information

A video circulating online appears to show signature collectors paying people to sign initiative petitions under other people’s names, according to officials, and now the state has opened an investigation.

The video, filmed by videographer JJ Smith, shows a long queue leading to a table set up at 6th and Mission streets in San Francisco. A man in line says they are being offered $5 to sign petitions. At the table, where there are lists with the information of apparent registered voters, a woman confirms the payment and — using a highlighter — instructs a person on the name and address that she is supposed to use.

“I get $5 too?” the videographer asks.

“Yeah,” says the woman.

“And what is it?”

“Just sign it,” she says.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Petitions connected to at least three ballot campaigns — including the billionaire-backed effort to thwart California’s proposed billionaire tax — appear in the video.

“I approached some people and asked them what they were there for,” Smith told The Times. “They told me they didn’t know what they were signing for, that they just wanted the $5.”

Smith said he watched the scene for hours and estimated that a few hundred people cycled through the line over roughly two hours.

Those running the table did not ask for anyone’s identification and gave no explanation of what was actually being signed, he said.

The video showed voter data from San Luis Obispo County that was both visible and, as details were spoken aloud, audible in the footage.

The county acted immediately after becoming aware of the video and initiated an investigation through the fraud unit of the California secretary of state’s office, said Erin Clausen, public information officer for the San Luis Obispo county clerk’s office.

Clausen noted that, although voter registration data can be legally requested from county election offices, the data in this case may have been used inappropriately. The county is also planning on reaching out directly to voters who were specifically mentioned or identified in the video, according to Clausen.

“The activity shown in the video, if verified, would violate California election law,” County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano said in a formal statement released Wednesday morning.

The secretary of state’s office confirmed it had opened a formal investigation.

“Under California law, it is illegal to give money or other valuable consideration to another in exchange for their signature on an initiative petition,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “ Those who abuse our system will be held accountable.”

The office is working with local officials and encouraged anyone with information to file a complaint.

One political committee, Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government, confirmed its petitions were among those whose signature gatherers were allegedly paying people to sign and moved quickly to distance itself from the activity.

“Under no circumstance do we tolerate this type of activity in the signature gathering process,” said spokesperson Molly Weedn. “We’ve taken immediate action and have demanded that the signature gathering firm identify these circulators and reject their petitions.” Weedn said the collectors were subcontractors, not campaign employees, and that attorneys were contacting authorities.

That committee is funded by another group, Building a Better California, which was also among campaigns that appeared in the video. The other was for a proposed initiative called the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026. Representatives for the latter two have not responded to requests for comment.

Smith said this was not the first time he had witnessed this type of activity in the area.

“I saw something similar with ballots three days ago,” he said.

The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with information can submit a complaint to the Office of the California Secretary of State or contact their local county elections office.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court revived a San Diego judge’s order Monday and said parents have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school.

The decision came in a 6-3 order granting an emergency appeal from lawyers for Chicago-based Thomas More Society.

They said the student privacy policy enforced in California infringes parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

“The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “The parents also take issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.”

The judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only for those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions,” the justices added.

The six conservatives were in the majority, while the three liberals dissented.

Religious liberty advocates hailed the decision.

“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “California tried cutting parents out of their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We’re glad the Court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had put on hold a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who held that the student privacy rules enforced by California school officials were unconstitutional.

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.”

Escondido public schoolteachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who described themselves as “devout Catholics,” sued in 2023, and they were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.

The Supreme Court’s ruling refers only to the parents.

The parents who brought the case “have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court said.

The court added: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”

The 9th Circuit had agreed with the state’s attorneys who said the judge had misstated California law.

“The state does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students’ gender identities to parents without student consent,” they said in a 3-0 decision.

“For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can ‘allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student’s wellbeing,’ and California Education Code allows disclosure to avert a clear danger to the well-being of a child.”

In their parents’ rights appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys said school employees are secretly encouraging gender transitions.

“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents — including religious parents — and to actively facilitate those children’s social transitions over their parents’ express objection,” they told the court.

“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm. That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately,” Jonna wrote in his appeal. “Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”

California state attorneys had urged the court to put the case on hold while it is under appeal.

They said the judge’s order “appears to categorically bar schools across the State from ever respecting a student’s desire for privacy about their gender identity or expression — or respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a particular name or pronouns—over a parent’s objection.”

They said the order “would allow no exceptions, even for extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will suffer physical or mental abuse.”

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — To receive Medicaid health coverage, some adults will soon have to show they are working, volunteering or taking classes. But to gather that proof, many states first will have to spend millions of dollars improving their computer systems.

Across the nation, states face an immense task and high costs to prepare for the Jan. 1 kickoff of new Medicaid eligibility mandates affecting millions of lower-income adults in the government-funded healthcare program.

The first half of a $200-million federal allotment has already begun flowing to states to help implement the new requirements. But the tab for the needed technology improvements and additional staff is likely to exceed $1 billion, according to an Associated Press analysis of budget projections in more than 25 states. That extra cost will be borne by a mixture of federal and state tax dollars.

The task is not as simple as pushing through a software update on your smartphone or personal computer. That’s because each state has its own system for managing Medicaid, often requiring experts to make customized changes.

“Our current eligibility systems are pretty old, and the ability to change them is very, very difficult,” said Toi Wilde, chief information officer for the Missouri Department of Social Services.

As a consequence of states’ new financial burden, some eligible people may lose their healthcare coverage, officials warn.

New requirements affect millions, but not all

The Republican tax and spending law signed last year by President Trump is financed, in part, by sweeping Medicaid changes intended to cut government spending. Two of the most prominent will apply in four-fifths of the states, affecting Medicaid enrollees ages 19 through 64, without young children, whose incomes are above the typical eligibility cutoff.

Those Medicaid participants will have to work or do community service at least 80 hours a month, or enroll at least half-time as a student. They also will face eligibility reviews every six months, instead of annually, meaning they could lose coverage more quickly when their circumstances change.

The two provisions together are projected to save the federal government $388 billion over the next decade, resulting in 6 million fewer people with health insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But states first must update their online portals used by Medicaid participants, their aging computer systems used by state workers and their methods of verifying information through various databases.

Most will have to turn to private contractors to meet the time crunch. At least 10 companies have agreed to offer discounted services, according to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Making those technology upgrades “is going to be a lift. It’s not something straightforward. It’s not easy,” said Jason Reilly, a partner at Guidehouse, a firm that is advising several states on the Medicaid requirements.

Most states don’t currently collect employment or education information about Medicaid participants. So states are looking to tap into outside sources to verify job and school data. But there’s no database of community volunteers.

And states are still waiting on federal rules — not due until June — to define some of the exceptions to the work requirements, such as how to determine who qualifies as “medically frail.”

States face extra pressure to get it right because the federal government will start penalizing states with too many Medicaid payment errors in October 2029.

Congress guaranteed all states a share of the $200 million allotted for Medicaid work and eligibility changes. But states must apply for additional federal money. The federal government covers up to 90% of states’ costs to develop systems for determining Medicaid eligibility, 75% of costs to maintain those systems and half of most other administrative costs.

Missouri won early approval for the 90% federal funding rate. State lawmakers now are fast-tracking a $32-million appropriation needed to solicit bids for vendors to start upgrading technology platforms and improving a chatbot for Medicaid participants. Over the next year, the state’s social services agency expects to need about 120 additional workers — at a cost of $12.5 million — to handle the extra administrative workload.

Other states also project large costs. Maryland expects to spend over $32 million in federal and state funds to implement the Medicaid changes, Kentucky more than $46 million, and Colorado over $51 million. Arizona estimates it could cost $65 million — and require 150 additional staffers — to implement the new federal requirements.

Some states surveyed by the AP reported even higher expected costs, though they didn’t always provide a breakdown for how much is due to new Medicaid mandates and how much pertains to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program changes also contained in Trump’s massive law.

Several states, including Arkansas, said they are still working on cost estimates for the Medicaid changes. Arkansas instituted a Medicaid work requirement in 2018-19, and thousands of people were dropped from the rolls before a federal court ended it. Many of the technology changes required by the new federal mandates could be covered under an existing vendor contract and have “a minimal financial impact on our Medicaid budget,” the Arkansas Department of Human Services said in an email.

Nebraska has said it plans to launch Medicaid work requirements in May, seven months ahead of the federal deadline. But the state has not detailed any associated costs and did not respond to inquiries from the AP.

Georgia’s work requirement prompts concerns

Georgia is currently the only state requiring some Medicaid recipients to work, after receiving special federal approval several years ago to expand coverage to some adults not otherwise eligible.

The Georgia Pathways to Coverage program racked up more than $54 million of administrative costs from 2021 through the first part of 2025 — twice the amount of medical assistance paid out over that same period, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Almost all of those costs came from technology changes to its eligibility and enrollment system.

Some Medicaid analysts point to Georgia’s costs and Arkansas’ enrollment losses as reasons for caution as work requirements roll out in other states.

“A huge amount of funding is going to go to vendors to construct these complicated red-tape systems that prevent people who need it from getting healthcare,” said Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University.

“In my view, that is a big, big risk.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Santa Cruz tried out the surveillance company Flock Safety for a little over a year before deciding it was time to move on.

Cambridge, Mass., also had enough and tore up its contract in December. Now, some officials in San Diego have begun to have second thoughts of their own.

In recent months, dozens of cities have cut ties with Flock — the nation’s largest provider of automated digital license plate readers — over fears that data the company captures is helping power President Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

The same can’t be said in one particularly surprising place: Los Angeles. Here, Flock still has an eager customer base of local elected officials, police officers, homeowners associations and businesses.

Unlike some of its competitors, the Atlanta-based company has not only marketed its plate readers to law enforcement as a vital crime-fighting tool, but aggressively pitched its product to private citizens, experts say.

“They are tremendous investigative tools,” said LAPD spokesman Capt. Michael Bland.

But for critics, there’s an obvious downside: the potential tracking of law-abiding citizens without a warrant on a scale once thought unimaginable.

“These can be really powerful tools to find someone, and identity them. But when you don’t have a suspect, everyone can be a suspect,” said Hannah Bloch-Wehba, a professor of law at Texas A&M University.

A Flock spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.

Typically mounted on street poles or atop police cars, plate readers continuously monitor passing vehicles, recording their location at a specific date and time. But Flock’s AI-powered cameras go even further by also documenting other identifying vehicle details, such as make, model and color, as well as any distinctive markings like scratches or dents on a bumper.

From there, police can easily search for the location of specific vehicles in the company’s vast national database, allowing them not only to potentially retrace the whereabouts of someone suspected of a crime, but also receive predictions about future movements.

In a presentation to the Picfair Village Neighborhood Assn., Flock boasted that its plate readers had helped solve “10% of reported crime in the U.S.” In L.A., the company said, its technology had been deployed to nab porch pirates and car thieves, not to mention played a role in solving a “high-profile crime involving stolen weapons from a politician’s home.”

The problem, at least in the minds of a growing number of privacy and immigration advocates, is that the readers capture a vast amount of information not related to any specific criminal investigation. The ability of federal authorities to access Los Angeles Police Department surveillance data directly from companies like Flock or from regional intelligence hubs called fusion centers undermines the city’s promise as a haven for immigrants, critics say.

“License plate readers play a critical role in providing directions and a road map to ICE for going out to kidnap people,” said Hamid Khan, an organizer with the activist group Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, which last spring wrote a letter to the Police Commission urging it to rewrite the LAPD’s policies to ensure information on law-abiding drivers isn’t shared with federal authorities.

The commission, the LAPD’s civilian oversight panel, ordered a study on the department’s license plate reader system that is expected to be completed this summer.

LAPD officials say records collected by the plate readers are accessible only to five smaller police agencies with which the department has data-sharing agreements. Furthermore, they say the use of the readers, like with other police technology, is restricted by state laws that limit information sharing with federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Plate-reading technology has been around for decades. But as the Trump administration’s deportation crackdown has ramped up, residents, privacy advocates and officials in some cities across the country have mounted campaigns urging their local governments to stop using the technology.

Much of the backlash has been aimed specifically at Flock — a heavyweight in the surveillance market that contracts with a reported 5,000 U.S. policing agencies. The company’s data-sharing with federal authorities and cybersecurity lapses have been documented by 404 Media and other outlets.

After previously denying it had federal contracts, Flock Chief Executive Garrett Langley admitted in interviews in recent months that the company has worked with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations. The company has since said that it has severed ties with both agencies, and responded to other concerns by giving communities more power to decide whom to grant access to state or nationwide lookup networks.

In Bloch-Wehba’s view, Flock’s meteoric rise is a triumph of marketing over results.

“There’s very little evidence on the actual impact of these technologies on violent crime rates at all,” said Bloch-Wehba, who noted an explosion of surveillance technology in 2020 to monitor protesters or enforce rules implemented to curb the spread of COVID-19 during the pandemic.

In the L.A. area, Flock has gone head to head with competitor Vigilant Solutions, which has for years supplied the majority of the LAPD’s plate readers. But today, cops tout Flock cameras at community meetings and some City Council members have paid to bring them to their districts.

Flock has also sought to flex its political might. City records show the company has stepped up its lobbying efforts at City Hall in recent years — hiring Ballard Partners, a powerful Florida-based firm whose employees now include former City Councilmember Joe Buscaino.

Many Flock plate readers, though, have been purchased by community groups. In most cases, residents band together to raise money to buy the devices, which they then either grant access to or donate to the LAPD via the Police Foundation, the department’s nonprofit charity. By donating the equipment, neighborhood groups may get to control what type of technology is installed and by whom.

“My real preference would be a fully staffed LAPD, and then we don’t have any cameras,” said Jim Fitzgerald, who lives in Venice and serves on its neighborhood council.

Roy Nwaisser, who chairs the Encino Neighborhood Council’s public safety committee, said that Flock often played up the shortage of police officers during its presentations to residents in his neighborhood.

“I personally have concerns with how Flock conducts their businesses, but they are the biggest player and if LAPD is working with them, they just have to make sure that there are those safeguards,” he said. “I don’t know that automated license plate readers are all that effective when owned by neighbors living on the street who decided to get together.”

Police executives have defended the practice, saying license plate data has helped solve untold numbers of crimes, from run-of-the-mill porch theft to high-profile cases like the 2024 attempted assassination of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at a Florida golf course. The technology also came into play during an investigation into the fatal drive-by shooting of a 17-year-old boy at a North Hills intersection last month. According to a search warrant affidavit, detectives tracked a suspect vehicle to a home in Sun Valley after it was captured by several scanners near where the shooting occurred.

Because so many plate scanners are in private hands, it’s difficult to say how many of the devices are in operation citywide.

The L.A. Bureau of Street Lighting, which is responsible for installing the devices on city-owned property, said it has mounted 324 over five years — though that tally doesn’t include mobile plate readers.

Bland said the LAPD has 1,500 police vehicles equipped with the scanners. Police also have access to an additional 280 plate readers in fixed locations throughout the city, which are owned privately or by the department, he said. He estimated that about 120 of those readers belong to Flock.

The cameras are also integrated with the department’s new drones, which are being paid for by a $1.2-million donation from the Police Foundation.

The devices are also used for many other purposes outside of regular law enforcement. Big box retailers like Home Depot and Lowe’s have installed Flock cameras across hundreds of parking lots. Many border crossings have them. In East L.A., they are used as an emissions-reduction tool by tracking semi-trailers. USC uses them to enforce parking violations, and the L.A. Department of Transportation has deployed such cameras to nab motorists who park in bus lanes.

Since the beginning of 2025, a small-but-growing number of states and cities have enacted laws aimed at curbing the use of surveillance technology such as license plate readers.

Under California law, police agencies are required to adopt detailed usage and privacy policies governing license plate data, restrict access to authorized purposes, and regularly audit searches to prevent misuse. Gov. Gavin Newsom previously vetoed a bill that would have restricted use of such data, saying the regulations would impede criminal investigations, but the bill has been reintroduced this year.

Nearly 50 cities nationwide have opted to deactivate their scanners or cancel contracts with Flock, mostly in recent months, according to the website DeFlock.me, which has set out to map locations of the company’s cameras. Responding to public pressure, some places like Santa Cruz canceled their contracts after realizing that they had been sharing their data more broadly than they had known, including with federal authorities.

Other Flock customers, like Oakland, have dug in and decided to keep their cameras at the urging of local homeowners association representatives and small business owners — but over the objections of the city’s own Privacy Advisory Commission.

Among the places that have started to reconsider their relationship with Flock is San Diego. In December, city leaders split on the issue, but ultimately voted to keep using Flock’s scanners after a contentious public hearing meeting in which they heard from hundreds of residents opposed to the surveillance technology.

Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera said he voted against working with Flock based on what he saw as the company’s poor track record of “data retention” and “consumer protections.” Although the city has operated Flock plate readers and cameras for years, the stakes are far higher now, he said.

“We have a presidential regime that is not only flouting the law, but takes pride in ignoring due process, in violating rights of people they deem unworthy of the rights and protections,” said Elo-Rivera, who represents an ethnically diverse district in San Diego’s Mid-City area. “They have a by-any-means-necessary approach when it comes to immigration enforcement. And now they have a tool that makes it very easy for them to track people down.”

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told U.S. House lawmakers on Thursday that she had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s or Ghislaine Maxwell’s crimes at the start of two days of depositions that will also include former President Clinton.

“I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein,” Hillary Clinton said in an opening statement she shared on social media.

The closed-door depositions in the Clintons’ hometown of Chappaqua, a typically quiet hamlet north of New York City, come after months of tense back-and-forth between the former high-powered Democratic couple and the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee. It will be the first time that a former president has been forced to testify before Congress.

Yet the demand for a reckoning over Epstein’s abuse of underage girls has become a near-unstoppable force on Capitol Hill and beyond.

President Trump, a Republican who has expressed regret that the Clintons are being forced to testify, bowed last year to pressure to release case files on Epstein, who killed himself in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial. The Clintons, too, agreed to testify after their offers of sworn statements were rebuffed by the Oversight panel and its chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., threatened criminal contempt of Congress charges against them.

“We have a very clear record that we’ve been willing to talk about,” Hillary Clinton said in an interview with the BBC earlier this month. She added that her husband had flown with Epstein for charitable trips and that she did not recall meeting Epstein but had interacted with Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend and confidant, at conferences hosted by the Clinton Foundation.

Maxwell, a British socialite, also attended the 2010 wedding of their daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

“We are more than happy to say what we know, which is very limited and totally unrelated to their behavior or their crimes, and we want to do it in public,” Hillary Clinton said.

Bill Clinton, however, has emerged as a top target for Republicans amid the political struggle over who receives the most scrutiny for their ties to Epstein. Several photos of the former president were included in the first tranche of Epstein files released by the Department of Justice in January, including a number of him with women whose faces were redacted. Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing in his relationship with Epstein.

Comer has also pointed to Hillary Clinton’s work as secretary of state to address sex trafficking as another reason to insist on her deposition. The committee’s investigation has sought to understand why the Department of Justice under previous presidential administrations did not seek further charges against Epstein following a 2008 arrangement in which he pleaded guilty to state charges in Florida for soliciting prostitution from an underage girl but avoided federal charges.

Yet conspiracy theories, especially on the right, have swirled for years around the Clintons and their connections to Epstein and Maxwell, who argues she was wrongfully convicted. Republicans have long wanted to press the Clintons for answers.

“I mean if you’re the wife of Bill Clinton, aren’t you going to have some questions about your husband’s activities?” said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the House Oversight Committee. “We only go where the facts take us. We didn’t put the president and the secretary in this position. They put themselves in it.”

Democrats, now being led by a new generation of politicians, have prioritized transparency around Epstein over defending the former leaders of their party. Several Democratic lawmakers joined with Republicans on the Oversight panel to advance the contempt of Congress charges against the Clintons last month. Several said they had no relationship with the Clintons and owed no loyalty to them.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, said that both Republican and Democratic administrations “have failed survivors in not getting more information out to the public.” He also said he wanted to ask about Epstein’s possible ties to foreign governments.

Democrats are also coming off an effort this week to confront Trump about his administration’s handling of the Epstein files by taking women who survived Epstein’s abuse as their guests to Trump’s State of the Union address. Even senior Democrats, such as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, said it was appropriate for the committee to interview anyone, including the former president, who was connected to Epstein.

“We want to hear from everyone,” Pelosi said, adding that she did not see why Hillary Clinton was being interviewed and that it was important to “believe survivors.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow