jan.

In remarks that are likely to stoke concerns through the corridors of CNN, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Friday he is looking forward to Paramount’s ownership of the network.

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network the better,” Hegseth said during a morning briefing.

Hegseth’s invoking the name of the Paramount Skydance chief executive — whose company will take control of CNN once its deal to merge with Warner Bros. Discovery is finalized — amplified the fear many have that the cable news channel will seek to appease the Trump administration.

The typically combative Hegseth made the remarks after blasting CNN’s reporting on the U.S. military action in Iran. CNN said the Trump administration underestimated the impact its attack would have on the Strait of Hormuz, echoing the claims of other media outlets. Oil tankers have been unable to get through the passage due to attacks by Iranian drones, escalating gas prices as a result.

“CNN doesn’t think we thought of that,” Hegseth said. “It’s a fundamentally unserious report.”

Paramount declined to comment on the remarks by Hegseth, a former Fox News host who has a lot of experience in bashing the mainstream media. A CNN representative said the network stands by its reporting.

Trump has a friendship with Ellison’s father, Larry, and the two have reportedly discussed changes to CNN once Paramount takes ownership. But it’s the rare time such expectations have been offered up publicly by a top member of the administration.

Trump, who has long expressed disdain for CNN, expressed his preference for Paramount to prevail over Netfilx in its pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery so that CNN would be in the hands of the Ellisons.

In his last public statement about CNN, David Ellison said he wants to be in the “truth business” and insisted there would be no corporate interference in the network’s coverage.

“CNN is an incredible brand with an incredible team, and we absolutely believe in the independence that needs to be maintained, obviously, for those incredible journalists, and we want to support that going forward,” Ellison told CNBC on March 5.

Paramount has been forced to battle the perception of that its news organizations will tilt to the right under its stewardship. One of David Ellison’s first moves after his company Skydance Media took over CBS was installing Bari Weiss as editor in chief of the network’s news division despite having no experience in TV news. Ellison acquired Weiss’s the Free Press, a centrist digital news site that often targets excesses of the political left and is staunchly pro-Israel.

The acquisition and the appointment of Weiss were seen as a way to help smooth the regulatory approval of Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount last year. CBS News has been under intense scrutiny for signs that is shifting its coverage to please the administration.

A number of CBS News journalists unhappy over the division’s direction under Weiss have already departed. Scott MacFarlane, the Justice Department correspondent who announced his exit Monday, was said to be particularly unhappy over the network’s handling of the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters who wanted to overturn the 2020 election results.

Anderson Cooper also passed on signing a new deal with “60 Minutes,” where he has been a correspondent since 2007. But with the merger, the CNN anchor will still be a part of the company.

Weiss’ has had some early missteps. The Jan. 6 story was among several highly criticized segments during the first week of “CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil.” She delayed a “60 Minutes” segment on the government’s use of an El Salvador prison to detain undocumented migrants for more reporting, only to have it air with minor changes. The delay prompted charges that Weiss was trying to placate the White House, which CBS denied.

Notwithstanding the controversy, some insiders contend there has
not been a significant shift in how CBS News is covering most stories.

The network was among the first to report that the severity of injuries to U.S. service members from an Iranian drone attack in Kuwait were far more serious than the government initially said.

CBS News is also moving ahead with the hiring of Jeremy Adler, once a top advisor to former congresswoman and outspoken Trump nemesis Liz Cheney, to handle communications for Weiss, according to people familiar with the plan who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Axios — citing unnamed sources — reported that White House officials are angry about Adler joining the network, as Cheney was vice chairman of the committee that investigated the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney and one of the most conservative members of Congress during her time, supported Trump’s opponent Kamala Harris in the 2020 election.

Adler was Cheney’s deputy chief of staff and senior communications advisor from 2019 to 2023. He also served as a regional press secretary on now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.

NEW YORK — A counterprotester demonstrating against a “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City” event Saturday lighted and threw a device containing nuts, bolts and screws at the protesting crowd after someone from that group used pepper spray on the counterprotesters, police said.

Police are investigating the incident that started late Saturday morning when someone from the anti-Islam protest associated with far-right activist and pardoned Jan. 6 rioter Jake Lang shot pepper spray into a counterprotesting group near the mayoral residence Gracie Mansion, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said.

Tensions continued to heighten, she said, when one of the counterprotesters lighted and threw a device she described as smaller than a football into the protesting crowd of about 20 people.

The device struck a barrier and extinguished itself “a few feet from police officers,” she said. The same person then ran, and another person gave a him a second device, which they then dropped. The devices were wrapped in black tape with nuts, bolts and screws, as well as a fuse. She said it was unclear whether the devices were functioning explosives or hoaxes.

Three people were arrested, and an investigation is underway, Tisch said.

Tisch at a news conference didn’t report any injuries and said she believed Mayor Zohran Mamdani was not at Gracie Mansion at the time.

She said about 20 people showed up to Saturday’s protest connected to Lang, and the counterprotest had about 125 people at its peak.

Lang was charged with assaulting a police officer with a baseball bat, civil disorder and other crimes before receiving a pardon as part of President Trump’s sweeping act of clemency for Jan. 6 defendants last year. Lang recently announced that he is running for U.S. Senate in Florida.

Last month, Lang staged an anti-Islam protest in Minneapolis during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown there.

WASHINGTON — Visitors to the Capitol will now have a visible reminder of the violent attack against the building on Jan. 6, 2021, and the officers who fought and were injured defending it that day.

Steps from the Capitol’s West Front, where the worst of the violence occurred, workers quietly have installed a plaque honoring the officers, three years after it was required by law to be erected. The plaque was placed on the Senate side of the hallway because the Senate voted unanimously in January to install it after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had delayed putting it up. Many Republicans had balked at installing the plaque.

“On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021,” the plaque says. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

The Washington Post first reported the installation of the plaque, which was witnessed by a reporter about 4 a.m. Saturday.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) led the effort to install it as he commemorated the fifth anniversary of the attack and insurrection and described his memories of hearing people break into the building. “We owe them eternal gratitude, and this nation is stronger because of them,” he said of the officers who were overwhelmed by thousands of President Trump’s supporters before eventually pushing them out of the building.

The mob of rioters who violently pushed past police and broke in were echoing Trump’s false claims of a stolen election after the Republican was defeated by Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. The crowd stopped the congressional certification of Biden’s victory for several hours, sent lawmakers running for safety and vandalized the building before police regained control.

Five police officers and four protesters died as a consequence of the violence. More than 140 officers from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department and other agencies were injured.

The fight to have the plaque installed came as Trump returned to office last year and the Republican Congress has remained loyal to him. The president, who has called Jan. 6 a “day of love,” on his first day of his new term granted pardons or commutations to nearly 1,600 people convicted or charged in the rioting.

Trump was impeached and criminally indicted for his role in the insurrection. The Senate did not convict him, and the felony charges were dropped after he was reelected in November 2024.

Congress passed a law in 2022 that set out instructions for the honorific plaque listing the names of officers “who responded to the violence that occurred.” It gave a one-year deadline for installation, but the plaque never went up.

After more than a year of silence — and a lawsuit by two of the officers who fought at the Capitol that day — Johnson said at the beginning of the year that there were technical problems with the statute and the plaque could not be erected.

Tillis went to the Senate floor shortly afterward and passed a resolution, with no objections, to place the plaque on the Senate side.

One of the officers who sued, Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, said the lawsuit would continue. Hodges, who was crushed by the rioters in the heavy doors steps away from where the plaque is now displayed, said Saturday that the overnight installation was a “fine stopgap” but that it was not in full compliance of the law. The original statute said that all of the officers’ names should be listed, among other technical specifications.

“The weight of a judicial ruling would help secure the memorial against future tampering,” Hodges said. “Our lawsuit persists.”

Jalonick and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Allison Robbert contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called for the Department of Homeland Security to return a California woman with DACA who was recently deported a day after her green card interview.

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is the Obama-era program that since 2012 has shielded certain immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation and allowed them to work legally.

Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez lived in California for 27 years before being detained at her green card interview last month and deported within 24 hours, despite having active DACA protection and no criminal history. Her story was first reported by the Sacramento Bee.

On a call from Mexico on Thursday with reporters, Estrada Juarez, 42, said DACA was supposed to protect people like her who work hard and follow the rules.

“I did everything I could to build a stable life and give my daughter the opportunities that I never had,” she said. “But about two weeks ago, everything changed. I was wrongfully deported. In a single moment, nearly 30 years of my life were taken away from me — my home, my work, my community.”

Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment about Estrada’s case.

The detention and deportation of DACA recipients is in stark contrast to previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, and years of bipartisan support for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. For admission into the program, they must pass background checks and meet certain educational or work requirements.

Trump has given mixed signals on DACA recipients, known as “Dreamers.” In his first term, he tried unsuccessfully to shut down the program. In December 2024 on “Meet the Press” he said that “I want to be able to work something out” on their behalf, but offered no specifics and the administration has done nothing to offer them extra protection.

The program’s fate has since remained embroiled in litigation.

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said Homeland Security provided conflicting data to members of Congress about how many DACA recipients have been detained and deported since Trump returned to the White House.

In a Jan. 12 letter to Garcia, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that between Jan. 1 and Sept. 28 of 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had arrested 270 DACA recipients. The letter did not say how many of those 270 were deported.

Of those, 130 had criminal convictions, 120 had pending criminal charges and 14 were in violation of immigration law, she wrote. That adds up to 264, not 270.

“Please note DACA is a form of prosecutorial discretion that does not confer lawful status,” wrote Noem, who was fired Thursday.

But in a letter to Durbin and other senators last month, Noem provided smaller numbers, though she addressed a longer time period, Jan. 1 to Nov. 19, 2025. She said the agency had arrested 261 DACA recipients and deported 86.

She said that of those arrested, 241 had criminal histories, though she did not specify if that meant convictions or pending charges.

On Wednesday, Garcia wrote back to Noem, saying, “The discrepancies between your two responses demonstrate gross incompetency or intentional misdirection.”

The conflicting data from Noem came after 95 members of Congress in September demanded answers about the targeting of DACA recipients. They wrote that letter after Tricia McLaughlin, the former Homeland Security public affairs secretary, said DACA recipients “are not automatically protected from deportation.”

The lawmakers cited the case of a deaf and non-verbal DACA recipient with no criminal history who was detained last year amid the immigration raids in Los Angeles. He was later released.

As of June 2025, there were more than 515,000 DACA recipients in the U.S., a decrease since the program’s peak of nearly 800,000. With 144,000, California has the most of any state, according to federal data.

Estrada Juarez did not take questions during the call Thurday with reporters, but Ivonne Rodriguez, press director for immigration reform at the advocacy group FWD.us, explained to The Times what happened.

Around 11 a.m. on Feb. 18, Estrada Juarez arrived with her daughter Damaris Bello, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen, at the John E. Moss Federal Building in Sacramento for an interview as part of the process to obtain legal permanent residency, or a green card.

At the courthouse, immigration agents took Estrada Juarez’s fingerprints and asked her to apply a fingerprint to a form saying she had agreed to be deported, Rodriguez said. She refused.

An officer told Estrada Juarez “If you don’t sign, I will make you sign.” The officer grabbed her hand and forced her to sign using her fingerprint, Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez said federal agents cited a deportation order from 1998 during Estrada Juarez’s detention last month at the courthouse. But being a DACA recipient should mean that such orders are not acted upon while the protected status is active, so long as the person stays out of criminal trouble.

“She kept stating she had active DACA throughout the entire time and they did not care,” Rodriguez said.

By 8 a.m. the next morning, Estrada Juarez had been dropped off by bus in Tijuana, Rodriguez said.

Estrada Juarez is among many immigrants arrested for deportation at courthouses since last year, a practice that breaks from longstanding former procedure.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on oversight of Homeland Security, Durbin asked Noem about Estrada Juarez and the other deported DACA recipients.

“Madam secretary, why have you deported dozens of DACA holders who had to comply with a criminal background check to be eligible for DACA?” Durbin asked.

“Sir, we follow all laws as applicable to the Department of Homeland Security,” Noem replied before Durbin cut her off.

“Why did you deport them?” he repeated.

Noem said she wasn’t familiar with the details of Estrada Juarez’s case but would look into it.

On the call Thursday with Estrada Juarez, Sen. Padilla (D-Calif.) said he met her daughter this week. He and other Democrats called for Congress to pass legislation that would permanently protect DACA recipients from deportation.

“DACA recipients did everything right and followed all the instructions laid out in the program,” he said. “They took the United States government at its word, and they’ve kept their end of the deal. But now we know that Donald Trump and Kristi Noem are breaking the government’s promise.”

Estrada Juarez said justice in her case would mean being allowed to return to the U.S.

“I’m not asking for a special treatment,” she said. “I’m asking for what is right. My deportation was wrong, and my family should not have to be torn apart. I just want to change to go home and hold my daughter again.”

The UCLA men’s basketball team made Senior Night one to savor Tuesday, dominating No. 9 Nebraska 72-52 at Pauley Pavilion for its 20th victory of the season and third over a top-10 ranked opponent.

The Bruins improved to 20-10 overall and 12-7 in the Big Ten with one regular season game remaining, Saturday at crosstown rival USC.

Trent Perry scored 20 points, Eric Dailey Jr. had 14 and three players — Tyler Bilodeau, Skyy Clark and Xavier Booker — each added eight points.

Sam Hoiberg had 12 points to lead Nebraska.

The Bruins were in control from the opening tip-off and never trailed the Cornhuskers (25-5, 14-5). UCLA improved to 10-3 in all-time against Nebraska and the win greatly strengthened its resume for an NCAA tournament berth as the Bruins also beat then-No. 4 Purdue 69-67 on Jan. 20 and then-No. 10 Illinois 95-94 in overtime on Feb. 21 on Donovan Dent’s layup with one second left.

This is the fifth time in head coach Mick Cronin’s seven seasons that the Bruins have won 20 or more games. They are 17-1 at home (their only loss in overtime to Indiana on Jan. 31).

UCLA went ahead by 15 points, 37-22, on Perry’s three-pointer with 2:41 left and led 37-24 at intermission. The Bruins shot 50% from the field in the first half (15 for 30) while Nebraska was only 31% (nine for 29).

The Bruins increased their advantage to 18 points on Dailey’s dunk less than five minutes into the second half and the visitors got no closer than nine the rest of the way.

Prior to pregame introductions the Bruins honored seniors Bilodeau, Dent and Clark; fifth-year player Jamar Brown; redshirt seniors Steven Jamerson II, Jack Seidler and Anthony Peoples Jr; and redshirt junior Evan Manjikian. In a media timeout, midway through the first half, former coach Jim Harrick (who led UCLA to its 11th national championship in 1995) was honored and got a loud ovation.

UCLA guard Skyy Clark looks to pass while under pressure from Nebraska guard Sam Hoiberg and forward Berke Buyuktuncel in the second half.

(William Liang / Associated Press)

Over the last four games, Dent has 46 assists and just two turnovers.

Bilodeau has scored in double figures in 26 of 28 games played, totaling 20 points or more nine times.

Dailey moved to within five points of reaching the 1,000-career point milestone.

UCLA has now made at least one three-pointer in 887 of 888 games dating to February 2000.

A cause of death has been determined for Martin Short’s daughter Katherine, who took her own life in February.

She died Feb. 23 from a gunshot wound to the head, according to the Los Angeles County medical examiner’s database, which listed her case under her legal name, Katherine Hartley.

Her death was confirmed by her family in a statement to The Times two days later.

“It is with profound grief that we confirm the passing of Katherine Hartley Short,” the family said. “The Short family is devastated by this loss and asks for privacy at this time. Katherine was beloved by all and will be remembered for the light and joy she brought into the world.”

The 42-year-old was the eldest of three children adopted by the “Only Murders in the Building” star and his wife, actor Nancy Dolman. Dolman died of ovarian cancer in 2010, 30 years after marrying her husband. Martin Short’s sons are Oliver and Henry.

Hartley, whose body was found at her Hollywood Hills home by L.A. County Fire Department paramedics, legally applied for a name change in 2012 because of her famous father’s public persona.

“My father is a public figure. I am a social worker. I am concerned about potential harassment from future patients resulting from my association with my father,” she wrote in her name-change application, which was filed in October 2012 and approved Jan. 25, 2013.

After obtaining a bachelor’s degree in psychology and gender studies from NYU in 2006, she followed up with a master’s in social work from USC in 2010, People reported. In addition to having a private practice, she worked part time at Amae Health, a Los Angeles clinic providing mental health and psychiatric care, the outlet said. Suicide attempts and ideation are among the conditions the clinic says it specializes in treating.

The death certificate for Katherine Elizabeth Hartley, which was obtained by TMZ, includes a field denoting how the injury occurred. It reads, “shot herself.” According to the outlet, a note was found at the scene.

Martin Short has been hit with horrible news multiple times in recent months. In addition to his daughter, Short’s longtime pal Catherine O’Hara died Jan. 30 after battling rectal cancer and friends Rob and Michelle Reiner were killed in December.

Times staff writer Malia Mendez contributed to this report.

Early in Michael McIndoe’s shift on Jan. 2, 2025, his crew got their marching orders: Pick up hoses left overnight at the scene of the Lachman fire.

McIndoe, a captain at Fire Station 69 in Pacific Palisades, didn’t think the plan was a good idea, he said in sworn testimony obtained by The Times. He had read the National Weather Service’s forecast for the day — temperatures were expected to be warmer — and handling any lingering hot spots would be easier with hoses in place.

While he was still at the station, he said, he relayed his concerns by phone to Battalion Chief Mario Garcia, who was in charge of the operation.

Garcia “said something along the lines of, ‘OK. Let me go check it out, and then I’ll get back to you,’ ” McIndoe testified last month.

Despite the warning, Garcia’s orders never changed, and McIndoe spent a couple hours or so that morning rolling up hose lines.

At one point, McIndoe said, he came across a smoldering ash pit. He retrieved a backpack with water from his engine, sprayed into the ground with a couple gallons of water and dug up the dirt with his hand tool until he was satisfied it was cool.

Days later, amid high winds, embers from the Lachman fire ignited into the Palisades fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

McIndoe was one of a dozen Los Angeles firefighters deposed in January in a lawsuit filed by Palisades fire victims against the city and the state. Transcripts and videos of the testimony were released Thursday and Friday, backing up earlier reporting by The Times that crews were ordered to pack up their hoses despite signs that the Lachman fire was not completely out.

One firefighter, Scott Pike, testified that he informed a captain of hot spots and ash pits in the area but that he never received orders to take care of the hazards.

Garcia testified that no one informed him of any concerns about picking up the hoses and that he believed the decision was made before his shift.

The testimony raises questions about why LAFD officials did not address concerns expressed to them about weather conditions and potentially dangerous hot spots that could flare up into another fire. With Pike and McIndoe saying they were following directions from above, and Garcia and the battalion chief from the prior shift appearing to pass the buck to others, it is unclear who made the decision to leave the Lachman fire.

LAFD spokesperson Stephanie Bishop declined to answer the question of who decided to pull the hoses, citing an ongoing investigation. She also would not answer whether officials had identified the captain whom Pike spoke with or determined what the captain did with his concerns.

Pike said he did not know the captain’s name but believed the captain was from Engine 69.

McIndoe testified that he was the captain on Engine 69 that day. In an email Saturday, McIndoe said he was not authorized to speak with the media but wanted to correct the record: “I did not speak to, nor do I recall seeing, Firefighter Pike the day that we picked up hose at the Lachman fire.”

Garcia did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Pike did not respond to a request for comment.

That day, McIndoe testified, he saw Garcia on the hill picking up hoses and brought up their earlier conversation.

“I just went up to him, and I said, ‘Hey, I hope you don’t think I’m just trying to get out of work,’ ” McIndoe said. “And he said, no, that’s — that’s fine. Something along those lines, and that that’s all I can really recall.”

He said he was trying to clarify with Garcia that he believed “that the hose should stay up a little bit longer.”

Garcia testified that when he got to the burn scar, no one raised any concerns about the hose pickup, nor did he see any need to leave the equipment at the site.

He said he thought the decision to pick up the hoses was made before his shift — though he was “not 100 percent sure” — and that it was a “collaborative decision, based off all the information that was received.”

By the time he got up to the burn area, Garcia testified, half the hose had already been picked up. He walked the perimeter to ensure there was a line cut around it and that it was cold, and did not see any smoke or any sign that the fire was not fully extinguished.

“Came across several members,” he said. “Nobody mentioned anything about there being any concerns of any sort.”

Battalion Chief Martin Mullen, who was on duty before Garcia, testified that he walked the perimeter four times and left the hose lines in place overnight as a precaution, keeping two assistant chiefs, Vinny Alvarado and Joseph Everett, in the loop. Mullen said they informed another top chief, Phillip Fligiel.

The hoses could be hooked up again quickly “if something were to happen,” Mullen testified.

Mullen testified that he also notified Garcia: “I told him I left him hose lines in place overnight, you need to walk that and make sure there’s nothing going on up there.”

Mullen, who said he was not involved in deciding when to pick up the hoses, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In an email Sunday, Everett said: “I was not present or assigned to that incident. As a result I made no command decisions nor do I have information as to anyones testimony.”

Text messages obtained by The Times through a public records request in December show that Fligiel, Alvarado and Everett were making plans to remove the equipment on Jan. 1. The Lachman fire, which federal prosecutors believe was deliberately set, flared up shortly after midnight on Jan. 1, 2025. A few hours later, at 4:46 a.m., the LAFD announced that it was fully contained at eight acres.

“I imagine it might take all day to get that hose off the hill,” Fligiel said in a group chat early the morning of Jan. 1. “Make sure that plan is coordinated.”

At 1:35 p.m. on Jan. 2, Garcia texted Fligiel and Everett: “All hose and equipment has been picked up.”

Earlier that day, Pike was making troubling observations that led him to think that the entire area needed to be re-investigated. He saw about five smoky areas and ash pits, including one he remembered vividly that was too hot to touch with his gloved hand.

“So I just kicked it with my boot to kind of expose it, and there was, like red hot, like, coals,” he testified. “And I even heard crackling.”

Pike, a 23-year LAFD veteran based at a station in Sunland, was working an overtime shift at Fire Station 23, the LAFD’s second outpost in the Palisades, that day. He relayed his observations to a captain and two firefighters.

“That’s how I approached him, is like, ‘Hey, Cap … We have hot spots in general. We have some ash pits,’ ” Pike testified about his conversation with the captain. “That’s an alert to double-check the whole area and maybe we need to switch our tactics.”

Pike testified that it was not his job “to overstep and tell him what to do. He earned that rank.”

The captain, he said, suggested possibly bringing hand tools or a backpack filled with water up the hill to extinguish any hot spots. Pike went back to picking up the hose while awaiting new orders, which never came.

Pike testified that he felt his colleagues — the captain and two firefighters — blew him off.

“It kind of sits heavy with me that nobody listened to me,” he said.

In his deposition, McIndoe did not recall details about other conversations he had that day.

He was asked by a plaintiffs’ attorney: “Any dialogue with anyone else that you haven’t told me about concerning any of the work that was being done up there at the Lachman fire site, in terms of checking for smokers? Making sure that you got all the hose? Anything like that?”

McIndoe responded: “I don’t recall specific conversations. I think I may have had a conversation with one or two of the other captains that were on scene before we left.”

McIndoe testified that he told that captain — whom he said was from Fire Station 37 — that he thought it would be a good idea to leave the hose out because the warm weather could preheat the ground and bring up smokers, “and it would be nice to have the hose lines in place to address those.”

The Times reported in October that crews were ordered to leave the Lachman fire, even though the ground was still smoldering and rocks were hot to the touch.

In a text message reviewed by The Times, a firefighter who was at the scene wrote that Garcia had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave because of the visible signs of smoking terrain, which crews feared could start a new fire if left unprotected.

“And the rest is history,” the firefighter wrote.

A Los Angeles firefighter said in sworn testimony that he sounded the alarm about the inadequate mop-up of the Lachman fire — and was blown off by a captain — days before the embers reignited into the deadly Palisades fire.

The firefighter, Scott Pike, testified last month in a lawsuit brought by Palisades fire victims against the city and the state.

Pike, a 23-year LAFD veteran normally assigned to a station in Sunland, was working an overtime shift on Jan. 2 when he was assigned to pick up the hoses from the Lachman fire. But he said he saw about five areas that were still smoking.

At one ash pit, he said, “I didn’t even want to use my gloved hand because it was hot. So I just kicked it with my boot to kind of expose it, and there was, like red hot, like, coals … that was still smoldering. And I even heard crackling.”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Pike’s dramatic retelling, which city attorneys initially blocked from release along with transcripts of deposition testimony from 11 other firefighters, corroborates previous reporting by The Times that a battalion chief ordered crews to pack up their hoses and leave, despite signs that the earlier fire was not completely extinguished.

Pike testified that when he reported his observations to other firefighters at the scene, “I felt like I kind of got blown off a little bit.”

Then he tried the captain.

“That’s how I approached him, is like, ‘Hey, Cap … We have hot spots in general. We have some ash pits,’” Pike said of the captain on the scene, whose name he did not know. “That’s an alert to double-check the whole area and maybe we need to switch our tactics.”

Pike testified that it was not his job “to overstep and tell him what to do. He earned that rank.”

The other firefighters, too, seemed eager to “just get this hose picked up,” Pike said, adding that he was working overtime the day after a holiday “because nobody else wanted to work it.”

“It kind of sits heavy with me that nobody listened to me,” he said.

LAFD commanders have insisted that the flames were completely out and barely mentioned the earlier fire in an after-action review report designed to examine mistakes and prevent them from happening again.

Pike said in his testimony that he was never interviewed for the after-action report.

After the firefighters testified over the course of three weeks, city attorneys invoked a general protective order that any party in the litigation can designate testimony as confidential for up to 30 days. A city attorney previously told The Times that this allowed them to review the testimony and determine which parts, if any, should stay confidential.

Days after the firefighters left the scene, high winds reignited the embers into the inferno that destroyed much of Pacific Palisades and killed 12 people.

Alex Robertson, an attorney representing the Palisades fire victims in the lawsuit, said the 11 other firefighters who were deposed testified that the fire was out and that they did not see hot spots or smoldering.

“Only one of the firefighters we deposed had the courage to tell the truth — that his fellow firefighters and captain ignored his warnings that the fire had not been fully extinguished,” Robertson said.

The fire victims allege that the state government, which owns Topanga State Park, failed in the week between the two fires to inspect the burn scar after firefighters left and make sure a “dangerous condition” did not exist on its property.

The LAFD was responsible for putting out the fire, but plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that the state should have done more to monitor the burn scar and ensure the area was safe.

Several California State Parks representatives also testified in the case. Their testimony and text messages show that their initial concern was whether the fire was on parkland and whether firefighting efforts and equipment would harm federally endangered plants and artifacts.

The Times report about crews being ordered to leave the earlier fire, published Oct. 30, described text messages from firefighters indicating that at the scene of the Lachman fire on Jan. 2, 2025, the ground was still smoldering and rocks were hot to the touch.

In one text message, a firefighter who was at the scene wrote that the battalion chief had been told it was a “bad idea” to leave because of the visible signs of smoking terrain, which crews feared could start a new fire if left unprotected.

“And the rest is history,” the firefighter wrote.

A second firefighter was told that tree stumps were still hot when the crew packed up and left, according to the texts. And a third firefighter said last month that crew members were upset when told to pack up and leave but that they could not ignore orders, according to the texts. The third firefighter also wrote that he and his colleagues knew immediately that the Palisades fire was a rekindle of the Jan. 1 blaze.

LAFD officials were emphatic early on that the Lachman fire, which federal prosecutors believe was deliberately set, was fully extinguished.

“We won’t leave a fire that has any hot spots,” Kristin Crowley, the fire chief at the time, said at a community meeting Jan. 16, 2025.

“That fire was dead out,” Chief Deputy Joe Everett said at the same meeting, adding that he was out of town but communicating with the incident commander. “If it is determined that was the cause, it would be a phenomenon.”

The Lachman fire broke out shortly after midnight on New Years Day. A few hours later, at 4:46 a.m., the LAFD announced that the blaze was fully contained at eight acres.

Top fire commanders soon made plans to finish mopping up the scene and to leave with their equipment, according to another set of text messages obtained by The Times through a state Public Records Act request.

“I imagine it might take all day to get that hose off the hill,” LAFD Chief Deputy Phillip Fligiel said in a group chat early the morning of Jan. 1. “Make sure that plan is coordinated.”

At 1:35 p.m. on Jan. 2, Battalion Chief Mario Garcia — whom firefighters said had received the observations about the smoldering ground and hot rocks, according to the private text messages The Times reviewed — texted Fligiel and Everett: “All hose and equipment has been picked up.”

Five days after that, on the morning of Jan. 7, an LAFD captain called Fire Station 23 to say that the Lachman fire had started up again.

In June, LAFD Battalion Chief Nick Ferrari had told a high-ranking fire official who works for a different agency in the L.A. region that LAFD officials knew about the firefighters’ complaints at the Lachman fire scene, The Times also reported.

After the Oct. 30 Times report, Bass directed Fire Chief Jaime Moore, who started the job in November, to commission an independent investigation into the LAFD’s handling of the Lachman fire.

In an interview last month, Moore said he opened an internal investigation into the Lachman fire through the LAFD’s Professional Standards Division, which probes complaints against department members. He said he requested the Fire Safety Research Institute, which is reviewing last January’s wildfires at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom, to include the Lachman fire as part of its analysis, and the institute agreed. Moore also pointed to the L.A. City Council’s move to hire an outside firm to examine the Lachman and Palisades fires.

Even with the internal investigation underway, Moore said he spoke with the battalion chief who was on duty during the Lachman fire mop-up.

“He swears to me that nobody ever told him verbally or through a text message that there was any hot spots,” Moore said.

Former Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley is suing the city, claiming in a whistleblower lawsuit that Mayor Karen Bass “orchestrated a campaign of retaliation” to protect her own political future and paper over her failures during the most destructive fire in city history.

In the lawsuit, filed Monday in L.A. County Superior Court, Crowley and her attorneys allege Bass sought to shift blame for the way the city handled last year’s catastrophic Palisades fire to Crowley amid mounting criticism of the mayor’s decision to attend a ceremony in Ghana on Jan. 7, the day the fire erupted. Bass, the suit alleges, left L.A. despite knowing of the potential severe winds and fire danger.

“She sought to avoid accountability by shifting blame and lying — including falsely claiming that she was not aware of the nationally anticipated weather event, falsely claiming that the LAFD’s budget was not cut, and falsely claiming that LAFD’s resources would have supported an additional 1,000 firefighters to fight the blaze — claims contradicted by public records and Bass’ own prior statements,” the lawsuit alleges. “These false statements were not mistakes but part of a deliberate strategy to divert scrutiny from Bass’ decisions and to avoid accountability.”

The Palisades fire took off the morning of Jan. 7, 2025 amid fierce Santa Ana winds, killing 12 people and destroying thousands of homes amounting to billions of dollars in damage. While authorities allege a Florida man started the fire, saying it was actually a rekindling of a Jan. 1 fire, decisions by both LAFD brass and the mayor before, during and after Jan. 7 have come under scrutiny.

According to records obtained by The Times, shortly before releasing an after-action review report on the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department issued a confidential memo detailing plans to protect Bass and others from “reputational harm.” The 13-page document is on LAFD letterhead and includes email addresses for department officials, representatives of Bass’ office, and public relations consultants hired to help shape messaging about the fire.

But as questions about the fire response swirled, instead of getting in lockstep with Bass, Crowley revealed to the public that “budget cuts had weakened the department’s readiness and jeopardized public and firefighter safety” and said her repeated warnings were ignored, the lawsuit says. It alleges Bass retaliated by ousting her as fire chief on Feb. 21, 2025.

Since the fire, the city has faced criticism for an inadequate deployment of firefighters, a chaotic evacuation of Pacific Palisades and a lack of water caused in part by a local reservoir being left empty for repairs. In December, The Times revealed that the city’s after-action report had been altered to deflect criticism of LAFD’s failure to predeploy engines and crews to the Palisades, among other shortcomings.

Crowley’s lawyers claim Bass’ view of her performance shifted with political opinion — starting with initial praise before reversing course and criticizing Crowley as the mayor came under fire for being out of the country during the blaze.

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When Crowley was ousted, the mayor said it was because Crowley failed to inform her about the dangerous conditions that day or to predeploy hundreds of firefighters just in case. She also said Crowley rebuffed a request to prepare a report on the fires — a critical part of ongoing investigations into the cause of the fire and the city’s response.

But Crowley’s lawyers, Genie Harrison and Mia Munro, allege their client “repeatedly warned of the LAFD’s worsening resource and staffing crisis” prior to the fire and warned that aging infrastructure, surging emergency calls and shrinking staff left the city at risk.

“An analysis of the 90th percentile of all incidents indicates that the overall response time of LAFD resources has increased from 6:51 (minutes) in 2018 to 7:53 in 2022. This dramatic increase is nearly double the time by national standards for first-arriving units,” the lawsuit says.

Three days after the fire, Crowley told a local TV news station that her department was “screaming to be properly funded,” which prompted Bass to summon Crowley to her office, according to the lawsuit.

“I don’t know why you had to do that; normally we are on the same page, and I don’t know why you had to say stuff to the media,” Bass told Crowley, according to the lawsuit. Bass allegedly told Crowley she wasn’t firing her then because “right now I can’t do that.”

Before Crowley was ousted, the city’s top financial analyst pushed back on her budget-cutting narrative, saying that spending on the Fire Department actually went up during that budget year — in large part because of a package of firefighter raises. Those increases added an estimated $53 million to the department’s budget.

Regardless, the day after Crowley and Bass met in her office, the lawsuit alleges, retired LAFD Chief Deputy Ronnie Villanueva began working at the Emergency Operations Center, donning a mayor’s office badge. On Feb. 3, 2025, more than two weeks before Crowley was removed from her position, Villanueva wrote a report to the Board of Fire Commissioners identifying himself as the interim fire chief — a position he held until the appointment of Fire Chief Jaime Moore last fall.

The lawsuit alleges that Bass and others in her administration defamed Crowley, retaliated against her in violation of California’s labor code and violated Crowley’s 1st Amendment rights. Crowley is seeking unspecified damages.

Bass repeatedly has denied she was involved in any effort to water down the after-action report, which was meant to spell out mistakes in the Palisades fire response and suggest measures to avoid repeating them. But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office said that after receiving an early draft of the report, the mayor told Villanueva it could expose the city to legal liabilities.

Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources told The Times this month. The mayor has said The Times’ story based on the sources’ accounts was “completely fabricated.”

Crowley and her lawyers allege the LAFD “did not have sufficient operating emergency vehicles to safely and effectively pre-deploy 1,000 (or anywhere near 1,000) additional firefighters on January 7.” The department did not have the money or personnel “to repair and maintain emergency fire engines, fire trucks, and ambulances,” the suit alleges.

“This case is about accountability,” said Harrison, Crowley’s attorney. “Public servants should not face punishment or be silenced for telling the truth about public or firefighter safety and on matters of public importance.”

Times staff writers Alene Tcheckmedyian, David Zahniser and Paul Pringle contributed to this report. Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase acknowledged for the first time that it closed the bank accounts of Donald Trump and several of his businesses in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, the latest development in a legal saga between the president and the nation’s biggest bank over the issue known as “debanking.”

The acknowledgment came in a court filing submitted this week in Trump’s lawsuit against the bank and its leader, Jamie Dimon. The president sued for $5 billion, alleging that his accounts were closed for political reasons, disrupting his business operations.

“In February 2021, JPMorgan informed Plaintiffs that certain accounts maintained with JPMorgan’s CB and PB would be closed,” JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer Dan Wilkening wrote in the court filing. The “PB” and “CB” stands for JPMorgan’s private bank and commercial bank.

Until now, JPMorgan has never admitted it closed the president’s accounts in writing after Jan. 6. The bank would only speak hypothetically about when the bank closes accounts and its reasons for closing accounts, citing bank privacy laws.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment beyond what the bank said in its legal filings.

Trump originally sued JPMorgan in Florida state court, where the president’s primary residence is now located. The filings this week are part of an effort by JPMorgan Chase to have the case moved from state to federal court and to have the jurisdiction of the case moved to New York, which is where the bank accounts were located and where Trump kept much of his business operations until recently.

Trump originally accused the bank of trade libel and violating state and federal unfair and deceptive trade practices.

In the original lawsuit, Trump said he tried to raise the issue personally with Dimon after the bank sent him notices that JPMorgan would close his accounts, and that Dimon assured Trump he would figure out what was happening. The lawsuit alleges Dimon failed to follow up with Trump.

Further, Trump’s lawyers allege that JPMorgan placed the president and his companies on a reputational “blacklist” that both JPMorgan and other banks use to keep clients from opening accounts with them in the future. The blacklist has yet to be defined by the president’s lawyers.

“If and when Plaintiffs explain what they mean by this ‘blacklist,’ JPMorgan will respond accordingly,” the bank’s lawyers said in a filing.

JPMorgan has previously said that although it regrets that Trump felt the need to sue the bank, the lawsuit has no merit.

The issue of debanking is at the center of the case. Debanking occurs when a bank closes the accounts of a customer or refuses to do business with a customer in the form of loans or other services. Once a relatively obscure issue in finance, debanking has become a politically charged issue in recent years, with conservative politicians arguing that banks have discriminated against them and their affiliated interests.

“In a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim, JPMorgan Chase admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the president’s lawyers said in a statement. “President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.”

Debanking first became a national issue when conservatives accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to stop extending services to gun stores and payday lenders under “Operation Choke Point.”

Trump and other conservative figures have alleged that banks cut them off from their accounts under the umbrella term of “reputational risk” after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection on Jan. 6, though not convicted in the Senate; and he was criminally indicted for his role in the riot and his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but that case was dismissed after he won the 2024 election.

Since Trump came back into office, the president’s banking regulators have moved to stop any banks from using “reputational risk” as a reason for denying service to customers.

This is not the first lawsuit Trump has filed against a big bank alleging that he was debanked. The Trump Organization sued credit card giant Capital One in March 2025 for similar reasons and allegations. The case is ongoing.

Sweet writes for the Associated Press.

Federal authorities announced an investigation Friday of two immigration officers who appeared to have made untruthful statements under oath about a shooting in Minneapolis last month.

It is among at least five shootings in which initial descriptions by the immigration officials were later contradicted by video evidence. Those included the fatal Minneapolis shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in which bystander video quickly raised questions about how federal officials initially described the incidents.

The inquiry announced Friday came hours after a federal judge dismissed felony assault charges against two Venezuelan men who were accused of beating an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel on Jan. 14. The officer, who is not named in court filings, fired a single shot from a handgun that struck one of the men, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, in the thigh.

In an unusual reversal, prosecutors asked to dismiss the cases because they said new video evidence contradicted allegations made against the men in a criminal complaint and at a hearing last month.

Here is a look at how the five shootings were initially described and what was later learned:

Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis

Date and location: Jan. 14, 2026, in Minneapolis.

What federal officials said initially: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the immigration officer was “ambushed” by Sosa-Celis and others, and fired a “defensive shot” out of fear for his life. “What we saw last night in Minneapolis was an attempted murder of federal law enforcement,” she said.

What came out later: Investigators have not released the new evidence that led charges to be dropped, but cracks were already apparent in a Jan. 21 court hearing. The immigration officer’s testimony recounting the moments before the shooting differed significantly from that of the defendants and three eyewitnesses. Available video evidence did not support the officer’s account of being assaulted with a broom and shovel.

Renee Good

Date and location: Jan. 7, 2026, in Minneapolis.

What federal officials said initially: Noem described the incident as an “act of domestic terrorism” carried out against ICE officers by a woman who “attempted to run them over and rammed them with her vehicle.” She said the immigration agent shot “defensively” to protect himself and the people around him. Good died of gunshot wounds to the head.

What came out later: Videos filmed from multiple angles challenged the administration’s narrative. Shortly before the shooting, Good is seen at the wheel of her SUV that is parked diagonally on a street. She tells an immigration officer, “I’m not mad at you.”

Seconds later, another immigration officer grabs at the driver’s side door while Good’s wife urges her to “drive, baby, drive.” It’s unclear in the videos whether the SUV makes contact with ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who shoots while standing near the front of the driver’s side of the SUV and then twice more while quickly moving to the driver’s side as the vehicle pulls forward.

Alex Pretti

Date and location: Jan. 24, 2026, in Minneapolis.

What federal officials said initially: Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Pretti approached Border Patrol officers with a handgun and he “violently resisted” when they tried to disarm him. An agent feared for his life and fired “defensive” shots, she said. Pretti was pronounced dead at the scene. Border Patrol senior official Greg Bovino claimed Pretti intended to “massacre law enforcement,” and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller described him as “a would-be assassin.”

What came out later: None of the half-dozen bystander videos collected by investigators showed Pretti brandishing his gun, which he had a permit to carry. The videos showed Pretti was holding his mobile phone as a masked Border Patrol officer opened fire.

In a tense hearing Thursday in Washington, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky made leaders tasked with carrying out Trump’s mass deportation agenda watch a video of the shooting while he repeatedly scrutinized the forceful tactics used by immigration agents. Paul argued that Pretti posed no threat to the agents and said it was clear from the video that he was “retreating at every moment.”

Silverio Villegas González

Date and location: Sept. 12, 2025, in suburban Chicago.

What federal officials said initially: Homeland Security officials said federal agents were pursuing a man with a history of reckless driving who entered the country illegally. They alleged that Villegas González drove at officers and dragged one with his car. The Department of Homeland Security said the officer fired because he feared for his life and was hospitalized with “serious injuries.”

What came out later: Body-camera videos from local police contradicted the Trump administration’s account. Footage showed the agent who shot Villegas González walking around afterward and dismissing his own injuries as “nothing major.”

An autopsy made public in November declared Villegas González’s death a homicide. The report showed he was shot at “close range,” with wounds to his neck and fingers.

Marimar Martinez

Date and location: Oct. 14, 2025, in Chicago.

What federal officials said initially: A Homeland Security Department news release asserted that Martinez and the driver of another car involved in a crash with a Border Patrol officer were “domestic terrorists.” An FBI agent said in court documents that she was chasing the Border Patrol vehicle and drove at one of the officers after they got out of the vehicle. The officer was forced to open fire, the FBI agent alleged, striking Martinez seven times. She was treated at a hospital and arrested on felony assault charges.

What came out later: Videos emerged that her attorneys said showed agent Charles Exum steering his SUV into her truck.

In a text message presented during a Nov. 5 hearing, Exum appeared to brag about his marksmanship. “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys,” the text read.

The case against her was dismissed.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.