While the specter of la migra continues to haunt the city, far more crushing are problems that affect everyone — affordability, housing, traffic, pollution. Maybe Soto-Martínez and his colleagues should double down on fixing those things first and sell their message better to voters instead of picking up a new issue?
I know the first-term council member comes from a good place. His parents were formerly undocumented, just like my dad, and he has been a fierce advocate for immigrants going back to his labor organizing days. I have friends without legal status and others in the DACA program for people who came to the U.S. illegally as children. I think giving them, as well as green card holders and others with papers, a chance to participate in elections is a righteous idea.
But to paraphrase the Book of Ecclesiastes, there’s a time and a place for everything. In 2026, Angelenos should be focused on electing people and approving initiatives that will improve the city for everyone, not a narrow plank benefiting a slice of the population.
So I called up Soto-Martínez and challenged him to convince this doubting Tomás.
He hopes his proposal will reach the City Council later this month for a vote on whether to place it on the November ballot. If voters pass the measure, it goes back to the council to decide when — if ever — to enfranchise the immigrants.
The proposal, already vilified in conservative media, isn’t as radical as it seems. Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections, but there’s a well-established history of their participation in local ones, including in Vermont and Maryland. They can already vote in L.A. neighborhood council elections, and in San Francisco school board elections if they have a child in the district.
Besides, L.A. has long led the way in weaving undocumented immigrants into the fabric of civic life.
This is a sanctuary city where Mayor Karen Bass has stood up to President Trump’s xenophobia. Where eight of the 15 council members are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Where LAUSD Supt. Alberto Carvalho — himself formerly undocumented — has striven to make local schools as welcoming as possible (Carvalho is on paid leave after the FBI raided his home and office earlier this year). Even the LAPD learned decades ago that it’s better to embrace undocumented immigrants than castigate them for their lack of legal status.
“If you’re contributing to this economy, you should have the right to decide who represents you,” Soto-Martínez told me.
Fair point. But isn’t thumbing our noses at Trump asking for more of what he has already inflicted on L.A., making life even more miserable for undocumented immigrants? Could he use the noncitizen voter rolls as a list of whom to deport? Besides, doesn’t extending the franchise to noncitizens give fuel to his crazy conspiracies about stolen elections?
“You always hear, ‘Don’t poke the bear, don’t instigate them,’ but that’s not how you deal with a bully,” Soto-Martínez replied. “They’re coming at us already. While they’re removing people’s right to vote in the Supreme Court, we’re expanding it. … And it has nothing to do with Trump. It’s about fairness.”
Tell that to Trump.
I mentioned that Santa Ana — a city far more Latino than Los Angeles, though not as liberal — decisively rejected a similar measure in 2024. Soto-Martínez’s fellow Democratic Socialist council members, Ysabel Jurado and Eunisses Hernández, have voiced their support for his measure. But I wonder whether the full council will move it along to voters in a year when some members, including Soto-Martínez, are running for reelection.
I couldn’t get a comment from Bass. Councilmember Nithya Raman, who’s running against her, said in a statement that Soto-Martínez’s push “is worth taking seriously” but that it’s “critical to getting this right, and we must not make decisions lightly or quickly.”
“We’re going to have to organize,” Soto-Martínez acknowledged. “But we live in a political moment where it’s the right conversation to have about what this city stands for.”
Avance Democratic Club President Nilza Serrano at Mariachi Plaza in Boyle Heights in 2022.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
He’s going to have to convince people like Nilza Serrano. She’s president of Avance, L.A. County’s largest Latino Democratic club, and heads the California Democratic Party’s Latino caucus. Serrano is no wokosa — she supported Rick Caruso in the last mayoral election and is now siding with Bass.
While Serrano thinks Soto-Martínez is on to something, she said that voting rights for noncitizens are a nonissue for the people she’s trying to get to the polls for the June primary and November general elections. The economy and Trump’s deportation deluge are more on their minds.
I asked if Soto-Martínez’s proposal would cheapen citizenship for people like her. Serrano and her family came here legally from Guatemala in the 1980s before becoming U.S. citizens, a process that took years.
“Not for me,” she replied. “But it’s hard to say for others. I’d have to do a little bit more research.”
“Isn’t San Francisco already doing it?” the Navy veteran cracked.
I thought Hernandez would go on an anti-liberal rant, but.…
“I believe there’s a strong argument,” he said, “that if someone has established residency and is a member of the community and suffered the consequences of whatever local policies will be enacted, they should have a say in who gets elected.”
Did the ghost of Joaquin Murrieta, California’s original avenging Latino, suddenly possess Hernandez? To make sure I was hearing right, I asked again if noncitizens voting in L.A. elections is a good thing.
How could he support that, as a Trump-voting Republican?!
“We have to be pragmatic,” he replied. He approves of noncitizens voting in L.A. neighborhood council elections, because that’s true local control.
He understands that allowing them to vote in municipal elections might come off as an insult to the memory of civil rights activists who lost their lives fighting for that right for Black Americans. But U.S. citizens are already taking it for granted, he noted — turnout in the November 2022 L.A. mayoral election was a pitiful 44%.
“Maybe noncitizens will appreciate voting more than citizens,” he said.
I’m still not fully convinced that Soto-Martínez’s push is wise right now, but I like that he’s being careful.
“We need to get in the weeds of this,” he said of the City Council’s deliberations, which he characterized as attempting to ensure maximum benefit and minimum fallout.
Each of us has a shortlist of movies we find ourselves rewatching, movies we will finish even if they’re half-over when we tune in. Even if it’s being streamed with commercials. Even if it’s playing on a 19-inch black-and-white television with no sound in a crowded dive bar.
For the past 20 years, “The Devil Wears Prada” has been one of those films for me and other Americans who entered the workforce just in time to say goodbye to pensions and hello to increases in student loan debt. Generation X had the highest homeownership rate relative to their age, so when the housing bubble popped in 2008, it hit Gen X the hardest. And yet this same group of workers is also shouldering the care of aging parents and adult children. According to Pew Research, more than half of 40-year-olds (“elder millennials”) and more than a third of 50-year-olds fall into this category, doing so with shrinking financial margins because wages have lagged behind the cost of living our entire adult lives.
While the current No. 1 movie at the box office — the biopic chronicling Michael Jackson’s rise from Gary, Ind., in 1966 to headlining stadiums in 1988 — may evoke a sense of nostalgia for Gen X, the sequel to “Devil” (which opens in theaters Friday) feels more like a peer review.
Twenty years ago, when we last saw our protagonist, Andrea Sachs, she had decided to leave her big corporate job because success in that environment required her to be someone she didn’t like or respect. As young professionals, seeing a fictional character like Sachs leave a toxic work environment felt like a satisfying conclusion in 2006. However, over the decades, you learn work/life balance is an oxymoron and characteristics such as integrity and loyalty are often valued but rarely useful on a spreadsheet.
Don’t get me wrong — I love the campy humor, the fashion and soundtrack of the first “Devil.” However, the thing that elevated the Oscar-nominated film to its cultlike status is the same thing that lifted similarly edgy coming-of-age stories such as “The Graduate” in 1967, “American Graffiti” in 1973 and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” in 1982: truth. Despite the fantasy elements of beautiful and talented people dressed in clothing designed by the upper echelon of the fashion industry, “Devil” has a sequel because what Sachs was experiencing felt real. Many of us have been there — behind on rent, desperately trying to build a career, navigating friends and romance.
The line the character Nigel told an overwhelmed Sachs in the original — “let me know when your whole life goes up in smoke … means it’s time for a promotion” — was more than a humorous quip. It was also foreshadowing for the young professionals in the audience who had not yet learned that being good at your job, or even great, wasn’t enough to keep it.
We know that all too well now. Just this week, the Wall Street Journal reported corporate layoffs in the first quarter of 2026 surpassed 200,000. Of course, it wasn’t always like this.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, in the immediate three decades after World War II, workers saw their hourly compensation in line with the country’s productivity growth. That’s because during the height of the Cold War — when employers offered employees pensions and union participation was at its peak — corporate America was incentivized to offer labor a larger share of the profits as a way to counteract communism. However, when the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990s, so did the motivation from domestic CEOs to share profits with workers. The split between capital and labor began measurably in 1970, and the gap has only increased since.
Twenty years ago — before the 2008 recession, the pandemic and the nearly $1-trillion price tag stemming from the Afghanistan war — it was believable a young professional like Sachs would walk away from a good corporate job for the sake of her integrity. However, given how fraught the current work environment feels, with the shadow of artificial intelligence looming over entry-level positions across multiple disciplines, would we find Sachs’ actions believable today? Or laudable? Or would we demand that she compromise her principles because it’s pragmatic to let go of the idealism of youth? Time has forced many of us to begrudgingly accept that possibility. Our younger selves might not approve, but our older selves know that’s how most people survive long enough in their careers to have a sequel.
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
The Navy’s top leadership says they are working hard to avoid serious issues that have plagued previous shipbuilding efforts when it comes to the Trump class “battleship” program. Senior officials have focused, in particular, on the need to have a very firm design before any work on the large surface combatants, the first of which could cost a whopping $17 billion, actually begins. A lack of a finalized design, along with repeated changes to it along the way, contributed heavily to the demise of the Constellation class frigate last year.
Editor’s note: As this story was being written, the Pentagon announced that the Secretary of the Navy “is departing the administration, effective immediately,” and that Undersecretary Hung Cao will take over as Acting Secretary of the Navy. No reason for the change in leadership was immediately given.
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan both discussed the Trump class battleship, also known as the BBG(X), at separate roundtables on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 exposition this week. President Donald Trump had officially rolled out plans for the Trump class, the first of which is currently set to be named the USS Defiant, last December.
A previously released rendering of the Trump class battleship, the first of which is set to be named USS Defiant. White House/USN
“I think it is a necessary element to the force,” and “I think it provides real flexibility to the force,” Secretary Phelan said about the BBG(X) effort at his roundtable.
From what the Navy has shared so far, the Trump class warships will displace approximately 35,000 tons, very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They will also be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots. The armament on each of the ships will include a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, loaded into large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays. They will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, laser directed energy weapons, and various additional weapons for close-in defense.
An annotated graphic highlighting various capabilities set to be found on the Trump class design. Note that the mention here of “28 Mk 41 VLS” cells appears to be a typo, as other official information from the US Navy says the ships will have 128 such cells. USN via USNI NewsA graphic detailing the current expected specifications of the Trump class design. USN via USNI News
Navy officials also provided additional details about the costs and production schedule associated with the Trump class during yesterday’s rollout of the service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. As it stands now, the Navy is looking to order the first of three of these large surface combatants in Fiscal Year 2028, at an estimated cost of $17 billion. The Navy is currently projecting it will spend $43.5 billion on the program, overall, across the next five years. As a point of comparison, the estimated total procurement costs of each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers range from roughly $13 to $15 billion.
The $17 billion figure “is the early initial estimate. We’ll see where we really settle down as we get through that and start to rationalize some of the costs,” Secretary Phelan noted at his roundtable at Sea Air Space. “So, let’s see where we land on that first ship, and then what the economies of scale get us to as we move through it.”
The Navy has already started “talking to two different vendors” about actually building the Trump class warships, he added. “Then it’ll be a function of how we get through that design process with them, and then their capacity in their yards, what we think they can do. Because we’re looking to really get moving on this and lay the keel in [20]28.”
A model of the Trump class design, also known as BBG(X), on display at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium in January 2026. Eric Tegler
The Secretary of the Navy and CNO Caudle have made clear that the BBG(X) design is still in the very early stages of being formulated. The ships are also set to incorporate a host of advanced capabilities, many of which, such as the railgun and laser directed energy weapons, have yet to be fully proven out, despite years of relevant work the Navy has done already.
“The ship needs to be designed. So, I got to put money toward the research and design of it,” Adm. Caudle said during his roundtable at Sea Air Space. “It’s really the design and how much pull-through I can do from previous efforts, like things that we already have on Arleigh Burke and DDG(X) designs that were already in the works.”
The Navy has previously confirmed that BBG(X) is a direct successor to the DDG(X) next-generation destroyer program. The service has also said that the new large surface combatant addresses shortcomings that had emerged with the previously planned DDG(X) design, which we will come back to later on.
A previously released graphic detailing aspects of a largely notional DDG(X) design. USN
“So all that has to go into a form factor in which we’re fundamentally changing the capacity, [the] vertical capacity of it, [and] the electrical plant and electrical generation for future large-scale directed energy [weapons] and other munitions that require a lot of power, like railgun,” Caudle continued. “So all that’s being baked into that design. And, because we’re taking it so seriously, we want to make sure that we have the right resources applied to the design.”
One of the “mistakes that we’ve done before, quite frankly,” is “we’ve started to build before the design is mature enough,” the CNO added. “And we want to make sure that we’re at [sic] least a very, very high level – I won’t try to give a percentage, but you can think like 80% or more design – before the first weld is done.”
Caudle did not explicitly mention the Constellation class frigate, but the design of that ship was still being finalized as of April 2025, nearly five years after the initial contract award. Work had already begun on the lead ship at that time. This was all despite the Navy having explicitly chosen a derivative of an in-production frigate – Franco-Italian Fregata Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM) – specifically to help reduce risk and keep the program on track. Needless to say, that did not happen, as you can read more about here.
A rendering of a Constellation class frigate. USN
The Navy has also deliberately utilized a process known as “concurrency,” which entails starting production without having a validated design in place, on other shipbuilding projects. Concurrency has been presented in the past as a cost and time-saving measure, but has often produced exactly the opposite results. It has had notably negative impacts on the Navy’s newest operational aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, and both classes of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).
“Look, we were doing work on railguns. We kind of abandoned it. We do have some directed energy [weapons] we are testing out right now,” Secretary Phelan also pointed out in terms of work the Navy has already done to develop key capabilities for the Trump class. “These are all things we have to get better at and need to do. So I think it’s just making sure that we’ve got the design down in an appropriate fashion, pretty locked down, and then making some trade-offs as we decide where to build that ship, when, how.”
At his roundtable at Sea Air Space this week, Phelan said that there are discussions ongoing about the possibility of the Trump class warships being nuclear-powered, though he said that was “unlikely” to be the case. Nuclear propulsion would have major impacts on the complexity and cost of the ships. Navy budget documents say the plan currently is for the BBG(X) to use a combined conventional propulsion system that includes diesel generators and gas turbines.
The Navy is also still fleshing out how it plans to employ the Trump class battleships operationally, which will also have impacts on the final design. This ties back into the aforementioned issues with DDG(X) that the service has cited in the past. The Navy has said it had previously arrived at a place with the next-generation destroyer program where it was considering building two subclasses with different armament configurations. This, in turn, had prompted questions about the limits that course of action would have imposed on the operational flexibility of the class as a whole.
“It’s something we’re trying to understand all the proper trade-offs, and then think about it as a Battleship Strike Group, Carrier Strike Group, how do they work in which different theaters,” Phelan said. “Look at how we’re deployed today, and ask yourself, how a ship like that, what it could do for us. If I had a ship like that today, I could park that off the coast of Venezuela, and I don’t need a ton of DDGs [Arleigh Burke class destroyers] to support it, and I can relieve some of the pressure on those.”
The USS Jack H. Lucas, the US Navy’s first Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer. USN
The Secretary’s comments here are in line with how the Navy’s latest budget request describes the current operational concept behind BBG(X).
“Adding capability at the highest end of the Golden Fleet high-low mix, the Battleship’s primary role is to deliver high-volume, long-range offensive fires and serve as a robust, survivable forward command and control platform. The expanded size and energy density of the new Battleship provide critical advantages for future naval warfare, offering a future-proof platform with distinct capabilities that enhance deterrence,” the line item for the program says. “Its advanced systems will enable true long-range strike with hypersonic weapons housed in new, larger vertical launch systems. Vastly increased power generation, managed by a sophisticated integrated power system with high-capacity energy storage, will support mission-critical directed energy weapons like high-output lasers and electromagnetic railguns, reducing reliance on costly single-use munitions.”
“Furthermore, its advanced naval gunfire offers cost-effective options for strike and defense, and its capacity to embark a fleet command staff enhances survivability by putting commanders closer to the fight. As a flexible command-and-control platform for both manned and unmanned platforms, the Battleship can lead a Surface Action Group, integrate with a Carrier Strike Group, or operate autonomously to secure critical sea lanes,” it continues. “To overcome the capacity limits of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer and the capability compromises of the previously planned DDG(X), the Battleship is designed specifically to accommodate these advanced weapon systems.”
TWZ has previously raised detailed questions about the actual ability of a warship like the Trump class design to conduct independent operations, as well as the general utility of employing it in this way. These questions are compounded by the Navy’s plans, at least right now, to only acquire a very small number of these ships, which can only be in one place at one time. They would also be top targets for adversaries in future conflicts. With the plan now to order the first of these ships in Fiscal Year 2028, the decision about whether to proceed at all could fall to a new administration, as well.
Another Trump class battleship rendering. USN
The service does not appear to have ever put out a firm target for how many of the smaller DDG(X)s it expected to buy, but there had been talk of acquiring between 30 and 50 of those ships in the coming decades.
There are also industrial base and affordability concerns around acquiring such an expensive class of new large surface combatants amid the Navy’s other shipbuilding priorities. Naval shipbuilding capacity, or lack thereof, in the United States has been of growing concern for years, especially when contrasted with China’s industrial might in this regard.
“What we’re looking at more is this distributed ship building in modular [sic; modules], and I think that is a way to tackle that issue,” Phelan said at his roundtable in response to a direct question about these issues. “We’re going to need to really improve our ability to build ships.”
With TWZ and other outlets at a separate event earlier this year, Adm. Caudle also touted the importance of a greater focus on modular shipbuilding methods, which are not new. At that time, CNO was talking about how that could be used to help accelerate work on new FF(X) frigates that the Navy is now looking to acquire in place of the abortive Constellation class.
A rendering of the FF(X) frigate. USN
“An innovative strategy is guiding the new Battleship’s design and construction, centered on a state-of-the-art digital workflow. This utilizes modern digital engineering, AI-enabled design, and advanced production practices to reduce cost and schedule risk. Adopting best practices from Korean and Japanese shipbuilding, the approach emphasizes high design maturity before construction begins, precision modular construction, and tight integration between design and production teams,” according to the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request. “This digital-first, modular approach allows for distributed construction across the industrial base, with U.S. shipyards focusing on final assembly and integration. The strategy is designed to stabilize the workforce, increase industrial resilience, and deliver the new capability more predictably and affordably.”
With the Navy now pushing to order its first Trump class battleship in Fiscal Year 2028, and insisting it won’t start work without a very firm design in place, more details about these warships are likely to continue to emerge in the coming months.
Arsenal and Manchester City are once again battling for the Premier League title in England and, with only weeks of the season remaining, the gap between them remains extremely small.
Whether Arsenal or City go on to win the league, one thing about Arsenal already feels clear: There has been growth, but not dominance.
Arsenal are more consistent than they were a few years ago. They are harder to beat, more confident and more composed during the “no-pressure” parts of the season.
They look so dominant when the pressure is off, but when the moments that matter arrive, they still fail to fully take control. As an Arsenal fan, that is what makes this team so frustrating to watch.
For the second time since the 2022/23 season – when they led the Premier League for much of the campaign before being pipped by Manchester City in the run-in – Arsenal have made the title race harder for themselves than it needed to be.
At the start of the campaign, Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta made a number of significant and, for some, controversial changes. He dropped Myles Lewis-Skelly, who had been outstanding last season, and brought Riccardo Calafiori back into the starting lineup after injury.
Whatever people thought of those decisions, they appeared to immediately make Arsenal impossible to break down. That defensive strength was clear from the opening day, when Arsenal beat Manchester United 1-0 at Old Trafford thanks to an early Calafiori goal. In the following weeks, they conceded fewer than one goal per game.
But in their third game of the season, they lost to Liverpool 1-0 at Anfield, with a late Dominik Szoboszlai free-kick deciding the match.
The obvious question after that game was: Why did Arsenal not go for the kill?
Liverpool were not at their most dominant, yet Arsenal looked more concerned with defending a draw than winning the game. It felt like a missed opportunity and raised early questions about game management in decisive moments.
A similar feeling followed the home draw against Manchester City a month later, in September. That game once again highlighted Arsenal’s competitiveness and extensive growth, but also their reluctance to fully seize control when the game opened up. A late Gabriel Martinelli equaliser earned them a point, but doubts remained about whether they should have been more aggressive.
At that point, for me personally, and for most Arsenal fans, the signs were still overwhelmingly positive.
Martinelli’s equaliser came from an assist by Eberechi Eze, whose arrival added creativity and unpredictability in attack. We all enjoyed watching the team and were hopeful for its success.
When my cohost Stephen Howson taunted me on the Rio Ferdinand Presents podcast by saying, “Those dropped points against Liverpool and Man City will come back to haunt you come the end of the season,” I laughed at him. I was feeling extra confident, as Rio Ferdinand himself had said he believed Arsenal would win the Premier League. That’s what you need to keep believing, right? A six-time Premier League winner backing your club to get it over the line this season.
That belief only grew stronger on October 4, when Arsenal went top of the table after a 2-0 win over West Ham United. Goals from former West Ham midfielder Declan Rice and Bukayo Saka sent Arsenal to the summit.
For much of the season, Arsenal remained close to flawless, even if the sense around them was that they were never fully in control.
The first setback came in December, when Arsenal lost 2-1 away to Aston Villa after a late winner from Emiliano Buendia.
The defeat caused a wave of panic among Arsenal fans about a possible change of trajectory and a repeat of the 2022/23 season, particularly given that the team had looked dominant against stronger rivals such as Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea.
Thankfully, those fears were eased just a few weeks later, when Aston Villa visited Arsenal’s home stadium, the Emirates, on December 30 and Arsenal battered them 4-1.
That victory was a reminder that the panic around Arsenal after a defeat is often bigger than the reality.
League results remained strong until Arsenal were faced with another opportunity to make a statement, this time against a resurgent Manchester United under Michael Carrick.
United had already beaten Manchester City in the derby and then managed to beat Arsenal as well.
Despite that defeat, Arsenal remained top of the table. But for Arsenal fans, the memories of previous collapses once again started to return.
Then came the draws against Brentford and Wolverhampton Wanderers.
Confidence began to fade, and there was a growing sense that City, strengthened by the arrivals of Marc Guehi and Antoine Semenyo, were beginning to gather momentum. City’s victory against Arsenal in the Carabao Cup final on March 2 worked to cement this feeling.
Fans had another moment of hope and relief on March 14 when 16-year-old Max Dowman scored a brilliant goal in a 2-0 win over Everton, while City could only manage a 1-1 draw away at West Ham. At that stage, it felt as if we had done it.
But then history repeated itself, and Arsenal found themselves in another losing streak – a defeat to Southampton in the FA Cup quarterfinal, and league losses against Bournemouth and, recently, City.
Arsenal are still currently top by three points. However, City have a game in hand and, if they beat Burnley by a couple of goals, they will go top on goal difference.
Is it happening again? Are we to lose it all at the last minute? I hope not, but somehow this shows us once more that Arsenal have shown growth throughout the season. However, the lack of dominance has allowed City to get back into the title race.
In the famous words of Declan Rice, “It’s not done yet,” but there is no denying we have made it very difficult for ourselves.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
