hearing

House Democrats and a panel of elections experts expressed unwavering confidence in state voting systems and dismissed Trump administration claims of widespread fraud and other vulnerabilities during a special “shadow hearing” in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

They accused President Trump and his Republican allies of pushing sweeping federal reforms — including stricter voter ID laws and new restrictions on voting by mail — that would disenfranchise millions of eligible Americans, especially low-income, rural and elderly voters, as well as voters of color and those with disabilities.

“They are taking us backward, and not to a good place,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who helped lead the hearing at the Daniel K. Inouye National Center for the Preservation of Democracy in Little Tokyo.

They also stressed that they and their allies were working hard to prevent such backsliding.

“While Republicans are expecting Democrats to just sit idly by as they attempt to steal yet another election, Democrats are getting out in the community, raising the alarm bells about the GOP’s efforts to rig these elections and fighting back in the courts, in Congress and in our communities,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), chair of the Democratic Caucus. “We won’t let Republicans get away with their anti-democratic and un-American schemes.”

Such “shadow hearings” allow Democrats to highlight issues their majority-Republican counterparts won’t schedule for formal hearings in Washington. This week’s discussions — a second is scheduled Thursday in San Francisco — follow others in California in recent months, including on Trump’s immigration raids.

Pelosi, the former House speaker, led the hearing alongside Aguilar and Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections. Joining them were fellow Democratic Reps. Nanette Barragán of San Pedro, Judy Chu of Monterey Park, Gil Cisneros of Covina, Laura Friedman of Glendale, Luz Rivas of North Hollywood, Linda Sánchez of Whittier, Norma Torres of Pomona and Maxine Waters of L.A.

Pelosi noted the setting on the grounds of the Japanese American National Museum, where Japanese Americans were detained before being unconstitutionally stripped of their belongings and taken to internment camps during World War II.

“To be here on a day when the president of the United States has talked about destroying the civilization of a country is so appalling. It’s so appalling, and I don’t think we can ignore comments like that, especially in a setting like this,” Pelosi said.

She also said that securing the nation’s elections against Trump’s threats and getting out the Democratic vote was the surest way of restoring order to U.S. relations abroad — and far more likely than getting Trump’s Cabinet to remove him from office by invoking the 25th Amendment.

“We have to make sure that the mentality that would obliterate a civilization, undermine a democracy by fighting free and fair elections, just cannot prevail,” she said.

The hearings were designed to challenge a narrative Trump has pushed for years — that U.S. elections are badly compromised by widespread fraud, that mail ballots such as those used in California are a particularly large source of abuse, and that noncitizens are voting in large numbers — none of which he has supported with evidence.

Trump tried unsuccessfully to challenge his 2020 loss to Joe Biden using similar arguments. When he returned to the White House, he immediately directed his administration to pursue the claims anew, including under executive orders he issued asserting new and sweeping federal authority over elections, which by law are controlled by the states.

The Justice Department in September sued California and other states for their voter rolls, which courts rejected. The FBI in January raided and seized 2020 election records from an elections office in Fulton County, Ga., where Trump rejected 2020 results. Trump in February said Republicans “ought to nationalize the voting.” Last week, he issued an executive order purporting to give federal agencies control over ballot processing by the U.S. Postal Service, which followed a previous order seeking to place new federal requirements on voter identification and proof of citizenship.

Trump has said his efforts are “common sense” steps average Americans support to secure elections against noncitizens voting and other threats.

Experts who provided testimony at Tuesday’s hearing roundly rejected that argument, saying the measures address problems that don’t existand are more geared toward securing wins for Republicans than ensuring election safety.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said that Americans are “more likely to be struck by lightning” than to commit voter fraud, and that many recent proposals framed around election integrity are really designed to narrow access to voting for certain groups. She also said California’s elections are particularly strong.

“We’re like the Dodgers of elections,” she said.

Darius Kemp, executive director of Common Cause California, said the state’s elections “are safe and secure,” and the Trump administration is threatening democratic participation in novel and alarming ways that his organization is watching carefully.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, said Trump is trying to project power over elections “that he simply does not have,” and if local and state officials, the courts and pro-democracy groups stand their ground, he will fail.

“If we keep calm and carry on, we can make our voices heard loud and clear,” he said.

Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy and community education at MALDEF, or the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said “the evidence could not be more clear — noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare,” and Trump’s proposals would simply “raise the cost of lawful voting” for groups already underrepresented at the polls.

“The question is not whether we can verify eligibility. We already do that,” he said. “The question is whether we will impose new barriers that will prevent eligible citizens from participating at all.”

Sonni Waknin, senior staff attorney at the UCLA Voting Rights Project, said “democracy is under attack” across the nation, and that the photo identification requirement Trump and other Republicans are pushing would disenfranchise a million eligible voters in California alone.

When Cisneros asked about what could be done to prepare for the inevitable claims of fraud from Trump and other Republicans after the midterms, Levitt said that such claims must be called out for what they are.

“We call those lies, because they are lies,” he said.

When Waters asked the experts about the effect of federal immigration agents being deployed to polling places, as some in Trump’s orbit have suggested, Villagra said damage was already being done just from the rumors of such action — whether agents show up or not.

“It’s the threat that’s really what’s powerful here,” he said, as people — especially Latino voters — are already intimidated, and leaders should do more to reassure voters and offer alternatives to showing up to polls, such as voting by mail.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, inserting himself directly into a high-stakes legal battle over one of the most consequential orders of his administration.

Trump arrived at the court Wednesday morning by limousine for arguments over whether the president has the authority to effectively rewrite the Constitution by ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.

In the run-up to Wednesday’s arguments, Trump suggested that Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans who have ruled against his agenda are “so stupid.”

“Some people would call it stupidity; some people will call it disloyal,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” the president wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The unprecedented appearance highlights how high Trump believes the stakes are, according to Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA.

“It’s not clear why Trump is attending,” Winkler said. “Maybe he is just interested in the unusual drama of a Supreme Court argument. Or perhaps he is trying to intimidate the justices, like the scene in ‘The Godfather Part II’ where the mob boss shows up at a hearing to scare the witness into recanting his testimony.”

Regardless, Trump’s presence probably won’t change any minds on the bench, Winkler said.

The justices prize their independence, including many who share Trump’s judicial philosophy. Still, it will likely change the mood, Winkler said — most hearings are quiet and academic.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is a keystone of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown.

Trump has framed the policy as a necessary step to curb what he describes as abuse of the immigration system.

“Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”

Every lower court that has considered the issue has found the order illegal and prevented it from taking effect. A definitive ruling by the nation’s highest court is expected by early summer.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

VAN NUYS — It was a showdown between quake-weary homeowners and the insurance companies they are still battling six months later.

More than 300 people turned out for the confrontation Wednesday night, filling an auditorium at Birmingham High School in Van Nuys for a hearing presided over by state Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Senate insurance committee and the Democratic nominee for insurance commissioner in the November election.

Besides disgruntled victims of the Northridge quake, the speakers included representatives of State Farm, the state’s largest carrier with 20% of the homeowners market, and No. 3 Farmers Insurance Group.

Nettie Hoge, head of consumer services for the California Department of Insurance, also participated in the often heated town hall meeting that Torres conducted as an official hearing of the insurance committee.

Hoge told the crowd that state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi had persuaded Woodland Hills-based 20th Century Insurance Co. to restore homeowners coverage to about 14 of its customers whose policies the company recently canceled.

20th Century received so many quake claims that the state insurance department granted the company special permission to get out of the homeowners coverage business. One of the conditions, however, was that the company offer its customers two more annual renewals. Some of its policyholders have complained recently that the company was seizing on technical excuses to refuse immediately to renew their policies.

Many people in the audience brandished signs such as “Boycott 20th Century” and “20th Century, What Did You Do With Our Premiums?”

Torres said 20th Century was invited to send a speaker to the meeting, but declined. However, when Torres asked if anyone from 20th Century was in the audience, two people raised their hands. Rick Dinon, a senior vice president, said the executives were there because they hoped to “correct some misinterpretations of the company’s actions, motives and finances.”

“It hurts,” Dinon said of the homemade signs criticizing the company. “We hope we have the respect of our customers and we most assuredly respect them.

“It hurts a lot to be placed in an adversarial relationship with our customers. It is disappointing we can’t continue to offer them the kind of protection we have in the past.”

When an earthquake hits, “much of the suffering is from the reprehensible conduct of the insurance industry adjusting the earthquake loss,” said George Kehrer, executive director of Community Assistance Recovery, or CARE, a Northridge-based consumer group he said represents more than 5,000 property owners.

“Adjusters swarm into the state like killer bees,” Kehrer said, drawing a standing ovation.

Torres told the group that many of the complaints he has received have come from people who fear their company will abandon them. But he noted that Garamendi is proposing a statewide insurance industry pool as well as supporting proposals for national disaster insurance.

“It’s hard to be patient,” he said. “People in northern California are still dealing with insurance companies from the Loma Prieta quake” in October, 1989.

Bill Gausewitz, of Farmer’s Insurance, said his company had resolved 27,241 quake-related claims, about 90% of those it had received. Of those, 7,877 were dismissed without payment and the others received compensation, he said.

Torres asked Gausewitz if Farmers had received complaints that it refused to pay the true cost of earthquake repairs.

“Not that I know of,” Gausewitz replied, drawing hoots and jeers from the audience.

Hoge said the insurance department has received complaints of low payments by virtually all insurance companies hit by Northridge quake claims.

Torres, whose committee is wrestling with many quake-caused problems, including a growing homeowners coverage crisis, said he arranged the meeting to give angry quake victims a chance to air their grievances.

Disillusioned policyholders have inundated his Los Angeles and Sacramento offices with complaints, he said, ranging from switching adjusters in the middle of the claims process to “low-ball” offers to settle to delays receiving payoff checks. Some accused their insurance carriers of breaking promises or lying to avoid paying claims.

Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores appeared this Thursday at the US Southern District Court in lower Manhattan for the second hearing since their extraction in January, this time to argue that the US government’s refusal to let Venezuela foot their legal bill amounts to a constitutional violation. Judge Alvin Hellerstein said he wouldn’t dismiss the case, but no decision was taken over the issue of Maduro’s lawyer fees. 

Outside, in the street, New York was doing what New York does, moving fast and with indifference, while dozens of people brought twenty-five years worth of receipts to show to a multitude of pro-Maduro advocates and those leaving the courthouse. This is what I saw.

On the way to 500 Pearl Street, I passed two men wearing matching grey Nike tech sets, the now infamous outfit that Maduro was wearing in the first image after his extraction. They weren’t there for the protest, surprisingly, but your brain does what it does.

I got there around 10 am with a Venezuelan flag, a phone and a jacket that I quickly regretted bringing. Even the maracuchos were struggling with the heat after a while. By the time I arrived, the scene outside the courthouse had long organized itself into two blocs. On one side: baseball jerseys, suits, delivery backpacks, seven and eight-starred flags, and handmade signs. Hanging from a tree like a piñata that had made bad life choices, a Maduro life-size figure in a prison uniform courtesy of artist Jorge Torrealba. A Spanish man held up a sign with the faces of Maduro, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and Pedro Sánchez below the word Criminales. A woman from Catatumbo, Zulia held a sign that read Libertad para Fernando Loaiza, the democratically elected mayor of her local government who was detained last March by Maduro security forces and still remains in prison without trial.

On the other side of the barricade, mass produced laminated signs asking for the release of Maduro and Flores and chants delivered with little conviction. The early birds reported that the crowd arrived around 8 am. Although I found no public call from the expected culprits (The People’s Forum, Codepink, and other usual suspects) they assembled around 20 people from different socialist groups, holding our flag with the slightly uncertain grip of someone who had picked it up that morning. Their chants were about US imperialism, sovereignty, and international law. All real things. All also, somehow, beside the point.

The pro-Maduro crowd chanted back: “Free them all.” For a second I thought we were agreeing on the immediate and unconditional release of Venezuelan political prisoners.

When Venezuelan citizens addressed the crowd in Spanish, there was mostly no reaction. Some of them got out a word or two, with the confidence of a born-and-raised Venezuelan yet the persuasiveness of a no sabo kid. When we spoke their language, American English, they either ignored us, flipped us off, or played dumb.  

The Venezuelan ensemble erupted into “A mí no me pagaron, yo vine porque quise” (I didn’t get paid, I came because I wanted to) with the exasperated tone of a people who have been chanting this phrase for decades. In the background, a t-shirt with an all caps text stood out: I’M VENEZUELAN. NO PROPAGANDA.

Our Gloria al Bravo Pueblo was sung at least six times, drowning out the chants of the US protesters without fail every single time. Tambores weren’t lacking, either. The chant that carried the morning was ¿Quiénes somos? Venezuela. ¿Qué queremos? Libertad. ¿Qué queremos? Justicia. Over and over. 

Ironically, the pro-Maduro crowd chanted back: “Free them all.” For a second I thought we were agreeing on the immediate and unconditional release of the 503 political prisoners that Delcy Rodríguez and Diosdado Cabello still refuse to let out. There’s a particular kind of cognitive dissonance that works like a splinter. I started drifting toward the ones within hearing range.

There was a pride flag next to a Free Maduro sign. I asked about Yendri Velázquez, LGBTQ+ activist shot alongside Luis Peche in a targeted attack in Colombia, both of them driven into exile by the regime they exposed. They too await justice to be served. I asked them about the socialist Gran Polo Patriótico bloc that has spent years with the government’s full blessing refusing to address abortion rights or same-sex marriage in the National Assembly. By 2025, Pride in Caracas had been stripped of its activist organizations, and groups that chose to march did so “as discreetly as possible” because of Maduro & Co.’s post-28J crackdown. 

Almost everyone was wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh, which made the next question unavoidable. In 2017, then-Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez expressed Venezuela’s desire to restore full ties with Israel. The following year, Maduro welcomed Jerusalem’s Sephardic chief rabbi to Miraflores tweeting about it warmly and awarding him with the Libertadoras y Libertadores medal. Venezuela never stopped trading with Israel either, not even after Chávez cut diplomatic relations. Anti-Zionism is a costume worn for the cameras and removed at Miraflores. A useful one the international left has used to dismiss criticisms against Maduro in the name of anti-imperialism.

The man who spent decades making sure others couldn’t speak now needs a translator to follow the room.

The international left has a type when it comes to diasporas: the refugee, the grieving exile, the cautionary tale of imperialism. Step out of those lines and you become brainwashed, biased, or on somebody’s payroll. We’re victims or foe. Noble savages or CIA plants. The crowd outside the courthouse on Thursday didn’t fit any of those categories, and didn’t try to. They are the people who have spent years being told their grief is too close to be credible and their knowledge too lived-in to count as such.

Around noon, the pro-Maduro contingent quickly cleared out. Clocked out, if you will. The hearing ended at one, giving me just enough time to gather some impressions before heading uptown for my afternoon class.

Those who had been inside began filtering out into the streets and the gathering. Among them was Jorge Torrealba, wearing a colorful outfit and holding a stack of papers. A crowd formed around him immediately. He shuffled through his sketches of the hearing as questions came from every direction: What did he look like? ¿Cómo lo viste? When is the next hearing? Did he say anything?

He looked skinnier, Torrealba said. And quiet. That tracked. Unlike the January arraignment, when Maduro delivered a several-minutes-long speech professing his innocence from the defense table, he said nothing in court on Thursday. Neither did anyone in the audience. He sat in his grey prison uniform with headphones on, jotting notes, occasionally leaning over to whisper to his lawyer through an interpreter.

The man who spent decades making sure others couldn’t speak now needs a translator to follow the room. We didn’t need one to tell each other—and the world—what it costs to have been right for twenty-five years and to finally not have to whisper it.

March 26 (UPI) — Former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is scheduled to appear for a court hearing Thursday in New York to argue that the U.S. government is preventing him from paying his lawyer.

The hearing was originally scheduled by Judge Alvin Hellerstein to allow lawyers time to review evidence and possibly set a trial date. But Maduro’s attorney, Barry Pollack, said last month that he will have to withdraw because the U.S. government won’t allow the Venezuelan government to pay his legal fees. Pollack said the Maduros do not have any money.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured by the American government in early January. They were taken to New York and charged on federal drug trafficking and weapons charges. The U.S. government then installed Delcy Rodriguez as the new president of Venezuela.

Since then, Maduro has been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn in a unit that gives him “special administrative measures.” The SAMs unit doesn’t allow him access to the outside world and keeps him isolated, CBS News reported. Flores is in a different unit in the same facility.

Pollack said the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control granted then revoked a license that would allow Maduro to pay his legal fees. The Maduros and the Venezuelan government are sanctioned by the United States. That means anyone who wants to receive payment must get a license to do so legally.

Pollack argues that not allowing him to pay his fees is a violation of Maduro’s constitutional right to defend himself. Flores’ lawyer has joined the motion.

Prosecutors have said the initial license was an “administrative error” and the Maduros can still use their personal funds.

“OFAC, however, has denied the defendants’ request for an additional exception: to allow them to pay their legal fees from a slush fund controlled by a sanctioned government. That is because OFAC regulations expressly prohibit using a sanctioned entity’s funds to pay a separate sanctioned person’s attorneys’ fees,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

Duncan Levin, a former prosecutor who specializes in sanctions law, told CNN that Maduro would still be entitled to a court-appointed attorney.

“Because he is not recognized as the leader of Venezuela and the whole sanctions regime is meant to cut him off, it’s unlikely that the court is going to feel that he’s entitled to any of the money to help fund his criminal defense,” Levin said.

Pollack has also said he intends to challenge the legality of Maduro’s arrest because he was president at the time of the alleged crimes.

“Under the U.S. Constitution, it’s the president who gets to determine who to recognize as head of state, and I am 100% certain a U.S. court is not going to second guess a U.S. determination that Maduro is no longer head of state,” William Dodge, an international law professor at George Washington University’s law school, told CNN.

“Snatching him was illegal under international law,” he said, but “it’s quite well established in the U.S. the illegality of bringing someone into court doesn’t affect the jurisdiction of the court.”

Dodge added: “Drug trafficking isn’t an official act.”

NEW YORK — Wellness influencer Dr. Casey Means’ nomination to be U.S. surgeon general is stalled a month after senators of both major political parties grilled her on vaccines and other health topics during a tense confirmation hearing, deepening doubts about her ability to secure the votes she needs for the role.

The nomination has languished despite ongoing efforts from the White House and Make America Healthy Again activists, revealing how intractable rifts over health policy can be even when Congress has shown deference to President Trump. It’s become the latest snag in Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s agenda after two legal setbacks last week.

Means, a 38-year-old Stanford-educated physician who became disillusioned with traditional medicine and did not finish her surgical residency program, has faced scrutiny for her lack of experience and potential conflicts. Another sticking point has been her close alignment with Kennedy, whose efforts to dramatically pull back vaccine recommendations have been slammed by lawmakers and medical groups.

To advance to a full Senate vote, Means likely needs every Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to support her nomination. But after last month’s hearing, two of them — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — told reporters they still had questions for her.

Murkowski told reporters Tuesday that “I’m just in the same spot” when it comes to those hesitations. Collins and Republican committee chairman Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician from Louisiana who interrogated Means about vaccines during the hearing, didn’t respond to multiple inquiries about the delay.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement that the Trump administration has been having “productive conversations with the Senate” to advance Means. He added that her “elite academic credentials, research background and advocacy on America’s chronic disease epidemic will make her a critical asset for President Trump’s push to Make America Healthy Again.”

Kennedy spokesman Andrew Nixon reinforced the Republican administration’s support for Means and praised her message calling for healthier lifestyle choices rather than “sick care.”

Contentious hearing set the stage for a tough path to confirmation

Means promotes ideas popular with the MAHA movement, including that Americans are overmedicalized and that diet and lifestyle changes should be at the center of efforts to end widespread chronic disease.

But she’s been criticized for having an inactive medical license, for sometimes failing to disclose financial relationships with brands she promotes and for some of her past health-related comments.

Senators asked her during her hearing about how she would speak to the public about vaccines.

Murkowski and Cassidy pressed Means about her past doubts about the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, which the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped recommending for all children late last year in a move later temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Means called the hepatitis B vaccine important and lifesaving but said parents should make their own decisions with their doctors.

Cassidy also asked Means whether she would advise Americans to vaccinate against the flu and measles amid outbreaks across the country. She didn’t make that commitment, instead emphasizing the importance of informed consent.

Collins asked Means about her past advocacy for the therapeutic use of psychedelic mushrooms. Means, who has spoken positively of her own experience with the drugs, said she wouldn’t recommend psychedelics for the American public.

Kennedy’s supporters put pressure on hesitant senators

Once it appeared Murkowski and Collins were undecided, MAHA activists orchestrated a push to support Means’ bid by surging phone calls to the two senators.

“Please call both of them. Call them time after time. Get your friends to call them,” Tony Lyons, head of the Kennedy-aligned group MAHA Action, told supporters earlier this month.

Others have loudly opposed Means’ nomination. Dr. Jerome Adams, Trump’s first-term surgeon general, has repeatedly called her unqualified for her lack of an active medical license. He said in an interview that Republicans in Congress and in the Trump administration have told him they disapprove of the pick but see it as Kennedy’s choice.

“What I keep hearing from folks is, ‘This is what Bobby wants,’” he said.

While surgeons general aren’t mandated by law to have an active medical license, they are required to be part of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a group of health professionals that says members should have up-to-date licenses.

Means said during her confirmation hearing that she had voluntarily made her Oregon medical license inactive, and that Adm. Brian Christine, who runs the Commissioned Corps, had testified that she was eligible to serve.

Even if Means advances out of committee, she might have difficulty securing confirmation by the full 100-member Senate. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who isn’t seeking another term, told the Associated Press that he’s leaning against voting for Means.

“Her resume already puts me on alert — and then I don’t think she did herself any favors in the hearing,” Tillis said.

Means’ confirmation delay is unusually long

At nearly 300 days since her nomination in May, Means’ confirmation process has taken almost twice as long as the average presidential pick in Trump’s second term, according to data from the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. The group found that in the first 400 days, the average time between nomination and confirmation for Trump’s nominees was 157 days.

Sometimes the process has gone far more quickly. Markwayne Mullin, the new Department of Homeland Security secretary sworn in Tuesday, had his confirmation hearing, floor vote and swearing-in all within a weeklong period.

One reason for Means’ drawn-out nomination is the birth of her son, which happened last October on the day of her initially scheduled confirmation hearing.

But Chris Piper, manager of public policy and stakeholder engagement at the Partnership for Public Service, said the length of time that has passed since Means’ rescheduled confirmation hearing also is unusual. He said candidates are often voted out of committee within a week of their hearing.

“A monthlong delay following a hearing is atypical for most nominations, particularly at this level of position,” he said.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Joey Cappelletti and Stephen Groves in Washington contributed to this report.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is asking a judge to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion acquisition of rival TV station owner Tegna — the latest in a flurry of merger twists.

Nexstar announced late Thursday that it had consummated the Tegna takeover — despite a lawsuit that Bonta and seven other Democratic state attorneys general had filed in federal court the previous day.

The state officials sued to block the union of the station groups, alleging the new colossus would violate antitrust rules and a federal law limiting broadcast station ownership.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

Hours after that filing, the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau in Washington approved Nexstar’s deal — clearing the way for the nation’s largest TV station group owner to swallow the third-largest station group.

The purchase gives Nexstar, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles, 265 television stations.

On Friday, Bonta and the other attorneys general asked a judge for a temporary restraining order to freeze the takeover until a hearing on the matter.

“Nexstar/Tegna is not a done deal,” Bonta said Friday in a statement. “I will not let these corporate behemoths merge without a fight.”

It was not immediately clear when a judge might rule on the request for a restraining order.

Bonta appeared at a lawmakers’ hearing in Burbank on Friday to explore the impacts of another huge merger: Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. Bonta’s office has opened an investigation into the Paramount-Warner merger, but Bonta said Friday that no decision has been made on whether he or other attorneys general will seek to block it.

For now, he is focused on derailing the Nexstar-Tegna deal.

“We filed a suit before that deal closed,” Bonta told The Times. “We think our case is extremely strong. There is no way this should be approved.”

At issue is whether the FCC had the power to grant a waiver that would allow Nexstar to control TV stations that reach nearly 80% of U.S. households. In 2003, Congress set the station ownership cap at 39% of the country.

The Department of Justice also gave its blessing to close the deal.

The three FCC commissioners did not vote on the matter — despite pleas from the lone Democrat on the panel who advocated for an open process.

Approval of the merger was rapid after President Trump endorsed the consolidation on Feb. 7.

“We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks,” Trump wrote in his social media post.

“Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar – Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level,” Trump wrote. “GET THAT DEAL DONE!”

In a statement Thursday, Nexstar founder and chief executive Perry Sook thanked Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, saying Nexstar was “grateful” they recognized the “dynamic forces shaping the media landscape” and allowed the transaction to move forward.

Should Paramount Skydance prevail in its $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, the Larry Ellison family would control two historic Hollywood film studios, dozens of cable channels, HBO and two legendary newsrooms, CBS News and CNN.

Concerns about the potential loss of more Hollywood jobs, and questions about newsroom independence dominated a hearing Friday to address Los Angeles’ crisis of shrinking film and TV production jobs.

Paramount wants to wrap up its Warner merger by September — a rapid timetable. The takeover deal, which was struck last month after Netflix bowed out, would put HBO and CNN under the control of Larry Ellison and his son David, the chairman of Paramount, which includes CBS.

Both Ellisons maintain friendly relations with President Trump. Those bonds, along with challenges to legacy media and changes at CBS News in recent months, sparked handwringing during the hearing called by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) and Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale).

“The questions surrounding this merger go beyond jobs, contracts and consumers,” Schiff said. “They also go to editorial independence of two of America’s most significant news organizations, CNN and CBS News.”

Trump has long agitated for changes at CNN, and members of his cabinet, including War Secretary Pete Hegseth, have openly cheered for an Ellison takeover of CNN.

To pave the way for the Ellisons’ purchase of Paramount, the company paid $16 million to Trump last summer to settle his lawsuit over edits to a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris in October 2024. Most 1st Amendment experts had deemed Trump’s suit “frivolous.”

Since the Ellisons took the helm, there has been a change in direction at CBS News and a reduction in its size and scope. Staff members at CNN are bracing for similar changes, including to the tone of its newscasts.

In addition to the long-term health of Los Angeles’ film economy, the merger’s fate could determine “whether we have state sponsored media … or whether we have journalists who can truly follow the story,” Friedman said.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment.

The deal is currently before regulators in the U.S. and abroad.

Paramount Chairman David Ellison has vowed to “build a stronger Hollywood,” by increasing the creative output of the two legendary movie studios — Paramount and Warner Bros. — to 30 theatrical releases a year. Warner Bros., which owns such prominent franchises as “The Matrix,” Batman, Harry Potter, “The Big Bang Theory,” and “Friends,” has long been one of Hollywood’s most prolific studios.

But Paramount has suffered from years of under-investment and Ellison and his team have been working to boost the film pipeline.

Ellison has also pledged to keep both studio lots and preserve HBO.

“HBO will continue to operate independently under our ownership, enabling it to create more of the world-class content it is renowened for,” Ellison wrote in the Feb. 28 letter to Schiff and Friedman, responding to their concerns about consolidation.

During Friday’s hearing, the lawmakers turned to former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, who famously jousted with Trump during his first term, for his reflections. He was asked whether any “guardrails” could protect against potential merger harms.

“If this merger goes through, the guard-rails are gone,” Acosta said bluntly. “If we continue to go down this road it will be lights-out for the news industry… We need media options that are not controlled by the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country.”

The hearing occurred the same day that CBS News imposed another sweeping round of layoffs and disbanded its CBS News radio network. It also came the same week as Trump’s Federal Communications Commission approved a massive television station merger, which will allow Texas-based Nexstar Media Group to control more than 250 stations, despite a legal challenge from state attorneys general.

The proposed Paramount-Warner merger would prompt at least $6 billion in cost savings, according to Paramount. Industry veterans warn that billions more in cuts may be necessary to make the deal math work.

A combined Paramount-Warner would carry nearly $80 billion in debt, a legacy of the proposed leveraged buyout and the mergers that came before it.

The hearing at Burbank City Hall —“Lights, Camera, Competition”: Promoting American Film Production,” — was wide-ranging. Award-winning actor Noah Wyle, the star and a producer of Warner Bros.’ “The Pitt,” discussed the need to bring more productions back to Los Angeles where thousands of out-of-work film professionals have been suffering. “The Pitt” is filmed in Burbank.

“Over the last six years, the aggregate effect of projects leaving the state in search of tax credits, the pandemic and last year’s fires has been a near cratering of our once thriving industry,” Wyle said. “We lost 42,000 film and TV jobs between 2022 and 2024.”

The hearing unfolded down the road from the massive Warner Bros. studio complex, and was held to explore ways to boost the Hollywood economy, including the potential for a national tax credit under consideration in Congress. The campaign is intended to keep film jobs in the U.S. amid an increased migration to Britain, where Warner Bros. maintains an expansive studio complex in London, and other countries that offer generous subsidies.

“Work in the entertainment industry is precarious,” said Matthew D. Loeb, International President of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE). “Past studio mergers have meant fewer jobs.”

WASHINGTON — At a Senate hearing Wednesday to consider the confirmation of Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) as Homeland Security secretary, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) opened by asking whether “a man with anger issues” can set the right example for federal immigration agents.

Mullin, President Trump’s pick to replace Secretary Kristi Noem, faced tough questions before the Senate Homeland Security Committee about how he would carry out the administration’s mass deportation effort and how he would steer the agency in the wake of controversies that led to Noem’s firing earlier this month.

For his part, Mullin said he will work to ensure a secure homeland as well as to “bring peace of mind and confidence to the agency.”

“My goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every single day,” he said.

Throughout the hearing, Democrats made digs at Noem while examining Mullin’s character and ability to lead the nation’s largest law enforcement agency. Most Republicans painted Mullin as a good man and a hard worker while chastising Democrats for punishing federal workers with the continued Homeland Security funding shutdown.

The leadership shake-up comes amid intense scrutiny over increasingly violent immigration enforcement tactics since last year that intensified after the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis by immigration agents, which Noem — without evidence — called domestic terrorism.

She was fired days after testifying before congressional oversight committees, during which she faced criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

“It’s not the role of the secretary to be a cable news commentator in the wake of a crisis” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.). “This is a role where temperament matters, where judgment matters and where experience matters.

“We have seen under Secretary Noem’s leadership how shortcomings in these traits can compound the challenges that already come with leading a large and complex department, and now more than ever, we need a DHS secretary who is a steady hand, who will provide thoughtful leadership, follow the facts, tell the truth, and hold agency officials accountable when they need to be.”

Paul brought up incidents to illustrate why Mullin is not fit for the job, including a time in 2023 when he nearly got into a fight in a Senate hearing room and more recently when Mullin called Paul “a freaking snake.”

Paul also confronted Mullin for saying he “completely understood” why Paul was assaulted by a neighbor in 2017, which left him with six broken ribs and a damaged lung.

Mullin did not apologize for his remarks and instead accused Paul of smearing his character.

“I’ve worked with many people in this room,” Mullin told Paul. “It seems like you fight Republicans more than you work with us.”

But Mullin added that their personal differences wouldn’t keep him from doing his job — “it’s bigger than partisan bickering” — and asked Paul to let him earn his respect.

Paul appeared unmoved. Referencing the 2023 near fight with Sean O’Brien, the head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Paul asked Mullin to “explain to the American public how a man who has no regrets about brawling in a Senate committee can set a proper example.”

Mullin was prepared for the moment: O’Brien was sitting behind him. The union president, he said, has become a close friend.

“Both of us agreed we could have done things different,” Mullin said.

A group of Democrats in the United States Senate is demanding public hearings on the country’s war against Iran after receiving a series of classified briefings from officials in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Lawmakers say the White House has not clearly explained why the US entered the conflict, what its goals are, or how long it may last.

Republicans currently hold a narrow, 53-47 Senate majority, which gives them the power to control what legislation comes to the floor for debate.

Some Democrats have expressed frustration after the latest closed-door briefing. Trump has not ruled out sending US ground ⁠troops into Iran.

“I just came from a two-hour classified briefing on the war,” Senator Chris Murphy from the state of Connecticut said on Tuesday. “It confirmed to me that the strategy is totally incoherent.

“I think this is pretty simple: if the president did what the Constitution requires and came to Congress to seek authorisation for this war, he wouldn’t get it – because the American people would demand that their members of Congress vote no,” he added.

Here is what we know:

What has happened so far?

Since the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, senior officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have held several closed-door meetings to brief Congress members on the military campaign and its progress.

Because the meetings are classified, lawmakers are restricted in what they can publicly disclose about the information they received.

What are Democrats saying?

Several Democratic senators have said they left the briefings frustrated, arguing that the administration had not provided clear answers about the war’s objectives, timeline or the long-term strategy guiding their approach to the conflict.

Earlier this week, six Democratic senators also called for an investigation into a strike on a girls’ school in Minab, in southern Iran. Reports indicate the attack, which investigators say involved US forces, killed at least 170 people, most of them children.

“There seems to be no endgame,” Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said. “The president, almost in a single breath, says it’s almost done, and at the same time, it’s just begun. So this is kind of contradictory.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts raised concerns about the cost of war.

“The one part that seems clear is that while there is no money for 15 million Americans who lost their health care, there’s a billion dollars a day to spend on bombing Iran,” Warren said on Tuesday.

“The one thing Congress has the power to do is to stop actions like this through the power of the purse,” she added.

Others seem worried that a ground deployment could take place.

“We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here,” Blumenthal, of Connecticut, told reporters after Tuesday’s classified briefing.

“The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform and the potential for ⁠further escalation and widening of this war,” he added.

What are Republicans saying?

Republicans, who have slim majorities in both houses of Congress, have almost unanimously backed Trump’s campaign against Iran, with only a handful expressing doubt about the war.

Some Republican leaders say the strikes are necessary to curb Iran’s military capabilities, missile programme and regional influence.

They have also argued that the operation is limited in scope and designed to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten US forces and allies in the region.

Republican Representative Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, last week publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” posed by Tehran.

But some Republican members of Congress have voiced concerns.

Representative Nancy Mace from South Carolina said she did “not want to send South Carolina’s sons and daughters into war with Iran”, in a post on X.

Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, accused the Trump administration of changing its narrative and rationale for the war on a daily basis.

“We keep hearing new reasons for war with Iran—none convincing,” he wrote on X. “‘Free the oppressed’ sounds noble, but where does it end? We’ve been told for decades Iran is weeks from a nuke. War should be a last resort, not our first move. A war of choice is not my choice.”

Why does the debate matter?

The dispute has revived a long-running debate in Washington, DC, about the limits of presidential war powers.

Under the US Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war, but modern presidents have frequently launched military operations without formal congressional approval, often citing national security or emergency threats.

The law allows the president to deploy US forces for up to 60 days without congressional authorisation, followed by a 30-day withdrawal period if Congress does not approve the action.

Some lawmakers and legal experts say the war on Iran highlights the need for stronger congressional oversight of military action.

“In the 1970s, we adopted something called the War Powers Resolution that gives the president limited ability to do this,” said David Schultz, a professor in the political science and legal departments at Hamline University.

“And so, either you could argue that what the president is doing violates the Constitution by… not [being] a formally declared war; or b, it exceeds his authority, either as commander-in-chief or under the War Powers Act,” he added.

“And therefore, you could argue that domestically, his actions are illegal and unconstitutional,” Schutlz said.

The Trump administration has argued that the February 28 strikes were justified as a response to an “imminent threat”, a rationale often used by presidents to justify military action without prior congressional approval.

However, US intelligence agencies had themselves said before the start of the war that they had no evidence of an imminent Iranian threat to the US or its facilities across the Middle East.