gavin newsom

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ascent to the top of California’s political pyramid did not happen overnight. It’s been 23 years since he entered public life as a San Francisco parking and traffic commissioner and more than a decade since first saying he wanted to be governor.

But through an alchemy of hard work, lucky breaks and larger demographic and electoral shifts, Newsom has hit his stride at a unique moment in California. And it is hard to argue with the observation that he is now the most powerful person in California politics.

How long the moment lasts depends on what happens next. Newsom must choose which battles to fight, and which causes to champion. The size of his list seems equal to his enthusiasm.

“The world is waiting on us,” he said after taking the oath, pausing briefly for maximum impact. “The future depends on us. And we will seize this moment.”

That Newsom managed to win the job as the presumptive favorite from wire to wire of the 2018 campaign was, in part, due to his own decision to seize the opportunity four years ago this week. It was then, in the wake of a surprise announcement by Sen. Barbara Boxer that she would not seek reelection, that several prominent Democrats wrestled with whether to jump at the chance that appeared.

For Newsom, that day in 2015 was serendipitous. He had been on a collision course to the gubernatorial election for three years with another political heavyweight, then-state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. It wasn’t clear he would win such a showdown. And so four days after Boxer stepped aside, Newsom stepped forward to decline a Senate race and — in effect — announce his intentions to run for governor.

Read Gov. Gavin Newsom’s inaugural address »

The next day, Harris did just the opposite. Newsom simultaneously encouraged his most powerful rival to switch gears and launched his 2018 campaign — all with a speed that meant his political machine would be fully operational months and years before others decided if they wanted to run.

The move also allowed Newsom to take the job of lieutenant governor and expand it from a nothing-to-do way station into a legitimate role of California governor-in-waiting. In 2015, he dug into the policy debate over legalizing marijuana, helping craft the following year’s successful ballot measure, Proposition 64. He challenged the National Rifle Assn. to fight against Proposition 63 and its requirement of new background checks before buying ammunition for guns — even though it crossed paths with a similar effort by his fellow Democrats in the Legislature.

More recently, Newsom used his de facto role as California’s political heir apparent to ramp up his criticisms of President Trump. And he expanded his base of friends in politics, campaigning last fall for the party’s challengers in battleground congressional and legislative races. Some of those new members of Congress left Washington in the middle of a tense federal government shutdown to celebrate his inauguration.

Only a gubernatorial candidate ahead in the polls and confident of victory would have diverted that much time to other efforts. But Newsom likely knew how helpful it could be in the long run. He can count among his assets a handful of important IOUs on Capitol Hill, ones that could pay off long after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — a longtime friend — relinquishes her own place of power.

It can’t get much better for Gavin Newsom as California’s next governor. But it’s almost certain to get worse »

What California’s 40th governor does with his newly expanded influence is one of the new year’s most fascinating questions. History will remind him that there’s a very real chance of overplaying his hand: Former Gov. Gray Davis famously told a newspaper editorial board that legislators must “implement my vision,” and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lurched so far to the right in his first two years that it took twice as long to regain his political footing.

But in an era of indisputable Democratic dominance — Republicans have failed for three consecutive elections to win a statewide race — Newsom’s prowess seems especially important. No one is better positioned to singularly determine the path forward for major public policies, to play political kingmaker or to go toe-to-toe with the president of the United States.

The kingmaker role could prove especially interesting as California’s early presidential primary next March could feature a number of Newsom’s fellow Democrats in the state — including one-time rival Harris — who hope to challenge Trump. An endorsement from Newsom, now the state party’s nominal leader, could carry real weight in a crowded field.

Less likely, but always possible if Democrats are divided by a wide field of candidates: Newsom could put his own name on the ballot using an old power move called the “favorite son” strategy. There, a home state leader pledges to later throw all of California’s delegates toward one of the hopefuls at the national convention. It would be controversial — but conceivable — if his political power endures.

The presidential machinations might not end there. Legislative Democrats were unable to get Brown to sign a law requiring a presidential candidate to release his or her tax returns before being placed on California’s ballot. The bill was squarely aimed at Trump, who has steadfastly refused to do so. Would Newsom agree to put the squeeze on the president and sign the bill?

George Skelton: As California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom needs to address what no one wants to talk about »

Newsom could also take a much more active role in bringing lawsuits against the Republican president and his administration. His predecessor left much of the political rhetoric over California’s four dozen Trump-related lawsuits to state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra. Or Newsom could simply ratchet up his critiques of Trump, whom he’s called a “disgrace” with a “limited attention span.”

In his inaugural speech, the new governor singled out a host of bogeymen, including pharmaceutical companies and the pay-day lending industry.

“Here in California, we have the power to stand up to them,” he said. “And we will.”

Waging those kinds of battles could further grow Newsom’s political influence, bringing along with it more television interviews, talk show segments and speaking invitations in Washington and beyond.

Still more significant uses of his newfound political power could be on the horizon. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who will turn 86 in June, could decide to retire before the end of her newly won six-year term. Newsom would pick her successor, a weighty decision given the Democrats’ lock on statewide races.

Maybe not a bond, but there’s a connection between Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom as governors of California »

Nor is it out of the question that Newsom himself could develop a case of what’s politely been called “Potomac Fever.” The last four governors have all either run for president — Gov. Pete Wilson and Brown — or been talked up as having what it takes to win the White House on the strength of California’s electoral college heft. Depending on what happens in 2020 and whether he’s reelected in 2022, Newsom could use his political muscle to launch a presidential campaign in 2024 at age 57.

Should he choose to remain focused on Sacramento, Newsom will still have enormous political potential. More Democrats than any other time in modern history hold seats in the Legislature, but they all must lobby for the governor’s signature on their bills. Newsom also has line-item veto authority over the state budget. In general, vetoes by the state’s chief executive have become sacrosanct; none has been overturned by lawmakers since 1980.

And if lawmakers don’t bend to his will, Newsom can go around them and take proposals directly to the ballot. The recent record of governors promoting such measures is mixed — Brown won all of his efforts over the last eight years while Schwarzenegger bombed in 2005 only to return with success in 2006 and 2010.

The arrival of each new governor resets the state’s political compass, and some of the resulting dominance — the power of the executive branch — is institutional. But few moments have seemed to find more stars aligned for a single figure to dominate the state than this one.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

If I had a nickel for every time an editor has sent me an SFGate story and asked me to match it, I’d be at least a couple dollars richer. The San Francisco-based news website provides solid coverage of California public lands, especially our national parks.

So when my colleague Jaclyn Cosgrove told me the National Park Service had reportedly blacklisted SFGate, I wasn’t exactly shocked.

Recent SFGate stories have revealed efforts to limit which public lands employees can share information with the public, quoted critics of the Department of the Interior’s decision to end reservation systems at popular parks and detailed a litany of items that were previously offered at the parks but are now being reviewed for possible removal, thanks to an executive order to “restore truth and sanity” to American history, including books about Indigenous culture and educational materials for children.

But over the past month, the National Park Service essentially stopped responding to inquiries sent by SFGate reporters on dozens of subjects, national parks bureau chief Ashley Harrell wrote last week. The outlet spoke with sources, reviewed internal communications and learned that an Interior Department spokesperson had instructed the National Park Service to ignore SFGate reporters, Harrell wrote. The blacklisting was apparently prompted by a Feb. 10 article on the Interior Department’s efforts to centralize control of park service communications.

I emailed the National Park Service to learn more. “Unfortunately, SFGate has distorted the facts and has caused confusion with their reporting with the mainstream media,” a spokesperson replied. “This has caused the Department to spend countless hours correcting their false narrative with other media outlets.”

Although the statement came from a park service email address, the wording is identical to a statement provided to SFGate by an Interior Department spokesperson.

I’ve also noticed changes in how the park service handles media requests over the past year or so. Some L.A. Times inquiries — about a coyote swimming to Alcatraz and a man charged with BASE jumping in Yosemite, for instance — received prompt replies.

But others — like questions about whether the park service is relying more heavily on seasonal employees amid a decline in permanent staff — went unreturned. And some — like an inquiry for a previous edition of a Boiling Point newsletter about an interpretive exhibit under scrutiny at Death Valley National Park — were fielded by a spokesperson for the Interior Department , rather than the park itself.

I’m not alone. When our wildlife and outdoors reporter Lila Seidman wrote about a wildfire that ripped through Joshua Tree National Park during last year’s government shutdown, she received responses from the Interior Department, but emails to the park service went unreturned.

Jack Dolan, an investigative reporter who often covers public lands, said he hasn’t received meaningful responses from the National Park Service since early last year.

And Cosgrove, who writes The Wild newsletter, said that park rangers remain friendly and helpful, but any communication involves a demand for all questions in writing.

Park service sources and advocates describe all this as part of a broader effort to centralize communications from sub-agencies to the Department of the Interior. Since last year, roughly 230 communications employees have been moved from the National Park Service to the Department of the Interior — part of a broader push in which more than 5,700 employees at the 11 agencies the Interior Department oversees were shifted from the agencies to the department, according to figures provided by the National Parks Conservation Assn., a nonprofit that advocates for the park system.

What’s more, the Interior Department must now approve many park service communications that were once left up to the parks themselves, said John Garder, senior director of budget and appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Assn. That includes exhibits, news releases, website updates and even social media posts, said a source within the park service who asked to remain anonymous over fears of retaliation.

The consolidation “creates significant inefficiencies and removes a layer of accountability to the parks themselves,” Garder said. “It makes it difficult for parks to act nimbly using their professional discretion to make decisions about informing the public about developments in the park,” like a closed road, wildlife hazard or natural disaster.

In an email to The Times, the park service accused National Parks Conservation Assn. employees of donating to Democratic political campaigns and pointed out the nonprofit’s X account follows progressive politicians and groups. “Our parks are nonpartisan, but the NPCA isn’t and they are using you to further raise money off of our parks while never giving those funds to our parks,” a spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

National Parks Conservation Assn.’s X account follows over 55,000 users of the platform, including both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and organizations. Garder also noted that the association’s longstanding role has been to advocate for national parks, rather than to raise money directly for them.

The park service email confirmed that officials are “modernizing” the Department of the Interior so that it “will share one voice when communicating the priorities of the Department.”

“The unification of the communication functions will allow for a more collaborative, creative and hands-on approach to Department communications,” the statement said, “and will modernize the federal government by providing a product that is not only better for the American taxpayer but also showcases the state-of-the-art communications capabilities of the United States of America.”

I asked whether I should attribute the statement to a spokesperson for the park service or the Interior Department. The spokesperson replied that I could attribute it to either.

A quick announcement

If you’re a Southern California local, you are probably familiar with PBS SoCal. On April 22, the public media organization is premiering the seventh season of the award-winning program “Earth Focus,” which will be followed by the eighth season in May. We’re excited for the eighth season in particular, because we collaborated with the PBS SoCal team on a few stories about the complexities of rebuilding Los Angeles. You can stream the show for free at pbssocal.org/earthfocus.

More recent land news

Karen Budd-Falen, the third highest-ranking official at the Department of the Interior, has been granted an ethics waiver to work on grazing issues despite potential conflicts of interests that prompted her to recuse herself from such matters during the first Trump presidency, according to Chris D’Angelo of Public Domain.

A pair of Republican senators have officially moved to overturn the management plan for Utah’s Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument, casting uncertainty on its future and raising new questions about the future of public lands management, Caroline Llanes of Rocky Mountain Community Radio reports.

The Trump administration is aggressively expanding the border wall through ecologically sensitive public lands, with a portion planned for Big Bend National Park emerging as a political flash point, Arelis R. Hernández, Jake Spring, John Muyskens and Thomas Simonetti write in this Washington Post deep dive.

The Interior Department has officially pulled back more than 80% of its regulations tied to implementing the National Environmental Policy Act in a bid to streamline the environmental review process for major projects on federal public lands. Conservation groups say the changes will block public input and violate federal law, according to Hannah Northey and Scott Streater of E&E News by Politico.

The Trump administration is taking the final steps to undo the Public Lands Rule, which elevated conservation to an official use of Bureau of Land Management lands, Streater also reports. The rule allowed conservation groups to obtain leases for restoration work, similar to how the Bureau of Land Management awards leases to private contractors for extraction and development, points out Sage Marshall of Field & Stream.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service is expected to soon release an updated proposal for the rescission of the Roadless Rule, which blocked new road building and commercial logging on some 58 million acres of backcountry. The rollback would strike a big blow to hunting and fishing opportunities, according to a report from Trout Unlimited.

A few last things in climate news

Amid a global energy crisis that’s seen oil prices skyrocket, California has been particularly hard-hit due to a dearth of refineries and higher taxes and fees, all of which have left politicians, consumer groups and business interests arguing over who’s to blame, write Ivan Penn and Kurtis Lee for the New York Times.

In the latest maneuver in its campaign against renewable energy, the Trump administration will pay a French company $1 billion to walk away from two U.S. offshore wind leases, according to Jennifer McDermott of the Associated Press.

Southern California’s most destructive wildfires, wettest holiday season and hottest March heat wave have all taken place in the last 15 months, and there’s one clear through line connecting them all, scientists told my colleague Clara Harter.

Mosquitoes have gone year-round in Los Angeles, but business owners have indicated they’re not willing to pay to expand a promising effort to help control their numbers, my buddy Lila Seidman reports.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Almost exactly 10 years ago, Leonardo DiCaprio won a Best Actor Oscar (his first) for his performance in “The Revenant” as an early 19th century fur trapper who is injured in a bear attack, then by turns grudgingly kept alive, abandoned and left for dead by the avaricious hunting party he had been hired to lead.

In his acceptance speech at those 88th Academy Awards, DiCaprio first thanked the film’s cast and crew. He then pivoted quickly and forcefully to the environment. “The Revenant,” he said, was … “about man’s relationship to the natural world that we collectively felt in 2015, as the hottest year in recorded history.”

The rest of what he said is worth a big block quote; to read it today, the week after the 98th Academy, during which politics and policy both receded, is bracing.

“Our production needed to move to the southern tip of this planet just to find snow. Climate change is real, it is happening right now, it is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work together and stop procrastinating. We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, the big corporations, but who speak for all humanity, for the Indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people who will be most affected by this, for our children’s children, and for those people whose voices have been drowned out by the politics of greed. I thank you all for this award tonight. Let us not take this planet for granted. I do not take this award for granted.”

That year was something of a heady time for environmentalists. Barack Obama was in the middle of his second term as president of the U.S and though his climate and environmental policies were not especially progressive, in 2015 he did enact the Clean Power Plan, which had the stated goal of reducing carbon emissions locally, and “leading global efforts to address climate change” outside U.S. borders.

Further, just a couple of months after the 88th Academy Awards, the U.S. would become one the 196 parties to sign onto the Paris Agreement, an international treaty to reduce the rise of global temperatures, whose terms had been negotiated the previous fall.

Fast forward 10 years. Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2020. Joe Biden rejoined in 2021. Trump withdrew again just a few months ago. And in this second go at the White House, the Trump Administration has done everything in its power to tighten the knots tethering the U.S. to fossil fuels. It has literally forced owners of coal plants in Colorado and Washington State that want to shut them down to keep them open. Trump has fought tooth and nail in court to suspend wind energy projects that are fully permitted, under contract and under construction across the eastern seaboard. And his administration has rolled backed numerous efforts to keep climate change in check, like the allowance of state-specific fuel economy standards and the landmark fossil-fuel endangerment finding of 2009.

Meanwhile, that global temperature record that DiCaprio mentioned in his acceptance speech in 2016 seems almost trifling compared to what has happened since. It’s been surpassed six times. According to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information, the three hottest years on record are 2024, 2023 and 2025.

At the 98th Academy Awards, DiCaprio was nominated again for Best Actor — his sixth in that category — this time for “One Battle After Another.” The film, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, won Best Picture. DiCaprio lost in his category to Michael B. Jordan, the lead of Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners,” so he didn’t have a chance to say anything about climate change.

But not a single one of the Oscar winners this year mentioned it.

Both “One Battle After Another” and “Sinners” were produced by Warner Brothers, which is about to be acquired by Paramount Skydance, which in turn is owned by David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, one the world’s wealthiest individuals and noted Trump supporter. Ellison the younger has already made decisions that have significantly defanged the climate coverage at CBS News — Paramount’s flagship news network — and it would not be shocking if CNN — part of the WB — is next.

Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of this show was its dearth of any language at the awards that could be considered political.

Instead of the fire we got from, say, Michael Moore in 2003, what we got was a sort of mea culpa from P.T. Anderson — who might be the definitional American Gen X director — in his acceptance speech for Best Adapted Screenplay:

“I wrote this movie for my kids to say sorry for the housekeeping mess that we left in this world we’re handing off to them. But also, with the encouragement that they will be the generation that hopefully brings us some common sense and decency.”

I harbor the same hopes, but it might require at least acknowledging the problems first.

More culture & enviro news

One thing that does give me some optimism is that the feted films themselves did a pretty good job acknowledging climate change. According to Good Energy, a consultancy group, of the 16 scripted features that were nominated for an Oscar and met the eligibility criteria, five passed the “climate reality check.” That’s pretty good!

Relevant especially for those facing the heat wave right now in L.A. and the rest of the southwest: a study published earlier this week in Lancet attempted to quantify how rising global temperatures will impact physical inactivity in different parts of the world. Chloé Farand summed it up for the Guardian, noting the researchers’ projection of 500,000 additional annual deaths due to inactivity by 2050.

Meanwhile, Libby Rainey at LAist wrote about how the city is preparing for the inevitable heat challenges that will accompany the World Cup games this coming summer.

This isn’t brand new — in fact, it references the reporting of my former colleague Sammy Roth — but Alexandra Tey over at the Nation has a nice roundup of sports fans protesting their teams’ financial ties to fossil fuel companies. It focuses on one of the most visible of these partnerships: Citi Field, where the New York Mets play, is named for Citi group, the world’s biggest lender to oil and gas companies.

A few last things in climate news this week

With gas prices skyrocketing due to the war in Iran, some Californians have been wondering why oil companies in the state can’t just start drilling more. My colleague Blanca Begert explains why it isn’t that simple.

The related big question is will the turmoil in the middle east push countries around the world to double down on renewable energy. In the New Yorker, Bill McKibben makes the case that this could be the moment that small clean tech — think solar panels, heat pumps, induction cooktops, etc — really takes off.

Finally, somehow, some 10 million tons of manure produced at California factory farms is unaccounted for. Seth Millstein, writing for Sentient, explains how lax regulation let farms dispose of 200 Titanics’ worth of animal waste without telling anyone where or how they did it.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

Erin Wagner lives in the Chicago suburbs but visits two bald eagles in Southern California’s Big Bear Valley nearly every day.

At work, the 41-year-old often plays a livestream featuring Jackie and Shadow on one of her monitors — a respite when she needs a break.

The avian power couple follows her home, keeping her company as she cooks dinner.

“We live in such a busy world, and things are always being thrown at our face, so sometimes it’s nice to just have a gentle reminder of nature and what else is out there in the world,” Wagner told me last week.

She is just one of many devoted fans; the eagles had the highest view count of any year-round nature livestream active on YouTube between last fall and this spring, said Rebecca Mauldin, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who studies social connectedness.

While the eagles’ following is singular, it’s part of a broader trend: surging interest in webcams that broadcast nature, unadulterated, minute by minute, in all its messy glory.

The number of 24/7 livestreams created per year swelled by about 3,000% between 2019 and 2025, Mauldin’s data show.

Jackie and Shadow’s livestream exemplifies “Slow TV,” a genre that began with a 2009 Norwegian broadcast of a seven-hour train trip. It took off, with other marathon programs featuring chopping firewood and knitting.

Nature looms large in the format. Millions tune into Sweden’s live coverage of an annual moose migration, and the same goes for a seasonal broadcast of bears chowing down on salmon in Alaska.

The appeal makes intuitive sense. In a world of quick camera cuts, sound bites and troubling headlines, Mother Nature’s rhythms can be a salve. And with many of us wound up in concrete urbanity, the livestreams offer instant transportation to the wild.

Following Jackie and Shadow takes patience. If they’re not hanging out at the nest, it’s a waiting game until they come back. Even when they’re there, there may not be much going on.

Entertainment “can be very artificial, it can be very packaged, and it can be very short,” said Jenny Voisard, media manager for Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that operates the cameras broadcasting the eagles. “This is long and slow and calm.”

Yet nature is unpredictable, another draw for viewers. This nesting season alone has brought plenty of drama, from the lovebirds losing their eggs to ravens to laying more not long after. Last week, I wrote about the couple’s shocking origin — it involves a love triangle! — and their rise to reality stardom.

Last year, Jackie and Shadow raised two chicks that went on to fledge: Sunny and Gizmo

(Friends of Big Bear Valley)

Research backs the vibes. Those who watch nature livestreams — from platypi to osprey — report a host of benefits, from uplifted mood to relaxation, said Mauldin, citing a literature review she-coauthored.

Others get jazzed about learning about a particular species, she said.

There may be limitations, though.

In terms of connecting to nature, “I lean toward the effect is stronger if you’re actually outdoors, or, you know, you’ve got a little ant crawling on your finger and watching it,” Mauldin said.

She highlighted another dimension I didn’t think of: Many “talk about how they’re developing strong online relationships, and you can see it in the chats or in the comments.”

Someone might comment that they had a bad day and are glad to be watching their favorite birds again, and another viewer will rally to support them. Then there are people who watch on their own, but gab about it later with a friend.

Friends of Big Bear Valley, with 1.2 million followers on Facebook, offers more than just updates on the eagles. It’s a buzzing community center where fans can share their thoughts and engage with one another.

Animals may also get something out of being watched: protection.

The eagle cam, for example, “sort of stokes the public’s imagination and interest in conservation,” said Thomas Leeman, deputy chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s migratory bird program in the Pacific Southwest. “They start to really care about whichever particular birds that they’re watching.”

Wagner, of Chicago, said her husband and 14-year-old son sometimes give her a hard time about how invested she is in Jackie and Shadow.

But her cat, Oscar, shares her fascination.

She recently posted a photo of the feline on Jackie and Shadow’s Facebook — looking intently at a TV where an eagle hunkered down on the nest.

“My new cat is just as obsessed as all of us,” she wrote.

More recent wildlife news

Big Bear’s celeb eagles continue to keep us on our toes. Jackie recently vanished from the nest for nearly 24 hours, sending fans into a panic — but eventually reunited with her eggs and mate, reports USA Today’s Michelle Del Rey.

While we’re on the subject of avian kind: Last week, I wrote about a pair of condors that appear to be nesting in Northern California, something not seen for a century. The Yurok Tribe is leading the effort to bring the large, endangered vultures back to their historic homeland in Humboldt and Del Norte counties.

As conservationists celebrate that win, the story for birds nationwide is not so rosy. A recent study found that North America is rapidly losing birds, and the loss is accelerating, largely due to intensive agriculture and warming temperatures, writes the Associated Press’ Seth Borenstein.

A few last things in climate news

Trump’s war on Iran has disrupted global oil and gas supplies. The conflict has kept ships that carry millions of barrels of oil a day stranded in the Persian Gulf, and key Middle East facilities have sustained damage, reports the Associated Press.

Oil prices have spiked, and Californians are paying the highest price at the pump in the nation. As my colleague Iris Kwok explains, that’s due to the state’s higher taxes and stricter requirements for cleaner, more expensive gas that pollutes.

Sticker shock at gas stations is expected to spur more Americans to consider hybrid or electric vehicles, according to fellow Times staffers Caroline Petrow-Cohen and Blanca Begert.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice has released a legal opinion that sets the stage to approve a controversial oil operation off the Santa Barbara County coast, The Times’ Grace Toohey reports.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildlife and outdoors news, follow Lila Seidman at @lilaseidman.bsky.social on Bluesky and @lila_seidman on X.

March 7 (UPI) — Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., announced he is retiring at the end of his term and put his support behind San Diego Supervisor Jim Desmond.

Issa issued a statement Friday on social media saying he will not be seeking re-election in this year’s midterm elections.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa wrote. “First, we built the right campaign infrastructure, support has been overwhelming — including from President Trump — and our polling was unmistakable: We would win this race. But after a quarter-century in Congress — and before that, a quarter-century in business — it”s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Issa offered his “enthusiastic endorsement” to San Diego Supervisor Jim Desmond, who filed to run for Issa’s seat on Friday.

The announcement comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s ballot measure to redraw state congressional districts, which passed in November, transformed Issa’s district from safely Republican to an area more friendly to Democrats.

Issa had previously been rumored to be considering a run for Congress in Texas, but he told Fox News in December that the plan would not be going forward.

“I’m thrilled to set the record straight and here’s the truth: Texas House members and residents of that state did ask if I would consider running there following Gavin Newsom’s historically corrupt gerrymander,” he said at the time. “I appreciate the opportunity, but California is my home. I told them I’m going to stay in Congress, and I don’t need to go to Texas for that.”

Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, celebrated the news of Issa’s retirement in a statement.

“After over two decades of disastrous representation, Darrell Issa is once again running for the exits — and good riddance. Issa abandoning his voters now is the clearest sign yet that Republicans know he can’t win on his record of skyrocketing prices, gutting health care, and looking out for himself and wealthy special interests above all else,” Elsasser said. “Any Republican who tries to parachute into this race with the same extreme agenda will face the same fate.”

Christian Martinez, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, praising Issa for his “decades of dedicated service” in a statement provided to Politico.

“We are optimistic that this district will continue to be represented by a Republican who will stand for common sense and reject the radical agenda and chaos that progressive Marni von Wilpert and socialist Ammar Campa-Najjar would bring,” Martinez said.

When a Los Angeles County judge ordered a notorious Watts scrap metal yard to permanently halt its operations last year, many residents and environmental advocates thought it might finally bring an end to the facility’s dangerous pollution. Instead, the shutdown may have only marked the beginning of what could be a lengthy process to erase decades of environmental degradation.

For nearly 75 years, S&W Atlas Iron & Metal had crushed car parts, shredded aluminum cans and processed an assortment of recyclable metals. Over that time, the facility and its owners racked up dozens of environmental violations and were eventually criminally convicted of crimes that endangered students next door at Jordan High School and residents of Watts.

Since Atlas’ court-ordered closure, the towering piles of scrap metal have largely disappeared from the 3-acre recycling facility. Jordan High’s campus hasn’t been rocked by explosions, pelted with shrapnel or blanketed in layers of toxic, metallic dust.

But one of the most serious, and remaining, threats has gone unnoticed until recently.

A contractor hired by Atlas recently measured a witch’s brew of toxic chemicals percolating in the soil and groundwater beneath the site at orders of magnitude above California’s standards, according to court documents. Around five feet underground, a soil probe detected the highest reading of vinyl chloride — just one of the several carcinogens at the site — more than 1.3 million times higher than the state benchmark.

“What they found were astronomical levels of these contaminants,” said Danielle Hoague, director of research for the Better Watts Initiative.

“I think it’s definitely a hidden danger. I don’t think that the community has been informed of what underlies Atlas. But I would assume that people are experiencing the health effects of this.”

State regulators are still hashing out the scope of the cleanup at the shuttered industrial site. But, more concerning, Watts residents and school district officials fear these contaminants may be migrating with groundwater, posing a risk to neighboring Jordan High School and Jordan Downs housing complex. If that is the case, the question is who will foot the bill to clean up this pollution?

“The cleanup of the Atlas site has been slow, and Atlas is proceeding with a lack of executed urgency,” an L.A. Unified School District spokesperson said in a statement.

Atlas “has failed to advise Los Angeles Unified promptly of contamination found just feet away from the school campus and the adjacent Jordan Downs Housing Development,” the spokesperson added.

Shutting down a source of pollution is only the first step in campaigns for cleaner air. It’s often equally burdensome, time-consuming and expensive to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up the legacy contamination at their own property. And it’s even more difficult to compel companies to decontaminate nearby properties that may have been affected by their operations.

In Lincoln Heights, decades passed after the closure of a massive dry-cleaning operation before residents learned of underground contamination spreading off-site, potentially threatening nearby homes and an elementary school. In Newport Beach, a sprawling aerospace and defense hub was converted into luxury homes three decades ago, and homeowners were only recently informed about residual toxic pollution. In Jurupa Valley, residents were alarmed to learn about toxic vapors seeping into their homes after contaminated groundwater migrated several miles from a former hazardous waste dump uphill.

In Watts, many residents were already aware of the danger posed by toxic metals produced by Atlas’ operations. At times, metallic dust left parts of Jordan High’s campus covered in an iridescent sheen, and the school district has in the past removed contaminated soil from the campus.

But it was far more difficult to predict that pollution could be spreading underground. Many of the chemicals found beneath Atlas evaporate at room temperature and sneak into buildings through cracks in foundations, floor drains or other gaps — a process known as vapor intrusion.

Over the past year, an LAUSD consultant conducted two rounds of air sampling at Jordan High. The levels of airborne chemicals the detected in gym’s basement suggest toxic vapors are infiltrating the building. However, the consultant has said more air sampling is necessary to determine whether it constitutes an unacceptable health risk.

So far, the district says the concentrations have not warranted closing school buildings yet.

In the meantime, the school district is pleading with the state regulators to get Atlas to commit to cleaning up the toxic fallout.

A Los Angeles County judge recently ordered an audit of Atlas’ finances, raising doubts about the company’s ability to pay potential damages.

But community leaders, like Timothy Watkins, president of the Watts Labor Community Action Committee, won’t be satisfied until the case moves from courtroom to cleanup.

“There’s no champion for us. So we have to find a way — with very, very limited resources — to get our story out in a way that begins to raise some kind of alarm and awareness of the danger here.”

More recent air news

New research suggests some air pollutants can significantly alter insect behavior, science journalist Gennaro Tomma writes in National Geographic. Smog-forming emissions can interfere with insect communication by breaking down pheromones, causing ant colonies to exhibit aggression toward their own members and neglect their larvae.

The Trump administration reversed a Biden-era rule limiting brain-damaging mercury emissions from coal plants, arguing compliance costs threatened energy reliability, Guardian environmental reporter Oliver Milman writes. The rollback allows some of the coal plants to avoid expensive upgrades, sparking debate over the trade-off between economic concerns and public health risks.

The California Air Resources Board set an Aug. 10 deadline for some of the nation’s largest companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Sacramento Bee’s climate reporter Chaewon Chung. A pair of state laws enacted in 2023 required companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to adhere to the reporting requirements.

In other climate news

As Western states brace for deep cuts to their allotments of Colorado River water, one California water agency may be in a position to help. San Diego County Water Authority’s board recently voted to consider selling a portion of its water to Arizona and Nevada, reports Ian James for the LA. Times. The San Diego area is home to the nation’s largest desalination plant, allowing the agency to rely less on unpredictable reservoirs.

The escalating war in the Middle East has triggered the biggest oil and gas market disruption since 2022, driving a surge in energy prices and forcing a re-evaluation of energy security, Bloomberg reports. While high prices could bolster the case for deploying renewable energy, experts warn that worsening inflation — from higher energy costs — could ironically hamper the shift to clean energy.

A Southern California architect is challenging the notion that wildfire-resistant designs can’t also be visually stunning. L.A. Times wildfire reporter Noah Haggerty interviewed a Palisades fire survivor who is so confident about the design of his newly constructed Spanish-revival home, he asked the fire department if he could spark a controlled fire on his property.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more air quality news, follow Tony Briscoe on X and LinkedIn.

Israel, Iran, ICE, dyslexia, single moms and a pet otter named Potter were among the subjects discussed Tuesday evening at California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s tour stop in Los Angeles to promote his new book, “Young Man in a Hurry: A Memoir of Discovery.”

Speaking to a sold-out crowd of around 1,300 at L.A.’s historic Wilshire Ebell Theatre, the hourlong Q&A hosted by Writers Bloc and moderated by “Pod Save America” hosts John Favreau and Tommy Vietor was equal parts a get-to-know-the-man-behind-the-mask chat and a timely discussion about challenges facing the country.

The engaging discussion was clearly geared toward dispelling the image of Newsom as “that slick guy” (his own words), by covering his journey from an insecure, cocky young man trying to impress those around him to an adult who, through his successes and follies, has become comfortable in his own skin.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and moderators Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor promoting Newsom’s new book, “Young Man in a Hurry.”

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

He described his young, pre-politician self as posing in a suit: “I was thinking I was Pierce Brosnan in ‘Remington Steele.’ I just discovered hair gel,” Newsom joked. He said in those early years he was often overcompensating for his own feelings of inadequacy as the son of a single mom who struggled to pay the rent. As a kid with learning differences, whose undiagnosed dyslexia put him behind in school. Whose “broke and broken” father neglected his family while hobnobbing with wealthy San Francisco families, including the heirs of the Getty oil fortune.

A chatty, relaxed and sometimes free-associating Newsom rarely needed prompting from the moderators when speaking about his childhood, his family’s strange choice of pet (the aforementioned otter) or far more serious matters. He said that Democrats need to “fight fire with fire” and be more “ruthless” in their fight to win back the country.

Newsom’s politician-speak was evident in some of his more rehearsed efforts to convince the crowd that he’s a regular guy (he may not have changed many diapers with his first daughter, but he got better at his dad duties with his next three kids). But those instances were matched by unvarnished comments that appeared genuine, and risked alienating some of his base.

One such instance came early in the conversation, when Newsom was asked about where he stood on President Trump’s new Iran war, and the administration’s changing rationales on why it launched the military operation without consulting Congress.

“[The Trump administration’s] first rationale was we’ve got to make sure that they’re not armed with nuclear [weapons]. But I thought that was resolved, that we had completely ‘obliterated’ it,” Newsom said, using Trump’s claims against him. “Then maybe that wasn’t the case, so now it’s about their missiles, and they can perhaps hit the United States, and then it’s wait, that’s a decade plus away. So that’s BS. Then it’s about their militias, it’s about their proxy. Then it’s no, it’s about their navy. And then no, it’s a response to the likelihood that Israel was going to [go in] so we had to go in ourselves. God help us … this is Keystone Cops.”

Newsom was then asked if the United States should perhaps consider rethinking its military support for Israel, and he said that would be reasonable.

“The issue of Bibi [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] is interesting because he’s got his own domestic issues,” Newsom said. “He’s trying to stay out of jail. He’s got an election coming up. I mean, to say this is in America’s interest, at a time when affordability is at crisis levels, where you had an administration who literally got elected saying this is exactly the opposite of what they would ever consider doing. The fact that we are in this now, regional war.…”

He also said Netanyahu was “potentially on the ropes. He’s got folks, the hard line, that want to annex the West Bank.” Newsom suggested that some critics have “appropriately” described Israel as sort of an “apartheid state.” His comments caused a stir Wednesday from pro-Israel advocates who felt Newsom was turning on their interests.

But most of the conversation was about the book, and domestic issues. Newsom has been a fierce critic of Trump and his policies, positioning himself as part of the resistance, one of the few high-profile leaders to hit back with policy (Proposition 50) and a strong media presence with his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom,” and his Trump-trolling social media accounts.

“Nothing goes to the heart of who [Donald Trump] is than his press conference yesterday, where he was lamenting [that] four Americans had died,” Newsom said. “He mentioned them in passing. And then went on, in great detail, about the drapes and the Imperial Palace in the East Wing [of the White House] that he’s building. He talked about [it] with real passion and conviction. It says everything about Donald Trump, the uncertainty in the world, to the fact that we have allies under threat, UAE, we’ve got proxy war with, once again, with Hezbollah and Lebanon. We’ve got all the anxiety as relates to 20% of the world’s oil flow, issues related to oil prices and stocks.”

Though Newsom was speaking to an auditorium of blue state supporters, his tour kicked off last week in the South, with stops in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina. His efforts to relate to his audience were seized upon when, during a conversation with Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, he addressed the audience, saying, “I’m like you,” before bringing up his low SAT scores. He was called out for his comment, which was labeled as racist by critics, particularly those from right leaning media outlets.

In Los Angeles on Tuesday, he was asked how he felt about the California Democratic Party chair’s recent suggestion that some party candidates drop out of the governor’s race, to avoid a Republican potentially winning. “I confess. I agree. With all the promise and peril that marks this moment in California, the most un-Trump state in America,” we can’t risk a Republican winning, he said.

The California Highway Patrol and a private security firm deployed officers and agents around the venue for a tight security presence (no bags or purses allowed). On at least three occasions, one or more protesters interrupted the discussion with shouts from the balcony and floor seats, demanding Newsom do something about privatized prisons and the ICE sweeps of immigrants.

After they were removed by security, Newsom said he understood the “escalation of stress” over the last ten years or so, and defended his record, mentioning he signed the first bill banning private prisons and was a “fierce opponent” of what’s happening on American streets.

Attendees of the event applauded Newsom’s record, and just about everything else he said. They were, after all, folks who had paid up to $80 a seat to hear the conversation and receive a copy of his book. He walked into the crowd afterward and spent nearly a half hour chatting with audience members, posing for selfies and signing copies of his memoir. Newsom was not in a hurry.

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?