effort

WASHINGTON — The Education Department said Monday it has terminated agreements that previous administrations reached with five school districts and a college aimed at upholding rights and protections for transgender students.

The decision means the department will no longer play a role in enforcing those agreements, which called for schools to take steps to comply with federal civil rights law. The districts affected are Cape Henlopen School District in Delaware, Fife School District in Washington, Delaware Valley School District in Pennsylvania, and La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, Sacramento City Unified and Taft College in California.

Under the Biden and Obama administrations, the department interpreted Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, to include protections for transgender and gay students.

The Trump administration has penalized schools that have made efforts to accommodate students based on their gender identity. It has filed lawsuits in California and Minnesota over state policies permitting transgender students to participate in interscholastic sports, and opened civil rights investigations into schools and universities over their policies on transgender students.

But the announcement Monday appeared to involve the first known cases of the administration terminating civil rights settlements that had been negotiated with schools.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said the action reflects the administration’s efforts to keep transgender students from participating in girls’ and women’s sports teams and accessing shared locker rooms.

“Today, the Trump Administration is removing the unnecessary and unlawful burdens that prior Administrations imposed on schools in its relentless pursuit of a radical transgender agenda,” she said in a written statement.

Ma writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Merely two weeks had passed since the Iran war began when Gen. Randy George, the Army’s highest-ranking officer, began sounding an alarm.

Touring a weapons depot in North Carolina, George warned lawmakers present that the conflict’s vast and ever-growing list of targets was straining U.S. capacity — “depleting our stockpiles faster than we can replace them,” as one congressman recalled. Since assuming Army leadership, George had made it his mission to strengthen the nation’s industrial base in anticipation of precisely this moment, when the United States would be engaged in a major war with a formidable adversary.

On Thursday, in a brief phone call, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired George. No reason was given, a U.S. official familiar with the matter told The Times.

The forced departure of George in the middle of a war created yet another blow to morale inside the Pentagon, where multiple officials expressed dismay over the state of the department’s leadership. Over the last year, Hegseth has fired five sitting members of the joint chiefs of staff, with only two holdovers remaining in their posts.

“Whenever you have a change in leadership, military or otherwise, there is bound to be some churn in information management,” one U.S. official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “So what you’re doing, in the middle of a war, as we are taking U.S. casualties, is you’re taking out the general in charge of making sure the right people and equipment are flowing into the Middle East.”

Inside the building, officials believe that Hegseth’s next target is Dan Driscoll, the Army secretary and an ally to President Trump. Driscoll has been seen by Hegseth’s aides as outshining the Defense secretary on prominent policy initiatives.

Gen. Randy George, U.S. Army chief of staff, speaks with soldiers during training exercises at Lightning Academy at Schofield Barracks in Honolulu on Nov. 10, 2025.

(Christopher Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

It is a purge that Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill fear could have tangible, detrimental effects on the war effort. Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Joni Ernst of Iowa, all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have expressed private concerns over George’s firing, a second U.S. official said.

Forcing out Army leadership responsible for training and equipping its soldiers, and for ensuring weapons stockpiles continue to meet demand, risks bureaucratic chaos and despair in the ranks at a time when the Trump administration is openly considering a ground operation in Iran.

Others in the Pentagon have raised concern over the U.S. military stockpile, including Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, who last month warned at a defense conference that munitions shortages were a concern even before the war began.

“It was something that we were concerned about even before the operation,” Meink said. “It has just been the fact that we couldn’t see the threat evolving and what we’re facing. So we definitely have to improve on that.”

Trump has denied that the United States faces weapons shortages, even after meeting with the nation’s top contractors last month in a push for them to increase — and on some products, quadruple — their output.

“What interceptors we have for Iran is because of Randy George,” the first U.S. official countered. “He continued to work that problem set up through [Thursday]. It’s a problem set he was working in real time.”

Jerry McGinn, director of the Center for the Industrial Base at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said U.S. forces have reached a stage in the war where they can pivot away from standoff weapons systems. With Iran’s air defenses largely degraded, they can instead rely on weapons such as laser-guided bombs, helping ease pressure on stockpiles.

But Iran’s downing of two U.S. aircraft on Friday suggests that longer-range weapons may still be necessary.

“When the stockpile is stressed, as it was after Ukraine and then now with Iran, any surge in need leads to a backlog as they try to replenish,” McGinn said.

“The three things they’ve been using a whole lot of are Tomahawks, [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] and Patriots, and those inventories were already somewhat depleted after Midnight Hammer last summer,” McGinn added. “You can’t crank those out very fast.”

Beyond his role tending to the nation’s “magazine depth” — making sure the military isn’t firing more weapons than it is able to replenish — George also led the Pentagon’s effort to set up a joint task force last year aimed at speeding up the U.S. military’s ability to counter small unmanned aircraft systems, or drones.

The program has proved critical in the war effort. Tehran now relies heavily on its Shahed drones, with its missile production and launch capacity severely diminished.

Acknowledging the Pentagon expulsions, Iran’s embassy in South Africa posted photos on social media Friday x-ing out portraits of several top U.S. military officials fired in recent months.

“Regime change happened successfully,” the Iranians wrote.

UCLA football coach Bob Chesney wasn’t looking for star performances during the Bruins’ first spring practice on Thursday — instead, he wanted his players to focus on holding themselves accountable for putting in their best effort.

“We talk about the mirror test. Don’t worry about what your coach says, don’t worry about what your other teammates say,” Chesney said. “Go look at yourself in the mirror. That’s really the only guy that’s gonna know, right?”

There was excitement and intensity but perfection wasn’t expected. For the new head coach, it was about whether the fundamentals UCLA worked on throughout the winter carried over, he said.

“While I watch it out here, the things that don’t take skill, the things that don’t take great genetics, were the things I wanted to focus on today more than anything — the effort,” Chesney said.

UCLA quarterback Nico Iamaleava stretches with teammates at Spaulding Field on Thursday.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“We’ll go and watch the film and figure the rest of it out, but I didn’t think it was a bad day.”

Chesney said he plans to build on each practice, and his coaching staff will set a standard that trickles down to the players. He said there will always be something to improve and something to build toward.

Ta’Shawn James, a defensive back who transferred from Iowa to UCLA, showed strength during drills — an encouraging sign early in his progression.

“It’s Day 1, it’s the first time we’re running at full speed, it’s the first time we’re out here seeing people redirecting, what his makeup speed looks like,” Chesney said. “When he makes a mistake, how quickly can he recover? What’s his range in the open field? What’s the speed differential? All those things are things we’re looking through on just about everybody out there.”

Running back Wayne Knight followed Chesney from James Madison and adds to an already gritty running back group that could become one of the team’s deepest units.

“Not to name names, but they are all physical, they’re all downhill players. They protect the football well. What their bodies look like is phenomenal,” Chesney said. “ … There’s some stuff in that room that’s just a little bit different right now, so we got to keep them healthy, keep them playing downhill and doing what they do.”

At right tackle, the competition is wide open.

“A lot of guys, we’re not really at a spot to just nail that down just yet. Give me a couple more days on it. But, right now, there’s a lot of guys rotating through a lot of different places,” Chesney said.

As spring practice gets started, it is not about individuality, Chesney said, but about identifying and correcting mistakes.

“Dwelling on the past, if it was bad, is not gonna get you anywhere. Getting too high in the successful moments isn’t gonna get you anywhere,” he said.

Chesney wants his squad to play without any limitations or hesitations.

“You set these standards, you live by these standards, you hold them accountable to these standards, not only the coaches and the players, but everybody that’s part of this program.

UCLA coach Bob Chesney leads the Bruins through their first spring football workouts on Thursday.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“That starts to build trust within the team,” he added.

UCLA’s social media accounts highlighted Chesney’s efforts all offseason to preach personal accountability and serving others, doling out a mix of John Wooden and Ted Lasso life lessons.

Chesney reiterated at the start of the next chapter — spring football workouts — that he wants his players to keep pushing to be great people. If they expect to be successful on the field, Chesney argues, they must first be successful off it.

“You can only be one degree of separation from how you’re living your life,” he said. “… We don’t have any bad guys that are bad students, that are bad teammates, we don’t have any of that, we have really good guys so they have a chance to be great at football.”

Alum donates $10 million

UCLA alumnus Angelo Mazzone III committed $10 million to the football program to help maintain the infrastructure needed to compete at the highest levels.

“For him to be as generous as he is and willing to help us with that, I think that’s a big deal,” Chesney said. “It talks about just the investment and the belief people have in this program at this current moment and rightfully so.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s effort to dramatically change the criteria to get tens of millions of dollars in funding to aid homeless people was unlawful.

Several nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of changing the rules for receiving $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals. The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of issuing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care program to better align with its social policies.

U.S District Judge Mary McElroy, nominated by President Trump, said the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” was unlawful and she ordered it to scrap the new policy.

“Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make major, disruptive changes to grants within its purview, all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives,” McElroy said in her ruling that the NOFO violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

A spokesperson for HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocates for plaintiffs welcomed the ruling.

“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”

Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the ruling was “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”

“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means,” Oliva said in a statement.

Plaintiffs argued the Trump administration was aiming to upend polices in place for decades to satisfy its political considerations, including whether jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”

The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation argued that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes, adding that the new award process was “shockingly unlawful” and would “irreparably injure qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”

In its court filings, HUD argued the new criteria was an effort “to ensure the availability of funding to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness while simultaneously promoting self-sufficiency.”

“Defendants acted reasonably and prudently because the NOFO conditions, focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, are sufficiently related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and reduction of trauma,” HUD wrote.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state laws forbidding “conversion therapy” for minors may violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors.

The 1st Amendment ruling is likely to undercut similar laws in California and 23 other states.

In an 8-1 decision, the justices said Colorado’s ban on “talk therapy” may prevent Christian counselors from helping teens work through their feelings about sexual attractions or their gender identity.

State lawmakers passed the new measures in response to healthcare professionals who said that efforts to change a teenager’s sexual orientation were both ineffective and harmful.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado Springs, sued and argued the state’s law violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.

She said she does not seek to “cure” young clients of same-sex attractions or to “change” their sexual orientation. Instead, she said she is guided by their goals.

“As a talk therapist, all Ms. Chiles does is speak with clients; she does not prescribe medication, use medical devices or employ any physical methods,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said for the court.

But she could run afoul of the state’s law because she said she may help some of her clients “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions or change sexual behaviors.”

If so, the law “censors speech based on viewpoint” and is therefore unconstitutional, he said.

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. But the 1st Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented alone in a 35-page opinion. She said the issue was one of regulating medical practice.

“The 1st Amendment cares about government efforts to suppress ‘speech as speech’ (based on its expressive content), not laws, like [Colorado’s] that restrict speech incidentally, due to the government’s traditional, garden-variety regulation of such speakers’ professional conduct,” Jackson wrote. “States have traditionally regulated the provision of medical care through licensing schemes and malpractice regimes without constitutional incident.” she continued.

The Trevor Project, a crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ+ young people, condemned the ruling.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to treat the dangerous practice of conversion therapy as constitutionally protected speech is a tragic step backward for our country that will put young lives at risk. These efforts, no matter what proponents call them, no matter what any court says, are still proven to cause lasting psychological harm,” Chief Executive Jaymes Black said in a statement.

The conservative First Liberty Institute called the ruling a “great victory for religious liberty.”

“Americans should never have their professional speech censored simply because the government disfavors that speech,” said Kelly Shackelford, the group’s president.

The ruling is the third significant defeat for LGBTQ+ rights advocates in the last year.

The conservative majority upheld state laws that prohibit puberty blockers and other “gender affirming” care for minors. And last month, the justices said parents in California have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school.

They said California’s student privacy policy violated parents’ rights, including the free exercise of religion.

The Alliance Defending Freedom appealed her case to the Supreme Court and described her as “a practicing Christian [who] believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design.”

Her clients “seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires,” they said. “But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express.”

The state law defines “conversion therapy” as “any practice or treatment by a licensee that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to … eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Violators may be fined up to $5,000, but no one had been fined, the state says.

The challengers had lost in the lower courts.

A federal judge and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver rejected the free speech claim. By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court said the state law was not a ban on free expression. Rather, it regulated the conduct of licensed medical professionals. States have the authority to regulate the practice of medicine.

In their appeal to the high court, lawyers for Chiles said the state was “censoring” voluntary conversations and forbidding speech on only one side of a controversy.

The Trump administration supported the 1st Amendment challenge because the state seeks “to suppress a disfavored viewpoint.”

In response, the state said its law “safeguards public health” by prohibiting “a discredited practice” that was shown to be harmful. It stressed the law regulates licensed professionals only and does not extend to religious ministers or others who provide private counseling to young people.

In 2012, California was the first state to ban licensed counselors from using conversion therapy for minors.

Then-Gov. Jerry Brown said these “change” therapies “have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

Equality California condemned the court’s ruling and said it “has weakened the ability of state licensing boards to intervene if clinicians use unproven, misleading, or coercive techniques.”

The group urged support for a pending bill in Sacramento that would “extend the statute of limitations for survivors to pursue civil claims against licensed mental health providers who subjected them to these harmful practices.”

Tuesday’s ruling was also criticized for undercutting state regulations of medical practice a year after taking the opposite view in a Tennessee case.

In June 2025, the court in a 6-3 decision upheld laws in Tennessee and 24 other red states that prohibit “gender affirming” puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors.

The majority said then it was deferring to the state and their lawmakers who decided to prohibit such medical treatments for minors.

But in the Colorado case, the court majority did not defer to the state’s judgment that conversion therapy was harmful and potentially dangerous.

The decision is also the third victory for the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom in its free speech challenges to Colorado laws. A maker of custom wedding cakes and the designer of websites won suits seeking an exemption from the state law that required them to provide equal service for same-sex weddings.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Mark Sanford, the former South Carolina congressman and governor whose political ascendancy was stalled by a 2009 affair, wants to return to Congress — again.

Just hours ahead of the deadline to do so, Sanford filed candidacy paperwork with state officials to run in the June 9 GOP primary for South Carolina’s 1st District seat, which he has held twice before.

Sanford’s first political office was in the 1st District. An outsider with almost no name recognition, he navigated a primary for the open seat, finishing second before winning the runoff. He served for six years before his outside run at governor, again pushing his way through a crowded primary, then knocking off the last Democrat to hold the office.

But his eight years were overshadowed by the Appalachian Trail, which became shorthand for Sanford’s disappearance to go to Argentina to see his lover. Sanford’s wife, family and his staff didn’t know where he was.

Beating back both an ethics inquiry and calls to resign, Sanford held fast, leaving office on his own terms.

In 2013, Sanford won back his old seat, beating 15 other candidates in a primary and runoff. He won two more full terms before falling to a GOP challenger in 2018 who had President Trump’s backing.

The seat would go on to flip to Democratic hands that fall for the first time in decades, won back by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace in 2020. Mace is running for governor this year.

Sanford, 65, also briefly ran for president in 2020, challenging Trump for the nomination in what he characterized as a “long shot” effort around warnings about the national debt. Some, including Sanford’s former gubernatorial staffers, initially questioned whether the effort was a serious one, positing that it might be an effort to stay relevant after the 2018 defeat.

Sanford dropped out of the contest just ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Sanford’s home state would ultimately opt not to hold a 2020 GOP presidential primary, clearing the way for Trump’s nomination in South Carolina.

Sanford did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Monday. True to the themes that have dominated his political thinking, an email release on Sanford’s candidacy focused on the national debt, with the candidate saying he felt 1st District voters wanted a representative “who is an advocate for financial sanity that has been lost in Washington for all too long.“

Since leaving the U.S. House, Sanford has hung onto more than $1.3 million in a federal campaign account, funds that he can now use in a primary already crowded with multiple Republican and Democratic candidates.

Kinnard and Collins write for the Associated Press.

March 26 (UPI) — A petition effort to put a repeal of Utah’s anti-gerrymandering law approved by voters eight years ago on the November ballot failed to meet state requirements, an updated tally indicated Thursday.

The Utah state Republican Party has spent months gathering signatures to put Proposition 4 to a vote this fall, and while organizers had enough signatures to qualify, they did not get enough of them from enough parts of the state.

In order to place an amendment on Utah’s ballot, at least 8% of registered voters in the entire state must sign the petition and 8% of registered voters in at least 26 of the state’s 29 Senate districts must sign the petition.

The group pushing for the new amendment, Utahns for Representative Government, initially surpassed the required 141,000 signatures statewide — they’d collected 162,974 — and met the 8% in 26 districts requirement, but an effort to remove signatures deemed inadmissable in Utah’s District 15 nixed the effort, KUTV-TV in Salt Lake City reported.

“We have significant concerns about the practices utilized by the opposition and continue to review the signature validation and removal process,” Rob Axson, chair of the Utah Republican Party, said in a statement to KTVX-TV in Salt Lake City.

“Whether now or in the future, by litigation or initiative, we will Repeal Prop 4,” he said. “This fight is not over but just beginning.”

The 2018 law that was passed by Utah voters created an independent redistricting commission and banned partisan gerrymandering.

For the past year, Republican-controlled state legislatures have looked to redraw congressional districts to make it easier for GOP candidates to win seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and retain control of the chamber in this year’s election.

Generally, congressional districts are redrawn by states once a decade, using data from the latest census.

Utah’s legislature last year approved redrawn districts alleged to favor Republicans, but they were later invalidated by a federal court for violating Prop 4 — leading to the effort to repeal the voter-approved law.

Over the past several months, the groups Better Boundaries and Brave Utahns Rapid Response Network have challenged signatures and the methods used to collect them, successfully dropping the petition effort below the numbers it needed to make the ballot.

“A well-informed voting population leads to better outcomes for everyone,” said Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of Better Boundaries. “A majority of Utah voters approved Prop 4 in 2018, and we look forward to the day when Utah voters can finally pick their politicians, not the other way around.”

March 25 (UPI) — Republican senators have again backed President Donald Trump‘s war against Iran, blocking a Democratic-led effort to curb his ability to wage war without congressional approval.

The Senate voted 53-47, mostly along party lines, on Tuesday evening to block Democrats’ war powers resolution, the third time Senate Republicans have blocked a resolution to require the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress authorizes them.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor of the motion with his Democratic colleagues, while Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote against it with the GOP lawmakers.

Since the war began on Feb. 28, when the United States and Israel attacked Iran, Democratic lawmakers have argued the war is unconstitutional because only Congress has the power to declare war, while Republicans contend Trump is within his authority as commander in chief to defend the country.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said he forced the vote Tuesday to have debate on Trump’s war in Iran.

“This is increasingly important because this war is spiraling out of control,” he said in a video posted to social media ahead of heading into the Senate.

“The cost of plastic just doubled, prices at the pump are sky high, the Strait of Hormuz is still shut down, new wars are breaking out in the region, we’ve had a dozen Americans killed, $2 billion being spent a day and for what!”

From the floor, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called on Republicans to vote in favor of the resolution, saying it was time for the war to come to an end.

“The war is expanding, and the Senate has an obligation to step in,” he said.

“I say to my Republican colleagues: if there was ever a time to stand up for the authority of the Senate, stand up for the powers given to us through the Constitution, the time is now.”

Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, who has repeatedly argued against the war powers resolution, took to the floor again on Tuesday to say the Democrats were going to receive the same negative result as they had the two previous times.

Iran started the war, he said, pointing to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 and stating that the Islamic regime has since killed thousands of Americans.

“The president of the United States said, ‘We have had enough.’ He had very good reasons to pull the trigger at the time that he did and… The fact of the matter is, we are in conflict,” he said, stating the Senate needs to back the Americans fighting in the war and their president.

“We all know this isn’t going to go on very long, but it needs to be done.”

The vote was held less than a week after Democrats used the war powers resolution to force a vote on Wednesday on a similar motion, which Republicans blocked in the same 53-47 outcome. Both Paul and Fetterman voted against their parties.

Sheriff Robert Luna has asked the National Institute of Corrections to examine conditions and practices at Los Angeles County jails, a request made after 10 inmates died in jail custody in less than three months.

The request comes amid growing concern over conditions inside county lockups. In September, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued the Sheriff’s Department over what he called “unsafe and unconstitutional conditions at county jails.”

Luna has also faced questions from the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission over health conditions, health access, drug use, and other factors that have led to in-custody deaths.

Now, the Sheriff’s Department is asking the National Institute of Corrections to conduct a comprehensive review of county jails in an effort to reduce the number of deaths, Luna told The Times.

“I want someone to come in and review from top to bottom,” Luna said.

Specifics on when the review would begin, and what it would entail, have not yet been set, but Luna said the aim is to get an outside, “unbiased view.”

Officials with the National Institute of Corrections referred questions to the federal Bureau of Prisons, its parent agency, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The National Institute of Corrections provides state, local and federal resources and guidance.

The agency, according to its site, provides “on site technical assistance” to jail administrators, and also helps to identify “gaps in policy and practice.”

The review, Luna said, would entail “everything we’re doing from policy, procedure, facilities, to make sure we’re not missing anything,” Luna said.

Inmate deaths have raised concerns among top sheriff officials and agencies charged with overseeing sheriff operations. The department saw 46 in-custody deaths in 2025, a steep increase from the 32 reported in 2024.

In-custody deaths are reviewed by the Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bonta’s lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department, filed in September 2025, alleged inmates were being “forced to live in filthy cells with broken and overflowing toilets, infestations of rats and roaches, and no clean water for drinking or bathing.”

In a statement, Bonta’s office alleged that a lack of access to healthcare in the jails, and conditions inside, contributed to a “shocking rate of preventable in-custody deaths, such as suicides.”

In a previous interview, Luna referred to the spate of death at the start of the year as a “kick in the groin.”

Efforts to reduce deaths are challenging partly because the inmate population inside the jails has been increasingly older, and ill, Luna said, with many of them suffering from drug addiction or long-term conditions.

About 82% of those in custody disclosed at least one medical or mental health issue when booked, officials said.

According to department data, half of the 46 inmate deaths recorded in 2025 were listed as natural. Autopsy results to determine the causes of death are still pending in this year’s cases.

Luna has pointed to changes that have already been made as efforts to improve conditions, including deploying body-worn cameras at the Inmate Reception Center, Men’s Central Jail and Twin Towers Correctional Facility.

The department has also opened a remodeled mental health assessment area at the Inmate Reception Center, the primary intake and release point for county inmates near Men’s Central Jail.

California and a coalition of other states sued the Trump administration Monday over its efforts to roll back fair housing rules that bar certain types of discrimination by landlords, including against LGBTQ+ people.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule change threatening funding for states that offer housing protections for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized individuals who are not explicitly covered by federal law is illegal, undermines state efforts to combat discrimination and would push vulnerable people onto the streets.

“In effect, the Trump administration is attempting to roll back civil rights enforcement in housing at the federal level, and pressure states to weaken their own protections as well,” Bonta said during a news conference Monday. “That’s not just bad policy, it’s unlawful.”

Representatives from HUD and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal Fair Housing Act explicitly bans discrimination based on seven traits: race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. Under rules set forth during the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has for years interpreted the law as banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Many states, including California, also have adopted laws explicitly banning discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized groups not mentioned in the federal law, with California also banning discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income and veteran or military status.

In September, HUD issued new guidance threatening to decertify state housing agencies — stripping their federal funding and ability to investigate discrimination claims — if they provide anti-discrimination protections other than those spelled out in the Fair Housing Act. The guidance also barred state agencies from using federal funds to “promote gender ideology,” “fund or promote elective abortions” or promote illegal immigration, according to the lawsuit.

The guidance followed that of HUD Secretary Scott Turner, a former NFL player and Trump loyalist, who announced last year that HUD would no longer adhere to a 2016 Obama-era rule protecting transgender people from housing discrimination, which Turner said “tied housing programs, shelters and other facilities funded by HUD to far-left gender ideology.”

“We, at this agency, are carrying out the mission laid out by President Trump on January 20th [2025] when he signed an executive order to restore biological truth to the federal government,” Turner said in a statement, referring to Trump’s order calling on federal agencies across the government to rescind protections for transgender Americans.

“This means recognizing there are only two sexes: male and female,” Turner said. “It means getting government out of the way of what the Lord established from the beginning when he created man in His own image.”

Among other things, the administration said rules barring discrimination against transgender people allowed “biological men to enter shelters intended for women impacted by trauma, domestic abuse and violence.”

LGBTQ+ advocacy groups condemned the move, noting that transgender Americans face heightened discrimination in a slate of areas — including housing — and need protections. They also contended that HUD’s new policies violate a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision barring employment discrimination based on gender or gender identity.

Bonta said the Fair Housing Act “set a floor, not a ceiling, for protections against discrimination,” which means that states “have the authority to go further and protect more people,” as California has endeavored to do.

He said HUD has supported the state’s anti-discrimination work for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, which provides funding to state and local agencies to investigate and enforce laws against housing discrimination. HUD’s new guidance “threatens to undermine that system” by demanding an end to state protections not just for LGBTQ+ people, but for military veterans, immigrants as well as women receiving abortions and other reproductive healthcare, he said.

“Families across California are already struggling to find homes they can afford, and the last thing they need is for the federal government to make it harder,” Bonta said. “At its core, this lawsuit is about protecting a fundamental civil right: the right to rent, buy, or live in housing without discrimination.”

Bonta said California interprets the Fair Housing Act’s ban on sex discrimination as protecting LGBTQ+ people, but the Trump administration doesn’t agree — making the state’s more explicit protections important.

He said about $3 million in federal funding is currently at stake for California, with millions more at stake in other states.

Illinois Atty. Gen. Kwame Raoul, who is helping lead the lawsuit and spoke alongside Bonta Monday, said states with robust antidiscrimination laws “will not go backwards and we will not give in to threats” from the Trump administration.

“These actions are part of a broader, ongoing pattern by this administration to subvert the legal protections our country has put in place to combat discrimination, and to tear down the hard fought progress we have made for civil rights,” Raoul said. “It is also just the latest page in the president’s illegal playbook to use funding and programs created by Congress to try to strong arm states into adopting Trump’s preferred policies.”

The states allege that HUD’s targeting of state antidiscrimination policies comes after it downsized its own workforce and significantly reduced its ability to investigate housing discrimination complaints and enforce fair housing laws. They say the new guidance violates multiple federal laws, including laws that govern federal spending and rule changes, and are asking the federal court to immediately invalidate the guidance as unlawful.

Bonta and Raoul are joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

“The Voice of Hind Rajab,” a heartbreaking retelling of the efforts to save a 6-year-old Palestinian girl amid Israel’s attacks on Gaza, will be honored at the 98th Academy Awards on Sunday — without one of its star players.

Actor Motaz Malhees, who stars in the film as Red Crescent dispatcher Omar, confirmed Thursday that he will be absent from the festivities because of President Trump’s travel ban against Palestinians. “I had the honor of playing one of the lead roles in a story the world needed to hear,” Malhees said on Instagram, “but I will not be there.”

“I am not allowed to enter the United States because of my Palestinian citizenship,” he added.

Trump announced his widened travel ban in December, noting his decision to “fully restrict and limit the entry of individuals using travel documents issued or endorsed by the Palestinian Authority,” along with people from countries including South Sudan and Syria. The president issued the order months after he presented his 20-point peace plan for the Gaza strip — efforts that some Palestinians feel have been now brushed aside amid U.S. and Israeli attacks against Iran.

Malhees said in his post that the restriction “hurts” but offered his followers and supporters a kernel of truth: “You can block a passport. You cannot block a voice.”

“The Voice of Hind Rajab,” directed by Tunisian filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania, is nominated in the international feature category. The film is set in a Red Crescent call center in Ramallah and centers the 70-minute phone recording of Hind’s pleas for help as she waits with her family in a trapped car for emergency responders. She and two medics dispatched to her location were killed in February 2024 in Israeli attacks in Gaza.

The film earned the grand jury prize at the Venice Film Festival.

Though unable to celebrate the film at the Oscars on Sunday, Malhees said he stands “with pride and dignity” and that his “spirit will be with the Voice of Hind Rajab that night.”

“Our story is bigger than any barrier, and it will be heard,” he said.

A representative for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As Malhees publicized his absence, fellow stars including Oscar winner Riz Ahmed and Emmy-nominated “Succession” star Arian Moayed rallied in support.

“Your work in the film and the film itself are both incredible and will live on forever,” Ahmed commented.

“You are brilliant, azizam,” Moayed replied to Malhees. “And this is heartbreaking and unjust.”

As anxiety mounts among California Democrats about the potential of a Republican being elected governor, the state party will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on polling to assess the viability of the sprawling field of candidates hoping to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to plans released Tuesday.

The move comes after nearly every Democratic candidate refused party leaders’ call last week to withdraw from the race to avoid splitting the vote in the June primary — an outcome that could lead to a Republican being elected to statewide office for the first time in two decades.

“Candidates have filed, and now they’ve got the opportunity to showcase their viability, their path to win. I want to simply ensure that everybody has information to fully understand the current state of the race,” said Rusty Hicks, the leader of the California Democratic Party.

As campaign season ramps up, the series of six polls will allow “candidates, supporters, the media, voters, anyone and everyone to have a clear understanding of what is or is not happening in this particular race,” he said.

The filing deadline to appear on the June 2 ballot was Friday. Three days earlier, Hicks released an open letter urging candidates who did not have a path to victory to withdraw from the race. Of the nine prominent Democrats who had announced runs for governor, only one heeded his call: former state Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

That means the eight other candidates’ names will appear on the ballot, regardless of whether they decide to later drop out. And that creates the possibility of a Republican winning the race because of how California elections are decided.

The state has a voter-approved top-two primary system, under which the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

Two prominent Republicans will appear on the ballot: former conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Even though Democratic voters outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, and the state’s electorate last elevated Republicans to statewide office in 2006, it is mathematically possible for Democrats to splinter the vote, allowing the two GOP candidates to advance.

Under such a scenario, not only would Republicans be guaranteed the leadership of the nation’s most-populous state, but Democratic voter turnout also would probably be depressed in November, potentially affecting down-ballot races such as those that could determine control of Congress.

Hicks’ call last week prompted concerns among candidates of color, including former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, that the effort was aimed at every nonwhite candidate in the race.

The state party chairman responded that his letter was not aimed at any specific candidate.

“It’s not something I lose sleep over,” Hicks said when asked about the racial claims. But he added that the voter surveys will be conducted by Los Angeles-based Evitarus, the state’s only Black- and Latino-led full-service polling firm, and will oversample historically underrepresented communities: Latino, Black and Asian American voters.

Hicks said the polling will cost “multiple six figures” but did not specify the exact amount.

The first poll will be released on March 24, and then five additional surveys will come out every seven to 10 days until voters start receiving mail ballots in early May.

“We’re putting this forward to ensure everyone is armed with the information they need to clearly have an eyes-wide-open assessment of where the state of the race currently is between now and when ballots land in the mailboxes of voters,” Hicks said.

California voters are being urged to put a poison-pill effort on the November ballot that would nullify a controversial proposed tax on the state’s billionaires.

Neither proposal has yet qualified for the ballot — supporters of each need to gather the verified signatures of hundreds of thousands of voters. But petitions that have been mailed and texted to California voters in recent days demonstrate the stakes in a contest that has drawn tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending.

“Government has wasted billions of our tax dollars on homelessness and many other failed programs with little to show for it,” reads the new mailing to voters. “We can’t afford more wasteful spending!”

The proposal is aimed at countering a proposed one-time 5% tax on billionaires assets that would fund healthcare for the state’s neediest residents, but opponents say it would lead to lost tax revenues as California’s wealthiest flee the state.

Mailers and texts recently sent to voters describe the new proposal as an effort to create a more accountable, transparent and effective state government that would require auditing of new state taxes and ensuring they comply with existing law.

The small-font description of the proposed initiative included in the mailing specifies that any new tax enacted after Jan. 1 must be deposited into the state’s general fund and conform with current state tax policy, which is an oblique reference to a prior voter-approved ballot measure requiring that a significant portion of the state’s tax revenue be spent on education.

If competing proposals appear on a ballot and are successful, the one that receives the most votes nullifies the other. There are other ballot measure proposals aimed at thwarting the billionaires tax.

The mailers and texts were funded by a committee called Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, which was funded by another group, called Building a Better California, according to the California secretary of state’s office.

Earlier this year, the latter group received a $20-million donation from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, $2 million from former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and $2 million from Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, among donations from other Silicon Valley leaders, according to fundraising disclosure reports.

Attempts to reach spokespeople connected with the effort were unsuccessful Monday night.

Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the primary union backing the billionaire tax, decried what she described as an effort by a small number of the state’s wealthiest residents to avoid paying their fair share.

“So far, those few billionaires are failing,” she said in a statement. “Despite the expensive and wasteful tactics by a small group of billionaires that aim to deny voters a choice on the billionaire tax in November, our growing coalition and volunteer base is on track with signature collection and gaining momentum. The public is crystal clear on the fact that keeping ERs and clinics open is more important than billionaires getting more tax breaks.”

California’s budget is notoriously volatile because it is largely dependent on taxes paid by its wealthiest residents. Revenue hinges on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, all of which are grossly unpredictable.

The billionaire tax would cost more than 200 of the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

The proposed tax would retroactively apply to billionaires’ assets as of Jan. 1, and has already prompted some of California’s wealthiest residents to leave the state. It has also created a wedge among Democrats. Some argue that it is necessary to address tax inequities that benefit the rich and harm everyone else. Among the supporters is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who kicked off the billionaire tax proposal drive in February.

But others, notably Gov. Gavin Newsom, oppose the effort, saying policies that vary by state would drive innovators and businesses outside of California.