information

Reporting from Washington — To any nefarious hackers looking for information that could be used to sway elections or steal Americans’ identities, the file compiled by a GOP data firm called Deep Root Analytics offered all manner of possibilities.

There in one place was detailed personal information about almost every voter in the U.S. It was a collection of some 9.5 billion data points that helped the firm assess not only how those Americans would probably vote, but their projected political preferences. In some cases, the data collectors had scoured people’s histories on Reddit, the social media platform, to match vote history with social media use, and well-informed predictions were made about where each voter would stand on issues as personal as abortion and stem cell research.

It’s the kind of sensitive information that, if a bank or a big-box retailer or almost any other corporation had failed to protect it, would have triggered major trouble with regulators. But there it sat on the Internet, without so much as a password to guard it, for 12 days.

Luckily for the Republican Party and Deep Root, an Arlington, Va.-based firm that handles data management and analysis for the party, it was a cybersecurity consultant who came across the treasure-trove of political data this month, not a foreign agent. There is no indication that the database had been tapped by any other unauthorized parties while it was unprotected.

But the exposure of the data, which some are describing as the largest leak of voter information in history, is a jolting reminder of how deeply the political parties are probing into the lives of voters and how vulnerable the information they are compiling is to theft.

The Deep Root incident is the latest in a series of such problems with political data, the most infamous being the case of the Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee. As cybersecurity experts sound an increasingly loud alarm about the potential consequences, the lapses keep happening — often with nobody held accountable for them.

“This is a catalog of human lives, with intrinsic details,” said Mike Baukes, chief executive of UpGuard, the Mountain View, Calif., firm that came across the file during a routine scan of cloud systems.

“Every voter in America is potentially in there. The scale of it is just staggering, and the fact that it was left wide open is wholly irresponsible.…This is happening all the time. We are continually finding these things. It is just staggering.”

Privacy experts were skeptical that political operatives will change their ways following the latest incident.

“The state of security for massive data sets is so incredibly poor despite a daily drumbeat of data breached,” said Timothy Sparapani, a former director of public policy for Facebook who is now a data privacy consultant at the firm SPQR Strategies, based in Washington. “It is shocking. It is embarrassing. People ought to lose their jobs.”

Sparapani said if the culprit had been a private firm, it would be subjected to punitive actions by attorneys general, consumer lawsuits and big fines from regulators. But political operations face no such repercussions.

“As a voter, you are left with almost no recourse because our laws have not caught up to the massive computing power which is readily available to gather enormous data sets and make them searchable at the click of a button,” he said. “The breadth and depth of data collection by these companies is not well understood. If it were, I think the average voter would be frightened.”

UpGuard was able to access the file merely by guessing a Web address. It alerted Deep Root as well as federal authorities.

Deep Root apologized in a statement, but also suggested the incident had been overblown.

The data file “is our proprietary analysis to help inform local-television ad buying,” the statement said. It noted that much of the voter information the analysis is built on is “readily provided by state government offices.” The firm said it has put security procedures in place to prevent future leaks.

Other digital strategists warned, however, that the failure to protect such detailed information not only raised major privacy and security concerns, but also may have tipped off political adversaries to the inner workings of the Republican Party’s closely guarded digital strategy.

The GOP contracted with Deep Root during the presidential campaign. The firm’s co-founder, Alex Lundry, led the data efforts of GOP nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 and then worked for the unsuccessful presidential campaign of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush last year.

GOP officials said the data belonging to the party that was exposed was limited to very basic information about voters, such as their party registration. They said none of the GOP’s sensitive strategic data was exposed. The party has suspended work with the firm pending an investigation by Deep Root into security procedures.

The failure by Deep Root to protect its massive database was particularly troubling to some advocates at a time when Congress is investigating how Russia exploited data vulnerabilities to meddle in last year’s presidential election.

“This is data used for opinion manipulation,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the nonprofit research group Electronic Privacy Information Center, based in Washington. “It needs to be regulated. And there needs to be consequence for breaches. We have a major problem in this country with data security, and it’s getting worse.” The foundation wants Congress to hold hearings on political data security.

But holding political parties and contractors accountable for their data practices has proven tricky. David Berger, an attorney with the Bay Area-based firm Girard Gibbs who has represented consumers affected by data breaches at Anthem and Home Depot, said part of the problem is voters are not demanding changes loudly enough.

When a retail company fails to protect the privacy of its customers, Berger said, the company suffers and lawmakers hear about it from the victims.

“When people see Deep Root, they are not going to necessarily associate that with the [Republican Party] or anything else,” he said. “If your average American knew the amounts of data and profiling that is already put together by these companies about every single one of us, people would be very concerned. But there’s no face here, and they try to keep quiet.”

Halper reported from Washington and Dave from Los Angeles.

[email protected]

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

The black vote is key in Georgia’s House race — but can Democrats energize it?

Supreme Court to decide on partisan gerrymandering: Can it be used to create favorable voting districts?

As Tom Steyer pushes for Trump’s impeachment, the billionaire environmentalist is still weighing a run for office

This week voters across California received a suspicious text message saying they’d failed to turn in their ballots for the Nov. 4 statewide special election on redistricting.

The message may appear official. It includes the voter’s name and address and links to an official website providing information on early voting and vote-by-mall ballot drop-off locations.

But it’s not from the state, and officials urge caution.

The office of the California secretary of state received numerous reports from voters of “inaccurate text messages from Ballot Now,” according to a news release.

“This has caused voters to believe their returned ballots have not been received or processed by county elections officials,” Shirley Weber, secretary of state, stated in the release. “Let me be clear: Ballot Now is not in any way affiliated with the California Office of the Secretary of State.”

Weber’s office told The Times it doesn’t know the intent behind the Ballot Now text messages, and “we are trying to get to the bottom of it.”

Ballot Now did not respond to The Times’ request for comment.

Where voters can get trustworthy answers to their elections questions

Voters can find accurate information on elections and voting at the state secretary’s website or at their county election office. The secretary’s website includes the complete list of county election offices.

Questions that the secretary of state’s website can assist with include:

How do I check my voter status? By entering some personal information, you can see if you are registered to vote, where you’re registered, and check that your political party and language preference are correct at the website’s voter status page.

How do I track my ballot? You can sign up to track your ballot through the state’s online site Ballottrax.

• By signing up on Ballottrax, voters receive automatic updates when their county elections office: mails their ballot to them, receives their ballot, counts their ballot, or when the office has any issues with the ballot.
• Updates are available in 10 languages — including Spanish, Japanese and Tagalog — and you can choose to be texted, emailed or called with voice alert updates.

Where can I return my ballot? Los Angeles County residents can look for official vote-by-mail ballot drop-box locations or voter centers on the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk website.

How to report something fishy

If you believe you’re the victim of election fraud or have witnessed a violation of the California Elections Code, you can submit a complaint form or call the secretary of state’s office.

Fill out an online form, download a PDF version of the form and mail it, or call the office — English speakers can call (916) 657-2166 or (800) 345-8683; Spanish speakers can call (800) 232-8682.

The physical form can be mailed to the California Secretary of State Elections Division at 1500 11th St., 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 or faxed to (916) 653-3214.

Los Angeles County residents are encouraged to call the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s call center with any questions or concerns they have, said Mike Sanchez, spokesperson for the office.

The registrar of voters can be reached at (800) 815-2666, and the number for voter center information is (800) 815-2666; choose option No. 1.

Poker chip trays that can secretly read cards.

Glasses that can detect card markings.

Rigged underground games run by the New York mafia.

NBA figures exchanging insider information as part of illegal betting schemes.

These are some of the wild allegations filed in two criminal complaints this week by federal prosecutors in one of the most sweeping and sensational betting scandals in recent professional sports history.

At the heart of one of the cases, prosecutors charged several figures using private insider NBA information, such as when players would sit out, to help others profit in leveraged bets online.

But the allegations go far deeper, including a connection to the Lakers, the mob and more.

Here are four key allegations:

1. High-roller games with high-tech cheating

Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups, who played with the Clippers for two seasons and later was a member of Clippers coach Ty Lue’s staff before earning the Trail Blazers head coaching job, is charged with rigging underground poker games that three of New York’s Mafia families backed, authorities said.

Billups and Damon Jones, a retired NBA player, according to one of the two indictments revealed Thursday, were used to attract wealthy players to the games and were referred to as “Face Cards.” But according to the federal indictment, the two were part of the cheating teams. In exchange for taking part in the games, the “Face Cards” received part of the winnings.

The teams, according to court filings, used rigged shuffling machines that read deck cards and predicted which player on the table would have the best poker hand and relayed that information to someone, referred to as the operator. That person then relayed that information to one member of the cheating team on the table, known as the “Quarterback,” or “Driver,” according to court filings.

In some cases, the cheating teams used poker chip trays that could secretly read the cards on the table. In other cases, players used glasses that could detect special markings on the cards.

U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella of Brooklyn said at a press conference said the defendants used “special contact lenses or eyeglasses that could read pre-marked cards” and tables that “could read cards face down on the table … because of the X-ray technology.”

He cited “other cheating technologies, such as poker chip tray analyzers, which is a poker chip tray that secretly reads cards using a hidden camera,.”

“Anyone who knows Chauncey Billups knows he is a man of integrity; men of integrity do not cheat and defraud others,” Chris Heywood, Billups’ attorney, said in a statement Tuesday night. “To believe that Chauncey Billups did what the federal government is accusing him of is to believe that he would risk his Hall-of-Fame legacy, his reputation, and his freedom. He would not jeopardize those things for anything, let alone a card game.”

2. Alleged mob ties

The games in the New York area were backed by three of New York’s organized crime families: the Bonanno, Gambino and Genovese Mafia families, authorities said. According to the complaint, at least a dozen of the 31 defendants were associates or members of those three families.

Among those named in the indictment was Joseph Lanni, identified as a captain in the Gambino crime family. Known as “Joe Brooklyn,” Lanni was also named as a defendant in a 2023 racketeering, extortion and witness retaliation indictment, where members and associates of the Gambino family were accused of trying to take control of New York’s carting and demolition industries.

Last week, Lanni pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy, according to court records.

3. A tip about LeBron James

Federal prosecutors allege that between December 2022 and March 2024, the defendants , used inside information to defraud bettors, including which players would be sitting out games and when players would “pull themselves out of games early for purported injuries or illnesses.”

Damon Jones, a retired NBA player and friend of LeBron James is accused of inside information for sports betting related to the Lakers and specifically “Player 3,” a prominent NBA player.

Although the indictment does not name the player — the date referenced in 2023 when the player sat out matches when James sat out against the Milwaukee Bucks due to ankle soreness. According to the indictment, Jones, a friend of James, profited from the non-public information.

“Get a big bet on Milwaukee tonight before the information is out!” Jones texted an unnamed co-conspirator, according to the indictment. “[Player 3] is out tonight.”

On Thursday, the Lakers declined to comment on the investigation. A person close to LeBron James told The Times that the Lakers star didn’t know that Jones was allegedly selling injury information to gamblers placing bets. Neither James or the Lakers have been accused of any wrongdoing.

3. A ‘shady’ injury

According to the indictment, when Terry Rozier was playing for the Hornets, he told others he was planning to leave the game early with a “supposed injury,” allowing others to place wagers that raked in thousands of dollars, New York Police Commissioner Jennifer Tisch said.

Rozier and other defendants allegedly provided that information to other co-conspirators in exchange for either a flat fee or a share of betting profits.

Another game involving Rozier that has been in question was played a day earlier, on March 23, 2023, between the Hornets and the New Orleans Pelicans. Rozier played the first 9 minutes and 36 seconds of that game — and not only did not return that night, citing a foot issue, but also did not play again that season.

Posts still online from March 23, 2023, show that some bettors were furious with sportsbooks that evening when it became evident that Rozier was not going to return, with many turning to social media to say that something “shady” had gone on regarding the prop bets involving his stats for that night.

If you crossed “see the Dodgers in the World Series” off your bucket list last year, here’s a bucket list update for you: See the Dodgers in the World Series, from the comfort of a hotel room with a full view of the field.

Not at Dodger Stadium, of course. In Toronto, however, where a hotel is built into the ballpark and 55 rooms allow you to open the curtains and catch the game without a ticket.

During the World Series, the nightly rate for these rooms starts at $3,999 (in Canadian dollars, or about $2,850 in U.S. dollars).

A view of the field from one of the rooms at the Toronto Marriott City Centre.

(Toronto Marriott City Centre.)

That is a lot of money. Then again, the rooms sleep up to five people, and good luck getting five World Series game tickets for that price.

You have to get to Toronto, and that costs a lot of money too. But you don’t need to pay separately for game tickets and a hotel, and you can get room service instead of standing in line at concession stands.

The rooms include chairs that face the field, so you don’t have to stand on your bed to catch the action. And you never know: a player could toss you a ball during batting practice, right through your window. Take a look:

Information and reservations: Toronto Marriott City Centre Hotel.

The Metropolitan Police said it is “actively” looking into media reports that Prince Andrew tried to obtain personal information about his accuser Virginia Giuffre through his police protection.

“We are aware of media reporting and are actively looking into the claims made,” the force said on Sunday.

It comes after Ms Giuffre’s brother called on King Charles III to strip Andrew of his “prince” title, following the announcement he would stop using his other titles.

Prince Andrew has not commented on the reports, but consistently denies all allegations against him. Buckingham Palace has been contacted for comment.

Ms Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, said she was among the girls and young women sexually exploited by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his wealthy circle.

She also claimed that she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, including when she was 17.

According to the Mail on Sunday, Andrew asked his police protection officer to investigate her just before the newspaper published a photo of Ms Giuffre’s first meeting with the prince in February 2011.

The paper alleged that he gave the officer her date of birth and confidential social security number.

On Friday, Andrew announced that he was voluntarily handing back his titles and giving up membership of the Order of the Garter – the oldest and most senior order of chivalry in Britain.

He will also cease to be the Duke of York, a title received from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II.

GREENBELT, Md. — John Bolton arrived at a federal courthouse Friday to surrender to authorities and make his first court appearance on charges accusing the former Trump administration national security adviser of storing top secret records at home and sharing with relatives diary-like notes that contained classified information.

The 18-count federal indictment Thursday also suggests classified information was exposed when operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government hacked Bolton’s email account and gained access to sensitive material he had shared. A Bolton representative told the FBI in 2021 that his emails had been hacked, prosecutors say, but did not reveal that Bolton had shared classified information through the account or that the hackers had possession of government secrets.

The closely watched case centers on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019. He later published a book highly critical of Trump.

The third case against a Trump adversary in the past month will unfold against the backdrop of concerns that the Justice Department is pursuing the Republican president’s political enemies while at the same time sparing his allies from scrutiny.

“Now, I have become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts,” Bolton said in a statement.

Even so, the indictment is significantly more detailed in its allegations than earlier cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Unlike in those cases filed by a hastily appointed U.S. attorney, Bolton’s indictment was signed by career national security prosecutors. While the Bolton investigation burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington, the inquiry was well underway by the time Trump had taken office in January.

Sharing of classified secrets

The indictment filed in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, alleges that between 2018 and this past August, Bolton shared with two relatives more than 1,000 pages of information about his day-to-day activities in government.

The material included “diary-like” entries with information classified as high as top secret that he had learned from meetings with other U.S. government officials, from intelligence briefings or talks with foreign leaders, according to the indictment. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.

The indictment says that among the material shared was information about foreign adversaries that in some cases revealed details about sources and methods used by the government to collect intelligence.

The two family members were not identified in court papers, but a person familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss nonpublic details, identified them as Bolton’s wife and daughter.

The indictment also suggests Bolton was aware of the impropriety of sharing classified information with people not authorized to receive it, citing an April news media interview in which he chastised Trump administration officials for using Signal to discuss sensitive military details. Though the anecdote is meant by prosecutors to show Bolton understood proper protocol for government secrets, Bolton’s legal team may also point to it to argue a double standard in enforcement because the Justice Department is not known to have opened any investigation into the Signal episode.

Bolton’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that the “underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago.”

He said the charges stem from portions of Bolton’s personal diaries over his 45-year career in government and included unclassified information that was shared only with his immediate family and was known to the FBI as far back as 2021.

“Like many public officials throughout history,” Lowell said, “Bolton kept diaries — that is not a crime.” He said Bolton “did not unlawfully share or store any information.”

Controversy over a book

Bolton suggested the criminal case was an outgrowth of an unsuccessful Justice Department effort after he left government to block the publication of his 2020 book “The Room Where It Happened,” which portrayed Trump as grossly misinformed about foreign policy.

The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer had classified information.

In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security adviser. His brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine. Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure.

Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to Ukraine to that country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of Biden’s family.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

GREENBELT, Md. — Former Trump administration national security advisor John Bolton was charged Thursday in a federal investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.

The investigation into Bolton, who served for more than a year in President Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019, burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington for classified records he may have held onto from his years in government.

The existence of the indictment was confirmed to the AP by a person familiar with the matter who could not publicly discuss the charges and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Agents during the August search seized multiple documents labeled “classified,” “confidential” and “secret” from Bolton’s office, according to previously unsealed court filings. Some of the seized records appeared to concern weapons of mass destruction, national “strategic communication” and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, the filings stated.

The indictment sets the stage for a closely watched court case centering on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who after leaving Trump’s first government emerged as a prominent and vocal critic of the president. Though the investigation that produced the indictment began before Trump’s second term, the case will unfold against the backdrop of broader concerns that his Justice Department is being weaponized to go after his political adversaries.

It follows separate indictments over the last month accusing former FBI Director James Comey of lying to Congress and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James of committing bank fraud and making a false statement, charges they both deny. Both of those cases were filed in federal court in Virginia by a prosecutor Trump hastily installed in the position after growing frustrated that investigations into high-profile enemies had not resulted in prosecution.

The Bolton case, by contrast, was filed in Maryland by a U.S. attorney who before being elevated to the job had been a career prosecutor in the office.

Questions about Bolton’s handling of classified information date back years. He faced a lawsuit and a Justice Department investigation after leaving office related to information in a 2020 book he published, “The Room Where it Happened,” that portrayed Trump as grossly uninformed about foreign policy.

The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript included classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer contained classified information.

A search warrant affidavit that was previously unsealed said a National Security Council official had reviewed the book manuscript and told Bolton in 2020 that it appeared to contain “significant amounts” of classified information, some at a top-secret level.

Bolton’s attorney Abbe Lowell has said that many of the documents seized in August had been approved as part of a pre-publication review for Bolton’s book. He said that many were decades old, from Bolton’s long career in the State Department, as an assistant attorney general and as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The indictment is a dramatic moment in Bolton’s long career in government. He served in the Justice Department during President Reagan’s administration and was the State Department’s point man on arms control during George W. Bush’s presidency. Bolton was nominated by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but the strong supporter of the Iraq war was unable to win Senate confirmation and resigned after serving 17 months as a Bush recess appointment. That allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate confirmation.

In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security advisor. But his brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine.

Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure, with Trump announcing on social media in September 2019 that he had accepted Bolton’s resignation. Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his 2020 book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to the country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of his family.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.” Trump also said at the time that the book contained “highly classified information” and that Bolton “did not have approval” for publishing it.

Tucker, Durkin Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Tucker and Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

WASHINGTON — Dozens of reporters turned in access badges and exited the Pentagon on Wednesday rather than agree to government-imposed restrictions on their work, pushing journalists who cover the American military further from the seat of its power. The U.S. government has called the new rules “common sense.”

News outlets were nearly unanimous in rejecting new rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that would leave journalists vulnerable to expulsion if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by Hegseth for release.

Many of the reporters waited to leave together at a 4 p.m. deadline set by the Defense Department to get out of the building. As the hour approached, boxes of documents lined a Pentagon corridor and reporters carried chairs, a copying machine, books and old photos to the parking lot from suddenly abandoned workspaces. Shortly after 4, about 40 to 50 journalists left together after handing in badges.

“It’s sad, but I’m also really proud of the press corps that we stuck together,” said Nancy Youssef, a reporter for the Atlantic who has had a desk at the Pentagon since 2007. She took a map of the Middle East out to her car.

It is unclear what practical effect the new rules will have, though news organizations vowed they’d continue robust coverage of the military no matter the vantage point.

Images of reporters effectively demonstrating against barriers to their work are unlikely to move supporters of President Trump, many of whom resent journalists and cheer his efforts to make their jobs harder. Trump has been involved in court fights against the New York Times, CBS News, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press in the last year.

Trump supports the new rules

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump backed his Defense secretary’s new rules. “I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”

Even before issuing his new press policy, Hegseth, a former Fox News Channel host, has systematically choked off the flow of information. He has held only two formal press briefings, banned reporters from accessing many parts of the sprawling Pentagon without an escort and and launched investigations into leaks to the media.

He has called his new rules “common sense” and said the requirement that journalists sign a document outlining the rules means they acknowledge the new rules, not necessarily agree to them. Journalists see that as a distinction without a difference.

“What they’re really doing, they want to spoon-feed information to the journalist, and that would be their story. That’s not journalism,” said Jack Keane, a retired Army general and Fox News analyst, said on Hegseth’s former network.

When he served, Keane said he required new brigadier generals to take a class on the role of the media in a democracy so they wouldn’t be intimidated and also see reporters as a conduit to the American public. “There were times when stories were done that made me flinch a little bit,” he said. “But that’s usually because we had done something that wasn’t as good as we should have done it.”

Youssef said it made no sense to sign on to rules that said reporters should not solicit military officials for information. “To agree to not solicit information is to agree to not be a journalist,” she said. “Our whole goal is soliciting information.”

Reporting on U.S. military affairs will continue — from a greater distance

Several reporters posted on social media when they turned in their press badges.

“It’s such a tiny thing, but I was really proud to see my picture up on the wall of Pentagon correspondents,” wrote Heather Mongillo, a reporter for USNI News, which covers the Navy. “Today, I’ll hand in my badge. The reporting will continue.”

Mongillo, Youssef and others emphasized that they’ll continue to do their jobs no matter where their desks are. Some sources will continue to speak with them, although they say some in the military have been chilled by threats from Pentagon leadership.

In an essay, NPR reporter Tom Bowman noted the many times he’d been tipped off by people he knew from the Pentagon and while embedded in the military about what was happening, even if it contradicted official lines put out by leadership. Many understand the media’s role.

“They knew the American public deserved to know what’s going on,” Bowman wrote. “With no reporters able to ask questions, it seems the Pentagon leadership will continue to rely on slick social media posts, carefully orchestrated short videos and interviews with partisan commentators and podcasters. No one should think that’s good enough.”

The Pentagon Press Assn., which has 101 members representing 56 news outlets, has spoken out against the rules. Organizations from across the media spectrum, from legacy organizations like the Associated Press and the New York Times to conservative outlets like Fox and Newsmax, told their reporters to leave instead of signing the new rules.

Only the conservative One America News Network signed on. Its management probably believes it will have greater access to Trump administration officials by showing its support, Gabrielle Cuccia, a former Pentagon reporter who was fired by OANN earlier this year for writing an online column criticizing Hegseth’s media policies, told the AP in an interview.

Bauder writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Laurie Kellman in London contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — An extraordinary new policy from the Defense Department that equates basic reporting methods to criminal activity has prompted a revolt among Pentagon journalists that could leave the nation’s largest agency and the world’s largest military without a press corps.

The new policy, from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is a dramatic departure from historic standards at the department, which previously required credentialed reporters to sign a simple, single-page document laying out safety protocols.

Replacing that document is a 21-page agreement that warns reporters against “soliciting” information, including unclassified material, without the Pentagon’s official authorization, characterizing individuals who do so as a “security risk.”

The policy would force journalists and media organizations to refrain from publishing any material that is not approved by the military — a clear violation of 1st Amendment protections to free speech, lawyers for media outlets said.

Major news organizations including the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, as well as right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Times, have refused to sign the document, with only one far-right outlet — the cable channel One American News — agreeing to do so.

The Los Angeles Times also will not agree to the policy, said Terry Tang, the paper’s executive editor.

In a rare joint statement, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC said that the policy “is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections.”

“We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press,” the news outlets said.

But Hegseth, who has aggressively pursued leaks and sources of unfavorable news stories since the start of his turbulent tenure as secretary, has doubled down in recent days, posting emojis on social media waving goodbye as media organizations have issued statements condemning the policy. Journalists were given a deadline of 2 p.m. PDT on Tuesday to either sign the document or relinquish their credentials.

It is unclear whether it will be viable for the Pentagon to maintain the policy, leaving the secretary without a traveling press corps to highlight his official duties or public events. And it is also uncertain whether President Trump approves of the extreme measure.

At a White House event Tuesday, Hegseth said that the policy was “common sense” and that he was “proud” of it. He said credentials should not be given to reporters who will try to get officials “to break the law by giving them classified information.”

Asked last month whether the Pentagon should control what reporters gather and write, Trump said “no.”

“I don’t think so,” Trump said, adding: “Nothing stops reporters.”

But Trump said Tuesday that he understands why Hegseth is pushing for the new policy.

“I think he finds the press to be very destructive in terms of world peace and maybe security for our nation,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”

The widespread revolt has generated a show of solidarity from the White House and State Department correspondents associations, which characterized the Pentagon policy in a joint statement Monday as an attack on freedom of the press.

“Access inside the Pentagon has never been about convenience to reporters,” the statement reads. “The public has a right to know how the government is conducting the people’s business. Unfettered reporting on the U.S. military and its civilian leadership provides a service to those in uniform, veterans, their families and all Americans.”

Beyond the restrictions on media outlets, the Pentagon has taken a series of steps this year to try and identify officials who are deemed disloyal or who provide information to reporters.

In April, the Pentagon dismissed three top officials after an investigation into potential leaks related to military operational plans. That same month, Hegseth’s team began subjecting officials to random polygraph tests, a practice that was temporarily halted after the White House intervened, according to the Washington Post.

Then, in October, the Pentagon drafted plans to renew the use of polygraphs and to require thousands of personnel to sign strict nondisclosure agreements that would “prohibit the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process.” The nondisclosure agreements include language that is similar to what reporters are being asked to sign by Tuesday.

Notably, many of Hegseth’s plans to target leaks have been leaked to news outlets, probably contributing to the Defense secretary’s suspicion about whom he can trust.

The timing of his efforts are also noteworthy, as they gained traction after he personally shared sensitive details about forthcoming strikes in Yemen in a private Signal group chat that mistakenly included a reporter from the Atlantic. Hegseth also shared information about the attacks in a separate Signal chat that included his wife, a former Fox News producer who is not a Defense Department employee.

Hegseth denied that any classified information was shared in the chat. Yet the situation led to an internal review of whether the disclosures were in violation of Defense Department policies.

The Pentagon has taken an even more aggressive approach to restricting reporters’ access than the White House, which months ago took control over press operations from the White House Correspondents Assn. — an independent group that had organized the White House press corps for decades.

Still, the White House has refrained from implementing changes to the briefing room seating chart, evicting outlets from workspaces within the White House complex or revoking press passes, after facing a legal challenge over an attempt to bar one major outlet — the Associated Press — from covering some presidential events at the beginning of Trump’s second term.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to single out individual outlets he dislikes. On Tuesday, for example, the president refused to take questions from ABC News because he said he did not like how a news anchor had treated Vice President JD Vance.

“You’re ABC Fake News,” Trump said at a public appearance in the White House. “I don’t take questions from ABC Fake News!”

Californians were mailed inaccurate voter guides about the November special election asking them whether to redraw congressional district boundaries, according to the secretary of state’s office. The state agency announced that it would mail postcards correcting the information to voters, which is likely to cost millions of dollars.

“Accuracy in voter information is essential to maintaining public trust in California’s elections,” said Secretary of State Shirley Weber. “We are taking swift, transparent action to ensure voters receive correct information. This mislabeling does not affect proposed districts, ballots, or the election process; it is solely a labeling error. Every eligible Californian can have full confidence that their vote will be counted and their representation is secure.”

The voter guide was sent to California registered voters about Proposition 50, a ballot measure championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state Democrats to try to boost the number of Democrats in Congress. The proposal was in response to Texas and other GOP-led states trying to increase the number of Republicans in the House at the behest of President Trump to enable him to continue to enact his agenda during his final two years in office.

The special election will take place on Nov. 4, but voters will begin receiving mail ballots in early October.

On page 11 of the voter guide, a proposed and hotly contested congressional district that includes swaths of the San Fernando and Antelope valleys and is currently represented by Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) was mislabeled as Congressional District 22. However, on more detailed maps in the voter guide, the district is properly labeled as District 27.

“It is unfortunate that it was incorrect on the statewide map in the voter guide,” said Paul Mitchell, the Democratic redistricting expert who drew the new proposed congressional districts. “But the important thing is it is correct in the L.A. County and the Southern California maps,” allowing people who live in the region to accurately see their new proposed congressional district.

There are 23 million registered voters in California, but it’s unclear whether the postcards will be mailed to each registered voter or to households of registered voters. The secretary of state’s office did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday evening.

Even if the corrective notices are mailed to voter households rather than individual voters, the postage alone is likely to be millions of dollars, in addition to the cost of printing the postcards. The special election, which the Legislature called for in August, was already expected to cost taxpayers $284 million.

Opponents of Proposition 50 seized upon the error as proof that the measure was hastily placed on the ballot.

“When politicians force the Secretary of State to rush an election, mistakes are bound to happen,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for one of the campaigns opposing the effort. “It’s unfortunate that this one will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.”

Former state GOP Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson, who leads another anti-Proposition 50 campaign supported by congressional Republicans, added that such mistakes were inevitable given how quickly the ballot measure was written and the special election was called.

“The Prop. 50 power grab was rushed through so fast by greedy politicians that glaring mistakes were made, raising serious questions about what else was missed,” she said. “California taxpayers are already on the hook for a nearly $300 million special election, and now they’re paying to fix mistakes too. Californians deserve transparency, not backroom politics. Secretary Weber should release the cost of issuing this correction immediately.”

The campaign supporting the ballot measure did not respond to requests for comment.

For years, Matthew McConaughey wouldn’t tell his mom, Kay, anything of substance during their weekly phone calls — her love of spreading news had cost her his trust.

“We had about an eight-year period where I had to have short conversations with her on our Sunday phone calls because she was sharing a lot of information,” Matthew told People in a joint interview with his mother. “I’d tell her something on Sunday between son and mom, and Tuesday I’d read about it in the news or see it in the local paper.”

Kay called the period a hiatus, which started after she took the media on a tour of Matthew’s childhood home without his consent. In her defense, she didn’t think he would find out.

“I was so proud that I was just telling the world,” she said.

The hiatus came to an end when Matthew felt stable enough with his fame. When the two hit red carpets together after that, Kay would ask if there were any rules she had to follow, but he let her tell the raunchiest stories at will.

“My mom can say whatever the hell she wants,” Matthew said. “Let’s take the lasso off and just go for it, Mom.”

Matthew and Kay co-star in the upcoming film “The Lost Bus,” where she plays his mother. The movie, which premieres Friday on Apple TV+, also stars Matthew’s oldest son, Levi.

Hear the sound of fingers crossing? That might be Levi hoping his dad learned a thing or two from Grandma.

Ticketmaster will have to give music fans more advance information about ticket prices, after complaints about Oasis’s reunion tour last year.

The Competition and Markets Authority says the company has agreed to tell fans 24 hours in advance if a tiered pricing system is being used, as it was for Oasis standing tickets, and give more information about ticket prices during online queues.

It comes after the CMA said Ticketmaster “may have misled Oasis fans” with unclear pricing last year.

Platinum tickets sold for almost two and a half times the standard the price, but Ticketmaster did not explain to consumers that they came without extra benefits.

Fans expressed outrage over allegations that Ticketmaster used “dynamic pricing” – where ticket prices rise and fall according to demand – prompting the CMA to launch an investigation into the sale.

However the CMA said it had “not found evidence” that algorithmic pricing had been used to adjust the price of tickets in real time.

As a result of the investigation, Ticketmaster will have to provide more information about prices during online queues, helping fans anticipate how much they might have to pay.

It will also have to use accurate labelling, to ensure they “do not give the impression that one ticket is better than another when that is not the case,” the CMA said.

The company will also have to regularly report to the CMA over the next two years to ensure it is adhering to the new compliance.

The Pentagon says it will require credentialed journalists at the military headquarters to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release — including unclassified information.

Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon, under a 17-page memo distributed Friday that steps up media restrictions imposed by the administration of President Trump.

“Information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified,” the directive states. The signature form includes an array of security requirements for credentialed media at the Defense Department, which Trump has moved to rename the War Department.

Advocates for press freedoms denounced the nondisclosure requirement as an assault on independent journalism. The new Pentagon restrictions arrive as Trump expands threats, lawsuits and government pressure as he remakes the American media landscape.

“If the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting. It is getting only what officials want them to see,” said National Press Club President Mike Balsamo, also national law enforcement editor at the Associated Press. “That should alarm every American.”

No more permission to ‘roam the halls’

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News Channel personality, highlighted the restrictions in a social media post on X.

“The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility,” Hegseth said. “Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home.”

The Pentagon this year has evicted many news organizations while imposing a series of restrictions that include banning reporters from entering wide areas of the complex without a government escort — areas where the press had access in past administrations as it covers the activities of the world’s most powerful military.

The Pentagon was embarrassed early in Hegseth’s tenure when the editor in chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently included in a group chat on the Signal messaging app where the Defense secretary discussed plans for upcoming military strikes in Yemen. Trump’s then-national security advisor, Mike Waltz, took responsibility for Goldberg being included and was shifted to another job.

The Defense Department also was embarrassed by a leak to the New York Times that billionaire Elon Musk was to get a briefing on the U.S. military’s plans in case a war broke out with China. That briefing never took place, on Trump’s orders, and Hegseth suspended two Pentagon officials as part of an investigation into how that news got out.

On Saturday, the Society of Professional Journalists also objected to the Pentagon’s move, calling it “alarming.”

“This policy reeks of prior restraint — the most egregious violation of press freedom under the First Amendment — and is a dangerous step toward government censorship,” it said in a statement Saturday. “Attempts to silence the press under the guise of ‘security’ are part of a disturbing pattern of growing government hostility toward transparency and democratic norms.”

And Matt Murray, executive editor of the Washington Post, said in the paper Saturday that the new policy runs counter to what’s good for the American public.

“The Constitution protects the right to report on the activities of democratically elected and appointed government officials,” Murray said. “Any attempt to control messaging and curb access by the government is counter to the First Amendment and against the public interest.”

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

LA QUINTA — Briana Ortega had been home for all of three minutes when she heard a fist pounding against her door.

She opened it to find a Riverside County sheriff’s deputy “claiming a black man with dreadlocks had jumped over her backyard fence” and was trying to break into her La Quinta home, according to court records.

Almost immediately, Ortega, 29, suspected Deputy Eric Piscatella was there for other reasons. The encounter last summer wasn’t the first time they’d met. It wasn’t even the first time he’d shown up at her home unannounced, according to an arrest affidavit and claims in a civil lawsuit.

“You look pretty without makeup … sorry I don’t mean to be rude or unprofessional,” Piscatella said, after spending a scant few seconds looking out a window for the purported suspect, according to a recording of the incident.

It was the fourth time in less than a year that Piscatella had either shown up at Ortega’s home or contacted her without a legitimate law enforcement purpose, according to the affidavit and lawsuit. Ortega shared text messages showing the deputy tried to flirt with her and ask her out on dates, but she rebuffed him at every turn.

A former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy is accused in a lawsuit of using law enforcement resources to pursue a woman he met at a public event.

(Gary Coronado/Los Angeles Times)

Last year, Riverside County prosecutors charged Piscatella, 30, with seven counts of illegally using law enforcement databases to look up information about Ortega.

But instead of resolving the situation, Ortega says, the way Piscatella’s case played out in criminal court has only prolonged her ordeal.

Ortega said she remains “terrified” of Piscatella and declined to testify against him. In July, a Riverside County judge downgraded all charges against Piscatella to misdemeanors. He pleaded guilty and received probation, avoiding jail time.

Last month, Ortega filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Piscatella, the department and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a leading Republican candidate in the 2026 governor’s race.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco kicks off his campaign to run for governor at Avila’s Historic 1929 center on Feb. 17 in Riverside.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

“I feel like with him getting the misdemeanor, nothing is ever going to change… If it takes me having to [file this lawsuit], I will, if it helps,” she said.

Piscatella declined to comment through his defense attorney.

A spokesperson for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department said Piscatella resigned last October after roughly five years on the job. His ability to work as a police officer in California is suspended, accreditation records show, but without a felony conviction it could be restored.

Ortega recalled her first run-in with Piscatella as innocent enough.

She was attending what she described as a “family fair,” with her two sons in Coachella in September 2023, enjoying amusement rides and carnival games when she said her oldest son ran up to a group of sheriff’s deputies who were giving out stickers. Piscatella was among them, according to Ortega, who said they had a polite but forgettable conversation.

They did not exchange contact information, but a few months later, in January of 2024, Ortega said, she got a text from an unknown number.

The texter claimed to be her “personal officer.” A fitness influencer with more than 100,000 followers on TikTok and Instagram, Ortega gets random flirtatious messages from men. So she shrugged it off.

That same month, Piscatella searched Ortega’s name and the city of La Quinta in both the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System and other sheriff’s databases shortly before the texts were sent, according to court records. In Ortega’s civil suit, she alleged this was how Piscatella tracked her down.

One month later, Piscatella showed up at Ortega’s La Quinta home while she was at work, according to her lawsuit. Her mother answered the door, and was “alarmed” when the deputy questioned where her daughter was. Still, Ortega wasn’t bothered.

“I’m like, he’s a cop, he can’t be that crazy. He’s on the force for a reason … of course he knows where I live,” she said.

Echoing claims in her lawsuit, she added: “I’m not thinking he’s going to continue to look for me or stalk me. If I would have known, I would have complained.”

Ortega was so unfazed that she actually went to Piscatella for help a month later. Her younger sister had been the victim of an assault and was struggling to get attention from the Sheriff’s Department. So Ortega contacted the man who claimed to be her “personal officer.”

But when Ortega began describing the purported crime, Piscatella responded by asking her to send a “selfie” and insisting they should go to the gym together. Annoyed, Ortega eventually changed her number when instead of help, all she got was a picture of Piscatella wearing Sheriff’s Department clothes, according to text messages.

Court records show Piscatella continued to use law enforcement databases to keep tabs on Ortega in the months that followed. In May 2024, he searched her name and ran her license plate, according to court records. He did the same in July, right before showing up at Ortega’s house, claiming he saw the man with dreadlocks break in.

At that point, Piscatella’s interest in Ortega had turned into an “obsession,” according to her lawsuit. Since he arrived just minutes after she’d returned from a trip to San Diego, Ortega said it felt like Piscatella was “waiting for me.” She alleges in her lawsuit that the deputy “used law enforcement resources and databases … to stalk her.”

After letting him in, she surreptitiously recorded the deputy standing in her living room, talking to her children. In the lawsuit, Ortega said she was “confused, scared and uncomfortable,” especially after Piscatella asked for her new number, which she gave him out of “fear.”

Piscatella texted her a short time later, according to messages reviewed by The Times, describing her kids as “so cool.”

“I don’t feel comfortable with everything that just happened. Please do not contact me again,” Ortega wrote back.

Briana Ortega filed a lawsuit alleging that she has been living in fear of a former Riverside County sheriff’s deputy.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

She made a complaint to the Sheriff’s Department the same day. Court records show the department launched an internal investigation and quickly determined Piscatella had used law enforcement databases to look up information on Ortega several times, according to an affidavit seeking a warrant for his arrest.

The affidavit shows there was “no corresponding call for service” related to the day Piscatella showed up at Ortega’s home and claimed someone was breaking in.

Riverside County prosecutors filed seven felony charges against Piscatella.

Ortega said she refused to testify because, even though the Sheriff’s Department had presented a case against one of their own, she feared Piscatella or a fellow deputy might seek retribution against her.

At a July court hearing in Indio, Piscatella made an open plea to the court seeking to downgrade each charge to a misdemeanor and avoid jail time, according to a transcript of the proceeding.

Riverside County Deputy Dist. Atty. Natasha Sorace pleaded with Superior Court Judge Helios J. Hernandez not to accept the lesser charges.

“The defendant was a police officer — a sheriff’s deputy, who used his position of power and the information he had access to as a result of that position to put someone in the community in significant fear for their safety,” Sorace said.

“He searched information — conducted a search about a particular individual and used that information to come up with an excuse to get into that woman’s house, where he proceeded to hit on her and make her feel uncomfortable in her own on home.”

But Hernandez rebuffed her attempts to argue the point further. In his view, “nothing actually happened.”

“He never, like, broke into the house or threatened her,” Hernandez said, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Hernandez sentenced Piscatella to probation and community service and ordered him to stay away from Ortega. Records show prosecutors have appealed the decision.

A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office would not say if Ortega’s refusal to testify affected their ability to bring other charges, including the stalking allegation she made in the civil suit.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s spokesperson declined to comment on the pending litigation.

The entire ordeal left Ortega feeling like law enforcement failed her at every level. She noted that Piscatella still knows where she lives.

While she previously did not hold a negative view of police, now she says she turns the other direction and grows anxious anytime she sees a Sheriff’s Department cruiser.

“It’s a betrayal of trust from law enforcement … who do you call when it’s the police who are the problem?” asked her attorney, Jamal Tooson. “When can you ever feel safe? You almost feel trapped, in your own house.”

SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.

Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.

“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.

California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.

Puppy Spot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot CEO Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that their online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.

“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” PuppySpot CEO Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May.

The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.

“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill. “By eliminating the profit incentive for brokers while preserving legitimate avenues for Californians to obtain animals, AB 519 protects consumers, supports shelters and rescues that are already at capacity, and advances California’s commitment to the humane treatment of animals.”

Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.

AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would also make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.

The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested Certificates of Veterinary Inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification it is healthy to travel.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.

The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.

After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal activists called on the state agriculture department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but has so far released the records with significant redactions.

SB 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the state agriculture agency, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.

“Given the high propensity for misleading consumers and the large volume of dogs entering the state, the health certificate information is in the public interest for individual consumers to review to confirm information conveyed to them by sellers and to also hopefully be helpful to humane law enforcement agencieds as they work to investigate fraud and malfeasance,” said Bennet said Monday in support of Umberg’s bill.

WASHINGTON — The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday publicly posted the files it had received from the Justice Department on the sex trafficking investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, responding to mounting pressure in Congress to force more disclosure in the case.

Still, the files mostly contain information that was already publicly known or available. The folders — posted on Google Drive — contained hundreds of image files of years-old court filings related to Epstein, who died in a New York jail cell in 2019 as he faced charges for sexually abusing teenage girls, and Maxwell, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for assisting him.

The files also included video appearing to be body cam footage from police searches as well as recordings and summaries of law enforcement interviews with victims detailing the abuse they said they suffered.

The committee’s release of the files showed how lawmakers are eager to act on the issue as they return to Washington after a monthlong break. They quickly revived a political clash that has flummoxed House Republican leadership and roiled President Trump’s administration.

House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to quell an effort by Democrats and some Republicans to force a vote on a bill that would require the Justice Department to release all the information in the so-called Epstein files, with the exception of the victims’ personal information.

What’s in the released files

If the purpose of the release was to provide answers to a public still curious over the long concluded cases, the raw mechanics of the clunky rollout made that a challenge.

The committee at 6 p.m. released thousands of pages and videos via the cumbersome Google Drive, leaving it to readers and viewers to decipher new and interesting tidbits on their own.

The files released Tuesday included audio of an Epstein employee describing to a law enforcement official how “there were a lot of girls that were very, very young” visiting the home but couldn’t say for sure if they were minors.

Over the course of Epstein’s visits to the home, the man said, more than a dozen girls might visit, and he was charged with cleaning the room where Epstein had massages, twice daily.

Some pages were almost entirely redacted. Other documents related to Epstein’s Florida prosecution that led to a plea deal that has long been criticized as too lenient, including emails between the defense and prosecutors over the conditions of his probation after his conviction. Barbara Burns, a Palm Beach County prosecutor, expressed frustration as the defense pushed for fewer restrictions on their client: “I don’t know how to convey to him anymore than I already have that his client is a registered sex offender that was fortunate to get the deal of the century.”

Some of the interviews with officers from the Palm Beach Police Department date to 2005, according to timestamps read out by officials at the beginning of the files.

Most, if not all, of the text documents posted Tuesday had already been public. Notably, the probable cause affidavit and other records from the 2005 investigation into Epstein contained a notation indicating that they’d been previously released in a 2017 public records request. An internet search showed those files were posted to the website of the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office in July 2017.

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, chided Republicans on the panel for releasing material that he said consisted almost entirely of already available information.

“The 33,000 pages of Epstein documents James Comer has decided to ‘release’ were already mostly public information. To the American people — don’t let this fool you,” Garcia said in a statement.

The disclosure also left open the question of why the Justice Department did not release the material directly to the public instead of operating through Capitol Hill.

Survivors meet with lawmakers

On Capitol Hill onTuesday, the House speaker and a bipartisan group of lawmakers met with survivors of abuse by Epstein and Maxwell.

“The objective here is not just to uncover, investigate the Epstein evils, but also to ensure that this never happens again and ultimately to find out why justice has been delayed for these ladies for so very long,” said Johnson, R-La., after he emerged from a two-hour meeting with six of the survivors.

“It is inexcusable. And it will stop now because the Congress is dialed in on this,” he added.

But there are still intense disagreements on how lawmakers should proceed. Johnson is pressing for the inquiry to be handled by the House Oversight Committee and supporting the committee as it releases its findings.

Push for disclosure continues

Meanwhile, Democrats and some Republicans were still trying to maneuver around Johnson’s control of the House floor to hold a vote on their bill to require the Justice Department to publicly release files. Democrats lined up in the House chamber Tuesday evening to sign a petition from Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, to force a vote. Three other Republicans also supported the maneuver, but Massie would need two more GOP lawmakers and every Democrat to be successful.

If Massie, who is pressing for the bill alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), is able to force a vote — which could take weeks — the legislation would still need to pass the Senate and be signed into law by Trump.

The clash suggests little has changed in Congress since late July, when Johnson sent lawmakers home early in hopes of cooling the political battle over the Epstein case. Members of both parties remain dissatisfied and are demanding more details on the years-old investigation into Epstein, the wealthy and well-connected financier whose 2019 death has sparked wide-ranging conspiracy theories and speculation.

“We continue to bring the pressure. We’re not going to stop until we get justice for all of the survivors and the victims,” Garcia told reporters.

Groves writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Kevin Freking and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington, Mike Sisak in New York and Meg Kinnard in Chapin, S.C., contributed.

Some 750 federal health employees signed the letter two weeks after a gunman fired 180 bullets into CDC buildings.

Hundreds of federal health employees have written to United States Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, imploring him to “stop spreading inaccurate health information”, weeks after a gunman fired hundreds of bullets into the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

Signatories to the letter on Wednesday, including hundreds of current HHS staff, accused Kennedy of “sowing public mistrust by questioning the integrity and morality of CDC’s workforce”, including by calling the public health agency a “cesspool of corruption”, during his 2024 failed presidential election campaign.

They also said that Kennedy’s policies, including cuts to thousands of HHS employees, were creating “dangerous gaps in areas like infectious diseases detection, worker safety, and chronic disease prevention and response”.

“The deliberate destruction of trust in America’s public health workforce puts lives at risk,” the workers said, noting that Kennedy had spread false claims about the measles vaccine, undermining the public health outbreak response to the disease.

They also noted that the recent attack on the CDC building was another example of the dangers resulting from the health secretary’s words.

The shooter, who had publicly expressed his distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, opened fire at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, fatally shooting police officer David Rose, 33, before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on August 8.

In a statement shared with US media outlets, the HHS said that “Secretary Kennedy is standing firmly with CDC employees – both on the ground and across every center – ensuring their safety and wellbeing remain a top priority”.

Kennedy has long been accused of spreading vaccine misinformation, including in a 2019 visit to Samoa, which came months before a measles outbreak on the South Pacific island which killed 81 people, mostly babies and young children.

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper earlier this year, Samoa’s prime minister, Fiame Naomi Mataʻafa, expressed surprise that Kennedy, who denies being against vaccines, was chosen as US health secretary.

More recently, Kennedy has cancelled hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for research into mRNA vaccines, a medical breakthrough credited with preventing millions of deaths from COVID-19 and having the potential to treat diseases such as cancer and HIV, according to the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

William Foege, who served as the director of the CDC from 1977 to 1983, penned an article in US health outlet Stat News this week, urging public health workers to “not back down”.

“We will live through this drought of values, principles, and facts and again apply our talents to improving global health and happiness,” he wrote.

Foege, who has been credited with playing an instrumental role in eradicating smallpox, a virus that was fatal in 30 percent of cases, went on to warn that Kennedy’s words were dangerous.

“In the meantime, be clear. Kennedy’s words can be as lethal as the smallpox virus. Americans deserve better,” he wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a request Sunday seeking records from the Trump administration to explain why a phalanx of Border Patrol agents showed up outside a news conference held by leading California Democrats last week.

Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security asking for “all documents and records” related to the Aug. 14 Border Patrol operation in downtown Los Angeles, which took place outside the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. At the news conference, Newsom announced a campaign to seek voter approval to redraw California’s congressional maps to boost Democrats’ chances of retaking the House and stymieing Trump’s agenda in the 2026 midterm elections.

“Trump’s use of the military and federal law enforcement to try to intimidate his political opponents is yet another dangerous step towards authoritarianism,” Newsom posted Sunday on X. “This is an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.”

Newsom announced at the press event the “Election Rigging Response Act” — which would scrap independently drawn congressional maps in favor of those sketched by Democratic strategists in an attempt to counter moves by Republicans in Texas and other GOP-led states to gerrymander their own districts to favor Republicans in the 2026 midterms. Meanwhile, dozens of armed federal agents massed in the adjacent streets wearing masks, helmets and camouflage.

Newsom and other leading Democrats, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, dismissed the Border Patrol action as an intimidation tactic. In response to questions from The Times on Sunday, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the agents were “focused on enforcing the law, not on [Newsom].”

McLaughlin said two people were arrested during the Little Tokyo operation. One was a drug trafficker, according to McLaughlin, who said the other was a member of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that has been a focus of the Trump administration’s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportation efforts.

She did not respond to questions about how many agents were deployed or what specific agencies were involved in the Aug. 14 operation. Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino, who has been leading the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration operations in California, was at the scene and briefly spoke to reporters.

McLaughlin did not name either person arrested or respond to a request for further information or evidence of links between the arrests and the Venezuelan gang.

“Under President Trump and [Department of Homeland Security] Secretary [Kristi] Noem, if you break the law, you will face the consequences,” she wrote in an e-mailed statement. “Criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

On Thursday, witnesses at the scene identified one of the men arrested as Angel, a delivery worker who was carrying strawberries when he was captured.

“He was just doing his normal delivery to the courthouse,” said the man’s colleague, Carlos Franco. “It’s pretty sad, because I’ve got to go to work tomorrow, and Angel isn’t going to be there.”

In the FOIA request, Newsom’s legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, called the Border Patrol deployment an “attempt to intimidate the people of California from defending a fair electoral process.”

In addition to documents related to the planning of the raid, the FOIA request also seeks “any records referencing Governor Newsom or the rally that was scheduled to occur” and communications between federal law enforcement officials and Fox News, which allowed the Trump-friendly media outlet to embed a reporter with Border Patrol that day.

Trump’s increased use of the military and federal law enforcement against his political rivals has drawn growing concern in recent months. The president deployed the National Guard and U.S. Marines to quell protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles earlier this year. Just last week, Trump sent swarms of federal law enforcement officials to Washington, D.C., to combat what he sees as out-of-control crime, despite the fact that most crime statistics show violence in the nation’s capital is at a 30-year low.

Although Newsom demanded an answer by early September, the federal government is notoriously slow in responding to FOIA requests and will often delay responses for years. A spokesman for Newsom did not immediately respond to questions on Sunday about what, if any, other legal steps the governor was prepared to take.

Voters would have to approve Newsom’s plan to redraw the congressional maps in a special election in November. The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors instead of the independent commission that voters previously chose, would concentrate Republican voters in a few deep-red pockets of the state and eliminate an Inland Empire district long held by the GOP.

In total, Democrats would likely pick up five seats in California in the midterms under the redrawn maps, possibly countering or outpacing Republican efforts to tilt their map red in Texas. Other states have already begun to consider redrawing their maps along more partisan lines in response to growing anxieties over the fight to control the House of Representatives in 2026.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

A popular YouTube streamer posted on social media that he “almost [died] today” after Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies drew their weapons on him and briefly detained him Sunday afternoon in what he said appears to be a swatting incident.

Rapper DDG posted on a YouTube video that he was at a paintball tournament in Castaic when police surrounded him and other participants.

“I turned around and there’s like six police cars and I’m like, ‘OK, what’s going to happen?’” he said in the post.

DDG said he expected law enforcement would inform him of what was happening. Instead, he said, he was detained without an explanation.

Video on social media shows DDG being searched and being walked to and placed inside a sheriff’s vehicle just before 6 p.m.

“Bro, he pulled up. Ain’t no ‘what’s up,’ ain’t no nothing, ain’t no, ‘dude, we got a call.’ Nothing,” DDG said.

He then mimicked the pointing of a gun and said police yelled at him, “Hands in the air!”

DDG said that he had “just got done smoking … so, you’ve got to think what’s going through my mental, bro.”

He didn’t elaborate on what he was smoking but added, “I’m thinking to myself the whole time, ‘is this real?”

Multiple calls to the Sheriff’s Department’s Santa Clarita station went unanswered. The department’s main media relations office said it had no information about the incident.

As he sat in the back of the sheriff’s vehicle, DDG said, he told deputies he believed he was being swatted, which occurs when a false report of a crime or emergency is made to provoke an aggressive law enforcement response.

The most extreme examples of swatting have involved responses from Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT, teams.

While sitting in the sheriff’s vehicle, DDG said, he read information about the potential swatting call on an open sheriff’s laptop. He believed someone provided the Sheriff’s Department with a description of the exact type of car he drove. He added that whoever called in the complaint said that the rapper was armed and was going to hurt himself and others.

DDG said he was held for 20 minutes before being released.

“Enjoy life, life life like there’s no tomorrow,” he said on his stream, “because you never know.”

July 29 (UPI) — A group of 22 states filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from forcing states to give information about residents receiving SNAP benefits.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Monday that he has joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, who have filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA.

According to a press release from Bonta’s office, the USDA is demanding that states turn over “personal and sensitive information” about millions of recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP benefits.

A federally funded program, SNAP is administered by states to provide food assistance. The money provided is in the billions and is supplied to millions of low-income families across the United States. To receive SNAP benefits, recipients must supply their personal information, which Bonta’s office states happens “on the understanding, backed by long-standing state and federal laws, that their information will not be used for unrelated purposes.”

Bonta’s office alleged that the USDA is threatening to withhold SNAP funding unless states turn over such personal information, which would effectively force “states to choose between protecting their residents’ privacy and providing critical nutrition assistance to those in need.”

California said that the USDA demanded in May that all states supply a great deal of personal information in regard to all SNAP applicants and recipients, such as their social security numbers and home addresses, dating back five years.

For just the state of California, that would equal over 5 million people.

“This isn’t just about data,” Bonta posted to social media Monday. “It’s about making sure families aren’t forced to choose between feeding their kids and exposing themselves to government retaliation.”

According to the release, the Trump administration has justified this demand in order to prevent fraudulent use of SNAP. Bonta said that both federal and state law do not allow California to disclose such information unless absolutely necessary, or due to extraordinary circumstances.

“President Trump continues to weaponize private and sensitive personal information,” said Bonta. “Not to root out fraud, but to create a culture of fear where people are unwilling to apply for essential services.”

“We’re talking about kids not getting school lunch; fire victims not accessing emergency services; and other devastating, and deadly, consequences,” Bonta continued. “This unprecedented demand that states turn over SNAP data violates all kinds of state and federal privacy laws and further breaks the trust between the federal government and the people it serves.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced Monday that New York had joined the lawsuit and alleged that among the information illegally sought by the federal government is each SNAP recipient’s immigration status.

“Families should be able to get the assistance they need without fearing that they will be targeted by this administration,” she said on social media.

Included in the case docket for the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general is a letter sent by the USDA on Friday that demands that states each turn over SNAP participant data by Wednesday. Failing to do so, the USDA letter states, “may trigger noncompliance procedures” under current U.S. law.

California said it receives around $1 billion annually to administer SNAP and fears a federal delay in funding could be “catastrophic for the state and its residents who rely on SNAP to put food on the table,” according to Bonta’s office.

“The president doesn’t get to change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much he may want to,” Bonta further stated. “While he may be comfortable breaking promises to the American people, California is not.”

“We will not comply with this illegal demand,” he added. “We’ll see the President in court.”