debate

Days before California voters receive their mail-in ballots, gubernatorial candidates Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, and Steve Hilton, a Republican, will debate in a nationally televised face-off.

On Sept. 30 at CNN’s Burbank studio, the two candidates hoping to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newson are expected to spar over sharply divergent visions for the future of the state. California’s next leader is expected to face pressing fiscal issues, as well as continued battle with the Trump administration.

Given California’s deep Democratic tilt, there was a question whether the two men would debate.

On Aug. 19, Becerra promised multiple debates with Hilton ahead of the general election.

“We will have debates, and between now and Nov. 3, we will continue to go out there and meet with folks to make sure they have an opportunity to see the candidates,” Becerra told reporters after greeting business owners, community leaders and voters in a walking tour of Little Tokyo in downtown Los Angeles. “Voters need to have good information. We’ll make sure they have it, and there will be debates.”

The following day, Hilton said he was skeptical of Becerra’s promise.

“I don’t believe him unless he commits to an actual debate. Invitations are on the table for dates and places,” Hilton said. “Why can’t he just accept them? I think he’s lying. I don’t think he wants to do debates because he doesn’t want to debate his record.”

September’s hour-long debate, taking place shortly before county elections officials begin mailing ballots to all the state’s registered voters, will be moderated by the cable network’s anchors Dana Bash and Jake Tapper.

It is the most attention a California gubernatorial contest has drawn since 2010, when “Today” show host Matt Lauer and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd moderated nationally televised clashes.

That is perhaps unsurprising given how sharply the California electorate has swung left, with no Republican winning a statewide contest since 2006. Two did that year.

While there will not be a studio audience, the debate will air on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español, CNN.com and related TV and mobile apps for subscribers.

Times staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report.

America, the Land of Immigrants, has always been ambivalent about just what that mantle should mean, but that ambivalence has taken on an edge. The middle ground has shifted, decidedly to the right.

And California, characteristically, is ahead of the trend.

Now, when liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer suggests that National Guard troops be stationed along the southern border, only immigrant-rights activists are publicly aghast. When Gov. Pete Wilson says the Constitution should be changed to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, a Field poll shows that half of all Californians like the idea.

“This is a state of siege in California,” says an observer from Washington, immigration expert Demetrios Papademetriou of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“There is an enormous bombardment out there. There is always something new about immigration. One’s senses get bombarded every day, which is the worst possible moment for trying to make fundamental decisions regarding immigration. I am delighted that they will be made in Washington, rather than California.”

Yet California is where the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates 52% of all illegal immigrants live, where dueling studies constantly argue the benefits and costs of the immigrant mix, and where, increasingly, many see an immigration apocalypse born of neglect.

Even the membership of the Sierra Club is in the midst of an emotional debate about whether to take a public stand on the hot button topic of the day.

“It’s not as simple as clean air, or like pollution, where less is better,” said Executive Director Carl Pope.

But millions of other Americans seem to have made up their minds. The polls say most Americans believe illegal immigration is out of control, that the country has too many immigrants, illegal or otherwise, and that this is very bad news for the economy and for our national quality of life.

Every day, Americans are clamoring that something should be done. So everyone from the President of the United States to the president of the local homeowners association is offering suggestions.

Hire more Border Patrol agents and get them equipment that works. Issue tamper-proof identity cards. End taxpayer-funded medical care and schooling for anyone in the country illegally. Seize the assets of employers who hire illegal immigrants. And get serious, finally, about welfare fraud. The list goes on.

“Under bold, centrist political leadership, California could have been avoided,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, the grandfather of a growing family of groups calling for a moratorium on immigration.

“What is happening in California is the direct result of the isolated and removed nature of immigration policy decisions in Washington.”

Many call this brouhaha a backlash against immigrants, scapegoating during an economic recession and a shortsighted repudiation of the principles that made America great.

Others call it unadorned common sense.

“If you set your table for five people in your home and then 15 people show up unexpectedly, you aren’t prepared, and you’ve got problems,” said Fred Vines, a retired state policeman who lives with his wife, a teacher, on Los Angeles’ Westside.

“We’re billions in the hole,” he said. “This has never happened before. It’s got to be overpopulation. You’ve got people coming here who shouldn’t be here.

“Put up a Berlin Wall!” cried Vines, an African-American who denies that racism has anything to do with his get-tough stand. He says that any fool can see it: Immigration is bringing this country down.

*

The organizers of this night meeting of Citizens for Action Now, an 18-month-old immigration reform group in Orange County, have called for more folding chairs to accommodate an overflow crowd of about 60 mostly middle-aged, mostly white citizens or legal immigrants.

Barbara Coe, a police records clerk and co-director of the group, has made a point of emphasizing the legal immigrant component to the newcomers in the room.

It is not immigrants the group is against, she says, but illegal immigrants. She stressed that racism has no place here.

“We decided that the only way we are literally going to save our heritage is to put the focus on the illegal alien problem,” she said.

Early arrivals at the meeting talk among themselves. A middle-aged woman tells of the “marauders” who take over the streets at night. A man who lives and works in Santa Ana, the county seat that is now 70% Latino, says of the city: “It’s gone! It’s gone!”

Before everyone stands to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, sheets of blue cards are passed around. Citizens for Action Now, part of the 15-member California Coalition for Immigration Reform, asks its members to carry the cards with them and leave them in businesses such as restaurants, “where it seems fairly apparent” that illegal immigrants are employed.

“Stop the Invasion! Close our Borders NOW! Deny benefits to ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW! Defeat GATT/NAFTA NOW!” read the cards, which leave a space for the sender’s name and address.

The evening’s guest speaker, William E. Dannemeyer, the former Orange County congressman considering another U.S. Senate bid, arrives to detail his controversial, and unsuccessful, legislative efforts to stem the immigrant flow.

But during the question and answer session after his remarks, members of Citizens for Action Now intimate that Dannemeyer, who was one of the most conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill, hadn’t been tough enough.

One woman told Dannemeyer: “I feel desperate that the battle is lost.” Another man detailed his inspection of Israel’s border defense system, praising that country’s swift actions to thwart enemy incursions.

“If we can go to the moon, are you going to tell me we don’t have the technology to do what this little country Israel can? That’s baloney!”

The room erupts in applause.

*

Immigrant rights groups say they have heard such sentiments before, only they are hardly blase.

They are afraid that the angry, frustrated public mood might translate into laws that will codify discrimination and divert attention from more onerous economic problems in favor of an easy target: the illegal immigrant without a vote. They warn of a rise in hate crimes.

“We in the immigrant rights community are on the defensive right now,” concedes Roberto Lovato, who heads the Central American Refugee Center in Los Angeles. “We are not being sought out for solutions.”

At a recent news conference in Downtown Los Angeles, Latino community leaders displayed enlarged copies of stories that appeared in the Los Angeles Times from the 1930s to the present. The idea was to trigger a public deja vu .

“Ousting of Aliens Will Be Speeded,” read a headline from 1931. “Government Maps War on Wetbacks,” said another from 1954, and in 1971: “Illegal Alien Growing Peril to U.S. Worker.”

The last offering, “Wilson Urges Stiff Penalties to Deter Illegal Immigrants,” was from the week before.

“We know well in our community that this is a historical cycle,” says Arturo Vargas, vice president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Indeed, during the 19th Century, the state Legislature imposed special taxes on Mexican miners, and the state’s Workingmen’s Party rallied around the slogan, “The Chinese Must Go.” During the Great Depression, and again in 1954, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans were sent home.

Yet, cyclical or not, the country’s anti-immigrant mood seems unlikely to cool on its own. Based on a mix of fact, myth and fear, feelings run deep. Ambivalence–and contradictions–thread through it all.

The restaurant busboy might be admired for his willingness to work hard for little pay. But the faceless mass of illegal immigrants is threatening our way of life.

Although it is true that, as a percentage of the population, immigration levels today are a third of what they were during the peak years of 1900-20, the numbers are about the same. And those numbers–about 10 million legal and 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants over the past decade–seem huge.

This is especially true during economic hard times, or perhaps, as immigrant rights group suggest, when people consider who the new immigrants are. Unlike the immigration boom at the turn of the century, more than 90% of the latest immigrant tide comes from the Third World.

Bottom line: The United States takes in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. And people here are wondering out loud if America has not done enough.

Consider this reaction from homemaker and mother Ellie Kiefer, who recently moved from her Burbank home of 11 years to Simi Valley: “They are just letting them come in. If it was something very positive, starting nice businesses, or really trying or something, that might be different.

“But the crime is getting worse, there are more gangs. The killings. It’s ridiculous. That’s one of the reasons I’m so sick of it.”

Or this from a middle-aged African-American woman who works as a teaching assistant in the Los Angeles Unified School District: “We have to go back to school to speak their language. That’s not fair. And I have to pay for it out of my own pocket. If you are born here in the United States, and you speak English, you have to adjust to them. I don’t think that’s fair.”

Lucy Bermudez, a Philippine-born nurse who just left heavily immigrant Panorama City for Ventura County, says: “I waited for 15 years to become a citizen. It’s unfair of the illegal ones. They are just popping in.”

For Spanish-speaking shopkeeper Maria Elba Miranda, who emigrated illegally from El Salvador 13 years ago, the burning issue is security, and fear. “I’ve noticed a change in the type of people coming, even from my own country,” she said.

“There are just too many people here. . . . I remember when I came, I was really scared, timid, just looking for work, but now they come here looking for trouble.”

On the same Los Angeles street where Miranda lives and works, immigrants openly hawk fake green cards for $50. If you want a phony Social Security card, they can arrange that too. And to the untrained eye, all the documents look good.

“What we do is help people work, not like those guys, they’re the ones who should be deported,” says a 17-year-old nicknamed Orejas, or Ears, who arrived illegally from Mexico six months ago.

Orejas points across the street at the “bad immigrants” to distinguish himself and his friends from their ilk. Go to them, he says, if you want to buy drugs.

*

The INS estimates, conservatively, that about 3.2 million illegal immigrants now live in the United States. Most of these migrants–up to 70% of them from Mexico–arrived after the estimated 3.7 million others who have taken advantage of the amnesty provision of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Although that law is widely acknowledged to have ended life in the shadows for many immigrants, it has failed to stop the illegal flow. To wit: the control part of the act has become a joke:

Thousands of mandated Border Patrol jobs remain unfilled. Employer sanctions are rarely enforced. And states such as California complain bitterly that Washington does not reimburse them for services to illegal immigrants whose entry the federal government should have blocked.

Such a situation has led many to believe that no sooner do illegal immigrants cross the border than they end up on the dole. In fact, undocumented immigrants are legally ineligible for almost all public benefits other than maternity and emergency medical care under Medi-Cal or Medicaid, and some prenatal care.

But because of the thriving market in counterfeit documents, fraud appears to be widespread.

Moreover, U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are also entitled to all citizenship benefits, such as the fast-growing Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, and like foreign-born children, free education through the 12th grade.

And beyond the costs vs. revenue debate that is the subject of academic debate, residents of areas with large immigrant populations say they feel the impact of the newcomers in more personal ways.

An African-American police officer married to a Mexican immigrant says the couple’s two children are enrolled in a Los Angeles public school that is 90% Latino, “so my kids have a hard time.”

“The teachers are spending all this time on the Spanish,” he said. “So it slows down my kids. So I’m moving mine to a private school.”

Puerto Rican Miguel Rodriguez, 35, of Carson recently recovered from a car accident and went back to reclaim his welding job.

“They told me they didn’t have anything,” he said. “They hired a couple of guys, Latinos who don’t speak any English, who will take less. They’re making $8 an hour. I was making $13. . . . It kind of pisses me off.”

And from Lanie Wong, 65, a mother of five grown children and a daughter of Chinese immigrants, there is this: “It bothers me that the illegals think they can outsmart our system. They brag. It doesn’t affect me, personally. But it’s the principle.”

*

Felix Martinez, a 43-year-old father of four, and his friend, Milton Monterosa, 41, a father of two, have arrived hours early for an appointment at a Los Angeles office of the state Economic Development Department. They have gone months without work and are hoping for a lead on a job.

Like hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of others, Martinez, of Mexico City, and Monterosa, from San Salvador, overstayed their entry visas and slipped unnoticed into the underground economy that traditionally welcomed illegal immigrants with abundant, low-paying jobs.

Under the amnesty granted to illegal immigrants residing in the country before 1982, both men legalized their status, but the American dream escapes them still.

“My friend and I were just talking,” Martinez says. “Los Angeles has fallen down so much. Before, there used to be a lot of work. Things were good. Now the situation is desperate. There is no work. There is nothing.”

Monterosa just nods.

“On the one hand, I think it’s good that immigrants come to this country,” Martinez goes on. “But, you know, I’m in this position. I can’t condone more people coming. I tell my brothers, everybody. They say, ‘Oh, the streets are paved with gold there. There is a lot of work. I’m coming.’ I tell them: ‘There is no work. Why should you come to suffer? Don’t come.’ ”

Inside the unemployment office, Los Angeles-born Lawrence Cush, 31, is also waiting for a lead. He says he has prepared himself for a good job with a college education and experience as a PBX operator at the Ambassador Hotel.

But he has been out of work since 1985.

“I feel in competition with the immigrants,” he says. “Everyone should speak English, but they don’t. . . . I applied for a job at Continental Cable and they told me that I had all the qualifications but that I didn’t get hired because I didn’t speak Spanish.”

Cush is on welfare. He is looking for a job that pays at least $8 an hour “so that I could make $17,000-$20,000 a year, and that’s not that much. That way I could do my part to support my family.

“I’m not going to take the minimum wage,” he said.

Outside, Martinez speaks in Spanish: “I have these desperate nights where I hug my knees together in bed and pray to God for a miracle, to send me a job, any job, a gardener, a cook, whatever. I’m not talking about some fancy job in an office, a secretary.

“I’ll take anything.”

“Karen Bass decisively won the debate.”

She was “an assassin,” a “very skilled politician” who “made mincemeat of Nithya throughout the debate, both stylistically and substantively.”

If you think that assessment came from a Bass supporter, think again.

The words come from none other than Spencer Pratt, the erstwhile mayoral candidate, a Republican who routinely referred to Bass as Basura (that’s trash in Spanish) during the primary campaign.

There was no mention of Basura in Pratt’s Substack recap of Wednesday night’s debate before the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. To be sure, his post was titled “Surviving the Dumb and Dumber Debate,” but even so Pratt praised the mayor’s performance against Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Not that he was thrilled by the prospect of four more years with Mayor Bass, however.

“A Karen Bass Mayorship is depressing,” he wrote. “A Nithya Raman Mayorship is terrifying.”

Pratt suggested Bass was borrowing from his own playbook, citing her comments saying street vendors shouldn’t be on the sidewalk outside restaurants and her call for the long-term involuntary hospitalization of people on the street who pose a threat to themselves. Bass herself said that backing involuntary hospitalization was a “controversial thing to say.”

Pratt didn’t respond to a text from The Times about whether he was considering endorsing the mayor in the runoff.

Bass is likely to welcome conservative voters during the Nov. 3 general election as she faces off with Raman, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

And it’s not just Pratt who seems to be leaning toward Bass from the right.

Rick Caruso, who ran against Bass in 2022, referred to her as a “very good partner” when he recently celebrated the reopening of his Palisades Village shopping center. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In The Heights

Raman traveled to Boyle Heights Monday to join activists calling for Lineage to leave the neighborhood after the devastating fire at the company’s warehouse in June.

It wasn’t Raman’s first visit to Boyle Heights since the blaze, but it was her first public appearance and news conference.

“Lineage shouldn’t be permitted to open this warehouse again,” Raman said to cheers from the crowd.

Bass followed suit Thursday, after Lineage blew past its own self-imposed deadline for cleanup.

They “do not deserve to rebuild,” Bass said in a statement, while also calling on city lawyers to pursue litigation, a lien and other legal options for cost recovery against Lineage. Bass had already ordered the company’s building permits delayed at the end of July.

Raman was joined at the news conference by Eastside Padres Contra la Privatización and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment — a group that has endorsed her — to call for the closure of the facility.

Raman also called for Lineage to pay for Boyle Heights residents’ healthcare, for environmental testing, cleaning and relocation assistance, lost wages and more.

“Families and taxpayers should not be left with the bill when a corporation runs up the tab,” she said.

Raman’s news conference appeared to draw the ire of at least one council colleague, Ysabel Jurado — who represents Boyle Heights.

Jurado didn’t mention Raman by name, but after winning council support for a motion Wednesday continuing the state of emergency in Boyle Heights, she thanked her colleagues who called and texted before they “did a press conference about the issue.”

Jurado spokesperson Mason Santa Maria declined to say whether the remark was directed at Raman. Raman spokesperson Liz Garcia said Raman was invited to the presser.

Jurado, who has endorsed Bass, did not attend.

No shows at H&H

Raman has been outspoken about her removal from the chairmanship of the council’s housing and homelessness committee, suggesting she is being punished by Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson for challenging Bass.

Harris-Dawson rejects that narrative, saying the committee needed a chair who can focus undivided attention on the crisis.

Raman doesn’t officially lose that post until the end of the month. So on Wednesday, she was still listed as chair of the committee’s 2 p.m. meeting. But she wasn’t there, and neither were two of her colleagues.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield took the gavel instead, delaying the session until 3 p.m. in the hope that a third member would show up to join him and Councilmember Tim McOsker, giving the committee a quorum.

An hour later, Blumenfield came back.

“This meeting is going to have to be canceled for today,” he told the audience. “So I apologize for making you wait.”

Raman spokesperson Stella Stahl, in an email, said her boss already had other plans, with the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. debate happening later that same day.

“At the time, Nithya was near Sherman Oaks and had pre-planned campaign activities in advance of the mayoral debate,” Stahl said.

Stahl said the committee had a “last-minute cancellation from a council member who was expected to attend,” but didn’t provide a name.

Jurado, who takes over as chair of the newly renamed homelessness and health committee next month, also wasn’t there. Her spokesperson said Raman’s team was told the previous week that Jurado had a personal matter and couldn’t attend.

Devyn Bakewell, a spokesperson for Councilmember Heather Hutt, said her boss let Raman know Wednesday morning that she would not make it to committee due to a family issue.

The committee won’t meet again until next month. Raman will remain on the panel.

State of play

— SHAM SURVEY: The Times broke the story of the faked poll in the Los Angeles mayor’s race that purported to show Bass leading Raman by around 12 percentage points. The poll was faked as a “social experiment,” according to Median Strategies Polling, the group behind the fake survey. The creator of the fake poll revealed himself to the Guardian on Thursday as 21-year-old Rahil Prakash.

— FLIP IT AND REVERSE IT: The Los Angeles City Council has rescinded camping bans on a dozen locations in Hollywood, Echo Park and Silver Lake at the urging of the area’s council member, Hugo Soto-Martínez, who called the bans ineffective in addressing homelessness.

— THE RUMBLE IN THE VALLEY: Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman slammed each other Wednesday over their handling of homelessness, public safety and many other issues during the first face-to-face debate of the Nov. 3 election campaign.

— THE BEST LANE PLANS: A long-running dispute between cemeteries and bike-lane and safe streets advocates in the San Fernando Valley has escalated to become a campaign issue in the Los Angeles mayoral race.

— LIGHTS, CAMERA, INACTION: Despite improvements to the state’s tax incentive program, Los Angeles and California continue to struggle to keep movies, television series and even game shows from fleeing elsewhere. Production levels have failed to bounce back since the pandemic and the labor strikes by writers and actors, and they remain at historic lows.

— HEALTH WOES: Hundreds of Boyle Heights residents suffered health problems after a fire at a cold storage facility burned stubbornly for days, including respiratory infections, eye disorders and persistent cough, according to a new study.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? This week the mayor’s signature program was in Eunisses Hernandez’s district in Westlake, where it moved 37 people indoors from Ocean View Avenue and Lake Street.
• On the docket next week: After a Saturday meeting, the Democratic Socialists of America will vote next week on whether to endorse Raman for mayor.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Barring some extraordinary event — a health emergency, a career-ending scandal, a killer asteroid destroying all life on earth — Xavier Becerra will be the next governor of California.

That’s not partiality or wish casting on the part of your friendly political columnist. The fact is Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans in California, in both registration and inclination.

The GOP brand has been political poison in this Tahoe-blue bastion for decades now. But under Donald Trump, it’s grown even more toxic. His endorsement, which the president bestowed upon Republican Steve Hilton mid-primary, is the political equivalent of sarin; like the deadly nerve agent, it can kill on contact.

Still, give credit where due.

The gregarious and media-savvy Hilton has been waging an energetic and effervescent run for governor, with multiple appearances a day and frequent updates to his cheeky social media accounts.

“He’s going to San Francisco” — into the bowels of the liberal beast — “he’s going into schools, talking to labor groups,” said Hector Barajas, a campaign spokesman. “He’ll go everywhere.”

Becerra not so much.

The Democrat has appeared here and there since finishing first in the June 2 primary, securing one of two slots in November’s runoff. He’s offered a few modest proposals, including a plan to deliver two free hours of electricity a day to low-income households and a call for stiffer regulation of artificial intelligence.

A sprint vs. a stroll

That said, if Hilton is flat-out running for a job he stands virtually no chance of winning, Becerra is embarked on more of a leisurely stroll toward his all-but-certain perch in Sacramento.

That’s not a terrible thing at this midsummer stage of the race. Once, in the blessed era before the 24/7 news cycle and the omnipresence of social media, there was a lull in the months after the primary, with campaign activities picking back up around Labor Day.

On Tuesday, during a walking tour of Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo neighborhood, Becerra pushed back on the notion he was taking his election — and California voters — for granted. “If I were trying to coast,” he told reporters, “I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all.”

Becerra’s pace aside, the days between now and the Nov. 3 election offer him plenty of time to spell out what, exactly, he has to offer his home state and how, in a broad sense, he plans to tackle one of the highest profile, most vexing jobs in all of American politics.

At least one of those days should include a face-to-face debate between Hilton and Becerra. The two shared a stage multiple times during the primary season. They have not appeared together since.

More than a half-dozen news organizations have offered to host the gubernatorial rivals in a one-on-one session. Several other groups have proposed forums that would allow them to discuss their differences together in person.

Barajas, the spokesman for Hilton’s campaign, said the Republican hopeful has agreed to each and every invitation.

“He’s got absolutely no problem” appearing anytime or anywhere, Barajas said. “He will go to East L.A.. He will go to South-Central. He will go into the heart of the Central Valley. It doesn’t matter to him.”

That’s no surprise.

When a candidate is an underdog, like Hilton, they’ll typically show up at the opening of an envelope if it means appearing before a crowd. Conversely, a candidate on a seeming glide path to election, like Becerra, will often balk at giving their opponent the exposure afforded by a debate, much less risk harming themselves with a bad performance.

The Democratic front-runner said Tuesday that “there will be debates,” though he didn’t say where or when.

An obligation to voters

There’s a lot of virtue signaling that surrounds the notion of candidate debates.

Far from a high-minded discussion of policy differences, they often devolve into a stale recitation of talking points and pre-scripted zingers. After a while, debates can grow redundant and, frankly, boring as contestants repeat well-worn phrases and replow deeply furrowed ground. Such was the case by the time California’s gubernatorial hopefuls met for their sixth televised debate in the spring.

Most voters — many of whom profess to care oh-so-deeply about issues and matters of great import — don’t even bother tuning in. If they found debates that captivating, shows such as the “PBS NewsHour” would routinely outdraw the latest season of “Love Island USA.”

No matter.

There is an audience, however limited, for debates. Even if they don’t bother watching, many voters read about the encounters afterward, catch snippets online, or glean useful insights from the extensive coverage that follows.

Above all, a willingness to debate is a sign of respect — for voters as well as the political process the candidates are a part of. Minimizing direct confrontation with Hilton may play to Becerra’s inherently cautious nature. It also makes sense from a purely strategic standpoint.

But it doesn’t serve the people of California, or give voters their due. This is a campaign for governor. Not a coronation.

Becerra owes California, and Hilton, the chance to take the candidates’ measure side by side before their contest is over. The sooner Becerra commits to a time and place, the better.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump turns to containing the fallout from setbacks in Iran
The deep dive: War was supposed to crush Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance.’ Instead, it’s bloodied but unbroken
The L.A. Times Special: Xavier Becerra won’t deliver the home runs — or strikeouts — racked up by Newsom, Schwarzenegger

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad reelection campaign just got worse after Wednesday night’s debate in Sherman Oaks.

Bass came in as the clear favorite after toying with City Councilmember Nithya Raman the two times they faced off on the debate stage during the primary, as easily as the Dodgers sweeping the Angels.

Her Honor just needed to do more of the same: hail her own accomplishments, deliver well-timed zingers and keep as cool as a cucumber while baiting Raman into self-immolation.

Bass did none of that, while Raman stepped up the way she needed to.

This time, the challenger offered concrete answers instead of word salads. She mostly stuck to the allotted time limits while Bass repeatedly whined that she wasn’t given enough time. Raman effortlessly turned the mayor’s rhetorical traps around like Bugs Bunny twisting Elmer Fudd’s rifle right in his face.

Take the moment when Bass pointed out that Raman had missed the second-most votes among councilmembers during her six years in office. Raman responded that she missed many meetings while representing the city on the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other governmental boards. Bass’ clap-back — that Raman’s colleagues also had other official responsibilities yet “they find their way to work” — drew “ooohs” from the audience at the debate, put on by the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn.

If this were still the primary, Raman would have flustered her way to a non-answer. This time, she calmly said that she must not be such a bad councilmember, since Bass had appointed her to those boards.

“Well, we really need to look at that,” Bass stammered before asking Raman if she was “getting ready to resign” from them.

“I’m sorry?” Raman asked off mic as Bass challenged her to step down from all her boards. “No,” Raman then said firmly before shrugging and letting the moderator move on to the next question.

The moment was par for the mayor’s night.

Again and again, Bass went after Raman in the pettiest, most personal ways. She kept mocking the MIT graduate as a clueless egghead with no idea what’s going on in the city, stating twice that Raman governed as if L.A. were “an academic institution” — a line that sounded like a MAGA talking point and that was originally trotted out by Councilmember Imelda Padilla.

Bass tried to paint Raman as a member of an ineffectual city establishment, not a newcomer, which fell flat, considering that Bass has held one elected office or another for 22 years while Raman has been in politics only since 2020.

Bass frequently resorted to her trademark nervous laughter and repeated obviously crafted lines with all the enthusiasm of someone gulping down cod oil. Her furrowed brow and exasperated looks, which she had effectively used in previous debates, made her come off as embittered, tired and unable to defend the indefensible mess that has been her first term.

At one point, the mayor even compared street taco vendors to homeless encampments, with both supposedly disrupting the fabric of a well-run city.

Somewhere, Jonathan Gold is shaking his head in disgust.

“You have lots of plans and lots of ideas but have done very little,” Bass told Raman at another point.

And what have you done, Mayor Bass?

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass speaks with a woman after the end of a mayoral debate against challenger Nithya Raman in Sherman Oaks.

(David Butow/For the Times)

I’ve really tried to like Bass. Her trajectory from South L.A. activist to nonprofit founder to Sacramento, Washington and City Hall is impressive and important. Yet when Angelenos needed her to rise and succeed as their city faced one crisis after another during these past four years, Bass stumbled and stumbled again. Her flop of a debate performance left her sounding like someone with no vision or kindness — career suicide for someone who has made her reputation on both traits.

At this point, the architects of Bass’ campaign need to burn sage to drive out bad spirits or just bow out altogether. Any time something could go wrong, it has.

Bass placed first in the primary with 34% of the vote — an abysmal number for a Democratic incumbent in a deep blue city. Her campaign’s cynical gambit to boost washed-up reality TV star Spencer Pratt into the general election, because he’d be an easier opponent than Raman, failed. The Lineage fire in Boyle Heights brought back memories of the deadly Palisades inferno, angering a voting bloc Bass desperately needs — Latinos.

Then came news this week that a poll the Bass campaign had promoted, claiming that she held a commanding lead over Raman, turned out to be fake. Bass came out looking like someone incapable of overseeing paint dry, let alone running America’s second-largest city.

And now, this debate.

The audience, which was heavily pro-Bass, eventually started applauding more and more of Raman’s responses. Bass, desperate to trip up her opponent, talked over her so much that the councilmember responded with the line of the night and possibly the race:

“You gotta let me answer, Mayor Bass. This is my time.”

Raman still faces an uphill battle. Nearly all of the city’s power structure — elected officials, labor unions, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, business owners and even the three other democratic socialist councilmembers — has endorsed Bass. The mayor has outpaced Raman in fundraising. Raman has to win over voters who supported Pratt’s conservative stances while not alienating her progressive base. She did herself no favors with the Democratic Socialist of America’s local chapter, which didn’t endorse her in the primary and will decide next week whether to endorse her in the general election, by stating that the city needs to maintain the current size of its police force.

But in Wednesday night’s debate, she offered voters a distinct choice between how she would run L.A. and how Bass has.

Councilmember Nithya Raman speaks with staff and supporters after a mayoral debate with incumbent Karen Bass in Sherman Oaks.

(David Butow/For the Times)

All the mayor could sputter in her closing remarks was that Raman “does not have the support of [any] of her colleagues” — yet another line she had repeated ad nauseum.

When it was her turn, Raman said she keeps hearing from residents “that this city feels rudderless.”

“I have news for you, Angelenos. You’re right,” she continued. “No one is in charge right now.”

Then, instead of launching another fusillade against Bass, Raman went for something few people associate with L.A. nowadays:

Hope.

“You have every right to expect more from your city,” Raman proclaimed, her voice strong and clear. She urged Angelenos to “raise our expectations” of what’s possible and strive for a city that’s “affordable, functional, safe, joyful, ambitious.”

A few months ago, that would have sounded like the delusional ramblings of someone with no chance at winning. After tonight’s debate, Raman seems like L.A.’s final, best chance.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Sen. Darline Graham stumbled in a Tuesday night debate over an elementary question about foreign policy, a signature issue of her late brother. It was a high-profile misstep a week before she faces a runoff election in her bid to hold onto the South Carolina seat to which she was appointed last month.

Graham, a political novice, was asked whether the U.S. has a national security interest in Taiwan and the South China Sea — a longstanding contention of both Democratic and Republican administrations. She struggled to answer before admitting “national security is not my thing.”

“I’m not that informed on national security,” she added.

Her rival in next week’s runoff for the GOP nomination, Rep. Ralph Norman, suggested the answer showed Graham was unqualified for the role.

“By her choice, she’s running for the United States Senate. It’s a six-year term,” Norman said. “You need to get fully versed in what issues you’re going to be dealing with. This isn’t a ‘get training on the job.’ You can’t do that.”

It was a moment that drew a stark contrast to Graham’s brother, Lindsey, who died unexpectedly July 11. It also gave Norman, an established conservative politician, a fresh avenue of attack as he tries to overcome President Trump’s endorsement of Graham in her first campaign. The Republican president is set to visit South Carolina on Friday to campaign for her.

During his decades in the Senate, Lindsey Graham was known for his foreign policy involvement, making countless foreign trips, sometimes as part of a group of U.S. lawmakers meeting with international leaders and observing contentious areas firsthand.

There were multiple trips to Taiwan, including in 2022, when he led a delegation for a two-day visit that included meetings with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and the island’s defense minister.

Darline Graham had been asked, “Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States and if so, why or how?”

Graham avoided a direct response, and instead mentioned her brother’s wealth of experience and her desire to lead differently.

“My brother was in the Air Force for 33 years, so I will do everything I can to support the military,” said Graham, who often read during the debate from a legal pad on which she had notes, its pages draped over the front of her lectern. “My dad was in the Army. I’m not a polished politician up here; national security is not my thing, not my area of expertise, but I do support the military.”

As interim senator, Graham is surrounded by many of her brother’s Capitol Hill staff, many of whom worked with him for years on issues foreign and domestic. She’s repeatedly thanked them for getting her up to speed on legislative issues and has pointed to her several weeks on the job as a productive time in which she’s gotten legislation passed, including a Russia sanctions bill named for her brother.

In the wake of her brother’s death, Graham has been asked multiple times about how she would either further or shift away from his intense focus on national security, an attitude that was at the essence of his Senate portfolio.

Asked after the debate by reporters if she wanted another crack at her answer to the moderators’ question, she doubled down, saying she was more focused on South Carolinians’ everyday concerns.

“They’re worried about their pocketbooks more than they’re worried about the South China Sea, quite honestly,” Graham said. “So that’s going to be my biggest focus.”

Graham added that she had spoken multiple times during the debate about the overall national security threat posed by China.

“I realize national security is very important,” Graham said. “I probably said 10 times up there tonight how bad China is, how they’re a national threat to us.”

Taiwan has often been a flash point for aggression from China and international efforts to support its right to self-rule. The U.S. maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity over whether it would defend Taiwan militarily if the mainland invaded, but has committed to bolstering the island’s defense for generations.

Claimed by China as part of its territory, Taiwan sits along a South China Sea global trade route, virtually all of which China claims despite a 2016 arbitration ruling based on the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea that invalidated Beijing’s expansive claims.

During a visit to Manila this week, Adm. Frank Bradley, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, said that American special operations forces are ready to step up warfighting-readiness exercises with counterparts in the Philippines and other countries in Asia to further strengthen a security alliance and help deter a major conflict in the region.

Kinnard and Junkroski write for the Associated Press.

Democrat Xavier Becerra pledged on Tuesday to participate in more than one debate against Steve Hilton, his GOP rival in the California governor’s race.

“We will have debates, and between now and Nov. 3, we will continue to go out there and meet with folks to make sure they have an opportunity to see the candidates,” Becerra told reporters after greeting business owners, community leaders and voters in a walking tour of Little Tokyo. “Voters need to have good information. We’ll make sure they have it, and there will be debates.”

Xavier Becerra, center, who is running for governor of California, talks with Roy Kuroyawagi, owner of Japangeles in Little Tokyo on Tuesday.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Hilton has been needling Becerra for not being as publicly visible on the campaign trail since the two men advanced in the June primary. The British-born conservative strategist and political commentator raises chickens at his Silicon Valley home and has said he named one of them “Xavier.”

“Xavier Becerra wants to be governor while dodging questions from the press and a debate with me,” Hilton posted on the social media platform X earlier this month.”What else do you expect from a lazy, arrogant, entitled ‘empty suit’ 36-year machine politician.”

Becerra held a 55% to 37% lead over Hilton in a UC Berkeley/L.A. Times poll released Thursday. The margin is unsurprising given the edge that Democrats have in voter registration over Republicans in a state that last elected GOP politicians to statewide office in 2006.

Becerra, asked Tuesday about Hilton’s criticism that he was “coasting” to election in the November general election to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, rejected the notion.

“Well, if I were trying to coast, I’d be out on the coast right now instead of here with you all and making a nice visit to Little Tokyo,” he said outside of an Asian-fusion gastropub on an oppressively hot, muggy afternoon. “Listen, this is all about making sure voters have a choice. We’ll get out there and make sure we’re front and center with them … even if it’s a little hot.”

Becerra spoke with reporters after visiting Little Tokyo businesses and chatting with locals and visitors.

When a group of young women pledged to vote for him in the gubernatorial race, Becerra urged them to vote against Proposition 39, a ballot measure that would require Californians to provide government-issued identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens.

“Please vote against that. That would deter people from voting,” Becerra said, making a thumbs-down gesture. “I’m not joking.”

Becerra later told reporters that the proposition, which likely California voters oppose, according to polls, is a direct attack on the state’s elections by President Trump.

“The president has insisted on trying to disrupt elections. When he can’t do it in Washington, D.C., he’s trying to do it in our state directly,” Becerra said. “Prop. 39 is President Trump’s effort to try to interfere in our election. We have to resist it. We have to oppose it. And I hope people know that Prop. 39 is just a prop for Donald Trump. And anyone who believes that we have to see more people vote, we have to see robust elections, should be voting against Prop. 39.”

Becerra also enjoyed a little shopping.

At Japangeles, he purchased a ball cap with “L.A.” superimposed over Japanese characters for “Nihon,” what the Japanese call their own country; at Cafe Dulce, he picked up a fruit tart; and at a 123-year-old Japanese confectionery, he bought sweet mango mochi wrapped in a thin, fluffy pancake.

His visit Tuesday came during the community’s annual Nisei Week festival, which celebrates Japanese American culture and history. Becerra represented the area during his time in Congress. He ran into several people he had known over his long political career, including former Los Angeles City Councilmember Jan Perry, and Brian Kito, the third-generation owner of the Fugetsu-Do Bakery.

Kito showed Becerra a picture of the then-congressman swearing him in as a neighborhood council president more than a decade ago.

“It was a nice reunion,” Kito said. “He’s a true gentleman. … I’m hoping nothing but success for him.”

Aug. 11 (UPI) — About 500 South Korean civic, political and religious leaders, North Korean defectors, separated families and academics gathered at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building on Tuesday to reject the permanent division of the Korean Peninsula and call for a national movement for peaceful reunification.

The “Liberation 81 One Korea Unification Rally,” held four days before South Korea marks the 81st anniversary of liberation from Japanese colonial rule, was jointly hosted by Citizens’ Solidarity for One Korea and Rep. Song Seok-jun of the People Power Party, chairman of the National Assembly Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee.

Participants rallied under the slogan “Two Koreas No! One Korea Yes!” and framed the debate as a choice over whether South Korea should institutionalize the peninsula’s division or preserve reunification as a constitutional objective, a human rights issue and a long-term national vision.

The gathering comes as both Koreas are redefining their relationship.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un declared in late 2023 that North and South Korea should no longer be regarded as partners pursuing reunification but as two hostile states. North Korea has since revised its constitution to remove references to reunification and define its territory as bordering the Republic of Korea to the south.

In South Korea, President Lee Jae Myung’s administration has pursued a policy of “peaceful coexistence” aimed at reducing tensions and restoring dialogue with Pyongyang.

The shift has been reflected in government policy and education materials.

In March, the National Institute for Peaceful Unification Education, which is affiliated with the Unification Ministry, published its 2026 textbooks incorporating what it described as a “peaceful two-state” framework.

The materials acknowledged the current reality of two separate systems while calling for inter-Korean relations to develop into a cooperative relationship aimed at eventual reunification. The definition of reunification was also revised from one emphasizing integration under a liberal democratic order and market economy to “the process of forming a new, unified community.”

The policy direction became clearer last week when Unification Minister Chung Dong-young presented President Lee with a blueprint for “peaceful coexistence” that includes what the ministry calls a “two-state relationship oriented toward unification,” while leaving the question of eventual reunification to future generations.

The plan also calls for referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and replacing terminology the ministry considers confrontational, including the “main enemy” label.

South Korea has traditionally treated inter-Korean relations as a special relationship rather than ordinary relations between two foreign states, a principle reflected in the 1991 Inter-Korean Basic Agreement.

Organizers of Tuesday’s rally said they support peace and dialogue but argued that institutionalizing the two Koreas as separate states, even under a framework intended to promote peaceful coexistence, could ultimately normalize permanent division.

In welcoming remarks, Song said the South Korean Constitution “clearly aims for peaceful unification based on the basic free and democratic order,” adding that with North Korea’s nuclear threats and a grave international environment, South Koreans “must not ignore or misjudge the reality of division.”

Jang Man-soon, co-chairman of Citizens’ Solidarity for One Korea and chairman of the Committee for Ten Million Separated Families, said recognizing North Korea as an entirely separate state could conflict with South Korea’s constitutional framework and affect the identity and rights of separated families, people displaced from North Korea and North Korean defectors.

South Korea’s Constitution defines the territory of the Republic of Korea in Article 3 as “the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands.” Article 4 requires the country to seek peaceful unification based on the basic free and democratic order.

Jang, a second-generation member of a separated family, also questioned whether Pyongyang’s two-state policy could be characterized as mutual respect while North Korea continues to threaten South Korea with nuclear weapons and missiles.

For separated families, he argued, the issue extends beyond diplomatic terminology. Permanently recognizing the peninsula as two foreign states could change how South Korea views people whose hometowns and relatives remain north of the border.

“True peace begins with restoring the freedom and human rights of North Korean residents,” Jang said, according to organizers.

Former lawmaker Thae Yong-ho, who defected after serving as a senior North Korean diplomat, said in a keynote speech that Pyongyang has removed concepts such as national reunification and one Korean people from its constitution and political framework, even as a “peaceful two-state” discourse has emerged in the South.

Thae warned that such an approach “could lead to the permanent division of the Korean Peninsula.”

Speakers also argued that reunification should be viewed as a human rights question involving North Korea’s roughly 25 million people, rather than solely as a territorial or political issue.

Korean American Kenneth Bae, president of New Korea Foundation International, who was detained in North Korea for 735 days, said reunification should mean more than combining two territories.

He said it should reconnect separated families and create conditions in which North Koreans can live with freedom, dignity and basic human rights.

Kang Chol-hwan, head of the North Korea Strategy Center, who spent 10 years in a North Korean political prison camp, called for expanding North Koreans’ access to outside information and making human rights a central part of reunification efforts.

The rally also sought to present an alternative national vision rather than simply oppose a two-state framework.

Seo In-taek, permanent co-chairman of Action for Korea United, proposed a civic movement centered on the “Korean Dream,” a vision of a unified Korea grounded in freedom, human rights, freedom of religion, peace and shared prosperity.

“People are moved not by slogans but by a clear vision they can share,” Seo said, according to organizers.

Seo said reunification should not belong to a single political party, ideology or administration and called for a nationwide civic movement to change perceptions that division is permanent and reunification impossible.

Citizens’ Solidarity for One Korea sent a questionnaire on the two-state debate to all 299 members of the National Assembly on Aug. 4, asking lawmakers about permanent two-state relations and South Korea’s constitutional commitment to peaceful reunification. Eight lawmakers responded, the rally’s moderator announced during the event.

Representatives of youth, Protestant and Buddhist communities, separated families, overseas Koreans and North Korean defectors then took the stage in turn to deliver “One Korea” resolutions pledging a unified Korea grounded in liberal democracy and human rights.

The rally concluded with young representatives born in the two Koreas reading a joint resolution calling for denuclearization, improvements in North Korean human rights and peaceful reunification under South Korea’s constitutional order, followed by a unification performance in which participants sang “Our Wish Is Unification” and chanted “Two Koreas No! One Korea Yes!”

Organizers said the campaign will continue with the 2026 Korean Dream Han River Festival, a public event focused on Korean reunification planned for Oct. 3 at Ttukseom Hangang Park in Seoul.

Washington, DC – A year after United States President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, DC, opinions are mixed among residents, politicians and experts about the mission’s success.

Thousands of troops were deployed to DC in August 2025 as part of Trump’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force after he declared a crime emergency in the city.

The arrival of the soldiers triggered immediate opposition from many DC residents, with protests throughout the year. The advocacy group Free DC organised 11 days of demonstrations culminating in a protest outside the White House on Tuesday against what the group calls a “hostile military occupation”.

“I think Trump should go ahead and let them go home,” Ybonne Coles, a 60-year-old restaurant worker who was born and raised in the capital, said on a hot August day in Farragut Square as several soldiers patrolled nearby.

“They ain’t doing nothing but walking,” said Coles. “That money could go towards organisations to help people that really need help.”

The deployment has also faced resistance from legal officials, who have questioned its constitutionality.

On September 4, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the Trump administration over the deployment, which the lawsuit claimed was an illegal use of military force for law enforcement purposes in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled to end the deployment on November 20, but a federal appeals court later granted the administration’s request for a stay on the order as litigation continues.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, whose administration Trump blamed for what he described as soaring crime rates, similarly criticised the legality of the deployment.

“We use the Guard to respond to emergencies. We use the Guard for large-scale events. We do not use the Guard to police our local laws,” Bowser said at a DC conference in October.

As the deployment approached its one-year mark, federal officials announced a “summer surge” of National Guard troops in advance of the 250th anniversary celebrations in the capital, requesting an additional 1,500 troops.

‘Peaceful and tranquil’

Not everyone opposes the National Guard’s presence.

Aaron Taslitz, a 30-year-old teacher who also works as a bike courier in DC, said that, though he would prefer that military resources be used on something more urgent than roaming the streets of the capital, he does feel safer with them around.

“For the most part, they’ve kept things peaceful and tranquil here,” he said, as he took a break from his morning bike ride in Dupont Circle.

Trump has often railed against DC, calling it “one of the most unsafe cities anywhere in the world” and claiming that since the Guard was brought in, crime has dropped by 88 percent.

However, the precise impact of the National Guard’s presence on crime in Washington, DC, remains unclear.

A report from the Niskanen Center in May found that the deployment has had no significant impact on violent crime, which has been in consistent decline in the district over the past few years.

Although the report found notable reductions in property crimes, it showed a limited impact of the troop presence on “opportunistic” crimes.

“They’re not trained police officers,” explained Richard Hahn, a co-author of the report. “The best thing a National Guard member can be, in terms of a crime deterrent, is a sentinel.”

Troop patrol zones have also concentrated in “high-traffic” areas, including tourist hubs like the National Mall and Union Station.

“Violent crime really concentrates in specific places in DC,” said Hahn. “And those are places where, by and large, the Guard was not deployed.”

Currently, 4,636 soldiers are deployed to the DC mission, including nearly 700 from the DC National Guard and thousands from various other state guards, according to a Joint Task Force-DC spokesperson. The largest out-of-state contributors are Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi.

Despite the high number of troops, local news stations in DC have reported a notable absence of troops east of the Anacostia River, where several neighbourhoods post some of the highest violent crime rates in the city.

Commanding General Leland D Blanchard II indicated in a news conference on August 3 that patrol zones would shift in the coming weeks, but declined to provide further details.

‘Unnecessary’ use of force

A Senate investigation and report, authored by Senators Gary Peters and Andy Kim in February, also expressed concerns that the deployment risked harming local trust in law enforcement, politicising the armed forces and reducing troop preparedness.

The report further identified a threat to civilian privacy posed by the Guard’s software tools, including social media monitoring systems Meltwater and Cision, and the Palantir Technologies platform Maven Smart System.

The National Guard has also faced multiple lawsuits since the deployment began last August.

On July 29, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a claim on behalf of retired US Army captain Anna King after members of the Idaho National Guard violently detained her in May for allegedly assaulting an officer two days earlier.

King has denied the allegation and instead believes she was detained for her vocal criticism of the Guard’s presence in the city.

“What you see here is an aggressive use of force that was totally unnecessary and totally disproportionate,” said Michael Perloff, a lawyer representing King, “and this illustrates the broader concerns with the reliance on the National Guard to patrol this district.”

While no official cost has been reported for the first year of the operation, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security reported an annual estimate of $602m.

In July, the Pentagon announced plans to keep the Guard in DC through the end of Trump’s term. According to an estimate obtained by Senator Elizabeth Warren, the deployment will cost an additional $1.4bn from October 2026 to January 2029.

The figure comes on top of an already steep deployment cost so far.

One service member from the Indiana National Guard, who was deployed for a few months as part of the DC mission in November and asked not to be named, expressed mixed feelings about his time patrolling the streets of DC.

“My time there was to help the citizens of DC,” said the soldier, adding that he took pride in providing this service.

“It didn’t matter who they were, what they were doing – I was just there to help in any way that I could,” he said. “I’ve seen people impacted by us in a positive light.”

At other times, though, he said he had his doubts about the mission, noting especially low morale in his unit while they were away from their families during the holiday season.

“There were days when I was like, ‘What are we doing here? We’re not really doing anything.’”