lawmaker

When I tell people what I cover for the Los Angeles Times, they’re delighted. A typical response is, “Sounds like fun!”

My beat is focused on wildlife and the outdoors. And in this world of fierce contention, over seemingly everything, it sounds downright peachy.

This is plenty of joy and wonder in the work. I’ve reported on the rehabilitation of a fuzzy baby sea otter by a surrogate mom and the resurgence of a rare songbird along the L.A. River.

However, there is also plenty of strife, messy politics and difficult decisions. (My inbox reflects the high emotion. I get hate and love mail, just like other reporters.)

Take a saga I’ve been writing about for more than a year concerning a plan by federal wildlife officials to shoot up to nearly half a million barred owls over three decades to save spotted owls in California, Washington and Oregon. Even someone who knows nothing about the matter can guess it’s controversial.

Since the strategy was approved last year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, animal rights groups have fought to stop it, gaining traction with some U.S. lawmakers. Bipartisan legislators signed onto letters urging the Trump administration to cancel it, citing costs they said could top $1 billion. Then, this summer, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced resolutions that, if successful, would overturn the plan for good.

It was a nightmare scenario for environmental nonprofits, which acknowledge the moral quandary involved with killing so many animals, but say the barred owl population must be kept in check to prevent the extinction of the northern spotted owl, which is being muscled out of its native territory by its larger, more aggressive cousin. They also dispute that ten-figure price tag.

Then, at the eleventh hour, there was an upset in alliances. Logging advocates said canceling the plan could hinder timber sales in Oregon, and threaten production goals set by the Trump administration. That’s right: Loggers were now on the same side as conservationists, while right-wing politicians were aligned with animal welfare activists. Talk about unlikely, uncomfortable political bedfellows.

The loggers’ plea may have tipped the scales. Louisiana Republican John Kennedy, who spearheaded the Senate resolution, said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum — whose portfolio includes timber — personally asked him to abandon the effort. Kennedy, in colorful terms, declined to back down. He called the planned cull “DEI for owls” and said Burgum “loves it like the devil loves sin.” The resolution didn’t pass, splitting the Republican vote almost down the middle.

You don’t have to go to Washington, D.C., to find epic battles over wildlife management.

In California, there’s been much discussion in recent years about the best way to live alongside large predators such as mountain lions and wolves.

Wolves in California were wiped out by people about a century ago, and they started to recolonize the state only 14 years ago. The native species’ resurgence is celebrated by conservationists but derided by many ranchers who say the animals are hurting their bottom line when they eat their cattle.

State wildlife officials recently euthanized four gray wolves in the northern part of the state that were responsible for 70 livestock losses in less than six months, my colleague Clara Harter reported, marking the latest flashpoint in the effort to manage them.

“Wolves are one of the state’s most iconic species and coexistence is our collective future,” said Charlton Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “But that comes with tremendous responsibility and sometimes hard decisions.”

Even hulking herbivores such as wild horses stir passionate disagreement.

In the Eastern Sierra last month, I walked among dozens of multi-colored equines with members of local Native American tribes, who told me of their deep connection to the animals — and their heartbreak over U.S. government plans to send them away.

Federal officials say the herd has surged to more than three times what the landscape can support, and pose a safety hazard on highways, while also damaging Mono Lake’s unique geologic formations. Under a plan approved earlier this year, hundreds are slated to be rounded up and removed.

A coalition that includes local tribes — which have cultural ties to the animals that go back generations — disputes many of these claims and argues that the removal plan is inhumane.

“I wish I had a magic wand and could solve it all,” Beth Pratt, of the National Wildlife Federation, told me after my article on the horses was published.

Stay tuned. I’ll be writing this newsletter about once a month to dig into important wildlife stories in the Golden State and beyond. Send me feedback, tips and cute cat photos at [email protected].

More recent wildlife news

Speaking of wolves: The Trump administration ordered Colorado to stop importing gray wolves from Canada as part of the state’s efforts to restore the predators, a shift that could hinder plans for more reintroductions this winter, according to the Associated Press’ Mead Gruver. The state has been releasing wolves west of the Continental Divide since 2023.

More than 17,000 acres of ancestral lands were returned to the Tule River Indian Tribe, which will allow for the reintroduction of Tule elk and the protection of habitat for California condors, among other conservation projects, my colleague Jessica Garrison reports.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called it “the largest ancestral land return in the history of the region and a major step in addressing historical wrongs against California Native American tribes.”

One year after the discovery of golden mussels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, dense colonies cling to boats and piers, threatening water for cities and farms — and there’s no help on the way, reports CalMatters’ Rachel Becker. State agencies have prioritized protecting other areas in the state from the infested Delta, the hub of the state’s water supply.

Will traditional holiday fare such as crab cakes be on the menu this year? As fellow Times reporter Susanne Rust writes, the need to protect humpback whales in California’s coastal waters, combined with widespread domoic acid contamination along the northern coast, has once again put the brakes on the Dungeness crab commercial fishery and parts of the recreational fishery this fall.

A few last things in climate news

My colleague Ian James wrote about a big shift in where L.A. will get its water: The city will double the size of a project to transform wastewater into purified drinking water, producing enough for 500,000 people. The recycled water will allow L.A. to stop taking water from creeks that feed Mono Lake, promising to resolve a long-running environmental conflict.

California’s proposed Zone Zero regulations, which would force homeowners to create an ember-resistant area around their houses, have stirred backlash. One provision causing consternation may require the removal of healthy plants from within five feet of their homes, which some say isn’t backed by science. Those in favor of the rules say they’re key to protecting dwellings from wildfires. Now, as The Times’ Noah Haggerty explains, state officials appear poised to miss a Dec. 31 deadline to finalize the regulations.

Clean energy stocks have surged 50% this year, significantly outpacing broader market gains despite Trump administration policies targeting the sector, Bloomberg reports. Demand for renewable power to fuel artificial intelligence data centers and China’s aggressive clean-tech expansion are driving the rally.

Park rangers furloughed by the federal shutdown are teaching preschoolers and elementary school students about nature, earning some extra income, my colleague Jenny Gold reports.

One more thing

If you’re not quite ready to let go of the Halloween mood, I have good news. November generally marks the end of tarantula mating season. As I reported, male tarantulas strike out every year from their burrows in search of a lover. Finding one can be fatal, whether she’s in the mood or not. Females are known to snack on their suitors. Gulp.

While the arachnids inhabit areas such as the Angeles National Forest and Santa Monica Mountains year-round, mating season — when the males are on the move — offers the best opportunity to spot one. Through the month of November, you can also gaze at them at the Natural History Museum’s spider pavilion.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildlife and outdoors news, follow Lila Seidman at @lilaseidman.bsky.social on Bluesky and @lila_seidman on X.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A pair of court rulings declaring some of Florida’s gun restrictions unconstitutional are creating some confusion in the notoriously firearm-friendly state — and fueling activists’ calls for Republican legislators to take action to update state statutes so they abide by the new legal landscape.

Despite Florida’s history of being a gun-supporting climate, Florida’s GOP-dominated state Legislature took steps to restrict gun laws in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Since the day the measure was signed into law, gun rights advocates have been pushing to unravel it.

Now, activists say recent court rulings are fueling their push to expand gun rights in the state, emboldened by U.S. Supreme Court’s updated standards for evaluating gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“Leaving unconstitutional laws on the books creates nothing but confusion,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of the advocacy group Florida Carry.

Here’s what to know.

Judge finds age restriction on concealed carry unconstitutional

A ruling by a circuit court judge in Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, found that Florida’s prohibition against people under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm is unconstitutional, at least as it relates to the case in question.

Last week, Judge Frank Ledee tossed out the conviction of 19-year-old Joel Walkes, who was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed handgun. Florida statutes currently allow people between the age of 18 and 20 to possess a firearm, if they legally receive it as a gift or an inheritance, but they are barred from purchasing guns or carrying them concealed.

Ledee found the state’s prohibition is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s historical test, and inconsistent with a recent appeals court ruling that found a state law banning the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. In his decision, the judge pointed to the Legislature’s role in codifying and clarifying the changes.

“Distilling these inconsistencies into a framework of firearm regulations compatible with the guarantee to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is best left to the wisdom of legislative debate,” Ledee wrote.

Open carry ruling sparks questions

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision legalizes open carry, though there are preexisting limitations against carrying in a threatening manner or in certain restricted spaces like government meetings, schools and bars. The ruling has prompted some Florida sheriffs to urge caution among gun owners and seek clarity from lawmakers.

Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida lawmakers implemented in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. Among the law’s provisions was raising the legal gun-buying age to 21.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the recent court decisions put more onus on lawmakers to enact state statutes that line up with recent judicial rulings.

“I would not be surprised if in the next session the Florida Legislature doesn’t just take care of this by amending the statute to say, ‘clean it up.’ And then that’ll end all these lawsuits and possible lawsuits,” Jarvis said of the age-related prohibition. “And that’s really now what should happen.”

Advocates push for expanding gun laws

In the years since the 2018 Parkland shooting, lawmakers’ efforts to lower the gun-buying age to 18 have advanced in the Florida House but ultimately failed in the state Senate.

Now some advocates say the recent court rulings should force the hand of legislators who have opposed expanding gun rights in the past.

“We’ve been telling the Legislature since 2010 that this was going to be a problem for them if they didn’t act. And they chose not to act,” Caranna said.

“I hope that given some of the recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Florida courts, that they will finally see that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” he added.

Representatives for Florida’s House speaker and Senate president did not immediately respond to inquiries Wednesday.

Payne writes for the Associated Press.

In recent years, it’s become abundantly clear this region’s war on smog hinges on the adoption electric vehicles. And, for the first time in a generation, we may be headed in the wrong direction.

If you’ve followed my coverage, you probably know that Southern California’s persistently sunny climate and mountains work together to form and trap smog over our region. And, that the leading source of smog-forming pollution is the same today as it was decades ago: gas-guzzling cars and trucks.

State regulators have made tremendous progress in the last few decades when it comes to curbing tailpipe pollution; California, for example, was the first state to adopt engine emission standards and mandate catalytic converters, regulations that were later adopted nationwide. But Southern California has yet to achieve any federal air quality standards for smog.

And now, electric vehicles and hybrids face significant headwinds due to recent policy changes under the Trump administration.

Since President Trump’s return to the Oval Office, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has successfully campaigned to invalidate several California auto emission standards, including a landmark rule that would’ve required 35% of new vehicles that automakers supply to California car dealerships to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrid starting next year.

Separately, Trump’s budget bill terminated federal incentives at the end of September that made zero-emission vehicles more cost-competitive with gas cars. As I recently wrote, California saw record-high sales numbers of EVs and other clean vehicles as consumers scrambled to dealerships to take advantage of expiring deals.

But now, without these two crucial policy levers driving EV adoption, the industry is at an inflection point.

A new EV costs about $8,000 more on average than a gas car, according to Kelley Blue Book.

The overall cost of ownership for EVs can still be cheaper than for gas cars due to lower fuel and maintenance costs. However, the question is, will Americans accept a higher upfront price tag in exchange for fewer costs — and less pollution — down the road?

The auto industry doesn’t pivot on a dime. Car lineups are designed, produced and released years in advance. But, in the last year, amid a torrent of policy decisions coming from the Trump White House, car companies have announced many moves that signal a retreat from some zero-emission vehicles:

• Acura discontinued its electric ZDX after just releasing one model year.
• Ford scrapped its forthcoming all-electric three-row SUV program.
• General Motors discontinued the Brightdrop van, an electric delivery van.
• Ram pivoted from releasing an all-electric pickup truck to a plug-in hybrid model.
• Stellantis shelved its hydrogen fuel cell program for commercial vans.
• Volkswagen canceled the release of its ID.7 sedan in North America.

The loss of new or forthcoming zero-emission models is disheartening, said Joel Levin, executive director of Plug In America, a nonprofit that hosts events to advocate for more EVs. But, he added, most of these were fledgling models that did not make up a large share of sales.

“I think it’s that people are just being more selective about what they’re bringing to market, and are focusing in on the vehicles that they really feel like have legs,” Levin said. “So it’s a loss. I’m sad about it. But I don’t think that it’s an existential threat to the market.”

In the last decade, Levin has seen the national market share of EVs and plug-in hybrids compared with overall car sales grow from a fraction of a percent in 2015 to roughly 10% in 2024. In California, that number was even higher, at 25%.

Levin said that can largely be attributed to advancement of battery technology, which has allowed for drastically longer range. But EVs also offer technological amenities that gas counterparts do not.

“Ford has advertised how you can use your pickup truck as backup power for your house if the power goes out,” Levin said. “Or if you’re a contractor or rancher and you need to use power tools somewhere remote away from your house, you can just plug them into your truck. If you’re camping, you can set up your electric kitchen, or you can watch movies, or you can charge your equipment.”

Those features may help win over some drivers. But experts say government regulations are necessary to achieve California’s air quality and climate targets.

California is suing the federal government and Trump administration, alleging they illegally overturned the state’s auto emission standards. The state Air Resources Board has also proposed several ideas to boost EV sales, such as providing free access to toll roads to EV and hybrid drivers.

That said, Gov. Gavin Newsom recently ruled out one of the most powerful tools at his disposal to promote a clean fleet of vehicles in California, as he reneged on his commitment to restore a state rebate program for EV buyers that he had previously vowed to put into effect if Trump eliminated federal incentives.

Dan Sperling, a former CARB board member and UC Davis professor, said the state might consider a “feebate” program in which the state could impose fees on the sales of the most polluting cars, which would then be used to fund rebates for EV and hybrid purchases.

Meanwhile, as consumer sentiment and government policies vacillate in the U.S., demand internationally continues to grow. And American automakers will need to keep investing in EVs if they want to stay globally competitive. Sperling, who took my call while traveling to Paris, said he noticed Chinese EVs throughout the city.

“In China, 50% of all their vehicles that they sell are electric vehicles,” Sperling said. “They sell more electric vehicles in China than total cars sold in the U.S.”

“The vehicle industry is an international industry and so they can’t afford to just give up on electric vehicles, because that means they’re giving up on the rest of the world.”

Air news this week

Ten years after the disastrous Aliso Canyon gas leak, my colleague Hayley Smith spoke with residents about their recollections of the dangerous release of some 120,000 tons of methane and other toxic chemicals near Porter Ranch. Despite persistent environmental concerns, regulators have voted to keep the gas storage facility online, citing concerns over energy demand.

A judge ordered a Watts recycling facility to permanently shut down and pay $2 million in restitution and fines after the company and its owners pleaded no contest to illegally dumping hazardous waste that was polluting a nearby high school.

Environmental groups recently sued the Trump administration for lifting restrictions on dozens of chemical manufacturing plants, according to InsideClimate News reporter Keerti Gopal.

LAist’s AirTalk host Larry Mantle hosted a great conversation on how Los Angeles became the nation’s smog capital. He and Chip Jacobs, the author of “Smogtown: The Lung-Burning History of Pollution in Los Angeles,” recounted the region’s first brush with toxic haze in the 1940s and pollution’s lasting legacy in Southern California.

Associated Press reporters Sheikh Saaliq and Sibi Arasu reported that officials in India are undertaking cloud-seeding experiments as a way to clear air pollution in New Delhi. The controversial approach involves using aircraft to spray chemicals into clouds above the city in hopes of triggering rainfall that would suppress the smog.

One more thing in climate news …

Hurricane Melissa, one of the strongest hurricanes recorded to date in the Atlantic, killed more than 20 people as it barreled through Jamaica, Haiti and Cuba, according to the Washington Post. The proliferation of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels undoubtedly contributed to the historically powerful storm. Because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and foster more intense storms, Melissa may be a harbinger of what’s to come.

Making matters worse, Bloomberg reporters Leslie Kaufman and Fabiano Maisonnave report that wealthy countries are not giving poorer nations the climate adaptation funding they need, according to the United Nations Environmental Programme. As climate risks in many of these countries increase, funding to adapt to climate change is shrinking.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more air quality and climate news, follow Tony Briscoe at @_tonybriscoe on X.

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown has reopened debate on what has been a central issue for both major political parties in the last 15 years: the future of health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Tax credits for people who get health insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, expire at the end of the year.

Democrats say they won’t vote to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate an extension of the expanded subsidies. Republicans say they won’t negotiate until Democrats vote to reopen the government. Lawmakers in both parties have been working on potential solutions behind the scenes, hoping that leaders will eventually start to talk, but it’s unclear if the two sides could find compromise.

As Congress circles the issue, a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 6 in 10 Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about their health costs going up in the next year. Those worries extend across age groups and include people with and without health insurance, the poll found.

A look at the subsidies that are expiring, the politics of the ACA and what Congress might do:

Enhanced premium help during the pandemic

Passed in 2010, the ACA was meant to decrease the number of uninsured people in the country and make coverage more affordable for those who don’t have private insurance. The law created state by state exchanges, some of which are run by the individual states, to try to increase the pool of the insured and bring down rates.

In 2021, when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House during the COVID-19 pandemic, they expanded premium help that was already in the law. The changes included eliminating premiums for some lower-income enrollees, ensuring that higher earners paid no more than 8.5% of their income and expanding eligibility for middle-class earners.

The expanded subsidies pushed enrollment to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. This year, a record 24 million people have signed up for insurance coverage through the ACA, in large part because billions of dollars in subsidies have made the plans more affordable for many people.

If the tax credits expire, annual out-of-pocket premiums are estimated to increase by 114% — an average of $1,016 — next year, according to an analysis from KFF.

Democrats push to extend subsidies

Democrats extended those tax credits in 2022 for another three years but were not able to make them permanent. The credits are set to expire Jan. 1, with Republicans now in full control.

Lacking in power and sensing a political opportunity, Democrats used some of their only leverage and forced a government shutdown over the issue when federal funding ran out on Oct. 1. They say they won’t vote for a House-passed bill to reopen the government until Republicans give them some certainty that the subsidies will be extended.

Democrats introduced legislation in September to permanently extend the premium tax credits, but they have suggested that they are open to a shorter period.

“We need a serious negotiation,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly said.

Republicans try to scale the ACA back, again

The Democratic demands on health care have reignited longstanding Republican complaints about the ACA, which they have campaigned against for years and tried and failed to repeal in 2017. Many in the party say that if Congress is going to act, they want to scrap the expanded subsidies and overhaul the entire law.

The problem is not the expiring subsidies but “the cost of health care,” Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said Tuesday.

In a virtual briefing Tuesday, the libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative Paragon Health Institute branded the subsidies as President Joe Biden’s “COVID credits” and claimed they’ve enabled fraudsters to sign people up for fully subsidized plans without their knowledge.

Others have pitched more modest proposals that could potentially win over some Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has said he is open to extending the subsidies with changes, including lower income limits and a stop to auto-enrollment that may sign up people who don’t need the coverage.

The ACA is “in desperate need of reform,” Thune has said.

House Republicans are considering their own ideas for reforming the ACA, including proposals for phasing out the subsidies for new enrollees. And they have begun to discuss whether to combine health care reforms with a new government funding bill and send it to the Senate for consideration once they return to Washington.

“We will probably negotiate some off-ramp” to ease the transition back to pre-COVID-19 levels, said Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, the head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, during a virtual town hall Tuesday.

Is compromise possible?

A number of Republicans want to extend the subsidies. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said most people who are using the exchanges created by the ACA “don’t really have another option, and it’s already really, really expensive. So I think there are things we can do to reform the program.”

Hawley said he had been having conversations with other senators about what those changes could be, including proposals for income limits, which he said he sees as a “very reasonable.”

Bipartisan groups of lawmakers have been discussing the income limits and other ideas, including making the lowest-income people pay very low premiums instead of nothing. Some Republicans have advocated for that change to ensure that all enrollees are aware they have coverage and need it. Other proposals would extend the subsidies for a year or two or slowly phase them out.

It’s unclear if any of those ideas could gain traction on both sides — or any interest from the White House, where President Donald Trump has remained mostly disengaged. Despite the public stalemate, though, lawmakers are feeling increased urgency to find a solution as the Nov. 1 open enrollment date approaches.

Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire has been talking to lawmakers since the shutdown began, trying to find areas of compromise. On Tuesday, she suggested that Congress could also look at extending the enrollment dates for the ACA since Congress is stalled on the subsidies.

“These costs are going to affect all of us, and it’s going to affect our health care system,” she said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti in Washington and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

How democratic is your water utility?

Does everyone who is registered to vote get to choose their leaders in elections? Or do only property owners get to vote for the managers? Maybe the public has no say at all in selecting the people who make decisions that determine safe and affordable drinking water?

“We see significant differences based on democracy,” said Kristin Dobbin, a researcher at UC Berkeley. “It really does influence the outcomes of a water system.”

In a new study she led, it turns out that water utilities where all voters have a say in choosing leaders tend to perform better.

I contacted Dobbin to learn more about what she and her colleagues discovered about what they call “water democracy” in California.

The researchers analyzed nearly all of the state’s residential water suppliers, more than 2,400 of them. They looked at three categories: those where all registered voters can elect board members; those where only property owners can; and those where people have no vote in choosing decision-makers. Fully 25% of the systems fall into this last category.

In 2012, California became the first state in the nation to declare access to clean, accessible and affordable drinking water a human right. The researchers wanted to see how these different types of utilities have fared in achieving that.

They already knew more than 700,000 Californians rely on water systems that are failing to meet drinking water standards, according to the State Water Resources Control Board, and an additional 1.8 million have systems considered “at risk” of failing.

The study, published this month in the journal Nature Water, found that 13% of water utilities with limited voting rights are identified as “failing,” similar to those where customers can’t vote on leaders. For fully democratic water systems, only 9% fall into that category.

Fully democratic water purveyors, which tend to be larger, also have significantly fewer cases of E. coli contamination from sewage leaks or agricultural runoff.

Those with the most cases of bacterial contamination are water utilities with no elected boards that are run by companies or mobile home parks. These serve many low-income communities and tend to serve more African Americans.

“We find very clearly that low-income communities of color are less likely to have water democracy than others,” Dobbin said.

The group of for-profit utilities led by unelected managers is also more likely to rely on a single source of water rather than diversifying, which Dobbin said puts them more at risk of an emergency if a well goes dry or tests reveal contamination.

Growing numbers of Californians are also struggling to afford the rising costs of their water bills. And on affordability, the group that performs the worst is utilities that allow only property owners, not all registered voters, to vote. The researchers found the utilities with the most democracy perform much better in delivering affordable water.

One caveat: Another recent study, led by UC Davis professor Samuel Sandoval Solis, examined who is leading nearly 700 public water agencies in California, and found that Latinos, as well as Black and Indigenous people, remain significantly underrepresented on their boards, as do women.

Here’s a look at other news about water, the environment and climate change this week:

Water news this week

I wrote about how tribes are urging Los Angeles to pump less groundwater in the Owens Valley. In addition to siphoning water from streams into its aqueduct, the Department of Water and Power says the city has 96 wells it can use to pump groundwater. Indigenous leaders told me the pumping has dried up springs and meadows. DWP says the water is used locally for purposes including controlling dust on the dry bed of Owens Lake, and that the city is taking steps to ensure protection of the environment.

Meanwhile, in a unanimous vote, the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water for 19 million people, chose the agency’s new general manager: Shivaji Deshmukh, who leads the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. His appointment comes nearly nine months after the board fired general manager Adel Hagekhalil after an investigation into allegations of discrimination that exposed divisions within the agency.

Up north along the California-Oregon border, one year after the last of four dams was dismantled on the Klamath River, tribes and environmentalists say the river and its salmon are starting to rebound. Damon Goodman, regional director of the group California Trout, says shortly after the dams were removed, “the fish returned in greater numbers than I expected and maybe anyone expected,” Debra Utacia Krol reports in the Arizona Republic. Oregon Public Broadcasting also reports that Chinook salmon have returned to southern Oregon for the first time in more than a century.

In a new report, researchers say President Trump’s proposed budget would slash funding for federal programs aimed at bringing clean drinking water to Native communities by about $500 million, a nearly 70% decrease. The researchers, part of an initiative called Universal Access to Clean Water for Tribal Communities, said the proposal would reverse “hard-won progress toward clean, reliable water supplies for Native communities,” and they’re urging Congress to reject the cuts.

More climate and environment news

California hasn’t issued an emergency plea for the public to conserve energy, known as a Flex Alert, since 2022. As my L.A. Times colleague Hayley Smith reports, much of the credit for that goes to new battery energy storage, which has grown more than 3,000% since 2020.

The Trump administration plans to further cut staff at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. Inside Climate News’ Katie Surma reports that the Interior Department plans to slash about 2,000 positions affecting national parks, endangered species and research. The plan surfaced in a court case after a judge temporarily blocked the administration from cutting staff during the government shutdown.

Earlier this year, my colleague Grace Toohey wrote about problems in Ventura County during the Thomas fire of 2017 and the Mountain fire of 2024, when firefighters saw hydrants run dry and found themselves short of water. Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) introduced legislation requiring Ventura County water suppliers to take various steps to try to prevent that, including having 24 hours of backup power to pump water for firefighting. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill, which Bennett says is “implementing the lessons learned” from the fires.

One other thing

My former colleague Sammy Roth recently left the L.A. Times and has started his own newsletter about climate and culture called Climate-Colored Goggles. His first edition just came out, focusing on how Toyota has tarnished its green reputation so much that some of Hollywood’s leading environmentalists no longer want to be associated with it. Sammy writes that the Environmental Media Assn., Hollywood’s leading sustainability group, appears poised to cut ties with Toyota, its sponsor.

Sammy’s piece is, as usual, hard-hitting and insightful. I hope you’ll join me in continuing to follow and subscribe to his work.

Boiling Point, which Sammy helmed so brilliantly, will be back with a new installment next week from another member of our Climate and Environment team.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more water and climate news, follow Ian James @ianjames.bsky.social on Bluesky and @ByIanJames on X.

George Santos, serving a prison term on charges of fraud and identity theft, had been held in solitary confinement.

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will commute the sentence of former Republican Representative George Santos, who was serving a prison sentence for fraud and identity theft.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump acknowledged that Santos had made mistakes. But he celebrated Santos as a strong supporter of the Republican Party and noted that family and friends had raised concerns over the former lawmaker’s conditions in prison.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“At least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Trump added that Santos has been “horribly mistreated”, citing his isolation behind bars: “George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time.”

Santos became a well-known political figure after his election victory in 2022, when he flipped New York’s 3rd Congressional District from Democratic control to Republican.

Election observers noted it was one of the first times an openly gay Republican had won a seat in the House of Representatives.

But news reports quickly revealed that Santos had fabricated key details of his life story, and by December 2022, investigators had started to delve into his business dealings.

After a congressional committee found evidence that Santos had violated federal law, including by deceiving donors and stealing from his own campaign, the House of Representatives voted to expel him. Santos was less than a year into his term.

By 2024, Santos had entered into a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid a trial over the allegations. He was sentenced in April for deceiving donors and misleading 11 people, including members of his own family, into giving money to his campaign.

But Santos, a vocal Trump supporter, quickly began a push for the president to commute his prison time, claiming that his punishment was politically motivated.

Trump has also depicted himself as a victim of unjust persecution at the hands of political enemies. He is known to use the power of presidential pardon on behalf of his supporters.

At the beginning of his current term, for example, Trump controversially pardoned nearly all of those charged with participating in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. That attack was part of a bid to violently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost.

Santos and his allies have also drawn attention to his placement in solitary confinement. Though cells meant to maximise isolation are common in US prisons, critics argue they constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, given their connection to mental health issues and heightened risks of suicide.

Santos entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, on July 25. He has written several columns about his experience with solitary confinement since then, reiterating his appeal for Trump to show mercy.

“I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking to be treated as a person – with attention, dignity, and the care any human deserves when in distress,” he wrote in an opinion column.

“And yes, I renew my plea to President Trump: intervene. Help me escape this daily torment and let me return to my family.”

At last month’s meeting of the California Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force in Redlands, Director Patrick Wright remembered the group’s early days: “Candidly, when I started this job, we got an earful from Southern California.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom created the task force in 2021 and at the time, Southern California’s wildfire experts told Wright that he and other state leaders “didn’t understand Southern California was different. Its vegetation is different. Its fire risk is different.”

It’s true — the coastal chaparral native to much of Southern California is entirely different from the mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra.

More than a century of humans attempting to suppress nearly every fire meant the low-intensity burns that northern forests relied on every 5 to 20 years to promote regeneration no longer came through to clear the understory. As trees and shrubs grew in, they fueled high-intensity fires that decimated both the forest and communities.

Meanwhile in Southern California, as humans settled into the wildlands, they lit more fires. Discarded cigarettes, sparking cars, poorly managed campfires, utility equipment and arsonists lit up hundreds or thousands of acres. Here, the native chaparral is adapted to fire coming every 30 to 130 years. The more frequent fires didn’t allow them to grow, make seeds and reproduce. Instead, what’s grown in places where chaparral used to be are flammable invasive grasses.

But when I first moved to Southern California and started covering the wildfires devastating our communities, I had only heard the northern version of the story.

The fire problem in Northern California is more widely understood. “Smokey the Bear, only you can prevent forest fires — everybody kind of knows, intuitively, what a forest fire is,” said Michael O’Connell, president and chief executive of the Irvine Ranch Conservancy — and one of the people who (respectfully) gave Wright an earful.

Meanwhile, ember-driven fires in Southern California are “like someone lobbing grenades from five miles away,” he said.

Experts in both NorCal and SoCal agree on how we ought to protect ourselves once a ferocious fire breaks out: Across the board, we need to harden our homes, create defensible space and ensure we’re ready to evacuate. But how to prevent devastating fires differs.

The forest thinning and careful reintroduction of intentional “good” fire in the Sierra don’t exactly translate to the Santa Monica Mountains, for example.

The problem here in the south is more vexing: How do we reduce the number of fires we spark?

One way is with groups like Orange County Fire Watch and Arson Watch in Topanga and Malibu, which go out on days when the wind is high and try to spot fires before they start. A new effort, celebrated by the task force, to reduce ignitions along SoCal roadways by clearing flammable vegetation is also underway.

But, while NorCal has a plethora of studies affirming the effectiveness of forest thinning and burning, there is little research yet on SoCal’s proposed solutions.

“We really do, now, understand what the problem is that we’re trying to deal with,” O’Connell said. “How do you get that done? That’s more complicated.”

And the vast majority of state funding is still geared toward northern fuel management solutions — not keeping fires from sparking. (The task force also still measures progress in acres treated, a largely meaningless metric for Southern California’s chaparral.)

Yet, O’Connell is hopeful. At the task force’s first meeting in SoCal — where Wright got an earful — leaders didn’t yet have a grasp of SoCal’s wildfire problem. Now, they’re letting SoCal’s land managers and researchers lead the way.

“If it weren’t for the task force, I think we would be in big trouble, frankly,” O’Connell said. The task force leaders “have not only understood [the problem] but have accepted it and run with that.”

Here’s the latest on wildfires

Federal firefighters are in their third week without pay, as the U.S government shutdown drags on. According to the U.S. Forest Service — the largest federal firefighting force in the country — fire response personnel will continue to work through the shutdown, although prevention work, including prescribed burns and forest thinning, will be limited.

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would increase the salaries of Cal Fire firefighters to more closely match those of local fire departments. Meanwhile, efforts championed by the state to build a series of fuel breaks in the Santa Monica Mountains are underway. Some ecologists worry about the damage the fast-moving project could do to the environment; others say the state is not moving fast enough.

Last week, federal prosecutors announced the arrest of a suspect they believed intentionally started the Palisades fire on Jan. 1. The announcement has led to calls for both the Los Angeles Fire Department, responsible for putting out the Jan. 1 fire, and California State Parks, whose land the fire started on, to be held accountable.

And the latest on climate

A turning point and a tipping point: Global energy production turned a corner in the first half of the year, with renewables such as solar and wind generating more electricity than coal for the first time. And, the Earth is reaching its first climate change tipping point: Warm water coral reefs can no longer survive, according to a report published by 160 scientists.

With the 2025 state legislative session wrapped up, some important climate bills are now law. One law extends California’s cap-and-trade program — which limits how much greenhouse gas polluters can emit and enables them to trade emission allowances at auction — from 2030 to 2045. Newsom also signed a bill to make oil drilling in Kern County easier while making offshore drilling more difficult and another to push local governments to increase electrification efforts.

Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required data centers to report how much water they use. He was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements” on the centers, he wrote in a message explaining his veto, noting that “California is well positioned to support the development of this critically important digital infrastructure.”

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more wildfire news, follow @nohaggerty on X and @nohaggerty.bsky.social on Bluesky.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are ramping up the pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who won a special election last month to succeed her late father.

The delay has attracted mounting attention this week, with Johnson challenged by lawmakers, reporters and even C-SPAN viewers about why Grijalva hasn’t been given the oath of office. Johnson has said repeatedly that she will be sworn in when the House returns to session. He blames the government shutdown for the delay.

Here’s a look at where the situation stands:

Who is Adelita Grijalva?

She is the daughter of Rep. Raul Grijalva, a staunch progressive who died in March. He served more than two decades in the House, rising to chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, where he helped shape the nation’s environmental policies.

Adelita Grijalva has been active in local politics, first serving at the school board level and subsequently on the Pima County Board of Supervisors, becoming just the second woman to serve as chair.

She easily won a special election Sept. 23 to serve out the remainder of her father’s term. She will represent a mostly Hispanic district in which Democrats enjoy a nearly 2-1 ratio voter registration advantage over Republicans.

How Grijalva views the delay

Grijalva was gracious to her soon-to-be Democratic colleagues as they welcomed her to the U.S. Capitol last month, even as she and her future staff were officially considered visitors to the building.

“I think it’s great to be able to be in a room with those who will be my colleagues, but then you very quickly realize that you are not part of the club yet,” Grijalva said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. “If I had big money to bet, I would bet that if I were a Republican representative waiting in the wings, I would have already been sworn in by now.”

She said she’s worried about the precedent that is being set by her delayed swearing-in.

“The bedrock of our democracy is free, fair, unobstructed elections,” she said. “And if Speaker Johnson believes this is, as I do, then he will quit toying with our democratic process and swear me in.”

Why the House is empty during the shutdown

Members of the House have been mostly back in their home districts since Sept. 19. That’s when Republicans passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through Nov. 21. Johnson’s decision to send lawmakers home was intended to pressure the Senate into passing that funding measure — a tactic that so far hasn’t worked.

Johnson has yet to schedule any floor votes since then, though the House has occasionally met in pro forma sessions, which are generally short affairs lasting just a few minutes during which no votes are taken.

“We will swear her in when everybody gets back,” Johnson told reporters this week.

Lawmakers who win special elections generally take the oath of office on days in which legislative business is conducted, and they are welcomed with warm applause from members on both sides of the aisle. They give a short speech as family and friends watch from the galleries.

Yet there is precedent for doing it differently. On April 2, Johnson swore in Republican Reps. Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine, both of Florida, less than 24 hours after they won their special elections, during a pro forma session.

Johnson says the circumstances were unique because the House had unexpectedly gone out of session that day. Patronis and Fine had already arranged for their families, friends and supporters to be in Washington.

“As a courtesy to them and their families, we went ahead and administered the oath to an empty chamber. It was no fun. They didn’t get the same pomp and circumstance everybody else gets,” Johnson said Thursday on C-SPAN when asked by a caller about Grijalva. “We’re going to administer the oath as soon as she gets back.”

How are Democrats responding?

Democrats have little leverage to force Johnson to seat Grijalva so long as the House is in recess. But they are keeping up the pressure.

In an unusual scene Wednesday, Arizona’s two Democratic senators — Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego — confronted Johnson outside his office about Grijalva’s situation.

“You just keep coming up with excuses,” Gallego said to Johnson. The speaker called it a publicity stunt.

Democrats have also taken to the floor during pro forma sessions to try to have Grijalva sworn in. The presiding officer has ignored them every time.

“Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva should be sworn in now. It should have happened this week, should have happened last week. It needs to happen next week,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters Thursday.

What does her swearing-in have to do with the Epstein files?

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, defying GOP leadership, has been gathering signatures on a petition to trigger a vote on legislation that would force the release of federal files on Jeffrey Epstein. And he’s just one name away from succeeding.

Grijalva has said she’ll sign the petition once she takes office, providing Massie the 218 signatures needed to trigger a vote.

Democrats say Johnson is stalling on Grijalva’s swearing-in, as well as on bringing the House back to Washington, because he wants to push off any Epstein vote.

Johnson rejected that accusation during his appearance on C-SPAN. “This has zero to do with Epstein.”

Grijalva said she tries to not be a “conspiracy theorist” and initially disagreed with supporters and allies who warned her that she wouldn’t be seated in Congress because of the Epstein bill.

“I thought, no way, he’s gonna swear me in. It’ll be fine,” she said. “Here we are two weeks later.”

Brown and Freking write for the Associated Press.

Last month, in a special election, voters in southern Arizona chose Adelita Grijalva to succeed her late father in Congress.

The outcome in the solidly Democratic district was never in doubt. The final tally wasn’t remotely close.

Grijalva, a Tucson native and former Pima County supervisor, crushed her Republican opponent, 69% to 29%.

The people spoke, loudly and emphatically, and normally that would have been that. Grijalva would have assumed office by now, allowing her to serve her orphaned constituents by filling a House seat that’s been vacant since her father died in March, after representing portions of Arizona for more than 20 years.

But these are not normal times. These are times when everything, including the time of day and state of the weather, has become politically charged.

And so Grijalva is residing in limbo. Or, rather, at her campaign headquarters in Tucson, since she’s been locked out of her congressional office on Capitol Hill — the one her father used, which now has her name on a plaque outside. She’s been denied entry by Speaker Mike Johnson.

“It’s pretty horrible,” Grijalva said in an interview, “because regardless of whether I have an official office or not, constituents elected me and people are reaching out to me through every social media outlet.

“‘I have a question,’” they tell Grijalva, or “‘I’m afraid I’m going to get fired’ or ‘We need some sort of assistance.’”

All she can do is refer them to Arizona’s two U.S. senators.

House members are scattered across the country during the partial government shutdown and Johnson said he can’t possibly administer the oath of office to Grijalva during a pro forma session, a time when normal business — legislative debate, roll call votes — is not being conducted. “We have to have everybody here,” Johnson said, “and we’ll swear her in.”

But, lo, dear reader, are you sitting down?

It turns out there were two Republican lawmakers elected this year in special elections, each, as it happens from Florida. Both were sworn in the very next day … during pro forma sessions!

Shocked? Don’t be. In the Trump era, rules and standards are applied in flagrantly different ways, depending on which political party is involved.

But partisanship aside, what possible reason would Johnson have to stall Grijalva’s swearing-in? Here’s a clue: It involves a convicted sex trafficker and former buddy of President Trump, whose foul odor trails him like the reeking carcass of a beached whale.

Yes, it’s the late Jeffrey Epstein!

“On my very first day in Congress, I’ll sign the bipartisan discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files,” Grijalva said on the eve of her landslide election. “This is as much about fulfilling Congress’ duty as a constitutional check on this administration as it is about demanding justice for survivors.”

Jeffrey Epstein. Gone but very much unforgotten.

For years, his perversions have been an obsession among those, mainly on the right, who believe a “deep state” cover-up has protected the rich and powerful who partnered with women procured by Epstein. After Trump’s marionette attorney general, Pam Bondi, suggested a client list was sitting on her desk, awaiting release, the Justice Department abruptly reversed course.

There was no such list, it announced, and Epstein definitely committed suicide and wasn’t, as the conspiracy-minded suggest, murdered by those wishing to silence him.

Trump, who palled around with Epstein, urged everyone to move along. Naturally, Johnson fell into immediate lockstep. (Bondi, for her part, tap-danced through a contentious Senate hearing last week, repeatedly sidestepping questions about the Epstein-Trump relationship, including whether photos exist of the president alongside “half-naked young women.”)

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a GOP lawmaker and persistent Trump irritant, and Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna have led the bipartisan effort to force the Justice Department to cough up the government’s unclassified records related to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, his former girlfriend and fellow sex trafficker.

The discharge petition, overriding the objections of Trump and Johnson and forcing the House to vote on release of the files, needs at least 218 signatures, which constitutes a majority of the 435 members. The petition has been stalled for weeks, just one signature shy of ratification.

Enter Grijalva.

Or not.

Johnson, who may be simply delaying an inevitable House vote to curry Trump’s favor, insists the Epstein matter has “nothing to do with” his refusal to seat Grivalja.

Righto.

And planets don’t revolve around the sun, hot air doesn’t rise and gravity doesn’t bring falling leaves to Earth.

More than 200 Democratic House members have affixed their signatures to the petition, along with four Republicans — Massie and Reps. Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene. The latter three are all MAGA stalwarts who have bravely broken ranks with Trump to stand up for truth and the victims of Epstein’s ravages.

“Aren’t we all against convicted pedophiles and anyone who enables them?” Greene asked in an interview with Axios.

Most are, one would assume. But apparently not everybody.

Five-plus years ago, during the early days of COVID-19, we sent the first edition of Boiling Point. I wrote then that there would “always be people who say it’s the wrong time to talk about carbon emissions, or water pollution, or the extinction crisis.” But even amid a deadly pandemic and stay-at-home orders, I argued, it was more important than ever to keep the climate crisis front and center.

The same is true now — yes, even amid the Trump administration’s escalating attacks on democracy and dissent and immigrants. Which is why, even though I’m leaving the L.A. Times, Boiling Point will continue.

Yes, you read that correctly. I’ve made the difficult decision to leave the L.A. Times. Tuesday was my last day.

But I’m not done telling stories about climate. And neither are my wonderful friends and colleagues.

I’m not quite ready to share my own plans yet. If you want to keep following my work, please send me an email at [email protected], and I promise to keep you updated. I’m excited for what comes next.

It’s a bittersweet moment, though. Working at The Times has been one of the great privileges of my life; thank you for inviting me into your inboxes, and making time to read my stories when you could have been scrolling or streaming. I’m grateful for our dialogue, our debates, our disagreements. I hope we’ll have many more.

Just as importantly, I hope you’ll continue to follow and support the L.A. Times, especially our environment team.

With no disrespect to any other news outlet, we have the best climate reporters in the business: Tyrone Beason. Tony Briscoe. Noah Haggerty. Ian James. Sandra McDonald. Melody Petersen. Corinne Purtill. Susanne Rust. Lila Seidman. Hayley Smith. Rosanna Xia. If you’re not reading them, you’re doing it wrong.

Starting next week, several of my colleagues will take turns writing Boiling Point. It’ll look a little different than it does now, with a combination of analysis and news roundup. Each edition will have a unique focus, based on the reporter’s expertise: Ian James will cover water, for instance, while Lila Seidman will tackle wildlife and Tony Briscoe will handle air quality. You’ll get a wide range of thoughtful perspectives.

The newsletter will still arrive in your inbox every Thursday. It’ll still be worth opening.

Just like climate, journalism is more important now than ever. Local journalism especially.

Thank you for everything. Onward.

ONE MORE THING

On the southern end of Del Mar, train tracks run precariously close to the edge of rapidly crumbling cliffs.

(John Gibbins / San Diego Union-Tribune)

For nostalgia’s sake, here are some of my favorite environmental stories and series the L.A. Times has produced during my seven years here — including, no shame, one of my own:

A reporter kept a diary of her plastic use. It was soul-crushing

Colorado River in Crisis: A Times series on the Southwest’s shrinking water lifeline

Fishing the L.A. River is more than a quarantine hobby. For some, it’s therapy

Is it ethical to have children in the face of climate change?

Repowering the West: Energy-hungry cities are reshaping the landscape, again

The California coast is disappearing under the rising sea. Our choices are grim

The L.A. Times investigation into extreme heat’s deadly toll

Uncovering the toxic soil lurking in L.A.’s burn zones

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @sammyroth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

WASHINGTON — Halfway through President Trump’s inaugural White House meeting this term with congressional leadership days before a government shutdown, the red hats appeared on the president’s desk.

“Trump 2028,” they said, situated across from the seated lawmakers, Vice President JD Vance and several untouched Diet Cokes.

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries leaned over to Vance, a potential 2028 contender, and quipped, “Hey, bro, you got a problem with this?”

The room chuckled in response.

“It was the random-most thing in the world, because we’re sitting there, we’re having a serious conversation, and all of a sudden these two red hats appear,” Jeffries recalled later at the Capitol.

“It was all so unserious,” the New York Democrat said, describing a roving cameraman capturing the moment. “We were there for serious reasons that it wasn’t really a big part of, you know, the discussion. It was theatrics.”

The moment was vintage Trump — grabbing the attention and seeking to throw negotiators off their game — but it also underscored the president’s disregard for Congress, a coequal branch of the government, and in particular his opponents across the political aisle.

From historic first meeting to viral trolling

What was once considered a historic occasion — the president of the United States convening his first “big four” meeting of congressional leaders from the House and Senate — was reduced to another viral souvenir of Trump trolling his opponent.

And after the more than hourlong session, the president failed to strike a deal with the leaders to prevent a federal government closure.

“We don’t want it to shut down,” Trump said at the White House the next day, hours before the midnight deadline.

This wasn’t just a routine meeting of the president and congressional leadership. It was the first time Trump had gathered the leaders of Congress, more than eight months into his presidency — and the first time he and Jeffries had officially met.

But more surprising was how little came from it.

Healthcare funds

During the White House meeting, Jeffries and Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer laid out their arguments for saving healthcare funding as part of the shutdown talks.

Trump said very little, doing more listening than talking, the leaders said.

“He didn’t seem to know about the healthcare premiums going up so much,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

With the Republican leadership, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the conversation ranged across their views of the healthcare situation.

“Lively,” Thune (R-S.D.) later said.

The discussion included the Democrats’ demands to ensure subsidies to help people buy private insurance on the exchanges run by the Affordable Care Act are made permanent. The subsidies were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and are set to expire at year’s end, which would cause premiums to skyrocket, nearly doubling in some cases.

The conversation also touched on the new rural hospital fund that is important to Republicans, set up under Trump’s big bill as a way to compensate for its cuts to Medicaid healthcare providers.

Johnson (R-La.) said Trump showed “strong, solid leadership. He listened to the arguments.”

Trying to catch the president’s attention

This is the best the Democrats could have hoped for — to have an airing before the president that began to turn the dial toward their demands. And it is what the GOP leaders had tried to avoid as each party tries to blame the shutdown on the other.

Johnson had suggested Trump back out of an initial meeting with the Democrats — after the president had agreed to one — arguing it would be a “waste of time.”

But Trump relented, and granted them Monday’s closed-door Oval Office session.

The Democrats have been here before. During Trump’s first term, the president repeatedly negotiated deals with the Democrats — “Chuck and Nancy,” as he called Schumer and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi — to fund the government, raise the debt limit and achieve other goals.

Those bargains Trump made frustrated his party’s lawmakers.

Republicans, aware of that history, are trying to steer the conversation in a different direction, saying they would leave the door open to discuss the healthcare issue with Democrats later — once the government has reopened. They also took issue with the characterization of Trump as unaware of the depth or magnitude of the healthcare situation.

“I’m highly skeptical the president was hearing about it for the first time,” Vance said afterward.

One Republican not authorized to publicly discuss the private meeting and granted anonymity to do so said Schumer’s suggestion that Trump didn’t know about the subsidy problem was exaggerated.

So far in his second term, the president has been able to accomplish his priorities either on his own, with executive actions and the Elon Musk-led cuts that tore through federal offices, or with a compliant Congress passing his signature tax breaks and spending cuts bill, known as the “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” that is also fueling his mass deportation agenda.

But Washington doesn’t run on the White House alone, and Congress is not a majority-takes-all institution — traditionally, at least. Turning most bills into laws generally has required the give-and-take of bipartisan compromise, particularly in the Senate, and particularly when it comes to the annual appropriations needed to keep government running.

Then came the sombrero taunts

Hours after the lawmakers left the meeting, Trump’s team posted a fake video that showed Jeffries adorned in a sombrero with a faux mustache standing beside Schumer outside the White House. It was widely seen as racist.

“When I was practicing law, there was a Latin phrase that was always one of my favorites,” Jeffries said back at his office at the Capitol. “Res ipsa loquitur. It means: The thing speaks for itself.”

“We had a full airing of our positions on Monday, which should have set the baseline for a follow-up conversation from the administration to try to reignite a meaningful bipartisan path toward funding the government,” he said.

“Unfortunately, the president’s behavior subsequent to the White House meeting deteriorated into unhinged and unserious action.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in a “non-international armed conflict,” according to a Trump administration memo obtained by the Associated Press on Thursday, following recent U.S. strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

Congress was notified about the designation by Pentagon officials on Wednesday, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The memo, startling in scope, signals a potential new moment not just in the Trump administration’s willingness to reach beyond the norms of presidential authority to wage war but in Trump’s stated “America First” agenda. It also raises stark questions about how far the White House intends to use its war powers and if Congress will exert its authority to approve — or ban — such military actions.

The move comes after the U.S. military last month carried out three deadly strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. At least two of those operations were carried out on vessels that originated from Venezuela.

Those strikes followed up a buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean.

“Although friendly foreign nations have made significant efforts to combat these organizations, suffering significant losses of life, these groups are now transnational and conduct ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere as organized cartels,” according to the memo, which refers to cartel members as “unlawful combatants.” “Therefore, the President determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.”

Pentagon officials could not provide a list of the designated terrorist organizations at the center of the conflict, a matter that was a major source of frustration for some of the lawmakers who were briefed, according to the person.

Lawmakers have been pressing Trump to go to Congress and seek war powers authority for such operations.

The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment. Multiple defense officials reached Thursday appeared to be caught off guard by the determination and would not immediately comment or explain what the president’s action could mean for the Pentagon or military operations going forward.

What the Trump administration laid out at the closed-door classified briefing was perceived by several senators as pursuing a new legal framework that raised questions particularly regarding the role of Congress in authorizing any such action, the person familiar with the matter said.

As the Republican administration takes aim at vessels in the Caribbean, senators and lawmakers of both major political parties have raised stark objections. Some had previously called on Congress to exert its authority under the War Powers Act that would prohibit the administration’s strikes unless they were authorized by Congress.

The first military strike, carried out on Sept. 2 on what the Trump administration said was a drug-carrying speedboat, killed 11 people. Trump claimed the boat was operated by the Tren de Aragua gang, which was listed by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year.

The Trump administration had previously justified the military action as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

But several senators, Democrats and some Republicans, as well as human rights groups questioned the legality of Trump’s action. They called it potential overreach of executive authority in part because the military was used for law enforcement purposes.

By claiming his campaign against drug cartels is an active armed conflict, Trump appears to be claiming extraordinary wartime powers to justify his action.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committees, said the drug cartels are “despicable and must be dealt with by law enforcement.”

“The Trump Administration has offered no credible legal justification, evidence, or intelligence for these strikes,” said Reed, a former Army officer who served in the 82nd Airborne Division.

The Trump administration has yet to explain how the military assessed the boats’ cargo and determined the passengers’ alleged gang affiliation before the strikes.

Madhani and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstatin Toropin contributed reporting.

If I didn’t know better, I might have thought Intermountain Power Plant was already dead.

When I visited last month, most of the desks had been torn from the administrative building, leaving behind scattered piles of boxes and office supplies. A whiteboard featured photos of dozens of newly retired employees. Perhaps most tellingly, the coal pile in the yard out back was tiny compared with my previous visit in 2022.

“Our target is to have no coal left on the floor,” said Kevin Peng, manager of external generation for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

Peng was my tour guide at this hulking coal-fired power plant in central Utah, over 500 miles from the city it has powered for the last 40 years. And no, it wasn’t dead yet. One of two massive steam turbines, a General Electric unit installed in 1986, was still sending small amounts of electricity to L.A. and several other Southern California cities following a required air quality test. Soon Unit 1 would shut off, probably for the final time.

Unit 2 would carry Intermountain through its final act. At the moment it was slowly preparing to generate power, releasing puffy white steam through a small vertical pipe near the main smokestack. I stood on the roof for a few minutes near the pipe, letting water droplets fall gently on my face and reporter’s notebook.

“We create our own rain,” Peng with a smile.

Come November, the rain will cease. Same goes for the planet-warming carbon emissions. Los Angeles is closing Intermountain, a watershed moment that will mark the end of coal power in California.

The 710-foot smokestack towers over the rest of Intermountain Power Plant.

(Niki Chan Wylie / For The Times)

To hear President Trump tell it, coal is needed for economic prosperity. Just this week, his administration said it would open 13 million acres of public land to coal mining and offer $625 million in handouts to coal plant owners.

Trump & Co. — including Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive, who insisted the handouts “will be vital to keeping electricity prices low and the lights on without interruption” — are battling the free market. Coal plants generated 16.2% of U.S. electricity in 2023, down from 48.5% in 2007. The main culprit? Competition from cheaper solar, wind and natural gas.

In California, just 2.2% of electricity came from coal in 2024 — nearly all of it from Intermountain. Over 60% was generated by solar panels, wind turbines and other climate-friendly sources that don’t fuel deadly wildfires, heat waves and floods. Thanks to a surge in lithium-ion batteries, there have been no power shortages since 2020.

The L.A. Department of Water and Power, meanwhile, has been making big investments in low-cost renewables, including a record-cheap solar-plus-storage plant that opened this summer. DWP has fired up Intermountain less and less, relying on the plant for 21% of the city’s power in 2019 and just 10% in 2023.

Jason Rondou, the utility’s assistant general manager for power planning and operations, said the coal plant has supplied affordable, reliable electricity for decades. But now there are better options.

“It’s come at a pretty significant external cost — the cost of the carbon emissions,” he said. “For us to move beyond that and move to a cleaner, innovative technology, I think is very exciting.”

Indeed, Los Angeles isn’t just closing Intermountain. It’s built a first-of-its-kind power plant across the street.

The new turbines are designed to burn a mix of 70% natural gas and 30% hydrogen. Although gas is a fossil fuel that exacerbates global warming, hydrogen isn’t. That mix alone is unique for a plant of this scale. But over time, as technology improves, DWP plans to transition to 100% hydrogen — an unprecedented undertaking.

The newly built gas/hydrogen power plant known as IPP Renewed, seen from the roof of the Intermountain coal plant.

(Niki Chan Wylie / For The Times)

Even better, the hydrogen will be “green,” meaning it’s made from renewable electricity rather than fossil fuels.

At times of day when DWP has extra renewable power — such as mild spring afternoons, when the sun is shining and Angelenos aren’t blasting their air conditioners — the utility can use that energy to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. DWP and its partners have hired a private company to store the hydrogen in giant underground salt caverns just down the road from Intermountain.

Then, when DWP needs extra power — during a heat wave months later, for instance — it can pull hydrogen from the caverns and fire up the turbines. Basically, the hydrogen will function like a long-term battery.

“It’s very different from lithium-ion [batteries],” Rondou said. “For that seasonal storage, that’s where hydrogen can really provide significant benefit.”

Among environmentalists, hydrogen is controversial. Some share DWP’s view that it’s a necessary piece of the clean energy puzzle. Others consider it a distraction from cheaper, more proven technologies, and a threat to air quality, especially in low-income communities of color. They’ve slammed DWP’s goal of eventually converting four L.A.-area gas plants to hydrogen, citing nitrogen oxide pollution and potential methane leaks.

In Utah’s Millard County, conservative local officials have embraced the newfangled technology, along with solar and wind. Unlike Trump, who has slashed hydrogen funding, they have little aversion to clean energy.

“Energy development is really important in our portfolio. And we will talk to everybody. We’re open for business,” said County Commissioner Bill Wright.

Sitting in his living room, as dogs and grandkids wandered past, Wright reflected on his rural county’s long relationship with Los Angeles. The massive tax revenues, the hundreds of jobs. The lack of local control. The fact that nearly all the power goes to California.

Wright would have liked to see DWP keep the coal plant running. But the closure has been in the works for years, so he and his neighbors have had time to adjust. He’s glad L.A. isn’t leaving town entirely — even though the new plant will be smaller, with fewer jobs and a smaller tax base.

“Absolutely, this is a better solution,” he said.

Millard County Commissioner Bill Wright poses for a portrait near Intermountain Power Plant outside Delta, Utah, on Sept. 16.

(Niki Chan Wylie / For The Times)

Wright is hopeful that the Utah Legislature will find a buyer for the coal plant, possibly a data center. One of his colleagues on the county commission, Vicki Lyman, is less optimistic. She’s worked at Intermountain for a dozen years and sees major technical and economic hurdles to restarting a mothballed power plant.

“I’m kind of excited just to see how all this technology’s going to work out,” Lyman said.

It’s still not entirely clear when DWP will start combusting hydrogen. The new plant will burn 100% gas when the coal turbines power off in November, utility officials say, because there won’t be enough hydrogen banked in the salt caverns yet. DWP is targeting the second quarter of 2026 to mix in 30% hydrogen.

For employees, DWP has tried to make the transition as painless as possible. It’s limited layoffs by not replacing retiring staffers, and by offering tuition reimbursement to anyone who chooses to go back to school.

Still, change can be bittersweet. While touring Intermountain, I bumped into plant manager Jon Finlinson, who’s worked there since 1983 and would have retired already if the gas/hydrogen units weren’t running a few months behind schedule. He professed excitement for the new facility. But when I asked him how he’d commemorate the final day of coal combustion, he offered the verbal equivalent of a shrug.

“Oh, I don’t know,” he said. “We don’t have a plan for that yet.”

Really? After 40 years, nothing?

“It’ll be a sad day for all the people that have worked here for their whole life,” he acknowledged.

Intermountain staff member Carl Watson offers a peek into the coal furnace.

(Niki Chan Wylie / For The Times)

Technically, even after Intermountain stops sending coal power to L.A. — as well as Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena and Riverside — there will still be tiny amounts of coal in California’s energy mix. A Riverside County electric cooperative imports coal from out of state, as does Berkshire Hathaway-owned Pacific Power in Northern California. In San Bernardino County, two small coal plants fuel a mining operation.

Together, those coal generators supplied less than 0.2% of the state’s electricity in 2024. (If you want to get really technical, an additional 1.5% came from “unspecified” out-of-state sources, most likely gas and coal.)

But why quibble when there’s cause for celebration? Change is never easy; no solution is perfect; there will always be caveats.

Next month, California is quitting coal. Raise a glass.

The coal pile at Intermountain Power Plant, seen on Sept. 17.

(Niki Chan Wylie / For The Times)

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @sammyroth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

Correction: Last week’s edition of this newsletter referred to Revolution Wind as a floating offshore wind farm. The project’s turbines are attached directly to the sea floor.

For nearly a decade, President Trump has promised “energy dominance” — a vague but alluring slogan hinting at a world in which the U.S. is king. A world in which other nations depend on us for their power, ensuring economic prosperity in the form of domestic jobs, cheap gasoline and low electric bills.

The problem is, it’s a breathtaking lie.

As recent events have made abundantly clear, Trump and his allies don’t care about energy dominance. They care about killing renewable energy and helping fossil fuel companies profit. Even if it means higher power costs. Even if it means destroying American jobs. Even if it means ceding the future to China.

All of which is happening. “Energy dominance” is a terrifyingly effective propaganda campaign that demands a robust response from the renewable energy industry, which, like the Democratic Party, has largely failed to meet the moment. Solar and wind companies have instead let Trump’s messaging rule the day, pushing back weakly at best as they scramble for slices of an “energy dominance” pie that will never be theirs.

It’s time for them to start punching back.

Amid a yearlong assault on clean power — including Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which slashed federal incentives for solar farms, wind turbines and electric cars — nothing has better exemplified the MAGA Republican Party’s stance toward renewables than an unprecedented, possibly illegal effort to block several massive clean energy projects, including at least one already under construction.

Last month, the Trump administration ordered the Danish company Orsted to stop building Revolution Wind, a $4-billion floating wind farm in the waters off the Rhode Island coast that was already 80% complete. A judge ruled Monday that work can proceed — a win for New Englanders, who stand to pay half a billion dollars per year in higher utility bills and face a higher risk of blackouts if the project doesn’t come online.

Also last month, Trump’s Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reversed the Biden administration’s approval of an Idaho wind project, Lava Ridge. Earlier, he halted construction of Empire Wind off the New York coast, changing course only after Gov. Kathy Hochul reportedly agreed to approve two gas pipelines. Burgum’s agency asked judges last week to cancel approval of offshore wind farms in Maryland and Massachusetts.

Trump’s hatred for wind turbines dates back to his failed effort in the mid-2010s to derail an offshore wind farm that he said would ruin the views from his Scottish golf resort. But he and his accomplices have attacked the solar industry, too.

A worker helps build the Gemini solar project on federal lands outside Las Vegas in January 2023, during the Biden administration.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Trump’s appointees have issued directives making it harder for solar and wind companies to qualify for tax credits before they expire, and stalling approvals for renewable energy projects on public and private lands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture gutted a program that provides financial support for farmers who want to lower their energy bills by installing solar panels.

“The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” Trump wrote on social media in August.

If climate-friendly energy is stupid, then America’s biggest energy companies are pretty dumb. Solar panels, wind turbines and batteries made up 94% of the nation’s new power capacity last year — a trend driven by the fact that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of new electricity. Even in Texas, renewables are booming.

So how have Trump and friends justified their attacks on clean energy?

In large part by lying.

In that August social media post, Trump claimed that states reliant on wind and solar power “are seeing RECORD BREAKING INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY COSTS.”

That’s false. Although Californians do pay high electric rates for complex reasons, states with similarly climate-friendly power supplies — such as wind-rich Iowa, Kansas and South Dakota — enjoy some of the country’s cheapest electricity.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, meanwhile, said in a recent interview that in the absence of batteries, solar panels and wind turbines are essentially “worthless” when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing — rehashing a tired anti-renewables talking point that deliberately ignores the incredible growth of energy storage, driven by rapidly falling battery costs.

Wright — who previously ran a fossil fuel company — is also engaged in the latest climate-denial fad: acknowledging that global warming is real but insisting the consequences aren’t so bad, and that phasing out oil and gas is actually more harmful than replacing them with clean energy. Never mind the bigger wildfires, the harsher droughts, the deadlier heat waves, the rising seas, the deadly air pollution…

To support his lies, Wright handpicked five infamously contrarian researchers who produced a report questioning decades of well-established climate science. Dozens of leading experts quickly uncovered errors.

“The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating,” Wright said in a written statement alongside the report. “Yet we are told — relentlessly — that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”

Oil, gas and coal did indeed help build today’s society. And now we know they pose an existential threat to society if we keep using them for too much longer.

This shouldn’t be a hard story for renewable energy companies to tell. One European power generator, at least, is doing it well.

Some of the Hywind Tampen floating offshore wind turbines in the North Sea, operated by Equinor, an international energy company based in Norway.

(Ole Jørgen Bratland / Equinor)

In a recent ad for Swedish energy company Vattenfall, actor Samuel L. Jackson stands on a bluff at the edge of a gorgeous sea. He looks out across the water, where wind turbines spin serenely in the distance.

“Mother— wind farms. Loud, ugly, harmful to nature. Who says that?” Jackson asks, shaking his head. “These giants are standing tall against fossil fuels. Rising out of the ocean like a middle finger to CO2.”

The tagline: “We’re working for fossil freedom.”

You’d be hard-pressed to find such punchy, provocative messaging from the U.S. clean energy industry.

When the Trump administration said last month it was making it harder for solar and wind projects to qualify for federal tax credits, for instance, Abigail Ross Hopper — president of the Solar Energy Industries Assn. — urged the Trump administration to “stop the political games, stop punishing businesses, and get serious about how to actually build the power we need right now to meet demand and stay competitive.”

Similarly, when federal officials halted work on Revolution Wind, American Clean Power Assn. Chief Executive Jason Grumet called it “a broken promise to the communities, workers, consumers, and businesses counting on this project.”

“Taking jobs away from American families while raising their energy bills is not leadership,” Grumet said.

Underlying both missives — and the industry’s entire playbook, so far as I’ve seen — is the assumption that clean energy companies are dealing with a normal, good-faith government. That Trump and company aren’t just trying to own the libs and line the pockets of campaign fundraisers. That they truly care about “energy dominance.”

It’s time for solar and wind executives to stop pleading with MAGA Republicans and start telling Americans the real story. That clean energy is cheaper, healthier and just as reliable as fossil fuels. That China is dominating the renewable energy arms race, and we badly need to catch up. That we don’t need coal, and we won’t always need oil and gas, and “energy dominance” is a lie meant to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

That strategy probably won’t pay off in the short term. But in the long term, nothing else will.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Rev. Emanuel Cleaver III wants a second civil rights movement in response to President Trump and his fellow Republicans who are redrawing congressional district boundaries to increase their power in Washington.

In Missouri, the GOP’s effort comes at the expense of Cleaver’s father, Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, and many of his Kansas City constituents, who fear a national redistricting scramble will reverse gains Black Americans won two generations ago and will leave them without effective representation on Capitol Hill.

“If we, the people of faith, do not step up, we are going to go back even further,” the younger Cleaver told the St. James Church congregation on a recent Sunday, drawing affirmations of “amen” in the sanctuary where his father, also a minister, launched his first congressional bid in 2004.

Trump and fellow Republicans admit their partisan intent, emboldened by a Supreme Court that has allowed gerrymandering based on voters’ party leanings. Democratic-run California has proposed its own redraw to mitigate GOP gains elsewhere.

Yet new maps in Texas and Missouri — drafted in unusual mid-decade redistricting efforts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections — are meant to enable Republican victories by manipulating how districts are drawn.

Civil rights advocates, leaders and affected voters say that amounts to race-based gerrymandering, something the Supreme Court has blocked when it finds minority communities are effectively prevented from electing representatives of their choice.

“It’s almost like a redistricting civil war,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson, whose organization is suing to block the Texas and Missouri plans.

‘Packing and cracking’

In redistricting lingo, it’s called “packing and cracking.” Those maneuvers are at the heart of Trump’s push for friendlier GOP districts as he tries to avoid reprising 2018, when midterms yielded a House Democratic majority that stymied his agenda and impeached him twice.

Because nonwhite voters lean Democratic and white voters tilt Republican, concentrating certain minorities into fewer districts — packing — can reduce the number of minority Democrats in a legislative body. By spreading geographically concentrated minority voters across many districts — cracking — it can diminish their power in choosing lawmakers.

The elder Cleaver, seeking an 11th term, said the Trump-driven plans foster an atmosphere of intimidation and division, and he and fellow Kansas City residents fear the city could lose federal investments in infrastructure, police and other services.

“We will be cut short,” said Meredith Shellner, a retired nurse who predicted losses in education and healthcare access. “I just think it’s not going to be good for anybody.”

Missouri’s U.S. House delegation has six white Republicans and two Black Democrats. The new map, which could still require voter approval if a referendum petition is successful, sets the GOP up for a 7-1 advantage.

Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe says the new map better represents Missouri’s conservative values. And sponsoring state Rep. Dirk Deaton says it divides fewer counties and municipalities than the current districts.

“This is a superior map,” the Republican legislator said.

Cleaver’s current 5th District is not majority Black but includes much of Kansas City’s Black population. New lines carve Black neighborhoods into multiple districts. The new 5th District reaches well beyond the city and would make it harder for the 80-year-old Cleaver or any other Democrat to win in 2026.

In Texas, Abbott insists no racism is involved

A new Texas map, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law, is designed to send five more Republicans to Washington, widening his party’s 25-13 advantage to a 30-8 one.

The old map had 22 districts where a majority of voters identified as white only. Seven were Latino-majority and nine were coalition districts, meaning no racial or ethnic group had a majority. By redistributing voters, the new map has 24 white-majority districts, eight Latino-majority districts, two Black-majority districts and four coalition districts.

Abbott insists new boundaries will produce more Latino representatives. But they’ll likely reduce the number of Black lawmakers by scrambling coalition districts that currently send Black Democrats to Washington.

Democratic Rep. Al Green was drawn out of his district and plans to move to seek another term. On the House floor, the Black lawmaker called GOP gerrymandering another chapter in a “sinful history” of Texas making it harder for nonwhites to vote or for their votes to matter.

Green said it would hollow out the Voting Rights Act of 1965 “if Texas prevails with these maps and can remove five people simply because a president says those five belong to me.”

The NAACP has asked a federal court to block the Texas plan. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act broadly prohibits districts and other election laws that limit minority representation.

The NAACP’s Johnson suggested Republicans are playing word games.

“Was this done for partisan reasons? Was it done for race? Or is partisanship the vehicle to cloak your racial animus and the outcomes that you’re pursuing?” he asked.

In Missouri, the NAACP has sued in state court under the rules controlling when the governor can call a special session. Essentially, it argues Kehoe faced no extenuating circumstance justifying a redistricting session, typically held once a decade after the federal census.

Saundra Powell, a 77-year-old retired teacher, framed the redistricting effort as backsliding.

She recalls as a first-grader not being able to attend the all-white school three blocks from her home. She changed schools only after the Supreme Court declared segregated schools unconstitutional in 1954.

“It seems worse 1758147903 than what it was,” Powell said.

Hollingsworth, Barrow and Ingram write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. AP reporter John Hanna contributed from Topeka, Kan.

OMAHA — No formal agreement has been signed to convert a remote state prison in Nebraska into the latest immigration detention center for President Trump’s sweeping crackdown, more than three weeks since the governor announced the plan and as lawmakers and nearby residents grow increasingly skeptical.

Corrections officials insist the facility could start housing hundreds of male detainees next month, with classrooms and other spaces at the McCook Work Ethic Camp retrofitted for beds. However, lawmakers briefed last week by state officials said they got few concrete answers about cost, staffing and oversight.

“There was more unanswered questions than answered questions in terms of what they know,” state Sen. Wendy DeBoer said.

Officials in the city of McCook were caught off guard in mid-August when Republican Gov. Jim Pillen announced that the minimum-security prison in rural southwest Nebraska would serve as a Midwest hub for immigration detainees. Pillen and federal officials dubbed it the “Cornhusker Clink,” in line with other alliterative detention center names such as “ Alligator Alcatraz ” in Florida and the “Speedway Slammer ” in Indiana.

“City leaders were given absolutely no choice in the matter,” said Mike O’Dell, publisher of the local newspaper, the McCook Gazette.

McCook is the seat of Red Willow County, where voters favored Trump in the 2024 election by nearly 80%. Most of them likely support the president’s immigration crackdown, O’Dell said. However, the city of around 7,000 has also grown accustomed to the camp’s low-level offenders working on roads, in parks, county and city offices and even local schools.

“People here have gotten to know them in many cases,” O’Dell said. “I think there is a feeling here that people want to know where these folks are going to end up and that they’ll be OK.”

The Work Ethic Camp first opened in 2001 and currently houses around 155 inmates who participate in education, treatment and work programs to help them transition to life outside prison. State leaders often praise it as a success story for reducing prisoner recidivism.

Some lawmakers have complained that Pillen acted rashly in offering up the facility, noting that the state’s prison system is already one of the nation’s most overcrowded and perpetually understaffed. The governor’s office and state prison officials met with members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee last week to answer questions about the transfer.

What the lawmakers got, several said, were estimates and speculation.

Lawmakers were told it was the governor’s office that approached federal officials with the offer after Trump “made a generalized, widespread call that we need more room or something for detainees,” said DeBoer, a Democrat in the officially nonpartisan Legislature.

Lawmakers were also told the facility — which was designed to house around 100 but is currently outfitted to hold twice that — would house between 200 and 300 detainees. The prison’s current staff of 97 is to be retrained and stay on.

The costs of the transition would be borne by the state, with the expectation that the federal government would reimburse that cost, DeBoer recalled.

A formal agreement between the state and federal agency had yet to be signed by Friday.

Asked how much the state is anticipated to spend on the conversion, the agency said “that number has not yet been determined,” but that any state expenditures would be reimbursed. The state plans to hire additional staffers for the center, the agency said.

A letter signed by 13 lawmakers called into question whether Pillen had the authority to unilaterally transfer use of a state prison to federal authorities without legislative approval.

To that end, state Sen. Terrell McKinney — chairman of the Legislature’s Urban Affairs Committee and a vocal critic of Nebraska’s overcrowded prison system — convened a public hearing Friday to seek answers from Pillen’s office and state corrections officials, citing concerns over building code violations that fall under the committee’s purview.

“How can you take a facility that was built for 125 people and take that to a capacity of 200 to 300 people without creating, you know, a security risk?” McKinney asked.

Pillen maintains state law gives him the authority to make the move, saying the Department of Correctional Services falls under the umbrella of the executive branch. He and state prison officials declined to show up at Friday’s hearing.

But dozens of Nebraska residents did attend, with most of them opposed the new ICE detention center.

Beck writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom used his written State of the State address Tuesday to cast California as a bulwark against a menacing Trump administration he accused of dismantling public services, flouting the rule of law and using extortion to bully businesses and universities.

The remarks came as Newsom’s national profile has grown and given him a broader political stage, even as he skipped the literal one — opting to send his speech to lawmakers in writing rather than deliver it from the Assembly rostrum, which is customary. His address painted a portrait of a state under siege by the federal government even as it grapples with the aftermath of the devastating Los Angeles County fires, spiraling housing costs and an uneven economic recovery.

While he framed Trump and his allies as the chief obstacle to progress, he leaned on familiar themes of California’s resilience, pointing to disaster response, investments in schools and clean energy and the state’s economic staying power. He said as California celebrates the 175th anniversary of statehood, “the state of the state is strong, fully committed to defending democracy, and resolved to never bend.”

“It would be a mistake to think California is cowering in the face of this onslaught,” Newsom said in the 2,300-word address accompanied by a shortened video version.

The written address marks the fifth year in a row that Newsom has diverged from the decades-old tradition of the governor delivering the annual address in person to lawmakers at the state Capitol.

His unconventional approach has drawn some criticism, particularly by Republicans who characterized it as an example of Newsom lacking respect for the institution. California’s Constitution only requires that the State of the State be submitted as a written letter to the Legislature, which was how governors up until roughly the 1960s fulfilled their duty. Starting with the late Gov. Pat Brown, the addresses were delivered in person, typically in January as a way to set the agenda for the year.

Newsom, who dislikes reading from a teleprompter due to his dyslexia, has not delivered his State of the State in the Capitol since 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, Newsom’s address was streamed from an empty Dodgers Stadium and, two years later, he declined to give a speech in lieu of a statewide press tour, during which he unveiled new policies.

“His ambitions are more than his ability to govern this state,” Assembly Republican leader James Gallagher of Yuba City said in a video posted on X. “And here is another symbol of that, not showing up to talk about what is actually going on in the state and how we can actually come together to get things done.”

This year’s speech arrives unusually late in the year, as lawmakers race to approve hundreds of bills ahead of Friday’s legislative deadline. It also comes at a moment when Newsom, in the final stretch of his governorship, is drawing national attention not only for his confrontations with Trump but also for a shrewd social media assault that borrows the president’s own trolling style to energize supporters and burnish his public brand.

But Newsom’s record has also drawn sharp criticism.

After nearly two terms, California continues to wrestle with entrenched homelessness, soaring housing costs and one of the nation’s highest costs of living. A budget deficit has swelled in part because the governor expanded Medi-Cal healthcare coverage to include all income-eligible undocumented immigrants. And his move to undercut Texas lawmakers who redrew legislative maps to add additional Republican seats in Congress by asking California voters to do the same to add Democrats has fueled charges that he is accelerating a national wave of partisan gerrymandering and energizing state Republicans.

“My last letter to you warned about the poisonous populism of the right and the anxiety many people were feeling about the state of this country — some of it grounded in real fear about the national economy, but much of it stoked by misinformation and bigotry,” Newsom wrote to lawmakers. “We are now nine months into a battle to protect the values we hold most dear and to preserve the economic and social foundation we built for California. We are facing a federal administration built on incompetence and malicious ignorance, one that seeks the death of independent thinking.”

Newsom said California showed the country its resilient spirit in January during the deadly wind-driven wildfires that destroyed thousands of homes and forced mass evacuations in Los Angeles County. Newsom credited emergency responders who put their lives at risk saving trapped residents.

He glossed over criticisms that pre-deployed fire engines were inadequate, evacuation alerts were delayed and elderly and disabled residents were left stranded. Instead, he focused on the “historic speed and scale” for which federal, state and local officials responded. That commitment, he said, will be there until the last residents return and local businesses recover.

“Through executive orders waiving red tape, the state paved the way for debris-removal crews to move quickly through damaged areas and streamlined permits to speed rebuilding,” Newsom wrote. “Homes are now rising.”

While California looked to the Trump administration for help, Newsom said the state has found none.

“Even as fires still burned, the newly elected President began targeting our state — testing our resolve with his relentless, unhinged California obsession,” Newsom wrote.

From fires to immigration, Newsom said Trump’s approach has been the same: Abandon California when it is in crisis and attack its liberal values. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for federal authorities to return to mass immigration arrests at workplaces, bus stops and other places in Los Angeles. Newsom said Trump’s decision in June to deploy the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to help with immigration enforcement was a “cowardly attempt to scare us into submission.”

“We are committed to protecting the men and women who make this state stronger through their hard work and entrepreneurial spirit,” Newsom wrote before pivoting to Trump’s ongoing attacks on university funding. “And when the President threatens to bankrupt UCLA — an engine of innovation and economic prosperity, a world leader in science and medicine — with his own bankrupt ideas, he will fail.”

California has led the way in building a green economy, Newsom said, pointing to more than2 million zero-emission vehicles sold in the state and 51 miles of Caltrain railroad tracks now electrified. The state’s grid has run for the equivalent of 60 full days using 100% clean electricity, he added.

“Our climate investments will create millions of new jobs and cut air pollution by more than 70%,” Newsom wrote. “In California, economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand.”

Like past governors, he used the speech to underscore California’s outsized role in the national economy. With a gross domestic product topping $4.1 trillion, he said the state leads in startups, venture capital and space technology.

The governor closed on a note of defiance, promising to report next year — in what would be his final State of the State — that California is “brighter and more prosperous than ever before.”

It’s been more than 60 years since Utah backed a Democrat for president. The state’s last Democratic U.S. senator left office nearly half a century ago and the last Utah Democrat to serve in the House lost his seat in 2020.

But, improbably enough, Utah has suddenly emerged as a rare Democratic bright spot in the red-vs.-blue redistricting wars.

Late last month, a judge tossed out the state’s slanted congressional lines and ordered Utah’s GOP-run Legislature to draw a new political map, ruling that lawmakers improperly thumbed their noses and overrode voters who created an independent redistricting commission to end gerrymandering.

It’s a welcome pushback against the growing pattern of lawmakers arrogantly ignoring voters and pursuing their preferred agenda. You don’t have to be a partisan to think that elections should matter and when voters express their will it should be honored.

Otherwise, what’s the point of holding elections?

Anyhow, redistricting. Did you ever dream you’d spend this much time thinking about the subject? Typically, it’s an arcane and extremely nerdy process that occurs once a decade, after the census, and mainly draws attention from a small priesthood of line-drawing experts and political obsessives.

Suddenly, everyone is fixated on congressional boundaries, for which we can thank our voraciously self-absorbed president.

Trump started the whole sorry gerrymandering business — voters and democracy be damned — by browbeating Texas into redrawing its congressional map to try to nab Republicans as many as five additional House seats in 2026. The paranoid president is looking to bolster his party ahead of a tough midterm election, when Democrats need to gain just three seats to win a House majority and attain some measure of control over Trump’s rogue regime.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to Texas with a proposed Democratic gerrymander and perhaps you’re thinking, well, what about his attempted power grab? While your friendly columnist has deplored efforts to end-run the state’s voter-established redistricting commission, at least the matter is going on the ballot in a Nov. 4 special election, allowing the people to decide.

Meantime, the political race to the bottom continues.

Lawmakers in Republican-run Florida, Indiana, Missouri and Ohio may tear up their congressional maps in favor of partisan gerrymanders, and Democrats in Illinois and New York are being urged to do the same.

When all is said and done, 10 or so additional seats could be locked up by one party or the other, even before a single ballot is cast; this when the competitive congressional map nationwide has already shrunk to a postage stamp-sized historic low.

If you think that sort of pre-baked election and voter obsolescence is a good thing, you might consider switching your registration to Russia or China.

Utah, at least, offers a small ray of positivity.

In 2018, voters there narrowly approved Proposition 4, taking the map-drawing process away from self-interested lawmakers and creating an independent commission to handle redistricting. In 2021, the Republican-run Legislature chose to ignore voters, gutting the commission and passing a congressional map that allowed the GOP to easily win all four of Utah’s House seats.

The trick was slicing and dicing Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, the state’s most populous and densely packed, and scattering its voters among four predominantly Republican districts.

“There’s always going to be someone who disagrees,” Carson Jorgensen, the chairman of the Utah Republican Party, said airily as lawmakers prepared to give voters their middle finger.

In July 2024, Utah’s five Supreme Court justices — all Republican appointees — found that the Legislature’s repeal and replacement of Proposition 4 was unconstitutional. The ruling kicked the case over to Salt Lake County District Judge Dianna Gibson, who on Aug. 25 rejected the partisan maps drawn by GOP lawmakers.

Cue the predictable outrage.

“Monday’s Court Order in Utah is absolutely Unconstitutional,” Trump bleated on social media. “How did such a wonderful Republican State like Utah, which I won in every Election, end up with so many Radical Left Judges?”

In Gibson’s case, the answer is her appointment by Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican who would be considered a radical leftist in the same way a hot fudge sundae could be described as diet food.

Others offered the usual condemnation of “judicial activism,” which is political-speak for whenever a court decision doesn’t go your way.

“It’s a terrible day … for the rule of law,” lamented Utah’s Republican Sen. Mike Lee, who is apparently concerned with legal proprieties only insofar as they serve his party’s president and the GOP, having schemed with Trump allies in their failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

In a ruling last week rejecting lawmakers’ request to pause her decision, Gibson wrote that “Utah has an opportunity to be different.”

“While other states are currently redrawing their congressional maps to intentionally render some citizen votes meaningless, Utah could redesign its congressional plan with the intention to protect its citizens’ right to vote and to ensure that each citizen’s vote is meaningful.”

That’s true. Utah can not only be different from other states, as Gibson suggested.

It can be better.

The University of California’s top leader has raised the “distinct possibility” that financial losses due to the Trump administration’s funding cuts could amount to billions of dollars and extend beyond UCLA to the entire 10-campus system, telling state legislators Wednesday that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.”

In a letter to dozens of lawmakers obtained by The Times, UC President James B. Milliken said the university is facing “one of the gravest threats in UC’s 157-year history” after the Trump administration cut off more than $500 million in grants to UCLA before demanding a $1.2-billion fine over allegations of campus antisemitism.

Milliken outlined the potential losses at the nation’s preeminent public university system under Trump’s higher education agenda in his strongest and most detailed public words since starting the job Aug. 1, days after funding troubles hit UCLA.

UC “receives over $17 billion per year from the federal government — $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding, $5.7 billion in research funding, and $1.9 billion in student financial aid per year,” Milliken wrote in the letter addressed to Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. If such funds were lost, Milliken wrote, “we would need at least $4-5 billion per year to minimize the damage.”

“A substantial loss of federal funding would devastate our university and cause enormous harm to our students, our patients, and all Californians. Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad.”

Milliken, who met with lawmakers in Sacramento last month, penned his message in response to an Aug. 31 letter from Wiener and 33 other legislators, who urged UC leaders to “not to back down in the face of this political shakedown” from President Trump, whose actions the lawmakers said were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook.”

In a statement about the letter, a UC spokesperson said the university “is committed to working with leaders in Sacramento and across the country to ensure we have the resources we need to continue generating jobs, life-changing discoveries, and economic opportunity in the face of historic challenges.”

In addition to grant cuts and the $1.2-billion fine demand from UCLA, the Trump administration has also proposed sweeping changes at the Westwood campus. They include the release of detailed admissions data — the government accuses UCLA of illegally considering race when awarding seats — restrictions on protests, and an end to race-related scholarships and diversity hiring programs. The Department of Justice has also called for a ban on gender-affirming care for minors at UCLA healthcare systems.

The Trump administration accuses UCLA of violating civil rights law by not taking antisemitism seriously. Although there have been complaints of antisemitism on campus since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s ensuing war in Gaza, a number of influential faculty members, staff and students, including many in the Jewish campus community, have said UCLA has made progress on addressing the campus climate.

“Free speech, academic freedom, scientific research, and democracy are values that have led to Jewish flourishing. These attacks on California, on our immigrant communities, on science, and on LGBTQ people stand in stark contrast to Jewish values,” Wiener wrote in the letter whose signatories included members of California Legislative Jewish Caucus, of which Weiner is co-chair.

Wiener’s letter urged UC leaders to fight the government’s demands as the university negotiates with the DOJ.

“Acceding to these reprehensible demands won’t stabilize the UC system; it will betray our values of protecting and celebrating our most vulnerable communities. Giving in will only encourage further unconstitutional behavior by this administration,” said the letter, addressed to Milliken, the UC Board of Regents and UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk.

“Concessions by UCLA would establish a damaging precedent for extorting public schools in states with leadership that does not bow down to this President,” Wiener and others wrote, who described federal demands as “extortion,” echoing statements by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“We must resist Trump’s extortion to protect public higher education, the economy, our students and California’s values,” the lawmakers wrote.

Although the university has engaged with the Trump administration to restore UCLA funding, no settlement has been reached and there is a wide gulf between the two sides on what terms would be acceptable.

Newsom has called the government’s proposed fine “ransom,” saying he wants UC to sue the administration and not “bend the knee” to Trump.

But the decision over a lawsuit rests with the independent UC Board of Regents. The governor has appointed many but not all of the regents and sits as a voting member on the 24-person board. Newsom can exercise political sway over its moves but, aside from his vote, has no formal power over the body’s decisions.

A recently fired California Legislature staff member filed a lawsuit this week against Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas claiming that the lawmaker and his brother, Rick, retaliated against her for reporting sexual harassment and alleged ethics violations.

Former press secretary Cynthia Moreno alleged in the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Sacramento County Superior Court, that the speaker targeted her after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against a colleague in May 2024 and stripped her of “significant job responsibilities.”

Early this year, Moreno filed another complaint to the Workplace Conduct Unit, which investigates allegations of inappropriate conduct by legislative employees, alleging Rick Rivas, a nonprofit organization and a political action committee had “funneled money” to exert influence on the speaker, according to the lawsuit.

In response, Moreno alleges in the lawsuit, Rick Rivas used his influence to deny her a tenure-based pay raise and terminate her employment.

Rick Rivas is the American Beverage Assn.’s vice president for California and has acted as a political advisor to his brother. Rick Rivas did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Elizabeth Ashford, a spokesperson for Robert Rivas, said the speaker’s brother had no role in Moreno’s employment and the lawmaker “recused himself from all matters related to Moreno’s termination,” which was handled by the Workplace Conduct Unit.

“The vast conspiracy theories included in this filing are absolutely false,” Ashford said in a statement, adding that “any court will see this for what it is: an attempt by a former employee to force a payout.”

The Assembly Rules Committee terminated Moreno in August after an investigation substantiated allegations of sexual harassment that had been lodged against her, according to Chief Administrative Officer Lia Lopez. Moreno has denied those allegations.

Moreno is seeking damages for lost wages and benefits, lost business opportunities and harm to her professional reputation. She’s also seeking a public apology for the “made-up sexual-harassment allegations launched against [her] for reporting Robert Rivas’ and Rick Rivas’ illegal and unethical actions,” the lawsuit states.