Such is the case with Burney Falls, a Northern California waterfall whose loveliness became such a siren song to costume-wearing Instagram mermaids, selfie-taking TikTok tour guides and off-the-beaten-track road trippers that crowds grew and grew, until the natural wonder just couldn’t handle it any more.
Crowds in recent years have damaged trails, trampled plants and clogged rural roads.
Now, as part of a pilot program to reduce overcrowding, the California Department of Parks and Recreation will require advance reservations to visit the Shasta County waterfall on many days this summer.
“Burney Falls is a crown jewel of the California State Park System, and we want all visitors to have an enjoyable and memorable experience when visiting this one-of-a-kind destination,” State Parks Director Armando Quintero said in a statement. “By allowing visitors to make a reservation in advance, we can help keep crowds manageable and not push the park’s resources past the breaking point.”
The reservations, which can be purchased online, will be required to visit the falls Fridays through Sundays and on holidays during peak visitation season, from May 15 through Sept. 27.
On those days, McArthur-Burney Falls Memorial State Park will offer 103 parking passes for 8 a.m. to noon, an additional 103 passes for 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and 35 passes for the entire day.
The day use passes will cost $11 per vehicle, according to State Parks, with discounts for seniors and people with disabilities.
California State Parks annual pass holders will pay no additional charge but must make reservations. Visitors with overnight campground or cabin reservations will not need additional passes for day use.
The 129-foot waterfall — a wide curtain of white water cascading from a basalt cliff face — generates its own rainbow and once was dubbed the “Eighth Wonder of the World” by President Theodore Roosevelt.
Visitors often endure long lines to get a selfie at Burney Falls. Here, Rachel Brussbau poses with her 1-year-old daughter, Sage, and Crysten Michol in July 2023.
(Paul Kuroda / For The Times)
But for much of its history, it “experienced limited visitation due to its rural location … and lack of publicity,” the State Parks department said in a statement.
“For generations of visitors, it had the reputation of a small, family-oriented park and one of California’s best-kept secrets,” the department said. “However, over the past decade, and especially with the growth of social media, that secret is now world-famous.”
Crowds swelled during the COVID-19 pandemic, when indoor public spaces closed.
A State Parks spokesperson told The Times in an email Monday that in 2015, Burney Falls had 121,495 visitors. Numbers “have steadily risen since that time, peaking at 322,192 visitors in 2020 during the pandemic,” the spokesperson said.
Since then, about 220,000 people have visited the park each year.
The spokesperson said the numbers account only for people who come in through the official entrance and not those who park illegally on the side of the road and enter off-trail.
Because so many people have veered off established trails, the park in recent years has experienced increased erosion and damage to sensitive vegetation and sacred tribal land, according to the State Parks department. Heavy traffic and illegal parking also have created unsafe conditions along State Highway 89, one of the heavily forested county’s main thoroughfares and a critical fire evacuation route.
“Campers with reservations are hesitant to leave the park, knowing that it may take up to two hours to re-enter on busy days,” the department statement read.
Because of limited parking, the gates often close for several hours each day.
“If lucky enough to gain entry, visitors inside the park are met with extreme overcrowding, long restroom lines, and overflowing trash cans instead of a peaceful, rejuvenating experience at one of the nation’s most awe-inspiring natural landmarks,” State Parks said.
In the summer of 2024, State Parks closed all access to the waterfall for the season to repair trails and slopes damaged by heavy crowds and storm erosion.
The department said it will evaluate the day use reservation system at the end of the summer and make adjustments if necessary for future peak visitation periods.
State Sen. Megan Dahle (R-Bieber), whose district includes Shasta County, said the pilot program “is likely to disrupt some trips” until word spreads.
“Unfortunately, for several years it has been clear something needs to change at Burney Falls,” Dahle said. “I hope this is an interim measure on the way to longer-term fixes to accommodate visitors.”
SACRAMENTO — Across America, 53 women have served as state governors. But not one in California. What gives? Aren’t we supposed to be enlightened out here in this cutting-edge state?
In fact, 14 women currently are governors in all sorts of states — north, south, flyover and Pacific coast. Big, midsize and small. Red, blue and purple.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Porter should be elected just because she’s a woman.
What I’m saying is that this is an opportunity to elect a perfectly qualified woman. If a male opponent is considered better suited for the job, fine. But first, let’s give her a good hard look and listen to her ideas. Maybe she’s too liberal — or not liberal enough. Perhaps too feisty and brusque than some unfairly find acceptable in a woman.
You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Independent polling shows that Porter basically isn’t getting any more support from women voters than she is from men.
I queried my best source on such matters: my daughter, Karen Skelton, a longtime political operative who has served stints in the Clinton and Biden White Houses. Why aren’t more women rallying around Porter?
“There was a time when women were excited to support women just because they were women, fueled by the historic prospect of electing ‘the first,’” she said. “But if anything has been proven in the last two presidential elections where women ran, it’s that identity politics does not work….
“It has to be more than her identity as a woman to get her elected.”
Yep. In my view, Democrat Hillary Clinton wasn’t very likable in 2016 and ran a lousy campaign. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris also lacked popularity. And she was dealt a losing hand by aging President Biden when he took too long to step aside.
Harris, a former U.S. senator with a long history of electoral success in California, would have been the heavy favorite to become the state’s first female governor if she had run. But she declined, opting for a possible third presidential bid in 2028.
Porter, 52, is a UC Irvine consumer law professor and former Orange County congresswoman who increased her statewide name familiarity by running unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2024.
Running for governor, she has been forthright and specific on what she’d try to achieve in Sacramento. She’d probably shake up the place.
One goal that should appeal to young families is free childcare. How’d she pay for that, I asked.
“Well, how do we afford public schools, roads, everything else, right?” the single mother of three answered, implying it’s about priorities. “The reason we don’t fund childcare, but we do fund other things, is because we expect women and mothers to do childcare for free or for pennies.”
In one, she threatened to walk out of a TV interview when a female reporter repeatedly asked how she expected to gain the votes of President Trump’s supporters. An irritated Porter said she didn’t need their votes, and she was right — but also rude.
In the other video — an oldie — then-Rep. Porter was shown yelling at a young female aide to “get out of my f— shot” during a videoconference with a Cabinet secretary.
Porter says she apologized to the staffer that day and they worked together for years afterward. And following a recent televised debate, Porter says, the former aide texted her congratulations and added that if she still lived in California, she’d vote for her.
The TV reporter, Julie Watts of CBS, was a moderator of a campaign debate last week and tossed some prickly questions at Porter and the other candidates.
“I was very calm and answered all the questions,” Porter notes. “I showed people I can do better” than the TV interview she has apologized for many times.
Porter has never completely recovered from the harmful videos. But she’s running close to two other Democrats — billionaire Tom Steyer and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra — in the June 2 primary.
“If a man had done the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about it,” asserts Valerie McGinty, founder and president of Fund Her, an organization dedicated to electing women.
Several women agreed.
Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), who has endorsed Porter, points to the late beloved, oft-profane legislative leader John Burton of San Francisco as an example of a double standard.
“Not a woman in American politics could get away with titling their autobiography ‘I Yell Because I Care,’” she says. On the book’s jacket cover, Burton is pictured speaking to a crowd with two raised middle fingers.
“People expect women to be strong but not too harsh,” Petrie-Norris says.
OK, but why do women get elected governor in other states, but not in California?
Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, says the vast amounts of money and human resources needed to win in humongous California make it especially difficult for women. They usually haven’t been included in the political pipeline long enough, she says, to build a hefty donor base, acquire elective office experience and gain statewide name recognition.
Three women have dropped out of the current race because they weren’t gaining ground. But it’s hard to argue it was because of any gender hurdles.
Previously, three women won their party nominations for governor but lost in November: Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Kathleen Brown in 1990 and 1994, respectively, and Republican Meg Whitman in 2010. None lost because of any double standard. It just wasn’t their year politically.
But California has elected three female U.S. senators — Democrats Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Harris.
And nearly half the state Legislative seats are held by women.
It’s conceivable this year that California finally enters the 20th century — let alone the 21st — by electing our first female governor.
For the next week or so, in homes all over California, ballots will be arriving for the June 2 primary.
Since 2020, a ballot has been mailed to every active registered voter in the state — more than 23 million, by last count. The time to choose is drawing nigh.
In addition to the race for governor, Californians will vote in contests for seven other statewide offices, the Board of Equalization — which oversees the property tax system — and a great many congressional, legislative and local races, including the primary for Los Angeles mayor.
What’s a voter to do?
If you’ve waited your entire life for a candidate like Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff running for governor, or you’ve been jonesing to cast a gubernatorial ballot for Democrat Katie Porter from the moment she whipped out her famous whiteboard, the choice is easy. Fill out that ballot and toss it in the mail, stat! No postage needed.
“Don’t mess around,” said Paul Maslin, a veteran Democratic campaign strategist. (His candidate for governor, Betty Yee, quit the race late last month, so he’s a neutral observer at this point.)
“If you have pretty good inkling what you want to do,” Maslin urged, “vote.”
But if, like many, you’re not wed to a particular candidate, what then? If you’re worried about mailing in your ballot and then having some awful, Eric Swalwell-like revelations surface, or if you fret about wasting your vote by supporting someone who drops out before June 2, then what?
There are no do-overs in a California election. Once you’ve cast your ballot, you’ve made your choice. That’s it, however sorry you may be.
Which is why Republican strategist Rob Stutzman, who’s worked in California politics for decades, urged voters not to mail their ballot too soon. Like Maslin, he’s unaffiliated with any of the gubernatorial campaigns.
“It’s a slow-developing race,” Stutzman said of the contest for governor, the marquee attraction on the June ballot. “These are still relatively little-known candidates. There’s going to be a lot more campaigning to go in the weeks ahead. [So] unless you feel really strongly about somebody, I’d hang on to that ballot and see what happens over the next several weeks.”
Then again, with all the talk of clamping down on mail-in ballots and concerns about processing delays by a stretched-thin Postal Service, is there a danger of waiting too long to vote? What if your ballot arrives past the deadline to be tallied?
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court strongly signaled a likelihood it would require mail ballots to be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal. As it stands, California accepts mail-in ballots that were cast before the end of election day, so long as they arrive no later than seven days after.
The court seems unlikely to issue its ruling before the June primary — but that’s not guaranteed.
So is there a sweet spot, somewhere between voting in haste and having your ballot go to waste?
The Official Voter Information Guide, produced by California’s secretary of state, urges those voting by mail to “return your ballot … as soon as you receive it.”
But Kim Alexander, head of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, falls into the wait-a-bit camp. “Don’t vote too early,” she counseled, “because this is a very dynamic election.”
Once you’ve made up your mind, her best advice is to mail your ballot at least a full week before election day, which is May 26, to ensure it arrives on time to be processed and counted. If someone wants to drop their ballot off in person, either at a vote center or secure drop box, Alexander suggests doing so by May 30, which is three days before the election.
“The good news,” she said, “is that under a new state law … all county election offices will be open at least six hours on Saturday, May 30, for voters to come vote in person or to turn in their vote-by-mail ballots.”
Voting in person is an option right up until 8 p.m. on election day, even if you received a ballot in the mail. That applies everywhere in California, save for three sparsely populated, rural counties — Alpine, Plumas and Sierra — which conduct their elections entirely by mail. Bring your unused vote-by-mail ballot to your local polling place and swap it for a polling-place ballot you can use instead.
For procrastinators or those wanting to wait until election day to mail their ballot, they run the risk that it won’t be postmarked until after June 2. That means it won’t be counted, regardless of when it arrives at their county elections office.
“Voters who want to hold out as long as possible … ought to be planning to turn their ballot into a drop box or a voting site and not use the mail at all,” Alexander said.
Her suggestion is to find other ways to mark the occasion.
“Help somebody else go and vote,” Alexander suggested, “or volunteer to help with an organization” running a get-out-the-vote operation.
“If you want to help election officials get ahead on the vote count” — a source of repeated upset as the country awaits California’s lagging results — “you can be part of the solution by getting your own ballot in just a little bit earlier.”
All of which sound like fine ideas. That way you can celebrate election day and make sure your ballot isn’t cast for naught.
SACRAMENTO — One of Gavin Newsom’s top goals as he winds down his final year as California governor is to leave the state with a balanced budget.
After years of the state spending more money than it brings in, it’s Newsom’s last opportunity to fix a chronic deficit or dump the problem on the next governor.
How far he goes to solve the state’s structural spending imbalance will define his legacy as a steward of trillions in taxpayer dollars. As a potential candidate for president in 2028, he could also have a political incentive to do as little as possible.
“Any cuts you make are going to cause people to scream,” said Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist. “Any increases in taxes are going to cause people to scream and in terms of what’s best for a presidential run, it would be nice if people weren’t screaming.”
As California’s 40th governor, Newsom expanded publicly funded healthcare to income-eligible undocumented immigrants, increased state-subsidized child-care slots and provided free meals for schoolchildren among a wishlist of progressive wins since he took office in 2019.
His achievements have helped struggling Californians live in an increasingly unaffordable state and given him bona fides to tout to voters if he launches a bid for the White House.
But the state could never afford to pay for existing services and the new programs that Newsom and Democratic lawmakers enacted, according to an analysis of ongoing state spending since before the pandemic released by the Legislative Analyst’s Office last week.
Spending from the state’s principal operating fund has grown about $100 billion since Newsom’s first full fiscal year in office in 2019-20, mostly due to the growing cost of existing programs that he inherited. State spending has outpaced California’s strong revenue growth by about 10%, creating a perennial budget shortfall — a structural deficit — that Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature solve with largely temporary fixes each year.
Instead of making across-the-board program cuts or raising taxes to align spending with revenue, Democrats have tapped into reserves designed to preserve social services for the state’s most disadvantaged communities during economic downturns.
While the California economy remains stable and state revenue has increased, Newsom and lawmakers have taken $12.2 billion from the rainy day fund. Democrats have borrowed $28 billion more from other state funds to cover their spending in recent years, according to the LAO.
“Taken together, these trends raise serious concerns about the state’s fiscal sustainability,” Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek wrote in a review of Newsom’s January budget proposal.
Fiscal watchdogs have warned that the spending trends will leave California in a precarious position if the stock market tanks and tax receipts bottom out.
Personal income taxes are driving higher-than-expected revenue now, which analysts attribute to an artificial intelligence boom on Wall Street, and suggest the state could have no deficit in the upcoming year. In January, the Newsom administration anticipated significant operating deficits in the years ahead: $27 billion in 2027-28, $22 billion in 2028-29 and $23 billion in 2029-30.
“This issue is really whether they’re going to take seriously the structural deficit that is several years in the making now, where the spending has outpaced revenue, and to address that, they’re going to either have to make some fairly deep cuts or raise revenue and or both,” said former state Controller Betty Yee, who worked as a budget aide under Gov. Gray Davis and recently dropped her own campaign for governor. “But they have to be real. I think resorting to these one-time solutions has really exacerbated the problem.”
H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said the governor is looking to solve the budget problem with more than a temporary fix.
“Although he is still finalizing his proposal that he’ll put forth to the Legislature, as he has said, he wants those solutions to be durable, and he wants them to have an impact beyond a single fiscal year,” Palmer said.
To stabilize California’s budget, Democrats will probably have to raise taxes or fees to generate new revenue and cut programs, according to the LAO. At least 40 cents for every dollar in revenue is dedicated to education under the state Constitution, requiring policymakers to find between $30 billion and $60 billion annually in additional revenue to cover projected shortfalls in 2027-28 and beyond if relying on new taxes alone.
President Trump’s cuts to healthcare are adding to the problem.
HR 1 will add $1.4 billion in state costs to the general fund. Newsom’s January budget proposal did not include a plan to help millions of low-income Californians who are expected to lose access to healthcare under the federal cuts.
To temper those cuts in California, other groups proposed a new tax on billionaires that appears poised to qualify for the November ballot.
Spearheaded by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the initiative would apply a one-time 5% tax on taxpayers with assets exceeding $1 billion. If approved by voters, the tax would generate roughly $100 billion, which would fund healthcare programs.
The measure has divided unions and Democrats at the state Capitol.
Newsom has criticized the initiative, citing concerns that increasing taxes on the wealthy will have the opposite intended effect and drive the highest earners out of California. Under a progressive tax structure, the state budget is dependent on income taxes paid by the ultra-rich on earnings largely from capital gains.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the co-founders of Google, have already purchased residences in Florida, along with others looking to escape the tax if it goes through in November. Billionaires launched their own ballot measure campaign to undercut the tax proposal.
State lawmakers are also considering avenues to raise revenue, which include repealing a “water’s edge” tax break. Under the change, multinational companies would no longer be allowed to shield the income of their foreign subsidiaries from state taxes. California loses about $3 billion in revenue from the tax break each year.
In its budget plan released in April, the state Senate proposed a new fee on the largest corporations in the state to provide $5 billion to $8 billion annually for Medi-Cal.
The upper house said 42% of Medi-Cal enrollees are full-time workers who are not enrolled in their company’s healthcare plan because their wages are low enough to qualify for state-subsidized healthcare. As a result, corporations aren’t paying for healthcare for many of their employees and instead taxpayers are picking up the bill through Medi-Cal.
SEIU California, the powerful state union council representing over 700,000 workers, endorsed the plan. The union said Trump’s tax policy will reduce corporate taxes by $900 billion, while 3 million Californians lose healthcare.
“In this urgent moment, California’s workers need to see our leaders show us what they’re made of,” said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California. “The Senate is showing the courage to demand corporations pay their fair share, rather than making working people pay with their lives.”
The change is being described as a more politically palatable “fee” and not a tax.
“We explored multiple revenue options, and this was the one that felt more narrow, it felt more focused, and it also felt like it was directly going for the subsidy that’s being lost because of the Trump HR 1 cuts,” said Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta), who leads the upper house of the Legislature.
Limón said her caucus believes it’s important to address potential revenue streams because of the depth of federal healthcare reductions.
“If we don’t address the structural deficit, we are looking at severe cuts,” she said. “You are looking at people without health insurance. You are looking at hospitals closing down. You are looking at medical providers not being able to take more patients. You are looking at our emergency rooms over capacity, with not enough medical providers. I mean, you’re looking at a place that’s really, really, really difficult, and we feel like we have to, at least, look at what are viable options that are conditional on these cuts coming.”
Newsom has not commented publicly on the Senate’s plan. As governor, he’s been reluctant to embrace new taxes and fees.
Newsom could reject all the proposals for new taxes or fees and continue what he’s done before: take advantage of higher-than-expected tax collections, shift funds around, delay program implementation and borrow money to knock the deficit down to zero, or forecast a surplus, for his last budget year that begins July 1.
If he doesn’t take on California’s larger budget imbalance, then the problem would be the next governor’s to solve. A stock market crash, or economic recession, could force his successor to make drastic cuts across the board with limited reserves to support programs.
Kicking the can again would cement Newsom’s fiscal legacy as a governor who championed bold headline-making policies that bolstered the safety net for low-income Californians, but who failed to provide a solution to pay for his agenda.
“Not only has he not come up with a plan, he has pretended we don’t need one,” said Patrick Murphy, a professor of public affairs at the University of San Francisco.
Newsom’s interest in running for president could seemingly discourage him from slashing the budget and raising attention to the state’s financial woes, Sragow said. Newsom is setting himself up as a potential front-runner for his party. He has said he remains undecided about officially launching a 2028 campaign.
As a Democrat from California, his opponents would automatically label him as financially irresponsible and tax-happy. Calling out the massive budget problem on the horizon, raising taxes and making painful cuts will give them ammunition.
“There’s a long list of things that he’s going to be charged with, and this is likely to be one more,” Sragow said. “But I guess the question is, is he going to be charged with a political misdemeanor or a political felony?”
Former state Sen. Steve Glazer said Newsom is standing on political quicksand either way. State budget projections are based on assumptions about the future that often don’t bear out, leaving his choices exposed to criticism that he went too far, didn’t do enough, and everything in between.
“Whatever the governor decides to do in his May revise and in his final budget, it’s fraught with political risks, because it can be manipulated so easily by all sides,” Glazer said.
If Newsom ignores the spending problem, his successor could blame him for California’s financial woes when they take office in January and provide their own outlook of the state’s fiscal future. At the time, Newsom could be trying to convince America to make him the nation’s next president.
Murphy said Newsom has championed major policies and been reluctant to back off them later when revenue doesn’t pencil out.
In terms of spending, he’s governed similarly to the men who led California before him, with the exception of Jerry Brown, who cut programs to reduce a deficit he inherited in his second stint in the governor’s office and left Newsom with a surplus.
“It’s not all that different than most of the governors have done, which is finding it very hard to say no and finding it very hard to take on a tough choice of going to the ballot to ask for more money or raise taxes,” Murphy said.
Deukmejian left a budget disaster for his successor, Gov. Pete Wilson. Deukmejian publicly claimed he passed a balanced budget in his final year and blamed an economic downturn for the problems Wilson encountered.
When Wilson announced a record $13-billion budget deficit early in his first year in office in 1991, he said the Persian Gulf War, an economic downturn and natural disasters added to a structural deficit in the budget.
The Legislature and Deukmejian, Wilson said, had “papered over” the problem.
Every Democrat on this list could be expected to work in general harmony with a Democratic governor and in opposition to key Trump administration policies.
There are differences in their backgrounds, but only minor policy divergences, including on the participation of trans athletes in women’s and girls’ sports.
Listed in alphabetical order, with an excerpt from their survey responses:
Richard Barrera, 59, is a longtime school board member in San Diego Unified, the state’s second-largest school system, a senior advisor to Thurmond and before that was a local labor union executive.
“The three experiences that best qualify me for this office are the ones that required me to govern a public school system, execute policy inside the state agency, and understand workforce realities in practice,” Barrera said.
Wendy Castañeda-Leal, 42, has pursued a career in more rural areas, currently serving as superintendent for the Semitropic Elementary School District, which has one TK-8 school with about 140 students off Highway 46 in Kern County. She’s also been director of whole child education for Roseland School District and a secondary alternative school principal.
“I lead districtwide efforts aligned with California’s priorities by advancing equity, strengthening academic achievement, and expanding supports for the whole child, including multilingual learners and underserved student populations,” Castañeda-Leal said. “I also bring extensive site leadership experience as a principal at the elementary, middle and high school levels, where I improved student outcomes.”
Nichelle Henderson
(Courtesy of Nichelle Henderson.)
Nichelle Henderson, 57, is an elected trustee of the Los Angeles Community College District. Her education career began as a teaching assistant. She later taught sixth grade math and science in Compton Unified. She’s currently a faculty advisor and clinical field supervisor in a Cal State teacher preparation program.
“What it is clear among Democratic candidates is that there are candidates that are seeking this position because they want a safe place to land after having termed out,” Henderson said. “My goal is to build the capacity of our TK-12 public schools to prepare students for higher education and to participate in the local and global workforce.”
Ainye Long, 41, a San Francisco Unified middle school math department chair, ran four years ago with no significant resources and came within less than 1 percentage point of making the runoff. It helped then that no Democrat ran against Thurmond and that Republican challengers divided the Republican vote. Long also had then — and still has — the ballot designation: “public school teacher.” She also is a past senior administrator at a charter-school group.
“One job of the [state superintendent] is to measure the effectiveness [in practice — what actually happens] of our laws, and help to find better ways to educate our body,” Long said. “The people closest to the work are closest to the problems of practice, so they’re the first to see the solution.”
Al Muratsuchi
(Photo courtesy of Al Muratsuchi)
Al Muratsuchi, 61, represents the 66th Assembly District, encompassing parts of the South Bay, and has been the chair of the state Assembly education committee. He taught briefly at the college level and served as an elected board member of the Torrance Unified School District.
“I am the only candidate running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction with the combined experience of statewide education policy leadership, … local school district governance as a former Torrance Unified School District board trustee, and classroom educator,” Muratsuchi said, adding that he authored 23 education-related bills that were signed into law.
Josh Newman
(Josh Newman)
Josh Newman, 61, has been a state senator, including chairing the education committee, and a technology company executive. He served in the Army and taught briefly both at the college and middle school levels.
“Among the Democrats in this race, the most significant distinction is between candidates whose approach to this office is primarily organized around labor relationships and funding advocacy, and my own, which emphasizes accountability, outcomes, and the full range of students’ needs alongside continued investment,” Newman said.
Anthony Rendon
(Photo courtesy of Rendon campaign)
Anthony Rendon, 58, was state Assembly Speaker from 2016-23, previously directed Plaza de la Raza Child Development Services and served as chief operating officer for Mexican American Opportunity Foundation.
He spoke of “the role that technology is playing in the degradation of youth mental health and happiness. The next superintendent needs to properly implement California’s ban on phones in classrooms, be ahead of the curve in establishing policies on generative AI use, and make sure teachers have the training and support they need to make sure the classroom is about learning.”
No candidate received enough votes to win the Democratic Party endorsement. The tally was as follows: Henderson: 24.75%; Muratsuchi 21.97%; Rendon 17.43%; Newman 16.82%; Barrera 12.77%.
Voters with disabilities have additional options, including Remote Accessible Vote-By-Mail and curbside voting. The remote system allows voters to make their ballot selections using compatible technology in the privacy of their home.
To use the system you’ll need to:
Download the system application
Mark the ballot selections on the app
Print the ballot
Sign the envelope provided with the vote-by-mail ballot or the voter’s own envelope
Return the printed and signed selections either by mail or by dropping it off at a voting location
Information about how to request this option can be found here.
Curbside voting allows voters to park as close as possible to the voting area, and election officials will bring you a roster to sign, a ballot and any other voting materials you may need.
All polling places and voting centers are required to be accessible to voters with disabilities and will have accessible voting machines.
More information on voting options can be found here.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — No trainer has won the Kentucky Derby more times than Bob Baffert. Among other living trainers, nobody has won the Derby more than Doug O’Neill.
Combined the two Southern Californians have eight Derby victories — Baffert (six) and O’Neill (two) — one more than the total for the other 15 trainers in the field.
And yet, O’Neill’s horse for Saturday’s race, Pavlovian, is a 30-1 long shot on the morning-line odds, and Baffert’s starters are 20-1 (Potente) and 30-1 (Litmus Test). Not the odds you’d expect to see if you were just looking at the trainers.
Both know it’s nothing personal.
“It’s a sign of how, really, the sport is all about the horse,” O’Neill said at his barn. “Whether you’re Bob or me or whoever, you’re only as good as your horse. Bob and I are bringing in some horses that don’t jump off the page number-wise. But I was very impressed with Potente’s work the other day.”
Potente’s trainer also understands the odds, noting this isn’t the first time he’s brought long shots to the Derby.
“I mean, I’d rather be here with a horse like American Pharoah or Justify,” Baffert said, referring to his Triple Crown winners from 2015 and 2018. “But then I’d be like Todd [Pletcher]. He’s getting sick. I said, ‘You’re sick because you’ve got the favorite [Renegade].’ When I had Pharoah and Justify, I got so sick. I was so stressed out.”
Baffert added he was thinking at the time, “It was a layup; I better win this.”
If those horses were layups, Potente is more like a three-pointer from Stephen Curry range, while Litmus Test is along the lines of Jerry West’s 60-foot shot in the 1970 NBA Finals.
Of Baffert’s 35 previous starters, three went off at odds of 55-1 or higher (they finished sixth, 10th and 17th), and three others were priced at 20-1 or higher. Two of those finished ninth (25-1) and 15th (27-1), but War Emblem won the 2002 race at 20-1.
O’Neill’s first victory, in 2012, was unexpected; I’ll Have Another was priced at 15-1. Four years later, Nyquist triumphed as the 2-1 favorite. Both horses were owned by J. Paul Reddam, as is Pavlovian. A win Saturday would make the duo just the fourth owner-trainer team to win the Derby at least three times.
“That’s very cool,” O’Neill said, noting that Pavlovian is in the same stall Nyquist occupied a decade ago. “A lot of great memories here.
“But you know, when you’re talking a 20-horse field, I like the way Paul puts it: When you’re one out of 20, you got a 95% chance of losing, right? So when you get lucky enough to win, and you’re part of that 5%, you pinch yourself to how lucky and how amazing that experience was and hopefully could be again.”
Pavlovian is an unlikely Derby horse, and not just because he’s trying to become only the fifth Cal-bred to win the race. It’s mainly because he raced exclusively against Cal-breds in seven of his first eight races and only won one.
The last of those races, though, was the Cal Cup Derby, and a strong finish encouraged O’Neill to try the Sunland Park Derby. With Edwin Maldonado riding for the first time, the son of Pavel won, and in the Louisiana Derby he led almost the entire race before Emerging Market passed him in the final strides.
“For him to put up a great fight with a top horse like Emerging Market, it was a huge effort,” O’Neill said. “And the nice thing there, too, we had extra timing between that race and the Kentucky Derby. Knock on wood, everything’s kind of coming together as we had hoped and prayed.”
While O’Neill never could have expected to be here with his Cal-bred, Baffert will start two of the myriad expensive colts his clients buy each year. Potente, the San Felipe winner and Santa Anita Derby runner-up, cost $2.4 million, more than double any other horse in the Derby. Litmus Test, the Los Alamitos Futurity winner who has disappointed in two starts this year, was purchased for $875,000.
“They’re going to have to improve a lot,” Baffert said. “Potente, we’re still trying to figure him out a little bit, what he wants to do, how he wants to run, but he’s a big strong horse. … He’ll get the mile and a quarter.
“And [Litmus Test] was running really well, and then he sort of took a step back on me, but I did ship him a lot, so that might have knocked him out a little bit. But now he looks good. He worked well here, so we’ll see what happens.”
Second scratch
Fulleffort was scratched Thursday because of a chipped bone in his left hind ankle. Trainer Brad Cox still has his two most accomplished horses running Saturday in Florida Derby winner Commandment and Blue Grass champion Further Ado.
The scratch puts the maiden Ocelli in the field in the No. 20 post position. Great White, who moved into the field Wednesday with the scratch of Silent Tactic, will now break from the No. 19 post.
Kentucky Oaks Day
The filly equivalent of the Derby, the Kentucky Oaks, will be run under the lights at 5:40 p.m. PDT Friday. Zany (4-1) is the morning-line favorite for trainer Todd Pletcher, but two Southern California horses should be strong contenders: Michael McCarthy’s Meaning (5-1), the Santa Anita Oaks winner, and Baffert’s Explora (6-1). McCarthy also will start Brooklyn Blonde (30-1).
Jason Gibbs: Republican, Santa Clarita City Council member, mechanical engineer
Gibbs has been a member of the Santa Clarita City Council since 2020 and was chosen by his peers to serve as the city’s mayor in 2023. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering at Cal Poly and went on to work in the aerospace industry, according to his campaign website. He has lived in Santa Clarita for nearly a decade while raising two young children, his bio says, and has served on the local boards of the Boys and Girls Club, the Valley Industry Assn. and the Salvation Army.
George Whitesides: Democrat, incumbent
Whitesides defeated Republican incumbent Mike Garcia to represent the 27th Congressional District in 2024. Whitesides worked on President Obama’s transition team in 2008 and served as NASA chief of staff during the Obama administration, according to his campaign bio. He was the first chief executive of Virgin Galactic, co-founded Megafire Action, a nonprofit that advocates for legislation to address the growing problem of massive wildfires, and was a board member for the Antelope Valley Economic Development and Growth Enterprise, his bio says.
Across the country, debates over voter identification laws have become a flash point in broader fights about election security and voting access.
Supporters of voter ID laws say they are needed to prevent election fraud and ensure only eligible voters cast ballots. Critics argue there is little evidence of noncitizens voting and say the requirements instead would reduce voter participation in elections.
Under California law, voters in the state are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. The state does require ID when registering to vote, and residents must swear under penalty of perjury that they are eligible to vote and they are a U.S. citizen.
Weber has opposed proposals that would require voters to show identification in order to cast a ballot. She and many Democratic leaders argue that voter ID laws can create barriers for eligible voters, particularly those who may not have easy access to government-issued identification.
Weber believes Voter ID efforts are meant to sow doubt in the integrity of the elections system.
“When you really get to it, Voter ID is a smoke screen for trying to create the idea that this is a corrupt system,” she said.
Weber instead supports policies aimed at expanding participation among eligible voters, including vote-by-mail ballots and automatic registration.
Conversely, Wagner wants the state to require voters to show ID at the polls. He argues that requiring identification would strengthen public trust in election results and align California with practices used in many other states. He said it’s patronizing to minorities when critics argue it’s hard for them to get identification.
“You need an ID to drive,” he said. “You need an ID to fly in a plane. You need one to buy alcohol. You need it to buy tobacco.”
Wagner has been working with proponents of the Voter ID ballot measure to raise money and helped gather signatures. That statewide ballot measure would require state or local elections officials to verify that Californians registering to vote are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.
“What I’m pledging the people of California is that if they pass voter ID, I will protect it. I will sue if I have to,” Wagner said. “If I am secretary of state, I will implement it and hold the registrars accountable and hold my office and myself accountable for doing the will of the people.”
Vote-by-mail ballots will not be forwarded to a new address, so your ballot will be returned to your local county election office if you haven’t updated your voter registration.
The Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk recommends voters who have been impacted or displaced by wildfires update their mailing address or request a replacement ballot be sent to their temporary address or new permanent address. Los Angeles County residents can follow a guide created for Pacific Palisades and Altadena fire survivors online. Residents can also make updates by phone by calling the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office at (800) 815-2666, Option 2.
You also can update your mailing address by re-registering to vote online. In the “residential address” section, enter your former place of residence and in the “mailing address” section, check the box that says your mailing address is different from your home address and then enter your temporary mailing address.
As the spines of the invasive thistle bit into my legs, I worried I had failed.
I had spent hours at my computer staring at maps of northeast Los Angeles in hopes I could develop an urban hike that used existing trails to connect at least four of the area’s parks.
But there I was, standing in a narrow footpath on a hilltop, realizing I’d essentially hit a dead end, because to get into Ascot Hills Park, I would need to trespass (not allowed) or do something dangerous (also not allowed).
I headed down the steep hillside and told myself, “It’s OK. It’s your job to fail a little.” It was time to try again!
You are reading The Wild newsletter
Sign up to get expert tips on the best of Southern California’s beaches, trails, parks, deserts, forests and mountains in your inbox every Thursday
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
In today’s edition of The Wild, I will introduce you to a 13.5-mile urban hike that I developed and fact-checked myself from the ground. I have admittedly been a mountain hiking snob since arriving in L.A., running off to the San Gabriels or Santa Monicas any chance I get. This experience opened my eyes to the joy and potential of urban hiking. I’m so excited to share what I learned with you.
I was inspired to develop this route for a few reasons. For one, I love going to Ernest E. Debs Park and Elephant Hill Open Space, and because I could see one park from a hilltop in the other, I’d wondered: “Could these be connected?”
A view of downtown L.A. and the surrounding city, as seen from the City View Trail in Ernest E. Debs Park.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Secondly, I attended the California Trails & Greenways conference earlier this month where I learned in sessions about hikers connecting existing trails, including San Francisco’s Crosstown Trail and the American Discovery Trail, which I wrote about in last week’s Wild.
Each time I visit one of L.A.’s open spaces, I am in awe of how hard local residents fought to protect the space and how each space has a dedicated fleet of volunteers lovingly restoring it to its glory by ripping out invasive plants (like thistles) and bringing back oaks, sumac and gorgeous wildflowers.
Some quick logistics before I dive into the route:
I developed the route using CalTopo, an online mapping software with a desktop site and mobile app. You can download the trail from CalTopo to use on your Garmin or other device. I also uploaded it to my AllTrails profile.
I called the trail “River to the Hilltops” in CalTopo. I kept it simple. If you have a clever name, feel free to suggest it.
I haven’t marked everywhere you can find a restroom or water, but will try to add those as time allows. Please plan accordingly, as some stretches run through neighborhoods or open spaces where there isn’t much nearby.
There is no single place to start this route. You can start and stop this route in several spots.
Trail access and conditions can change. Please follow all posted signage (and contact me if you encounter major issues).
This route travels through several neighborhoods. Please refrain from using Bluetooth speakers and anything else that would be disruptive to residents.
At several junctures along the suggested route, you will have an option to take a different path that will essentially get you the same place. Do what’s best for you, and most important: Have fun, be safe and don’t trespass!
Elephant Hill Open Space and the San Gabriel Mountains, as seen from near Ascot Hills Park.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Now let’s talk more about the route.
To begin my “River to the Hilltops” hiking adventure, my friend Patrick and I met last week at the entrance of Flat Top Park, parking on the shoulder of the north side of Montecito Drive. Our plan was to check the route I’d mapped out from Flat Top to Rose Hill Park, Ernest E. Debs Regional Park and the Arroyo Seco. I planned to walk the rest of the route a few days later.
Neither of us had been to Flat Top, an open space of more than 120 acres with several private owners. Local residents have advocatedfor years for Flat Top to be turned into a public park. North East Trees, a local environmental justice group, manages about 37 acres of the site that feature trails and native plant installations.
A snake skin hangs atop buckwheat in Flat Top Park.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
From the gate, we trekked southwest along its wide dirt path. Patrick soon spotted a buckwheat plant with a snake skin draped over it, a gift from a previous visitor for all to appreciate.
We headed onward and were greeted by the park’s panoramic views of L.A. County and the San Gabriel Mountains. It’s a quiet respite in the middle of the city.
As we left Flat Top, we spotted a large gopher snake that we both mistook for a rattler. Our day was already off to a cool start!
We traveled northeast on Montecito Drive, watching for cars while observing interesting stilt houses and one home that reminded us of Storybook architecture. Just over half a mile from Flat Top, we found the trail I’d noticed in my research. Its entrance has two barriers in the middle that I interpreted as an attempt to keep out motorized vehicles.
The narrow dirt footpath, called Rose Hill Link Trail on some maps, featured multiple Southern California black walnut trees and at least two healthy Canary Island palms. I paused Patrick mid-sentence because I really wanted to know who was providing us with such loud birdsong. It was a mix of house finch and red-whiskered bulbul.
Weeds crowd the Rose Hill Link Trail, but it remains passable.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Portions of the trail were overgrown with castor bean and other invasives, but some park workers or kind volunteers are doing their best to keep it clear enough to pass.
We took a quick detour to Rose Hill Park in search of a restroom. Both facilities with flush toilets were closed as of Saturday, but there are portable toilets with a hand-washing station.
We headed north from Rose Hill Park onto a steep, direct route to Peanut Lake, a small pond with benches, shade and turtles. We walked around the pond clockwise and took a route on the north end of the pond to continue northward.
After just a tenth of a mile from the pond, we turned left (or west) onto the aptly named City View Trail. The route started to descend steeply after just a third of a mile. I criss-crossed the path to create my own switchbacks, which helps with gaining traction and makes traveling downhill easier on your joints.
We did not take the first left turn off the City View Trail because a hiker carrying a toddler on their back told us it was kind of steep — and they seemed more hardcore than we were. Instead, you’ll find my route suggests you take the Scrub Jay Trail, the second left turn from the City View Trail.
Wild writer Jaclyn Cosgrove and friend Patrick crab-walk down the river embankment.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Patrick and I actually took a different path because I thought the map had suggested there was an entrance to the Arroyo Seco Bike Path from near South Avenue 52. I can’t recommend that option, as it involves an unofficial trail and crab-walking down the side of the concrete river bank.
Instead, you’ll essentially follow the Scrub Jay Trail to a road that leads hikers past the Audubon Center at Debs Park and onto Griffith Avenue. There’s a crosswalk you can take across to an actual entrance to the river bike path.
We ended our day here, taking a rideshare car back to our vehicles. Our driver was curious enough about our day to want to subscribe to The Wild to learn more. I felt that was a good sign!
A few days later, I walked about 9.2 miles to check the rest of the route. I walked up steep hills through South Pasadena before passing through a green space (with a significant history) and into El Sereno. Soon, after chatting with a resident feeding her beloved speckled hens some fresh fruit and complimenting a man’s classic restored truck, I arrived at Elephant Hill Open Space.
The view of downtown L.A. from a high point at the Elephant Hill Open Space in El Sereno.
The agency has worked with community activists to develop the open space’s first official hiking trail, which I had the pleasure of hiking before the grand opening this Saturday. I trekked past the L.A. Conservation Corps workers and contractors busily working to complete the new path. Boulders and oak trees along gates to tamp down illegal off-roading have been added to the space.
After saying hello to a friend who lives nearby, I took Collis Avenue for two blocks and turned onto Yoakum Street, a dirt path, up to Harriman Avenue.
I followed the path labeled “Elephant Hill/Ascot Hills Connector” on my map, where I foraged for a Diet Coke and pretzels at a convenience store and grabbed a poetry book from a free book rack outside Son of a Vet thrift shop. There are many perks to urban hiking!
Soon, I faced my next surprise.
A metal stool sits along a trail in Debs Park where hikers can see great views of L.A.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
For reasons unclear to me, someone labeled a spot north of Ascot Hills as the “Ascot Hills Northern Trailhead.” Maybe they were manifesting what could someday be a great walk, because what I found was not a trail I’d repeat.
As I mentioned up top, I hoofed up through thistle and dried-out mustard, thinking I’d find a connection to the well-maintained trails I knew were in Ascot Hills Park. I got to about here, and although I could see the park’s actual trails, I could not safely or legally reach them. Cursing, whining, bemoaning, I made it back down the path that was about a 20% grade.
I stood in the neighborhood, looking like a sad weirdo with a backpack. I decided to try one last thing. It looked like, from the map, there was a northern entrance.
I headed west on Bedilion Street and then turned south onto Bowman Boulevard. After two-tenths of a mile, I turned west onto Lynnfield Street. On the fence, I noticed a wooden sign with green, white and red letters. “Victor’s Walk starts here,” it read.
A memorial for a neighbor near Ascot Hills.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
“Who was Victor?” I asked a resident cleaning the street.
He told me that Victor had died recently. He’d helped Victor, who walked daily, keep the street tidy by tending to the plants and picking up trash, and he was doing his best to make his late neighbor proud. We chatted more, and he confirmed that there was a nearby way to reach Ascot Hills. (He’d helped other hikers who’d taken the thistle-filled route.)
I soon found a locked gate with access for hikers, and farther down a paved road and a razor-wire-lined fence, an opening to the park.
Ascot Hills Park in Northeast L.A.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Reaching a vista point, I took in the views of downtown L.A. and the rest of the city, grateful for my first visit to the park and the people I met along the way to get there.
Before finishing the final 2.6 miles, I stopped at the Village Mart & Deli near Ascot Hills for a sandwich.
The rest of my day included more life-affirming surprises.
Lincoln Park in Los Angeles.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
I reached Lincoln Park as a Union Pacific train rumbled past. A Muslim man performed his late afternoon prayer with his mat under a shade tree. Kids played baseball in an adjacent field. I followed the concrete path to the lake, where I navigated around ducks and geese and watched a fisherman catch a bass.
Continuing north, I stopped at the Wall Las Memorias AIDS Monument and ran my fingers over the names etched into one of the panels honoring the dead. I felt chills as I took in the reverence for human life communicated in the memorial’s art and design. I hope you’ll stop by as a part of your walk too.
The entrance to the Wall Las Memorias AIDS Monument in Lincoln Park.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
I had fooled myself into believing the end of my walk would be easy — like somehow I’d gently ride off into the sunset.
Instead, after taking Gates Street to North Broadway, I looked up to discover what I told a friend in a text message was my “final boss”: North Thomas Street. In just under a third of a mile, the street gains about 260 feet, similar in steepness to the start of a challenging mountain trek.
North Thomas Street, a steep road along the 13.5-mile path.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
I rallied, reminding myself of the time I walked all 27.4 miles of Washington Boulevard in one day, and headed up. Just under half a mile in, I reached the top. I thrust my arms into the air and cheered like I’d won a race.
Ever since moving to L.A., I’ve been blown away by just how many people truly care about our public lands and open spaces. It has taken decades for the parks on this route to be as protected as they are, although much of the space remains threatened by development.
My route is a kind of thank-you to those of you who’ve been doing this work. I hope more people see it, appreciate it and want to show their gratitude too.
3 things to do
Stargazers observe the celestial bodies at the Star Party, hosted by the Los Angeles Astronomy Society, last year.
(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)
1. Jump for Jupiter in Silver Lake The Los Angeles Astronomical Society will host a free star party from 8 to 10:30 p.m. Thursday at the Sunset Triangle Plaza in Silver Lake. Guests will listen to local musicians while hopping among telescopes. Learn more at the group’s Instagram page.
2. Notice the nighttime critters in Orange County We Explore Earth will host a 3-mile nocturnal wildlife hike from 7 to 9 p.m. Saturday through Black Star Canyon about 15 miles east of Santa Ana. Hikers will look for evidence like burrows, nests and tracks of tarantulas, toads, scorpions, glowworms and other nighttime creatures. The trek is along a wide dirt trail with minimum elevation gain. Register at eventbrite.com.
3. Hike in solidarity and support in Claremont Hiking With Bill, a sober hiking group, will host a hike at 7 a.m. Saturday at Claremont Hills Wilderness Park. The group aims to provide a safe, sober and supportive community outdoors experience. To learn more about the group’s exact meeting location, either email hikingwithbill935@gmail.com or visit the group’s Instagram page.
The must-read
An opening date for later this year was announced at the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing in Agoura Hills on April 22.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Apparently, social media still has the power to create sudden outrage over seemingly the most random of targets: the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing. Times staff writer Lila Seidman wrote that after a conservative think tank dubbed the bridge a $114-million “bridge to nowhere,” conservative media and politicians jumped on the opportunity to criticize the effort (and Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat considering a presidential run). Curiously, the bridge is a fourth of the cost of President Trump’s White House ballroom — as the bridge’s original price has increased in part due to worsening inflation and tariff-driven price increases. The bridge is set to open Dec. 2.
Happy adventuring,
P.S.
Although I find most trails around L.A. County are largely free of litter, I have seen metallic balloons deep within the San Gabriel Mountains, far beyond wherever they were released. I wasn’t surprised when I saw, via a post from Steampunk Farms Rescue Barn, a Ranchita-based farmed animal sanctuary, that the balloons can make it far into the Mojave too. The image of a desert tortoise considering a lunch of a “Congrats, Grad!” balloon still made my stomach lurch. The organization asked readers to consider: “Don’t release balloons. Any of them — mylar, latex, ‘biodegradable,’ sky lanterns. Weight them, pop them, recycle them indoors,” among other helpful ideas.
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.
I was on a road trip to visit a friend late in March when my phone started lighting up. The Trump administration had just announced a sweeping reorganization of the U.S. Forest Service. People — among them current and former agency staffers — had thoughts.
Under the overhaul, the Forest Service will move from a regional to a state-based leadership structure, relocate its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and close nearly three-quarters of its research stations. A news release described this as a much-needed shift to streamline the agency and bring its leadership closer to the forests and grasslands it manages, which are primarily west of the Mississippi.
But a common refrain emerged among the sources I spoke with: The Trump administration is trying to break the Forest Service, they claimed, to pave the way for privatizing or even selling off the 193 million acres of land it oversees.
You’re reading Boiling Point
The L.A. Times climate team gets you up to speed on climate change, energy and the environment. Sign up to get it in your inbox every week.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
On a recent podcast, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said this is false, that the reorganization is about prudently stewarding taxpayer dollars, not dismantling the agency. Trump officials have also said that a public lands sell-off is not part of the president’s agenda.
I figured the controversy would die down a bit by the time I wrote this newsletter. But nearly a month later, it’s still top of mind for most of the former firefighters and recreation and environment advocates I speak with.
“I worry that I sound paranoid like a conspiracy theorist — why would anybody want to break a federal agency?” said Rich Fairbanks, a former Forest Service firefighter and board member of Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology. “But that’s exactly what they appear to be trying to do.”
To him, the reorganization smacks of an attempt to sow chaos and drive experienced employees out the door. He described the decision to move the headquarters to Salt Lake City as a red flag. Not only is it likely to prompt more staff departures, he said, but Utah is widely seen as the epicenter of an ongoing movement for states to take over federal public lands. It’s also home to Sen. Mike Lee, who last year proposed selling off millions of acres of public lands.
Max Alonzo, a former Forest Service firefighter who now works as national secretary treasurer for the National Federation of Federal Employees, similarly believes the administration is setting the agency up to fail. He noted the president has also proposed deep cuts that would slash the USFS operations budget by 44% and eliminate funding for forest and rangeland research to refocus the agency’s mission primarily on timber sales.
The administration plans to replace its nine regional offices with 15 state directors. These changes to leadership structure make little sense to Alonzo unless the intention is to lay the groundwork for an eventual state takeover of the agency and its lands, he said.
“They’re putting the chess pieces in place to get rid of our national forests,” he said. He believes the goal is to open the door to more mineral extraction, logging and drilling.
“It’s all about breaking the government so people decide the government doesn’t work,” echoed Hugh Safford, a UC Davis researcher who worked for the Forest Service for over two decades.
Safford is concerned that the move to shutter dozens of research stations will prevent Forest Service scientists from doing on-the-ground work on issues affecting local lands, like seeing how different ecosystems respond to wildfire, pests and drought. This research has driven some of the most important global advancements in fire planning and forest management, he said. He would know: Until 2021, he managed a staff of ecologists that provided science support to Forest Service leadership.
“They are destroying the research part of the agency,” he said. “These plans are so draconian and so depressing my hair stands up when I even read about them.”
Dave Calkin worked for 23 years at the Forest Service, overseeing a team of scientists that researched wildfire management. He took an early retirement offer last April, just after the agency terminated thousands of probationary employees, including a young researcher in his office.
“The more you can demonstrate government isn’t working, the more you can argue to privatize and sell off public lands,” he said. “And that’s clearly one of the intentions of everything they’re doing.”
More recent land news
Although administration officials would later distance themselves from the effort, the Interior Department helped craft talking points that Sen. Lee used to pitch his controversial proposal to sell off federal public land last summer, Chris D’Angelo of Public Domain reports.
Trump has withdrawn hospitality executive Scott Socha as his nominee to lead the National Park Service, reports Jake Spring of the Washington Post. That comes as many parks face their peak seasons with a dramatically reduced staff and the agency braces for more potential cuts, my colleague Justine McDaniel writes.
It’s not just the Park Service: The president’s budget proposal also seeks to decrease staff at the Bureau of Land Management and eliminate its wilderness management funding in favor of focusing on energy production, reports Christine Peterson of Outdoor Life.
The Trump administration is again planning border wall-related construction inside Big Bend National Park, weeks after U.S. Customs and Border Protection backed away from such plans amid bipartisan backlash, according to Travis Bubenik of Marfa Public Radio, who cited an online map showing the planned construction.
A day after Bubenik’s report, the border wall map disappeared from the Customs and Border Protection website, leaving the public with no way to know where and when construction on the wall will take place, writes Mary Andino of Gear Junkie.
In yet another escalation of President Trump’s efforts to obstruct clean energy projects in favor of fossil fuels, the administration said it will pay two energy companies to abandon their offshore wind projects in federal waters — including one off Morro Bay, according to The Times’ Hayley Smith.
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.
The bridge will provide a safe passage for wildlife(Image: Mario Tama/Getty Images)
After multiple setbacks and delays, the opening of the world’s largest wildlife bridge has finally been revealed. Spiralling costs and building delays pushed the project back by at least a year.
Work has been underway on the bridge for four and a half years. Now, it has been confirmed that the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing over the 101 Freeway in Agoura Hills, north of Los Angeles, will open on December 2.
The project leaders made the announcement on Earth Day. Managers said: “What a journey this has been! And we cannot wait to celebrate with you all.”
The main section of the bridge, which spans 10 lanes of the freeway, has largely been completed and landscaped. Work still left to do includes building over Agoura Road and connecting both ends of the bridge to the open space on either side.
It will eventually allow wildlife to safely pass through. California’s regional director for the National Wildlife Federation, Beth Pratt, has already seen some wildlife enjoying the bridge.
She told KNX News Radio: “I’ve recorded multiple species of butterflies up here. We’ve had, I think, eight species of birds.
“We’ve had red-tailed hawks and American kestrels fly by, so wildlife are already responding to it, even though it’s not connected to the landscape.”
The goal of the project is to reinvigorate the mountain lion population in the area. Animals that are frequently hit by cars on the freeway are also set to benefit, which include bears, bobcats, foxes, coyotes and deer.
The bridge has faced multiple delays and criticism. In 2022, the project broke ground with a $90million price tag (£66.5million) and was set to be completed by 2025.
However, reports today say the total has climbed to $114million (£84.5million), which has been paid for through private donations and public funds.
Project leaders have said near-record rainfall, which saturated the site in 2023 and 2024, delayed work. Project costs were also pushed higher due to inflation, labour shortages and the complexity of the project.
In a blog post, project leaders said: “The criticism often flattens a far more complicated reality. This is not a standard overpass. Engineers are effectively building a living ecosystem over 10 lanes of one of the busiest freeways in the country.”
It added: “Projects of this scale should be questioned, audited and debated—especially when it’s the public’s money being used.
“But they should also be judged on their purpose. In a region where wildlife populations face genetic isolation and frequent freeway deaths, doing nothing carries its own cost.
“The real question is not whether the crossing is ambitious—it clearly is. It’s whether Southern California is willing to invest in repairing the environmental missteps that made the project necessary in the first place.”
My colleagues Gustavo Arellano and Mark Z. Barabak joined me to decide who the winner was, or if there was a winner at all.
Arellano: The real MVP in this debate? State Supt. Tony Thurmond.
He brought up his family story — child of a Panamanian immigrant who lost his parents young, someone familiar with “government cheese” as sustenance growing up — in a way that didn’t sound forced or pedantic.
He usually stayed within the time limits that were barely enforced by moderators. And he kept knocking down Chad Bianco again and again, drawing applause when he brought up the Riverside County sheriff’s takeover of hundreds of thousands of ballots.
Thurmond is the only gubernatorial candidate currently holding a statewide position, a former Richmond City Council member and Assembly member. “Elect someone with a lived experience,” he told the audience in his closing statement.
So why has Thurmond polled so low again and again to the point that he keeps not getting invited to debates and therefore not getting in front of California voters?
California has never elected a Black governor — in fact, the state is notorious for not voting in Tom Bradley in 1982 even though polls showed him leading George Deukmejian all the way to Election Day (the phenomenon of voters telling pollsters what they think they want to hear instead of what they actually feel is now known as the Bradley Effect).
As California’s Black population keeps shrinking, it would’ve been wonderful to see Thurmond do better than he has.
Chabria: Gustavo is spot on with his take on Thurmond. He came across as polished, capable and knowledgeable. But also, he’s just too far down in the polls for any kind of comeback.
In my mind, though, Xavier Becerra was the clear winner. No, he didn’t blow the other candidates away.
But he landed more than one punch that will almost certainly be on social media feeds for weeks to come, especially when he went at Republican Steve Hilton. Early on, he called President Trump “Hilton’s daddy.” Later, he quipped at Hilton, “We don’t need a talking head for Fox News to tell us how the government works.”
The debate was chaotic in more than one moment, but Becerra managed to get more than his share of airtime and use it wisely. Tom Steyer, the other Democratic front-runner, mired himself in wonk-talk. He wanted to get deep into policy, and got lost in complicated issues such as oil refineries.
Steyer didn’t have a single memorable line, though his closing statement did redeem him somewhat. He called himself the “change maker,” and promised, “if you want change, there is only one person on this stage they are afraid of” — they being tech titans, oil companies and other gods of industry.
It was the same for Katie Porter and Matt Mahan, who didn’t do anything wrong, but also, didn’t break out.
But those back-and-forths of Becerra and Hilton are priceless because they’re quick and shareable. I won’t be surprised to see voters drift Becerra’s way, even if only a bit.
Barabak: No runs, no hits, no errors. Seven men — and one woman — left standing.
I didn’t see, or hear, anything that seems very likely to drastically shake up or dramatically reorder the governor’s race. No breakout performance that will launch any of the candidates into clear-cut front-runner status. No major gaffes to leave any of the contestants sprawled on the killing floor.
So to that extent, I would score Becerra as the evening’s (modest) winner. He’s clearly having a moment, surging from political near-death to the top tier in polls. (Though, let’s be clear, it’s still a muddle, with several candidates bunched in the 15%-20% support range.)
There have been suggestions Becerra needs to show a bit more fight and he did so Tuesday, in particular taking on Hilton. Some of his jabs seemed a bit forced and stagy. (That line about Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”)
Better, as Anita noted, was the jab from the former congressman, state attorney general and Biden cabinet secretary about a Fox “talking head” explaining how government works.
I found Porter to be crisp and authoritative on policy; Steyer to be repetitive (I’m the only change agent on this stage, look how much money is being spent to stop me — though it’s a small fraction of the sum he’s sunk into his vanity-cruise campaign); Mahan and Antonio Villaraigosa to be largely afterthoughts, and Bianco to have all the warmth and appeal of the grouchy old man telling kids in the neighborhood to get off his damn lawn!
The Riverside County sheriff seemed not to be running for governor of California, but rather mayor of MAGA-ville, a strategy apparently intended to nab one of two spots in the June primary, allowing him to go on to crushing defeat in November.
I agree that perhaps the night’s most surprising performance came from Thurmond. The state schools superintendent is mired in bare single digits in polls and only just made the debate stage after being left out of last week’s meetup in San Francisco.
His chances of being California’s next governor are somewhere between zero and nil, which is why he escaped serious scrutiny. That said, he made the most of the 90 minutes on stage, laying out his compelling up-from-poverty life story and seeming to relish taking on Bianco in particular.
Too little, too late. But Thurmond certainly acquitted himself well.
The top candidates for California governor clashed over the high costs of gas, housing and homeowner’s insurance in a testy debate Tuesday evening, a fiery exchange that may finally draw voter attention as the June 2 primary election fast approaches.
Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican who leads all candidates in the most recent opinion polls, ripped Becerra for promising to declare a state of emergency to address rising homeowner’s insurance rates, saying the governor lacks that constitutional authority.
“We can’t have a governor who doesn’t understand how the government works,” Hilton said.
Becerra, who served as California attorney general before joining the Biden administration, quickly defended himself, saying he knows the law better than Hilton does.
“We don’t need a talking head from Fox News to tell us how the government works,” he said.
And that was after Becerra got in an early dig at Hilton, who has been endorsed by President Trump, by referring to Trump as “Hilton’s daddy.”
The debate was broadcast and livestreamed by CBS stations around the state. Hundreds of people watched from Pomona College’s historic Bridges Auditorium, a Renaissance Revival-style landmark with Art Deco flourishes that was once among the premier performance venues in Southern California.
With eight major candidates from both parties participating, CBS moderators billed it as “the largest and most inclusive debate of the election.” Becerra and Hilton were joined by Republican candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Democratic candidates San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire Tom Steyer, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Some takeaways from the debate:
Candidates didn’t shy away from the top issues
Moderators set the theme for the first half-hour of the debate as “affordability,” a top concern among California voters, and almost immediately the candidates began sniping and talking over one another.
Almost all of them vowed to accelerate home construction in California, pivotal to reducing the state’s high cost of housing.
There was no shortage of ideas for other ways to ease the financial burdens facing Californians, but few specifics on how they would deliver on those promises given the state’s complex and arduous legislative process.
Hilton promised to cap the price of gas at $3 per gallon, and Mahan vowed to suspend the state gas tax. Bianco said Democrats have long overregulated and overtaxed Californians, and the state’s supermajority Democratic Legislature would have to get in line with him and end those things if he’s elected.
Becerra said he would reduce prescription drug prices. Thurmond said he would provide down-payment assistance grants to those trying to own their first home.
Barbs traded over climate-caused emergencies
Anchors and reporters from local CBS stations moderated the debate, including Los Angeles anchor Pat Harvey, Sacramento anchor Tony Lopez, Bay Area anchor Ryan Yamamoto and national investigative correspondent Julie Watts. They were joined by Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College and a member of California’s independent redistricting commission.
Moderators pointed to the surge in catastrophic wildfires across the state in recent years due to climate change, as well as the threat of earthquakes, and asked the candidates how they would respond to future emergencies.
As he did throughout most of the debate, Bianco responded by bashing California’s Democratic leadership, which he said created most of the ills facing the state.
Bianco said the root causes of fire disasters in the state are “not because of climate change” but due to “failed environmental activist policies” that prevented fire departments from clearing highly flammable brush around communities for years.
Mahan, after touting his actions as a Silicon Valley mayor during emergencies, quickly pivoted to take shots at Becerra and his role as U.S. Health and Human Services secretary during the pandemic.
He said Becerra had “never met a crisis that he couldn’t ignore” and accused Becerra of failing to deal with COVID-19, monkeypox and the surge of unaccompanied minors at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Biden administration.
Becerra responded by saying that his agency dealt with the crises by working with all 50 states and the federal government to quickly roll out vaccines and other resources.
“You’re not wearing a mask, are you, Matt? You’re not worried about catching monkeypox, right?” Becerra said.
Steyer also came under attack when he starting discussing his plans to “make polluters pay” for the effects of climate change. Porter criticized the former San Francisco hedge-fund founder for making millions off the oil and gas industry, and using those profits to fund his campaign for governor. Steyer has spent more than $143 million of his own money on his campaign, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the California secretary of state’s office.
“How about profiteers pay? You pay the lowest tax rate on this stage, and yet you made the billions that you’re using to fund your campaign off fossil fuels,” Porter said to Steyer.
Steyer responded that he is a “change agent” candidate opposed by special interests and pointed to campaign committees funded by utility and other industry groups opposing his bid. PG&E, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Assn. of Realtors have put more than $29 million into a pair of committees to fund attack ads against the billionaire.
Republicans focus on blaming Democrats
Just weeks before the June 2 primary, the race to replace term-limited Newsom remains wide open, with many voters still undecided.
Republicans Hilton and Bianco have led numerous public opinion polls while the large field of Democrats have split the vote, leading to fears among Democrats that the party could get shut out of the general election, despite outnumbering Republicans nearly two-to-one among the state’s registered voters. In California’s open primary, the top two finishers advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
The two Republicans avoided overtly attacking each other at the debate but were regularly the targets of other candidates on the stage.
Becerra, speaking about federal healthcare funding cuts approved by President Trump and congressional Republicans last year, referred to the president’s endorsement of Hilton. “The first thing we have to do is stop Steve Hilton’s daddy,” Becerra said.
Hilton responded jokingly that his father, who was the goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team, hadn’t weighed in on the race. And he said Becerra’s comment pointed to what is wrong with California politics — a fixation on Trump despite Democrats controlling the state for more than a decade.
“We’ve had the same people in charge for 16 years now, and it’s such a disaster and such a high cost of living for everyone, and the highest poverty rate in the country and the highest unemployment rate in the country, and the worst business plan,” Hilton said. “All these things going wrong, they can’t do anything except blame Trump. Let’s see how many times you hear that tonight.”
Bianco grew visibly frustrated several times over the debate’s format and his opponents’ answers. At different points, he compared the event to “The Twilight Zone” and called it “the hour and a half that [viewers] are never going to get back.”
Pressed on what he would do differently if elected, the Riverside sheriff also focused on criticizing Democrats and accusing them of lying.
“We have a group of of 20-ish-year-old kids and we’re just sitting here lying to them about broken Democrat policies in California for the last 20 years, and we’re going to sit here and blame a president who’s been president for a year. This is absolutely ridiculous,” he said.
Hilton has seen a bump in his polling numbers since he wasendorsed by President Trump earlier this month. A CBS News/YouGov poll of more than 1,400 registered voters released Monday showed Hilton leading with 16%, followed by Steyer with 15%, Becerra with 13%, Bianco with 10%, Porter with 9%, Mahan and Villaraigosa with 4% and Thurmond with 1%. The largest group of voters — 26% — was undecided.
Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta reported from Claremont. Times staff writers Kevin Rector, Dakota Smith and Blanca Begert contributed to this report.
Wiffen said that he was “already planning” on moving to Dublin even before the Irish Open.
He had targeted a time of seven minutes 42 seconds in the 800m, but came in at 7:58.08 on his way to winning gold in Bangor and also said his performance in the 1500m was “confirmation in my head that I wasn’t in the shape I wanted to be in” and that he should switch to Dublin.
“In 1500m I got to the 1000m mark in a second off PB [personal best] pace and I could feel it fading and it was all down to the training,” he added.
“I wasn’t doing the right type of work I used to do, so when it came to the decision, I sat down with Andy Reid [National Performance Director at Swim Ireland] and talked to him. We had talked of the back-up plan if California didn’t work when he was first appointed, so this was already in the thinking.”
Reflecting on his time in California, Wiffen was critical of the training in the US and says he “feels a lot fitter” since he started training in Dublin.
“In California it felt like you kind of didn’t know what you were doing. You were having to push yourself, there wasn’t much guidance or criticising technique.
“They didn’t want to mess up the Olympic champion is what I felt. They were trying to do what they wanted to do, not what’s good for me.”
Wiffen is now gearing up for a big summer with the Commonwealth Games and European Championships on the horizon and hopes a solid block of training in his new surroundings can get him up to speed to break more records.
“I don’t know how fast I’m going to be in the summer, but I have two benchmark meets before that I can compare to other years.
“I need to see how those go and how the training works. I have eyes on the world record in the summer, but if not I need to readjust some things.”
Last year, studios and Hollywood labor unions lobbied hard to ensure animated movies and shows could compete for California’s expanded film and television tax credit program.
The payoff came last week, when three animated movies were among the nearly 40 film projects that received a production incentive in the latest round of awards, the California Film Commission announced Thursday.
Walt Disney Co.-owned 20th Century Studios received $21.9 million for “The Simpsons Movie 2,” Disney Entertainment Television got $3.5 million for “Phineas and Ferb” and DreamWorks Animation was awarded $24.7 million in credit allocation for a yet-untitled animated film.
The three are the first animated feature films to receive tax credits from the state of California. (Last month, two animated shows — a spin-off of “Rick and Morty” and “Stewie,” which branches off from the “Family Guy” cartoon — also received tax credits.)
I spoke with DreamWorks Animation Chief Operating Officer Randy Lake about the award, which he called a “potential game changer” for the Glendale-based studio known for the “Shrek” and “Kung Fu Panda” franchises.
You’re reading the Wide Shot
Samantha Masunaga delivers the latest news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
“Unlike live-action, our projects are years long,” he said. “You’re talking about not just a job for six or nine months on set. It’s literally three or four years that these projects can take. It’s long-term employment.”
Like most of Hollywood, the animation industry has suffered from the effects of the 2023 dual writers’ and actors’ strikes, as well as the retrenchment in studio spending after the initial rush to invest in content for streaming services.
And like much of U.S. film and TV work — particularly in California — the animation business has been deeply affected by the increasingly rich tax credits offered by other countries.
Over the last 15 years, countries including Canada and Ireland have slowly built up animation hubs, aided by their local talent and lucrative production incentives specific to animation and visual effects.
DreamWorks, too, has outsourced work to partner studios, particularly in Vancouver and Montreal, as costs in the U.S. have increased and studios face pressure to rein in their production expenses while theatrical box-office revenue has become less reliable.
Just three years ago, DreamWorks cut about 70 jobs across its corporate functions, feature films, TV and technology departments. In 2024, Disney-owned computer animation studio Pixar laid off about 175 employees as it pulled back on its production of streaming series.
But with the recent tax credit allocation, DreamWorks will hire about 100 people in California for its upcoming untitled film. Those jobs would probably would have been outsourced to a third-party studio, Lake said. Keeping all of the jobs on that film in California helps improve collaboration among the teams and foster more creativity, he said. Today, DreamWorks has about 1,000 employees.
To understand why the new incentives are meaningful, consider that a DreamWorks Animation movie similar to the one that received the credit will typically have a crew of about 400 to 500 people.
That film is a big feature, though Lake declined to share details since the project hasn’t been announced.
Both the Animation Guild and studios have pointed to the incentive as a way to bring back animation jobs to the Golden State.
“Studios have been chasing animation tax credits in other states and countries for years, so it’s incredibly rewarding to see them use California’s for the very first time,” Marissa Bernstel, a trustee on the union’s executive board and member of the task force that helped lobby for the expanded production incentives, said in a statement last week. “The results feel very real, and I’m excited to see what future employment opportunities the incentive inspires.”
Lake said DreamWorks hopes to take advantage of the state incentives for all of its full-budget films.
“We’ll be applying for the next window,” he said, adding that he hoped they will be successful so “we’ll be able to have more and more of our films be fully produced in state. That’s the goal.”
Stuff We Wrote
Film shoots
Number of the week
Lionsgate’s “Michael” had a massive opening weekend with just over $217 million in global box-office revenue. In the U.S. and Canada, the Michael Jackson biopic hauled in about $97 million, far surpassing studio expectations.
The film, which stars Jackson’s nephew, Jaafar Jackson, as the late singer, chronicles the pop star’s rise from his early days in the Jackson 5 through the growth of his solo career. The movie ends in 1988 while Jackson is on tour for his hit album “Bad.”
The premiere for “Michael” marks the biggest domestic opening for any biopic, musical or otherwise. The 2015 movie “Straight Outta Compton” previously held the record for highest opening weekend total for a musical biopic, with $60 million in the U.S. and Canada, followed by the Queen biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody” in 2018, which had a $51.1-million domestic opening.
Critics’ reviews of “Michael,” however, were largely negative. Many noted the plot sidesteps the child sexual abuse allegations against Jackson and said the film presents a more one-dimensional view of the singer.
An earlier cut of the film did end in 1993 and addressed the allegations, but that ending had to be scrapped due to a clause in a legal settlement with an accuser that stipulated he could never be pictured or mentioned in a dramatization of Jackson’s life. Jackson and his estate have denied that the pop star abused children.
What I’m watching
I finally finished the Hulu series “Paradise” this last week, which kept me guessing about literally everything all the way until the end. I’m interested in seeing where this genre-morphing show goes next season.
Last week’s meet-up in San Francisco didn’t provide the fireworks or memorable moments the candidates, and many voters, were hoping for — but it did manage to remind us all that ballots will hit mailboxes in coming days and decisions must be made.
Ahead of the forum at Pomona College in Claremont, a trio of our Times columnists — Gustavo Arellano, Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria — weigh in with a cheat sheet on what to look for, what to expect and why it matters.
Chabria: I’ll start us off with the obvious — let’s hope Tuesday gives us at least one breakout candidate who comes with some fire and vision.
After last week’s debate, there was lots of social media posturing about who won and who trolled whom the best. But as one of the six people who actually watched, I can tell you it was mostly bland with no clear winner.
That’s in large part because many of the Democrats have only slivers of daylight between their policies, and ditto for the two Republicans.
So my hope is that at least a single candidate ups their game and comes to voters with not just attacks, but something that inspires, something that sets them apart. This far into the race, that hope is slim, but I’m keeping it alive.
What are your hopes and dreams — and maybe fears — going into this?
Barabak: I know I sound like a broken record. (Google it, kids.) Anita, you and I, in particular, have gone round and round on this one. But I don’t feel a particular need for inspiration from the guys and gal that are running for governor. If I want inspiration, I’ll go back and reread the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” Or listen to a Grateful Dead show from May of ’77.
Give me someone who can work with the Legislature, and as difficult as it may be, President Trump, to get stuff done.
Pursue a “California First” agenda, to borrow a phrase. Put voters and their interests ahead of ego, careerism and personal ambition. Start by pledging, if elected, to serve a full four-year term and not run for president so long as they’re serving as governor.
Of course, that kind of promise can be broken. (See then-Gov. Pete Wilson, who made that vow when he sought reelection in 1994, then turned around and — unsuccessfully — sought the White House in 1995.)
At least we’d have them on the record.
Arellano: I’m all for this morass of democracy. A small part of me wants two Republicans to make it into the general election because the California Democratic Party deserves a meteor-like extinction event. No GOP statewide elected official since Schwarzenegger. Supermajority in Sacramento for most of a decade.
And what do they have to show for their one-party rule? This.
But then I hear Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton mewl, and I’m suddenly hoping alongside Anita that someone vanquishes their foes with an unassailable vision. Problem is, I think all the candidates have reached their ceiling. The only one who has any chance of showing us something new is Xavier Becerra, who needs to drop his Dudley Do-Right shtick for a second and channel the inner cholo we all know is in him.
Instead, he was at a fundraiser in Fullerton over the weekend with professional Latinos — you should’ve been kicking it with my cousins in Anaheim who were watching their Dodgers slaughter the Cubs, loco, because they’re the ones who’ll make or break you.
Chabria: How the first potential Latino governor is failing to excite Latino voters is exactly what I’m talking about. If you don’t give voters something to be excited about, they don’t vote, and our fragile democracy needs every voter it can get.
But if we are forced to vote on nuance, let’s do it informed. Here are some questions I hope these candidates have to answer:
For San José Mayor Matt Mahan, funded in the mega-millions by tech bros, it’s not enough to promise to regulate artificial intelligence, or billionaire influence, for that matter. Tell us what those regulations look like and tell us how you reconcile your own politics with those of big donors such as Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir, who has called Gen Z the “loser generation.”
For billionaire investor Tom Steyer, who has said he will reform Proposition 13 (which limits property taxes) for corporate land owners: What assurances do homeowners have that they won’t be next?
And I agree with you, Gustavo, Becerra is coming across as resolutely bland, but to Mark’s point, he’s using that to position himself as drama-free and experienced. So in an era when fraud and abuse are the words of the day, how does Becerra explain not catching fraud in his own office?
Mark and Gustavo, what are the topics you hope candidates will be grilled on?
Arellano: Slight correction, Anita — California already had a Latino governor: Romualdo Pacheco, the lieutenant governor who replaced Newton Booth in 1875 when the latter became a U.S. senator. Pacheco — a Latino Republican! — served all of 10 months before becoming a Congress member.
Issues? Immigration, of course. I want each one to address the state’s undocumented immigrants for 90 seconds in whatever matter they choose. Water: Believe in climate change or not, but our supply is shrinking faster than the gubernatorial chances of Thurmond. And since I believe that the more random the question, the more you learn about who a candidate truly is: What’s the best song about California, and why? Anyone who says “California Girls” or “California Gurls” deserves disqualification, even if both songs rock.
Barabak: Not an issue, per se. What I’d like to see is a bit of backbone.
The next governor is going to have to make some tough decisions, especially around spending priorities and/or cuts to the state budget. Inevitably, the next governor is going to make some people unhappy. And I’m not talking about just those members of the opposite party, or folks who didn’t vote for them.
So I’d like each of them to name an issue where, for the good of the state, they’re willing to take on their friends and allies, knowing they’ll be displeased. If you’re a Democrat, name something you would do that would, say, tick off organized labor. And for Republicans Bianco and Hilton, what’s an area where you’re willing to say to Trump, “Sir” — the president imagines everyone bowing and calling him sir — “you’re dead wrong about this and California needs to go its own way, whether you like it or not.”
Arellano: Good luck seeing any candidate buck their masters. I think we need to lower our expectations way, way, well, lower. So a simple question to conclude: Who needs to do the most tonight besides Mahan’s beard? I think it’s my fellow Orange Countian, Katie Porter. She’s now to the right of Steyer and left of Becerra, which means she needs to peel off supporters from both of them and grab undecideds if she wants to advance. Not sure how she can pull that off — but if anyone can bring necessary fire, it’s her.
Chabria: Porter definitely has a lot on the line.
One standout moment for her, Steyer or Becerra — good or bad — could tilt this very-much-undecided race — not so much because people will be watching, but because it will fuel the social media and advertising sure to follow. These next two debates are high-stakes, not just to avoid a Biden performance, but to do something, anything, that fires up momentum.
Politics ain’t beanbag, as the old saying goes, and it’s time to bring the heat. So in the spirit of Gustavo’s song request, I’ll leave it with these lyrics from the Rivieras (or the Ramones, if you prefer): We’re out there having fun, in the warm California sun.
Barabak: Not to be the pooper at the party but I think we shouldn’t overstate the import of tonight’s debate. For one thing, as Anita suggested, the audience will be exceedingly small — minuscule, even, relative to the state’s 23 million registered voters.
We know, from experience, that most folks will take away what they do based not on the debate itself but rather the coverage of it and whatever soundbites, memes, chatter and advertising it produces — and that’s only to the extent people are paying attention.
So, yes, what’s said and done in Pomona, will matter some. But we’re still five weeks away from election day, and I suspect many folks will be waiting at least another week or three to start focusing on the race and finally make up their minds.
I’ll end with something that Jerry Garcia sang: All good things in all good time.
In a treehouse nestled in redwoods north of San Francisco, Gov. Newsom stood cold and hungry as Sergey Brin, the world’s fourth-richest man, and his wellness-influencer girlfriend told him they were leaving the state.
It was late in the evening at a Christmas party hosted by crypto titan Chris Larsen — featuring singer Janelle Monáe and a towering abominable snowman with glowing red eyes — when Brin and his partner, Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto, confronted Newsom about a new proposal to tax billionaires in California, according to people who’ve spoken with the governor. Such a levy could hit Brin’s stake in Alphabet Inc. and his $272.6 billion fortune.
Newsom, who opposes the wealth tax, was still telling people about the lengthy exchange at the party months later, complaining of a lingering cold the pair had given him, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing private conversations with the governor.
Brin, meanwhile, followed through. He left the state, bought a lakeside mansion in Nevada, and started bankrolling a billionaire political uprising in California.
Newsom, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the interaction. “The governor has been very clear with everyone, no matter who they are, that this effort will do serious damage to the state, including for public safety workers and schools, at the expense of one special interest group,” Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson, said.
A representative for Brin didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Brin’s political push reflects a broader awakening among California’s ultrawealthy. Over the past six months, the proposed billionaire tax and a heated governor’s race have drawn tech titans and business leaders more directly into the state’s affairs — a space many of them have traditionally kept at arm’s length.
Prior to this year, Brin’s last contribution in a California election cycle was 2010 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor and the Google co-founder largely backed climate causes. He’s now spent more than $58 million in the last four months, including an extra $9 million disclosed late Friday, but more importantly has helped mobilize a network of fellow tech titans in a push to sway state issues.
“The wealth tax was a wake up call, it was a fire that just lit up Silicon Valley literally in a matter of weeks,” said Steven Maviglio, a veteran Democratic strategist. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”
Altogether, ultrawealthy donors have injected more than $270 million into California’s political scene in this election cycle. Outside of the wealth tax, billionaire Tom Steyer is emerging as a top Democratic candidate for governor after the downfall of former Representative Eric Swalwell following allegations of sexual assault. Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, has spent more than $140 million in his election bid, crowding TV airwaves with ads and labeling himself a “class traitor” with a campaign modeled after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Ballots for the June 2 primary election start going out next week. Brin and a cohort of the ultrawealthy including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and venture capitalists Vinod Khosla and John Doerr have plowed millions into supporting Matt Mahan, a Silicon Valley mayor, with a back-to-basics agenda and a penchant for taking on the state’s Democratic establishment.
That money has helped Mahan buy airtime and attracted controversy, but his polling numbers remain stuck in the single digits while Steyer’s well-funded progressive campaign is gaining favor with voters. Brin has also backed Republican Steve Hilton, who’s currently leading polls.
“You have two polar opposites going on. You have a billionaire running who has actually fully adopted an agenda that the vast majority of voters agree with: Taxing billionaires, funding healthcare, fighting back against ICE,” said Lorena Gonzalez, head of the state’s largest union group, the California Federation of Labor Unions. “And then you have billionaires pushing a candidate whose talking points are apologetic to the tech industry.”
The billionaire political activism in California mirrors larger shifts in Silicon Valley and the nation. President Donald Trump has given tech billionaires broad access to the White House, inviting Brin and other industry captains over for dinner and to join advisory boards.
Back in September, Trump singled out Gilbert-Soto as Brin’s “really wonderful MAGA girlfriend” at a White House dinner also attended by Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook and Sam Altman. She has publicly supported Republican Steve Hilton for California governor, a candidate Trump endorsed and Brin has also donated to.
In California, Brin’s newfound political action was catalyzed by the wealth tax proposal, which would levy a one-time 5% tax on billionaires to help offset federal healthcare cuts. In a Signal group chat earlier this year with other Silicon Valley elite, Brin floated the idea of raising hundreds of millions of dollars to influence California politics, according to a person who saw the message.
Brin left California for Nevada ahead of a Jan. 1 residency deadline for the proposed wealth tax. He moved to a $42 million mansion on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, featuring two glass-walled funiculars.
Shortly after leaving California, Brin contributed $20 million to a new group dedicated to fighting the tax while also pushing pro-business and housing affordability policies, Building a Better California, making him the single largest contributor. He added $37 million over the spring, as the group quickly started supporting a trio of anti-wealth tax measures that could nullify a billionaire tax if it gets passed in an election. One of the measures, the so-called Transparency Act, has enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot, its backers claimed on Monday.
Building a Better California “remains fixed on long-term reforms supported by most Californians: housing affordability, stable funding for education, infrastructure investments, and government accountability,” a spokesperson said.
Joining Brin in the effort were other billionaires, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison and venture capitalist Michael Moritz. Peter Thiel, who also left California ahead of the New Year’s Day deadline, gave $3 million to a separate committee opposing the wealth tax.
“They don’t trust California anymore,” said David Lesperance, a tax attorney who specializes in relocations and has helped move five families out of the state because of the wealth tax threat.
Brin and his fellow billionaires helped push up the costs to gather the more than 870,000 signatures required to qualify a ballot measure. This forced the union behind the wealth tax, SEIU-UHW, to spend more on their efforts.
Now, the union says it has succeeded in getting the signatures it needed, which will likely force the business leaders opposing it into further spending.
“A very small group of the most controversial billionaires on the planet tried to stop Californians from being able to save their local emergency rooms and hospitals — but our current signature tally proves frontline healthcare workers will prevail in bringing this commonsense proposal to voters,” said Suzanne Jimenez, SEIU-UHW’s chief of staff. “When our growing coalition files these signatures, David will have won the first round against Goliath.”
Other billionaires have bankrolled their own political initiatives, including Larsen, who set up his own network of influence groups with names like Grow California and Golden State Promise.
Many in Sacramento are skeptical that Brin and his fellow ultra-rich will succeed in swaying California state politics. They point to the failed candidacy of former eBay executive Meg Whitman, who spent around $144 million of her own fortune to become governor, or even venture capitalist Tim Draper’s longshot initiative to split California into six separate states.
“They’re trying to extrapolate from their own industry, which might have been fabulously successful, that they know something about political advertising, when they don’t,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist. “They think, ‘Hey, I’ve got money I can throw it around,’ and they don’t really do their homework.”
Political consultants describe their frustration with some wealthy tech donors, who often view their political giving through an investment lens, promising big checks and not following through if they don’t see momentum. That’s led to questions about whether the California billionaire activism would continue if Mahan’s governor bid fails and the wealth tax passes.
Even Larsen, who’s worth around $13 billion, has expressed anxiety that not enough business leaders are stepping into politics. “It’s a lot of talk, and they’re happy, but we don’t see the firepower we need to take on the SEIUs,” he said, referring to the state’s largest union.
Newsom, for his part, acknowledges that many of the state’s wealthiest residents are willing to donate significant sums of money, but want to do it on their own terms and not through a tax.
“Some will never give a penny away,” he said at a Bloomberg News event in January, not long after his encounter with Brin in the treehouse. “Some I respect. Some I don’t.”
After winning his first race for Congress in 1992, 34-year-old Xavier Becerra credited a wave of community supporters in Los Angeles, many Latino, for backing his upstart campaign, saying he hoped his win was proof that grassroots politics was more valuable than “heavy dollars.”
More than 30 years later, Becerra, 68, is again an upstart candidate — this time for California governor. Again he is facing monied competition — including from chief Democratic rival Tom Steyer, a self-funded billionaire — and relying on Latino and other grassroots support.
California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra speaks during a campaign event in Los Angeles on April 18.
(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
“You are the people power that it takes,” he told a crowd of supporters at a recent “Fighting for the California Dream” town hall in Los Angeles. “California wasn’t built by billionaires. It was built by your families. It was built by our families.”
That Becerra is still fighting in the race — and drawing new people to his events — reflects a remarkable and hard-to-explain turnaround for a campaign that appeared all but dead less than a month ago, then bounded back into contention after Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped from the race and resigned from Congress amid sexual assault allegations.
Before Swalwell’s collapse, Becerra’s biggest splash in the race came in March, when USC excluded him and other low-performing candidates from a planned debate. The criteria left every candidate of color out, and after Becerra and others complained, the forum was canceled.
A California Democratic Party tracking poll, released in early April before the Swalwell scandal broke, showed Becerra near the bottom of the field with 4% support among likely voters. In a party poll taken after it broke, Becerra’s support jumped to 13% — the biggest increase of any candidate.
Certainly some of Swalwell’s supporters shifted to Becerra, but political observers are still pondering why so many did — and not to Steyer, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter or other Democrats with single-digit support, such as former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or San José Mayor Matt Mahan.
Whatever the answer, Becerra’s surge has sparked fresh interest in his candidacy. It also has raised questions about his time as California attorney general, when he sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, and U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, when he backed the Biden administration’s strict COVID-19 rules and oversaw the agency’s response to a massive influx of unaccompanied minors at the southern border.
It has also put a growing target on Becerra’s back — including at Wednesday night’s gubernatorial debate, when rivals criticized him as a “D.C. insider” with poorly detailed plans for the state — and sparked hope among many Latinos that California will elect one of them as governor for the first time in state history, sending a strong message of resistance to the intensely anti-immigrant Trump administration.
Of course, Becerra faces hurdles. Steyer, a hedge fund founder who has donated more than $130 million to his own campaign, has been ahead of him in polling, as have two Republicans: Silicon Valley entrepreneur and former Fox News host Steve Hilton, who has President Trump’s endorsement, and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Only the top two candidates in the June 2 primary advance to the November election.
Still, Becerra now has a path to victory, one that did not exist even a month ago, and new funding. Many Democratic voters remain undecided, and many — shocked by the Swalwell scandal — are looking for another Democratic front-runner to back.
In an interview with The Times, Becerra said he’s the man for the job, because “California needs a work horse, not a show horse.”
Xavier Becerra, left, gathers with other candidates for Los Angeles mayor in 2000.
(Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times)
Rising wave of Latino political power
A Sacramento native and the son of a Mexican immigrant mother and a Mexican American father, Becerra graduated from Stanford Law School and served as a deputy to California Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp before being elected in 1990 to the California Assembly.
In 1993, Becerra entered Congress on a rising wave of Latino political power and the heels of a fractious presidential election in which former White House aide Pat Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush in the Republican primary on a stridently anti-immigrant, “America First” message — one Trump repurposed in both 2016 and 2024.
It was a defining political moment for Latinos across the country, and for Becerra personally, said Fernando Guerra, founding director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.
“He certainly has been and is part of the incorporation of Latinos into California history and California politics, and it really begins in the early ’90s,” Guerra said. “His rise and political career is really a reflection of the rise and political incorporation of Latinos.”
In 1994, Becerra helped oppose Proposition 187, a state initiative to deny undocumented immigrants access to public education and healthcare. In 1996, he sharply criticized the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which cut federal benefits for many legal immigrants. By 1997, Becerra — just 39 — was chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the first Latino member to serve on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
By 2016, Becerra, 58, was the highest-ranking Latino in Congress when then-Gov. Jerry Brown tapped him to replace a Senate-bound Kamala Harris as California attorney general. There, Becerra played a key role in defending the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, against Republican attacks.
Then-U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra arrives for a hearing to discuss reopening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021.
(Greg Nash / Associated Press)
Criticism and praise
In a rush of endorsements in recent days, Becerra’s supporters have lauded his executive experience, calling him a “proven leader” who, amid constant threats from the Trump administration, is “ready to fight back on day one.”
Becerra’s critics also have pointed to his leadership record, but to highlight what they contend are glaring failures.
Steyer spokesman Kevin Liao alleged Becerra was “absent, ineffective, or too late” in responding to COVID-19 and other public health crises as health secretary, and that California “cannot afford incompetence, or someone who disappears when things get hard.”
The remarks echoed others made during the pandemic, including by Eric Topol, who is executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, a professor of translational medicine and a cardiologist. During the pandemic, Topol accused Becerra of being “invisible” in the fight to control it. In a recent interview, he said he still believes that.
Topol said the Biden administration’s COVID response was defined by poor data collection and “infighting” among agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, including on vital issues such as when Americans should receive booster shots and how long they should isolate after infection.
Becerra “basically took a very absent, low profile — didn’t show up, didn’t harmonize the remarkable infighting,” Topol said. “The buck stops with him.”
Dr. David A. Kessler, the Biden administration’s top science official on COVID-19 and now a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at UC San Francisco, fiercely defended Becerra, crediting him with rolling out some 676 million vaccines and steering the nation out of a wildly unfamiliar health crisis with substantial success — what Kessler called a “historical achievement” that proved government “can do big things.”
Kessler said Becerra rightly assessed that the country needed to hear from medical experts, not politicians, and so deferred at times to the doctors, epidemiologists and vaccinologists he smartly surrounded himself with and trusted — but he was never absent. “He enabled us. He was there. Anything I needed, he helped deliver,” Kessler said.
Becerra said there were a lot of people involved with the COVID-19 fight, including a White House team launched before his confirmation as health secretary. Still, it was his agency that ultimately led the response, and helped bring the pandemic to an end, he said.
“At the end of four years, when we had put some 700 million COVID shots into the arms of Americans and pulled the country and our economy out of the COVID crisis, it was HHS — and I was the secretary of HHS,” he said.
Becerra’s rivals in the governor’s race also have attacked him for how he responded to an influx of unaccompanied immigrant minors during the pandemic. They allege Becerra rushed their release to relatives and other sponsors while ignoring concerns from career health staff that some of those placements weren’t safe — resulting in thousands of kids being lost to the system, forced into child labor or trafficked.
The criticism stems in part from a sweeping New York Times investigation that found the health department couldn’t find some 85,000 children it had released, that Becerra had relaxed screening processes for sponsors and that placement concerns from career health staff went ignored or were silenced.
The investigation by reporter Hannah Dreier found that thousands of the 250,000 or so migrant children who arrived in the U.S. between early 2021 and early 2023 had “ended up in punishing jobs across the country — working overnight in slaughterhouses, replacing roofs, operating machinery in factories — all in violation of child labor laws.”
Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra holds a news conference in Border Field State Park in San Diego in 2017.
(Francine Orr/ Los Angeles Times)
It found there were many signs of “the explosive growth of this labor force,” and that staff had repeatedly flagged concerns about it in reports that reached Becerra’s desk. It also reported that, during a staff meeting in the summer of 2022, Becerra had pressed staff to move children even more quickly through the process, comparing them to factory parts.
“If Henry Ford had seen this in his plants, he would have never become famous and rich. This is not the way you do an assembly line,” Becerra said, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by the newspaper.
Danni Wang, another Steyer spokesperson, said children “were handed to gang members, traffickers, and abusers because [Becerra] stripped the background checks that had protected them for years.”
Becerra said the controversy is one he has addressed publicly for years, including in multiple congressional hearings. He said his team worked diligently to properly vet sponsors and do right by the thousands of children in their care, despite Congress failing to provide the budget needed to restore a system of licensed care facilities that the first Trump administration had dismantled.
“It was a wreck. They had closed facilities, they had fired the licensed caregivers. And remember, this was during COVID, [when] you didn’t want anyone to be near each other,” he said. “How do you take care of thousands of kids in a center that could house maybe 50 kids?”
He said he led an aggressive push to stand up temporary facilities — including in places like the San Diego Convention Center — while rebuilding the licensed care facilities Trump had dismantled and working to place kids into the community as quickly and safely as possible.
Ron Klain, who served as Biden’s chief of staff for the first two years of the administration, said Becerra helped lead the administration out of the crisis by being “an outspoken advocate” for the children in its care.
“Xavier was very, very insistent in meetings and very outspoken on the risk that some of these people [the kids] were being placed with were not the proper people to place them with, and pushed hard for more rigor in the process,” Klain said.
Becerra also has faced criticism and questions related to the federal indictment of his former chief of staff Sean McCluskie, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud after authorities accused him of stealing some $225,000 from Becerra’s dormant state political campaign account.
Becerra was not implicated in the scandal — which he’s previously described as a “gut punch” — and said he did everything he could to ensure McCluskie and others were held accountable once it came to light, including by providing “testimony and documents” to the FBI and federal prosecutors.
Hilton has said the scandal, which also implicated a former aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom, showed that “corruption has become totally ingrained and systemic” under Democratic rule in California.
Looking ahead
Experts said Becerra’s long resume will help him stand out in a race with less experienced competitors and no household names — and that Californians electing a Latino for the first time, as the Trump administration conducts one of the largest ever deportation campaigns, dismantles immigrant rights and targets people on the street based largely on their looking and sounding Latino, would be a major political moment.
Becerra said his extensive experience should matter to voters, because such experience will be necessary in the pivotal and no doubt chaotic Trump years ahead, when “pizzazz and dazzle” will matter less than steady competence from “someone who’s actually been in the midst of that hurricane” before.
“It helps to have gone through these things. I’ve been there, I’ve done that, and I’ve done it successfully,” he said. “I’ve proven that, whether it was taking on Donald Trump toe to toe as the [attorney general], whether it was getting us out of COVID working closely with the White House to deploy the resources and get that done, we made it happen.”
Cole Tomas Allen, the suspected gunman who rattled the nation’s top leaders by exchanging gunfire with federal authorities after racing through the secure perimeter of a press gala in Washington late Saturday, had made a long journey from Southern California and written a “manifesto” threatening Trump administration officials before the short-lived attack, officials said.
Allen, a 31-year-old Caltech graduate and high school tutor from Torrance, is believed to have taken a train first to Chicago and then on to D.C. before checking into the Washington Hilton with two guns he had previously purchased, authorities said.
The attacker managed to bypass several layers of security at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner before being taken down by armed agents outside the ballroom where President Trump and an array of other top federal officials were seated.
Allen could not be reached for comment, nor could an attorney for him be identified as of Sunday.
According to Trump, Allen had also authored a “manifesto” prior to the attack, which he had shared with family and which his brother had flagged to local law enforcement in Connecticut. The New York Post reported that Allen described himself in the document as the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and revealed he intended to kill Trump administration officials.
New London (Conn.) Police Deputy Chief John Perry said that around 10:30 p.m. a man came into the lobby of the agency’s headquarters to report that he’d received a troubling email from Allen. The relative initially thought it was spam, but then saw the news of what unfolded in D.C. and felt he needed to report it.
Perry would not say what was in the email, and did not know exactly what time it was sent. But the relative said he only saw and opened it around 10 p.m. “I think he was watching what was going on and kind of put two and two together and said I need to go to my local PD,” Perry said.
Police officials provided the email to the Secret Service and FBI, he said. Trump said the document would be released, but it had not been as of Sunday. Officials said criminal charges against the suspect were pending, with an initial court appearance likely Monday.
Late Saturday, both local and federal law enforcement, including from the FBI, swarmed the Torrance neighborhood where Allen is believed to have lived in a home with his family, with Torrance police clearing the road and putting up police tape along part of the street. A man who responded to a knock on the front door said, “Not right now,” and declined to comment further.
The thwarted attack marked the latest in a string of incidents in which gunmen have gotten dangerously close to Trump, renewing questions about the safety and security of the nation’s commander in chief at a time of intense political division at home and roiling conflicts abroad.
Trump was grazed on the ear by a bullet at one of his presidential campaign events in Butler, Pa., in 2024 — the first of two attempts on his life during that campaign cycle. The other involved a gunman targeting the president as he golfed in Florida, before federal agents intervened. Earlier this year, a gunman was killed at the president’s Mar-a-Lago club, after breaching a security perimeter.
On Sunday, questions swirled as to how such a security lapse could have happened again — and whether large, high-profile events are safe for top officials in a nation where firearms are easy to obtain and ubiquitous.
Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, in an interview on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning, said federal authorities believe the suspect had set out alone “to target folks that work in the administration, likely including the president,” but that a motive was still being determined and evidence still being gathered — including from devices taken from Allen and in interviews with people who know him.
“As of now, we don’t have any connection to any particular policy directive of President Trump or Iran or anything else that we’re doing in this country, but we are looking into it,” he said.
Blanche also downplayed the threat posed to Trump, other officials in the room such as Vice President JD Vance and First Lady Melania Trump, and the hundreds of other attendees to the annual event — suggesting Allen had essentially been stopped in his tracks shortly after making his break through a checkpoint of metal detectors and federal agents, dramatic video of which Trump posted online.
“Let’s not forget that the suspect didn’t get very far. He barely broke the perimeter,” Blanche said. “And so while this was extraordinarily dangerous and put a lot of lives at risk and there’s no doubt that that’s something that we’re going to have to learn from over the next couple weeks, the system worked. We were safe, President Trump was safe. His Secret Service agents kept him safe. All of us were safe.”
Blanche’s assessment of the attacker’s breach past security — which he said was only “by a few feet” — was disputed by some.
According to other attendees, including Times journalists, event staff were checking tickets, though not very thoroughly, at multiple points prior to escalators that descended to the metal detectors where Allen allegedly dashed past armed security.
The detectors were right outside the event hall and where the bathrooms for the event were located, and the assailant was taken to the ground about 10 to 15 feet beyond them, attendees said. The shots — including two from the gunman, according to Blanche — were heard in the ballroom.
Allen, who graduated from Caltech in 2017 with a degree in mechanical engineering and is registered to vote with no party preference, made a $25 political contribution earmarked for then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign challenging Trump for the presidency in 2024.
While at Caltech, he was a teaching assistant and a member of the school’s Christian fellowship and the Nerf club, according to his LinkedIn profile. He later studied computer science as a post-graduate student at CSU-Dominguez Hills.
Allen was named teacher of the month in December 2024 at C2 Education, which specializes in college test preparation, tutoring and academic advising. A representative for C2 Education was not immediately available for comment.
According to the New York Post, Allen himself had derided the event security in his writings beforehand, describing finding far less security at the hotel than he had expected when he arrived, armed, to check in.
“I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo. What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing. No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event,” he wrote, according to the Post. “I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.”
Authorities did not detail Allen’s alleged travel route to D.C., other than to say it was by train. In response to questions about whether Allen had taken Amtrak to get to Washington and whether his luggage would have undergone any security screening, Amtrak said only that it is cooperating with federal authorities.
Trump also zeroed in on security at the hotel being inadequate, in addition to posting the video of the suspect rushing past security and multiple pictures of him detained on the floor of the hotel.
While praising the federal agents who took the attacker down, Trump suggested that events with top U.S. officials should be held in more secure facilities — such as the giant ballroom he is trying to build on the White House grounds after demolishing the former East Wing.
“What happened last night is exactly the reason that our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and, for different reasons, every President for the last 150 years, have been DEMANDING that a large, safe, and secure Ballroom be built ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE,” Trump wrote on social media Sunday. “This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House. It cannot be built fast enough!”
Weijia Jiang, president of the correspondents’ association, said in a statement Sunday that the group’s board “will be meeting to assess what happened and determine how to proceed.” She also thanked the U.S. Secret Service and other law enforcement for keeping people safe, and praised journalists in the room for leaping to work to inform the public of what had occurred.
Times staff writers Richard Winton, Ben Wieder and Justine McDaniel contributed to this report.
