last month

Los Angeles County election officials are examining steps ahead of the November midterms to respond to the rising popularity of election trading via prediction markets, including a possible ban on wagering for county election workers.

The discussions follow a fracas during the June ballot count, when a handful of influencers suggested fraud could be occurring in L.A.’s mayoral primary because the results began diverging from the market’s prediction.

That incident, the most prominent interaction of prediction markets and a U.S. election to date, revealed a new dynamic in the battle for public trust in elections. Now, election administrators around the country are considering the possible implications of the markets’ forecasts, including whether they have the power to affect voter confidence in election results.

“We’re … trying to find our way in this,” L.A. County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said in an interview. “It’s opened up a lot of questions that we’re grappling with.”

Three months before the midterms, with much of the American public concerned about democracy and trust in elections dropping, officials are paying attention to anything that could create further uncertainty around how elections are run.

The midterm contests are high stakes for both parties, which are battling for control of Congress amid a difficult economy, the war in Iran and low approval ratings for President Trump. And many Americans are wagering on what might happen — users have traded nearly $200 million on the midterm elections so far, a July analysis by NBC News found.

Prediction market platforms and their proponents say trading contracts on the markets is not the same as betting, likening it instead to trading on the stock market. Critics say it amounts to gambling, regardless of how the markets are set up.

The timeline for election administrators to think through the issue before November is tight, and it poses challenges for offices that already are stretched thin preparing for other possible election-day scenarios. What happened during the L.A. mayoral primary, however, has prompted discussions around the country, said Carolina Lopez, executive director of the Partnership for Large Election Jurisdictions, or PLEJ, a nonpartisan organization that represents election administrators.

“The potential effect on confidence [in elections] is significant,” Lopez said.

A spokesperson for Kalshi, one of the leading trading platforms, said the platform bans insider trading and welcomes any policy measures doing the same. The company takes “seriously our responsibility to be a responsible actor in this space,” spokesperson Jacki McGavick said.

Los Angeles could become one of the first major election jurisdictions to implement guidance or policy related to prediction markets. Delaware County, Pa., in suburban Philadelphia, already has taken such a step — adding prediction markets to an oath poll workers already were required to sign affirming that they have not wagered on the election.

Last month, Maryland’s top election official asked the state prosecutor to open an investigation into the legality of prediction markets. In late July, Wisconsin’s election administrator warned voters that it is illegal under state law to both vote in and bet on an election. That drew swift attacks from executives at Kalshi, one of whom claimed the state would “disenfranchise voters who use Kalshi.”

In L.A. County, Logan said his office is in the research stage for an insider-trading policy for staff. His office also is creating public messaging to deploy in various scenarios and factoring the potential dynamics around prediction markets into security planning.

Any potential for unrest or protests related to people’s monitoring of market forecasts is likely to come in the days following the election, while ballots still are being counted, Logan said.

Elections staff also is preparing FAQ documents about prediction markets and discussing how to talk about the issue with reporters, gaming out different scenarios, he said.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page said he advised his office’s staff before the primary, and plans to do so again before November, that participating in election markets could create a conflict of interest prohibited by county code. Staff betting could been seen by the public “as improper,” Page said he told his staff, “ which would undermine trust in the integrity of the election.”

Thirty-nine percent of likely midterm voters in a recent survey commissioned by PLEJ said their confidence in an election outcome would be reduced if the official result differed from prediction market odds. Three-quarters of those surveyed said they believed prediction markets create confusion around elections.

A majority was unable to correctly identify what prediction market odds represent, according to the survey results, with more than a third believing they showed the current number of votes for each candidate or an official projection from election officials.

The rise of the exchanges, which allow users to stake money on the chance that a given event will happen in the future, has provided a way to create predictions that some experts say are more accurate than political polling.

Leaders of the platforms have suggested they can help combat election misinformation by providing predictive insights and help decision-makers understand public sentiment. Kalshi launched what it termed a “midterms hub” late last month, which it said would contain not only market forecasts but also news, polling and fundraising data.

“Election markets have been my dream since the start of Kalshi,” Luana Lopes Lara, a co-founder of the platform, said on social media upon the hub launch. “The holy grail of prediction markets, they shed light on some of the most consequential, decentralized and human processes in the world, where good data is crucial and hard to find.”

She added: “It’s changed the way I interacted with the electoral process and made me smarter — I hope it does the same to you.”

McGavick, the spokesperson, said about 75% of Kalshi visitors view the odds without buying anything in order to understand what “the crowd forecasts.”

“Kalshi has become a leading indicator of where elections are headed,” she said.

As users trade contracts — each one representing a bet for or against a given event, such as a certain candidate winning an election — the market generates odds. On Tuesday, for instance, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass had a 61% chance of winning in November on Kalshi, while City Council member Nithya Raman had a 39% chance.

Either Bass or Raman could win, but if the public’s understanding of the markets is murky, experts say, voters may confuse their speculation for certainty.

In June, the market odds appeared to drive some public belief about what the results would be, Logan told reporters at a briefing last month — in this case, that Republican Spencer Pratt would be one of the top-two vote-getters, which ultimately did not happen.

“That put us in a position as election officials of having to respond to a whole new layer of misinformation,” Logan said. “Not only were we being asked how were the polls wrong … but [people were saying], ‘We saw numbers’ or ‘We saw odds.’”

Experts worry it could become more common for market odds to be cited by people who are dissatisfied with an election result as a new way to attempt to discredit a ballot count, adding a new quiver in the bow of election deniers and potentially confusing the public.

The existence of prediction markets “provides one more source of information” that could be used by bad actors to stir up confusion or distrust in election results, said Mindy Romero, executive director of the California-based nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.

“People might think … prediction markets are a good thing or a bad thing,” Romero said, “but you can’t deny that it is one more thing that could potentially be manipulated.”

Separately, prediction markets have drawn the attention of lawmakers in Congress for various reasons, including fears of insider trading. Members of both parties have proposed guardrail legislation this year. Several states are locked in legal battles with the federal government over whether they can regulate the markets under state anti-gambling laws.

Last week, as destructive wildfires raged in Washington, Oregon, California and elsewhere, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla joined with other Democratic senators from western states to urge the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to restrict the markets from offering betting on wildfires. They cited concerns that people could be tempted to influence fires or commit arson in order to “make sure their bets are successful.”

Schiff introduced a bill to prohibit such trading in March. Kalshi has a ban on markets tied directly to death and war. Kalshi and the other leading platform, Polymarket, also regularly report suspected insider trading to the federal government for investigation. Last month, federal investigators alleged that Trump’s teleprompter operator had used inside knowledge to win more than $100,000 after Kalshi spotted his activity.

In Los Angeles, Logan said his office may issue guidance by November, but the task will extend beyond the next election day.

“What we want to do is defend against anything that would devalue the elections process,” Logan said. “We don’t want voters to be discouraged from participating.”

President Trump secretly flew out of last month’s NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on an alternate military aircraft while the White House made it appear that the president was flying on Air Force One, the Washington Post reported.

The Post said Monday that the operation was prompted by an Iranian assassination threat against Trump. The ruse was carried out as journalists and some White House staff members were led to believe they were on the same plane as the president as he began his journey back to Washington from the annual gathering of leaders of North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries.

The Post cited material reviewed by the newspaper, a U.S. official familiar with the operation and another person with knowledge of the president’s travel. The Associated Press has not independently confirmed the report.

Trump had flown to the summit in a new Qatari-gifted and retrofitted red, white and navy blue jet. But ahead of departing Turkey, he said he would fly partway home on an older-model baby blue Air Force One plane instead.

The president at the time said the new luxury jet was being flown out ahead of his departure from Ankara to give some U.S. troops based in eastern England a chance to check out the new Air Force One.

In Ankara, Trump boarded the old Air Force One jumbo jet in view of television cameras ahead of the plane flying to Royal Air Force Mildenhall in the United Kingdom.

However, according to the Post report, after boarding the legacy Air Force One jet, he was secretly shuttled minutes later to a smaller plane — an Air Force C-32A — via an airport catering truck typically used to load meals and other supplies. Trump flew to Mildenhall on that smaller jet.

The White House did not respond directly to questions about the Post report of the secret operation to whisk Trump out of the country on a third aircraft, or the reported elaborate ruse to make it appear he was on the baby blue Air Force One jet flying to Mildenhall.

“As the President has said recently, there are many enemies of America who have their sights on him, and we use every tool at our disposal to address those threats,” White House communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement.

The U.S. Secret Service declined to comment. The Air Force, which maintains the fleet of executive travel aircraft, referred questions to the White House.

While Trump was in Turkey, the U.S. military conducted a series of large strikes in Iran in retaliation for its attacks on merchant shipping in the region.

The New York Times and CBS News reported last month that intelligence officials had raised concerns about a potential attack on the president or his jet, triggering additional precautions and the decision not to use the newly inaugurated aircraft gifted to Trump by Qatar for the first leg of Trump’s trip home from Ankara.

The swap had spurred questions about the security of the Qatar-provided aircraft, and Trump said last month after the trip that it would undergo additional upgrades.

Cheung on Monday maintained that the new, Qatari-gifted plane was “a state-of-the-art aircraft that has been fitted with high-level security protocols that ensure the safety of the President and his staff.”

The new Post report on clandestinely putting Trump on a third aircraft and quietly whisking him out of the country adds a fresh layer to just how seriously concerned U.S. security officials were about the threat against Trump during the ongoing war with Iran.

Paul Eckloff, a former special agent with the Secret Service, said such an unusual move could either reflect actionable intelligence or an abundance of caution given volatility in the region with the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

“I would not say unprecedented, but it is an unusual occurrence,” Eckloff told the Associated Press.

The Post reported that to exit that plane without being seen by those uninvolved in the operation, Trump and several aides stepped aboard an airport catering truck, which was elevated planeside using hydraulics and positioned at a door on the opposite side of Air Force One’s entrance.

The small group of reporters who thought they were traveling with Trump were advised to lower their window shades ahead of takeoff.

After arriving at Mildenhall, news photographers captured images of Trump getting off the presidential plane — suggesting he reboarded Air Force One out of sight of the pack of journalists who thought they were traveling with him.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal called for a congressional briefing on what happened.

“It is unprecedented and it is surreal,” he said Monday on CNN, calling the incident “downright scary.”

After the brief visit to the base at Mildenhall, Trump boarded the new Air Force One aircraft to fly the rest of the way to Washington.

During a gaggle with reporters aboard the aircraft, Trump was asked directly if there were any credible threats against Air Force One by Iran.

“Well, I have a threat all the time. I’m No. 1 on their list before you,” Trump said. He added to the traveling reporters, “But if I go, you go.”

Associated Press writers Josh Boak, Aamer Madhani and Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman is expected to lose her leadership role on the L.A. City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, which she has chaired since 2023, according to people familiar with the situation.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson is planning to announce this week that the committee will be split into a housing committee and a homelessness committee — neither of which will be led by Raman, the people said.

Harris-Dawson is a close ally of Mayor Karen Bass, whom Raman is challenging for re-election. He declined to comment.

“It’s hard to imagine that it’s not related to politics. The timing of it would be too much of a coincidence,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former Los Angeles City Councilmember and Los Angeles County supervisor who now serves as chair of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Raman’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the impending shakeup, which was reported earlier by the California Post.

The move comes at a pivotal moment in the mayor’s race on homelessness.

The city’s unsheltered homeless population increased this year after two straight years of decreases, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority reported last month.

While the citywide number has increased, the number of homeless people living on the street in Raman’s district decreased by 49%, a fact she has touted as she challenges Bass.

Raman and Bass have presented starkly different takes regarding the situation citywide and in Raman’s district.

The mayor has posited that her signature program, Inside Safe, which addresses homeless encampments by moving homeless individuals into temporary housing, was largely responsible for the drop in Raman’s district and that federal and state budget cuts partially led to the increase citywide.

She also attacked Raman’s performance as the chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee.

“While Raman takes credit for the City’s work in her district, ignoring the fact that she’s the Chair of the Homelessness & Housing Committee for ALL of Los Angeles, Mayor Bass is working to move our city forward and address years of neglect,” said Bass’ campaign spokesperson Alex Stack in a statement last month about the homeless numbers.

Raman claimed that there have only been three Inside Safe operations in her district and that her committee has been stifled by inaction from the mayor.

“Council can pass legislation… move motions forward, but it is the mayor that has charge of the implementation and outcomes, she said at a press conference last month.

PHOENIX — Hezly Rivera is leaning into her role as the leader of the next wave of U.S. women’s gymnasts.

The 18-year-old Olympic gold medalist won her second straight national title on Sunday, rallying from fourth during the final day of competition with four poised and professional routines. Her two-day total of 111.950 was more than a point clear of runner-up Claire Pease, making Rivera the first American woman not named Simone Biles to go back-to-back since former world and Olympic champion Jordyn Wieber did it in 2010 and 2011.

Rivera was the self-described “underdog” in Paris two years ago, when she joined an experienced group that helped the Americans win their third team gold in four Games. While some of her Olympic teammates — Biles and Suni Lee chief among them — have been on an extended break (though Lee announced last month she has started training for a return to competition), Rivera has pressed on.

She edged Leanne Wong in New Orleans last year, but Rivera’s chances for a repeat seemed to be in trouble after she fell face-first into the mat after missing a release on uneven bars on Thursday.

No matter, Rivera began Sunday on bars and put together a gritty set in which she fought through a mini-stall near the end and gave coach Valeri Liukin a “what are you gonna do?” shrug after a dismount that included a small step.

The judges awarded Rivera with a solid if not spectacular 13.850, and her momentum continued to build as she made her way across the competition floor at Matchup Mortgage Arena. Her black-and-white bedazzled leotard glittering under the lights, Rivera put on a performance that made her look every bit the experienced veteran she has become.

Pease and fellow first-day co-leader Skye Blakely couldn’t quite keep up. Pease led with two rotations to go, but her floor routine included one tumbling pass that ended with her stepping out of bounds and another in which she opted to keep her right foot hovering above the floor rather than set it down for a penalty.

Still, Pease’s second-place finish was a marked improvement from a year ago, when she came to nationals fresh off a victory at the U.S. Classic and stumbled to 10th. This time around, she finds herself in a solid position to make the team that will head to The Netherlands for the world championships in October.

Blakely’s bid to build off a promising opening night stalled quickly. She sat at the end of her first tumbling pass and bounced out of bounds on her final one, her score of 11.900 dropping her from contention for the top of the podium on her way to a seventh-place finish.

Charleigh Bullock, who turned 16 last month, was third. Reese Esponda, who trains at the Houston-area gym owned by Biles’ family, was fourth.

Two-time Olympic gold medalist Jade Carey, who is methodically building difficulty into her routines as she eyes a third trip to the Games, finished fifth in a meet that doubled as a homecoming for the Phoenix native.

Graves writes for the Associated Press.

Mayor Karen Bass said Thursday that the LAPD should stop working with Flock Safety, warning that the company, which operates AI-enabled license plate readers that allow authorities to monitor vehicles around the city, had lost public trust.

In her most forceful comments to date on the topic, Bass said while she supports license plate reading technology generally as a tool for law enforcement, Flock had “lost the trust of Angelenos and residents across the country, especially in immigrant communities targeted by the federal administration.”

“There are many companies that provide this technology to cities nationwide,” Bass said in a statement. “The LAPD needs to identify another company that doesn’t share data.”

LAPD officials have said Flock’s technology enables investigators to solve crimes, helping to find vehicles that have been reported stolen or linked to suspects. Last month, the department announced it was pausing its relationship with Flock, but police officials later said they were in the process of negotiating a new deal with the company that would include more data sharing and collection safeguards.

Dozens of mostly smaller cities have deactivated their Flock cameras or ended their contracts with the company over concerns that it provides data to the Trump administration that can be used to track down immigrants for deportation.

Bass joined the chorus of activists and local officials calling for the LAPD to end its relationship with the company outright.

Her opponent in the November mayoral election, Nithya Raman, said last week on the social media platform X that the city should “cut ties with Flock Safety.”

“Cities across the country are canceling their Flock contracts over the risks its license plate readers pose to privacy, civil liberties, and immigrant communities,” Raman’s post read.

Last month, Bass signed an ordinance that prohibits city personnel from providing anyone outside local government access to data that can be used to determine someone’s immigration status.

A recent Washington Post report uncovered at least 50 instances nationwide in which law enforcement officials were accused of misusing their access to the cameras, largely to stalk former romantic partners or citizens.

A report issued last month by the LAPD inspector general’s office found numerous “limitations” in the department’s existing agreements with its three plate reader vendors — Flock, Axon and Motorola — including a lack of clear language about how long the data are retained and how they are shared with third parties or other law enforcement agencies.

The inspector general recommended that the department update its current license plate reader contracts to address data security and privacy concerns, conduct regular audits and develop standardized rules for traffic stops based on plate reader hits.

Flock has said its customers decide who can access data from their cameras. The company said it doesn’t have contracts with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, adding that has taken other steps to assuage public concern, such as barring federal agencies from its lookup tools and restricting immigration-related searches to ensure compliance with laws in California, Washington and other states.

In an interview with ABC7 last month, Flock CEO Garrett Langley said the company had to “tighten up the police and make sure everyone’s aligned and then turn it back on. He said the company retains the data from its plate readers for only 30 days and denied that its cameras employ facial recognition software as some of its critics have suggested.

During a virtual listening session hosted last week by the inspector general’s office, dozens of people sounded off on the department’s use of Flock cameras.

Some speakers, mostly from the fire-ravaged community of Pacific Palisades, supported the use of cameras to deter burglars who have repeatedly hit homes and construction sites in the area.

Jennifer Wolfe, who identified herself as a teacher in Altadena, another community devastated by the 2025 wildfires, urged Flock’s supporters to consider how “surveillance systems can grow far beyond their intended purpose.”

Locating stolen cars is important, she said, but people should be more concerned by this newfound and unchecked ability for the government to collect “vastly more information, with far less effort.”

California filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration Monday — one to block President Trump’s latest round of tariffs on international trading partners, the other to block his administration from sharing needy families’ personal data with immigration officials.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office brought the lawsuits alongside other Democratically led states, said they were both intended to rein in a lawless president pushing policies that threaten American families already struggling to afford basic necessities.

Bonta said the new tariffs are part of a “failed and illegal economic policy” that has previously been blocked in court. He alleged that the proposed data sharing was part of a broader and illegal “mass surveillance effort” by the Trump administration to target its political opponents.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the two lawsuits. But it has previously defended both tariffs and data-sharing policies as part of Trump’s “America first” agenda to improve the economic standing of American families.

Trump has defended his tariffs, and a previous set that was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, as necessary to fix years of unfair trading practices in which international partners took advantage of the U.S. However, many economists have determined that the cost of the tariffs are being passed on to U.S. consumers and contributing to the persistent inflation causing economic pain nationwide.

Trump, the White House and top officials in his administration have also defended the sharing of personal data among U.S. agencies, and from individual states to the federal government, as a commonsense way to reduce waste and fraud and to identify and remove people who are in the country illegally and consuming benefits intended for American families.

The administration has previously sought the personal data of Medicaid recipients, SNAP food assistance recipients, immigrants who have filed taxes with the Internal Revenue Service and registered voters in states across the country. All of those demands have also been challenged in court, with varying degrees of success.

Bonta’s office has now filed 82 lawsuits against the current Trump administration.

Tariff lawsuit

Trump’s latest tariffs, levies of between 10% and 12.5%, took effect late last month and apply to more than 80 countries, including some of the closest U.S. allies and largest trading partners such as Canada, Mexico and the European Union. They followed a Trump administration announcement of new 50% tariffs on many Canadian products, set to go into effect this month.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the president wants them to,” Bonta said in announcing the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Two previous attempts by the Trump administration to unilaterally levy tariffs on trading partners were rejected by the courts in the face of similar legal challenges by California and other states. In February, the Supreme Court rejected a sweeping slate of tariffs Trump had imposed on an emergency basis. In May, the Court of International Trade turned back another set.

The Trump administration has said the president’s latest tariffs are authorized by a separate law not considered in the previous litigation — one related to combating forced labor in global trade.

The states’ lawsuit argued that the reliance on labor law was simply a “guise” used by Trump to impose new tariffs, and that “there is no rational fit between the purported problem of forced labor in international supply chains and the blanket global tariffs” imposed.

Bonta brought the case alongside the attorneys general or governors of 24 other states.

Data-sharing lawsuit

California joined a similar coalition of Democrat-led states to file a lawsuit challenging the sharing of needy families’ data, in federal court in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit challenges a notice the Trump administration issued last month announcing the Administration of Children and Families would begin sharing the personal information of recipients in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to outside agencies — including with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other immigration enforcement units.

A spokesperson for the Administration for Children and Families said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The program provides $16 billion in grants annually to the states, which use it to provide cash assistance to low-income families. Some 350,000 families in California receive support through the program each month, Bonta’s office said.

Bonta said the sharing of program data with Homeland Security would be a clear violation of the law establishing the fund.

“The Trump Administration is exploiting a program designed to ensure children do not go hungry and to help needy families get back on their feet in order to fuel its mass surveillance effort. It’s cruel, unnecessary, and illegal,” Bonta said in a statement.

During a morning news conference, Bonta said one of his concerns is that immigration officials will use data to target the undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children who are legitimately receiving assistance through the program.

“They’re seeking Social Security information, marital status, income information,” he said. “We think that they might be interested in that information to potentially target parents.”

He said he also believes the data sharing is part of a much broader effort by the Trump administration to gather up as much data as possible in order to target individuals who do not conform with the administration’s political agenda, including on immigration policy and on issues such as abortion and gender-affirming care.

“While the Trump Administration continues to break the law in order to amass an ever-greater trove of people’s personal information, we’ll continue stepping in to protect the privacy of our people,” Bonta said.

The lawsuit is just the latest in a much broader legal war over the Trump administration’s drive to force all kinds of federal and state social services and financial programs to share the personal data of benefit recipients and other program users.

California is fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from sharing personal data of Medicaid recipients with Homeland Security, though some of that data have already been shared.

California is also fighting alongside other states in court to block the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over the personal data of millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, recipients. The demand came with a threat from USDA that it would cut off funding to states that don’t comply. Courts have blocked the suspension of funds, but some data have been shared.

Immigrant rights groups, including Los Angeles-based Inclusive Action for the City, are also suing to block a Trump administration plan to share IRS taxpayer data with Homeland Security. The Trump administration has said the data sharing would be used to target only criminals, but immigrant rights advocates have denounced it as an attempt to do just the opposite — to target immigrants who have been in the country and paid taxes for years.

For more than a quarter-century, a lawsuit settlement from a case brought in Los Angeles federal court has dictated conditions for children held in immigration detention.

But now, the long-standing settlement — which set minimum standards for housing, education and medical care for migrant kids in federal custody, while strictly limiting how long they can remain there — hangs in the balance in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a challenge by the Trump administration.

At the same time, the federal judge in L.A. who presides over the agreement appears poised to appoint a powerful new enforcer to uphold it.

President Trump has long sought to scrap the Flores settlement, which dates back to the Clinton era. In recent months, the Trump administration has waged a legal battle to cancel the agreement, while also pleading with the district court not to order an independent monitor to boost its compliance.

“[Flores] is the only thing standing between them and indefinite detention of families,” said Leecia Welch, chief legal director at Children’s Rights, a plaintiff in the case.

Last month, Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate pressed the 9th Circuit court to give the administration “the thumbs-up or thumbs-down” on its bid to tear up the settlement and end what he called “judicial micromanagement” of federal immigration policy.

“The Flores consent decree is an agreement which goes well above the constitutional floor,” Shumate told the court during oral arguments in June. “We’re asking that [the Department of Homeland Security’s] compliance with the law be assessed based on the law, not a 30-year-old settlement agreement.”

The three-judge panel sharply questioned the Justice Department’s legal claims, saying little had changed since the government last petitioned the court to have the agreement dissolved in 2020 — a request that was rejected.

The judges also pressed Trump administration lawyers to respond to evidence from scores of declarations filed in district court since last summer, in which detainees describe struggling to sleep in freezing, brightly lit rooms, vomiting from eating spoiled food, and begging for diapers, baby formula and asthma inhalers.

“You’ve said a lot of the reason you’re doing this is to discourage families from coming in the first place, so you’re basically punishing children because their parents brought them here,” Judge Marsha S. Berzon said.

Berzon, a Clinton appointee who issued a fiery dissent last year in a case that challenged the administration’s use of armed troops in immigration enforcement operations, asked: “You’re saying there’s no constitutional problem there?”

“I understand the detention of children at the border is a controversial policy issue, but that’s a policy decision,” Shumate said.

Just a day earlier, Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee scolded a pair of government attorneys from her bench in Los Angeles, signaling she would probably appoint a new special master to force compliance with the settlement agreement.

“We’re talking about 11 years of this,” Gee said during the June 1 status conference. “None of these issues are new to me. These are all issues on which I have issued orders. I am very displeased about the fact that my orders are being disregarded and are not being complied with, not in good faith.”

“Both sides seem to be operating in different planes of reality,” Gee said.

The disputed settlement emerged from a 1985 lawsuit over the fate of 15-year-old Jenny Flores, a Salvadoran refugee who was picked up by federal immigration enforcement and left to languish in detention in Pasadena. At the time, there was little awareness that children were among the tens of thousands of migrants fleeing civil war and state collapse in Central America — with virtually no U.S. government infrastructure to protect them.

“It was a surprise,” said Benjamin Roth, a professor at the University of South Carolina College of Social Work and an expert on the agreement. “There was no thought then that there were kids in this mix.”

The current court fight centers on an immigration detention center in Dilley, Texas, run by the private prison company CoreCivic, where the vast majority of children and families in immigration custody are held.

In court filings earlier this month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it has “maintained core Flores-related services” at Dilley and argued its length-of-stay numbers were skewed by a small number of families it was forced to keep because they are considered “national security risks.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection likewise boasted its July 1 report “shows our highest level of compliance to date.”

Immigrant rights advocates called those claims “a fiction.”

“We see the same sorts of problems and concerns and misery that we’ve been seeing for the last 15 months,” said Welch, the Children’s Rights attorney.

In dozens of declarations collected as part of the court record, detainees recounted broccoli full of worms, diapers doled out one at a time, and staff tearing up children’s drawings.

One mother said medical staff laughed off her 8-year-old’s broken arm. Another said she was denied treatment for hepatitis B, even after doctors told her she could develop liver cancer and pass the infection on to her unborn daughter.

Still others described unexplained rashes, outbreaks of diarrhea and infestations of lice, among a host of other maladies for which many said they were offered only Tylenol or allergy medication. Even Christmas brought misery in the form of an ICE agent dressed up as Santa, who shoved away children trying to hug him, according to the detainee declarations submitted to the court.

“What happened on Christmas Day can only be described as an atrocity,” one mother recalled. Children “dropped everything, ran up to him, begged for candy and wanted to take pictures. Some children even cried and begged him for their freedom. Santa himself acted very indifferent.”

The Department of Justice argued that immigrant kids could still sue over poor conditions if the Flores settlement is unwound. But experts say existing protections would collapse without the legal architecture of the consent decree to support them.

“[Under the settlement], the federal government has built out a very efficient system to provide temporary care for kids,” Roth said. “If Flores is dissolved, it’s not going to be easy to stand up this same set of programs.”

If the Trump administration loses before the 9th Circuit, the fight over Flores could soon escalate to the Supreme Court.

“I’d be shocked if the 9th Circuit rules for the government, and I’d be shocked if the Trump administration doesn’t appeal,” said Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and an expert on the high court.

But consent decrees are legally and politically complicated, and the treatment of migrant children further tangles the situation. Given the legal and political complexity, the Supreme Court could rule to keep the settlement in place, or decline to take the case at all, experts said.

“It’s more likely than not the court would stay away from this,” Segall said.

For now, both the district judge and the 9th Circuit panel appear fed up.

“I think my patience has come to an end,” Gee said during the recent hearing in her Los Angeles courtroom.

Thirty years ago this fall, a Republican politician cried electoral fraud after losing a close race.

Orange County Rep. Bob Dornan couldn’t accept the most logical explanations for why Loretta Sanchez beat him in a historic upset: that voters had tired of his polarizing politics. That his Latino-majority district wanted one of their own to represent them. That he was an ideologue who never brought anything back from D.C. for his constituents.

Instead, Dornan and his supporters settled on the craziest excuse of them all: Illegal immigrants.

California voters were passing anti-immigrant laws by the boatful, so Dornan’s fevered tales about nonprofits registering noncitizens to vote and take him down landed with Republicans. A compliant Congress investigated Dornan’s claims, while local lawmakers proposed bills that would force voters to show government-issued identification every time they cast a ballot — a voter suppression tactic going back to the segregationist South.

The congressional investigation flopped like a soccer player fishing to draw a red card, finally concluding in 1998. Yes, noncitizens did vote for Sanchez, but only an infinitesimal number — less than 1% of the total votes tallied and not enough to overturn the results. No one was charged for illegally voting on purpose or improperly registering noncitizens to vote.

When Dornan ran again in 1998, with volunteers vowing to pursue any election irregularities, Sanchez walloped him, and he was swept into the dustbin of political history.

I teach this episode in my O.C. history college classes as a case study in what happens when political parties succumb to the spell of a vindictive demagogue who blames everyone for their failures except themselves. I also point out that Dornan had the last laugh: the idea that illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections, throwing them toward Democrats, has become gospel for many Republicans.

And here we are.

Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Bob Dornan speaks to a group of young adults at the Orange County Conservation Corps. in Anaheim, California in 1998. He was seeking to regain his old seat from Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez, who beat him in a historic 1996 upset.

(John Hayes/Associated Press)

On Thursday, President Trump’s obsession over losing to Joe Biden in 2020 reached a phlegmatic nadir with a speech on debunked election fraud theories that weaved in everything from communist China to deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to — who else? — alleged noncitizen voters.

The tirade was so pathetic and noneventful that most networks didn’t bother to air it. Even Fox News host Sean Hannity — whose tongue is probably two parts shoe polish after spending the last decade as Trump’s personal spit shine — moved on just minutes after Trump finished.

The president insisted that the U.S. Senate pass a bill ahead of this November’s midterms, mandating in the name of election integrity that voters show proof of citizenship before casting a ballot.

In California, a clown car of MAGA loyalists — state Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, state Senator Tony Strickland, wannabe Southern California U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli — are pushing something similar. Proposition 39 would require California election officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters and require voters to show government-issued identification when they cast a ballot.

By law, voters in federal elections must be U.S. citizens. Only a handful of municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Despite Trump’s trumpeting of supposed evidence that 278,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada, actual instances of them casting a ballot are as rare today as in Dornan’s time.

That hasn’t stopped Trump and his lackeys from claiming, as Dornan and his supporters did, that they are trying to restore faith in a system corrupted by liberals and their undocumented puppets. But, just like back then, this amounts to a dog whistle for people freaked out about changing demographics and massive GOP midterm losses.

It’s the last, most dangerous gasp of a wheezing political movement whose supporters are clinging to power at all costs and just can’t understand why more and more voters are tired of Trump’s flailing foreign policy and failing economy.

These people are so delusional that they point to last month’s California primaries as proof of election fraud, arguing that the results in two prominent races should have been different.

No Republican has won a statewide election in 20 years, so it’s not surprising that Republican Steve Hilton finished second to Democrat Xavier Becerra in the gubernatorial primary, with both advancing to the general election. Nor was it a shock that in the primary for Los Angeles mayor, progressive incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Councilmember Nithya Raman finished first and second over Republican reality television star Spencer Pratt.

That didn’t stop Trump from insisting that both Republicans should have won outright and crying conspiracy when they didn’t. The president continued his laughable tune in his White House speech.

“Took a month to count the votes,” he whined about California’s sloth-like approach to counting ballots. “I wonder what they were doing. This is worse than any third world country. There’s no third world country that has elections like we have.”

Actually, many third world countries elect despots like Trump — but that’s neither here nor there.

A May poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop. 39 was in a statistical dead heat, with 49% of voters favoring it and 51% opposed. All Prop. 39’s opponents have to do is cite Trump’s stark-raving mad comments about electoral fraud, and support for the ballot initiative will melt faster than the Sierra snowpack.

The Republican crusade against imaginary noncitizen voters may pay off in the short run but will inevitably, spectacularly backfire.

Look at what happened in my native Orange County. Sanchez’s victory was the first ripple in a blue wave that eventually turned O.C. purple. Our once-mighty GOP is now increasingly isolated to wealthier pockets of the county and no longer commands national attention — hell, they couldn’t even deliver O.C. to Trump in any of his elections.

The crazy thing is, when Republicans put in the work to appeal to immigrant and Latino voters instead of obsessing about how they’re supposedly anti-democracy invaders, it pays off. Just look at 2024, when a record number of Latino GOP legislators won seats in California and Trump won a larger share of the national Latino electorate than any Republican presidential candidate ever had.

That happened because the party largely stayed quiet on noncitizen voting and focused on what swing voters wanted to hear: a promise to clamp down on unchecked migration and too much wokeness, while fattening average Americans’ pocketbooks.

Trump’s success with Latino voters seemed to represent a tectonic shift in American politics. Now, it feels like an aberration.

Trump still doesn’t seem to get how desperate the situation is for Republicans, just four months before Election Day, and how much of it is of his own making.

Near the end of his speech, he sputtered, “The only reason you wouldn’t do [mandated voter ID] is you want to cheat because your policies are so bad, and your candidates are so pathetic that you can’t get away or can’t get elected any other way.”

Paging Bob Dornan …

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that he plans to nominate Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, as director of national intelligence.

Trump announced the nomination on social media amid pressure from Congress to name a permanent replacement for Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned last month. Trump faced intense pushback over his decision to name Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as acting director.

The situation has led to a standoff in Congress as Democrats said they would refuse to renew foreign intelligence powers unless Trump pulled Pulte’s nomination and named a permanent nominee.

“Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay,” Trump wrote. “I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible.”

NEW ORLEANS — A sharply divided Louisiana Supreme Court on Monday signed off on abolishing an elected office won by a New Orleans exoneree who had spent nearly 30 years in prison for murder before his conviction was vacated.

The 4-3 decision leaves Calvin Duncan with little path forward to try assuming the role of Orleans Parish clerk of criminal court, a job he won in a landmark election last year before Republican lawmakers raced to eliminate the office this spring.

In a blistering dissent, the court’s Democratic justices said the ruling opened the door to allowing Louisiana lawmakers to subvert the will of voters. The court’s conservative majority disagreed, writing that “this change was entirely within the authority of the Legislature.”

The court also rejected the New Orleans City Council’s attempt to hold a special election, which would have given Duncan the option to run again.

“At a time when our voting rights are under unprecedented attack, this decision clarifies that if we want to live in a democracy, we have to fight for it with every tool our system of government provides,” Duncan said in a statement.

Signed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, the bill eliminating the New Orleans clerk’s office was championed by GOP lawmakers as a necessary step toward government efficiency. Supporters denied that it had anything to do with Duncan or his past.

Democrats blasted the change as overreach from a largely white, conservative Legislature that they accused of seeking to thwart the will of a predominantly Black city. Those tensions surfaced again last month when Landry signed a new congressional map that eliminated one of the state’s two majority-Black House districts.

Duncan was convicted of a 1981 murder and was released from prison in 2011. In 2021, an Orleans Parish district judge vacated Duncan’s sentence, finding he had been unjustly convicted and the charges against him were dropped. Duncan is listed on the National Registry of Exonerations.

Brook writes for the Associated Press.

The 21-year-old man shot and killed after opening fire on U.S. Secret Service agents near the White House was a Maryland resident, according to online records.

Following Saturday’s shootout, the Associated Press identified the suspect as Nasire Best. According to virtual records, Best lived in the Prince George’s County suburb of Glenarden with his family.

The shooting occurred near a White House security checkpoint shortly after 6 p.m., according to a social media post from the Secret Service, which alleged that Best “pulled a weapon from his bag and began firing.”

Secret Service Uniformed Division officers returned fire, striking Best, who was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead a short time later, the post said. The Secret Service said no officers were injured, but a bystander was struck by gunfire and remained in serious but stable condition Sunday, according to the Associated Press.

The Secret Service said the bystander, who has not been identified, suffered a gunshot wound described as not life-threatening, the AP reported. It was not clear how the person was shot.

The Secret Service post also noted that President Trump was in the White House during the incident and was not harmed.

A person listed as having the same name as Best has three failure-to-pay rent cases for a dwelling in the Foundry by the Park Apartments in Dundalk, Md., from as recent as November. The Baltimore Sun could not confirm whether the cases are linked to the person killed Saturday.

The AP reported that Best was identified as the suspect by a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity due to not being authorized to discuss the investigation.

The AP noted that court documents indicated that Best was arrested in July 2025 after he attempted to enter a White House checkpoint without authorization. It wrote that the court records said Best did not heed officers’ commands to stop, “claimed he was Jesus Christ” and told officers he wanted to be arrested.

The court issued Best a “pretrial stay away order,” which typically requires defendants not to go near a person or area before a trail, the AP reported. In August, a bench warrant was issued against Best after a notice of “noncompliance.” He did not appear for a subsequent hearing, the AP reported.

The shooting remains under investigation, and additional information will be release as it becomes available, according to the Secret Service.

Saturday’s shooting was the third time in the last month that shots were fired near the president, including at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner in late April and near the Washington Monument earlier this month.

Hubbard writes for the Baltimore Sun. This story was distributed by the Associated Press via Tribune News Service.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee on Friday announced that he is ending his bid for reelection, his career upended by the redistricting battles that are sweeping the country after last month’s Supreme Court decision.

Republicans in Tennessee this month enacted a new U.S. House map that carves up Cohen’s majority-Black district, reshaping it to the GOP’s advantage as part of President Trump’s strategy to hold on to a slim majority in the November midterm elections.

“I don’t want to quit. I’m not a quitter. But these districts were drawn to beat me,” Cohen told reporters in his Washington, D.C., office.

Cohen is challenging the state’s redistricting effort in court and said that he would reenter the race if that lawsuit succeeded in restoring his old congressional district.

He lamented that Tennessee would likely shift to an entirely Republican congressional delegation after the next election, warning that it could also leave the state out of the loop once Democrats are able to regain the White House.

Redistricting targeted Cohen’s district

Tennessee was the first state to pass new congressional districts after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minorities. But more Southern states could follow. Republicans in Louisiana, Alabama and South Carolina also have taken steps toward redistricting.

Cohen has represented his Memphis-based district for about two decades, among the last of the white Democrats representing the South. He has been a longtime member of the House Judiciary Committee and has focused on strengthening voting access and civil rights.

“It’s unique in America that an African American majority district has elected a white guy, and that we’ve got a great relationship, great amount of support,” said Cohen, who is also the first Jewish person to represent Tennessee in Congress.

He was facing a primary challenge from state lawmaker Justin Pearson, a Black Democrat who represents Memphis in the state’s General Assembly. Pearson has said he will continue his campaign in the state’s newly redrawn 9th Congressional District.

But Cohen predicted that it would be nearly impossible for Tennessee Democrats to win a seat in Congress with the new districts. He added there was a chance the redistricting effort could “backfire on the Republicans” but that would require an “unbelievable registration effort among Democrats” and a massive vote turnout effort.

Cohen vows to oppose Trump

Sitting in his congressional office with staff looking on, Cohen pointed to photos of Memphis and local projects that he had championed during his career and expressed worry that Memphis voters would no longer have a voice in Washington. He also recounted how he had worked with the state’s Republican leaders to win funding during the Biden administration for a larger bridge to cross the Mississippi River into Memphis.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement that Cohen was “a powerful champion for civil rights” and that “the City of Memphis, the Congress and the nation are better because of Steve’s commitment to making a difference.”

Cohen said that the Republican’s redistricting effort was being done “for Donald Trump to get one more vote, he thinks, to stop them from being impeached.”

Still, he vowed to use his remaining time in Congress to try to mount opposition to Trump, calling the president “the greatest threat to democracy and to decorum and grace that we’ve ever seen.”

Like many lawmakers, Cohen has often attracted attention with colorful outbursts during congressional debates and hearings. During Trump’s first term, in 2019, Cohen brought a bucket of fried chicken to a House Judiciary Committee hearing at which then-Atty. Gen. William P. Barr was a no-show.

“The message is Attorney General Bill Barr is not brave enough to answer questions from a staff attorney and members of the Judiciary Committee,” he said in a statement at the time.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.