Plans to install automated license plate readers along Western Avenue to target suspected sex trafficking is no longer moving forward after Council District 13 declined a donation of cameras from weapons and technology developer Axon Enterprise.
The district is now considering cameras that would not use license plate reader technology, according to a spokesperson for Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez.
The cameras would be maintained by the Bureau of Street Lighting, and the councilmember is expected to bring a proposal to the City Council before the end of the year.
LAPD had previously said it planned to install 18 cameras along Western Avenue between Olympic and Santa Monica boulevards, a corridor the department has targeted for sex trafficking. The department said the cameras would include live-feed monitoring and license plate recognition technology and could be operating by July.
LAPD declined to provide updates over the summer.
Axon Enterprise, which supplies the LAPD with body-worn cameras, stun guns and other equipment, offered to donate the cameras to the department’s Olympic Station, according to CD13 spokesperson Andoni Elias Nava.
“We are against ALPRs. We don’t want to see them in our district,” he said. “So once we realized what that was, we said we don’t really want them in our district.”
A spokesperson for Axon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
On Monday, Senior Lead Officer Harry Cho said the cameras had been expected to be funded by CD13 and CD10 but that CD13 had pulled its funding.
“Right now, there’s no cameras that are city-operated on Western,” Cho said at the Wilshire Center-Koreatown Neighborhood Council meeting.
Senior Lead Officer Lucy Bermudez confirmed Thursday that the cameras have not been installed along the Western corridor and that the project is on hold.
Nava disputed Cho’s account that the district had pulled funding for the cameras.
“We never committed any kind of funding. The cameras from Axon were supposed to be fully funded by Axon. They were a donation to PD,” he said. “There was no funding that was given to be pulled in the first place.”
He said the district plans to install a different type of camera, but that the details are still being worked out over the next few months, including how many cameras would be installed.
The section of Western Avenue between Olympic and Santa Monica boulevards runs through both CD13 and CD10. A spokesperson for CD10 did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
LAPD initially described the cameras as part of a broader effort to combat human trafficking along Western Avenue ahead of the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics. The department said the cameras would help identify people involved in human trafficking and people targeting minors.
Advocates of sex workers have raised concerns that the cameras would increase police surveillance along the corridor and further criminalize people who work there.
Jayme Kusyk, a Koreatown resident and member of the abolitionist group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, said replacing ALPRs with conventional surveillance cameras would not eliminate the concerns raised by sex workers.
“Certainly we definitely want less cameras up, so to any extent they’re fighting that, that’s great,” she said. “But a camera is a camera is a camera. It doesn’t have to be enabled with ALPR technology to still be really harmful.”
She said even conventional CCTV cameras could increase criminalization of sex workers,
“It still increases criminalization. It won’t decrease demand,” she said, adding that clients could become more volatile if they believe they are being watched.
At an Olympic Division Community Police Advisory Board meeting on Nov. 4, LAPD Officer Dan Chavez said officers conducted an operation that morning that resulted in multiple arrests related to sex work, including one person arrested on suspicion of pimping.
One of the sex workers “provided our officers with information saying that she was being pimped by this person and they were able to arrest that individual,” he said.
The city also recently debated the use of Axon’s license plate reader technology.
On Oct. 6, the City Council voted 10-4 to assert jurisdiction over the Police Commission’s approval of an Axon pilot program that would install automated license plate readers on city streetlights. Soto-Martínez, who represents CD13, and Heather Hutt, who represents CD 10, both voted in favor.
The council later voted to veto the pilot, but the measure failed because it needed 10 votes to overturn the Police Commission’s approval. The veto received nine votes on Oct. 27. Hutt and Soto-Martínez both voted in favor of the veto.
Hanna Kang writes for The LA Local, a non-profit news site covering Los Angeles communities.
Los Angeles Documenter, Ashley Bolter, contributed reporting for this story from the Nov. 4 Olympic Area Community Police Advisory Board meeting. The LA Documenters program trains and pays community members to document proceedings at public meetings. Learn more about the program here.
Fallout from Jensen Huang’s ouster as Nvidia Corp. chief executive officer is reaching deep into Washington, where Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is confronting accusations that his department didn’t do enough to keep the company’s prized artificial intelligence chips out of China’s hands.
As the ultimate overseer of U.S. export control programs, Lutnick is accountable for any policy or enforcement gaps that allowed Nvidia’s AI processors to reach unauthorized Chinese buyers. Internal tension over his role burst into the open on Friday when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blamed him for failing to blacklist a Singapore-based company, Megaspeed, over possible violations.
“Treasury, [the U.S. Trade Representative office] and State — they were in favor of putting Megaspeed on the entity list for months, but Commerce has the pen,” Bessent said in an interview with CNBC. “We have all the authorities that we need. They just need to be implemented.”
Lutnick is a controversial figure in President Trump’s orbit. People with ties to the White House, who asked not to be identified describing private conversations, said he’s been marginalized within the administration for a while. At the same time, his exit has been predicted before, and he’s still in the job.
As of Thursday, the Commerce chief retained Trump’s blessing. In a statement, the White House said Trump maintains complete confidence in the secretary and his ability to serve in the position.
Congress is now demanding answers from Lutnick and other Trump administration officials about decisions that may have made it easier for China to obtain Nvidia’s advanced chips as well as the degree to which Silicon Valley leaders like Jensen Huang may have influenced policy.
Pressure on the administration and the tech sector is escalating a week after an election where voters expressed intense frustrations over the impact of the AI boom.
Huang’s abrupt departure was prompted by revelations that he’d had an affair with a woman suspected by U.S. officials of spying for China and that Megaspeed had been under investigation by Commerce for possible export control violations. Megaspeed has denied any wrongdoing, while the former Nvidia chief’s romantic partner, Alice Huang, is now in China.
“I would like for Secretary Lutnick ASAP to come testify before the Senate Banking Committee because we have a lot of bipartisan questions and concerns about what’s happened over the last year,” Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) said in an interview on Fox News.
Late Thursday night, a Commerce Department spokesperson, Kristen Eichamer, said Lutnick had agreed to testify.
Axios reported on Wednesday that Trump had authorized a new crackdown on companies suspected of diverting advanced AI chips to China, but that Lutnick delayed acting on the directive. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) called the report “deeply, deeply disturbing.”
On at least three separate occasions earlier this year — in May, August and earlier this month — Trump approved taking action against suspected diversions of Nvidia chips to China, Axios reported.
This week’s events, Krishnamoorthi said in an interview Wednesday, deserve “tremendous scrutiny not only by obviously Nvidia’s board, but by the intelligence community and the U.S. government as well.”
Further complicating the dynamic are allegations by Democratic lawmakers that Lutnick’s sons, who hold leadership positions at Cantor Fitzgerald, are profiting off policy decisions that he makes. Lutnick, who previously was chief executive of Cantor, divested his stake as legally required before becoming secretary, and elevated his sons to top jobs at the firm.
The Commerce Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Cantor Fitzgerald declined to comment.
One element of the Nvidia imbroglio is a little-known but powerful Commerce Department agency that’s known as the Bureau of Industry and Security and falls under Lutnick’s jurisdiction.
The bureau regulates exports of a wide range of products — including advanced AI chips — and it’s set to face renewed scrutiny as lawmakers threaten investigations of the bureau’s leader, Under Secretary of Commerce Jeffrey Kessler.
The Senate Banking Committee is already planning inquiries into Lutnick and Kessler’s decision-making. The two men “must explain why they have not closed export control loopholes and act today to ensure our advanced technology is not fueling China’s military,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement.
In late summer 2025, Nvidia General Counsel Tim Teter called Kessler to ask whether the Bureau of Industry and Security was involved in the Singapore government’s recent detention of Alice Huang. The bureau was not involved in that action, citing people familiar with the matter.
An Nvidia spokesperson has said that Teter was unaware of the affair at the time he called Kessler about Alice Huang’s detention in Singapore. But in the weeks following the call, Bureau of Industry and Security staffers were muzzled in their ability to investigate the company, including a mandate that they route all requests of Nvidia through Kessler, Bloomberg reported.
Bureau of Industry and Security spokespeople earlier denied any wrongdoing.
“It’s really important to understand what the Commerce Department knew about Megaspeed,” said Ben Buchanan, former White House special advisor for AI during the Biden administration, in an interview. “This is an incident where the enforcement is not good. The decision-making has not been good.”
NEW YORK — Two Democratic senators are launching an investigation into whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lied to Congress about his reason for a 2019 trip to Samoa after the Associated Press and the Guardian published documents in August refuting his testimony.
The new inquiry is one of a vast array of investigations planned into the Trump administration after Democrats regained control of the House and the Senate from Republicans in the midterm elections.
Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) said in a letter Wednesday to Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit group known for anti-vaccine activism that was formerly chaired by Kennedy, that they were starting an investigation.
The lawmakers asked the group for a broad range of documents related to Kennedy’s Samoa travel, his 2024 presidential campaign and his Senate confirmation process. The letter also requested all communications between the group and federal government officials since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025. The senators gave the group a deadline of Dec. 4 to comply.
AP and Guardian reporting in August showed that while Kennedy repeatedly told lawmakers who held the key to his confirmation last year that his visit to Samoa before a deadly measles outbreak had “nothing to do with vaccines,” a letter he sent to the Samoan prime minister ahead of the trip on Children’s Health Defense letterhead showed otherwise. In the letter, Kennedy used the words “vaccine” or “vaccination” eight times.
“We intend to hold Secretary Kennedy accountable for the grave harm he has caused to vulnerable children,” Wyden and Alsobrooks wrote in their letter. “We also intend to hold him accountable for any false statements made to Congress, a crime that undermines the Senate’s ability to fulfill its constitutional duties.”
The Department of Health and Human Services has maintained that the Samoa visit “was unrelated to vaccines.” In response to an AP inquiry in August, it said “any claim or insinuation based on these letters that Secretary Kennedy lied under oath or to Congress is not only false but outright defamatory.”
Kennedy was not under oath during his confirmation hearing. Knowingly giving material false testimony to Congress is a crime that carries a possible prison sentence regardless of whether a person is under oath, though it is rarely prosecuted.
Spokespeople for Children’s Health Defense and HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.
Wyden is expected to chair the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight into Kennedy’s health department, when Democrats retake Congress in January. Alsobrooks serves on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which also oversees the department.
The same senators on Wednesday announced a separate investigation into hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts reportedly given last year to Kennedy by a donor and former employee.
Los Angeles is going to get more expensive next year thanks to a half-cent sales tax hike approved by voters last week, but city officials say the benefit will be a stronger fire department and faster response times.
Measure FD will generate about $345 million annually for the city Fire Department by raising the city’s retail sales tax from 10.25% to 10.75%, which is about 5 cents more for every $10 spent.
That means filling up the gas tank, eating out and shopping for clothes will all get more expensive — to the tune of roughly $86 per person on average, according to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which opposed the measure.
The ordinance requires a 110-day waiting period after the votes are certified on Nov. 27, and won’t kick in until the first day of the next calendar quarter, so the earliest people could see the increase would be April 1.
The sales tax hike was spearheaded by the city’s firefighters union and Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the Pacific Palisades community devastated by fire in January 2025.
The measure passed by roughly a 54% to 46% margin, according to the latest tally, although some mail-in ballots are still being counted.
L.A. firefighters had warned their department was in crisis long before the Palisades fire and the Eaton fire in Altadena cast a brighter light on the issue, Park said.
“These matters were urgent before, but the Palisades fire laid bare how urgent it was that this investment be made,” Park said. “The reality that it was not going to be solved inside the four walls of the city budget or by politicians inside City Hall.”
The sales tax is an unprecedented move by the city, and vital for the department to hire more personnel, open more stations and lower the department’s response times, said Doug Coates, the fire union president.
The Fire Department says its response time averages just under eight minutes — nearly double the national standards set by the National Fire Protection Assn., an international nonprofit that creates and maintains fire safety standards.
The number of firefighters in the department has stayed largely stagnant since the 1960s, according to the fire department, even as the city’s population grew. City officials say some fire stations have leaky roofs and broken HVAC systems. Broken rigs have sat unused because there was no money to fix them, Park said.
Coates said the union pushed for the sales tax as a last resort, following years of pleas to the City Council for more money, even though it would be the third sales tax hike affecting Los Angeles since 2024 (the other two sales tax hikes were countywide).
“When they call, we show up,” Coates said. “Now it appears that, really, they’ve answered our call for help.”
The Police Protective League, the union representing L.A. police officers, opposed Measure FD, objecting to the permanency of the tax and that the revenue is limited to one department. The PPL expressed concern that the extra funding would be used to spike firefighter pensions. Voters were misled into believing the tax would focus on revamping the fire department’s infrastructure, said Sgt. Chris Wecker, the union’s vice president.
The union pointed to a motion written by Councilmember Heather Hutt and Councilmember Park in May, which sought to explore giving firefighters extra pension credit for mandatory overtime.
“We would support the exploration of a tax repeal measure on a future ballot that would allow enough time for voters to be educated about this bait-and-switch pension spiking scheme and give them an opportunity to cut their taxes,” Wecker said.
Coates said that motion had nothing to do with Measure FD and asked only for a study into what additional costs the city would undertake if extra shifts firefighters are forced to take on were pensionable.
“The attacks on this motion and Measure FD were misguided and just flat out incorrect,” Coates said. “It will not spike pension benefits in any way, shape or form.”
The sales tax revenue from Measure FD will be in addition to the money the department already receives from the city’s general fund, which Coates said was a crucial factor in winning voter support. The sales tax will continue unless it’s repealed by voters, according to the ordinance.
The fire union hopes city residents will notice a change in the department within a year, Coates said.
L.A. Fire Chief Jaime Moore said the department will prioritize recruiting and hiring more firefighters, repairing existing equipment — a task that could exceed $9 million — and undergoing critical station repairs. The new pool of money will also be used to expand dispatch centers and eventually build more fire stations, Moore said in a presentation to the City Council last month.
Another critical issue the department hopes to address is hiring more personnel to reduce delays in hiring and training new firefighters, Moore said.
The department will also begin a process to identify where new stations are needed. With the 106 active stations, firefighters can reach just under half the city within four minutes. The department will utilize operational data to determine where new stations fit best.
The funds must be used for eligible core fire department services. The department will separately track Measure FD revenue, create dashboards to monitor all expenditures and provide quarterly reports to the City Council to ensure transparency, Moore said.
The measure also requires a citizen oversight committee that will review the department’s spending of this money.
“This is the biggest deal in the Los Angeles Fire Department. We couldn’t be more grateful to the citizens of L.A. for helping us pass this,” Coates said. “The men and women in the field are ecstatic that change is coming, and we’re going to be able to better respond to the residents of L.A.”
Measure FD was one of eight measures on the Nov. 3 Los Angeles city ballot, all of which were approved by voters. Other measures will allow the City Council to meet once a week and allow it to disband the Board of Public Works, and allocate more money to the Department of Recreation and Parks.
Voters also approved a measure that exempts Palisades fire victims from paying the so-called mansion tax if they sell their properties within five years of the disaster.
The election of Nithya Raman, a democratic socialist, as the next mayor of Los Angeles promises to have a profound impact on the city’s police force — although perhaps not right away.
Among the most important and widely watched decisions facing the city’s next mayor is about what to do with LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell. Raman repeatedly said prior to her election that she would replace him as chief.
Raman frequently criticized McDonnell throughout her campaign, particularly over how he handled the LAPD’s response to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement blitz last year.
She has taken issue with the LAPD’s aggressive tactics under McDonnell toward demonstrators, which have included firing tear gas and less-lethal weapons into crowds, officers mounted on horseback swinging batons and accusations of journalists being targeted.
She has questioned whether the LAPD should continue to work closely with the Trump administration on non-immigration matters that require data-sharing, potentially affecting investigations into cargo theft and human trafficking, which involve local collaboration with federal law enforcement.
The events of the last year, she said, have shattered public trust.
In a since-deleted video with a progressive influencer that went viral, Raman said she would work to ensure the LAPD “is actually protecting people, instead of protecting ICE on our streets as we saw happen.”
“I think that starts with a culture shift at the top and new leadership in the department. I don’t believe that Chief McDonnell has met the moment,” she said in the video.
Asked about her plans for the LAPD chief at her inaugural news conference Thursday night, Raman said she had already spoken to McDonnell and believed that public safety was the “most important service” the city can provide. She did not directly say whether his days leading the department are numbered.
“I wanna make sure that whatever happens over this transition that we are prepared to deliver that service at the levels that Angelenos expect,” she told reporters. “And I know Chief McDonnell’s committed to that, I’m committed to that and we’ll continue those discussions.”
During one sit-down with CNN, she was asked to name a police chief whom she admires or respects. “I don’t know … I don’t know,” she stammered in reply.
Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell speaks at a news conference in August.
(Arwen Clemans / Los Angeles Times)
In a brief statement, McDonnell said he respected the outcome of the election and congratulated Raman on her victory. He added that while politicians change, the LAPD’s mission public safety “remains constant.”
“As Chief of Police, I remain committed to leading a department that delivers professional, constitutional, and compassionate policing to all Angelenos,” the statement read.
McDonnell has called Raman’s comments disappointing in news interviews, but has otherwise steered clear of directly criticizing Raman in public. The department has released a series of public service announcements featuring the chief on its official Instagram account in recent days to address what officials said was “misinformation” about the LAPD’s operations — saying that the department is barred by Special Order 40 and state and city laws from assisting federal immigration agencies.
If Raman were to replace the chief, when and how it would happen are unclear.
L.A.’s mayor cannot unilaterally fire the police chief. Only the City Council and the Board of Police Commissioners, whose five civilian members are handpicked by the mayor, have that authority. Under the city charter, the council can initiate removal proceedings, but only by a two-thirds vote. It’s unclear whether Raman could muster enough support to make a change right away, since none of the City Council members endorsed her candidacy.
New mayors typically replace current police commissioners with their own appointees — sometimes, leaving one or two in place for continuity — but the process can take weeks since each commissioner has to be confirmed by the council.
A spokesperson for Raman’s mayoral campaign did not respond to a request for an interview about her plans for the LAPD.
Outgoing Mayor Karen Bass has publicly backed the chief she hired two years ago, saying the LAPD could be thrown into disarray if McDonnell is removed before the 2028 Olympic Games.
The question of who might replace McDonnell has been the subject of feverish speculation. One of the most talked about candidates for the top job is Emada Tingirides, an assistant chief who was a finalist in the last chief search, which ended with Bass’ selection of McDonnell. Although questions were previously raised about her perceived lack of leadership experience, Tingirides has been in charge of the department’s Office of Operations, which oversees virtually all patrol personnel, for more than a year.
Other names have been bandied around — including top former LAPD official Bill Scott, the chief of the new Metro police force, and former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón.
But department insiders have dismissed certain reports — namely any mentioning Gascón — as nothing more than rumors. Gascón told The Times that he has not communicated with the Raman campaign, and said he does not want to be chief. Scott did not respond to a message seeking comment.
LAPD insiders have also discussed Art Acevedo, who has served as police chief in Houston and Miami, and Robert Arcos, a former LAPD assistant chief who works for the county Probation Department, as potential candidates for the job. Both also interviewed for the job during the last chief search; Arcos was a finalist.
Arcos said he has had no conversations with Raman’s team. Asked whether he has been approached about working with Raman, Acevedo replied, “No, absolutely not.”
The guessing game about who will lead the department in the near future has been fueled at least in part by Raman’s seeming indecisiveness on the matter. In interviews and debates, she has struggled to offer a clear vision of where she wants to take the LAPD.
Members of Raman’s progressive base expect major changes from Day 1 — and without swift action, she risks angering them, some political experts say.
Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles co-founder Melina Abdullah, who endorsed Raman in the final days of the campaign, said in a text message with The Times that she is counting on the new mayor to follow through on her “commitment to remove Chief McDonnell.”
Beyond that, though, she said Raman needs to increase funding for violence prevention and intervention groups and to “block the mass surveillance of Angelenos” by companies such as Flock Safety and Axon.
Picking a new chief is considered one of the most important decisions any mayor will make, with legacy-defining implications. The conventional wisdom holds that a new mayor means a change of leadership at the LAPD, and potentially new policies.
But that hasn’t always been the case. At least not recently.
Bass oversaw the reappointment of McDonnell’s predecessor, Michel Moore, shortly after her election and stood by him for a year through numerous controversies before Moore’s abrupt resignation in early 2024. Bass’ predecessor, Eric Garcetti, stuck with Charlie Beck, the chief he inherited when he was elected in 2013; Beck was then reappointed to a second five-year term, also under Garcetti. In the early 2000s, then-Mayor James Hahn — with the support of the police union — infamously opposed Police Chief Bernard Parks’ bid for reappointment.
Beyond replacing the chief, a mayor can influence the LAPD’s operations and policies in other ways, including through executive directives. Raman’s election could, for instance, prompt the City Council to take a second look at Special Order 40, a 1979 policy that prohibits officers from stopping people for the sole purpose of determining their immigration status. Critics say the policy — aimed at reassuring the city’s immigrants that they could safely report a crime or serve as a witness without fear of deportation — doesn’t prevent the LAPD from working with federal immigration agencies.
As part of her agenda for her first 100 days, Raman has said she will seek an audit of the LAPD’s efforts to follow L.A.’s sanctuary city law, which requires that city agencies treat information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.
Even McDonnell’s critics acknowledge the difficulty of replacing him. Doing so would probably involve a national search, outside consultants and pitched debates about whether to appoint an experienced outsider with top leadership experience — or promote an insider with a firm grasp of where the LAPD has come from historically and an understanding of the political and labor landscape.
McDonnell is popular with the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for rank-and-file officers, which remains a powerful force in city politics — although its influence has waned in recent elections, with mayoral candidates who have received the union’s endorsement failing to win in the last two election cycles. The union poured millions of dollars into attack ads against Raman.
As it became clear that Raman would win the race, longtime police union director Jamie McBride was quoted in a news story saying that her mayorship would spell “Armageddon” for the city.
Ruben Lopez, a former LAPD lieutenant, said he has read or heard similarly alarmist comments by plenty of other current and former LAPD officers. But the reality is, he said, he expects Raman and LAPD officials to eventually find common ground — and in the meantime most officers will keep working.
“The true professionals, they’ll keep doing their job just like we saw in New York when [Zohran] Mamdani got elected, said Lopez, who was in charge of SWAT before leaving the department.
Near record-low crime numbers could provide Raman with enough political cover to begin pushing through LAPD reforms while juggling the myriad other issues confronting the city, such as homelessness, housing affordability and crumbling infrastructure.
As mayor, Raman may also be called on to solve the problem of the LAPD’s dwindling ranks.
As of this week, the department had 8,504 sworn personnel — the lowest total since October 1995 — roughly a tenth of whom are not on full duty status, officials say. Even after efforts under Bass to streamline hiring and boost recruitment, some officials are concerned there won’t be enough new officers to replace those projected to leave or retire in the coming years.
Also on her to-do list will be overseeing the negotiations of the next police contract.
The mayor-elect has denounced the raises for rank-and-file officers negotiated by Bass in 2023, which Raman said has deepened the city’s financial problems. Sold as a way to boost recruitment, the pay increases are among the reasons the police union endorsed Bass’ reelection.
Some political experts say Raman enters office unburdened by an indebtedness to the police union. At the same time, she has said she doesn’t want to see the LAPD get any smaller and will need to work with the union to hammer out a new contract, after the current one expires in December.
In a statement released after her election victory, the Police Protective League’s board of directors said it shares a common goal with Raman of shoring up the department’s recruitment of new officers.
“Los Angeles police officers and others are filled with uncertainty and angst at the prospect of major cuts to the LAPD that will reverse the progress made in reducing crime,” the statement said. “Mayor-elect Raman has stated that she does not want staffing levels to decrease from current levels, we share that goal and are committed to ensuring enough officers remain to keep our residents, the Olympics, and our officers safe.”
Negotiations for the next contract are expected to ramp up in January.
Times staff writers David Zahniser and James Queally contributed to this report.
President Trump, who for years disputed his loss in the 2020 election and publicly decried the the outcome of the vote that he said was stolen from him by Democratic forces, privately lauded incoming President Biden as someone he believed “will be true to yourself and the American people.”
That sentiment, along with others, was part of the letter Trump left for Biden upon leaving office in January 2021. Biden showed the note to some members of his staff after his inauguration in 2021 but didn’t let anyone read it, describing it later that day as “very generous” but otherwise saying he considered it to be private.
Inclusion of the letter in Biden’s “Promise Me, America,” his White House memoir slated for release Nov. 17, was first reported Tuesday by the New York Times. The Associated Press has reviewed a photocopy of the two-page letter, handwritten in Trump’s trademark black Sharpie on White House stationery and addressed “To ‘46,’” denoting Biden’s place as the 46th U.S. president.
“Many presidents have come and gone who simply governed as Republicans or Democrats,” Trump wrote. “Largely, they did not change history, they were just swept along in its relentless tide. This will not happen to you because I know how much you love the American people.”
At the time of transition, Biden was said to have been surprised by how gracious he thought the letter was, given the animosity between the political rivals. Trump had opted out of other presidential traditions, such as attending Biden’s inauguration or hosting the incoming president and first lady for tea at the White House.
Trump has said he thought it was up to Biden to share the letter, calling it “a nice note” during a September 2023 interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” adding, “I took a lot of time in thinking about it.”
Elsewhere in the memoir, the first excerpt of which was published Monday by the Atlantic, Biden wrote of the deep damage Trump has inflicted, with an administration determined to “tear down institutions and inflame hatreds.”
Lamenting Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency and his aggressive reversal of many of Biden’s policies, the former president wrote of Trump’s “dismissive and destructive nature,” describing his predecessor and successor as someone “who seemed unable to tolerate the idea that someone else’s accomplishments might be worth building on rather than tearing down.”
But Biden’s harshest characterization so far was focused on Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, as Congress met to certify the 2020 election, which Biden had won. Writing that Trump “led an insurrection,” Biden said Trump’s ”goal was to remain in power after the American people had voted him out of office.”
“What Trump did on January 6, 2021, should never be forgotten,” Biden wrote. “It should follow him to his grave.”
Asked for comment on both the letter and Biden’s memoir, White House communications director Steven Cheung called the former president “a disgrace” who “should have heeded the President’s wise words, but instead he tried to destroy this country and weaponize the justice system against his political enemies.”
President Trump in his first major interview since his party lost control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections said he thinks his administration was too aggressive on deportations and that he believes he can work with Democrats in the new Congress on some kind of immigration deal.
Trump said his deportation policy was part of the reason Republicans lost, telling CBS’ “60 Minutes” in an interview that aired Sunday: “I think it might be too tough, yeah.”
He added that he thinks he could reach an agreement with the new Democratic majority. “The deal would be we would work something out. And I think it’s something — I think that’s something that’s actually doable,” he said in the interview.
Trump did not give specifics about what that deal would look like — and shortly after taping the interview Friday, Trump named the key architect of his hard-line immigration agenda, Stephen Miller, as his new chief of staff.
“Trump says his immigration crackdown went too far,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer scoffed on social media Sunday after the interview aired. “Apparently, his solution was to put the man responsible for it in charge of the White House. That’s not a course correction. That’s a promotion.”
The president’s immigration crackdown has been a prominent feature of his second term with major operations in Los Angeles and other cities sending arrests soaring. Two U.S. citizens — Renee Good and Alex Pretti — were killed by federal officers during protests against the operations.
Democrats have said oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security is a priority for the new Congress.
Trump said he believes that “killers” and “drug dealers” in the country illegally should be deported, but suggested he was open to the idea of a deal that would let others stay “if they’re good people working in a landscaping company, or working in a hotel, or doing something, right? And in some cases, paying taxes.”
President Trump and his Department of Justice are taking a combative stance toward Democrats after their election victories in the midterms, signaling intense conflict to come as lawmakers prepare aggressive investigations into the executive branch next year over alleged corruption and other issues.
Trump declared on social media that investigative requests already made by Democrats are “extortion at the highest level, and they should be held accountable.” Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche echoed the Republican president and said criminal investigations of Democrats are possible.
“They are not allowed to just go around threatening existing members of the administration, to go around threatening companies, and that’s what President Trump is extremely worried about and he should be,” Blanche said as he and congressional Democrats appeared on the Sunday news shows to discuss the repercussions from last week’s elections.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), who is poised to chair the powerful House Oversight Committee in the next Congress, is preparing investigations into what he calls the “Trump crime family.” He said Democrats are not going to be intimidated.
“The days of us not fighting back are over,” Garcia said.
The early rhetoric sets up a showdown ahead that is likely to define Trump’s remaining two years in office and test the power of Congress to put a check on the White House.
About 7 in 10 voters nationally say Congress is not doing enough to provide checks and balances on the presidency, according to the AP Voter Poll, a survey of more than 100,000 midterm voters. Voters in several polls during the campaign identified corruption among their top issues.
Democrats have made clear that impeachment is an option.
If there are people who have been “shortchanging the American people, screwing over the American people, or stealing from the American people, then they need to be held accountable in a manner consistent with Congress’ role, constitutionally,” said Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York.
Some Democrats worried about overreach
But the investigative onslaught is also a source of tension for Democrats, with many warning that delivering on their central promise to voters — actions to lower the cost of living — must take precedence.
Some are concerned that their resounding wins Tuesday that have given them healthy majorities in the House and Senate will prove fleeting if conflict with Trump defines the agenda.
Sen.-elect Adam Hamilton, the first Democrat elected to the chamber from Kansas in 94 years, expressed skepticism about impeachment, saying his campaign was about trying to bring people together. He said he does not want the next two years to be spent “dividing our country further.”
“I’m not as interested in impeachment as setting up guardrails,” Hamilton said. Still, he said he understands that some investigations are necessary, and Democrats “have to look at what’s happened in Washington.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he wants to hold Trump accountable, but warned that there was only so much time.
“We cannot spend all of our time investigating Trump,” Sanders said. “We’ve got to stand up for working-class families, make a real difference in their lives.”
Jeffries casts doubt on working with Stephen Miller
Jeffries, who is on the cusp of becoming the nation’s first Black House speaker, was asked on election night about the prospects of working with Trump. He said he would be ready to work with Republicans “whenever and wherever possible to deliver real results.”
Jeffries on Sunday criticized Trump’s choice of longtime advisor Stephen Miller to succeed Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, calling him an “awful choice” and casting doubt on the prospect of working with him.
“There’s not going to be an opportunity, certainly, to work with Stephen Miller and what he represents. And we’re committed to forcefully pushing back against the extremism that they may try to continue to unleash on the American people,” he said.
Democrats across the ideological spectrum have been critical of the appointment of Miller, a primary force behind Trump’s mass deportation machine that became an issue in the midterm elections. Nationally, about 6 in 10 voters said the administration’s actions on immigration enforcement had “gone too far,” according to the AP Voter Poll.
Jeffries also said he supports a pending resolution from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Jeffries said Democrats would be discussing it when they return to the Capitol this week. “Hegseth has got to go,” he said.
“I’m a hard yes on the Hegseth resolution,” Jeffries said.
Hegseth in a video dismissed the impeachment push as “all about the politics of personal destruction.” He said it “won’t work with me.”
New senators express skepticism about Schumer
At least two new incoming Democratic senators expressed some reservations Sunday about Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who’s expected to be reelected to his post after leading his party back to the majority.
Hamilton said he’s told Schumer, who is currently running unopposed, that he means no disrespect but that the New Yorker is a polarizing figure in Kansas and Hamilton is aiming for someone less divisive.
“What I’d be looking for is a leader who can lead from the center, somebody who can bring Republicans and Democrats together,” Hamilton said. “It feels like it is a time for fresh and new ideas and somebody who can unite us instead of dividing us.”
Hamilton said he wants to get to know the other Democratic senators better before he makes any recommendations.
Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, whom Schumer did not back in the Democratic primary, said he had been committed to Sen. Chris Van Hollen, but acknowledged that the Maryland Democrat does not appear to be running for the post.
El-Sayed said he and Schumer, who put $67 million into El-Sayed’s general election campaign, “figured out how to work together” after the primary.
“The question to me is, who wants to be the leader who’s going to make sure that we deliver on the mandate that we just got?” El-Sayed said.
Blanche was interviewed on “Fox News Sunday” and CNN’s “State of the Union.” Garcia also was on CNN, Jeffries spoke on ABC’s “This Week,” Hamilton and Sanders were on CNN and NBC, and El-Sayed appeared on ABC.
Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — The top federal prosecutor in Miami who had been tasked with overseeing an investigation into foes of President Trump has resigned, joining other high-profile Justice Department officials departing in the wake of the midterm elections, officials said Friday.
Jason Reding Quiñones’ resignation follows frustrations among Washington officials with his management of the office assigned to lead the so-called grand conspiracy investigation, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel issues.
The Justice Department’s top national security official, John Eisenberg, also resigned Friday, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said. On Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who led a radical overhaul of the department’s Civil Rights Division, also announced her departure.
Quiñones was confirmed by the Senate last year as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, where the Justice Department had centered its meandering probe into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against the Republican president.
His departure comes as the investigation has shown signs of faltering amid a spate of staff turnovers and delays. Investigators in recent weeks have put off scheduled grand jury testimony of several witnesses, according to multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
Blanche said in a social media post that the department is grateful for Quiñones’ “leadership in combating violent crime, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and transnational crime, including the indictment of Raúl Castro.”
Castro, the former Cuban president, was indicted by Quiñones’ office in May on charges related to the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
Quiñones said Friday that he is leaving with “immense pride in what we accomplished together and profound gratitude for the opportunity to serve our great Nation.”
“I am grateful to President Trump for his trust and to the extraordinary men and women of the great Southern District of Florida for their dedication, friendship, and unwavering commitment to justice and the rule of law,” Quiñones wrote in a social media post.
The “grand conspiracy” investigation has proceeded in fits and starts for over a year with repeated setbacks and departures. Last April, a lead national security prosecutor in the investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan was replaced on the team after raising questions about the strength of the case.
Shortly afterward, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, took over the probe. DiGenova resigned from the Justice Department in September without bringing any criminal charges.
Eisenberg was sworn in as assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s National Security Division in June 2025 and oversaw cases involving espionage, terrorism, export control violations, cyber crimes and other matters.
Among the division’s most high-profile cases under his watch was the prosecution of former national security adviser John Bolton, who pleaded guilty this year to allegations of mishandling classified information and is awaiting sentencing.
“He has served with distinction, strengthening our nation’s ability to address threats, both foreign and domestic,” Blanche said in a statement.
The scene at Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna’s election night party was mostly buzz cuts, dark suits and high-gloss black shoes. Deputies and politicos chatted over festive music while the local news played silently on a big screen at El Pescador Bar and Grill in Carson, which served as Luna’s campaign headquarters on Tuesday.
When the newscast declared around 9:50 p.m. that the sheriff had won a second term, dozens of friends, family members and colleagues nursing margaritas and tacos burst into a rousing round of applause. After one of the sleepiest sheriff’s races in recent memory, Luna had again cruised to victory over his predecessor, Alex Villanueva.
The vibe Tuesday night was very different than it was at the intimate gathering at his home in Long Beach in June 2022, when Luna learned that his relentless retail politics had fueled a convincing win over the rest of the field in that year’s primary.
Luna has risen far from the low-income neighborhoods on L.A.’s Eastside where he was raised in the 1970s and 1980s, when gangs and violence were rampant. His parents left behind their lives in the Mexican states of Sinaloa and Michoacán, immigrating to the U.S., where he was born in an East Los Angeles hospital.
Luna’s wife Celines said Tuesday she didn’t believe he was going to win when he sat her and their two adult children down in summer 2021 and told them he wanted to come out of his brief retirement to run for sheriff. But “he worked 110% and he never gave up” during both the 2022 and 2026 campaigns, said Celines, who brought cheerleading pom-poms to shake for her husband Tuesday evening.
“He got home after 10 o’clock most nights. He basically worked two jobs,” she said.
All that work paid off Tuesday, when Luna became the first sheriff to secure a second term in L.A. County since Lee Baca, who held the office from 1998 to 2014.
Villanueva, on the other hand, has now lost three consecutive elections, including his last two sheriff bids and his failed 2024 campaign for L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn’s seat, which Hahn won outright in the primary with nearly three-fifths of the vote. The former sheriff’s brand of sharp-elbowed politics plagued by scandal and vitriol has left him effectively radioactive in county politics, according to some political observers.
Luna, meanwhile, has presided over a period of relative calm at the Hall of Justice. “There are, unfortunately, fractured relationships that need to be fixed,” Luna told The Times four days before he began his first term in 2022. “Sometimes,” he added, “the way you approach governing makes a huge difference.”
Luna has made good on that promise to improve relationships. The L.A. County Board of Supervisors took drastic measures to try to rein in Villanueva’s behavior while he was sheriff, including voting to investigate the department’s activities and freezing millions of dollars in funding. Luna, on the other hand, was endorsed by all five supervisors during this year’s campaign.
“Sheriff Robert Luna has earned the trust and support of voters, and this election is an overwhelming show of confidence in his leadership,” Hahn said in a statement. “Crime is down, he is bringing transparency and accountability back to the department, and he is working closely with me and my colleagues on the Board of Supervisors to make our communities safer.”
A vague sense that the sheriff is “always in the news” for something good was part of what drove Rafael Nolasco to support his candidacy for a second term. The 49-year-old East L.A. native said last month that he planned to vote for Luna, whom he views as a role model for his children.
“Seeing somebody from your background having a position like that, to me it’s amazing,” Nolasco said after talking with Luna outside a taqueria in the neighborhood.
For Luna, campaigning has meant long hours away from his loved ones, so he’s excited to be able to focus solely on his work as sheriff.
“I want to get back to just doing my one full-time job and get reacquainted with my wife and my family. They sacrifice so much,” he said minutes after the sheriff’s race was called Tuesday night. “You’re working so hard, and at one point you take a deep breath and go, my God, how much have I sacrificed? And is it worth it? But tonight it was.”
Luna’s tenure as sheriff will now stretch from the late COVID-19 era through the 2028 Summer Olympics and beyond. He said late Tuesday that he’s got some priorities for his second term, including making more progress on deputy gangs and determining “what are we going to do with Men’s Central Jail.”
The U.S. Department of Justice announced in September that it is investigating conditions at Men’s Central Jail, which has been plagued for years by overcrowding, violence and other issues. Luna has said in the past that he would like to see the aging jail shut down if it is first replaced with a modern facility providing clinical care to inmates.
The sheriff also said he plans to track and adapt to how the broader political changes ushered in by the Democratic wave in the midterm elections Tuesday could impact approaches on immigration enforcement and other federal initiatives with local implications.
But first he said he’s going to take some time to determine the best way forward for his department.
“I’m going to bring my team back together, and we’re going to revisit all of our priorities … We’re going to continue the things that worked, reexamine things that may not have worked,” he said. “There’s a lot of work to do. This is not a finished product.”
Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna was leading challenger and former Sheriff Alex Villanueva by a wide margin in his bid for reelection Tuesday, according to early returns, in a rematch of the 2022 race between the two lawmen.
Early returns also showed L.A. County voters favoring Measure A, which would establish binding arbitration for sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other public safety employees who by law cannot go on strike.
A second county ballot measure, Measure E, was far ahead in early returns. Measure E asks voters to create an independent ethics commission that previously was approved by another measure, and address administrative missteps that invalidated funding approved by voters in 2020 to support jail alternatives.
In the sheriff’s race, Villanueva was seeking to regain the job he lost in 2022 when Luna successfully challenged him for reelection.
This contest was lower profile than the 2022 race, but the stakes are just as high, as the new Los Angeles County sheriff will face a host of challenges, from navigating relationships with federal and local agencies to boosting recruitment and retention.
Luna pitched himself to county voters as a calmly effective operator who has brought down crime while building relationships with local, state and federal leaders that suffered under his predecessor’s tenure. The incumbent highlighted his department’s successful navigation of World Cup security and the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration agents and troops to L.A. as examples of the efficacy of his approach.
Villanueva, on the other hand, has sought to depict L.A. County as more dangerous under what he describes as the overly permissive approach of Luna. The former sheriff claimed Luna has presided over a deep decline in department morale and staffing while being too soft on drug users, the homeless and petty criminals.
Representatives of the Luna and Villanueva campaigns did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday evening.
Both men guided the department through tumultuous periods for the county. Villanueva was sheriff for nearly two years at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, while Luna was in office during the Eaton and Palisades fires.
The next four years promise further challenges. The Olympic Games are less than two years away, and the sheriff’s department will be expected to play a major role keeping millions of visitors and athletes safe.
The new sheriff also will be expected to rein in the department’s budget, which has experienced ballooning overtime costs as sworn vacancies have risen markedly under both sheriffs.
Villanueva claims Luna is out of touch with deputies and that they are leaving the force en masse in response to his poor leadership skills. Villanueva said he would improve staffing by redirecting overtime spending and serving as a beacon to would-be deputies who’ve been turned off by Luna.
But Luna denies that deputies are fleeing the department and says he’s taken major steps to improve the hiring process. He has hired an outside contractor to speed up applicant background checks and provided an avenue for many new deputies to go from the academy to patrol instead of first requiring a stint in one of the county’s jails.
Among the two countywide ballot measures, Measure A was the highest profile, with unions representing county deputy sheriffs, firefighters and others spending millions of dollars in support.
Measure A would mandate binding arbitration between the county government and negotiators who represent deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety employees in the event contract talks reach an impasse.
Currently, the county supervisors can impose a final offer that employees must accept because by law, public safety personnel are not allowed to strike.
Supporters say the measure adds balance to the negotiations process and removes the unilateral authority of the county Board of Supervisors. The change is backed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees.
County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath authored the motion, which has the support of four out of the five supervisors. No formal opposition has been filed. Supervisor Holly Mitchell raised financial concerns about the measure but has not officially opposed it.
Measure E on the county ballot would fix issues with Measure J, which was approved by voters in 2020, and Measure G, which passed in 2024.
Measure J earmarked at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue to incarceration alternatives. However, some of the ballot language in Measure G unintentionally repealed Measure J — an administrative error that was discovered in June 2025. Amendment E would partly ensure the funding to incarceration alternatives remains in effect.
The amendment also would enshrine in the county charter the seven-member ethics commission and ethics compliance office that was created when Measure G passed.
The amendment has the support of Horvath and other supervisors, as well as the League of Women Voters of L.A. County, who said Measure J shouldn’t be undone by an administrative error.
Los Angeles voters will head to the polls Tuesday to vote on a slew of ballot measures, including a half-cent sales tax that would beef up the city’s Fire Department — but which also would cost Angelenos more to fill up their gas tanks, buy clothes and dine out.
Another measure would allow the City Council to meet just once a week, instead of three times as required by the City Charter.
In all, there are eight ballot measures before L.A. voters that could have a significant impact on how the city government functions, and which take just a simple majority to pass.
Here’s a roundup:
Measure FD: Sales tax hike for the Fire Department
Voters will consider a half-cent increase to the city’s retail sales tax, bumping it from 10.25 cents per dollar spent to 10.75 cents per dollar spent. The tax hike is expected to raise an estimated $345 million annually and would be funneled into a separate fund specifically for the Fire Department.
The sales tax increase was spearheaded by the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, who have long complained the department is underfunded.
The city still would be required to fund the department at the same average percentage out of the general fund, ensuring extra revenue generated by the tax would add to its regular budget.
Opponents say this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, costing an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.
The firefighters union said the tax fund is essential to increase the number of firefighters and lower response times across the city.
Charter Amendment EE: Fewer City Council meetings
Amendment EE would allow the Council to meet once a week instead of three times, as required under the City Charter.
The Council voted 12-0 to put the measure on the ballot, with three council members absent. Council members in support of the measure said the three meetings are costly and ineffective, and noted their time is better spent working in their district.
Councilmember Monica Rodriguez opposed the measure, saying it would reduce the time available for L.A. residents to engage with their representatives in a public forum and could lead to council members rushing through deliberations on important matters.
The amendment also would approve changes to how the city governs. If passed, independent inspectors for the L.A. Police and Fire Departments would have more power to conduct audits, and it would increase the penalties for campaign finance violations. The changes also include raising the number of signatures needed for a ballot referendum and would bar ethics commissioners from running for City Council or the Los Angeles Board of Education for five years after they leave office.
Proposition TE: An exception to the ‘mansion tax’
Proposition TE would grant a one-time exemption to Palisades fire victims from paying the so-called “mansion tax” if they sell their home within five years of the disaster.
The “mansion tax,” or Measure ULA, took effect in 2023 and imposed an additional 4% transfer tax on all L.A. property sales above $5.4 million and a 5.5% tax on sales above $10.9 million. Despite its nickname, the tax also falls on more modest multifamily residences like apartment buildings that exceed the sales price benchmarks.
The proposition would exempt Pacific Palisades homeowners from paying the tax, regardless of whether they lived at the property or not. It also would refund any resident who already sold their property and paid the tax.
The proposition was spearheaded by Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the region. Supporters say fire victims have been through enough and should have more flexibility as they navigate expensive rebuilding costs.
Opponents argue the proposition is too broad and should have included only victims whose primary residence was destroyed.
Charter Amendment LA: Restructuring how the city administers public works
Amendment LA is intended to more efficiently deliver basic city services for infrastructure in need of repair, including streets in need of repaving, dangerous sidewalks and broken streetlights. It also would leverage existing resources to open up sources of revenue.
The measure would reduce the sway of the Board of Public Works or pave the way to eliminate it, while also increasing the power of the director of public works. Critics oppose the elimination of the board, saying it would weaken accountability and increase public scrutiny.
Charter Amendment PL: Streamlining the Planning Department
L.A. residents have for years complained that navigating the Planning Department to build or open businesses is complicated and confusing.
Amendment PL includes five proposals that would increase efficiency and streamline certain parts of the Planning Department, which controls land use and approves construction and renovation projects.
The changes would consolidate seven Area Planning Commissions into one, partly to lower costs and ensure that all appeals and applications are governed by the same logic. It also would give the City Council more flexibility in approving taller buildings and set deadlines to speed up rulings from the City Planning Commission.
Charter Amendment PRK: Doubling the money for recreation and parks
Amendment PRK would double the minimum amount of money set aside for the Department of Recreation and Parks by reworking the parameters of the city budget.
The department is in charge of maintaining green spaces, playing fields and senior centers in the city. The City Charter mandates the department receive .0325% of the total assessed value of taxable properties, which is about $303 million for the park system this year and would be around $493 million in 10 years.
If the measure passes, that would double, meaning the park system would get a minimum of $986 million by 2036.
Supporters say the existing city allocation isn’t enough and has led to deteriorating recreation centers, swimming pools and restrooms. Critics warn it would force city officials to cut other services to make room for this additional funding.
Charter Amendment PRT: Changes to airports, harbor and water and power departments
Charter Amendment PRT is part of a package of proposed changes to the City Charter to increase transparency, build public trust and streamline operations. It would change how airports, harbors and the Department of Water and Power are managed.
The amendment would require that two of the seven members of the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners, who oversee Van Nuys and Los Angeles International airports, live in Van Nuys and three live around LAX.
It also would require the L.A. Board of Harbor Commissioners allocate a portion of its operating income from the Port of Los Angeles to investments in waterfront public access projects. The harbor is one of the busiest in the country and generates revenue from the operators at its terminals. PRT also would broaden public insight into how lease agreements with the port affect the local workforce.
Supporters say people overseeing Van Nuys and LAX should have a firsthand understanding of living near the airports.
No ballot argument against PRT was submitted, although the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce said it opposes the measure, citing concern over the additional requirements it would impose on businesses and the potential impact on port operations.
Charter Amendment SC: Altering LAUSD’s campaign finance rules
Amendment SC wouldn’t make major changes, but would clarify rules on campaign finance for candidates running for a seat on the Board of Education, which oversees LAUSD.
Language would be simplified to clarify that the same rules apply for mayoral candidates and Board of Education candidates, except in certain instances. Some of those rules include governing campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.
Supporters say it won’t make any substantive changes, but instead make the rules easier to understand by deleting duplicated language. No argument was provided against the amendment.
When Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman was asked recently about the ways the LAPD was falling short, she pointed out that the agency had stopped posting neighborhood-level crime statistics. The lack of data, she said, gives an incomplete picture of how safe the city is — and also undermines the public’s already shaky trust in police.
Her comments during a recent mayoral debate thrust the issue of police secrecy into the spotlight, while giving voice to a growing number of critics of LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell who argue that his department is moving in the wrong direction when it comes to transparency.
Frustration by neighborhood groups over the missing crime data has boiled over in recent weeks, thanks in part to Raman’s comments. But it also comes as free press advocates complain that the department’s responsiveness to public records requests has slowed, and as officers increasingly face accusations of targeting journalists in the field during protests.
When Mayor Karen Bass and LAPD officials were asked about the disappearing crime data at a news conference last week, a senior department official fielded the question and chalked it up to a “software issue,” which the department was working on and hoped to have resolved soon. A Bass spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday afternoon.
In an interview with KNX radio this week, McDonnell claimed that changes to internal policies and state law had made the LAPD more transparent today about its operations and functions than ever before.
McDonnell declined an interview request through a spokesperson on Friday.
“The Department remains committed to transparency and to keeping the public informed,” the spokesperson, Officer Jeff Lee, wrote in an email. “That includes public access to crime data, timely handling of California Public Records Act requests within available resources, and respect for the rights of members of the media covering public events.”
In the spring of 2025, roughly a year after the LAPD released thousands of police officer photos that it later tried to claw back, the department quietly stopped posting files released in response to public records requests, cutting off access to a trove of documents that were once available through the the city’s data portal. Department watchdogs have long argued that such records allow residents to evaluate how the LAPD and other agencies are performing.
Reports based on the investigations of police shootings and other serious uses of force that used to be released shortly after they were presented to the Police Commission, the LAPD’s civilian oversight body, now take months to be produced.
The department’s inability to respond to records requests in a timely fashion seems designed to defuse public outrage, critics argue; dragging out the time it takes to release records means that information becomes available long after most citizens have moved on, they contend. Activists routinely pack the Police Commission’s Tuesday meetings to decry what many refer to as “secret police.”
McDonnell has acknowledged delays in producing records, saying that the unit tasked with reviewing and releasing the information is “grossly understaffed.” But progress on filling some of these vacancies has been slow.
LAPD officials have said that a recent change to state law that now requires police departments to release more information about officer misconduct and cases that involve serious uses of force has placed additional burden on the unit. Adding to the backlog are prolific requesters who flood the department with complex and time-consuming inquiries, all of which have to undergo several levels of review to avoid the release of private data, they argue.
McDonnell has also come under fire for his officers’ behavior toward journalists during protests last year against President Trump’s immigration crackdown. In July 2025, a federal judge issued an order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting media members with crowd-control weapons.
In the months since, media groups have denounced the department for continuing to violate the order, which has deepened the tensions between police leaders and the press. Since June 2025, the city has been hit with dozens of legal claims from protesters and journalists who claim that LAPD officers used excessive force against them.
Police officials have accused some independent journalists of behaving more like demonstrators than reporters, and argued that the use of less-lethal weapons was justified after officers were provoked or had their commands disobeyed in chaotic situations.
Press freedom advocates say that under McDonnell, the department’s relationship with the local news media has gotten increasingly strained.
McDonnell, some argue, has made himself available only to news outlets that provide favorable coverage of the department.
In more ways than one, McDonnell seems out of step with modern expectations around government transparency by a public that is increasingly wary of public institutions, said Adam Rose, a deputy director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Rose said he often disagreed with McDonnnell’s predecessor, Michel Moore, but that the former chief at least made himself accessible. Moore used to opine on national issues and occasionally tried to get in front of brewing controversies, Rose said, but he was also willing to hear out concerns about the treatment of journalists.
McDonnell, he said, hasn’t even bothered to give out his cellphone number.
“[Moore] had at least the courtesy and dignity to address groups speaking on behalf of journalists who while trying to cover the department were injured,” Rose said.
Last November, McDonnell abruptly ousted the department’s former top civilian spokesperson, Jennifer Forkish. Some of her duties were reportedly absorbed by Robert Port, a veteran documentary filmmaker with no PR experience whose own hiring was shrouded in secrecy. Port’s job proposal suggested that he was sought to use his Hollywood connections to help burnish the department’s battered public image.
Port told the news outlet L.A. Material that he was working on a reality show that promises to take viewers behind the scenes of patrolling the city’s streets. The department has sought $15,000 from the City Council to hire an outside law firm to represent the city with negotiations with a company called 44 Blue Productions LLC.
Forkish, the former spokesperson, told The Times that she has heard from journalists “here in Los Angeles and around the world who say they’re struggling to get responses to media inquiries and public records requests.”
“As an Angeleno, that concerns me,” she wrote in a text message. “Responding to the press is part of being accountable to the public, and transparency is essential to maintaining public trust.”
Attorneys who have sued the department, either on behalf of aggrieved officers or members of the public, argue that maintaining secrecy allows the LAPD to dismiss criticism on the grounds that outsiders don’t understand what’s happening.
“The LAPD has now evolved into an inward-facing organization.” said Jorja Leap, a professor of social welfare at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. “It’s a pivotal moment. I still see people within the department working on community relations — I don’t want this to be a lost opportunity.”
Voters in the city of Los Angeles will consider eight ballot measures covering everything from taxes and fire resources to governance of airports and the port and the quality of parks.
L.A. City Measure FD
The basics
Measure FD would increase sales taxes by 0.5% to provide additional funding for the city Fire Department. The measure would raise an estimated $345 million annually. Under the plan, the city’s retail sales tax would increase from 10.25 cents per dollar spent to 10.75 cents per dollar spent.
Impact
The ballot initiative was spearheaded by the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, which has long argued that the department is underfunded. It claims decades of neglect have left the department understaffed and under-resourced.
Critics point out that this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, following L.A. County hikes for homelessness (Measure A in 2024) and healthcare (Measure ER in the June 2 primary). The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. estimates that Measure FD will cost an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.
Read more:
Proposition TE
The basics
Proposition TE would carve out a five-year exemption from L.A.’s “mansion tax” for Pacific Palisades homes damaged or destroyed in the 2025 wildfire, sparing sellers six-figure transfer bills on high-end properties. The mansion tax levies a 4% transfer tax on all L.A. property sales above $5.4 million and a 5.5% tax on sales above $10.9 million. At the current level, if a Pacific Palisades resident who lost their home in the fire sold the vacant lot for, say, $6 million, they would owe $240,000 in transfer taxes.
The impact
Supporters say fire survivors shouldn’t owe hefty taxes when selling burned-out lots, arguing the break offers basic fairness for families facing insurance shortfalls and steep rebuilding costs. Opponents warn the exemption covers wealthy landlords and investors as well as homeowners, creating a “loophole for the ultrawealthy” and stripping millions annually from the mansion tax’s homeless and affordable housing programs.
Charter Amendment LA
The basics:
Charter Amendment LA would change the way public works are administered in Los Angeles, allow the city to lease its underused land to tenants and open the door to greater city involvement in business enterprises. It also would ease some competitive bidding rules.
The impact
The proposed changes to the Los Angeles City Charter are intended to more efficiently deliver basic city services and speed repairs to deteriorating infrastructure such as streets in need of repaving, unsafe sidewalks and broken streetlights.
Charter Amendment PL
The basics
Charter Amendment PL would tweak L.A.’s Planning Department, promising faster decisions, clearer rules and more consistent oversight of development citywide. Seven volunteer Area Planning Commissions would be replaced by a single Neighborhood Appeals Board, cutting costs and standardizing rulings on liquor licenses, hillside homes and small-business projects.
The measure would let the City Council raise building height limits, set strict timelines on planning votes and automatically approve some amendments, opening the door to taller towers and speedier permitting.
The impact
Homeowners, developers and businesses have complained that navigating the Planning Department can be complicated and confusing. These changes aim to streamline how permits and projects move through the department.
Charter Amendment EE
The basics
Charter Amendment EE would cut the number of required L.A. City Council meetings from three to one weekly while reshaping ethics rules, watchdog powers and referendum signature thresholds.
The impact
Supporters call three weekly meetings inefficient and costly, arguing fewer full sessions would free council members to work in their districts and steer more detailed public debate into committee hearings. Opponents warn EE would shrink public access, rush deliberations and effectively neuter referendums, casting the ethics and oversight tweaks as modest cover for a deeper retreat from transparency.
Charter Amendment PRK
The basics
Charter Amendment PRK would double the minimum budget allocation set aside for the Department of Recreation and Parks, which oversees the upkeep of green spaces, playing fields and senior centers. It is not a new tax or bond.
The impact
Supporters say that the change will allow the city to give Angelenos the park and recreation services they deserve. Critics contend it will tie the hands of the city’s elected officials, forcing them to cut other services to make room for additional park funding.
Charter Amendment PRT
The basics
Charter Amendment PRT would change the composition of the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners, which oversees Van Nuys and Los Angeles International airports. It would require that two of the seven board members live in Van Nuys and three live around LAX — a footprint that the amendment does not define. As for the Port of Los Angeles, the amendment would require the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners to annually allocate a portion of the harbor’s operating income to investments in waterfront public access projects. It also would broaden public insight into how lease agreements with the port affect the local workforce by adding employment reporting requirements for any leaseholder extending a lease or any lease applicant.
The impact
The measure was developed through a reform effort started after a series of scandals. Backers say it will boost public accountability. There was initial pushback among some terminal leaseholders at the Port of Los Angeles.
Charter Amendment SC
The basics
Charter Amendment SC aims to clarify campaign finance rules for candidates running for a seat on the L.A. Unified Board of Education, which overseas the school district and around 350,000 students.
The impact
Repetitive language in the Los Angeles City Charter would be deleted and the charter would make clear that the same campaign finance rules apply to both mayoral candidates and Board of Education candidates, except in certain instances, the measure says. Among those requirements are rules governing campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.
Two experienced leaders of the largest law enforcement agency in the country face off, four years after their first showdown, to once again helm the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Here’s what you need to know about:
The candidates
Incumbent Robert Luna is a former Long Beach police chief who came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2021 and unseated Alex Villanueva in the November 2022 election. Luna has presided over declines in homicides and violent crime as well as establishing a period of relative calm after Villanueva’s tenure, which was marked by controversy and scandal. Luna’s office, however, has come under scrutiny, including when a grenade accidentally exploded in a department parking lot, killing three deputies.
Villanueva switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican in the first two years of his leadership and was a regular on Fox News vilifying “woke” culture and criticizing Democrats. Villanueva launched, then walked back, a criminal-leak investigation of a Los Angeles Times reporter, and he was ordered to testify after sheriff’s deputies took and shared pictures at the site of Kobe Bryant’s helicopter crash.
State of the race
In the primary election, Luna received 44.2% of the vote versus Villanueva’s 21.7%. Luna also has raised more money for his campaign. From Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, he had raised more than $1.3 million; Villanueva had raised a little more than $320,000.
Former Sheriff Alex Villanueva speaks to constituents Sept. 12 at a campaign stop at the Burbank Assn. of Realtors.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Issues
Staffing and retention
Under Luna, the number of new deputies who graduated from the sheriff’s academy rose by nearly a third from 2024 to 2025, with more than 400 graduates last year, the department said. Recent data also show that retention rates have risen under Luna after a steep decline toward the end of Villanueva’s tenure.
Villanueva claims that he keeps up with the department he once ran, and that deputies frequently complain to him about understaffing and low morale.
Crime trends
Under Luna, violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%. Data show that property crimes were broadly down from 2022.
Villanueva again maintains that deputies he has stayed in touch with feel that crime has run rampant since he left office.
2028 Olympics
Villanueva argues that Luna is ill-prepared to handle the next four years, including assisting with the Olympics.
Luna refuted the claim by pointing to the role his department played in the multi-agency law enforcement effort to maintain public safety during the World Cup this year.
A federal judge in California on Friday barred the Justice Department from threatening or coercing election workers to stop processing ballots.
The order issued by U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson in the Northern District of California was in response to a suit filed earlier Friday by labor unions seeking to bar the Justice Department from intimidating election workers.
Notably, the emergency order was issued without the Department of Justice weighing in on the case.
“Election Day is around the corner,” wrote Thompson, who was nominated by former President Biden. “Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots. Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”
It also bars the Justice Department from demanding local election officials segregate or not count ballots that the federal government deems may have been cast by ineligible voters.
“This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve,” April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement Friday night.
The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has warned that “any election official who knowingly processes the ballot of a noncitizen is opening themselves to legal jeopardy.”
On Thursday, the Associated Press obtained subpoenas issued to election officials in Los Angeles County. The subpoenas request any documents and communications related to letters sent in July and October by federal officials to state election officials outlining the allegations about noncitizen voters. They also seek any information about efforts to prevent noncitizen votes from being counted. At least three L.A. County election officials have been asked to appear before a grand jury the day after the election.
It is unclear whether the Justice Department intends to bring criminal charges against anyone. The department does not typically subpoena people whom it regards as targets of a criminal investigation to appear before a grand jury.
Outside groups win access to the disputed list
In another Friday ruling, another federal judge ordered the Trump administration to share the disputed list of names with lawyers for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. They want to examine who is on the list and assess its impact on eligible voters.
It will be the first time that a nongovernmental organization will have the opportunity to evaluate the merits of the list of some 20,000 names. The federal government promptly appealed the decision on Friday evening.
The Democratic candidate for California governor, Xavier Becerra, is an advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project.
The two groups sued the Homeland Security Department in early October to prevent it from using federal immigration data to challenge state voter rolls. The lawsuit cited examples in other states where the federal government’s data have been proven to mistakenly include thousands of citizens. It argued that the data-matching methods risk disenfranchising or deterring citizens from voting. On top of that, plaintiffs argued, the lists could disproportionately target naturalized citizens who are legally entitled to vote.
The Justice Department argues that there is just as much to lose if the ballots aren’t separated.
“Every ballot cast by an ineligible voter cancels out the vote of an American citizen,” Kiersten V. Pels, a spokesperson for the department, wrote in an email. “The Department makes no apology for protecting those votes.”
In a separate but related 9th Circuit Court decision on Friday, a panel of judges ruled that federal investigations into illegal voting by noncitizens will remain on hold in nine states until after election day.
The judges, all nominated by Democratic presidents, found that the aggressive and public investigations led some citizens to decide not to engage in election-related activities out of fear of being wrongly targeted.
The judges said the investigations, which are looking into alleged illegal voting in past elections, can resume after the midterms wrap up Tuesday.
Riddle, Mulvihill and Swenson write for the Associated Press. AP writer Swenson reported from New York; Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.
Your ballot is overflowing with decisions you need to make. Some you’ve probably heard about — Karen Bass vs. Nithya Raman for L.A. mayor, Xavier Becerra vs. Steve Hilton for California governor, the controversial billionaire tax.
But there are also some more obscure races on the L.A. County ballot that are important as well. Here are seven to keep an eye out for.
Los Angeles County sheriff
This is a rematch between rivals for the job of running the Sheriff’s Department, which also oversees county jails.
Robert Luna is the sitting sheriff. The former Long Beach police chief, Luna came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2022, arguing that incumbent Alex Villanueva had taken the department in the wrong direction. Luna points out that violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%.
Alex Villanueva was elected sheriff in 2018 in an upset victory. His tenure was marked by controversy and scandal, and he became a fixture on Fox News, where he appeared repeatedly to vilify “woke” culture and criticize Democrats. He faults Luna, claiming the department has issues with recruitment and retention. He also says the department does not have the resources it needs.
L.A. County Charter Amendment A
This measure deals with labor negotiations for key public safety personnel in L.A. County.
Basics
Measure A is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration between county government and negotiators representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety workers if contract talks reach an impasse and no compromise can be reached. It would alter the current last step, in which county supervisors can impose a final offer that these employees must accept — by law, public safety personnel cannot strike.
Impact
The initial phase of contract talks still would have union and county representatives seeking to hammer out a mutually beneficial deal, with a presumption that both sides would negotiate in good faith. But if a gap remains and an impasse ultimately is declared, the supervisors no longer would dictate the final offer. Instead, a three-member arbitration panel would be formed. The county and union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as chair. If they can’t agree on the final panelist, a state entity could provide a list of qualified arbitrators to choose from. The arbitrators would focus on key employment elements such as wages and hours and would hold hearings and receive evidence from the parties. At the end of the process, a binding result would be issued and made public.
Read more:
L.A. County Charter Amendment E
This is a highly complicated measure that involves jail financing and seeks to clean up some bureaucratic muddles.
Basics
Jails: In 2020, 57% of county voters approved Measure J. This mandated that at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue be allocated to incarceration alternatives. The problem? Voters later approved the county reform effort Measure G, which had the unintended effect of repealing Measure J. Measure E would ensure that Measure J remains in effect.
Governance: Measure G also created, among other things, a county ethics commission and an ethics compliance office. Officials determined that for true independence, the commission and the compliance office must be permanently enshrined in the county charter.
Impact
Backers say Measure E would clean up those messy governmental issues.
L.A. County Superior Court judges
Voters will decide runoffs for four open judge seats:
Maria Ghobadi and Rhonda Haymon are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 64 seat.
Justin Allen Clayton and Anna Slotky Reitano are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 65 seat.
Anthony “A.J.” Bayne and David DeJute are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 87 seat.
Donna Tryfman and David Ross are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 131 seat.
Devin Elle Kurtz makes her opinion on generative AI known. For the last few years, the 29-year-old Pasadena artist says she’s been frustrated when strangers tell her that her art style looks AI-generated.
They have it backward, she insists. Kurtz, who has been sharing her art on the internet since she was a teenager, suspects that her viral art may have been used to train AI models. Her Instagram bio reads, “NO AI,” alongside a circle-backslash emoji.
Her feelings on the subject made what she discovered Thursday morning all the more painful, the artist said. Kurtz woke up to multiple emails from fans telling her that the Trump administration’s Department of Education had posted a meme on X that looked eerily similar to one of her works — fan art inspired by one of her favorite scenes from the animated series “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” In the work, Aang and Zuko are shown practicing fire-bending moves as two dragons move around them.
There’s Magic in Learning 🪄 https://t.co/hJdp0Y2qho
The Department of Education’s post includes an image of the two characters in seemingly identical stances, outfits and color scheme. “There’s magic in learning,” reads text added over the image. “Make education great again.”
The Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.
Kurtz soon took to social media to condemn the Trump administration. She wrote on the platform: “I did not and would never consent to this administration running my fanart through AI and posting it. Can’t even believe I’m saying these words.” Her response had 150,000 likes as of late Thursday night.
“It definitely made me angry,” Kurtz told The Times on Thursday. “Seeing something that I made appropriated with a Make America Great Again-adjacent slogan on it made me quite upset. I knew I wanted to make it really clear that this was not something that I co-signed.”
Kurtz said she made the artwork in 2023 to share her love of the series with its creators and with other fans.
“Fandom at its core is supposed to be humans loving something together,” Kurtz said. “I want to live in a world where the things that I see around me are made by people. That is what being a human being is all about. Not just output for the sake of output.”
Kurtz said several tells led her to conclude that AI was likely used to alter her work. In the version shared by the Trump administration, the dragons have been removed, and the platform the duo is standing on has oddly sized bricks.
Since her fan art is based on existing intellectual property, she doesn’t intend to pursue legal action.
“It would be fantastic if the government didn’t take artists’ work and run it through AI and post it,” Kurtz said.
In December, singer Sabrina Carpenter was angered when her song “Juno” was used in the soundtrack for a Department of Homeland Security promotional video featuring clips of officers tackling and handcuffing people.
“[T]his video is evil and disgusting,” Carpenter replied. “Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.” The Department of Homeland Security has since deleted that video.
Democrats, election officials and voting rights groups have long wondered whether President Trump, upon his return to the Oval Office, would again attempt to overturn an election when his party is trailing.
It’s no longer hypothetical.
Late last week, the president directed his Department of Justice to preemptively contest a potential Republican loss in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The department is demanding a court hold up certification of a possible Democratic win until it’s determined whether voters were confused by having two candidates with the same name on the ballot.
Trump followed that by calling for the prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman, based on a New York Times report that her campaign helped recruit someone named Dan Sullivan to siphon away votes from the Republican incumbent, also named Dan Sullivan. The governor has ordered an investigation.
Academics believe the lawsuit is the first time since the Civil Rights era that the federal government has sued to halt certification of an election, a duty the Constitution places in the hands of states.
Trump, for years, has claimed elections are rigged when he or his party loses, and this time is no exception. He has used his midterm rallies to say Democrats cheat, criticize election officials by name and call the ranked choice voting system in Alaska, which might hold the key to Senate control, a scam.
But the certification lawsuit elevates Trump’s crusade beyond mere rhetoric, indicating that he is preparing to use the power of the presidency to try to reverse a possible loss as his party struggles to hold its control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.
Earlier this week, the president also announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who provides proof of prior or current voter fraud in the country. It wasn’t clear whether or how he planned to follow through.
“For at least the last year and a half, they’ve been laying that groundwork,” said Theresa Lee, a senior attorney with the ACLU. “We’ve been preparing for just as long, if not longer.”
Trump says he’ll accept results if the election is ‘honest’
Trump told reporters this week that he would accept the election results, but with his typical caveat: “If they’re honest elections,” he said.
That follows a pattern. Trump has preemptively claimed that upcoming elections will be rigged and labeled elections he’s lost as stolen. It started with the 2016 Republican Iowa caucuses, when he came in second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa,” Trump said at the time. “He stole it.”
Democrats and other groups that oppose Trump have been concerned that his words would turn into directives to have his administration interfere in the midterms. They have been running exercises for months and have lawsuits pre-written. They also plan to have tens of thousands of people monitoring the polls on Election Day.
So far, early voting has been quiet, with about 35 million people already casting ballots without any notable disruption.
In that respect, this year’s election so far resembles 2025’s off-year elections in New Jersey, Virginia and a handful of other states. Democrats braced for possible Trump action then, but the election proceeded with no major issues. But the Justice Department’s more aggressive actions this month already make 2026 different from any election in recent memory.
It has sued California to block it from counting ballots after it alleged the state had 20,000 noncitizens on its rolls and made a similar demand of Washington related to about 400 voters in that state. Both states said the demands came too close to the election to fulfill, and a federal judge Wednesday rejected the federal government’s California demands.
Earlier, the Justice Department seized ballots and election records related to the 2020 presidential election in Georgia’s Fulton County, and the administration launched a sweeping investigation of that vote, though it has yet to turn up evidence supporting Trump’s false claims of fraud.
Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department does not want to intervene in elections, but had no choice in Alaska.
“We are not doing anything improper,” Blanche said Sunday on CNN. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — (and) President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form.”
After the lawsuit was filed, Trump told reporters he was the one who pushed for it: “I’m the one that said do it,” the president said.
Lawsuits seem more ‘impulsive’ than strategic
Though the Trump administration claimed to be acting on behalf of Alaska’s voters in its lawsuit to hold up certification, the president’s Republican allies in the state didn’t appear happy.
Sen. Sullivan would not say whether he supported the lawsuit. Alaska’s Republican-controlled state government filed court papers to try to have it dismissed. The state’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, said the administration “should never have filed” it.
While controversial, the situation in Alaska is not that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on the ballot to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.
Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, wrote that the Alaska lawsuit’s legal argument was “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.” He said that should reassure the public that Trump won’t be able to change election outcomes.
“The notion that there’s going to be something systemic that’s going to thwart the will of the voters seems much more speculative,” he said. “A lot of the conduct seems impulsive rather than strategic and planned.”
The courts have repeatedly rebuffed the administration, in many cases because the Constitution gives the president no direct power over how elections are run. Courts put on hold two Trump executive orders seeking to change voting procedures. The administration also has lost more than two dozen cases trying to get detailed voter information from the states.
That resembles 2020, when Trump and his allies tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden and in the process lost dozens of lawsuits.
Can the institutions hold?
Pat McCrory, a former Republican governor of North Carolina, is part of Right Count, a group of conservatives pushing back against election conspiracy theories and intervention in local elections. He said he’s confident the system will hold.
“The only thing that protects us from anarchy is this thin piece of paper called the Constitution,” McCrory said. “That thin piece of paper is, to me, a cement wall.”
It’s one that many analysts expect will continue to stymie Trump in the courts.
“The courts are likely to throw most, if not all, of these charges out,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “But this is a way of intensifying the signal to Trump’s supporters that the elections are rigged.”
The Justice Department in 2020 refused to join Trump’s allies in litigation. In his second term, Trump has pushed out career staff and stocked his administration with people who helped him challenge the 2020 election. That’s led to mounting concern he could deploy immigration agents, the FBI or even the military to the polls or seize ballots or voting machines, although multiple administration officialshave denied they have such plans.
All of that could happen before courts even have a chance to weigh in, said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist.
“The threat is that he’ll take actions that can’t be undone,” Nyhan said.
Riccardi and Swenson write for the Associated Press.
The US Secretary of State hosted far-right Machado in March. (EFE)
Caracas, October 27, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration has announced plans to back electoral reforms in Venezuela and push for presidential elections.
In a press briefing with international journalists on Monday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Venezuela’s electoral infrastructure “designed to rig elections” and argued it must be replaced quickly to ensure a valid vote.
Rubio, who has been the Trump administration’s chief architect of US policy toward Venezuela, said talks between Acting President Delcy Rodríguez’s government and opposition sectors led by Dinorah Figuera were moving toward the appointment of a new Supreme Court (TSJ) before the end of the year, followed shortly afterward by the renewal of the National Electoral Council (CNE).
“Obviously, we need to use our influence with the interim [Venezuelan] authorities, to ensure that the process moves forward responsibly (…) Our goal is to have an election,” Rubio said. He welcomed what he described as “serious progress in that direction” and warned that “if anyone tries to derail the process, they will seriously harm Venezuela.”
In a separate press briefing, a senior State Department official added that, once both institutions have been reconstituted, the Venezuelan presidency will be declared permanently vacant, triggering a six-month constitutional deadline for presidential elections to be held “under competitive conditions.”
The anonymous official stressed that the process would also require political guarantees and regulations on access to the press. The official also defended the inclusion of pro-government sectors in a “transition,” arguing that peaceful democratic processes often require cooperation from outgoing factions, citing Spain and Portugal as precedents.
Asked about a specific election date, Rubio said the Rodríguez administration had complied with US timetables so far.
“Are we going to wait two years [for an election]? That’s not going to happen. At best, I have two years and two months left in this position,” he added.
His remarks coincide with statements by Dinorah Figuera, who heads the opposition delegation in talks with government representatives and forecast presidential elections to take place in late 2027 or early 2028.
Meanwhile, the third round of political dialogue in Venezuela agreed to review four laws governing political participation, pluralism, and the autonomy of political organizations, including the Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings, and Demonstrations. The discussions also addressed disqualifications from holding public office and the review of legal frameworks related to political rights.
In parallel, Venezuela’s National Assembly formally launched the process to renew the 32 justices of the Supreme Court (TSJ). Applications from legal professionals seeking to join the court will be accepted from Wednesday, October 28, through Wednesday, November 11. The fourth round of dialogue is scheduled for November 11–15.
Rodríguez and other Venezuelan high-ranking officials have not commented on the State Department announcements.
The White House’s claims relating to Venezuelan reforms and elections coincided with the return of opposition leader María Corina Machado to the country on Sunday. The far-right politician had spent more than a year abroad and her supporters have called for her inclusion in the ongoing negotiations.
Asked about Machado’s return, Rubio said he had told the Rodríguez government “weeks ago” that Machado should be able to come back without obstacles. The secretary of state denied that Washington had obstructed Machado’s return, stating only that she was advised against traveling immediately after the June 24 double earthquake.
Rodríguez, for her part, said the opposition politician could have avoided the “show” of appearing at a church in Lara state before traveling 400 kilometers to Caracas at the head of a motorcade, amid chants of “freedom” and calls for immediate presidential elections.
“The airports are there. Let’s move away from the show (…) Many people who have benefited from the amnesty law and this process, which seeks peaceful coexistence, have been able to enter through the airport’s new transitional structures,” Rodríguez said.
The acting president declined to clarify which route Machado had taken to reenter Venezuela. Machado left the country in December 2024 for Oslo, where she received the Nobel Peace Prize before gifting it to Trump. She and her party maintain that the government prevented her from returning on seven previous occasions, a claim the authorities deny.
Asked whether the justice system would take action against Machado, Rodríguez replied that she hoped there would be “repentance and a change of course” from the opposition figure and that the opposition leader would be able to “contribute something to the country.” In recent years, Machado endorsed economic sanctions and a foreign military attack against Venezuela.
The dueling campaigns over a Pasadena ballot measure that would levy a special tax on property owners for fire department funding are heating up in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election.
In a press release, the city of Pasadena last month encouraged neighborhood associations, homeowner groups and other organizations to host informational sessions on Measure PFD, featuring presentations from Fire Chief Chad Augustin and other city staff.
But if you ask opponents of the measure, these events are actually campaign stops.
The presentations focus on “everything that supposedly won’t happen” if the measure fails, according to a press release from the No on Measure PFD Campaign.
“The city has turned the fire department into the grassroots campaign arm for Yes on PFD,” said Matt Klink, a consultant for the No campaign.
Augustin disputed that characterization of the presentations and said he’s provided only factual information about the measure so residents can understand the choices before them. “That, in my mind, is education, not advocacy,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Yes on Measure PFD Campaign has accused the No campaign of running a digital ad and using website language suggesting that local firefighters don’t support the measure.
“None of the Pasadena firefighters support a no on Measure PFD,” said Raffy Bitchakdjian, president of the Pasadena Firefighters Assn. 809. “So for them to use our name, our likeness, and actually go say that is very deceptive.”
NEW YORK — Democrats and outside watchdogs are planning a massive presence at the polls on Election Day driven by concerns that President Trump will further leverage the vast resources of the federal government to interfere with a midterm that could hobble his final two years in office.
They won’t be the only ones there. A sprawling election protection effort on the left that is expected to deploy tens of thousands of monitors will be met by the largest-ever monitoring program by the Justice Department and still more observers from Republican-aligned groups. The result could be unlike anything seen at the polls in modern times.
The effort among Democratic and nonprofit groups includes training volunteers to stand watch outside polling places and report activities they consider concerning. The network includes traditional government watchdogs such as Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union plus a flood of volunteers assembled by state Democratic parties, congressional leaders, national activist groups and organizations focused on protecting democracy.
The Democratic National Committee created a first-of-its-kind cybersecurity unit staffed by former CIA and FBI officials to monitor and report online misinformation, including artificial intelligence deepfakes, said Jane Kleeb, vice chair of the DNC.
That’s as Democratic mayors, attorneys general and secretaries of state host tabletop exercises simulating worst-case scenarios, such as a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials at voting locations or the seizure of ballots and voting equipment.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have assembled a legal team that rivals that of any presidential campaign.
“We’ve never done this before,” Kleeb said of the party’s sweeping efforts. But “we’ve never had to deal with the president of the United States saying that he may seize ballots, put ICE agents outside polling locations and other kinds of very clear direct threats to the voting process.”
The Department of Justice has already filed lawsuits in California and Alaska that could affect ballot counting or certification.
While Trump continues to make baseless allegations of cheating in the election, administration and military officials have said they have no plans to deploy immigration agents or troops to polling sites.
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis blamed “radical Democrats” for creating fears about election security by refusing to enact voter ID requirements and other Republican-backed measures.
“President Trump has done more than any other president to ensure we have free and fair elections,” Bis said.
Tens of thousands of volunteers trained to observe
State Democratic parties have trained an estimated 10,000 volunteers to observe polling places and report anything potentially concerning they might see from federal agents. Common Cause has trained roughly 16,000 more volunteers to stand watch at voting precincts, said Suzanne Almeida, vice president of states for the group.
She said a broader Election Protection coalition involving 300 other groups has trained tens of thousands more.
Smaller pockets of volunteers from other groups also are preparing to show up, including roughly 100 organized by Senate Democrats and hundreds more from a Democratic-allied group called Save America, which is training clergy members, veterans, teachers and other local community members. National groups such as Indivisible and MoveOn are activating their own expansive networks.
There are so many organizations working to protect the voting process — including many that cannot legally coordinate with each other — that some officials involved worry about unintentionally creating chaos outside polling locations.
Almeida said Election Day confusion is possible in some precincts but the nature of the threat requires a collective effort.
“It will actually take all of us if some of the threats we are most worried about come to pass,” she said.
Trump administration sends its own team
Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, was asked on CBS’ “60 Minutes” whether the Republican administration is planning to send ICE agents to polling places.
“There is no plan to do that,” she responded.
Still, the Justice Department is planning its largest-ever election monitoring effort, with about 1,000 department staff expected to observe voting and ensure federal laws are being followed, spokesperson Kiersten Pels said. That comes after a primary season in which the department said it deployed more than 100 election monitors across hundreds of polling locations.
At least one of those placements sparked tensions with local officials. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, said the behavior of two monitors during that state’s primary was “a bit aggressive” and “irregular.” A Laramie County clerk said the Justice Department monitors arrived at the polls intending to interview voters, but her office didn’t allow it.
The department disagrees that the monitors did anything improper, Pels said. She added that the monitors are trained to comply with federal law governing conduct at polling places and won’t “interfere with the voting process.”
Democratic lawmakers and voting rights advocates have raised concerns that the Trump administration’s monitors could intimidate voters or abandon the duty they’ve had for decades to protect against civil rights violations.
The department plans to send them to every state, focusing on high-population areas, jurisdictions that have had problems in the past and districts with close elections, according to a senior department official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity.
The Republican National Committee said its operation involves deploying “election integrity deputy state directors” in 22 states, among them Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina.
Those workers are the “eyes and the ears of the RNC in the field” who recruit volunteers and organize trainings, said Ally Triolo, the RNC’s election integrity communications director. Their mission is to surface anything that seems unlawful.
At the same time, the RNC has enlisted nearly 22,000 poll workers and is recruiting poll-watching volunteers for competitive districts. The poll watchers will “observe the process and help ensure election rules are followed in accordance with the law,” Triolo said.
Local election officials prepare for increased attention
While federal monitors have quietly observed elections for decades, largely without incident, some election officials are taking precautions.
Chris Swope, the city clerk in Lansing, Michigan, said he preemptively contacted law enforcement and his attorney in case federal monitors violate election law, although he expects them to abide by the rules.
The Democratic Mayors Association issued guidance to local Democratic officials with detailed instructions about what to do if federal agents appear at polling locations.
It notes that federal law prohibits the presence of federal immigration agents, the FBI or other investigative personnel. It also issued a reminder that federal agents are not allowed to be armed at the polls, nor are they allowed to interact with voters or handle ballots or election equipment.
Justice Department officials have said their monitors won’t be armed and will not interfere with voting. Asked about department monitors being sent to Georgia, Trump told a reporter recently: “They’re not going to do anything other than watch.”
Some of the poll observations have already begun. Mary Corcoran, Save America’s executive director, said her group’s volunteers have been monitoring precincts during early voting in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio to help give voters a sense of security.
“The fear is the point, and we must do something about it,” she said. “Left unanswered, fear does the work of keeping people home without a single agent setting foot at a polling place.”
Peoples and Swenson write for the Associated Press. AP writers Jacqueline GaNun in Lansing, Mich., Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and Jessica Hill in Las Vegas contributed to this report.
