escobedo III. Hard Rock Casino Tejon is owned by the Tejon Indian Tribe and is managed by Hard Rock International.

For the Tejon tribe and its 1,523 enrolled members, the casino amounts to a new chapter in a saga full of challenges. In the 1850s, the Tejon were included in the creation of California’s first Indian reservation — which was then closed by federal officials in the 1860s. More than a century later, in 1979, the tribe was omitted from a U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs list of formally recognized tribes — an apparent mistake that took decades to correct.

When the Tejon did win federal recognition in late 2011, gaming plans materialized quickly. By late 2016, the tribe had set in motion the acquisition of the casino site.

The restaurant Deep Cut is billed as an “elevated steakhouse experience.”

(Makenzie Beeney Photography for Hard Rock International)

For the tribe, Escobedo said, the long-term picture likely includes developing a residential community — which the Tejon haven’t had for more than a century — as the tribe aims for “financial sovereignty.” Though he declined to specify the amount of money that would require, he did say “it’s going to take a tremendous amount of financial discipline to achieve that.”

So far, things feel promising. Escobedo said 52 tribal members have signed on to work at casino jobs and “I’d love to see that number double over the next year or so.”

Long before the Seminoles bought control of Hard Rock International, the tribe pioneered Indian gaming in the U.S., beginning with a bingo hall in Hollywood, Fla., in 1979. Through further investment and legal victories rooted in tribal sovereignty, tribes in 29 states across the U.S. have built hundreds of gaming operations, which together gross more than $40 billion yearly.

Beyond its possibilities for the Tejon tribe, the arrival of the casino means about 1,100 new jobs for greater Bakersfield, which lost a beloved entertainment venue in August when Buck Owens’ Crystal Palace closed after 29 years.

Owens, who died in 2006, was a longtime resident of Bakersfield and proponent of the gritty “Bakersfield sound” in country music. Besides artifacts from pop music, rock ’n’ roll and Tejon cultural history, Kelley said, “We are going to have some Buck Owens memorabilia. It just wouldn’t be right not to.”

During the last government shutdown six years ago, the main narrative when it came to public lands was the damage caused by unsupervised visitors. Trash cans and toilets overflowed with waste. Tourists reportedly mowed down Joshua trees to off-road in sensitive areas of Joshua Tree National Park.

This time around, national parks were directed to retain the staff needed to provide basic sanitation services, as I reported in a recent article with my colleague Lila Seidman. But meanwhile, something bigger and more coordinated was unfolding behind the scenes, said Chance Wilcox, California Desert program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.

“We’re not seeing Joshua trees getting knocked down, things getting stolen, damage to parks by the American people, but we are seeing damage to parks by this presidential administration on an even larger scale,” Wilcox told me last week before lawmakers struck a deal to reopen the government.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Wilcox and other public lands advocates allege that President Trump’s administration used the shutdown to expedite an agenda that prioritizes extraction while slashing resources dedicated to conservation and education. What’s more, they fear the staffing priorities that came into sharp relief over the past 43 days offer a preview of how these lands will be managed going forward, especially in the aftermath of another potential mass layoff that could see the Interior Department cut 2,000 more jobs.

When I asked the Interior Department about its actions during the shutdown, a spokesperson responded via email that the administration “made deliberate, lawful decisions” to protect operations that sustain energy security and economic stability. “Activities that continued were those necessary to preserve critical infrastructure, safeguard natural resources, and prevent disruption to key supply chains that millions of Americans rely on,” the spokesperson wrote.

As a resident of the Mojave Desert on the outskirts of Joshua Tree National Park, I’ve taken particular interest in this topic. Out here, summer days can top 110 degrees, a trip to the grocery store is an hours-long excursion and there are rattlesnakes. Lots of rattlesnakes. But one huge bonus is the proximity to public lands: We’re surrounded by the park, the Mojave National Preserve and hundreds of miles of Bureau of Land Management wilderness.

These spaces not only provide endless entertainment for residents like my 3-year-old daughter, who would rather be turned loose in a boulder field than a jungle gym, but they play a key role in drawing visitors from around the world who support the stores, restaurants and other establishments that underpin our local economy.

Sentinel Rock in Hidden Valley, Joshua Tree National Park.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In short, the health of our community depends on the health of these landscapes. Now, their future seems increasingly uncertain.

During the shutdown, roughly 64% of National Park Service employees were furloughed, according to a Department of the Interior contingency plan. At Joshua Tree National Park, those sidelined included Superintendent Jane Rodgers, along with most of the staff responsible for scientific research, resource management and educational and interpretive programs, according to a source at the park who asked not to be named out of fear of retaliation.

Over at the BLM, roughly 26% of staffers were furloughed. Among those who were allowed to keep working: employees responsible for processing oil, gas and coal permits and leases, along with items related to other energy and mineral resources, according to the contingency plan, which cited the president’s declared national energy emergency as rationale. As a result, the federal government issued 693 new oil and gas drilling permits and 52 new oil and gas leases on federal lands during the shutdown, according to tracking by the Center for Western Priorities.

Also during the shutdown, the BLM continued to move ahead with plans to consider the expansion of the Castle Mountain Mine, which is surrounded by California’s Castle Mountains National Monument. Already, the Interior Department had approved a different nearby mine, the Colosseum, ending a years-long dispute in which the National Park Service had alleged the mine was operating without authorization.

In Alaska, the Trump administration moved to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing and approved a long-disputed push to build a 211-mile industrial road through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve to allow for mining in a remote corner of the Northwest. The U.S. also took an equity stake in a company focused on mining exploration in that area, part of a growing trend that some experts have described as unusual.

And in Utah, the BLM is now reconsidering an application, which has been rejected seven times, to build a four-lane highway through desert tortoise habitats in the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

There’s real fear among federal employees and advocates that this dynamic — an emphasis on developing public lands, as stewardship and research efforts languish — will become the new reality, said Jordan Marbury, communications manager for Friends of the Inyo. What’s more, he said, is that some worry the administration will point to the shutdown as proof that public lands never really needed all that staffing in the first place.

“It could get to the point where conservation is totally an afterthought,” he said.

More recent land news

Operators of the 1,000-acre Inglewood Oil Field must stop pumping by the end of the decade, if a state edict holds up in court. My L.A. Times colleague Doug Smith looks at what will become of one of the Los Angeles region’s last great pieces of undeveloped land, which offers a rare opportunity to address the pressing needs of open space and affordable housing in underserved neighborhoods.

Homes sit in the shadow of the Inglewood Oil Field.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Five California tribes have established an intertribal commission to co-manage Chuckwalla National Monument, marking a historic step toward tribal sovereignty over sacred desert lands. Times environment reporter Tyrone Beason examines how this will work — and why it’s a big deal.

President Trump has tapped former New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce to lead the BLM — which manages about 10% of land in the U.S. — after his first pick, oil and gas lobbyist Kathleen Sgamma, withdrew her name from consideration in the wake of reporting on comments she made criticizing Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Industry trade organizations are praising Pearce’s nomination, while environmental groups allege that the former Republican Party of New Mexico chair is a climate change denier with a record of supporting expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands and shrinking national monuments, the Santa Fe New Mexican reports.

Lawmakers have begun to use the Congressional Review Act, which enables Congress to overturn recent federal rules with a majority vote, in an unprecedented way: to revoke specific land management plans that limit mining and drilling in specific places, Inside Climate News reports. So far, lawmakers have rescinded BLM plans that ended new coal leasing in Montana’s Powder River Basin and that limited development in North Dakota and portions of Alaska. They are now seeking to do the same in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. That’s despite warnings from legal experts, environmental organizations and hunting and fishing groups that these precedents could paralyze the ability of agencies to manage public lands.

A few last things in climate news

Negotiators for seven Western states say they are making progress in ongoing talks over how to share the diminishing waters of the Colorado River, according to our water reporter Ian James. Still, a deadline set by the Trump administration came and went Tuesday without any regionwide agreement on water cutbacks, Ian reports.

The Trump administration plans to allow new oil and gas drilling off the California coast, but energy companies may not be interested in battling the state’s strict environmental rules to try and tap into limited petroleum reserves, our climate policy reporter Hayley Smith writes. Citing these obstacles, some experts told Hayley the move may be politically motivated: It’s likely to set up a fight with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has said that any such proposal will be dead on arrival.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters at the COP30 Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil, on Tuesday.

(Alessandro Falco)

Speaking of Newsom and Trump, the California governor is in Belém, Brazil, for the annual United Nations climate policy summit, which the Trump administration is sitting out. My colleague Melody Gutierrez, who’s also there, looks at how California hopes it can fill in the gap left by America’s absence as Newsom positions himself for a 2028 presidential run.

Meanwhile, diplomats have accused top U.S. officials of threatening and bullying leaders from poorer or small countries to defeat a historic deal to slash pollution from cargo ships that was slated by be approved by more than 100 nations, according to a bombshell New York Times report. Federal representatives denied that officials made threats but “acknowledged derailing the deal and repeated their opposition to international efforts to address climate change,” the paper reported.

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

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Nov. 13 (UPI) — California Republicans are challenging their state’s voter-approved redistricting plan, adding to the ongoing partisan court struggle over gerrymandering.

The lawsuit, filed a day after voters decisively approved Proposition 50 in a special election, claims the new congressional map was drawn in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments because race was unjustifiably a factor.

Proposition 50 amends the state constitution to allow state legislators to redraw California’s congressional map in an effort to counteract Texas’ new map. The map will remain until 2031 when the state’s Citizens Redistricting Commission draws a new congressional map.

The congressional map approved by Texas this year was drawn at the behest of President Donald Trump who called on state lawmakers to add five more likely-Republican congressional seats before the 2026 midterm election.

Richard Hasen, professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, told UPI voters historically are opposed to partisan redistricting, making this a novel development.

More than 5.6 million Californians voted in favor of Proposition 50 while about 3.2 million voted against it, according to the vote count by the California Secretary of State’s office.

“It is unusual to say the least for voters to approve a partisan gerrymander through a ballot measure,” Hasen said. “Instead we have typically seen voters approving measures that make redistricting less political. But this can be seen as the voters’ response to Donald Trump for pushing Texas to do a new Republican partisan gerrymander. It is a kind of tit-for-tat that may become the new normal in future redistricting wars.”

The California Republican Party is joined in the lawsuit by several residents, state lawmaker David Tangipa and former congressional candidate Eric Ching. Tangipa represents District 8 at the state assembly. Ching ran an unsuccessful campaign to represent District 38 in 2024.

The complaint by the California Republican Party and co-plaintiffs says the new congressional map was drawn to boost the voting power of Hispanic voters by creating two new districts to “empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice.”

“However, California’s Hispanic voters have successfully elected their preferred candidates to both state and federal office, without being thwarted by a racial majority voting as a bloc,” the lawsuit reads. “This is unsurprising because Latinos are the most numerous demographic in the state and California voters nearly always vote based on their party affiliation, not their race.”

State legislatures are not prohibited from considering race when drawing district lines, Justin Levitt, constitutional law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, told UPI.

The issue for the complainants is whether they can prove race was considered too much. If that can be proven to a court, they must also prove that there was no justification for considering race.

“The complaint seems to lower the standard or wants to wishcast a far lower standard where the simple act of drawing the district to be compliant with the Voting Rights Act is racial predominance,” Levitt said. “They want to skip past the racial predominance subordinating all others line and suggest that because some of the districts pay attention to race that means they’ve got to be super closely justified. But that is not where the line is currently.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Alexander vs. the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP raised the standard for proving racial gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that South Carolina lawmakers diluted the voting power of Black voters by drawing one majority-Black congressional district, violating the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision. Justice Samuel Alito, writing the opinion for the majority, said that state legislatures must be presumed to be working “in good faith” when submitting redistricting plans.

Alito added another requirement, ordering that plaintiffs must submit an alternative congressional map proving that districts could be drawn in a way to meet “greater racial balance.”

The questions at hand in the Proposition 50 complaint are at the heart of a case in the U.S. Supreme Court: Louisiana vs. Callais. The court heard rearguments over the case, which weighed whether the Voting Rights Act is in conflict with the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment, in October.

Levitt expects an opinion on Louisiana vs. Callais may be months away, as late as June, but it could have a bearing on the California GOP’s lawsuit and other redistricting cases.

“Only nine people know what the court’s going to do and I’m not one of them,” Levitt said. “And if the Supreme Court sets off an earthquake then that earthquake will also reach California.”

The California GOP lawsuit already faces challenges set out by the Supreme Court. The court has agreed that partisan gerrymandering does not fit the principles of the democratic process but it also has also ruled that the courts are not the place to resolve these issues.

In the 2019 ruling on the case Rucho vs. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion said partisan gerrymandering presents a “political question beyond the competence of the federal courts.”

Because of this limitation, lawsuits alleging gerrymandering must demonstrate that race was a predominant but unjustifiable factor in redistricting.

“The Supreme Court said that it’s really hard to prove that race predominated, particularly when there are political reasons for drawing the lines as a jurisdiction has,” Levitt said. “That standard in the South Carolina case made it really difficult for plaintiffs to win these types of cases. And in a context like Prop. 50, where it’s pretty apparent to everybody that the overriding reason to draw the districts was to try to pick up Democratic seats, that makes it super hard to prove.”

WASHINGTON — Time was — not that long ago — that after a mass shooting, gun rights advocates would nod to the possibility of compromise before waiting for memories to fade and opposing any new legislation to regulate firearms.

This time, they skipped the preliminaries and jumped directly to opposition.

“The most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said to MSNBC a few hours after a shooter killed at least 21 people in Uvalde, Texas. “Inevitably, when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it. You see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work.”

The speed of that negative reaction provides the latest example of how, on one issue after another, the gap between blue America and red America has widened so much that even the idea of national agreement appears far-fetched. Many political figures no longer bother pretending to look for it.

Broad agreement on some steps

And yet, significant agreement does exist.

Poll after poll has shown for years that large majorities of the public agree on at least some, limited steps to further regulate firearms.

A survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, showed that by 87% to 12%, Americans supported “preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns.” By 81% to 18% they backed “making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.” And by a smaller but still healthy 64% to 36% they favored “banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

The gunman in Uvalde appears to have carried seven 30-round magazines, authorities in Texas have said.

So why, in the face of such large majorities, does Congress repeatedly do nothing?

One powerful factor is the belief among many Americans that nothing lawmakers do will help the problem.

Asked in that same Pew survey if mass shootings would decline if guns were harder to obtain, about half of Americans said they would go down, but 42% said it would make no difference. Other surveys have found much the same feeling among a large swath of Americans.

The argument about futility is one that opponents of change quickly turn to after a catastrophe. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon against action.

Esmeralda Bravo, 63, holds a photo of her granddaughter, Nevaeh, one of the Robb Elementary School shooting victims, during a prayer vigil in Uvalde, Texas, on Wednesday.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

“It wouldn’t prevent these shootings,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on CNN on Wednesday when asked about banning the sort of semiautomatic weapons used by the killer in Uvalde and by a gunman who killed 10 at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket 10 days earlier. “The truth of the matter is these people are going to commit these horrifying crimes — whether they have to use another weapon to do it, they’re going to figure out a way to do it.”

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made a similar claim at his news conference on Wednesday: “People who think that, ‘well, maybe we can just implement tougher gun laws, it’s gonna solve it’ — Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”

The facts powerfully suggest that’s not true.

Go back roughly 15 years: In 2005, California had almost the same rate of deaths from guns as Florida or Texas. California had 9.5 firearms deaths per 100,000 people that year, Florida had 10 and Texas 11, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Since then, California repeatedly has tightened its gun laws, while Florida and Texas have moved in the opposite direction.

California’s rate of gun deaths has declined by 10% since 2005, even as the national rate has climbed in recent years. And Texas and Florida? Their rates of gun deaths have climbed 28% and 37% respectively. California now has one of the 10 lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation. Texas and Florida are headed in the wrong direction.

Obviously, factors beyond a state’s laws can affect the rate of firearms deaths. The national health statistics take into account differences in the age distribution of state populations, but they don’t control for every factor that might affect gun deaths.

Equally clearly, no law stops all shootings.

California’s strict laws didn’t stop the shooting at a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods earlier this month, and there’s no question that Chicago suffers from a large number of gun-related homicides despite strict gun control laws in Illinois. A large percentage of the guns used in those crimes come across the border from neighboring states with loose gun laws, research has shown.

The overall pattern is clear, nonetheless, and it reinforces the lesson from other countries, including Canada, Britain and Australia, which have tightened gun laws after horrific mass shootings: The states with America’s lowest rates of gun-related deaths all have strict gun laws; in states that allow easy availability of guns, more people die from them.

Fear of futility isn’t the only barrier to passage of national gun legislation.

Hardcore opponents of gun regulation have become more entrenched in their positions over the last decade.

Mostly conservative and Republican and especially prevalent in rural parts of the U.S., staunch opponents of any new legislation restricting firearms generally don’t see gun violence as a major problem but do see the weapons as a major part of their identity. In the Pew survey last year, just 18% of Republicans rated gun violence as one of the top problems facing the country, compared with 73% of Democrats. Other surveys have found much the same.

Strong opponents of gun control turn out in large numbers in Republican primaries, and they make any vote in favor of new restrictions politically toxic for Republican officeholders. In American politics today, where most congressional districts are gerrymandered to be safe for one party and only a few states swing back and forth politically, primaries matter far more to most lawmakers than do general elections.

Even in general elections, gun issues aren’t the top priority for most voters. Background checks and similar measures have wide support, but not necessarily urgent support.

Finally, in an era defined by “negative partisanship” — suspicion and fear of the other side — it’s easy to convince voters that a modest gun control proposal is just an opening wedge designed to lead to something more dramatic.

That leads to a common pattern when gun measures appear on ballots: They do less well than polling would suggest.

The same thing happens to measures in Congress. Nine years ago, for example, supporters of gun control made their last big push for legislation, after the slayings of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Then, as now, polls showed strong support for requiring background checks for sales that currently evade them. But support for the legislation was sharply lower than support for the general idea, Pew found.

Almost 8 in 10 Republican gun owners favored background checks in general, they found, but when asked about the specific bill, only slightly more than 4 in 10 wanted it to pass. When asked why they backed the general idea but opposed the specific one, most of those polled cited concerns that the bill would set up a “slippery slope” to more regulation or contained provisions that would go further than advertised.

Faced with that sort of skepticism from voters, Republican senators who had flirted with supporting the bill mostly walked away, and it failed.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden led the unsuccessful effort to pass that bill. Nearly a decade later, the political factors impeding action have only grown more powerful.

Texas school shooting

The recent string of devastating shootings has renewed calls for tighter gun restrictions. But as Kevin Rector reported, a loosening of gun laws is almost certainly coming instead, largely because of an expected decision from the Supreme Court, which is likely to strike down a broad law in New York that doesn’t allow individuals to carry guns in public without first demonstrating a “special need” for self-defense.

For all the impassioned speeches and angry tweets, for all the memes and viral videos of gun control proponents quaking with rage, most of the energy and political intensity has been on the side of those who favor greater gun laxity, Mark Barabak wrote.

The shooting has generated a lot of questions from parents about what their own schools are doing for safety. Howard Blume looked at what California officials say about school security.

The latest from Washington

Biden marked the second anniversary of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer by signing an executive order aimed at reforming policing at the federal level. As Eli Stokols reported, Wednesday’s order falls short of what Biden had hoped to achieve through legislation. It directs all federal agencies to revise their use-of-force policies, creates a national registry of officers fired for misconduct and provides grants to incentivize state and local police departments to strengthen restrictions on chokeholds and no-knock warrants.

Sluggish response and questionable decisions by the Food and Drug Administration worsened the nation’s infant formula shortage, agency officials told lawmakers at a congressional hearing. “You’re right to be concerned, and the public should be concerned,” said FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. The agency’s response “was too slow and there were decisions that were suboptimal along the way,” Anumita Kaur reported.

Only a couple of months ago, U.S. and European officials said a renewal of the Iran nuclear deal was “imminent.” But with little progress since then, and a shifting global geopolitical scene, the top U.S. envoy for the Iran negotiations testified Wednesday that prospects for reviving the Iran deal are “at best, tenuous,” Tracy Wilkinson reported. “We do not have a deal,” the Biden administration’s special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Cuba will not attend next month’s Summit of the Americas, a major conference to take place in Los Angeles, after the U.S. refused to extend a proper invitation, the country’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, announced Wednesday. As Wilkinson reported, the decision throws the summit, which is crucial to the U.S.’ ability to demonstrate its influence in the Western Hemisphere, into further disarray.

The latest from California

GOP Rep. Young Kim would seem to have a relatively easy path to reelection in November — the national mood favors her party, she has a lot of money and the newly drawn boundaries for her Orange County district give her more Republican constituents. But Kim is suddenly campaigning with a sense of urgency, Melanie Mason and Seema Mehta report. She’s unleashed $1.3 million in advertising, and outside allies are coming to her aid with more spending. Most of it is aimed at fending off Greg Raths, an underfunded GOP opponent who has been a staple on the political scene in Mission Viejo, the district’s largest city.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and top legislative Democrats pledged Wednesday to expedite gun legislation. Among the bills are measures that would require school officials to investigate credible threats of a mass shooting, allow private citizens to sue firearm manufacturers and distributors, and enact more than a dozen other policies intended to reduce gun violence in California, Taryn Luna and Hannah Wiley reported. “We’re going to control the controllable, the things we have control of,” Newsom said during an event at the state Capitol. “California leads this national conversation. When California moves, other states move in the same direction.”

The Los Angeles mayor’s race has seemingly devolved in recent days into a rhetorical brawl between two of the city’s richest men, Benjamin Oreskes wrote. Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, who supports Rep. Karen Bass, says Rick Caruso’s history of supporting Republican candidates and being registered as a Republican a decade ago disqualifies him from being mayor. That came after Variety published an interview with Caruso in which he attacked the former Walt Disney Studios chairman for “lying” about him in ads by a pro-Bass independent expenditure committee predominantly funded by Katzenberg.

The growing corruption scandal in Anaheim has cost the city’s mayor his job, endangered the city’s planned $320-million sale of Angel Stadium to the team and provided a rare, unvarnished look at how business is done behind closed doors in the city of 350,000. Read our full coverage of the FBI probe into how the city does business.

Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting.

BELÉM, Brazil — The expansive halls of the Amazon’s newly built climate summit hub echoed with the hum of air conditioners and the footsteps of delegates from around the world — scientists, diplomats, Indigenous leaders and energy executives, all converging for two frenetic weeks of negotiations.

Then Gov. Gavin Newsom rounded the corner, flanked by staff and security. They moved in tandem through the corridors on Tuesday as media swarmed and cellphone cameras rose into the air.

“Hero!” one woman shouted. “Stay safe — we need you,” another attendee said. Others didn’t hide their confusion at who the man with slicked-back graying hair causing such a commotion was.

“I’m here because I don’t want the United States of America to be a footnote at this conference,” Newsom said when he reached a packed news conference on his first day at the United Nations climate policy summit known as COP30.

In less than a year, the United States has shifted from rallying nations on combating climate change to rejecting the science altogether under President Trump, whose brash governing style spawned in part from his reality-show roots.

Newsom has engineered his own evolution when coping with Trump — moving from sharp but reasoned criticism to name-calling and theatrical attacks on the president and his Republican allies. Newsom’s approach adds fire to America’s political spectacle — part governance, part made-for-TV drama. But on climate, it’s not all performance.

California’s carbon market and zero-emission mandates have given the state outsize influence at summits such as COP30, where its policies are seen as both durable and exportable. The state has invested billions in renewables, battery storage and electrifying buildings and vehicles and has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 — even as its economy grew 81%.

“Absolutely,” he said when asked whether the state is in effect standing in for the United States at climate talks. “And I think the world sees us in that light, as a stable partner, a historic partner … in the absence of American leadership. And not just absence of leadership, the doubling down of stupid in terms of global leadership on clean energy.”

Newsom has honed a combative presence online — trading barbs with Trump and leaning into satire, especially on social media, tactics that mirror the president’s. Critics have argued that it’s contributing to a lowering of the bar when it comes to political discourse, but Newsom said he doesn’t see it that way.

“I’m trying to call that out,” Newsom said, adding that in a normal political climate, leaders should model civility and respect. “But right now, we have an invasive species — in the vernacular of climate — by the name of Donald Trump, and we got to call that out.”

At home, Newsom recently scored a political win with Proposition 50, the ballot measure he championed to counter Trump’s effort to redraw congressional maps in Republican-led states. On his way to Brazil, he celebrated the victory with a swing through Houston, where a rally featuring Texas Democrats looked more like a presidential campaign stop than a policy event — one of several moments in recent months that have invited speculation about a White House run that he insists he hasn’t launched.

Those questions followed him to Brazil. It was the first topic posed from a cluster of Brazilian journalists in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city and financial hub, where Newsom had flown to speak Monday with climate investors in what he conceded sounded more like a campaign speech.

“I think it has to,” said Newson, his talking points scribbled on yellow index cards still in his pocket from an earlier meeting. “I think people have to understand what’s going on, because otherwise you’re wasting everyone’s time.”

In a low-lit luxury hotel adorned with Brazilian artwork and deep-seated chairs, Newsom showcased the well-practiced pivot of a politician avoiding questions about his future. His most direct answer about his presidential prospects came in a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” on which Newsom was asked whether he would give serious thought after the 2026 midterm elections to a White House bid. Newsom responded: “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise.”

He laughed when asked by The Times how often he has fielded questions about his plans in 2028 in recent days, and quickly deflected.

“It’s not about me,” he said before fishing a malaria pill out of his suit pocket and chasing it with borrowed coffee from a nearby carafe. “It’s about this moment and people’s anxiety and concern about this moment.”

Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor, said Newsom’s appearance in Brazil is symbolically important as the federal government targets Californa’s decades-old authority to enforce its own environmental standards.

“California has continued to signal that it will play a leadership role,” she said.

The Trump administration confirmed to The Times that no high-level federal representative will attend COP30.

“President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.

For his own part, Trump told world leaders at the United Nations in September that climate change is a “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

Since Trump returned to office for a second term, he’s canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than those of the federal government. He’s also withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, a seminal treaty signed a decade ago in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels and preferably below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That move is seen as pivotal in preventing the worst effects of climate change.

Leaders from Chile and Colombia called Trump a liar for rejecting climate science, while Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broadly warned that extremist forces are fabricating fake news and “condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming.”

Terry Tamminen, former California Environmental Protection Agency secretary under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, contended that with the Trump administration’s absence, Newsom’s attendance at COP30 thrusts even more spotlight on the governor.

“If the governor of Delaware goes, it may not matter,” Tamminen said. “But if our governor goes, it does. It sends a message to the world that we’re still in this.”

The U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of state leaders, said three governors from the United States attended COP30-related events in Brazil: Newsom, Wisconsin’s Tony Evers and New Mexico’s Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Despite the warm reception Newsom has received in Belém, environmentalists in California have recently questioned his commitment.

In September, Newsom signed a package of bills that extended the state’s signature cap-and-trade program through 2045. That program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions of dollars for the state’s climate priorities. But, at the same time, he also gave final approval to a bill that will allow oil and gas companies to drill as many as 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County. Environmentalists called that backsliding; Newsom called it realism, given the impending refinery closures in the state that threaten to drive up gas prices.

“It’s not an ideological exercise,” he said. “It’s a very pragmatic one.”

Leah Stokes, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist, called his record “pretty complex.”

“In many ways, he is one of the leaders,” she said. “But some of the decisions that he’s made, especially recently, don’t move us in as good a direction on climate.”

Newsom is expected to return to the climate summit Wednesday before traveling deeper into the Amazon, where he plans to visit reforestation projects. The governor said he wanted to see firsthand the region often referred to as “the lungs of the world.”

“It’s not just to admire the absorption of carbon from the rainforest,” Newsom said. “But to absorb a deeper spiritual connection to this issue that connects all of us. … I think that really matters in a world that can use a little more of that.”