fact

The Trump administration is considering trading a parcel of Yosemite National Park to a private commercial developer, according to administration officials, members of Congress and documents reviewed by The Times.

The proposed deal would allow the developer to build a road connecting adjacent property it already owns in the Stanislaus National Forest to a service road within Yosemite, providing any future development on that property with unique access to the famed public wilderness, documents show.

According to a Friday report by the news outlet NOTUS, Trump administration officials have been quietly pressuring the National Park Service to approve the deal for the land despite such pressure being highly unusual and previous proposals for the land being repeatedly denied under the Bush and Obama administrations and in court.

The Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service, acknowledged in a statement to The Times on Friday that a land deal is under consideration, but denied any inappropriate influence from the White House.

It said negotiations for the land will comply with all federal rules for federal lands, and that “no final decisions have been made.”

An attorney for the private developer said the deal has nothing to do with politics and is in fact an “environmentally friendly” solution, in that it would dramatically cut down on the amount of driving the future upscale development’s residents would have to do to access the park.

President Trump speaks to astronauts aboard the International Space Station as he visits NASA’s Mission Control Center on Aug. in Houston, Texas.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Congressional Democrats — including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California — are trying to block the deal, after being informed of it earlier this year by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund was created by Congress in 1964 to safeguard natural areas and public lands, and often works to acquire lands to add to national parks.

A fact sheet on the project reviewed by The Times identified the parcel by a former name, the “Hazel Green Ranch,” and said the landowner is seeking to acquire an “interest” in land within the park in order to build a new road connecting “a planned commercial development” to Big Oak Flat Road, an existing federally owned road that “provides access to the park and is a major route to Yosemite Valley.”

The fact sheet said the National Park Service does not have the authority to grant that interest, but has been working with the landowner to facilitate an “exchange” of the land for some other, unidentified parcel of land that is beneficial to the U.S., as allowed under law for federal land swaps.

The project has been identified to lawmakers, without explanation, as a “priority.” Both Padilla and Schiff have objected to it, and Padilla’s office said it is working with Senate Appropriations Committee staff to block the deal.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to acquire land and interests in land in order to safeguard natural areas, water resources, and cultural heritage — and to provide recreation opportunities for all Americans,” Padilla said in a statement to The Times. “Projects should be chosen on merit, not on an applicant’s connections to high-ranking Trump administration officials.”

Schiff, in his own statement, said Yosemite is “one of California’s natural wonders, and must be protected from further development.”

He said the Trump administration “appears hellbent on moving forward in the face of opposition from the public, Congress and the courts,” and that “the only thing the administration cares about is whether there is money involved.”

The company behind the private development is Nevada-based real estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital. According to Federal Election Commission records, Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump, the Republican National Committee and other Republican groups.

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton, represents Kingsbarn, and said the notion the project is moving forward due to Trump administration pressure and Pori’s political contributions despite being environmentally detrimental is false.

He said Kingsbarn wants to build “upscale, single-family houses” on its property, but hasn’t so far because residents would have to drive 28 miles using current roads to reach the park.

To cut that distance down and make the development more feasible, it asked the National Park Service to purchase an 11-mile strip of land within Yosemite to build a shorter, more direct access road, Davis said.

The Park Service responded by saying the company could not purchase park land directly, but could purchase other nearby land of equal or greater value, and then swap it for the park land, Davis said.

It is now working with the Interior Department to identify such land, and is “very close” to doing so, Davis said — calling it a “pro environmental solution” that follows federal law and has “nothing to do” with Pori’s politics.

The White House referred questions about the proposed deal to the Interior Department.

In its statement to The Times, the Interior Department said the NOTUS story “relies on anonymous allegations to manufacture a political narrative that simply is not true. There has been no political pressure to reach a predetermined outcome, and claims suggesting the Department is secretly working to hand over National Park Service land to a private developer are false.”

If a proposal does advance, the statement said, the department will follow established procedures with “transparency and public involvement consistent with federal law. Anonymous speculation does not change those facts.”

The department did not respond to a request for more details as to the proposal.

The land in question represents a tiny portion of the sprawling Yosemite National Park, which is nearly 750,000 acres in total — or roughly the size of Rhode Island. Still, slicing off any piece of the California wilderness — considered a crown jewel in the national park system — runs counter to promises from Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

“My Administration is committed to protecting every acre of our lands and preserving the cleanest air and water in the world,” Trump said in a presidential message on Monday.

Ceding federal lands is also anathema to land preservation groups, which expressed dismay at the idea that any piece of Yosemite might be lost, no matter how small.

Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said that the NOTUS reporting was “consistent” with what his organization has been hearing “for several months” — and would be inconsistent with public desires for national park lands.

“The American people have consistently said that our public lands, especially our national parks, are not for sale,” he said. “If Secretary Burgum spent more time listening to Americans instead of indulging President Trump’s whims on the National Mall, he’d understand what a terrible idea this is.”

Jayson O’Neill, a spokesman for the group Save Our Parks, said the proposed deal as described by NOTUS represented the latest attempt by the Trump administration and Burgum to gut the Park Service and “then quietly cede treasured park land to private developers, thinking nobody’s watching.”

“National parks belong to the American people, not monied developers who are part of Trump’s donor class,” O’Neill said.

Mark Rose, senior Sierra Nevada program manager for the National Parks Conservation Assn., slammed the proposed land swap as a “secretive, backroom deal” and “an attack on the American people that own this national park.”

He said Yosemite is already facing overcrowding due to “run-away lodging” development outside its borders and the Trump administration’s decision to do away with the park’s reservation system, and a new development would “exacerbate the chaos.”

“The National Park Service needs to get back to prioritizing conservation, not helping bulldoze land, cut down towering trees and construct a luxury development that will harm Yosemite’s wildlife and increase wildfire risks,” Rose said.

Rachel Cusk is not a people pleaser. The prolific, award-winning British author’s novels are often plotless, discursive and frustratingly obtuse. Yet Cusk has found a large fan base for her work, mainly because she is a deft excavator of the human psyche, a writer who can articulate emotional states with uncanny precision and insight.

On a formal level, Cusk’s new book, “Life Of M,” closely adheres to the rigorously calibrated approach that has been so successful for her across 11 novels. In classic Cusk fashion, “Life of M” unfolds from the inside out. It is resolutely internal and hermetic, told from the point of view of a highly observant and self-conscious narrator. When Cusk writes that a character’s smile “had a sweetness that almost seemed to reproach those who looked at it for their dim and suspicious view of life,” it’s that “almost” which saves the line from sinking of its own weight, one of Cusk’s nuanced brushstrokes that give her prose lift and bounce.

“Life of M” is a two-hander. The primary driver of the narrative is an unnamed writer who has approached a famous actor — the M of the title — with the proposition of ghosting her autobiography. This is the extent of Cusk’s setup. The novel is about as stark and stripped of biographical details as a Samuel Beckett story. Cusk is far more interested in how the writer’s identity is unmoored by the actor, and how the world bends to M’s will and thus changes its shape in her presence: “Standing in the street, I realized that I could not be myself around M. She was friendly, generous, disarmingly modest, yet everything I did or said in her company was false. It was as if I was acting, while M came across as authentic and real.”

Author Rachel Cusk

(Siemon Scamell-Katz)

Interspersed between these scenes are chapters that shift time and tone. They appear at first to be the writer’s own story, reflections on the past and life apart from M; the “we” in these sections might be referring to siblings or partners. But they are too strange to be memoiristic: “In the evening we flower; like strange nocturnal plants we put out our display.” Then: “Even if we spend the evening at home this feeling of integration, or our interior and our exterior fusing together, occurs.” Are we in M’s head? Is the collective pronoun meant to be a proxy for her private and public selves? These sections are the least effective parts of Cusk’s book, as they are frustratingly indeterminate and hazy.

As the writer and the actor spend time together, and the narrator tries to pry open some small window into M’s psyche, the process of gathering material is constantly being thwarted by M’s casual instructability. It seems M has perfected the art of using candor as a carapace, so that the image of her authentic self recedes the more Cusk’s writer spends time with her. M is not governed by the usual impulses of the civilian; she has no use for love or hate, desire or abnegation. “Acting involved pretending to be other people, whose own emotional states —such as she understood them — could preoccupy her for a time,” writes Cusk. “Once they were completed, she was as locked out of these recordings as the millions of other eyes that watched them.”

M and the writer move through highly mediated spaces that amplify certain features and downgrade others, a kind of edited, hyperreal landscape. M researches a part in a mansion that has been meticulously art-directed to resemble the house of a family who in fact never lived there. Cusk describes these spaces in great detail, as if they were fetish objects. The mansion’s interior is “not heavy or dark,” she writes, “rather it is light and mellow and the panels have finely carved patterns around their edges.” It is the seduction of surfaces Cusk is exploring here, the ways we are taken in by so much that is chimerical: lavish interiors, actors, our own doubled selves.

Cusk has previously explored this gap between truth and signifiers of truth in her “Outline” trilogy. But “Life of M” feels different, perhaps because the world feels far different than it did eight years ago, when “Kudos,” the last book in the trilogy, was published. Now that we have fallen straight through the looking glass of the internet, that gap has narrowed to the extent that we are having far greater difficulty discerning reality from its uncanny simulations. Sadly, we are complicit in this occluding of authentic experience. Millions of us toggle so frequently between our real lives and the well-curated fantasyland of our social media personas that it’s scrambled our neural pathways. We are living the double consciousness of public figures no less readily than a celebrity like M. The notion of a “complete inversion of internal and external that fame brings about” is no longer exclusive to the famous.

According to internet gossip, Cusk’s M is in fact a shadow portrait of Natalie Portman. And there are strong hints in the text that indicate this might be the case. But to think of this novel solely as a journey to the center of Portman’s mind is not only irrelevant; it cheapens Cusk’s project. What the novelist is getting at here resonates far beyond a single celebrity. This is a short, potent book that has much to say about the spiritual rot of our present culture.

Weingarten is the author of “Thirsty: William Mulholland, California Water and the Real Chinatown.”

While we might look to other eras, or, you know, epochs (hi, Paleo people) for wellness inspiration, none is quite as dramatic and as “Princess Bride”-esque as LA.’s fencing community. At its center is Swordplay LA. The Burbank-area club is sporty but approachable, leaning into fencing’s cultural impact — and its fantasy — by extending a pointed invitation (see what I did there?) to make friends, be merry and break a sweat.

Alex Blugerman suits up with protective gear before a class at Swordplay LA.

Since the 12th century BC, fencing has been a source of both combat and entertainment. Egyptians in antiquity engaged in sword combat for warfare, but also for competition — Romans utilized swords in gladiator events, rituals and duels. During the Renaissance, Italians refined fencing into its modern form, and soon fencing schools began popping up all over Europe. Fast forward to the 1800s, when fencing’s popularity was so widespread that it became one of the five original games at the 1896 Olympics, where it continues to be a beloved summer event.

And yes, while the Olympics are one point of public familiarity, that’s just one small part of our collective cultural consciousness around the sport.

“Everyone has some kind of relationship to fencing,” said Mary Sola Spohn, the owner of Swordplay LA. “It’s mostly like, my kid saw this movie, or I love this character. It’s the stories around fencing that bring people in.”

Spohn cites “Game of Thrones,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Dungeons & Dragons,” “Star Wars” and even “The Parent Trap” as some of the more popular cultural inspirations for newbies. While clearly rooted in some serious history and tradition, according to Spohn, fencing’s representation in media is its most powerful draw.

Swordplay LA owner Mary Sola Spohn shows off the gym’s fencing gear. Spohn has trained the likes of Academy Award-winning actors and Olympic athletes.

“And ‘Wednesday,’” Spohn adds, of the influx of interest after the Netflix series debuted. “I’m not gonna say that ‘Wednesday,’ you know, saved the day, but, it is very interesting how certain things in pop culture kind of influence the interest level.”

Spohn should know. As a 7-year-old, she was mesmerized by the swordplay in “Hook” and “Peter Pan.” A native Angeleno, she started taking classes at Swordplay LA and soon became a nationally-ranked fencing youth. She participated in the U.S. Olympic trials and was recruited to Northwestern University’s Division 1 fencing team. After college, she worked as a stunt actor, fight choreographer and action designer specializing in European weapons. Spohn was training famous actors, athletes and Olympians (one of her favorite experiences was teaching Charlize Theron rapier for the film “Old Guard 2)” when she was given the opportunity to own the very business where her love of the sport began — and she took it.

Seven years later, Spohn is less interested in high competitive stakes than she is in fostering an all-inclusive, supportive community for her students at Sportsplay L.A. Participants come from all over Los Angeles and range in age from 7 to 85 years old. And she’s succeeded: nearly 170 members and hundreds of classes later, Swordplay LA is now one of the longest established fencing clubs in Los Angeles, with diversified offerings like stunts, pro-wrestling and historical European martial arts (or HEMA, for short) that offer some of the most unique workouts in the city.

Alex Blugerman, left, and Aiden Kelly duel during a class at Swordplay LA.

En garde! Inside the sword-fighting gym

Entering Swordplay LA’s large Burbank headquarters, I was worried I was in over my head. Like many beginners, I had no idea about the reality of fencing: the rigorousness, the gear, the clientele. Would I be the only woman there? Would I injure myself, or someone else? Should I have dressed preppier, like the quick-reflexed, collegiate fencing villains in the movies?

Immediately, my worries were assuaged — there were, in fact, women there. There was also a weapons wall, “Game of Thrones”-style wood accents and a prominently placed map of Middle-earth. While it’s definitely sporty, Spohn has carefully curated Swordplay LA’s atmosphere to be about storytelling — acknowledging the books, TV and films that inspire the club’s clientele.

“I put a lot of thought into the way this place looks and feels. I wanted it to still feel like an athletic facility, but with a creative, artistic side to it. Leaning into what brings people here,” she said.

Everyone was extremely friendly and on the fashion front, no popped collars in sight — only gym clothes and cool-looking fencing gear: mask, chest protector and underarm protector.

Swordplay LA participants Jonathan Proft, left, and Traviss Nguyen strike their weapons.

I did, in fact, feel cool when I put on said gear. I felt even cooler holding my sword, knees bent, feet wide, ready and waiting in my “advance” stance.

While we see lots of depictions of fencing, the rules are, in fact, fairly intuitive: Staying in the narrow playing area, or “piste,” two athletes wield their swords, trying to be the first to make contact with the other while avoiding being hit (and yes, you do get to shout “en garde,” before you advance). Like yoga or dance, the experience is a workout that feels in alignment with the body’s natural movements, at an intensity appropriate to wielding an ancient weapon.

“There are so many natural elements to it,” Spohn assured me during our lesson. “You know, in a very basic sense, how to hold it, what to do with the sword. Everyone has a vision of what that looks and feels like, and people get it.”

At the end of our 30-minute intro class, we actually engaged in combat. Empowered, I leaned in, like a sweaty extra in Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” feeling none of the danger but all of the drama.

Vibe: Boxing gym meets “Game of Thrones.”

Effort: It’s an hourlong full-body workout that, for beginners, can be a bit more intense on the hands and wrists; the gear can be hot and take some getting used to. But the combat happens in short spurts, allowing a fair amount of downtime for recuperation, conversation and enjoyment of the sport.

X factor: It’s uniquely cool to be wielding weapons with so much history, whose use has been perfected over thousands of years. There’s also an immense amount of drama to the sport; leaning into that truly transports the student away from a club experience and into a kind of delicious, LARP-y fugue state.

Swordplay LA

Where: 130 W. Isabel St., Burbank

Cost: $40 for a single drop-in class, memberships range from $50-$450 per month

Info: splafencing.com