decline

A majority of Los Angeles voters are undecided about the race for mayor, with support for incumbent Karen Bass at 20%, according to a new poll.

The poll by Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics found that about 51% of Angelenos have not made up their minds about who should lead the city for the next four years.

Spencer Pratt, a conservative reality TV star, came in second to Bass, at just over 10%. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a former Bass ally who shook up the field with her last-minute entry, polled at slightly more than 9%. Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller was supported by just over 4% of those polled, with leftist candidate Rae Huang at about 3%.

Although Bass had the most support among the candidates in the June 2 primary election, the poll showed that nearly half of Angelenos are unhappy with her performance. She was weakened politically by her handling of the devastating Palisades fire but has touted reductions in homicides and homelessness.

About 25% of those polled said they approve of the job Bass is doing as mayor, while about 47% disapprove. About 28% said they have no opinion or felt neutral.

The poll, based on interviews with 350 likely voters March 7-9, revealed just how up for grabs the mayoral election is, with less than three months before the primary.

“This is a wide open race,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former city council member and L.A. County supervisor who runs the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “The general narrative [of the poll] is that the mayor is not popular for somebody going into reelection, but the majority of people have not made up their mind whether they’ll come back to her or go to someone else.”

City Councilmember Nithya Raman meets with reporters after filing paperwork to run for mayor of Los Angeles.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Bass campaign spokesperson Doug Herman did not respond directly to the poll. But he said in a statement that the mayor “took on the challenge to change Los Angeles after decades of decline from long ignored issues; resulting in first ever back to back drops in homelessness, 60 year lows in homicides and an unprecedented 40,000 affordable housing units accelerated.”

Pratt said through a campaign spokesperson, “The Emerson poll confirms what we’ve been seeing on the ground — this is a two-person race for Mayor of Los Angeles between me and Karen Bass. Angelenos are frustrated with the direction of the city and it’s reflected in her low approval numbers. Our campaign is gaining real momentum as more voters look for new leadership focused on results and accountability. This race is just getting started.”

Raman’s campaign, however, said she’s the one gaining momentum.

“It’s clear that voters want change, and we’re gaining momentum for our campaign to make L.A. more affordable and to govern with urgency and accountability,” the campaign said in a statement.

The field of candidates did not take shape until the week of the February filing deadline. Billionaire developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath both flirted with a run before deciding against it, and former L.A. schoolsSupt. Austin Beutner dropped out after the death of his 22-year-old daughter. With no other major candidate opposing Bass, Raman filed her paperwork with hours to spare.

With petitions still being verified, 13 mayoral candidates have qualified for the June ballot. If no one gets 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two finishers will head to a runoff in November.

“This race could shift dramatically come June,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said in a statement.

Kimball cited the large percentage of undecided voters of all stripes — 67% of independents, 49% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans are undecided. Pratt is a Republican, and the other major candidates are Democrats in a heavily blue city.

Pacific Palisades resident Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, stands with supporters after announcing his run for Los Angeles mayor on the one-year anniversary of the Palisades fire in the Palisades Village on Jan. 7, 2026.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

The poll is not the first to show negative views of Bass.

Last year, after the Palisades fire, a poll of L.A. County residents by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs found that 37% held favorable views of the mayor, while 49% held unfavorable views.

The Emerson poll also featured questions on issues such as public safety and homelessness.

More than 82% of Angelenos in the poll said they feel very safe or somewhat safe in their communities, while about 17% said they feel not too safe or not safe at all.

On homelessness, the view was grimmer. Only 15% of Angelenos polled said that homelessness is getting better, while more than 55% said it is getting worse. Almost 30% feel it is staying the same.

Los Angeles has seen significant reductions in street homelessness for the last two years, after years of steady increases.

Bass has attributed the declines to her signature Inside Safe program, which clears encampments and places homeless people in short term housing.

“There is no doubt that Inside Safe, by bringing thousands of people inside and reducing street homelessness by 17.5 percent, has saved lives and helped drive this decline,” Bass said in a statement Tuesday.

The Emerson poll also asked California residents about the governor’s race. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) had the most support at slightly more than 17%, followed by Republicans Steve Hilton at just over 13% and Chad Bianco at more than 11%. Billionaire Tom Steyer came in at about 11%.

Nearly a quarter of California voters were undecided, according to the poll.

Paul Mitchell, a political data expert, called the Emerson poll flawed. Not enough Angelenos were polled, and the sample skewed too heavily toward young people, when older residents are more likely to vote, he said.

Mitchell called the poll an “amuse-bouche.”

“This tells all of the candidates [they] should be doing a poll,” he said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump promised that 2026 would be a bumper year for economic growth, but instead it has kicked off with job losses, rising gasoline prices and more uncertainty about America’s future.

In his State of the Union address less than two weeks ago, the Republican president confidently told the country: “The roaring economy is roaring like never before.” The latest batch of data on jobs, pump prices and the stock market suggests that Trump’s roar has started to sound far more like a whimper.

There is a gap between the boom that Trump has predicted and the volatile results he has produced — one that could set the tone in this year’s midterm elections as he tries to defend his party’s majorities in the House and Senate. With Trump’s tariffs uncertainty ongoing, the war in Iran has suddenly created inflationary concerns regarding oil and natural gas.

The White House says it is still early in the year and stronger growth is coming.

No signs of a jobs boom

“WOW! The Golden Age of America is upon us!!!” Trump posted on social media Feb. 11 after the monthly jobs report showed gains of 130,000 jobs in January.

Since then, the job market has evaporated in worrisome ways.

Friday’s employment report showed job losses of 92,000 in February. The January and December figures were revised downward, with December swinging to a loss of 17,000 jobs. Monthly data can be rocky, but a trend has emerged that shows an enduring weakness. Without the healthcare sector, the economy would have shed roughly 202,000 jobs since Trump became president in January 2025. His administration notes construction job gains outside of the housing sector, which it says point to future hiring growth.

Trump often claims that jobs are going to people born in the United States, rather than to immigrants. But the latest report punctured some of that argument.

The unemployment rate for people born in the U.S. has climbed over the last 12 months to 4.7% from 4.4%. This means a greater share of the people who Trump said would get jobs because of his immigration crackdown are, in fact, searching for work.

Prices at the pump are going up

“Slashing energy costs is among the most important actions we can take to bring down prices for American consumers,” Trump said in a February speech in Texas just before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. “Because when you cut the cost of energy, you really cut — you just cut the cost of everything.”

The president has repeatedly told Americans that keeping gas costs low would be key to defeating inflation. He has talked up the decline, citing figures that were far below the national average to persuade the public that driving was getting cheaper.

But the strikes against Iran that began Feb. 28 have, for the moment, crushed that narrative. Prices at the pump have jumped 19% over the last month to a national average of $3.45, according to AAA. The investment bank Goldman Sachs warned in an analyst note that, if higher oil prices persist, inflation could rise from its 2.4% reading in January to 3% by the end of the year.

The administration is banking on plans to contain any energy price increases, essentially betting that either the conflict will end shortly or the administration can succeed in getting more tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump advisors on Sunday sought to assure anxious Americans that surging fuel prices are a short-term problem.

“We never know exactly the timeframe of this,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “But in the worst case, this is a weeks, this is not a months thing.”

Stocks are off their highs

“You know, we set the all-time record in history with the Dow going to 50,000,” Trump said Thursday at the White House.

This frequently repeated talking point has grown stale. The Dow Jones industrial average, one of Trump’s preferred measures of success, has dropped 5% over the last month. Stocks are up during his presidency, just as they were when Democrat Joe Biden was president. The recent decline could be reversed if the war with Iran ends and companies see solid profits over the next year and beyond. The recent dip, however, should be a warning sign as the administration has stressed the importance of more people investing in the stock market through vehicles such as “Trump accounts” for children.

The stock market has become a barometer of how people feel about the economy, with stock investors tending to have more confidence and those without money in the markets being more pessimistic.

Joanna Hsu, the director of the University of Michigan’s surveys of consumers, noted that in February a “sizable” increase in sentiment among people owning stocks “was fully offset by a decline among consumers without stock holdings.”

Productivity is up, but workers aren’t benefiting

Trump can point to a win in that the economy has become more productive — generating more value for each hour of work. That is a positive sign for long-term growth in the U.S. and a reflection of its strong tech sector.

Business sector labor productivity climbed 2.8% in the fourth quarter of last year, the Labor Department reported Thursday. But the challenge is that the gains might not be spread to workers in the form of higher pay as labor’s share of income last year fell to the lowest level on record, noted Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project, a nonprofit aligned with liberal economic issues.

Economy grew at a faster pace under Biden

“Under the Biden administration, America was plagued by the nightmare of stagflation, meaning low growth and high inflation — a recipe for misery, failure and decline,” Trump said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January.

The scoreboard tells a far different story, one that makes Biden’s track record in 2024 look better than Trump’s performance last year. The U.S. economy grew at a 2.8% pace during Biden’s last year, compared with 2.2% under Trump in 2025.

As for inflation, the primary measure used by the Federal Reserve is the personal consumption expenditures price index. It was 2.6% in both 2024 and 2025.

Trump has staked his economic argument on doing better than Biden. But while he has avoided the inflation spikes that haunted Biden’s presidency — amid the height of the COVID-19 pandemic — Trump has not delivered stronger growth or more hiring.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Billions fewer birds are flying through North American skies than decades ago and their numbers are shrinking ever faster, mostly due to the combination of intensive agriculture and warming temperatures, a new study finds.

Nearly half of the 261 species studied showed losses important enough to be statistically significant, and more than half of those in decline have seen losses accelerate since 1987, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science. The study is the first to look at trends in their decrease, where they are shrinking the most and what the declines are connected to, rather than total population.

“Not only are we losing birds, we are losing them faster and faster from year to year,” said study co-author Marta Jarzyna, an ecologist at Ohio State University. “Except for forest birds, almost every group is doing poorly. So we need to ask ourselves a question. How do we protect these groups of birds?”

The only consolation is that the birds that are shrinking in numbers the fastest are species — such as the European starling, American crow, grackle and house sparrow — that aren’t yet at risk of going extinct, said study lead author Francois Leroy, also an Ohio State ecologist.

“The thing is that species extinction, they start with a decline in abundance,” Leroy said, adding that “the decline is somehow maybe giving a preview of what it could lead to in terms of species extinction.”

Cornell University conservation scientist Kenneth Rosenberg, who wasn’t part of the study, said the species declining fastest in the new research “are often considered pests or ‘trash birds,’ but if our environment cannot support healthy populations of these extreme generalists and extremely adaptable species that are tolerant of humans, then that is a very strong indicator that the environment is also toxic to humans and all other life.”

A 2019 study by Rosenberg of the same bird species found North America had 3 billion fewer birds than in 1970, but didn’t look at changes in the rate of loss or causes.

Biggest bird losses in areas warming most

The biggest locations for acceleration of bird loss were in the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest and California, the study found. And geography proved important when Leroy and Jarzyna looked for reasons why so many bird species are shrinking ever faster.

When it came to population declines — not the acceleration — the scientists noticed bigger losses farther south. When they did a deeper analysis, they statistically connected those losses to warmer temperatures from human-caused climate change.

“In regions where temperatures increase the most, we are seeing strongest declines in populations,” Jarzyna said. “On the other hand, the acceleration of those declines, that’s mostly driven by agricultural practices.”

Farmland issues speed up bird declines

The scientists found statistical correlations between accelerating decline and high fertilizer and pesticide use and the amount of cropland, Leroy said. He said they couldn’t say any of those caused the acceleration of losses, but it indicates agriculture in general is a factor.

“The stronger the agriculture, the faster we will lose birds,” Leroy said.

Jarzyna said there is a “strong interaction” between climate change and agriculture in their effect on bird populations.

“We found that agricultural intensification causes stronger accelerations of decline in regions where climate warmed the most,” Jarzyna said.

McGill University wildlife biologist David Bird, who wasn’t part of the study, said it was done well and that its conclusions made sense. With a growing human population, agriculture practices are intensified, more bird habitats are being converted to cropland, modern machinery often grind up nests and eggs, and single crop plantings offer less possibilities for birds to find food and nests, said Bird, the editor of “Birds of Canada.”

“The biggest impact of agricultural intensity though is our war on insects. Numerous recent studies have shown that insect populations in many places throughout the world, including the U.S., have crashed by well over 40 percent,” Bird said in an email. “Many of the birds in this new study showing population declines depend heavily on insects for food.”

Birds do a lot for humans

This study is both “alarming” and “sobering” because of the sheer numbers of losses and the patterns in those accelerating declines, said Richard Gregory, head of monitoring conservation science at University College London. He was not part of the research.

The paper shows that people need to change the way they live to reduce human-caused warming, reduce agricultural intensity, monoculture of crops and broad application of chemicals, said Cornell University ornithologist Andrew Farnsworth, who wasn’t part of the study.

“Here is why this study is especially important. Birds do a lot for humans,’’ McGill biologist Bird said in an email. ”They feed us, clothe us, eat pests, pollinate our plants and crops, and warn us about impending environmental disasters. With their songs, colors, and variety, birds enrich our lives … and recent studies show that their immediate presence actually increases our well-being and happiness and can even prolong our lives! To me, a world without birds is simply unfathomable.”

Borenstein writes for the Associated Press.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Feb. 28 (UPI) — Lebanon’s parliamentary elections, scheduled for May and widely seen as a new test for the country’s main political players, remain in limbo amid uncertainty over whether they will be held on time or postponed – and whether they will bring about any meaningful change.

While it will be the first election since Iran-backed Hezbollah was significantly weakened during the recent war with Israel, it is unlikely to alter the current balance of power.

Officially, Lebanon says it is ready to proceed on schedule. Most political parties have publicly committed to the vote, with the number of declared candidates for the 128-member parliament rising to 44 as of Friday.

However, as with many other issues in the country, Lebanese are divided over the electoral law and proposed changes concerning expatriate voting and the establishment of mega-centers allowing voters to cast ballots outside their home districts.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Hezbollah’s main ally and leader of the Shiite Amal Movement, has refused to bring the proposed amendments put forward by his and Hezbollah’s political opponents to a vote.

The current law is largely inapplicable and requires one or two amendments — specifically, whether to allow or bar Lebanese expatriates from voting in embassies abroad for all 128 parliamentary candidates instead of just six — before it can be fully implemented, according to elections expert Nazih Darwish.

“In any case, it would require a parliamentary vote and cannot be implemented automatically,” Darwish told UPI.

The dispute over diaspora voting essentially revolves around equal political rights and the strategic calculations of political parties aiming to protect or increase their leverage.

Delaying the elections by a few months or postponing them for one or two years has emerged as a likely scenario, with each party trying to safeguard or extend its power.

At the heart of the matter is Hezbollah’s reduced influence, both militarily and politically.

If the delay is purely technical — such as moving the elections from May to July — it would not significantly affect the outcome, with one key exception: More members of the diaspora could participate, as many spend the summer in Lebanon, according to Karim Bitar, a lecturer at Saint Joseph University of Beirut and Sciences Po Paris.

Hezbollah, Bitar said, argues that diaspora voting could tilt the balance against it, as it cannot campaign effectively in many European and Western countries, where it is designated a terrorist organization and large Lebanese expatriate communities reside.

“Hezbollah remains a significant force. Even though it was severely weakened militarily, strong support for Amal and Hezbollah persists among their constituencies,” Bitar told UPI. “Supporters feel they must stick together and continue voting for the two parties to prevent rivals from exploiting their political and military setbacks.”

Although many of Hezbollah’s supporters acknowledge that the group was defeated in the war and should admit it, they still pledged to vote for its candidates.

“That’s because no serious political alternatives have emerged so far for Lebanon’s Shiite community,” David Wood, a senior Lebanon analyst at the International Crisis Group, told UPI.

The challenge is that while Hezbollah retains significant backing, not all Shiites in Lebanon support the group, and the existing Shiite opposition lacks a popular base and relies on backing from other groups.

Darwish argued that the balance of power in the country would remain unchanged as long as Hezbollah — which might lose at most two seats if the elections proceed as scheduled — is not fully disarmed.

“That could change if Hezbollah were to relinquish its weapons completely, but not before four to five years, when a genuine Shiite opposition is likely to emerge and succeed in convincing the Shiite base,” he said.

Postponing the elections would thus benefit the country’s main parties: Hezbollah would maintain its current parliamentary representation, while its opponents could wait for regional developments to shift further against Hezbollah and hasten its full disarmament.

“So, the logic would be that a postponement would actually suit Hezbollah’s opponents, because the group’s situation — both inside Lebanon and in the region — will only get weaker.” Wood noted.

What could accelerate the process is either the conflict between the United States and Iran — Hezbollah’s patron — or a deal affecting Iran’s proxies and regional role.

Other political parties, notably the Christian Lebanese Forces — Hezbollah’s main rival — were gearing up for the elections.

Jade Dimien, the Lebanese Forces deputy secretary-general in charge of elections, said the vote could bring change, provided the Lebanese people want it and are ready to make it happen.

Dimien said this year’s general elections would be shaped by major events of the past three years, including the Israel-Hezbollah war, the election of a new president, the government’s firm stance on Hezbollah’s disarmament and the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s regime.

“There will be some big changes, but whether they will cause a major shift in the balance of power now, I don’t know,” he told UPI, noting the accelerated developments in the region and fearing “compromises” at the expense of Lebanon.

Separately, campaign financing emerges as another major challenge, with some parties favoring wealthy businessmen who can fund their own campaigns amid limited foreign funding.

While not new in Lebanese parliamentary elections, especially after the 1975-90 civil war, such financing has become increasingly visible today, fueled by the 2019 financial collapse.

“Foreign funding has been reduced … even Iran might not be willing under its current conditions to spend as much money supporting Hezbollah,” Bitar said.

The fear remains that wealthy candidates could buy their way into parliament — by paying for votes or providing clientelist services — thereby boosting the seat count of the most powerful parties.

Bitar warned of an even more alarming issue concerning the redistribution of losses following the collapse of the financial system in 2019.

“Major bank shareholders are trying to sway the vote by electing MPs who could block any IMF deal requiring them to cover their share of the losses,” he said.