The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and likely headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State’s political landscape for at least six years and determine which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections.
Maps made public Friday afternoon show how California Democrats hope to reconfigure the state’s 52 congressional districts. The plan targets five of California’s nine Republican members of Congress, and is designed to counteract the redistricting efforts in Texas that would favor Republicans.
The state Legislature is expected to place the new map and a constitutional amendment to override the state’s independent redistricting process on a Nov. 4 special election ballot.
Enter your address below or select somewhere on the current map to see how the districts could change.
Congressional District 3 is represented by Kevin Kiley (R). The proposed District 3 would include 546,805 citizens of voting age.
Current: CA-3
Your district is represented by Kevin Kiley (R).
Proposed: CA-3
Your new district would include 546,805 citizens of voting age.
<!--
LOS ANGELES TIMES
-->
Sean Greene and Hailey Wang contributed to this report.
A decade and a half after California voters stripped lawmakers of the ability to draw the boundaries of congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats are pushing to take that partisan power back.
The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State’s political landscape for at least six years, if not longer, and sway which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections — which will be pivotal to the fate of President Trump’s political agenda.
What Golden State voters choose to do will reverberate nationwide, killing some political careers and launching others, provoking other states to reconfigure their own congressional districts and boosting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s profile as a top Trump nemesis and leader of the nation’s Democratic resistance.
The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors, were expected to be submitted to legislative leaders by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and widely leaked on Friday. They are expected to appear on a Nov. 4 special election ballot, along with a constitutional amendment that would override the state’s voter-approved, independent redistricting commission.
The changes would ripple across hundreds of miles of California, from the forests near the Oregon state line through the deserts of Death Valley and Palm Springs to the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding Democrats’ grip on California and further isolating Republicans.
The proposed map would concentrate Republican voters in a handful of deep-red districts and eliminate an Inland Empire congressional seat represented by the longest-serving member of California’s GOP delegation. For Democrats, the plans would boost the fortunes of up-and-coming politicians and shore up vulnerable incumbents in Congress, including two new lawmakers who won election by fewer than 1,000 votes last fall.
“This is the final declaration of political war between California and the Trump administration,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.
How will the ballot measure work?
For the state to reverse the independent redistricting process that the electorate approved in 2010, a majority of California voters would have to approve the measure, which backers are calling the “Election Rigging Response Act.”
The state Legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, will consider the ballot language next week when lawmakers return from summer recess. Both chambers would need to pass the ballot language by a two-thirds majority and get the bill to Newsom’s desk by Aug. 22, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.
The ballot language has not been released. But the decision about approving the new map would ultimately be up to the state’s electorate, which backed independent redistricting in 2010 by more than 61%. Registered Democrats outnumber Republican voters by almost a two-to-one margin in California, providing a decided advantage for supporters of the measure.
Newsom has said that the measure would include a “trigger,” meaning the state’s maps would only take effect if a Republican state — including Texas, Florida and Indiana — approve new mid-decade maps.
“There’s still an exit ramp,” Newsom said. “We’re hopeful they don’t move forward.”
Explaining the esoteric concept of redistricting and getting voters to participate in an off-year election will require that Newsom and his allies, including organized labor, launch what is expected to be an expensive campaign very quickly.
“It’s summer in California,” Kousser said. “People are not focused on this.”
California has no limit on campaign contributions for ballot measures, and a measure that pits Democrats against Trump, and Republicans against Newsom, could become a high-stakes, high-cost national brawl.
“It’s tens of millions of dollars, and it’s going to be determined on the basis of what an opposition looks like as well,” Newsom said Thursday. The fundraising effort, he said, is “not insignificant… considering the 90-day sprint.”
The ballot measure’s campaign website mentions three major funding sources thus far: Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign, the main political action committee for House Democrats in Washington, and Manhattan Beach businessman Bill Bloomfield, a longtime donor to California Democrats.
Those who oppose the mid-decade redistricting are also expected to be well-funded, and will argue that this effort betrays the will of the voters who approved independent congressional redistricting in 2010.
What’s at stake?
Control of the U.S. House of Representatives hangs in the balance.
The party that holds the White House tends to lose House seats during the midterm election. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, and Democrats taking control of chamber in 2026 would stymie Trump’s controversial, right-wing agenda in his final two years in office.
Redistricting typically only happens once a decade, after the U.S. Census. But Trump has been prodding Republican states, starting with Texas, to redraw their lines in the middle of the decade to boost the GOP’s chances in the midterms.
At Trump’s encouragement, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas congressional map to favor five more Republicans. In response, Newsom and other California Democrats have called for their own maps that would favor five more Democrats.
Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum and stop the vote. They faced daily fines, death threats and calls to be removed from office. They agreed to return to Austin after the special session ended on Friday, with one condition being that California Democrats moved forward with their redistricting plan.
The situation has the potential to spiral into an all-out redistricting arms race, with Trump leaning on Indiana, Florida, Ohio and Missouri to redraw their maps, while Newsom is asking the same of blue states including New York and Illinois.
California Republicans in the crosshairs
The California gerrymandering plan targets five of California’s nine Republican members of Congress: Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa in Southern California.
The map consolidates Republican voters into a smaller number of ruby-red districts known as “vote sinks.” Some conservative and rural areas would be shifted into districts where Republican voters would be diluted by high voter registration advantage for Democrats.
The biggest change would be for Calvert, who would see his Inland Empire district eliminated.
Calvert has been in Congress since 1992 and represents a sprawling Riverside County district that includes Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Palm Springs and his home base of Corona. Calvert, who oversees defense spending on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, comfortably won reelection last year despite a well-funded national campaign by Democrats.
Under the proposed map, the Inland Empire district would be carved up and redistributed, parceled out to a district represented by Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Liberal Palm Springs would be shifted into the district represented by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), which would help tilt the district from Republican to a narrowly divided swing seat.
Members of Congress are not required to live in their districts, but there would not be an obvious seat for Calvert to run for, unless he ran against Kim or Issa.
Leaked screenshots of the map began to circulate Friday afternoon, prompting fierce and immediate pushback from California Republicans.
The lines are “third-world dictator stuff,” Orange County GOP chair Will O’Neill said on X, and the “slicing and dicing of Orange County cities is obscene.”
In Northern California, the boundaries of Kiley’s district would shrink and dogleg into the Sacramento suburbs to add registered Democrats. Kiley said in a post on the social media site X that he expected his district to stay the same because voters would “defeat Newsom’s sham initiative and vindicate the will of California voters.”
LaMalfa’s district would shift south, away from the rural and conservative areas along the Oregon border, and pick up more liberal areas in parts of Sonoma County,
In Central California, boundaries would shift to shore up Reps. Josh Harder (D-Tracy) and Adam Gray (D-Merced). Gray won election last year by 187 votes, the narrowest margin in the country.
Valadao, a perennial target for Democrats, would see the northern boundary of his district stretch into the bluer suburbs of Fresno. Democrats have tried for years to unseat Valadao, who represents a district that has a strong Democratic voter registration advantage on paper, but where turnout among blue voters is lackluster.
Feeding frenzy for open seats
The maps include a new congressional seat in Los Angeles County that would stretch through the southeast cities of Downey, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier and Lakewood. An open seat in Congress is a rare opportunity for politicians, especially in deep-blue Los Angeles County, where incumbent lawmakers can keep their jobs for decades.
Portions of that district were once represented by retired U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, the first Mexican American woman elected to Congress. That seat was eliminated in the 2021 redistricting cycle, when California lost a congressional seat for the first time in its history.
Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis has told members of the California Congressional delegation that she is thinking about running for the new seat.
Another possible contender, former Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood, launched a campaign for state superintendent of schools in late July and may be out of the mix.
Other lawmakers who represent the area or areas nearby include State Sen. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), state Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and state Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier).
In Northern California, the southern tip of LaMalfa’s district would stretch south into the Sonoma County cities of Santa Rosa and Healdsberg, home to Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire. McGuire will be termed out of the state Senate next year, and the new seat might present a prime opportunity for him to go to Washington.
Reporting from Oceanside — Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is supporting his colleague Rep. Loretta Sanchez in this fall’s Senate race, a contest that pits two Democrats against each other and gives GOP voters no obvious choice.
The two appeared together in Issa’s congressional district this week, giving Sanchez an opportunity to publicize her expertise on national defense in a part of the state where she needs to do well with Democrats, Republicans and independents alike if she hopes to overtake her rival, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris.
For Issa, the bipartisan event may help soften his image as congressional Republican leadership’s attack dog on the Obama administration.
He said that despite their differences on most issues facing the nation, he respects Sanchez’s knowledge of military and world affairs and they both support efforts to keep the country safe.
Reps. Mike Turner, left, Darrell Issa, Loretta Sanchez and Scott Peters hold a news conference in Oceanside.
(Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times )
The Vista Republican said that background makes the choice clear for Republicans and other voters about whom to support Nov. 8.
“I’ve already long ago figured out that Loretta Sanchez, her work on national security, probably tips the scale for a lot of us,” Issa told The Times. “She’s also very well aware of our problems with water. So those are, in my particular case, making a difference that is pretty measurable.”
The comments were made after he and Sanchez toured San Diego military installations, saying they found common ground when it comes to national defense and protecting the troops.
The visit also provided both with ample, mostly positive news coverage in a region loaded with Navy and Marine bases and defense contractors, an added benefit for two politicians facing tough elections.
“There’s nothing wrong with coming back and paying attention to your district. I think all congressmen should do that,” said San Diego Republican political consultant Jennifer Jacobs. “Yes, it will be good for his constituents, and, yes, I’m sure it will help him with the voters.”
They were in the region as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation assessing the needs of the military. Joining them were Reps. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) and Scott Peters (D-San Diego). Sanchez, Turner and Peters are members of the House Armed Services Committee. Issa’s district includes the Camp Pendleton Marine base, and he is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The four joined together for a news conference in Oceanside to voice concerns about the aging Marine Corps F-18 Hornet aircraft. So many planes are out of service for maintenance that pilot flying time has been seriously curtailed, they said.
Although they all insisted that the event was not political, it provided a dose of positive publicity. Their concerns were aired on two local television stations and picked up by the San Diego Union-Tribune.
“What most people don’t understand, because they see politics and Republicans and Democrats fighting all the time, the reality is that we need to do our work in the Congress,” Sanchez said after the tours, which were not open to the media. “And to do that you have to work with both sides of the aisle, and that’s what we do especially on the military committee.’’
Joyce Birdwell survived the North Complex fire in 2020, though it devoured her home, and a life she loved, in the mountain town of Berry Creek.
Her partner, Art Linfoot, built the house they lost, a cabin with a wraparound porch and a year-round brook where deer drank and the sound of the water lulled the couple to sleep. Birdwell fired up her chain saw nearly every morning, she told me, aware that keeping the brush at bay was crucial for safety.
Los Angeles knows how to weather a crisis — or two or three. Angelenos are tapping into that resilience, striving to build a city for everyone.
But the fire that came through their Butte County home didn’t care about her trimmed trees, or her hard work or our persistent belief that everything will somehow be OK after a disaster. Birdwell, 69, and Linfoot, 80, are in Irvine now, with no intention of returning, or rebuilding.
Berry Creek Elementary School burned to the ground in the North Complex fire in 2020.
(Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)
“I never thought twice about it as soon as we went back there and saw what was left,” she told me. “I know how long it takes for a tree to grow, and I just knew this would never, never work out for us.”
Hers is a bit of wisdom that is too often lost in our conversations about urban fire: Sometimes, recovery is not rebuilding. Politicians won’t admit it, but the ethos of #strong — measuring success with how quickly we can raise up houses on scorched earth — is snake oil, an emotional rallying cry that often delivers little more than a slippery bit of comfort that benefits the rich more than the rest. Because even rebuilding the most beloved of homes at the fastest of paces will not restore lives or communities to what they were. Or what they need to be. And by focusing on this powerful but narrow idea of recovery, we do a disservice to individual survivors and our collective good.
We need to change our understanding of what recovery is, because we live in an era when the climate crisis has created not just survivors, but refugees and migrants in California and the United States — and they deserve more than a slogan that, to steal a favorite phrase from our governor, does not “meet the moment.”
As we hurl forward to rebuild after January’s fires in the Palisades and Altadena — and all the disasters yet to come — it’s time to acknowledge that recovery and rebuilding, for all our talk, is never fair. There is a bias toward the rich embedded in the process. And for every recovery that we allow to be unfair under the guise of #strong, we march deeper to a California where the elite live in comfort and the rest live in fear — a rightful anxiety that everything we have is tenuous, given and taken as afterthoughts in a tug-of-war between Mother Nature and the wealthy.
‘Conspicuous resilience’
The idea that fire recovery is fair has always been a scam. In his infamous 1998 essay, “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn,” the much-revered and equally despised environmental activist and historian Mike Davis wrote that the “flatland majority” has always been paying “the ever increasing expense of maintaining and, when necessary, rebuilding sloping suburbia,” those rarefied neighborhoods that consider themselves part of Los Angeles proper only when they need something from the rest of us.
If that was true at the turn of the millennium, it’s even more so now.
A 75-year history of fires in the Santa Monica Mountains
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2019
2020-2025
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES
When Davis wrote his controversial piece, he also noted that “late August to early October is the infernal season in Los Angeles.” More than three decades later, climate change has intensified our weather so much that floods and fires haunt almost every month of the California calendar, eclipsing the chthonic terrors of earthquakes that rattle us only now and then.
Summer Gray, an associate professor at UC Santa Barbara who studies the inequities in our responses to climate change, says disaster recovery can be “highly performative, often driven by more privileged members of the community” who have the money and clout that allow them to suck up resources. She saw this firsthand by examining recovery after the debris flows in Montecito in the wake of the 2017 Thomas fire.
Though talk in the ultra-wealthy enclave was all about community recovery, Gray concluded — through interviewing community members — that those with the ability to speak loudest and earliest often received more help, and set the agenda for what recovery included, and didn’t. She found that “narratives of resilience were actually obscuring systemic inequalities.”
Gray warns that sometimes, whether consciously or not, these privileged groups leverage “the optics of this collective recovery to accelerate their own rebuilding,” leaving working-class survivors “sidelined or ignored.” Gray calls this attitude part of “conspicuous resilience,” conflating being temporarily displaced and inconvenienced with being oppressed and vulnerable, leading to the celebration and glorification of a recovery that mostly benefits the few.
“I am not saying that our billionaire class has bad intent,” Gray said. But the elite, “don’t really understand what the needs are.”
My colleague Liam Dillon reported not long ago that before the fire, “the average home in Pacific Palisades cost $3.5 million, the median household earned $325,000 and the total number of rental units restricted as affordable housing was two.”
Two.
When Dillon asked former mayoral candidate and developer Rick Caruso, whose super-high-end mall is an anchor of Palisades commerce, if that should be expanded at this unique moment when everything must be rebuilt anyway, Caruso told him, “Now is not the time for outside groups with no ties to the area to slow down the ability of people to rebuild their homes by trying to impose their agenda.”
Two people ride past a burning house off Enchanted Way in the Marquez Knolls neighborhood of Pacific Palisades in January.
(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)
No ties to the area except our tax dollars, of course, and our erstwhile equality as Angelenos and Californians.
Mayor Karen Bass’ now-ousted recovery czar, developer Steve Soboroff, who supported more affordable housing, put the mood more succinctly.
“We’re not rethinking,” Soboroff said. “We’re rebuilding.”
But if now is not the time to rethink, when is?
The climate crisis is costly, whipping up more and more disasters each year. When Davis wrote his book, there were about six natural disasters in the U.S. every year where the costs of recovery exceeded a billion dollars. Last year, there were 27. This year, we stopped counting, as part of government cost cutting, but that has not stopped floods, fires and heat waves.
Even if the federal government, largely through our taxes, was able to pick up the tab for every tornado, hurricane and wildfire, our current administration has made it clear it does not want to. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been gutted, and may hand off many of its former duties to states, including California, that even if prosperous, lack the money to cover those costs.
Add to that the financial precariousness of tariffs that are making building more expensive, immigration policies that are decimating our construction workforce and insurance costs that are skyrocketing, if you can get a policy, and the prospect of the poor and middle class recovering from fire as quickly as the rich seems naive at best.
Fixes for the future
There are three actions we can take that have the potential to keep California from further devolving into climate rich and poor, housing winner and housing loser.
First, we need to end the fixation on speed.
“If it’s speed without a plan, it means you’re more likely to return to the status quo,” Laurie A. Johnson told me. She’s an urban planner who specializes in disaster recovery and a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire Safe Recovery convened by L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.
Johnson views a focus on speed as “an empowerment of those who have everything they need, or who can easily get it.”
Volunteer archaeologists Elyse Mallonee, left, and Parker Sheriff carefully sift through rubble and ash while looking for cremated remains at a house in Altadena on Feb. 18.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Why don’t we acknowledge that fire destroys more than owner-occupied houses and give equal weight to graduation rates for affected students or the number of renters successfully relocated to safe apartments? What about measuring success around health outcomes for those with asthma or heart conditions exposed to the smoke, or count the number of people who feel their mental health needs have been met or their jobs stabilized?
Certainly home ownership is emotionally and financially important, especially in unique places such as Altadena where a Black middle class found refuge and economic security. But home ownership — and by extension rebuilding — is predominantly a measure of an upper-class recovery, especially in L.A. County, where less than half of the people own the place where they live.
It’s time to slow down, and, yes, rethink.
The second action that will help us reform how we handle disaster is even more difficult: Openly talk about who gets to recover with public money (which repaves roads and fixes water systems and sewers, for example) and who gets to decide who recovers with public money.
Returning to Davis’ point all those years ago, do we continue to rebuild in places that we know, for certain, will experience fire again? What do we owe places such as Malibu, where housing values have increased significantly with each post-fire rebuilding and which have made their elitism part of their identity? What do we owe places such as Altadena, if we allow homeowners with modest means to rebuild without robustly mitigating risk of a future fire?
Maybe not every place should be rebuilt. Maybe in some places, it’s time to let Mother Nature win, or at least create buffers so that she doesn’t have the upper hand.
Our better natures want to help everyone who faces loss, rich or poor. The idea that we would tell a community that they cannot have the money to restore themselves sounds like a political and moral absurdity. But it is increasingly likely that there simply will not be enough money in the future to rebuild everything.
It is absolutely time to impose a recovery “agenda” that takes into account the realities of climate change and our housing crisis and seeks to create communities that are safe and in service of our collective needs. Anything less ignores the reality of the majority, and nearly ensures that these places will return more gentrified, wealthier and even more exclusive, the exact opposite of what public dollars should support.
The Tahitian Terrace mobile home park, destroyed by the Palisades fire, is seen along Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu on Jan. 10.
(Zoe Meyers / AFP via Getty Images)
The last action we need to take to better face a difficult future is to expand what recovery means. It is not always rebuilding. More often than we like to acknowledge, it means moving on. But currently, few of our resources or even our conversations include help for those who don’t want to stick around. In fact, they’re often scorned or simply forgotten.
The Palisades fire wiped out 600 homes in Malibu, 5,500 overall. The Eaton fire destroyed more than 9,000 homes and buildings. Almost certainly, something will be built on all of those lots. Developers are already snapping some of them up. But almost as certain, many of the people who once lived in these places will not return — and probably shouldn’t.
Age, finances, health — there are myriad reasons why spending five to 10 years rebuilding a lost home is not the right decision. Recovery needs to support other options with government money, including moving elsewhere, without shame and without the pressure of the elite-driven #strong ethos that forces us to believe recovery looks like the past.
California’s best example of what this could include is the ReCoverCA Homebuyer Assistance (HBA) Program. This program gave financial assistance of up to $350,000 per household through a forgivable second mortgage loan to low- and middle-income folks, mainly renters, displaced by past fires — basically helping to buy houses for economically-challenged survivors.
The catch? The new home had to be outside a high-risk fire zone. That’s a win for displaced people, for the climate, and for encouraging safe housing and wealth building for the future. But the state is not currently funding the program for fire survivors, though some impacted by floods have a shot.
None of this is to argue that rebuilding is wrong, or that losing a home is undeserving of sympathy or help. It is. But there is so much more to survivors, and recovery, than a house.
Birdwell, who lost her home in Berry Creek, still thinks of that cabin as a “slice of heaven” and reminiscences “about how life used to be.” But she is left with anxiety — a remnant of the fire for which no one has offered her help — and a sense of dislocation and discontent. A few nights ago, she dreamed fire was coming at her again.
“I woke up, my heart was beating out of my chest,” she said. “That might be something that will happen the rest of my life.”
In the next 30 years, we will assuredly have more climate refugees, more climate migrants, like Birdwell and Linfoot and the thousands of Angelenos still reeling from our recent fires. We can plan for that now if we choose to, leave behind the gratifying but false camaraderie of #strong and instead broaden our response to ensuring everyone who survives climate tragedy has options and equity.
If we don’t, we will simply move further into a future that bends recovery to benefit the wealthy, as Davis predicted long ago — prioritizing the rebuilding of hazardous communities again and again until the only people who can afford to live in them are the people who can afford to watch them burn.
In a jab at Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Newsom ran ads contrasting Florida’s conservative policies with California’s liberal stances on abortion, education and LGBTQ+ rights.
The Western States Petroleum Assn., a trade group that represents the industry, responded with a warning for Floridians about the cost of gas and electricity in Newsom’s Golden State.
“Gavin Newsom is banning gas cars and shutting down California oil production,” the association’s ad stated. “California can’t afford Gavin Newsom’s ambition. Can Florida?”
It turns out, the price of California’s battle with oil — both politically and at the pump — may be too much for the governor and the state to bear.
Now with two oil refineries expected to shut down over the next year, the Democratic governor has halted his fight with the industry he accused of price gouging and targeted in two special legislative sessions.
Newsletter
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 2024. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
A Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington is slated to close by the end of the year and a Valero facility in Benicia announced plans to shut down in April. The closures could reduce California’s in-state oil refining capacity by 20%, setting off alarm bells for the Newsom administration.
Having fewer California refineries would increase reliance on foreign oil and drive up gasoline prices once again — a financial jolt for consumers that the governor wants to avoid.
Instead of lambasting the industry, Newsom is now directing his administration and asking lawmakers to try to help refineries remain open.
“My optimism now is that this is a pivot,” said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president and chief executive of the association. “This is a turn.”
The turn
In April, Newsom sent a letter to Siva Gunda, the vice chair of the California Energy Commission, requesting that he “redouble the state’s efforts to work closely with refiners” to ensure access to reliable transportation fuels and “that refiners continue to see the value in serving the California market” even as the state transitions away from fossil fuels.
Newsom included a request for Gunda to recommend changes by July 1 to the state’s approach to maintain adequate oil supply. The letter was sent days after Valero notified the Energy Commission of its intent to close the Benicia refinery.
Gunda responded in late June with a warning that the state “faces the prospect of continued reduction in in-state petroleum refining capacity that outpaces demand decline for petroleum-based fuels” and offered industry-friendly suggestions to boost supply.
In short, California’s efforts to reduce consumption of gasoline have gotten ahead of consumer demand for zero-emission vehicles. Gunda said the state needs to increase investor confidence in refineries to enable them to maintain operations and meet demand.
Newsom has downplayed the change in approach.
“It’s completely consistent,” he said at a recent news conference. He’s also not naive, he said.
“We are all the beneficiaries of oil and gas,” he said.
“So it’s always been about finding a just transition of pragmatism in terms of that process.”
His comments this summer have marked a noticeable change in tone from a Democratic governor whose climate change advocacy became synonymous with attacking the oil industry.
Although now in limbo due to actions taken by the Trump administration, Newsom set a goal for 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks to be zero-emission by 2035.
In a special session months later, Newsom urged lawmakers to place monetary penalties on excessive oil company profits. Newsom accused the oil industry of intentionally driving up the cost of gasoline as retribution for the state’s policies to phase out dependence on fossil fuels in an effort to curb climate change.
Lawmakers balked and Newsom backed off his initial request for them to pass an oil profits penalty. Instead, lawmakers gave state regulators more authority to investigate gasoline price surges and potentially place a cap on profits and penalize oil companies through a public hearing process.
The governor called a special session redux in 2024 after Democrats pushed back on his request to approve new requirements on oil refineries in the final days of the regular legislative session. Lawmakers ultimately approved a state law that could lower gasoline price spikes by giving regulators the authority to require that California oil refiners store more inventory.
Reheis-Boyd said the change reflects that the governor is realizing that reducing supply without reducing demand only increases costs.
The “truckloads of data” required from the industry through the special sessions also showed that refineries weren’t gouging customers, she said, and gave state officials insight into why refineries struggle to maintain their operations in California.
“When Valero announced they were leaving California, the next day, their stock price went up. And that just says everything you need to know, right?” Reheis-Boyd said. “You have to send a market signal that says, ‘We’re open for business here. We need you. We want to collaborate with you as we all plan for this lower-carbon economy in the future, but that pace and skill has got to match up.”’
What’s to come
When California lawmakers return to the state Capitol next week to begin the monthlong slog until they adjourn for the year, industry-friendly bills await them.
Among the considerations is Newsom’s proposal to make it easier to drill new wells in oil fields in Kern County. His plan also would streamline new wells in existing oil fields across the state if companies permanently plug two old wells.
Later this week, the Energy Commission is expected to consider pausing a possible cap on oil industry profits and suspending potential new state oversight of the timing of refinery maintenance. The state is also reportedly attempting to intervene to find a buyer for the Valero plant in Benicia.
While the oil industry is hopeful, environmentalists are dismayed.
California is at a crucial inflection point in its transition to clean energy, said Mary Creasman, chief executive of California Environmental Voters. With federal climate rollbacks, the world is watching the state.
“Now is not the time to retreat,” she said. “Now is the time to double down and innovate the way through this. That’s what this moment calls for. That’s the leadership we need nationally and the leadership we need globally.”
Joyce Birdwell survived the North Complex fire in 2020, though it devoured her home, and a life she loved, in the mountain town of Berry Creek.
Her partner, Art Linfoot, built the house they lost, a cabin with a wraparound porch and a year-round brook where deer drank and the sound of the water lulled the couple to sleep. Birdwell fired up her chain saw nearly every morning, she told me, aware that keeping the brush at bay was crucial for safety.
Los Angeles knows how to weather a crisis — or two or three. Angelenos are tapping into that resilience, striving to build a city for everyone.
But the fire that came through their Butte County home didn’t care about her trimmed trees, or her hard work or our persistent belief that everything will somehow be OK after a disaster. Birdwell, 69, and Linfoot, 80, are in Irvine now, with no intention of returning, or rebuilding.
Berry Creek Elementary School burned to the ground in the North Complex fire in 2020.
(Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)
“I never thought twice about it as soon as we went back there and saw what was left,” she told me. “I know how long it takes for a tree to grow, and I just knew this would never, never work out for us.”
Hers is a bit of wisdom that is too often lost in our conversations about urban fire: Sometimes, recovery is not rebuilding. Politicians won’t admit it, but the ethos of #strong — measuring success with how quickly we can raise up houses on scorched earth — is snake oil, an emotional rallying cry that often delivers little more than a slippery bit of comfort that benefits the rich more than the rest. Because even rebuilding the most beloved of homes at the fastest of paces will not restore lives or communities to what they were. Or what they need to be. And by focusing on this powerful but narrow idea of recovery, we do a disservice to individual survivors and our collective good.
We need to change our understanding of what recovery is, because we live in an era when the climate crisis has created not just survivors, but refugees and migrants in California and the United States — and they deserve more than a slogan that, to steal a favorite phrase from our governor, does not “meet the moment.”
As we hurl forward to rebuild after January’s fires in the Palisades and Altadena — and all the disasters yet to come — it’s time to acknowledge that recovery and rebuilding, for all our talk, is never fair. There is a bias toward the rich embedded in the process. And for every recovery that we allow to be unfair under the guise of #strong, we march deeper to a California where the elite live in comfort and the rest live in fear — a rightful anxiety that everything we have is tenuous, given and taken as afterthoughts in a tug-of-war between Mother Nature and the wealthy.
‘Conspicuous resilience’
The idea that fire recovery is fair has always been a scam. In his infamous 1998 essay, “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn,” the much-revered and equally despised environmental activist and historian Mike Davis wrote that the “flatland majority” has always been paying “the ever increasing expense of maintaining and, when necessary, rebuilding sloping suburbia,” those rarefied neighborhoods that consider themselves part of Los Angeles proper only when they need something from the rest of us.
If that was true at the turn of the millennium, it’s even more so now.
A 75-year history of fires in the Santa Monica Mountains
1950-1959
1960-1969
1970-1979
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2019
2020-2025
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES
When Davis wrote his controversial piece, he also noted that “late August to early October is the infernal season in Los Angeles.” More than three decades later, climate change has intensified our weather so much that floods and fires haunt almost every month of the California calendar, eclipsing the chthonic terrors of earthquakes that rattle us only now and then.
Summer Gray, an associate professor at UC Santa Barbara who studies the inequities in our responses to climate change, says disaster recovery can be “highly performative, often driven by more privileged members of the community” who have the money and clout that allow them to suck up resources. She saw this firsthand by examining recovery after the debris flows in Montecito in the wake of the 2017 Thomas fire.
Though talk in the ultra-wealthy enclave was all about community recovery, Gray concluded — through interviewing community members — that those with the ability to speak loudest and earliest often received more help, and set the agenda for what recovery included, and didn’t. She found that “narratives of resilience were actually obscuring systemic inequalities.”
Gray warns that sometimes, whether consciously or not, these privileged groups leverage “the optics of this collective recovery to accelerate their own rebuilding,” leaving working-class survivors “sidelined or ignored.” Gray calls this attitude part of “conspicuous resilience,” conflating being temporarily displaced and inconvenienced with being oppressed and vulnerable, leading to the celebration and glorification of a recovery that mostly benefits the few.
“I am not saying that our billionaire class has bad intent,” Gray said. But the elite, “don’t really understand what the needs are.”
My colleague Liam Dillon reported not long ago that before the fire, “the average home in Pacific Palisades cost $3.5 million, the median household earned $325,000 and the total number of rental units restricted as affordable housing was two.”
Two.
When Dillon asked former mayoral candidate and developer Rick Caruso, whose super-high-end mall is an anchor of Palisades commerce, if that should be expanded at this unique moment when everything must be rebuilt anyway, Caruso told him, “Now is not the time for outside groups with no ties to the area to slow down the ability of people to rebuild their homes by trying to impose their agenda.”
Two people ride past a burning house off Enchanted Way in the Marquez Knolls neighborhood of Pacific Palisades in January.
(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)
No ties to the area except our tax dollars, of course, and our erstwhile equality as Angelenos and Californians.
Mayor Karen Bass’ now-ousted recovery czar, developer Steve Soboroff, who supported more affordable housing, put the mood more succinctly.
“We’re not rethinking,” Soboroff said. “We’re rebuilding.”
But if now is not the time to rethink, when is?
The climate crisis is costly, whipping up more and more disasters each year. When Davis wrote his book, there were about six natural disasters in the U.S. every year where the costs of recovery exceeded a billion dollars. Last year, there were 27. This year, we stopped counting, as part of government cost cutting, but that has not stopped floods, fires and heat waves.
Even if the federal government, largely through our taxes, was able to pick up the tab for every tornado, hurricane and wildfire, our current administration has made it clear it does not want to. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been gutted, and may hand off many of its former duties to states, including California, that even if prosperous, lack the money to cover those costs.
Add to that the financial precariousness of tariffs that are making building more expensive, immigration policies that are decimating our construction workforce and insurance costs that are skyrocketing, if you can get a policy, and the prospect of the poor and middle class recovering from fire as quickly as the rich seems naive at best.
Fixes for the future
There are three actions we can take that have the potential to keep California from further devolving into climate rich and poor, housing winner and housing loser.
First, we need to end the fixation on speed.
“If it’s speed without a plan, it means you’re more likely to return to the status quo,” Laurie A. Johnson told me. She’s an urban planner who specializes in disaster recovery and a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire Safe Recovery convened by L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.
Johnson views a focus on speed as “an empowerment of those who have everything they need, or who can easily get it.”
Volunteer archaeologists Elyse Mallonee, left, and Parker Sheriff carefully sift through rubble and ash while looking for cremated remains at a house in Altadena on Feb. 18.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Why don’t we acknowledge that fire destroys more than owner-occupied houses and give equal weight to graduation rates for affected students or the number of renters successfully relocated to safe apartments? What about measuring success around health outcomes for those with asthma or heart conditions exposed to the smoke, or count the number of people who feel their mental health needs have been met or their jobs stabilized?
Certainly home ownership is emotionally and financially important, especially in unique places such as Altadena where a Black middle class found refuge and economic security. But home ownership — and by extension rebuilding — is predominantly a measure of an upper-class recovery, especially in L.A. County, where less than half of the people own the place where they live.
It’s time to slow down, and, yes, rethink.
The second action that will help us reform how we handle disaster is even more difficult: Openly talk about who gets to recover with public money (which repaves roads and fixes water systems and sewers, for example) and who gets to decide who recovers with public money.
Returning to Davis’ point all those years ago, do we continue to rebuild in places that we know, for certain, will experience fire again? What do we owe places such as Malibu, where housing values have increased significantly with each post-fire rebuilding and which have made their elitism part of their identity? What do we owe places such as Altadena, if we allow homeowners with modest means to rebuild without robustly mitigating risk of a future fire?
Maybe not every place should be rebuilt. Maybe in some places, it’s time to let Mother Nature win, or at least create buffers so that she doesn’t have the upper hand.
Our better natures want to help everyone who faces loss, rich or poor. The idea that we would tell a community that they cannot have the money to restore themselves sounds like a political and moral absurdity. But it is increasingly likely that there simply will not be enough money in the future to rebuild everything.
It is absolutely time to impose a recovery “agenda” that takes into account the realities of climate change and our housing crisis and seeks to create communities that are safe and in service of our collective needs. Anything less ignores the reality of the majority, and nearly ensures that these places will return more gentrified, wealthier and even more exclusive, the exact opposite of what public dollars should support.
The Tahitian Terrace mobile home park, destroyed by the Palisades fire, is seen along Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu on Jan. 10.
(Zoe Meyers / AFP via Getty Images)
The last action we need to take to better face a difficult future is to expand what recovery means. It is not always rebuilding. More often than we like to acknowledge, it means moving on. But currently, few of our resources or even our conversations include help for those who don’t want to stick around. In fact, they’re often scorned or simply forgotten.
The Palisades fire wiped out 600 homes in Malibu, 5,500 overall. The Eaton fire destroyed more than 9,000 homes and buildings. Almost certainly, something will be built on all of those lots. Developers are already snapping some of them up. But almost as certain, many of the people who once lived in these places will not return — and probably shouldn’t.
Age, finances, health — there are myriad reasons why spending five to 10 years rebuilding a lost home is not the right decision. Recovery needs to support other options with government money, including moving elsewhere, without shame and without the pressure of the elite-driven #strong ethos that forces us to believe recovery looks like the past.
California’s best example of what this could include is the ReCoverCA Homebuyer Assistance (HBA) Program. This program gave financial assistance of up to $350,000 per household through a forgivable second mortgage loan to low- and middle-income folks, mainly renters, displaced by past fires — basically helping to buy houses for economically-challenged survivors.
The catch? The new home had to be outside a high-risk fire zone. That’s a win for displaced people, for the climate, and for encouraging safe housing and wealth building for the future. But the state is not currently funding the program for fire survivors, though some impacted by floods have a shot.
None of this is to argue that rebuilding is wrong, or that losing a home is undeserving of sympathy or help. It is. But there is so much more to survivors, and recovery, than a house.
Birdwell, who lost her home in Berry Creek, still thinks of that cabin as a “slice of heaven” and reminiscences “about how life used to be.” But she is left with anxiety — a remnant of the fire for which no one has offered her help — and a sense of dislocation and discontent. A few nights ago, she dreamed fire was coming at her again.
“I woke up, my heart was beating out of my chest,” she said. “That might be something that will happen the rest of my life.”
In the next 30 years, we will assuredly have more climate refugees, more climate migrants, like Birdwell and Linfoot and the thousands of Angelenos still reeling from our recent fires. We can plan for that now if we choose to, leave behind the gratifying but false camaraderie of #strong and instead broaden our response to ensuring everyone who survives climate tragedy has options and equity.
If we don’t, we will simply move further into a future that bends recovery to benefit the wealthy, as Davis predicted long ago — prioritizing the rebuilding of hazardous communities again and again until the only people who can afford to live in them are the people who can afford to watch them burn.
California Democrats and Texas Republicans are in an old-fashioned standoff, threatening to redraw their congressional maps in an attempt to sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.
Caught in the middle are a handful of California Republicans, from relative newcomers to seasoned veterans, who represent pockets of the state from the U.S.-Mexico border to the remote forests in the northeast corner.
The Texas GOP is pushing, at the behest of President Trump, to net five additional seats for congressional Republicans, who hold the U.S. House of Representatives by a razor-thin margin. In response, Gov. Gavin Newsom has said California will push back with a map that would increase the number of Democrats the state sends to Washington.
“The idea that the president of the United States says he’s entitled to five seats should sicken everybody,” Newsom said at a news conference Thursday. “There’s nothing normal about that and anyone who says it’s not surprising is normalizing it. That’s shocking.”
The California gerrymandering plan taking shape behind closed doors would increase the Democratic Party’s dominance in the Golden State, adding as many as five congressional districts favorable to Democrats, according to a draft map reviewed by The Times. If the Democrats succeed, those changes could leave Republicans with four of the state’s 52 House seats — down from the current roster of nine.
California’s districts are typically drawn once per decade by an independent commission. Newsom is pushing to put a new map tailored to favor Democrats in front of voters Nov. 4, which would require the Legislature to approve the plan shortly after members return to Sacramento from their summer recess.
Newsom has said California’s redistricting plan will have a “trigger,” meaning a redrawn map would not take effect unless Texas moved forward with its own.
“We want to do it in the most transparent way,” Newsom said. “That’s a process that will unfold over the course of the next few weeks. But we want to see the maps on the ballot. I want folks to know what they’re voting on. That’s what separates what we’re doing from what others are doing.”
The proposed boundaries of the new congressional districts continue to shift, but the goal for California Democrats remains the same: Funnel the state’s Republican voters into fewer seats, boost vulnerable Democrats and turn some GOP-dominant districts into narrowly divided toss-ups.
Here are the Republicans who could face major changes.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin)
Kiley represents a sprawling district that runs along the Nevada border from Northern California to Death Valley, cutting through Mammoth and Lake Tahoe and the cities of Roseville, Rocklin and Folsom.
Republicans have a 6-percentage-point voter registration advantage in Kiley’s district. The district’s footprint could shrink and shift closer to Sacramento, adding more registered Democrats and trimming off some conservative and rural areas.
Kiley introduced a bill this week to nullify any newly drawn congressional boundaries adopted by states before the next U.S. census, in 2030, which would apply to both Texas and California. He said the bill would “stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”
Newsom, Kiley said, is “trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale)
LaMalfa represents a safe Republican district that stretches through a vast territory of Northern California that borders Oregon and Nevada. The district includes Chico, Redding and Yuba City.
LaMalfa said in an interview that he had seen one map that shifted his district south to include parts of Sonoma County wine country and shifted some conservative rural areas in the north in another lawmaker’s district. Those changes, he said, would put towns near the Oregon border and Marin County, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, in the same district.
“The Democrats are really way over the line on this,” LaMalfa said. “I hope the weight of how bad this looks collapses on them before we even have to go through these gyrations, and millions and millions of dollars.”
He said he was certain that Republicans would litigate the new map if Democrats push ahead. He said other groups, including Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, have also voiced concerns.
“I’m not even stressed,” said La Malfa, a fourth-generation rice farmer. “If they throw me in some wine country district or some coastal district, and that throws me out, then I can go over here and finish cutting apart this tree that fell on my fence last night.”
Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford)
The proposed plans could add more registered Democrats to Valadao’s predominately Latino district in the Central Valley.
Democrats have tried for years to unseat Valadao, who represents a district that has a strong Democratic voter registration advantage on paper, but where turnout among blue voters is lackluster.
Even before the redistrict dustup, Valadao was once again a top target for Democrats. Valadao represents the California district with the highest percentage of Medicaid recipients, many of whom may lose coverage because of legislation approved by the Republican-led Congress and signed by Trump. Valadao previously lost his congressional seat in 2018 after voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017.
A representative for Valadao didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills)
The plan being considered could force two Republican members of the House into the same district: Kim and Calvert.
Calvert was first elected to Congress in 1992 and is the longest-serving member of California’s Republican delegation. He represents a Riverside County district that includes Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Palm Springs and his home base of Corona. The district, which leans Republican, has been a prime, but unsuccessful, target for Democrats in the last two elections.
Kim, who was first elected to Congress in 2020, represents a Republican district, mostly in Orange County, that includes Mission Viejo, Orange, Lake Forest, Anaheim and Tustin.
Calvert said he strongly opposes “the scheme being orchestrated behind closed doors by Sacramento politicians” to replace maps drawn by the redistricting commission “with a process that would allow legislators to draw district maps that are gerrymandered to benefit themselves and their political allies.”
Deviating from the independent redistricting process “disenfranchises voters and degrades trust in our political system,” Kim said in a statement. She said Newsom should, “for once, focus on addressing the pressing issues making life harder for Californians under his watch instead of trying to position himself for a presidential run.”
Newsom this week said he was pleased to see Republican members coming out in support of independent redistricting.
“That’s an encouraging sign,” Newsom said. “So already, perhaps, people are waking up to the reality of California entering into this conversation. We’re not a small state. Again, we punch above our weight. It will have profound national implications if we move forward.”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall)
Under the tentative plans, Issa, who has served in Congress for more than two decades, would see his safely Republican district become purple. That could include absorbing Palm Springs, a liberal area that is currently in Calvert’s district and has become a hub of fundraising and political activity for Democrats.
A spokesman for Issa declined to comment but referred to a statement from the state’s nine-member Republican delegation, which said that Trump won 38% of the presidential vote in California last year, but Republicans hold fewer than 1 in 5 of the state’s 52 House seats.
Newsom, the delegation said, is trying to wrest power from the independent redistricting commission and “place it back into the hands of Sacramento politicians to further his left-wing political agenda.”
“A partisan political gerrymander is not what the voters of California want,” the statement said.
Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.
Texas Republicans, at President Donald Trump’s urging, are preparing to redraw the state’s congressional map in a way that could flip up to five seats to the GOP in 2026. Trump hopes to boost Republicans’ chances of maintaining a narrow House majority amid the headwinds of the midterm election.
The manoeuvre in Texas would be legal and not unprecedented for the state, which also undertook a Republican-driven redistricting in 2003. But Democrats have called the move a partisan power grab and an affront to the traditional practice of drawing new congressional districts every 10 years, after a new Census.
But the debate over Texas’s electoral map has also prompted broader questions over the fairness of the way in which voting districts are outlined. And the one state bigger than Texas – California – has caught the attention of Vice President JD Vance.
“The gerrymander in California is outrageous,” Vance posted July 30 on X. “Of their 52 congressional districts, 9 of them are Republican. That means 17 percent of their delegation is Republican when Republicans regularly win 40 percent of the vote in that state. How can this possibly be allowed?”
So, does California have an unfair map, as Vance said?
By the numbers, California is not a dramatic outlier when it comes to the difference between its congressional and presidential vote. However, because this difference is multiplied by a large number of districts – since California is the United States’ most populous state – it produces a bounty of House seats beyond what the state’s presidential vote alone would predict.
Vance’s description of California’s map as a “gerrymander” is also doubtful – it was drawn by a bipartisan commission, not Democratic legislators. Gerrymandering is done by politicians and political parties.
Vance’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.
What the numbers show
Our first step was to measure the difference between each state’s House-seat breakdown by party and its presidential-vote breakdown by party, which is what Vance cited. (Our analysis builds off of a 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball story written by this author. Sabato’s Crystal Ball is a publication of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.) We removed from consideration any state with one, two or three House members in its delegation, because these small states have wide differentials that skew the comparison.
For red states won by Trump, we took the percentage of Republican seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Trump won in that state. Conversely, for blue states won by Kamala Harris, we took the percentage of Democratic seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Harris won in the state.
Our analysis found that California did elect more Democrats to the House than its presidential vote share would have predicted, but the state was not an outlier. With 83% of its House seats held by Democrats and 58% of its 2024 presidential votes going to Democrats, California ranked 13th nationally among 35 states that have at least four seats in their delegation.
California has the nation’s 13th widest difference between House and presidential results
The top 13 differentials were split roughly evenly between blue and red states.
In six states that have at least four House seats – red Iowa, Utah, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and blue Connecticut and Massachusetts – a single party controls every House seat, even though the winning presidential candidate won between 56% and 66% of the vote in those states.
Another six states had a differential equal to or wider than California’s: Red South Carolina and Tennessee, and blue Oregon, Illinois and Maryland, plus purple Wisconsin.
California does stand out by another measure, because of its size.
If you multiply the House-to-presidential differential by the number of House seats in the delegation, you get a figure for “excess House seats”, the term used in the 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball article – essentially, a majority party’s bonus in House seats beyond what presidential performance would predict.
Because California has a large population represented by many House districts, even its modest differential produces a lot of extra Democratic House seats – 12, to be exact. That’s the largest of any state; the closest competitors are blue Illinois and New York, and red Florida, each of which has more than four excess seats for the majority party.
Texas’s current congressional map has 3.7 excess seats for the Republicans. That would increase to an 8.7-seat GOP bonus if the GOP can flip the five seats they’re hoping for in 2026.
Is California a “gerrymander”?
Vance described California’s map as a gerrymander, but political experts doubted that this term applies. A gerrymander typically refers to a map drawn by partisan lawmakers, and California’s is drawn by a commission approved by voters specifically to remove the partisanship from congressional map drawing.
“California’s congressional map is no gerrymander,” said Nathaniel Rakich, a contributing analyst to Inside Elections, a political analytics publication. “It was drawn by an independent commission consisting of five Republicans, five Democrats, and four independents that is generally upheld as one of the fairest map-drawing entities in any state.”
Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, said commissions tend to produce a more competitive House battleground than a fully partisan system. Of the 19 House seats his outlet currently rates as toss-ups going into 2026, only two come from states where one party had a free hand to gerrymander the current district lines.
“I think it’s fair to say that commission and court-drawn maps can inject some competitiveness into the process,” Kondik said.
Because the seats were drawn by a commission, California has a lot of competitive seats. This helps California Republicans despite the state’s Democratic tilt.
According to the 2024 pre-election ratings by Sabato’s Crystal Ball, California had three Democratic-held seats in the “lean Democratic” category, and two more that were rated “likely Democratic”.
So, going into the election, five of California’s 40 Democratic-held seats are at least somewhat vulnerable to a Republican takeover. Texas Democrats aren’t so lucky, under its existing map: They are able to realistically target only one “likely Republican” seat out of 25 held by the GOP.
Sometimes, geography is the enemy of a “fair” map
Despite map makers’ efforts, it is sometimes impossible to produce a map that jibes perfectly with a state’s overall partisan balance. The cold facts of geography can prevent this.
One oft-cited example is Massachusetts, which hasn’t elected a Republican to the US House since 1994. There are few Republican hotbeds in Massachusetts, and experts say they can’t be easily connected into coherent congressional districts.
“Especially in deep-red or deep-blue states, parties tend to get a higher share of seats than they do of votes,” Rakich said. “Imagine a state where Republicans get two-thirds of the vote in every district; obviously, they would get 100 percent of their seats.”
Rakich said Democrats are geographically distributed more favourably in California. But in other states, Republicans benefit from better geographic distribution.
“I haven’t heard Vance complain about the fact that Democrats only get 25 percent of Wisconsin’s congressional seats despite regularly getting 50 percent of the vote there,” Rakich added.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Monday that his office has spent more than $5 million fighting the Trump administration in court over the last six months, but saved the state nearly $170 billion.
“That means that for every one dollar we’ve been given by the legislature and the governor from special session funding to do this work — and we are very grateful for that funding — we’ve returned $33,600 for the state,” Bonta said during an afternoon news conference alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom. “Just to put it in perspective, if you told a Wall Street investor they’d get a $33,000 return on every one dollar invested, they would trip over themselves to get in on that deal.”
Bonta’s calculations are based on a mountain of litigation his office has filed against the administration since President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, including 37 lawsuits — many alongside other liberal-led states — and 47 amicus briefs backing other litigants’ lawsuits against the administration.
The vast majority of the savings Bonta claimed were the result of one particular lawsuit, in which California and other states successfully challenged a Trump administration effort to freeze trillions of dollars in federal funding to the states — including what Bonta said was $168 billion for California alone.
“In his first week in office, President Trump went after a full-third of California’s budget — and we went to court less than 24 hours later and stopped him in his tracks,” Bonta said.
Bonta also cited court orders his office has won protecting $7 billion in transportation funding to maintain roads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure; $939 million in education funding for after-school and summer learning and teacher preparation; $972 million in healthcare funding for identifying, tracking and addressing infectious diseases, ensuring immunizations and modernizing public health infrastructure; and $300 million for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. However, it has previously derided California’s efforts to block Trump’s agenda in the courts. Last month, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told The Times that Newsom was “destroying” the state and that Trump has been trying to “step in and save Californians from Gavin’s incompetence.”
The state legislature during a special session in February allocated Bonta’s office an extra $25 million to staff up and fight Trump in court. As part of that allocation, the legislature required that Bonta provide regular reports on how the money is spent. Bonta and Newsom’s news conference Monday followed the first of those reports being submitted to lawmakers.
Bonta said much of the $5 million his office has spent to date was used to pay for in-house attorneys and paralegals, and that none has been spent on outside counsel. He also said that, given the pace and scope of the work to date, his office will eventually need more funding.
“We’re grateful for the $25 million and the ability to draw down that $5 million so far. We do think we will need more going into the future, and I’m hopeful that through the conversations that we have — talking about what we would use it for, our success so far, what the continuing threats are down the road — that we’ll get to a place that will work for everybody,” Bonta said.
Newsom, citing Bonta’s financially consequential wins in court already, promised he’ll get the funding.
“Let me assure you, he will not be in need of resources to do his job,” Newsom said. “This report only highlights why I feel very confident in his ability to execute and to deliver results for the people of this state.”
Bonta’s report outlined 36 lawsuits his office had brought against the Trump administration through Wednesday. Those lawsuits challenged Trump’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, cut healthcare funding and research, dismantle the Department of Education and reduce education funding. They also challenged Trump administration efforts to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants and restrict voting access in California, among other things.
On Friday Bonta’s office filed its 37th lawsuit, challenging the administration’s efforts to effectively ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth nationwide.
Newsom said Bonta’s work to date shows exactly why it was necessary for him and other California leaders to call a special session and allocate the additional funds. California sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times, and they knew it would need to sue the second Trump administration, too.
“We were mindful that past is prologue,” Newsom said, and the added resources they provided Bonta’s office “have come to bear great fruit.”
Bonta said there is no time to slow down now, as the Trump administration continues to violate the law, and that his team is ready to keep fighting.
“We know that this work is just the beginning,” he said, “but we are not backing down.”
Fox 11 anchor Elex Michaelson is one of the nice guys in L.A. media. His tough-but-fair-and-especially-polite lines of questioning made him a natural to help moderate debates for the L.A. mayoral and sheriff’s races three years ago. The 38-year-old Agoura Hills native is so nice that he’s known not just for his work but also … his mom’s cookies and brownies.
Newsletter
You’re reading the Essential California newsletter
Sign up to start every day with California’s most important stories.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Michaelson gifts every guest who treks up to Fox 11’s West L.A. studios for his weekly public affairs show “The Issue Is” a box of the desserts. We’re talking former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, billionaire Rick Caruso, L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other political heavyweights on both sides of the proverbial aisle. U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) once brought a bag of Porto’s to Michaelson’s team in gratitude for all the cookies and brownies he had received over the years. Former Congress member and current California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter sent Elex’s mom, Crystal, a handwritten thank-you note.
“Every single time I see [L.A. County Sheriff] Robert Luna, he brings them up without fail,” Michaelson said with pride in a phone interview.
One not-so-famous person who has been lucky enough to enjoy them? Me.
Elex recently gave me a box when I appeared on “The Issue Is” just after U.S. Border Patrol sector chief Gregory Bovino, who took time off from bloviating about the border to accept the goodies because even la migra gets sweets, I guess.
Crystal Michaelson’s cookies and brownies are worthy of a stall at the Hollywood farmers market, and I’m not saying that just so I can appear on “The Issue Is” again soon.
The cookies last time around were blondies studded with chocolate chips and M&Ms. Slightly toasted on the outside, chewy on the inside, thick yet airy and spiked with an extra dash of vanilla, the blondies were beautiful. Just as delicious were the brownies, all about the firm, dark-chocolate-derived fudge that crackled with each bite. Both featured a generous sprinkling of sea salt, the crystals perfectly cutting through all the sugar and butter.
They didn’t last the drive back to Orange County.
Cookie diplomacy at the highest level of California politics
When Elex took his mom to a holiday party hosted by then-Vice President Kamala Harris some years back, most of the movers and shakers greeted her with the same enthusiasm they showed her son because of what she bakes.
“I’m not really a baker!” insisted Crystal, an artist by trade. She makes the goodies every Thursday afternoon, the day before “The Issue Is” tapes, with an occasional assist by Elex. “But it’s turned into a whole thing!”
The tradition dates back to elementary school, when Crystal treated Elex’s teachers and classmates to them as “a thank you.” Elex took some to the first and last day of his college internship for Fox 11 to hand out to the newsroom, then repeated the gesture when he worked at XETV in San Diego and ABC 7 in Los Angeles before returning to Fox 11.
“Their first and last impression of me,” he said, “were these cookies.”
Michaelson repeated the move every day for the first week of “The Issue Is.” The inaugural guests were Newsom, then-Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff (now California’s junior U.S. senator), and commentator Areva Martin.
“Everyone loved the cookies so much that they joked, ‘We won’t return unless we get more cookies,’” Michaelson said.
The crew insisted they get treated to them one more week, “and my mom just never really stopped since then,” even baking and shipping them to regular guests during the COVID era as a Christmas gift.
“One of the only things that seems to unite Republicans and Democrats [in California] is these cookies and brownies,” Elex said. “There’s nothing like the unifying power of food to bring people together to not just talk, but listen to each other.”
Crystal gets a shout-out in the show’s closing credits for “cookies, brownies and moral support.” She learned the recipes as a teen, from a family friend. They’re baked in a Pyrex baking dish, sliced into squares, then put in cardboard boxes that she decorates by writing, “The Issue Is … ”
People have suggested Crystal sell them, but she declines: “I’m not a baker.”
For now, she’s flattered by all the attention — Newsom once wrote a letter on his official letterhead raving about them. The only issue she sees with them …is Elex.
“He eats them too much,” Crystal said. “I’ve said before that maybe I should make them a little bit healthier. And everyone said, ‘No, don’t do that!’”
Today’s top stories
(Christian Murdock / Associated Press)
In-N-Out leaves California
Billionaire In-N-Out owner Lynsi Snyder announced last month her move from California to Tennessee.
The departures of several major companies from California have contributed to a narrative that the state is unfriendly to businesses.
But despite challenges, including steep taxes, the state remains the fourth-largest economy in the world, boasts a diverse pool of talent and is a hub of technological innovation, economists said.
L.A.’s water wars
Los Angeles gets 2% of its water supply from creeks that feed Mono Lake.
Environmental advocates are calling for the city to take less water to help the lake reach a healthy level.
A proposed ballot measure could force a citywide vote on L.A. 2028 Olympic venues.
Organizers with the hotel workers union turned in a ballot proposal to require citywide voter approval of “event centers,” including sports facilities and concert halls.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday that he believes there is a “legal pathway” for Democrats to present new congressional district maps directly to voters on a statewide ballot, without input from the state’s independent redistricting commission.
Such a move, he suggested, would allow the state to counter Republican efforts to tilt next year’s midterm election by pushing redistricting measures that favor the GOP in conservative states such as Texas. If successful, Republicans would have a better chance of holding their slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and protecting President Trump’s ability to enact his agenda.
“I think the governor could call a special election that the voters of the state of California would participate in, and present to them a pathway forward that’s different than the independent redistricting commission, that has maps presented to them ready [and] tangible and specific, and then the people vote,” Bonta said, adding that his staff had been discussing the matter with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s team.
Republicans, who probably would lose seats if such a ballot measure was approved, were dubious of Bonta’s claim and argued that it is harmful to democracy. GOP Assembly Leader James Gallagher criticized Bonta’s proposal as a “strange legal theory to undermine CA voters.”
“It’s undemocratic, it’s wrong, and it needs to be stopped,” Gallagher said in a social media post Tuesday evening. “If they move forward in this fashion they will rip the state and this nation apart.”
Bonta provided few details about a potential ballot measure aside from saying that new district boundaries could be drawn by the state Legislature and presented to voters in a special election. The measure would ask voters to rescind the power they granted to an independent redistricting commission, at least temporarily.
Presenting maps directly to voters is viewed as an effort to sway Californians who may be leery of letting the Legislature redraw the districts after they vote, according to redistricting experts.
The governor’s office declined to say whether Newsom intends to ask the Legislature to put a map of the proposed districts on the ballot. His team said it is continuing to explore the two pathways he previously outlined — either having state lawmakers redraw the maps, which probably would face legal challenges, or placing the matter on the statewide ballot for California voters to decide.
Redistricting — the esoteric process of redrawing political boundaries — typically occurs once a decade, after the U.S. Census tallies population shifts across the nation. But it’s in the news because Trump — potentially facing the loss of the slim GOP majority in the House — urged Texas to redraw its congressional districts middecade to elect more Republicans in the 2026 midterm election so he can press his agenda during his final two years in office.
California lawmakers, like those in most states, used to gerrymander political boundaries to favor political parties and protect incumbents, often leading to bizarrely shaped districts with voters who sometimes had little in common. But in 2010, voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure to create an independent redistricting commission that focused on drawing congressional districts that consolidated communities of interest, respected minority voting rights and geographically made sense.
The state Republican and Democratic parties opposed the effort because it eroded their power. Now, after the Trump administration is urging GOP states to redraw district lines in a manner that would shore up their party’s control of Congress, Democrats are fighting back. In California, a partisan redrawing of the districts could net their party a half-dozen seats in the state’s 52-member delegation, which currently has nine Republicans.
Several steps would have to occur before any such potential change could be presented to the electorate, notably that the Legislature would have to approve placing the matter before voters in a special election and draw new maps in a compressed schedule. Legal challenges are likely.
“Generally, when the people vote on something, if it’s going to be changed in a significant way and not have additional steps taken by the Legislature in furtherance of what the people voted for, then the people need to vote for that change,” Bonta said, after being asked about the matter during a news conference. His office was working to “have confidence and assurance that there is a legal pathway for California to take action in response to any action that Texas takes. … We want to be confident that it was done lawfully originally, and that we can defend it appropriately in court.”
SACRAMENTO — With diversity programs under full assault by the Trump administration, California lawmakers are considering a measure that would allow state colleges to consider whether applicants are descendants of African Americans who were enslaved in the United States.
The bill, which would probably face a legal challenge if passed, is part of a package of 15 reparations bills supported by the California Legislative Black Caucus being considered in the current legislative session.
Assembly Bill 7, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), if passed, could potentially skirt around the state’s ban on affirmative action. California voters in 1996 approved a state ballot measure, Proposition 209, that bars colleges from considering race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin in admissions under Proposition 209. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 also ruled those programs were unconstitutional.
Bryan, however, says his has nothing to do with race and doesn’t use the terms “Black” or “African American” in its text.
“Descendants of people who are enslaved could identify in a variety of racial ways, and then phenotypically even present in different ways than they racially identify,” he said in an interview with The Times. “But if your ancestors were enslaved in this country, then there’s a direct lineage-based tie to harms that were inflicted during enslavement and in the after lives thereafter.”
The bill, and others in the reparations package, had seen widespread support within the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority and are representative of California’s values, Bryan said.
“I think California is quite clear where it positions itself in this moment, and that is in the support of all people, recognizing the harms of the past and trying to build a future that includes everybody. And if that appears in conflict with the federal government, I think that has more to do with the way the government is posturing than who we are as Californians,” he said.
Last year, when only 10 of 14 bills in the reparations package passed through the Legislature, reform advocates felt the efforts were lackluster. Lawmakers believed it was a foundation they could build upon, Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City) said in September.
AB 7’s focus on lineage, said Taifha Alexander, a professor at UCLA and expert in critical race theory, could face legal trouble if a judge believed it used lineage as a proxy for race. It could be ruled unconstitutionally discriminatory under the 14th Amendment.
A separate reparations bill, however, could help offer a legal definition to separate race from lineage. Senate Bill 518 would create a state bureau for descendants of American slavery. The state agency would verify a person’s status as a descendant and help applicants access benefits.
Comprehensive reparation legislation isn’t a novel idea and has been enacted before, Alexander said. In the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the federal government formally apologized to Japanese Americans for their illegal incarceration in detention camps during World War II, and included a one-time payment of $20,000 to survivors.
Reparations — in the form of cash payments — fell flat with voters when last polled by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times in 2023. More than 4 in 10 California voters “strongly” opposed cash payments and 59% opposed the idea, with 28% in support. None of the bills currently before the Legislature includes cash reparations.
Other forms of reparations, such as a change to the college admissions process and social programs, are still valid ways to address inequities, Alexander said.
But a bill like AB 7, which looks to circumvent existing law, could face headwinds from the public who could see it as unfair, she said.
With the outcome of the 2023 Supreme Court case which banned college admissions processes from using race, she said the policy was unlikely to be popular.
Opponents argue the bill’s distinction between race and ancestry is not enough to survive judicial review, and believe a court will find lineage to be a proxy for race to circumvent the ban.
“Suppose, instead, that a state passed a law making university admission more difficult for descendants of American slavery. Would anyone argue that such a law should be upheld? Of course not,” Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions and the lawyer who argued and won the case to ban affirmative action, said in a statement to The Times.
“It would be struck down immediately as unconstitutional racial discrimination. That hypothetical reveals the core defect of AB 7 — it makes a race-linked classification under the guise of ancestry and will not withstand judicial review. If enacted, this legislation will face a swift and vigorous legal challenge in federal court and be struck down. It takes Herculean stupidity to believe otherwise,” Blum wrote.
Other bills still working through the legislative process include measures that would set aside home purchase assistance funds for descendants of American slavery that are buying their first homes and direct state agencies to address mortgage lending discrimination.
The reparations legislation that has failed to advance includes a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have banned prisons from requiring inmates to work, which some consider state-sanctioned slavery or indentured servitude.
Reporting from Sacramento — Gavin Christopher Newsom took his place as California’s 40th governor Monday, christening a new political era of progressive activism in a Golden State both brimming with wealth and hollowed by poverty.
Beneath a tent outside the Capitol protecting him and thousands of well-wishers from the threat of rain, Newsom rested his hand on a Bible held by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye and recited the oath of office. His wife, documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom, stood at his side, along with their four children.
The former lieutenant governor and San Francisco mayor, 51, arrived at this moment by winning the largest electoral victory of any California governor in more than a half-century, largely on promises to restore California’s luster and offer an alternative to what he has called the “corruption and incompetence” in President Trump’s White House.
At the heart of Newsom’s first address to California as its new governor was a forceful rejection of the policies and values of that administration, including the president’s push for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and a move to separate children from immigrant parents seeking asylum. Though Trump’s name was not mentioned in the roughly 30-minute speech, the ire directed his way was clear.
“What we do today is even more consequential, because of what is happening in our country,” Newsom said. “People’s lives, freedom, security, the water we drink, the air we breathe — they all hang in the balance. The country is watching us. The world is waiting on us. The future depends on us. And we will seize the moment.”
Just hours after taking the oath of office, Newsom took another swipe at Trump by announcing plans for a major expansion of Medi-Cal to cover young immigrants in the U.S. illegally and require consumers in the state to carry health insurance, a mandate in the Affordable Care Act that was nixed by the federal government.
1/9
Gavin Newsom takes the oath of office, administered by California State Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, and is sworn in as the 40th governor of California in front of the Capitol in Sacramento.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
2/9
Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks after being sworn in as the 40th governor of California in front of the Capitol in Sacramento.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
3/9
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his family wave to the crowd after he was sworn in as the 40th governor of California in front of the Capitol in Sacramento.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
4/9
California Gov. Gavin Newsom takes the oath of office from state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye as his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, looks on during his inauguration.
(Eric Risberg / Associated Press)
5/9
Gov. Gavin Newsom kisses his son after Newsom was sworn in as the 40th governor of California.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
6/9
People make their way into tents outside the state Capitol to attend the inauguration of Gavin Newsom in Sacramento.
(Eric Risberg / Associated Press)
7/9
Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom takes to the stage at “California Rises: A Concert to Help the Victims of California Wildfires” at the Golden 1 Arena in Sacramento a day before his inauguration.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
8/9
Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom and his family attend an Inauguration Family Event at the California Railroad Museum in Sacramento a day before he becomes the state’s 40th governor.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
9/9
Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom and wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom take to the stage at “California Rises: A Concert to Help the Victims of California Wildfires” at the Golden 1 Arena in Sacramento a day before his inauguration.
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)
The Day 1 announcement was as much a rebuke to the Trump administration as it was an attempt by Newsom to make good on his campaign promise to fix a fragmented healthcare system that leaves many priced out or underinsured.
Newsom’s upbringing included family struggles and privilege, experience that shaped his rise in California politics. The child of divorced parents, he grew up with his mother, Tessa, who eked out a living working multiple jobs. But through his father, William, a state appellate court judge, Newsom had an entree into the highest echelons of San Francisco society.
That helped launch his successful wine and hospitality business and propelled his political career, which began when San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown appointed him to the local Parking and Traffic Commission in 1996. He would later serve on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and as that city’s mayor before becoming lieutenant governor in 2011.
From there he launched his bid for governor, and campaigned on an ambitious and expensive agenda, including proposals for a state-sponsored healthcare system, universal preschool and increased funding for higher education. Newsom said he’d rather be bold and risk failure than wallow in the safety of political incrementalism.
He defined the problems California now faces in sobering terms, saying state officials who pride themselves on leading the fifth-largest economy in the world cannot overlook that there are more homeless and children living in poverty here than any other state in the union. Newsom extolled the virtues of the rescue crews who fought the recent wildfires in Paradise, Malibu, Santa Rosa and Ventura and in his inaugural speech urged Californians to share that same “compassion and empathy” for those in need.
“We face a gulf between the rich and everyone else — and it’s not just inequality of wealth, it’s inequality of opportunity,” he said. “A homeless epidemic that should keep each and every one of us up at night. An achievement gap in our schools and a readiness gap that holds back millions of our kids. And too many of our children know the ache of chronic hunger.”
The inauguration ceremony began with a rendition of the gospel song “Titanium” by the Voices of Destiny, the choir from Compton’s Greater Zion Church, and traditional Mexican melodies from the music group Los Cenzontles of Richmond.
Providing levity to the occasion, Newsom’s 2-year-old son, Dutch, jumped on stage with his father and, for a brief time, wandered around as the new governor spoke. Siebel Newsom was able to briefly divert her son only for him to return to the stage minutes later. She grabbed him again and this time, the crying toddler did not reemerge.
“When fires strike, when kids cry and the earth shakes, we’ll be there for each other,” Newsom said.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the speech, and the boy’s unplanned cameo, humanized the governor. Garcetti appreciated that Newsom talked about the state’s importance on the national level.
“California’s fight is first and foremost for California,” Garcetti said. “But it also models behavior for the rest of the country — that we don’t have to be at each other’s throats and that we can govern in a bipartisan way in which geography and party doesn’t define us. I think that was very encouraging, but he didn’t back off a progressive agenda.”
Newsom’s speech on Monday was designed to outline the broad goals of his upcoming administration. The underpinnings of those policies, including his initial legislative agenda and specifics about spending, will be revealed in more detail when Newsom releases his first budget proposal this week and delivers a State of the State address later this month.
“He set out a bold agenda when he ran for governor,” former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis said. “We should know a lot more after those three events have occurred.”
Newsom takes the helm from Gov. Jerry Brown, who over eight years guided California out of recession-driven deficits and leaves his successor with an estimated $14.5-billion surplus and an ample rainy day fund. The former governor received a standing ovation after Newsom praised his leadership in California.
Brown, 80, the longest-serving governor in California history, watched the inauguration from a nearby perch filled with California dignitaries. Joining him for the day of celebration at the Capitol were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and former Govs. Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The changeover in administrations brings an infusion of energy and unpredictability into a capital city that has for the last eight years grown accustomed to Brown’s intellectualism and iron political hand. The silver-tongued, at times loquacious Newsom has vowed to “seize this moment” as he did in 2004, when, as mayor of San Francisco, he leapt into the national consciousness by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, defying the law and ultimately altering the course of LGBTQ rights in the United States.
His ascent to the governor’s office underscores the ongoing generational shift underway in California’s top political leadership, which began when U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris succeeded Sen. Barbara Boxer, who retired in 2017.
The change was felt during pre-inauguration festivities on Sunday, when the Newsoms and their four young children joined thousands of supporters at a free family-focused celebration at the California State Railroad Museum, and afterward hosted a benefit concert headlined by rapper Pitbull at the Golden 1 Center to raise money for wildfire victims. And for the first time in decades, California’s Victorian-style governor’s mansion will be home to a young family.
California’s new governor has signaled a significant new focus on programs to help families and children from infancy to college, with glimpses of those priorities surfacing as a few details of his upcoming budget have been revealed by the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets over the last week.
The Newsom administration’s attention to the needs of young children includes $1.8 billion in new spending on early childhood education programs, with a particular emphasis on funding increases to help train child-care workers and a push for more California schools to offer full-day kindergarten. The governor is expected to propose a dramatic expansion of paid parental leave from six weeks to six months, and to spend $40 million to expand tuition-free community college to California students from one year to two years.
“Everyone in California should have a good job with fair pay. Every child should have a great school and a teacher who is supported and respected. Every person should be able to go to college without crushing debt or to get the training they need to compete and succeed. And every senior should be able to retire with security and live at home with dignity,” Newsom said. “That is the California dream.”
While Newsom is taking office amid nearly a decade of nationwide economic expansion and a state budget surplus that the Legislative Analyst’s Office in November declared “extraordinary,” California’s new governor has vowed to prevent a Sacramento spending spree. He has said the state’s financial well-being exists at the mercy of a capricious economy, and his calls for fiscal discipline and restraint had grown louder as his inauguration approached. Newsom has reached out to Republicans and other voters who did not support him in November, seeking to cool any expectations that he might blindly support a lengthy wish list of Democratic issues pent up by Brown’s tightfistedness.
“We will prepare for uncertain times ahead. We will be prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars, paying down debt, meet our future obligations. And we will build and safeguard the largest fiscal reserve of any state in American history,” Newsom said in his address.
The legislative makeup allows Democrats to pass any bill, including tax hikes, without relying on a single vote from their GOP counterparts. But the ability of the legislative and executive branches to work together — and varying factions of elected Democrats to see eye-to-eye — remains unknown as California embarks on a new political chapter.
Many Democratic lawmakers share Newsom’s desire to overhaul the healthcare system and boost funding to increase access to preschool for children from low-income families, among other progressive policies unsuccessfully attempted under Brown that Newsom endorsed on the campaign trail. In an effort to lower expectations, Newsom has made it clear that he doesn’t plan to sign every bill that lands on his desk, or frivolously deplete the state’s budgetary cushion.
Newsom, when speaking to reporters the day before his swearing-in, took a few minutes to reflect on the winding path that brought him to the governor’s office. A decade and a half ago, many thought such an achievement would be out of reach for the brash, young mayor of San Francisco.
“It’s been a long process,” Newsom said. “There was a moment when folks thought in 2004, 2005, that I would be lucky to get reelected as mayor, let alone ever elected outside of San Francisco.”
Times staff writer John Myers contributed to this report.
Firefighters on Sunday were gaining control over the massive Madre fire in San Luis Obispo County, which at more than 80,000 acres remains the largest in California so far this year.
Containment on the fire had reached 30% — up from 10% Saturday — buoyed by favorable weather and a flood of personnel, said Los Padres National Forest spokesperson Andrew Madsen. The fire grew slightly on Sunday to just over 80,000 acres in the rural area.
“We’ve got the resources we need,” Madsen said, “and the firefighters on the ground are making some good progress.”
The fire started around 1 p.m. Wednesday east of Santa Maria near the town of New Cayuma. More than 200 people were subject to mandatory evacuation orders, and roughly 50 structures were under threat as of Sunday afternoon. One building has burned. The cause of the fire, which has been fueled by heat and wind, is under investigation. Nearly 1,400 firefighting personnel were on scene.
The bulk of the fire is threatening the Carrizo Plain National Monument, which is home to several endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species. Los Padres National Forest, Cal Fire San Luis Obispo and the Bureau of Land Management share jurisdiction over the fire.
All BLM lands in the national monument are closed to public access until further notice for safety reasons.
Weather conditions were expected to hold steady through Monday before a midweek heat wave across Southern California could make the situation more challenging. Madsen said firefighters were hoping for continued progress over the next couple days.
Times staff writers Colleen Shalby and Caroline Petrow-Cohen contributed to this report.
One of the most maddening situations that any L.A. outdoors lover can experience is wanting to go camping only to find that every campground within a 100-mile radius is booked for months.
L.A. resident Josh Jackson found himself in that predicament in January 2015. He asked a friend whether he knew of any place Jackson could take two of his kids camping. “What about BLM land?” his friend said. “I don’t think you need reservations.”
Newsletter
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
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Jackson wasn’t familiar with the federal Bureau of Land Management or the 245 million acres of public land, primarily in the West, that the agency manages.
Jackson couldn’t have known that his trip with his children to the Trona Pinnacles would launch a 10-year obsession that would take him hundreds of miles across the West where he’d find solitude and sanctuary in areas dubbed by historians as “leftover lands” because they weren’t seen as valuable by homesteaders, multiple federal agencies and developers.
On Tuesday, Jackson’s decade-long odyssey was published in “The Enduring Wild: A Journey Into California’s Public Lands” (Heyday), which he spent 42 months and took 32 trips, walking 400 miles through BLM lands, to write. The book is a continuation of the work he’s done on his Forgotten Lands project.
Josh Jackson’s “The Enduring Wild” published this week.
(Heyday Books; Asher Moss)
“I had almost no idea what lay ahead, but I wanted to find out,” Jackson wrote. “If these so-called leftover lands had a story to tell, I wanted to play a small part in telling it.”
“The Enduring Wild” is not a guidebook but rather a beautifully crafted introduction into California’s 15 million(ish) acres of BLM land and how Jackson fell in love with them through his exploration of them.
I asked Jackson if we could hike at a BLM spot near L.A., so last week, we met up at the Whitewater Preserve, a gorgeous desert canyon where you can swim in the Whitewater River and hike along the Pacific Crest Trail and other paths through BLM land. As our feet crunched through the sandy soil, we kept pausing to stop and marvel at the surprises of the desert (and curse aloud that we couldn’t spot any bighorn sheep).
Josh Jackson, author of “The Enduring Wild,” looks for bighorn sheep often spotted in the Whitewater Preserve and surrounding BLM land.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
I was so eager to talk to Jackson. I have long been BLM curious. I am a type B person who sometimes misses deadline because I’m daydreaming about my next trip, and lately those daydreams have included what it would be like to explore remote places without official trails. But I felt intimidated to get started.
I asked him — for you Wilders, of course — how someone who might not be ready to navigate their own way could start exploring California’s BLM lands, which vary from remote swaths of land to a national monument with a staffed office, without getting totally lost in the desert (not that anyone here has had a nightmare about that).
“The gateway to BLM land in California is 100% the 60-plus campgrounds,” Jackson said. “They’re all first-come first-served. No reservations. They’re free to $10 a night… Those are easy gateways because, by campgrounds, there’s almost always trails. There’s infrastructure. Almost all of them have a pit toilet and maybe a shade structure in the desert or a fire ring.”
A refreshing swimming hole at the Whitewater Preserve.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Jackson also recommended for BLM newbies to go hiking at national monuments in California like Sand to Snow National Monument where we spent the morning last week. And for any BLM land you’re interested in visiting, Jackson suggests calling the field office where staffers can answer your questions about camping spots, road conditions and trails.
As we hiked, I asked Jackson how he navigates the dichotomy between encouraging the general public to visit BLM lands and protecting them from getting trashed by jerky interlopers. It’s a challenge that any outdoors writer, myself included, has to keep top of mind.
Jackson said that, for one, you won’t find GPS coordinates to streams, hot springs or other natural areas in his book.
“I’m trying to paint a picture, let’s say, of the Carrizo National Plain Monument, which is 250,000 acres,” he said. “Yes, there are some campgrounds. Yes, there are a couple of trails, but … I’m trying to [show] what it feels like to be here and [show] some images I took in hopes more people will get out there and experience them for themselves.”
The Whitewater Preserve features the Whitewater River, which starts on 11,499 foot Mount San Gorgonioand runs 28 miles through the Coachella Valley area.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Our smartphones and copious number of hiking apps have made it easy to find trails near us. But, Jackson writes, one of the most fun parts of visiting BLM land is all the research you must do before arriving.
BLM lands offer an alternative choose-your-own-adventure experience for those willing to comb over maps and other websites, which you can find more about in Jackson’s “Guide for Exploration,” a short chapter where he provides organizations, tips and best practices to get you started on your journey. Note: This type of information looks simple to gather, but given the rugged and sweeping nature of BLM land, it likely took hours to compile. (Thank you, Josh!)
The BLM land highlighted in Jackson’s book was part of what was threatened to be sold by Congress in recent weeks. Jackson writes in his book about the many threats that remain for BLM lands, including mining and overgrazing.
The view from a segment of the Pacific Crest Trail that passes through the Bureau of Land Management land adjacent to the Whitewater Preserve.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
Of the 245 million acres managed by BLM, Jackson writes, only 37 million acres (15%) have been set aside for conservation. “While I fully support the multiple-use mandate for BLM lands, and I appreciate the role that cattle, natural gas, oil, and certain minerals play in our everyday lives, I still see the pendulum swinging too far toward industry,” Jackson wrote of how the BLM manages today’s public lands.
So how can we protect these lands? Visit them.
Jackson writes about “place attachment” theory which, to run the risk of oversimplifying it, is the concept that when we visit public land and have a memorable experience, we develop an attachment to it. And then, when it is threatened, we rally to protect it.
A lush path near the Whitewater Preserve visitor’s center.
(Jaclyn Cosgrove / Los Angeles Times)
For example, at the same time that thousands flocked to the Carrizo Plain, about three hours northwest of L.A., in 2017 to see wildflowers blanketing its landscape, President Trump ordered a review of 27 monuments, including the Carrizo Plain. Jackson writes about how the public outcry that followed — fed by people’s memories of that land and its beauty — saved it from losing its monument status.
“My initial fascination with exploring new landscapes had deepened into a commitment to protecting all that I’d experienced,” Jackson wrote. “If these precarious places go unseen and unspoken, who will notice when the subtle beauties of desert, sagebrush, grasslands and remote mountains slip away under the pressure to turn places into profits? In other words, how can we protect what we don’t know?”
That sounds like a great reason for your (and my) next road trip. In the meantime, if you’d like to hear me and Jackson talk about the lessons he learned in writing this book, join us at Vroman’s Bookstore in Pasadena at 7 p.m. Tuesday. I hope to see you there!
3 things to do
A western fence lizard — a.k.a. blue belly — presides over its domain from atop a stump.
(James Maughn)
1. Learn to draw reptiles in La Puente L.A. County Department of Parks and Recreation will host a free nature-focused art class from 6 to 7 p.m. Saturday at San Gabriel River Park (255 S. San Fidel Ave. in La Puente). Students will observe what’s around them and draw, paint or used mixed-media techniques to create artwork. This month’s class focuses on reptiles. Artists of all skill levels ages 8 and older are welcome. Materials are provided. Learn more at the park’s Instagram page.
2. Clean up the cove in Rancho Palos Verdes The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy needs volunteers to plant native plants and remove weeds from 9:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Saturday at Abalone Cove Park (5970 Palos Verdes Drive S in Rancho Palos Verdes). Participants should wear closed-toed shoes, long pants and long sleeves and bring sun protection and a refillable water bottle. Sign up at pvplc.volunteerhub.com.
3. Provide habitat for monarchs in Huntington Beach Volunteers are needed from 9 to 11 a.m. Saturday in Huntington Beach to improve habitat at the Huntington Beach Monarch Nature Trail. Volunteers will yank out invasive plants, plant native species that provide food and shelter for butterflies, and collect seeds for future growth. All ages are welcome, and organizers will host nature-themed activities specifically for children. Register at eventbrite.com.
The must-read
A view of the 101 Freeway and surrounding landscape from atop the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing in Agoura Hills, which is entering Stage 2 of construction.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
It was one small step for reptile, one giant leap for the animal kingdom. Local animal rights leader Beth Pratt was showing a group around the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing when she spotted a Western fence lizard basking in the sun, about 75 feet above the traffic racing along the 101 Freeway. It seemed like just another lizard at first, given how common they are in L.A. “But then it hit me, ‘Wait. This lizard is on the bridge!!!!! And this is the first animal I have seen on the bridge!!!!’” Pratt, California regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, wrote in an email. “I stopped the group … and told them — ‘You are seeing the first animal on the crossing itself.’ Everyone cheered. Even the lizard seemed to know it was a special occasion. He posed for the photos I took.” Times staff writer Jeanette Marantos wrote about the moment in her latest story about the world’s largest wildlife crossing, which is entering Stage 2 of construction. Spoiler alert: We’re starting to see native plants grow on the bridge too!
Happy adventuring,
P.S.
Great news! The state of California will provide $6.75 million to continue financing the California State Library Parks Pass program, which allows library card holders to check out park passes that cover vehicle day-use entry to more than 200 participating state parks. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget originally didn’t include money for the program, which launched in 2021 with an aim of lowering the cost of entry to our state public lands. More than 8,000 Californians signed a petition demanding the program be saved. In celebration of that success, head over to your favorite library, including L.A. Public Library and L.A. County Public Library branches, to see if they have a park pass waiting for you.
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.
Nine months ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged to more than double the annual amount of funds allocated to California’s film and television tax credit program.
Flanked by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, legislative leaders and union representatives, Newsom said the state “needed to make a statement and to do something that was meaningful” to stop productions from leaving the state for more lucrative incentives in other states and countries.
Though Hollywood was born in California and the entertainment business became the state’s signature industry, “the world we invented is now competing against us,” he said at the time.
On Wednesday, Newsom signed a bill that will increase the cap on California’s film and TV tax credit program to $750 million, up from $330 million. Industry workers say the boost will help stimulate production that slowed due to the pandemic, the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes of 2023, a cutback in spending by studios and streamers and the Southern California wildfires earlier this year.
“We’ve got to step up our game,” Newsom said in a speech before he signed the bill. “We put our feet up, took things for granted. We needed to do something more bold and significant.”
Rebecca Rhine, Directors Guild of America executive and Entertainment Union Coalition president, credited Newsom for staying committed to the production incentive boost even after the wildfires in Southern California, federal funding cuts, the state’s budget deficit and the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.
“You understand that our industry is vital to the state’s economy and cultural vibrancy, while also sustaining thousands of businesses and attracting visitors from around the world,” she said during the signing ceremony. “Now, let’s get people back to work.”
Critics of the program and taxpayer advocates have said, however, that the tax credit is a corporate giveaway that doesn’t generate as much economic effect as promised. California’s increase also comes as states like Texas and New York have also ramped up their own film and TV tax credit programs.
But the fight isn’t over yet. Lawmakers and Hollywood industry leaders are gearing up for a vote Thursday in the legislature on a separate bill that would expand the provisions of the film tax credit program, which they say is key to making production more attractive in California and must pair with the increased program cap.
That bill, AB 1138, would broaden the types of productions eligible to apply for the program, including animated films, shorts, series and certain large-scale competition shows. It would also increase the tax credit to as much as 35% of qualified expenditures for movies and TV series shot in the Greater Los Angeles area and up to 40% for productions shot outside the region.
California currently provides a 20% to 25% tax credit to offset qualified production expenses, such as money spent on film crews and building sets. Production companies can apply the credit toward any tax liabilities they have in California.
The bump to 35% puts California more in line with incentives offered by other states such as Georgia, which provides a 30% credit for productions.
“This bill is the second step,” Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur said during Wednesday’s press conference. “It’s about maximizing economic impact, prioritizing equity and turning the tide on job loss.”
Newsom also held out hope for the possibility of a federal film and TV tax incentive, which he had floated in May after President Trump called for tariffs on film produced overseas.
“We’d like to see [Trump] match the ambition that we’re advancing here today in California with the ambition to keep filmmaking all across the United States, here in the United States,” Newsom said. “I am hopeful that we, in the hands of partnership, continue to work with the administration.”
ADELANTO, Calif. — As federal immigration agents conduct mass raids across Southern California, the Adelanto ICE Processing Center is filling so rapidly it is reigniting longtime concerns about safety conditions inside the facility.
In less than two months, the number of detainees in the sprawling complex about 85 miles northeast of Los Angeles has surged from around 300 near the end of April to more than 1,200 as of Wednesday, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
The largest detention center in California, Adelanto has for years been the focus of complaints from detainees, attorneys and state and federal inspectors about inadequate medical care, overly restrictive segregation and lax mental health services.
But now, critics — including some staff who work inside — warn that conditions inside have become increasingly unsafe and unsanitary. The facility, they say, is woefully unprepared to handle a massive increase in the number of detainees.
Share via
“It’s dangerous,” a longtime Adelanto detention center staff member told The Times, speaking on condition of anonymity because they did not want to lose their job. “We have no staffing for this and not enough experienced staff. They’re just cutting way too many corners, and it affects the safety of everybody in there.”
On Tuesday, U.S. Rep Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), toured Adelanto with four other Democratic members of Congress from California amid growing concern over the rapidly increasing number of detainees and deteriorating conditions inside the facility.
The facility’s manager “has to clearly improve its treatment of these detainees,” Chu said at a news conference after inspecting the facility for nearly two hours.
Some detainees told lawmakers they were held inside Adelanto for 10 days without a change of clothes, underwear or towels, Chu said. Others said they had been denied access to a telephone to speak to loved ones and lawyers, even after repeatedly filling out forms.
“I was just really shocked to hear that they couldn’t get a change of underwear, they couldn’t get socks for 10 days,” Chu told The Times. “They can’t get the PIN number for a telephone call. What about their legal rights? What about the ability to be in contact with their families? That is inhumane.”
Immigration Customs and Enforcement and GEO Group, the Florida-based private prison corporation that manages the Adelanto detention center, did not answer The Times’ questions about staffing or conditions inside the facility. The Times also sent questions to Homeland Security assistant secretary for public affairs Tricia McLaughlin, but they were not answered.
Lucero Garcia, third from left, gave an emotional account about her uncle who was taken from his work at an Orange County car wash. She and others were outside the Adelanto ICE Processing Center on Tuesday.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)
Over the last two weeks, new detainees have been forced to sleep on the floors of common areas without blankets and pillows and have spent days in the facility before they were provided with clean clothes and underwear, according to interviews with current detention center staff, immigration attorneys, and members of Congress who toured the facility. Some detainees have complained about lack of access to medication, lack of access to drinking water for four hours, and being served dinner as late as 10 p.m.
One detainee was not allowed his high blood pressure pills when family tried to bring it in, said Jennifer Norris, a staff attorney at Immigrant Defenders Law Center. In some cases, she said, lax medical care has led to emergencies: a Vietnamese man passed out last week because staff didn’t provide him with his necessary medication.
“It’s clear that with the ramp up enforcement, Adelanto just does not have the staff to keep pace with the aggressive enforcement that’s happening now,” Norris said. “It is bizarre. We spend millions of dollars on ICE detention and they’re not even able to provide basic necessities for the new arrivals.”
Long before Trump administration officials announced in May they were setting a new national goal of arresting 3,000 unauthorized immigrants a day, Adelanto workers worried about understaffing and unsafe conditions as the center processed new detainees.
At the end of last year, the facility held only three people. As of Wednesday, the number had swelled to 1,218, according to the ACLU of Southern California.
The climb is only partly due to the ICE agents’ recent escalation of immigrant raids.
The 1,940-bed Adelanto facility has been operating at a dramatically reduced capacity since 2020 when civil rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit demanding a drastic reduction in the number of people detained at Adelanto on the basis that they faced severe risk of contracting COVID-19. A federal judge forced the detention center to release detainees and prohibit new intakes and transfers.
But a series of federal court orders this year — the most recent in early June — has allowed the facility to fully reopen just as federal immigration agents fan out into neighborhoods and workplaces.
“As soon as the judge lifted the order, they just started slamming people in there,” an Adelanto staffer told The Times.
Eva Bitrán, director of immigrant rights at the ACLU of Southern California, said “almost everybody” held in the Adelanto facility had no criminal record before they arrived in the detention center.
“But even if they had a criminal record, even if they had served their time in criminal custody and then been brought to the ICE facility, nobody deserves 10 days in the same underwear,” Bitrán said. “Nobody deserves dirty showers, nobody deserves moldy food.”
The Adelanto ICE Processing Center.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)
Mario Romero, an Indigenous worker from Mexico who was detained June 6 at the Ambiance Apparel warehouse in downtown L.A., was one of dozens who ended up in Adelanto.
His daughter, Yurien Contreras, said she and her family were traumatized after her father was “chained by the hands, feet and waist,” taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center downtown and then “held hostage” in a van from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. with no access to water, food or a restroom.
“Little did we know,” she said, “it was only the beginning of the inhumane treatment our families would endure.”
At Adelanto, she said, officials try to force her father to sign documents without due process or legal representation. The medical care was “less than minimal,” she said, the food was unsustainable and the water tasted like Clorox.
Yurien Contreras’ father was taken by ICE agents from his workplace at Ambiance Apparel in Los Angeles.
(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)
Lucero Garcia told The Times she was concerned about her 61-year-old uncle, Candido, who was detained June 9 as he worked at his job at Magnolia Car Wash in Fountain Valley.
But when she visited him Saturday, “he didn’t want to share much,” she said. “He’s worried more about us.”
This is not the first time the Adelanto detention center has faced scrutiny.
In 2018, federal inspectors issued a report finding “serious violations” at the facility, including overly restrictive detainee segregation and guards failing to stop detainees from hanging braided bed sheet “nooses.”
But two staffers who spoke to The Times said they had never experienced such unsafe conditions at Adelanto.
As the prison population has increased over the last few months, they said, staff are working long hours without breaks, some even falling asleep driving home after their shifts and having car accidents. Shift duty officers with no security experience were being asked to make decisions in the middle of the night about whether to put detainees who felt threatened in protective custody. Officers, including people from food service, were being sent to the hospital to check on detainees with tuberculosis and hepatitis.
“Everyone’s just overwhelmed,” a staffer said.
Officers working over their allotted schedules were often tired when they were on duty, another staffer said.
In May, a detainee went into anaphylactic shock and ended up intubated in the hospital, the staffer said, because an officer wasn’t paying attention or was new and gave the detainee, who’s allergic to seafood, a tray that contained tuna.
At a May meeting, the warden told all executive staff that they needed to come to work dressed down on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the staffer said, because they would have to start doing janitorial work.
On June 2, a detainee at the Annex facility made his way from a medical holding area, through four locked doors, all the way back to his dorm unescorted, the staffer said — a major security breach.
“If he would’ve wanted to escape he would’ve been gone,” the staffer said. “All he did is push the buttons to access the doors and they were open for him, no questions. Apparently, whoever was in central control was too tired to check or too inexperienced.”
The detention center was becoming unsanitary, the staffer said, with trash bins not promptly emptied, bathrooms not cleaned and floors not mopped as they should be.
As new waves of detainees flooded into the facility over the last two weeks, the staffer said, the facility was chaotic and lacking basic supplies.
“We didn’t have enough to provide right away,” they said, “so we’re scrambling to get clothes and mattresses.”
Mark Ferretiz, who worked as a cook supervisor at Adelanto for 14 years until April, said former colleagues told him officers were working 16- to 20-hour shifts multiple days in a row without breaks, officers were slow to respond to physical fights between detainees, and food was limited for detainees.
“They had five years to prepare,” Ferretiz, who had served as a union steward, said of his former supervisors. “I don’t know the reason why they weren’t prepared.”
While the supply shortages appeared to ease some in recent days — a shipment of clothes and mattresses had arrived by Tuesday, when members of Congress toured — the detention center was still understaffed, the current staffer said.
Detainees were being served food on paper clam-shell to-go boxes, rather than regular trays, a staffer said, because the facility lacked employees to wash up at the end of mealtimes.
“Trash pickup’s not coming fast enough, ” a staffer said, noting that piles of trash sat outside, bagged up, beside the dumpsters.
In a statement last week, GEO Group Executive Chairman George C. Zoley said fully opening the Adelanto facility would allow his company to generate about $31 million in additional annualized revenues.
“We are proud of our approximately 350 employees at the Adelanto Center, whose dedication and professionalism have allowed GEO to establish a long-standing record of providing high-quality support services on behalf of ICE in the state of California,” Zoley said.
But after touring the facility, members of Congress said officials did not provide answers to basic questions.
When Chu asked officials about whether California immigrants were being taken to other states, she said, they said, “We don’t know.”
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas industry in its challenge to California’s drive for electric vehicles.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices revived the industry’s lawsuit and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California’s strict emissions standards.
The suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st century.
California’s new emissions standards “did not target a local California air-quality problem — as they say is required by the Clean Air Act — but instead were designed to address global climate change,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to described the industry’s position.
The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state’s rule.
“The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,” Kavanaugh said.
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed.
Jackson questioned why the court would “revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already). … This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”
But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans.
With Trump’s backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require “zero emissions” cars and trucks.
Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation’s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.
In a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures “will prevent California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”
“Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,” he said.
In response to Friday’s decision, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said “the fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.”
Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters.
“This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states’ ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.”
Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.
Alarm spread through California agricultural centers Tuesday as panicked workers reported that federal immigration authorities — who had largely refrained from major enforcement action in farming communities in the first months of the Trump administration — were showing up at farm fields and packing houses from the Central Coast to the San Joaquin Valley.
“Today we are seeing an uptick in the chaotic presence of immigration enforcement, particularly the Border Patrol,” said Elizabeth Strater, vice president of the United Farm Workers. “We’re seeing it in multiple areas.”
Department of Homeland Security officials declined to confirm specific locations, but said enforcement actions were taking place across the southern area of state. Advocates from numerous immigrant advocacy groups said their phones were lighting up with calls, videos and texts from multiple counties.
The Times reviewed a video that showed a worker running through a field under the cover of early morning fog, with at least one agent in pursuit on foot and a Border Patrol truck racing along an adjacent dirt road. Eventually, the worker was caught.
In Tulare County, near the community of Richgrove, immigration agents emerged near a field where farm laborers were picking blueberries, causing some workers to flee.
In Oxnard in Ventura County, organizers responded to multiple calls of federal immigration authorities staging near fields and entering a packing house at Boskovich Farms. Hazel Davalos of the group Cause, said there were reports of ICE agents trying to access nine farms in Oxnard, but that in many cases, they were denied entry.
In Fresno County, workers reported federal agents, some in Border Patrol trucks, in the fields near Kingsburg.
Strater said she did not yet have information about the number of people detained in the raids, but said the fear among workers was pervasive. At least half of the estimated 255,700 farmworkers in California are undocumented, according to UC Merced research.
“These are people who are going to be afraid to take their kids to school, afraid to go to graduation, afraid to go to the grocery store,” Strater said. “The harm is going to be done.”
The expansion into rural communities follows days of coordinated raids in urban areas of Los Angeles County, where authorities have targeted home improvement stores, restaurants and garment manufacturers. The enforcement action has prompted waves of protest, and the Trump administration has responded by sending in hundreds of Marines and National Guard troops.
Two Democratic members of Congress who represent the Ventura area, Reps. Julia Brownley and Salud Carbajal, released a statement condemning the raids around Oxnard.
““We have received disturbing reports of ICE enforcement actions in Ventura County, including in Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and Camarillo, where agents have reportedly stopped vehicles, loitered near schools, and attempted to enter agricultural properties and facilities in the Oxnard Plain,” they said. “These actions are completely unjustified, deeply harmful, and raise serious questions about the agency’s tactics and its respect for due process.”
They added that “these raids are not about public safety. They are about stoking fear. These are not criminals being targeted. They are hardworking people and families who are an essential part of Ventura County. Our local economy, like much of California’s and the country’s as a whole, depends on undocumented labor. These men and women are the backbone of our farms, our fields, our construction and service industries, and our communities.”
Farmworker advocates noted that Tuesday’s raids came despite a judicial ruling stemming from a rogue Border Patrol action in Kern County earlier this year.
ACLU attorneys representing the United Farm Workers and five Kern County residents sued the head of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Border Patrol officials, alleging the Border Patrol’s three-day raid in the southern San Joaquin Valley in early January amounted to a “fishing expedition” that indiscriminately targeted people of color who appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers.
Judge Jennifer Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California said in an 88-page ruling that evidence presented by the ACLU lawyers established “a pattern and practice” at the Border Patrol of violating people’s constitutional rights when detaining people without reasonable suspicion, and then violating federal law by executing warrantless arrests without determining flight risk.
Thurston’s ruling required the Border Patrol to submit detailed documentation of any stops or warrantless arrests in the Central Valley and show clear guidance and training for agents on the law.
California’s two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California.
“A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them,” Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. “That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable.”
California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power.
Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation.
The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about “the scope of the Marines’ mission and duties.”
Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening.
Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to “restore order” and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday.
The notification, the senators said, “did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment.”
The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom’s objection.
The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965.
Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,” but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state’s governor.
Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”
Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries.
“It was heading in the wrong direction,” Trump said Monday. “It’s now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess.”
On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings.
“This is just absolutely unnecessary,” Bass said. “People have asked me, ‘What are the Marines going to do when they get here?’ That’s a good question. I have no idea.”
