Deontay Wilder beats Derek Chisora with a split decision win after a dramatic heavyweight contest in what is expected to be Chisora’s final professional bout.
Pictures courtesy of DAZN PPV
READ MORE: Chisora beaten by Wilder in captivating bout
Available to UK users only.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is arguing that a judge’s order to halt construction of a $400-million ballroom creates a security risk for President Trump as it asks a federal appeals court to pause the ruling.
In a motion filed Friday, National Park Service lawyers say that the federal judge’s order to suspend construction of the East Wing ballroom is “threatening grave national-security harms to the White House, the President and his family, and the President’s staff.”
“Time is of the essence!” the lawyers write, citing materials that will be installed to make a “heavily fortified” facility. The ballroom construction also includes bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility, according to the filing. The ballroom is part of Trump’s plans to remake public buildings and institutions in Washington during his remaining years in office.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington on Tuesday ordered the temporary pause of the construction project that has included demolishing the East Wing of the White House. He concluded that unless Congress approves the project, the preservationist group suing to stop it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”
The White House is owned by the federal government, not the president. Even the website of the National Park Service, which filed the motion, makes clear that “the White House is owned by the American people.”
The judge suspended enforcement of his order for 14 days, acknowledging that the administration would appeal his decision.
Leon’s ruling and the appeal come the same week a key agency tasked with approving construction on federal property in the Washington region gave final approval to the project.
In his ruling, Leon, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, suspended enforcement of his order, recognizing that “halting an ongoing construction project may raise logistical issues.”
Leon also addressed national security in his ruling, saying that he reviewed information that the government privately submitted to him and concluded that halting construction wouldn’t jeopardize national security. He exempted any construction work that is necessary for the safety and security of the White House from the scope of the injunction.
Trump lashed out at the ruling, while noting that it would allow work on underground bunkers and other security measures around the White House grounds to continue — even though those will be paid for by taxpayers. Trump has pledged that he, along with private donors, will cover the costs for the ballroom itself.
But the National Park Service argues in its motion that the president has “complete authority to renovate the White House” and the current state of the grounds, which is an open construction site, make it harder to protect the White House.
“Canvas tents, which are necessary without a ballroom, are significantly more vulnerable to missiles, drones, and other threats than a hardened national security facility,” the motion says.
The Trump administration is asking the appeals court to make a decision on its request by Friday. It also asked that the 14-day suspension of Leon’s order be extended by two weeks so the case can be taken to the Supreme Court.
Groves writes for the Associated Press.
A United States federal judge has once again batted down a pair of subpoenas from the administration of President Donald Trump seeking information about Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank.
In a brief, six-page opinion published on Friday, Judge James Boasberg rejected the Department of Justice’s motion to reconsider his earlier ruling rejecting the subpoenas.
list of 3 itemsend of list
“The Government’s arguments do not come close to convincing the Court that a different outcome is warranted,” Boasberg wrote.
On March 13, Boasberg, a judge for the federal court in the District of Columbia, nullified the subpoenas on the basis that they were issued for an “improper purpose”: to pressure Powell into compliance with the president’s demands.
Trump and Powell — an appointee from the president’s first term — have been at loggerheads since the Republican leader returned to the White House in January 2025.
Although the Federal Reserve is an independent government agency, not subject to political demands, Trump has repeatedly called on the bank to slash interest rates, and he has denounced Powell as “incompetent”, “crooked” and a “fool” for not following suit.
For months, pressure had been building from the Trump White House to investigate Powell and push him prematurely from his job as Federal Reserve chair. Powell’s term is slated to expire in May.
Much of the Trump administration’s focus has fallen on renovations to the Federal Reserve’s historic 1930s buildings in Washington, DC, which have gone over budget.
The administration has pointed to the cost overruns as evidence of malfeasance.
Last July, for instance, Trump appointee William Pulte called on Congress to investigate Powell for “political bias” and “deceptive” testimony related to the renovation project.
The following month, Trump posted on his platform Truth Social that he was considering “a major lawsuit against Powell” in response to “horrible, and grossly incompetent” work on the renovations.
The pressure reached a climax on January 11, when Powell made a rare statement announcing he was under a Justice Department investigation over the renovation project. He dismissed the probe as a “pretext” to undermine the Federal Reserve’s leadership over monetary policy.
“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said.
The Federal Reserve has since sought to have the subpoenas into Powell’s behaviour tossed.
Boasberg sided with the central bank in his initial ruling, and in Friday’s opinion, he called the Trump administration’s efforts to change his mind insufficient.
The Justice Department had argued that it does not need to produce evidence of a crime to seek a grand jury subpoena.
Boasberg agreed with that point, but he said subpoenas were also subject to a legal standard that bars them from being issued for “improper” purposes.
“The subpoena power ‘is not unlimited’ and may not be abused,” Boasberg wrote, citing court precedent.
He therefore ruled that the lack of evidence overall against Powell was relevant to the legality of the subpoenas.
“The controlling legal question is what these ‘subpoena[s’] dominant purpose’ is: pressuring Powell to lower rates or resign, or pursuing a legitimate investigation opened because the facts suggested wrongdoing,” Boasberg said.
“Resolving that question requires probing whether the Government’s asserted basis for the subpoenas — suspicions of fraud and lying to Congress — is colorable or tenuous. That inquiry, in turn, means asking how much evidence there is to back up the Government’s assertions.”
Boasberg underscored that he has seen no suggestion that Powell committed criminal wrongdoing and pointed to the long list of statements Trump has made attacking the Federal Reserve chair, suggesting an ulterior motive.
“The Government’s fundamental problem is that it has presented no evidence whatsoever of fraud,” he concluded.
Friday’s ruling is likely to set the stage for the Trump administration to appeal. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has previously denied any political motivation for the investigation.
She has also asserted that Boasberg is “without legal authority” to nullify the subpoenas.
WASHINGTON — President Trump has privately discussed the possibility of firing Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and replacing her with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, three people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.
In those conversations, Trump has discussed his ongoing frustration with Bondi over her handing of the Jeffrey Epstein files and hurdles the Justice Department has encountered in investigations into Trump’s perceived enemies, the people said. The Republican president has mentioned other candidates but has raised Zeldin’s name as recently as this week, the people said.
The people were not authorized to publicly discuss the private conversations and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.
No decision has been announced, and Trump has been known to change his mind on personnel decisions.
“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Trump said in a statement produced by the White House.
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, has been publicly and privately praised by Trump, who at an event in February described him as “our secret weapon.”
Bondi, a former state attorney general in Florida and a Trump loyalist who was part of his legal team during his first impeachment case, has been in her position for more than a year. She came into office pledging that she would not play politics with the Justice Department, but she quickly started investigations of Trump foes, sparking an outcry that the law enforcement agency was being wielded as a tool of revenge to advance the president’s political and personal agenda.
She has also endured months of scrutiny over the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files that made her the target of angry conservatives even with her close relationship with Trump.
Under Bondi’s leadership, the department opened investigations into a string of Trump foes, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.
The high-profile prosecutions of Comey and James were quickly thrown out by a judge who ruled that the prosecutor who brought the cases was illegally appointed. Other politically charged investigations have either been rejected by grand juries or failed to result in criminal charges.
Richer, Tucker, Balsamo and Price write for the Associated Press.
A recent California appellate court ruling will give civilian oversight groups the authority to subpoena the law enforcement agencies they are tasked with monitoring, a decision hailed by local advocates as a step toward greater transparency by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
In a unanimous opinion issued Thursday, justices from the state’s first appellate district found that an oversight body in Sonoma County is legally authorized to subpoena the county sheriff’s office while probing whistleblower inquiries. The justices also directed the law enforcement agency to comply with the watchdog’s requests for records.
The Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach sued the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office in 2024 over refusals to comply with a whistleblower complaint subpoena. A lower court initially ruled in favor of the Sheriff’s Office, but the appellate judges reversed that decision.
Hans Johnson, chair of the Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission, called the ruling a “big win” for law enforcement transparency.
“This is one of the most significant court rulings in recent CA history about oversight,” he said in a message to The Times. “It strengthens the powers of Civilian Oversight boards and Inspectors General and upholds our subpoena authority while also showcasing the strong public interest in robust, effective oversight of sheriffs, their departments, and their operations.”
The L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that it is “discussing with County Counsel to determine the appropriate path for implementing any lawful authority granted to the Civilian Oversight Commission.”
Angelenos who have long sought records related to alleged misconduct by sheriff’s deputies also cheered the court’s decision.
Vanessa Perez’s son Joseph was badly beaten by deputies in the San Gabriel Valley six years ago. She has been fighting ever since for more clarity about what happened.
Perez said she hopes Thursday’s ruling will result in “some type of justice, some type of fairness” for her son and others who have been stymied by the Sheriff’s Department in efforts to obtain information.
“Hopefully we’ll have effective oversight at the end of this, someone other than LASD looking at Joseph’s case,” Perez said in a phone interview Monday. “Not one deputy, not one sheriff, nobody has ever brought to light what they did to Joseph.”
She has been vocal in her criticism of the agency and the fact that it has only released redacted versions of its “use of force” report from the July 2020 incident involving her son.
Perez’s case is one of several in which the Civilian Oversight Commission has tried unsuccessfully to pry records out of the Sheriff’s Department. Two other cases involved Emmett Brock, a trans man beaten by a deputy in a convenience store parking lot in 2023, and Andres Guardado, an 18-year-old fatally shot in 2020.
The commission subpoenaed unredacted files in the cases in Feburary 2025, but the county counsel’s office has argued they should remain confidential.
“L.A. County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure R in March 2020 to grant the Commission subpoena powers,” the Civilian Oversight Commission wrote in a statement. “However, six years later, it is not yet fully in effect.”
The county counsel’s office said in a statement that it “does not question the Civilian Oversight Commission’s power to issue subpoenas.”
But, it said, court decisions, the county’s Employee Relations Commission and the law “require that the County … meet and confer with labor partners about the impacts before documents are shared. Those discussions are underway.”
Hilda Eke, executive director of the L.A.-based advocacy organization Dignity and Power Now, said in a statement that the ruling is a positive development in the ongoing battle for more transparency.
“It affirms what our communities have always known: You cannot investigate injustice without the power to uncover the truth,” Eke said.
WASHINGTON — President Trump is not immune from civil claims that he incited a mob of his supporters to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a federal judge has ruled in one of the last unresolved legal cases stemming from the riot.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled Tuesday that Trump’s remarks at his “Stop the Steal” rally, held on the Ellipse near the White House shortly before the siege began, “plausibly” were inciting words that are not protected by the 1st Amendment right to free speech.
The Republican president is not shielded from liability for much of his Jan. 6 conduct, including that speech and many of his social media posts that day, according to the judge. But Mehta said Trump cannot be held liable for his official acts that day, including his Rose Garden remarks during the riot and his interactions with Justice Department officials.
“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity.”
The decision is not the court’s first ruling that Trump can be held liable for the violence at the Capitol and it is unlikely to be the last given the near-certainty of an appeal. But the 79-page ruling sets the stage for a possible civil trial in the same courthouse where Trump was charged with crimes for his Jan. 6 conduct, before his 2024 election ended the prosecution.
Mehta previously refused to dismiss the claims against Trump in a February 2022 ruling that Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity from the claims brought by Democratic members of Congress and law enforcement officers who guarded the Capitol on Jan. 6. In that decision, Mehta also concluded that Trump’s words during his rally speech plausibly amounted to incitement and were not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The case returned to Mehta after an appeals court ruling upheld his 2022 decision. He said Tuesday’s ruling on immunity falls under a more “rigorous” legal standard at this later stage in the litigation.
Mehta, who was nominated by Democratic President Obama, said his latest decision is not a “final pronouncement on immunity for any particular act.”
“President Trump remains free to reassert official-acts immunity as a defense at trial. But the burden will remain his and will be subject to a higher standard of proof,” the judge wrote.
Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the rally before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over Trump. Trump closed out his speech by saying, “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 meets the threshold for presidential immunity.
The plaintiffs contended that Trump cannot prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual. They also said the Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who at that time led the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the Jan. 6 riot. Other Democratic members of Congress later joined the litigation, which was consolidated with the officers’ claims.
The civil claims survived Trump’s sweeping act of clemency on the first day of his second term, when he pardoned, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. More than 100 police officers were injured while defending the Capitol from rioters.
The plaintiffs’ legal team includes attorneys from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Damon Hewitt, the group’s president and executive director, praised the ruling as a “monumental victory for the rule of law, affirming that no one, including the president of the United States, is above it.”
“The court rightly recognizes that President Trump’s actions leading to the January 6 insurrection fell outside the scope of presidential duties,” Hewitt said in a statement. “This ruling is an important step toward accountability for the violent attack on the Capitol and our democracy.”
Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.
The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.
Moss ruled that President Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”
“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.
“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.
Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.
“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.
NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.
“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.
PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”
Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”
“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”
The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.
“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”
While Trump was sued in this legal action, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.
Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.
Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer David Bauder contributed to this report.
There will be no Charlie Kirk highway in his home state of Arizona. The reason: politics.
Exactly whose politics is to blame has become a point of debate.
Kirk, the conservative activist known for his campus debates, was assassinated last year during an event at Utah Valley University. Republicans in Arizona, where Kirk’s Turning Point USA organization is based, passed legislation attempting to add Kirk’s name to Loop 202, a highway circling through the sprawling Phoenix area.
Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it on Friday.
In a veto message to state lawmakers, Hobbs denounced political violence but suggested that Republicans had inappropriately injected politics into a decision rightly left to a state board that names historic highways.
“I will continue working toward solutions that bring people together, but this bill falls short of that standard by inserting politics into a function of government that should remain nonpartisan,” Hobbs wrote.
Republican state Senate President Warren Petersen, who sponsored the legislation, said it was Hobbs who practiced politics by breaking with “a long-standing Arizona tradition” of recognizing people who made an impact on society.
The veto “tells people that recognition now depends on political alignment, not contribution,” Petersen said in a statement. “That’s not how Arizona has ever approached these decisions, and it’s a disappointing shift for our state.”
Lawmakers in more than 20 states have introduced over five dozen bills seeking to honor Kirk, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. Many propose naming things after Kirk or creating an official day of remembrance. Others invoke Kirk’s name for measures that would protect free speech rights on college campuses or encourage schools to teach about the role of Judeo-Christian values in American history.
Arizona and Florida were among the first states to give final approval to Kirk-inspired legislation.
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has yet to act on a bill that would designate a road in Miami-Dade County as “Charlie Kirk Memorial Avenue” while also designating a road in Broward County as “President Donald J. Trump Boulevard.”
Lieb writes for the Associated Press.
ABOARD THE CRESCENT — There’s something melodic about watching the sun rise over a rural stillness broken only by the rhythms of steel wheels on tracks. Or so we tell ourselves.
In this case, being aboard a train at all owed more to politics than poetry.
Congress and President Trump were mired in their latest budget stalemate, one rooted in his immigration crackdown and the tactics of federal forces he has sent to U.S. cities. But this impasse has upended a foundational constant of American life today: easy air travel.
In Atlanta, my hometown airport, cheerfully marketed as the world’s busiest, had descended into organized chaos. Unpaid federal employees called out from work, leaving a diminished security staff to screen travelers frustrated by hours-long waits in line. I wanted to get to Washington for the NCAA basketball tournament. So I eliminated the risk of a missed flight and booked the train overnight and into game day across a 650-mile route.
In this fraught moment in U.S. politics, I slowed down and thought about things we take for granted. Who ever ponders the conveniences of that 20th century innovation, the airplane, that makes 21st century hustle possible? We book and board. An unconscious, first-world flex of modernity. It’s even rarer to grapple with the inconvenience.
My decision had taken me further back, to the 19th century and another defining innovation: the long-distance train.
A 14½-hour weekend train ride is time aplenty to appreciate how completely politics, economics, social strife and fights over identity and belonging have always affected the order of our lives, including how, when and where we move around in these United States. But Amtrak’s Crescent also allowed me to see the expanse of our collective experience.
I traversed the urban, suburban and rural breadth of East Coast America. I learned how other travelers came aboard. And in that, I found the portrait of people, past and present, who refuse to be as paralyzed as some of their elected leaders.
There is little glamour late night in a crowded Amtrak station. Children are up past bedtime and tended by frazzled parents. Older adults struggle with luggage and stairs.
Airports are not red-carpet affairs either, of course. But there is a certain cache to Delta’s Atlanta-Washington flights. They typically take about two hours gate to gate. They often are slotted at a midpoint gate of the concourse nearest the main terminal. That is almost certainly a nod to members of Congress who use it, but who have lost some airline perks during this extended partial shutdown — which as of Sunday is the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.
In normal circumstances I can get from my front porch to Capitol Hill or downtown in as little as 4½ hours. Security lines these days could at least double my overall air travel time.
The train is still longer, and time is money, we are taught. But certainty has value, too, even if it means an 11:29 p.m. departure. And at the Amtrak station, there were no standstill lines, no Transportation Security Administration agents, no ICE agents as stand-ins.
Passengers who arrived mere minutes before departure made it on board and found seats quickly — assigned in boarding order, not predetermined zones that yield jammed aisles. There’s no in-seat service or satellite TV. But even coach seats, the lowest Amtrak tier, are as spacious as airline first-class — and there is Wi-Fi, so it’s not the 19th century or even 20th century after all.
On board, I heard one crew member joke, “I’m no TSA agent.”
As a boy in rural Alabama, I counted train cars and wondered where they were headed. I’ve since read diary entries and letters from my grandmother and her sisters recounting World War II-era weekend trips to Atlanta.
The South’s largest city has a historical hook too. Originally named “Terminus,” Atlanta developed in the antebellum era as a critical intersection of north-south and east-west rail routes. That is what drew Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman for one of the Civil War’s seminal campaigns that helped defeat the Confederacy.
A century after the Civil War, Delta chose Atlanta for its headquarters rather than Birmingham, Ala., which was the larger city as of the 1960 census. The company’s decision was tied up in tax breaks for the airline, named for its crop duster origins in the Mississippi Delta region. According to some interpretations, Delta’s decision was made easier because of the more overt racism of Alabama’s and Birmingham’s leaders as they defended Jim Crow — a code that, among other acts, allowed states to segregate the passenger trains that predated Amtrak.
On this night, I heard many languages and accents, notable given the role that immigrant labor played in building the U.S. rail system and especially striking now with immigration — legal and illegal — at the forefront in Washington, my destination. I saw faces that reflected U.S. pluralism, a different mix from what my grandmother and aunts would have seen a lifetime ago.
The array of voices celebrated the freedom and ease of rail travel. So did Agatha Grimes and her friends after they boarded in Greensboro, N.C., as part of a long weekend trip to celebrate her 62nd birthday.
“I got stuck in the Atlanta airport last week,” Grimes said, as her group laughed together in the dining car. “It’s just nuts.”
Beretta Nunnally, a self-described “train veteran” who organized their trip, said, “There’s no worry about parking. No checking bags. You come to the station, you get where you‘re going, and you come home.”
Still, that is not as easy in the United States as it once was.
Just as politics, economics and subsidies helped expand U.S. railroads, those factors diminished the network as auto manufacturers, oil companies, road builders and, finally, airline manufacturers and airlines commanded favor from politicians and attention from consumers.
Riding hours across rural areas, I noticed the junkyards where kudzu and chain-link fencing framed rows of rusted automobiles. I saw the farmland and equipment that helps feed cities and the rest of the nation. I awoke to see the night lights of office towers in Charlotte, N.C., and its NFL stadium. I saw vibrant county seats — and I thought of countless other towns like them that are not thriving as they sit disconnected from passenger rail and far from the Eisenhower-era interstate system that we crossed multiple times on our way.
In each setting, voters — conservatives, liberals, the extremes and betweens — have chosen their representatives, senators and a president who now set the nation’s course.
When I arrived in Washington, I paused to enjoy Union Station’s grand hall and its Beaux Arts appeal, and I lamented how much splendor has been lost because so many striking U.S. terminals have been razed. I stepped outside and looked up at the Capitol dome.
While I had slept, the Senate managed a bipartisan deal to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security except immigration enforcement. As I continued northward, House Republican leaders rejected it. The stalemate continued.
The president, however, took executive action to pay TSA workers, and their paychecks may resume within days, though long airport lines may continue awhile longer.
I was a weary traveler but renewed citizen. I had a game to get to. And the train rolled on.
Barrow writes for the Associated Press.
RABAT, Morocco — A Moroccan court sentenced a rapper known for his criticism of the country’s ties with Israel and accusations of government corruption to eight months in prison, the latest in a string of penalties against young musical artists.
Souhaib Qabli’s songs sharply criticize Morocco’s 2020 decision to normalize ties with Israel in an accord brokered by the first Trump administration. His lyrics also call out problems with public services and restrictions on freedom of speech, grievances also voiced by Morocco’s Gen Z protesters last year.
The judge ruled Thursday that Souhaib Qabli, a 23-year-old rapper, was guilty of insulting a constitutional body, his attorney Mohamed Taifi told the Associated Press. Qabli, who is a member of Al Adl Wal Ihsane, a banned but tolerated Islamist association, was also fined $106.
“The court did not clarify what it meant by a constitutional body. No specific party was identified in the case file, and there are many constitutional institutions,” Taifi said.
The attorney said that his client is appealing the verdict. He also said Qabli was cleared of other charges, including insulting public officials and disseminating false allegations.
Before the public hearing, dozens of supporters gathered outside the court in Taza, a city in north-central Morocco about 160 miles from the capital, Rabat, holding banners calling for Qabli’s release. Rights groups in the North African kingdom have described the case as a political measure aimed at curbing freedoms.
Qabli, known by the stage name L7assal, was arrested earlier this month and remained in custody until the court delivered its verdict. He was studying refrigeration and air conditioning at a vocational training institute in addition to his music career.
His attorney said that Qabli was questioned in court about his songs and social media posts. Qabli said he had no intent to insult any constitutional body and was expressing his views through his music.
His songs include “No to the Normalization,” referring to Morocco’s decision to normalize ties with Israel in the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords in 2020, in exchange for Washington’s recognition of Morocco’s claim to the disputed Western Sahara territory.
The move was criticized by Morocco’s pro-Palestinian supporters and sparked large protests in several cities. While authorities allowed the rallies, they have arrested activists who criticized the decision.
Morocco’s constitution generally guarantees freedom of expression, and the country is seen as relatively moderate compared with others in the Middle East. Yet certain types of speech can trigger criminal charges, and Morocco has seen tightening restrictions on dissent, including against journalists and activists.
Minnesota public universities can continue to offer in-state tuition and scholarships to some immigrants in the country without legal status, a federal judge ruled Friday, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department last summer that attempted to halt the programs.
The decision follows a series of clashes between the federal government and Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez said in her decision that the federal government failed to prove that programs offering in-state tuition for immigrants without legal status discriminated against U.S. citizens.
The federal lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison as defendants, along with the state’s Office of Higher Education. It said Minnesota law discriminates against U.S. citizens because it provides in-state tuition and scholarships to students living in the U.S. illegally if they attended a Minnesota high school for three years, and U.S. citizens who attended schools outside of the state cannot receive the same benefits. States generally set higher tuition rates for out-of-state students.
The federal government said those state statutes “flagrantly” violate a federal law that prevents states from providing preferential benefits to immigrants in the U.S. illegally regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements.
“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed last year.
Menendez said the Justice Department misinterpreted the law, enacted during the Clinton administration, because anyone who attended a Minnesota high school for at least three years are granted the same public benefits, regardless of their U.S. residency or immigration status.
She also said the federal government didn’t have standing to sue the state attorney general or governor since neither has the power to change the state laws that determine tuition eligibility.
Ellison celebrated the decision in a statement Friday.
“Today, we defeated another one of Donald Trump’s efforts to misconstrue federal law to force Minnesota to abandon duly passed state laws and become a colder, less caring state,” he wrote.
The funding for immigrants without legal status represents an “investment for our state to do everything we can to encourage a more educated workforce,” Ellison wrote.
The U.S. Justice Department didn’t respond to an email request for comment Friday.
The department has filed similar lawsuits this month against policies in Kentucky and Texas. Last week, a federal judge in Texas blocked that state’s law giving a tuition break to students living in the U.S. illegally after the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said he supported the legal challenge.
In discussing the Texas case last year, Bondi suggested more lawsuits might be coming.
Florida ended in-state tuition eligibility for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws or policies granting the in-state benefit, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Those states include Democratic-led California and New York, but also Republican states including Kansas and Nebraska.
According to the center, at least 13 states in addition to Minnesota allow immigrant students without legal status to receive financial aid and scholarships on top of in-state tuition.
Riddle writes for the Associated Press.
For the second time in recent months, the civilian commission that oversees the LAPD has overruled Chief Jim McDonnell in a police shooting, concluding that officers were in the wrong when they shot at Jillian Lauren, an author and the estranged wife of Weezer bass player Scott Shriner.
McDonnell wrote in a report made public Thursday that two officers were justified in using deadly force against Lauren, 52, who pointed a gun and fired at officers during a standoff in the backyard of her Eagle Rock home last April.
But the Police Commission took the rare step of going against McDonnell’s recommendation, finding fault with the shooting and concluding that the officers made serious tactical mistakes.
Although the five-member panel is the final authority on whether a police shooting is in or out of policy, the chief has final say on officer discipline. Such decisions are rarely made public because of state police privacy laws.
The incident began at about 5:20 p.m. on April 8, 2025, when police responded to a request for help from the California Highway Patrol in tracking down three suspects wanted in a hit-and-run crash. Officers Joshua Wolak and Dorian Zhou joined in the search, along with several others from the nearby Northeast patrol station.
Body-worn camera footage released by the department showed Wolak, Zhou and a CHP officer standing on a retaining wall next to a fence that separated a neighbor’s home from Lauren’s property. The LAPD video shows Lauren, wearing a purple Weezer T-shirt and black tights, walk around the yard with a black handgun, looking around as though she were on high alert.
Police said that officers yelled at Lauren to drop her gun for several minutes, before she shot a round in their direction. Wolak then fired seven rounds, while Zhou shot five from a distance of roughly 50 feet.
Lauren was not connected to the hit-and-run incident, authorities said. Audio from a 911 call by one of Lauren’s neighbors indicated that Lauren believed she was being fired at by armed suspects, who had been spotted running through neighboring properties.
After the shooting, Lauren retreated into her home, where she stayed for about an hour until an officer called her personal assistant, who was also inside. She was later taken to an area hospital with a gunshot wound to her left arm, police said.
During his interview with internal investigators, Zhou said he saw Lauren raise the handgun at a 45-degree angle, “rack” the slide to chamber a round and fire at officers. In response, he said, he fired five rounds, aiming at her center mass.
He responded that he stopped firing “because I lost sight of her.”
The commission voted unanimously to rule the officers’ decision to shoot out of policy. Officials typically do not publicly discuss the rationale for reaching certain decisions.
Both the commission and the chief were critical of the command decisions of Sgt. Albert Hoang at the scene, noting his failure to ensure that the officers involved were interviewed and the fact that he didn’t notify his higher-ups about the shooting until three hours after it occurred.
The civilian panel also diverged from McDonnell in assessing the tactical mistakes made by Hoang and the two officers. In his report, McDonnell found that the differing tactics used by CHP and LAPD only contributed to the confusion in what was already a fraught situation.
McDonnell wrote that he wants to develop protocols to ensure that if a similar incident were to arise “the other agency should be directed to disengage from the tactical portion of the incident or, as practicable, placed in a position and role that minimizes the co- mingling of tactics.”
In a 4-1 vote, the commission also decided that the officers’ decision to draw their weapons did not comply with LAPD policies — another rare finding.
Lauren was initially arrested on suspicion of attempted murder of a peace officer, a charge that carries a lengthy prison sentence, then later charged with assault and negligent discharge of a firearm. In December, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge granted her diversion due to mental health issues, sparing her potential jail time.
The bestselling author of “Everything You Ever Wanted,” she filed for divorce from her husband in December in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In her petition, she cited “irreconcilable differences” but did not list an official date of separation. The two married in November 2005 and share two teenage sons.
Before the confrontation with police, Lauren had been recovering from cancer treatment and a hysterectomy in March.
Times staff writer Alexandra Del Rosario contributed to this report.
A United States judge has said that he will not dismiss the drug-trafficking and weapons possession charges brought against former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.
But in a Thursday court hearing, Judge Alvin Hellerstein questioned whether the US government has the right to bar Venezuela from funding Maduro’s legal expenses.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The hearing was the first for Maduro and his wife since a brief January arraignment, where they pleaded not guilty.
Maduro and Flores have sought to have the charges against them thrown out. Hellerstein declined to do so, but he pressed the prosecution on some of the issues Maduro’s legal team raised in its petition to dismiss the case.
Among them was a decision by the administration of US President Donald Trump to prevent the Venezuelan government from financing Maduro’s defence.
Federal prosecutors argued that national security reasons prevented the US from allowing such payments. They also pointed to ongoing sanctions against the Venezuelan government.
But Hellerstein pushed back against that argument, noting that Trump had eased sanctions against Venezuela since Maduro’s abduction on January 3. He also questioned how Maduro might pose a security threat while imprisoned in New York.
“The defendant is here. Flores is here. They present no further national security threat,” said Hellerstein. “I see no abiding interest of national security on the right to defend themselves.”
Hellerstein emphasised that, in the US, all criminal defendants have the right to a vigorous defence, as part of the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment.
“The right that’s implicated, paramount over other rights, is the right to constitutional counsel,” he said.
Maduro, who led Venezuela from 2013 to 2026, has been charged with four criminal counts, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine, the possession of machine guns and the conspiracy to possess machine guns and other destructive devices.
He and his wife were taken into US custody on January 3, after Trump launched an attack on Venezuela.
The Trump administration has framed the military operation as a “law enforcement function”, but experts say it was widely considered illegal under international law, which protects local sovereignty.
Maduro has cited his status as the leader of a foreign country as part of his push to see the case dismissed.
When he last appeared in court, on January 5, he told the judge, “I’m still the president of my country.”
In a February hearing, his defence team sought to dismiss the charges on the basis that preventing Venezuela from paying his legal fees was “interfering with Mr Maduro’s ability to retain counsel and, therefore, his right under the Sixth Amendment to counsel of his choice”.
In an interview with the news agency AFP on Thursday, Maduro’s son, Venezuelan lawmaker Nicolas Maduro Guerra, said that he trusts the US legal system but believes that his father’s trial has been mishandled.
“This trial has vestiges of illegitimacy from the start, because of the capture, the kidnapping, of an elected president in a military operation,” Maduro Guerra said in Caracas.
Protests and counter-protests took place in front of the New York City courthouse on Thursday, with some condemning the US’s actions and others holding signs in support of the trial with slogans like, “Maduro rot in prison.”
Trump himself weighed in on the proceedings during a Thursday cabinet meeting, hinting that further charges could be brought against Maduro.
“He emptied his prisons in Venezuela, emptied his prisons into our country,” Trump said of Maduro, reiterating an unsubstantiated claim.
“And I hope that charge will be brought at some point. Because that was a big charge that hasn’t been brought yet. It should be brought.”
Trump has had an adversarial relationship with Maduro since his first term in office, when he issued a bounty for the Venezuelan leader’s arrest. He has frequently repeated baseless claims that Maduro intentionally sent immigrants and drugs to the US in a bid to destabilise the country.
Those claims have served as a pretext for Trump claiming emergency powers in realms such as immigration and national security. On Thursday, Trump emphasised that, while he expected a “fair trial”, he expected more legal action to be taken against Maduro.
“I would imagine there are other trials coming because they’ve really sued him just at a fraction of the kind of things that he’s done,” Trump said. “Other cases are going to be brought, as you probably know.”
Following the controversial final in Rabat – in which Morocco and Real Madrid forward Brahim Diaz missed a Panenka penalty to win the match in the 114th minute – the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) immediately lodged a complaint with Caf and Fifa, claiming that Senegal leaving the field of play “greatly affected the normal course of the match and the players’ morale”.
Caf’s disciplinary committee initially rejected that appeal, instead issuing sanctions against both sides, including a five-match ban for Senegal head coach Pape Thiaw, on 29 January.
The FRMF said those original penalties did not “reflect the seriousness of the incidents”, and Caf’s appeal board agreed, releasing a statement on 17 March which said Senegal had contravened articles 82 and 84 of competition regulations.
Article 82 states that if a team “leaves the ground before the regular end of the match without the authorisation of the referee”, they are eliminated.
Senegal’s government responded by calling for an investigation into “suspected corruption” at Caf, a claim rebuffed by the governing body’s president, Patrice Motsepe, who has been at pains to point out the appeal board’s independence.
“It is important that the decisions of our Caf disciplinary board and the Caf appeals board are viewed with respect and integrity,” he said.
The final decision on who claims the 2025 Afcon title now rests with Cas, sport’s highest judicial authority.
“To wage this moral and legal crusade, we have appointed a team of seasoned professionals with undeniable expertise,” Fall announced in Paris, flanked by members of the FSF legal team.
One of them, lawyer Seydou Diagne, called the decision to strip Senegal of their title “so blatant, so absurd, so irrational”.
“The decision of the appeals jury cannot even be considered a true decision of sporting justice,” he added.
“It is an unacceptable and intolerable attack on the fundamental rights of our national Football Federation.”
Fellow lawyer Juan Perez said: “A match that was over, whose result had been decided by the referee, now being re-refereed, administratively – that’s unprecedented. You haven’t seen anything like it. It could change the world of football.”
Caf recently updated the Afcon 2025 review on its website to list Morocco as winners, although that page now appears to have been taken down.
With Senegal refusing to relinquish the trophy, and with Saturday’s planned parade a sign of their contempt, the battle to be crowned African champions is far from over.
The year was 1998. Bill Clinton was in the White House, Titanic was packing movie theaters and a startup with a funny name, Google, was just launching.
In California, voters were choosing their next governor.
There was great anticipation surrounding a political heavyweight and whether she’d jump into the race. There was a rich businessman whose free-spending ad blitz made him inescapable on the airwaves. And an underdog who stayed in the contest in defiance of steep odds and, seemingly, common sense.
Those elements could very well describe the current gubernatorial race, which, as it happens, is the most wide-open since that volatile campaign a generation ago.
The outcome was one few anticipated, with Gray Davis romping to victory in the Democratic primary, then winning the governorship in a landslide.
Less than three months before the June primary, Davis had been running dead last, behind two well-heeled Democrats and the eventual GOP nominee. The number of people who told him to quit would have filled the L.A. Coliseum, Davis recalled this week. But he never considered dropping out; the pressure only made him more determined.
“Sometimes it’s meant to be. Sometimes you get every break,” Davis said. “Sometimes it’s not meant to be and you get no breaks.”
His bottom line: “Anything can happen.”
Of course, no two campaigns are the same.
This gubernatorial contest is being conducted under a system in which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to a November runoff. In 1998, California held an “open primary,” under rules later voided by the Supreme Court. All candidates appeared on the same ballot, with the top finishers in each party guaranteed a spot in November.
Beyond that, the world has vastly changed: politically, socially, culturally. (Google is now one of the most valuable companies on the planet, pulling in a record $403 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025.)
Voter attitudes are different. One of Davis’ greatest assets was his position as lieutenant governor; that currency — incumbency and government know-how — no longer trade at the same high value.
The media landscape has fractured — back then newspapers set the political agenda, fewer than half of voters were online and streaming was something mostly done by water. Californians aren’t nearly as tuned in to the governor’s race as they were then.
“There’s a sideshow going on internationally and nationally and people are like, ‘Oh, right, there’s a governor’s race happening,’” said Paul Maslin, who was Davis’ pollster and is now working for Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Betty Yee. “Whereas in ‘98, that was clearly the big act in town.”
Having said all that, luck and an opportune break or two are still key ingredients to political success, as Davis suggested.
In his case, the first stroke of good fortune was Dianne Feinstein’s decision to not run. (This go-round, it was former Vice President Kamala Harris who held the race in suspension until she finally opted out.)
Feinstein, the state’s senior U.S. senator, had nearly been elected governor in 1990 and her lengthy deliberations froze out other potentially strong contenders. Had Feinstein run, she very probably would have blown away the field and made history by becoming the state’s first female governor.
Davis also greatly benefited when a federal court tossed out strict contribution limits, allowing him to go from collecting bite-size donations to much greater sums. Though he was vastly outspent by his two rich Democratic opponents, multimillionaire Al Checchi and then-Rep. Jane Harman, the decision allowed Davis to remain competitive and eventually pay for the statewide ad blitz that is indispensable in California.
Checchi, in particular, barraged voters with an unrelenting flood of ads. (Shades of the omnipresent Tom Steyer.) In one of them, a spot attacking Harman, Checchi included a photo of the lieutenant governor — and not a bad-looking one at that. The glimpse reminded voters that Davis, who was husbanding his resources for a late advertising push, was still in the race. He enjoyed a significant boost in polls.
Still, Checchi and Harman saw each other as the main opponent and their strategists acted — and tailored their advertising and campaign messaging — accordingly. The result was “a murder-suicide, as the term went at the time,” said Garry South, who managed Davis’ campaign. “They decided to focus so much fire on each other and ignore us that we simply slipped through the hole.”
Davis can well relate to those gubernatorial hopefuls in the position he once was — dissed, dismissed and bumping along near the bottom of horse-race polls. Speaking from his law office in Century City, he had this simple advice:
“Follow your heart,” he said. “Do what you think is right.”
“It’s fine for someone else to tell you you should get out, but that’s not their business,” Davis said. “You’re the candidate, and if you think for whatever reason you want to stay in the race, you should stay in the race.”
The ex-governor, who was recalled in 2003 and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, acknowledged his comments won’t please Democrats worried about the party’s large field splintering support, resulting in two Republicans advancing to the November runoff.
But Davis isn’t too worried about that happening. Moreover, he said, it’s easy for those watching from the sidelines to take potshots and offer unsolicited — and not particularly empathetic — advice.
“They’re not running for office,” he said. “Other people are putting themselves on the line. … [If] people have the wherewithal, the courage and the dedication it takes to put themselves in a position to run for office, if they really believe it’s the right thing to do, they should. They should follow their dream.”
Besides which, you never know what might happen come June.
WASHINGTON — President Trump took the United States to war without a vote of support from Congress, but lawmakers are increasingly questioning when, how and at what cost the war with Iran will come to an end.
Three weeks into the conflict, the toll is becoming apparent. At least 13 U.S. military personnel have died and more than 230 have been wounded. A $200-billion request from the Pentagon for war funds is pending from the White House. Allies are under attack, oil prices are skyrocketing, and thousands more U.S. troops are deploying to the Middle East with no endgame in sight.
“The real question is: What ultimately are we trying to accomplish?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told the Associated Press.
“I generally support anything that takes out the mullahs,” he said. “But at the end of the day, there has to be a kind of strategic articulation of the strategy, what our objectives are.”
Trump said late Friday that he was considering “winding down” the military operations even as he outlined new objectives and goals and despite the continued buildup of forces in the region.
The president’s decision to launch the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is testing the resolve of Congress, which is controlled by his party. Republicans have largely stood by the commander in chief, but will soon be faced with more consequential wartime choices.
Under the War Powers Act, the president can conduct military operations for 60 days without approval from Congress. So far, Republicans have easily voted down several resolutions from Democrats designed to halt the war.
But the administration will need to show a more comprehensive strategy ahead or risk blowback from Congress, lawmakers said, especially as they are being asked to approve billions in new spending.
Trump’s casual comment that the war will end “when I … feel it in my bones” has drawn alarm.
“When he feels it in his bones? That’s crazy,” said Virginia Sen. Mark R. Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The president’s party appears unlikely to directly challenge him, even as the conflict drags on. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said the military operation will be over quickly.
“I do think the original mission is virtually accomplished now,” Johnson told the AP and others at the Capitol this week.
“We were trying to take out the ballistic missiles, and their means of production, and neuter the navy, and those objectives have been met,” he said.
Johnson acknowledged that Iran’s ability to threaten ships in the Strait of Hormuz is “dragging it out a little bit,” especially as U.S. allies have largely rebuffed the president’s request for help.
“As soon as we bring some calm to the situation, I think it’s all but done,” Johnson said.
But the administration’s stated goals — of ending Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon and degrading its ballistic missile supplies, among others — have perplexed lawmakers as shifting and elusive.
″Regime change? Not likely. Get rid of the enriched uranium? Not without boots on the ground,” Warner said.
“If I’m advising the president, I would have said: Before you take on a war of choice, make the case clear to the American people what our goals are,” he said.
The Pentagon has told the White House that it is seeking an additional $200 billion for the war effort, an extraordinary amount that is unlikely to win support. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the amount “preposterous.”
The Defense Department’s approved appropriations from Congress this year are more than $800 billion, and Trump’s tax breaks bill gave the Pentagon an additional $150 billion over the next several years for various upgrades and projects.
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said the country has other priorities.
“How about not taking away funding for Medicaid, which will impact millions of people? How about making sure SNAP is funded?” she said, referring to the healthcare and food assistance programs that were cut as part of last year’s Republican tax reductions.
“These are things that we should be doing for the American people,” she said.
Many lawmakers have recalled the decision by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to come to Congress to seek an authorization for the use of military force — a vote to support his proposed military actions in Afghanistan and later Iraq.
Tillis said Trump has latitude under the War Powers Act to conduct the military campaign, but that will soon shift.
“When you get into the 45-day mark, you’ve got to start articulating one of two things — an authorization for the use of military force to sustain it beyond that or a very clear path on exit,” he said.
“Those are really the options the administration needs to be thinking about.”
Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.
Los Angeles County’s chief executive officer Fesia Davenport, who has been on medical leave since October, has announced that she will resign next month.
In a LinkedIn post, Davenport said she was leaving county service to “focus on my health and wellness.”
A notice to the Board of Supervisors provided to The Times Saturday said she had decided to step down April 16 “based primarily on hereditary and ongoing health issues initially uncovered late last year, the risks of which have become clearer based on more recent medical testing and consultation with my doctors.”
She said the “extraordinary amount of time and energy” required of the chief executive played into her decision.
“Although I originally assumed that I would be able to return to my post, I now know that I would be unable to do the job as it deserves to be done while also prioritizing my health,” she told the supervisors.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger issued a statement Saturday saying, “I’m disappointed by Fesia Davenport’s decision to step down. Her dedication and accomplishments over nearly three decades have left a lasting impact on Los Angeles County.”
Davenport, who was appointed to the county’s top job in 2021, received an undisclosed $2-million settlement last summer to compensate for damage to her “professional reputation” from Measure G, a voter-approved ballot measure that will soon eliminate her position.
In a July 8 letter, released by the county counsel in October through a public record request, Davenport said she sought $2 million in damages for “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional and mental distress caused by the Measure G.”
Under Measure G, which voters approved in 2024, the county chief executive, who manages the county government and oversees its budget, will be elected by voters instead of appointed by the board. The elected county executive will be in place by 2028.
Measure G “has had, and will continue to have, an unprecedented impact on my professional reputation, health, career, income, and retirement,” Davenport wrote to county counsel Dawyn Harrison. She said it had “irrevocably changed my life, my professional career, economic outlook, and plans for the future.”
At the time the payout was disclosed, Davenport had begun a medical leave, saying at the time she expected to be back to work early this year.
A lengthy email to her staff, posted on LAist, which first disclosed her resignation, said the unspecified “health crisis” has affected three of her siblings and posed risks to her that “have become clearer based on more recent medical testing and consultation with my doctors.”
Her brother Raymond died in 2018 after “experiencing a sudden health crisis,” she said. Last year, two more of her sisters survived the same health crisis, but one will now require 24-hour care for the rest of her life, she said.
“Although I am not out of the woods yet, I am thankful to the Board for granting me the space to focus on my health and to arm myself with the knowledge I needed to make informed decisions,” she wrote.
The office of chief executive issued a statement Saturday saying chief operating officer Joe Nicchitta will continue serving as acting chief executive officer while Davenport remains on medical leave.
“We appreciate Fesia’s nearly three decades of service to Los Angeles County and all that she has accomplished on behalf of its residents and communities,” the statement said.
Davenport listed a number of accomplishments in her letter to the board, including setting up five new departments maintaining the county’s credit rating when other jurisdictions were being downgraded and “balancing the budget while developing a financing plan to compensate sexual assault victims — the largest settlement of its kind in American history.”
That payout has now come under scrutiny after a Times investigation found that some plaintiffs had been paid to join the class-action lawsuit.
The same day she announced her surprise bid for mayor, Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman called a member of the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter.
She wanted to meet with the group’s leadership to explain her late-breaking decision to challenge Mayor Karen Bass, her longtime ally, which took just about everyone in the city by surprise.
Two days later, Raman gathered at her Silver Lake home with leaders of DSA-LA, which has endorsed her two runs for City Council but has been at odds with her on some issues.
Leslie Chang, a co-chair of the 5,000-member chapter, recalled Raman saying, “‘The media is going to paint me as a DSA candidate, and I have a relationship with you, and I’m interested in maintaining that relationship. So let’s talk.’”
DSA-LA, which had declined to endorse in the mayor’s race, will decide on Saturday whether to reopen its endorsement process.
Some members believe that a mayoral endorsement would take valuable phone-banking and door-knocking resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.
If the process moves forward, the question would then be whether to back Raman or Rae Huang, a housing activist viewed by some members as more aligned with socialist principles, while others see her as less electable. The group could also decide not to endorse either candidate.
Leslie Chang, co-chair for the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, at a rally at Molina Grand Park in Los Angeles on March 18.
(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
Going to bat for a mayoral candidate would be the highest-profile drive the local organization has run in a city where its influence has expanded since it knocked on doors for Raman’s first council campaign in 2020. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now occupy seats on the 15-member City Council.
In New York, DSA member Zohran Mamdani was recently elected mayor on a platform of rent freezes and free city buses.
“It would be a major coup for DSA to have one of their candidates be elected mayor [of Los Angeles],” said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College.
The Rev. Rae Huang, who is running for mayor of Los Angeles, joined the Fair Games Coalition to announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood on Jan. 14.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
As a city council member, Raman has delivered several major wins celebrated by DSA members, including strengthening renter protections and passing the first reform to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance in decades.
But she has sometimes been out of step with the group, approving budgets that increased police spending and seeking to revise Measure ULA, also known as the city’s “mansion tax,” to offer a 15-year exemption to developers of multifamily and commercial projects.
Raman’s most visible split with DSA occurred over the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack that killed more than 1,200 Israelis.
DSA released a statement saying “this was not unprovoked.” Raman called the statement “unacceptably devoid of empathy for communities in Israel.”
In early 2024, DSA censured Raman for seeking and accepting an endorsement from Democrats for Israel-Los Angeles, a liberal Zionist group, chiding her for “accepting support from [DSA’s] enemies.”
“Why are people wary of endorsing Nithya for mayor? A lot of people who were in leadership at the time are hesitant because of that situation,” said Noah Suarez-Sikes, a member of DSA-LA’s steering committee.
In a statement to The Times, Raman called herself an “independent leader.”
“While I share the DSA’s emphasis on uplifting the working class and those who have been left behind by the political establishment, I don’t always agree with my allies on how to accomplish our goals,” she said.
Some DSA members see Huang, who has little citywide name recognition or political experience, as more connected to the group’s platform than Raman. Huang has called for “Fast and Free Buses” as well as for more public input on the city budget.
Huang highlighted her support for keeping the “mansion tax” as is, also telling The Times that she would reduce the Police Department budget and the number of officers.
Raman has said she believes the Los Angeles Police Department should maintain its current staffing of around 8,700 sworn officers.
Konstantine Anthony, a DSA member and Burbank City Council member who gathered signatures to reopen the endorsement window, is supporting Huang.
“She is the exact candidate DSA across the country should be running for every seat,” he said.
Keshav Kundassery, a DSA member since 2019, supports Raman.
While he called Huang’s campaign for mayor “inspiring,” Kundassery said he does not think that she can get enough support.
“DSA should be in the business of running campaigns to win,” he said.
DSA-LA has already endorsed in four city council races, backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.
The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.
“Any consideration we make now we will make understanding the balance of resources of our six candidates and a potential seventh,” said Chang, the DSA-LA co-chair.
Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.
In a week rife with drama involving “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” cast, two stars of the hit reality series appear to be going their separate ways officially.
Jessi Draper and Jordan Ngatikaura’s marriage is coming to an end after five years, with the latter filing for divorce in Utah, according to TMZ, which cited court documents. The estranged pair married in October 2020 and share two children. Ngatikaura is also the father to a teenage daughter from a previous relationship.
A representative for Draper did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. Ngatikaura, who also did not respond to The Times’ request for comment, issued a statement about his filing to TMZ and People.
He told the outlets his decision to divorce Draper “comes with a heavy heart” and said he is grateful for their time together. Ngatikaura plans to prioritize his children, “ensuring they feel loved, supported, and protected through this transition,” according to People. He said in his statement that he is seeking privacy for his family.
Before Ngatikaura’s divorce filing, the pair’s marital struggles had become public. In November, Draper broke her silence on allegations she had cheated on Ngatikaura and admitted to having an “emotional affair” with “Vanderpump Villa” star Marciano Brunette. At the time, Draper spoke to People about the “emotional abuse” she said she faced from her husband — he took “full accountability for the pain I caused Jessi” — and said, “We both made mistakes for sure.”
The spouses had agreed to a 90-day separation and to work things out together in therapy, People reported last year.
News of the “Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” divorce comes as the franchise reckons with star Taylor Frankie Paul, who faces new allegations of domestic abuse against her on-again, off-again partner Dakota Mortensen. Paul, who was arrested and charged in 2023 for a separate dispute involving Mortensen, was tapped to lead the latest season of “The Bachelorette” set to premiere Sunday, but that all came to a screeching halt earlier this week.
As Utah’s Draper City Police Department confirmed it was investigating alleged incidents of domestic violence involving Paul and Mortensen, TMZ published video Thursday of Paul kicking and throwing chairs at Mortensen in a 2023 dispute while one of her children was in the same room. ABC, home network of “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette,” acted swiftly and pulled the plug on Paul’s upcoming season.
“In light of the newly released video just surfaced today, we have made the decision to not move forward with the new season of ‘The Bachelorette’ at this time, and our focus is on supporting the family,” Disney said in a statement Thursday.
“Taylor is very grateful for ABC’s support as she prioritizes her family’s safety and security,” read a portion of a statement provided by a representative for Paul. The statement went on to say Paul had suffered “extensive mental and physical abuse as well as threats of retaliation.”
Amid the fresh allegations, Paul has seen brand deals fall to the wayside and production on “Mormon Wives” pause pending a decision on her status as a cast member, according to a person briefed on the situation.
Times staff writer Yvonne Villarreal contributed to this report.
Morocco were awarded the 2025 AFCON title following an appeal to CAF regarding Senegal’s walk-off protest in final.
Published On 18 Mar 202618 Mar 2026
Senegal have condemned the decision to strip them of the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title, labelling it “unfair, unprecedented, and unacceptable”, and saying it casts a shadow over African football.
“The Senegalese Football Federation denounces this unfair, unprecedented, and unacceptable decision, which casts a shadow over African football,” it said in a statement on Wednesday.
list of 4 itemsend of list
“To defend its rights and the interests of Senegalese football, the federation will initiate an appeal as soon as possible before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne,” it said.
Morocco were declared African champions on Tuesday after the Confederation of African Football’s (CAF’s) Appeals Board upheld their protest and found Senegal’s walk-off protest during the final on January 18 were grounds for them to be disqualified and the match result declared 3-0 in favour of the hosts.
Senegal won the final 1-0 in Rabat with an extra-time goal, but not before staging a 14-minute walk-off after a penalty was awarded against them in stoppage time at the end of the regulation 90 minutes.
The protest was instigated by coach Papa Bouna Thiaw, subsequently handed a lengthy ban, and saw Senegal’s veteran striker Sadio Mane emerge as a hero as he attempted to get his teammates back onto the field.
Once Senegal returned to the pitch, the referee allowed play to continue with Morocco squandering the last-gasp penalty, and the encounter then went to extra time, with midfielder Pape Gueye netting the 94th-minute winner.
However, the Appeals Board said that by walking off, Senegal contravened tournament regulations and forfeited the game.
The Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had to intervene in 2019 when Moroccan club Wydad Casablanca walked off in the second leg of the African Champions League final, also protesting against VAR.
In that case, they refused to play on, and the referee declared opponents Esperance winners, but CAF’s executive committee then surprisingly ordered a replay. Esperance took the matter to CAS and were declared champions, with CAF embarrassingly rebuked for attempting to override the referee’s decision.
The decision by Congolese referee Jean-Jacques Ndala to continue with the AFCON final in January, rather than stop it and declare Morocco winners after Senegal’s walk-off, will likely feature strongly in any arguments for a reinstatement of Senegal as champions.
The Laws of the Game state the referee’s decision is final.
“No one could have imagined such a statement two months after the final,” said veteran coach Claude Le Roy, who managed Senegal between 1988 and 1992.
“For years, all the refereeing decisions have been flouted by the CAF,” he said on French television.
ORLANDO, Fla. — College Republicans have sued the University of Florida’s president on free speech grounds over the school’s decision to deactivate its chapter after being notified that at least one member engaged in an antisemitic act.
The University of Florida College Republicans filed the lawsuit Monday in federal court against interim president Donald Landry, asking a judge to stop the enforcement of the school’s decision and to restore access to facilities on the Gainesville campus.
“The University of Florida punitively deactivated and shut down the UFCR, in response to alleged viewpoints expressed by a member of UFCR, and in an effort to silence the club and chill its future speech,” the group said in its lawsuit.
UF spokeswoman Cynthia Roldan Hernandez said in an email that the university doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
Officials at the University of Florida said over the weekend that they had been informed by the Florida Federation of College Republicans that the federation had disbanded the Gainesville campus’ chapter after determining that some members had “engaged in a pattern of conduct that violated its rules and values, including a recent antisemitic gesture.”
When the Florida Federation of College Republicans is ready, the university will assist with reactivating the campus chapter under new student leadership, UF officials said in a statement.
The deactivation wasn’t based on any university policy or rule, and it was only based on a member’s expression of a viewpoint “which was alleged to be antisemitic,” the lawsuit said.
The university also didn’t provide the College Republicans with adequate notice and didn’t give the chapter an opportunity to explain its side of the story, according to the lawsuit.
The deactivation effort at the University of Florida campus marks the second time this month that a public university in Florida has taken action against a Republican group accused of being involved in racist or antisemitic behavior.
Earlier this month, Florida International University in Miami launched an investigation into a group chat started by an official with the Miami-Dade chapter of the Republican Party that included violently racist slurs, antisemitic comments and misogynistic language. The chat involved students and several top conservative leaders at Florida International University.
Last fall, New York’s Republican State Committee suspended a Young Republican organization following the release of a group chat that included jokes about rape and flippant commentary on gas chambers.
Schneider writes for the Associated Press.
Hulu the “Buffy” reboot slayer?
The Disney-owned streaming platform has pulled the plug on its much-anticipated “Buffy the Vampire” revival, a year after star Sarah Michelle Gellar confirmed the series was officially in the works. A “really sad” Gellar delivered news of the pre-debut cancellation to fans in a brief Instagram video shared Saturday. She was set to executive produce the series, tentatively titled “Buffy: New Sunnydale,” with Oscar-winning filmmaker Chloé Zhao set to direct.
“I never thought I would find myself back in Buffy’s stylish yet affordable boots and thanks to Chloé I was reminded [of] how much I love her and how much she means not only to me but to all of you,” Gellar said. “This doesn’t change any of that.”
She added: “I promise if the apocalypse actually comes you can still beep me.”
Gellar’s bittersweet announcement prompted Los Angeles resident Bren O’Brien to organize a rally on Monday outside Hulu’s headquarters in Santa Monica. O’Brien, a lifelong “Buffy” fan, displayed several posters urging the streamer to reconsider its decision along the sidewalk. One bright red poster read “Bring Buffy Back!!” scrawled in black ink. Another, bearing Gellar’s likeness, asserted, “Canceling Buffy Isn’t smart, the world needs a hero!”
“I’m really sad. This was a moment that I’ve been waiting decades for,” O’Brien said.
Hulu officially began production on the “Buffy” sequel series after years of careful consideration by Gellar. Last year, the cast for the pilot was assembled while Gellar vowed , “We will only make this show if we can do it right.”
The “Buffy” star did not share additional details about the cancellation in her weekend post, but Zhao said at the 2026 Academy Awards red carpet that she was “not surprised” by Hulu’s decision.
“I had an incredible, incredible time with Sarah, with all the cast and crew doing this. We, first and foremost, see ourselves as the guardians of the original show,” the “Hamnet” filmmaker told Variety on Sunday. “Our priority for Sarah and for us has always been to be truthful to the show, to be truthful to our fans. So, things happen for a reason, and we keep our hearts open and we welcome the mystery.”
Actor Ryan Kiera Armstrong, who was set to lead the show as a supernatural slayer opposite Gellar, lamented the cancellation on Instagram. “Your slayer,” she captioned a photo of herself in costume.
“Buffy” premiered in 1997 and aired on the WB until 2001 when it moved to UPN. Though the series ended in 2003 , it spawned the spinoff series “Angel” which aired from 1999 to 2004 on the WB. Other prospective “Buffy” revivals, however, reportedly struggled to make it past development. Additionally, several actors in recent years have accused “Buffy” creator Joss Whedon of misconduct.
After Gellar broke the cancellation news, “Buffy” fans reacted online, with many of them slamming Hulu for its “terrible decision.” A representative for Hulu did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.
O’Brien, among the disappointed fans, said he began posting about the cancellation online, creating posters and promoting his rally. He said he was surprised by Hulu’s decision because “Buffy” is “such a valuable IP to have,” considering its generations of fans.
“It’s just a no-brainer,” he added.
Erin McClory, a fellow “Buffy” fan, joined O’Brien outside of Hulu’s headquarters and held a poster depicting a wooden stake through a broken heart. She said she hopes rallying around the slain “Buffy” series can help persuade Hulu to reconsider its decision or prompt another network to pick up the show.
“It seems crazy for them to not even give it a chance,” she said.
Though both O’Brien and McClory say they’re eager for new “Buffy” material down the line, their support for the show remains steadfast.
“We’ll just keep doing what we’ve been doing and keep sharing Buffy edits [on social media],” O’Brien said, then sighed. “I want new content.”