letter

WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official nominated to become a federal appeals court judge said Wednesday that he never told department attorneys to ignore court orders, denying the account of a whistleblower who detailed a campaign to defy judges to carry out President Trump’s deportation plans.

Emil Bove, a former criminal defense attorney for the Republican president, forcefully pushed back against suggestions from Democrats that the whistleblower’s claims make him unfit to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bove’s nomination has come under intense scrutiny after the whistleblower, a fired department lawyer, claimed in a complaint made public Tuesday that Bove used an expletive when he said during a meeting that the Trump administration might need to ignore judicial commands.

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He added: “I don’t think there’s any validity to the suggestion that that whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge.”

Bove was nominated last month by Trump to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Bove was on the defense team during Trump’s New York hush money trial and defended Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.

The White House said Bove “is unquestionably qualified for the role and has a career filled with accolades, both academically and throughout his legal career, that should make him a shoo-in for the Third Circuit.”

“The President is committed to nominating constitutionalists to the bench who will restore law and order and end the weaponization of the justice system, and Emil Bove fits that mold perfectly,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email.

The whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, was fired in April after conceding in court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison. Reuveni sent a letter on Tuesday to members of Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general seeking an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Bove and other officials in the weeks leading up to his firing.

Reuveni described a Justice Department meeting in March concerning Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni says Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used profanity in saying the department would need to consider telling the courts what to do and “ignore any such order,” Reuveni’s lawyers said in the letter.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche called the allegations “utterly false,” saying that he was at the March meeting and “at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”

“Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,” Blanche wrote in a post on X on Tuesday.

Bove has been at the center of other moves that have roiled the Justice Department in recent months, including the order to dismiss New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ federal corruption case. Bove’s order prompted the resignation of several Justice Department officials, including Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, who accused the department of acceding to a quid pro quo — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump isn’t the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad.

Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.

His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict.

Even after Trump announced late Monday that a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump’s action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran.

Here’s a closer look at what the act does and doesn’t do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond:

Dividing war powers between Congress and the president

Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn’t already issued a declaration of war.

It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its “collective judgement” to send troops into “hostilities.” The War Powers Resolution calls for the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

But when Congress enacted the law, “it didn’t install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,” said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,” Anderson said. And “the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it’s hard to say it’s in clear contradiction” to the War Powers Resolution.

Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term.

If Congress doesn’t authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president “terminate any use” of the armed forces. “That’s the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” Anderson said.

How past presidents have used it

Congress hasn’t declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Nixon’s veto.

Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn’t require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn’t an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.

Throughout his presidency, President Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn’t rise to the level of “hostilities” set forth in the War Powers Resolution.

What Congress is doing now

Trump’s actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn’t broken cleanly along party lines.

Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total” ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours.

Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come “as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.” He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday.

“There will be Republicans who will support it,” Kaine said. “Exactly how many, I don’t know.”

He added that, “this is as fluid a vote as I’ve been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.”

Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump’s actions on Monday and said he’s operating within his authority.

“There’s always a tension between Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s power as commander in chief,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.”

A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached.

Khanna was undeterred.

“In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization,” Khanna said. “We still need a vote.”

Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

For Thieb Delaporte-Richard, the Parisian cafe within walking distance of his home in Santa Monica was the best spot for an early-morning chat.

While standing in line, the aroma of baking croissants wafted, and the buzzing of espresso machines reverberated off the skeletal remains of an old church that now houses the café.

“This kind of feels like home, to be honest, and I think that’s the reason I like this place,” Delaporte-Richard said of both the cafe and Santa Monica.

Born in Strasbourg, France, Delaporte-Richard spent much of his childhood bouncing around — from eastern France to Paris to French Guiana in South America — never living in one place for more than a few years and never quite sure how to answer when asked which place he truly called home.

“Every city, everywhere, you can see the sunset. But here, it’s so unique — with no clouds and those colors,” French artist Thieb Delaporte-Richard says. “For some reason, it feels like I only see those colors here.”

(Los Angeles World Cup 2026 host committee)

He eventually returned to Paris to attend Gobelins design school. While there, he had the opportunity to travel to the U.S. for a three-month internship in Santa Monica — his first taste of the beachside city, where he says he “had this vision of Hollywood, palm trees, the sunset,” and wanted to have the “California experience.”

A decade later, Delaporte-Richard, 30, wouldn’t want to be anywhere else. Every day, he’s still drawn to the Santa Monica Pier, Pacific Coast Highway, the Santa Monica Mountains and the iconic seaside sunsets.

“Every city, everywhere, you can see the sunset,” he said. “But here, it’s so unique — with no clouds and those colors. For some reason, it feels like I only see those colors here. The way it bounces — it’s so red at the bottom, then you see hues of orange, purple and then blue, nothing to hide it. That makes it so unique.”

In a year’s time, when teams and fans arrive in Los Angeles for the 2026 World Cup — with Los Angeles set to host opening stage matches and quarterfinals at SoFi Stadium — Delaporte-Richard’s interpretation of that sunset will blanket Southern California. From walls to billboards to screens, the striking visual will serve as the focal point of the official L.A. poster for the tournament.

Delaporte-Richard’s pièce de résistance.

Like many in L.A. County, Delaporte-Richard is a transplant drawn to the area in pursuit of a dream. For him, that dream is art, and the region city welcomed him. His L.A.-centric poster stands as a love letter to the place he adores.

“My story is L.A.,” Delaporte-Richard said. “Moving here, I realized how much deeper it is — how L.A. is also all of the stories that people told me. That really changed my vision and made me realize it’s much more than what I thought. When I moved here, it was just supposed to be for a short time. And I realized, well, I love this place.”

Delaporte-Richard didn’t want his poster to be just a checklist of landmarks or symbols — his initial instinct was to include every aspect of the city. But once he scrapped that idea, he focused on subtlety: a careful balance between representation and cliché, aiming to capture an authentic L.A. feel.

He settled on the concept of a silhouetted footballer mid-strike — a composite inspired by countless goal-scoring moments, including one by his childhood hero, Ronaldinho — launching a left-footed shot against the setting sun over the downtown skyline. The city’s signature palm trees stand tall, while Easter eggs like the sweeping searchlights of a Hollywood premiere reveal themselves on a second glance. The player’s outline remains ambiguous enough to let viewers imagine their favorite star in the scene.

“A lot of people reached out to tell me, ‘Oh, it truly captures the spirit of L.A.,’” Delaporte-Richard said. “There is nothing more meaningful to me than people who’ve lived here their entire lives, for generations, telling me it feels like home. A poster like that is not just a marketing visual. To me, it’s a piece of culture. It becomes part of the history.”

The chance to showcase his art, however, nearly slipped away. Delaporte-Richard learned about the contest close to the submission deadline. Pressed for time, he put together a storyboard in a few hours in his apartment. During the next few days, he feverishly sketched and digitally painted the piece. By the end of the week, he finished the project and submitted it with just two hours to spare.

“I knew I wouldn’t have much time,” Delaporte-Richard said, shuffling through his black notebook filled with original sketches and concept art explaining his goal of capturing the energy and motion soccer brings. “I searched for an idea that would work and created that connection between soccer and Los Angeles.”

When Delaporte-Richard hit send on his submission, he wasn’t sure what to expect. At first, all he received was an automated message thanking him and highlighting that more than 900 people had entered the poster contest.

Then came the waiting game. In December, he was notified that he was one of 16 finalists whose work was getting evaluated by five Los Angeles County experts in public art and cultural exhibitions. Several months later, Jason Krutzsch of the Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment Commission reached out with a message.

“I received an email that said, ‘Congratulations, your poster has been selected,’” Delaporte-Richard said. “I had to send an email just asking, ‘Is it for real? Is it literal? You’re not joking?’ And he was like, ‘I’m dead serious.’”

It took a phone call for it to finally hit Delaporte-Richard — he won. It was a big moment he shared with his wife, who moved to California with him from France, and with friends and family back home in Paris.

For the first time, the soft-spoken, introverted Delaporte-Richard found himself in the spotlight, with his first major project now available for the world to purchase — unfamiliar territory for him. Initially, the poster’s release left him anxious, unsure of how people would react.

Would they love it? Would they hate it? The weight felt heavier because of how deeply personal the project was.

Delaporte-Richard’s decision to enter the contest comes from a lifelong love of soccer that began in his youth in France, where he first learned to kick a ball. To him, Brazilian legends Ronaldo and Ronaldinho, Argentine star Lionel Messi and French hero Zinedine Zidane were magicians devoted to their craft, inspiring Delaporte-Richard to follow his path.

When he was 16, his first designs were soccer banners and photoshopped graphics. A chance to celebrate soccer sparked his love of art.

Having never been to a World Cup, Delaporte-Richard says it is an honor to now have his work be part of the games. He plans to attend matches at SoFi Stadium, the venue he passed through a months ago when his artwork was first put on display by the L.A. World Cup host committee.

“If you ask the person who’s got into design, creating football banners, about doing the World Cup poster, 15 years later, I would not believe it,” Delaporte-Richard said. “I wouldn’t believe it at all. So this experience in L.A. and in the U.S. made it a reality.”

Bill Plaschke, thank you for your very informative column about Parkinson’s disease and your boxing exercise program. I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s about five years ago and joined Rock Steady boxing in Burbank six months ago. We do Tai Chi, dancing, speech, the gym machines and boxing. We also work on stretching and floor exercises. My family has noticed a difference in my gait and my endurance. I hope that everyone with Parkinson’s will take heed and find an exercise program specific to their needs. I never had a right jab before, but I have a good one now.

Sandy Kaufman
North Hollywood

I’m often in the mood to punch him after reading one of Plaschke’s columns, but after reading Sunday’s column I wanted nothing more than to give him a hug. It reminds me that everyone is fighting a battle none of us can see. Be kind.

Bill Hokans
Santa Ana

Years of using Bill Plaschke’s notoriously incorrect Super Bowl predictions for betting guidance has led me to believe that Bill owes me, as well as his many devoted readers, a significant debt. His brave and inspiring column revealing his ongoing battle with Parkinson’s disease repays that debt, and then some.

Rob Fleishman
Placentia

Don’t mind admitting I was in tears reading about Bill Plaschke’s advancing Parkinson’s and the therapy that might slow the “motion-melting nightmare” down. A 78-year-old former rugby player with arthritis and a bum knee, I’m fortunate in not having to face the dreaded Parky (yet?). If it happens, I know where to go.

Rock on, Bill, and your truly inspiring gym mates. Kudos, also, to staff photographer Robert Gauthier … every picture, indeed, tells a story.

John D.B. Grimshaw
Lake Forest

I too am living with Parkinson’s disease. Plaschke’s column helped to remind me that I am not alone and this dreaded disease indeed takes no prisoners no matter who you are. I wanted to thank Bill for his column bringing awareness, insight and hope to those of us diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Bill’s humanitarian columns with a tie-in to the world of sports showcase his best writing. Bill, your observations as a Parkinson’s suffer truly hit the mark and deeply resonated with me. I wish you, and all of us afflicted with this condition, the willingness and determination to move forward and to use the power of sport and exercise to combat this devastating disease.

Mike Feix
Chino Hills

Champion Bill Plaschke goes toe to toe against challenger “Parky!” Plaschke delivers a vicious uppercut to his opponent. “Down goes Parky, Down goes Parky!”

Rob Parra
Rowland Heights

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An unusual request from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about Cuban medical brigades that operate worldwide and provide much needed help has roiled countries in the Caribbean and the Americas.

In a letter obtained by the Associated Press, the commission asks members of the Organization of American States, OAS, for details including whether they have an agreement with Cuba for medical missions, whether those workers have labor and union rights and information about any labor complaints.

“This was an unprecedented move,” said Francesca Emanuele, senior international policy associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “It’s deeply troubling.”

Cuba has more than 22,000 doctors working in more than 50 countries, including in the Caribbean and the Americas, according to its government. A breakdown for the region was not available, but many impoverished nations in the Caribbean rely heavily on those medical professionals.

The commission, an independent body of the OAS, which is heavily funded by the U.S., said it plans to analyze the data collected as well as offer recommendations “given the persistence of reports of rights violations.”

A spokesperson for the commission declined comment, saying the letter is private.

The letter was sent after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions in late February for Cuban or foreign government officials accused of involvement in Cuba’s medical missions, which he called “forced labor.”

“The timing is really suspicious,” Emanuele said, noting that the information requested “falls squarely” within the member states’ sovereign decision-making. “The role of this organization should not be distorted.”

In June, the administration of U.S. President Trump slapped several unidentified officials from Central America with visa restrictions.

A deadline looms

Silence has prevailed since the human rights commission issued its May 24 letter giving OAS member states 30 days to respond.

“I’m awaiting a regional approach,” said Ralph Gonsalves, prime minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

He said in a phone interview that he would raise the issue next week during a meeting of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States as chairman.

“There are no human rights issues involved here,” he said, noting that St. Vincent is party to several international and labor conventions. “They have not been breached and will not be breached.”

Gonsalves said Cuban doctors run the sole hemodialysis center in St. Vincent that provides free care to 64 patients at a rate of $5 million a year.

“Without the Cubans, that dialysis center will close,” he said.

When asked if he worried about potential visa restrictions, Gonsalves said he met earlier this year with Rubio and provided a lengthy letter that he declined to share detailing the work of Cuban medical professionals in St. Vincent.

“We didn’t scrimp on any of the details,” he said. “I didn’t walk away from that meeting thinking that there was any possibility or threat of sanctions.”

A divided region

Guyana’s foreign minister, Hugh Todd, told the Associated Press on Friday that the government plans to amend its payment and recruitment system involving Cuban medical professionals.

He said their main concern “is to make sure we are compliant with international labor laws.” Todd did not say whether the planned amendments are related to concerns over U.S. visa restrictions.

Late Thursday, Guyanese Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo said the government wants to ensure that “the conditions of work here don’t run afoul of the requirements set by the United States of America.”

Guyana depends heavily on the U.S. for support, especially given an ongoing and bitter border dispute with neighboring Venezuela.

Some Caribbean leaders have said they would risk losing a U.S. visa, noting that Cuban medical professionals provide much needed help in the region.

“If we cannot reach a sensible agreement on this matter… if the cost of it is the loss of my visa to the U.S., then so be it,” Barbados’ Prime Minister Mia Mottley told Parliament in March as legislators pounded a table in support.

No Cuban medical workers are currently in Barbados.

Echoing Mottley’s sentiment was Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Keith Rowley.

“I just came back from California, and if I never go back there again in my life, I will ensure that the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago is known to its people and respected by all,” he said in March.

In April, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel criticized what he described as a campaign against the Caribbean country.

“There is no doubt that that desperate campaign to block Cuban cooperation has two clear objectives: to close off any avenue of income for the country, even in an activity as noble and necessary to other nations as healthcare services,” he said.

“The other reason is political and ideological: They want to sweep Cuba away as an example. And they resort to methods as immoral as threatening any foreign official involved in that activity,” he added.

Rubio has defended visa restrictions, saying they promote accountability.

Coto writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Bert Wilkinson in Georgetown, Guyana, and Andrea Rodríguez in Havana contributed to this report.

California sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday over its demand last week that local school districts ban transgender youth from competing in sports, arguing the federal agency had overstepped its authority in violation of both state and federal law.

The “pre-enforcement” lawsuit was filed “in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems” for not complying with the agency’s directive by its Monday deadline, said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which is handling the litigation.

“The President and his Administration are demanding that California school districts break the law and violate the Constitution — or face legal retaliation. They’re demanding that our schools discriminate against the students in their care and deny their constitutionally protected rights,” Bonta said in a statement. “As we’ve proven time and again in court, just because the President disagrees with a law, that doesn’t make it any less of one.”

The lawsuit comes a week after Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and head of the federal Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to school districts across California warning them that they faced potential “legal liability” if they did not “certify in writing” by Monday that they will break with California Interscholastic Federation rules and state law to ban transgender athletes from competition in their districts.

Dhillon argued that allowing transgender athletes to compete “would deprive girls of athletic opportunities and benefits based solely on their biological sex,” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond responded last week by saying in his own letter to schools that Dhillon’s warning carried no legal weight and that school districts were still obligated to follow state law, which requires transgender athletes be allowed to compete on teams based on their gender identity.

The California Department of Education sent a letter to federal authorities Monday, informing them that California’s school districts are under no obligation to provide certifications to the Justice Department.

“There are no changes in law or circumstances that necessitate a new certification,” wrote General Counsel Len Garfinkel. “Moreover, the DOJ letter references no law that would authorize the DOJ to require another ‘certification.’”

“All students — not just transgender students — benefit from inclusive school environments that are free from discrimination and harassment,” Garfinkel added. “When transgender students are treated equally, their mental health outcomes mirror those of their cisgender peers.”

Bonta’s lawsuit asks a federal court in Northern California to uphold the constitutionality of California’s antidiscrimination laws protecting transgender athletes, and to bar the Trump administration from withholding funds or taking other retaliatory actions against school districts that refuse to abide by the Trump directive.

The lawsuit falls along one of the fastest growing legal and political fault lines in America: Does the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment — the Constitution’s oft-cited guarantee against discrimination — protect transgender rights or undermine them?

Dhillon, other members of the Trump administration and anti-transgender activists nationwide have argued that the inclusion of transgender girls in youth sports amounts to illegal discrimination against cisgender girls.

Bonta’s office and other LGBTQ+ advocates argue that the exclusion of transgender girls is what constitutes illegal discrimination — and that courts, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs California and much of the American West, have agreed.

While Dhillon “purports that compliance with the Equal Protection Clause requires the categorical exclusion of transgender girls from girls’ sports, as courts have previously upheld, just the opposite is true: the Equal Protection Clause forbids such policies of total exclusion, as does California law,” Bonta’s office said.

State law that allows transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their identity “is squarely within the State’s authority to ensure all students are afforded the benefits of an inclusive school environment, including participation in school sports, and to prevent the serious harms that transgender students would suffer from a discriminatory, exclusionary policy.”

An attorney who supports keeping transgender athletes out of girls sports said the rights of female athletes are paramount in this situation.

Both the U.S. Constitution and federal statute provide protections for female athletes that California is violating by “allowing males into ‘girls only’ categories,” said Julie A. Hamill, principal attorney with California Justice Center, a law firm that has complaints pending with the federal Office for Civil Rights on behalf of young female athletes.

“By continuing to fan flames of division and play politics, leftist politicians and media outlets are causing further harm to American girls,” Hamill said.

Polls have shown that Americans generally support transgender rights, but also that a majority oppose transgender girls competing in youth sports. Many prominent advocates for excluding transgender girls from sports praised Dhillon’s actions last week as a bold move to protect cisgender girls from unfair competition.

Sonja Shaw, a Trump supporter who is president of the Chino Valley Unified Board of Education, has called on California school systems to adopt resolutions in support of the Trump administration order.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” Shaw said last week. “Our daughters deserve safe, fair competition … But radical policies are undermining that right, pushing boys into girls’ sports and threatening their opportunities. We’re not backing down.”

Shaw, a candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, said other school systems could model these resolutions on one passed by her school district.

A handful of the state’s 1,000 school districts have passed such resolutions.

The lawsuit’s claim that retaliation from the Trump administration could be imminent for schools that do not comply with the administration’s demands is not entirely speculative. It is based at least in part on repeated threats and actions the administration has already taken against states over its trans-inclusive sports policies.

President Trump has said outright that he wants to cut federal funding to California over its laws allowing transgender athletes to compete in youth sports. The federal Justice Department has announced investigations into the state and the California Interscholastic Federation over its inclusive policies for transgender athletes.

U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli in Los Angeles, a longtime ally of Dhillon and whose appointment has yet to be confirmed, recently threw his office’s support behind a private lawsuit challenging the inclusion of a transgender athlete on the track and field team at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside.

Dhillon issued her letter to California school districts after another transgender athlete from Jurupa Valley High School, 16-year-old AB Hernandez, won multiple medals at the state high school track and field championships despite President Trump demanding on social media that she not be allowed to compete.

The letter came despite attempts by the state to appease concerns.

After Trump’s online threats, for example, the CIF updated its rules for transgender competitors. As a result, Hernandez was allowed to compete at the state finals in the girls’ long jump, high jump and triple jump, but her qualifying did not result in the exclusion of any cisgender girl.

In addition, while Hernandez was awarded several medals, those medals were also awarded to cisgender girls who otherwise would have claimed them had Hernandez not been competing — with the girls sharing those spots on the medal podiums.

Supporters of the rule change said it eliminated concerns about cisgender girls losing opportunities to compete and win to transgender girls, but critics said the changes did not go far enough, and that transgender athletes needed to be fully banned from competition.

Dhillon’s letter demanding school districts certify that such bans were being implemented made no mention of the CIF’s rule change.

With new legal muscle, the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation is upping pressure on Paramount Global to abandon efforts to settle President Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit targeting CBS and “60 Minutes.”

Respected Washington litigator Abbe David Lowell this week joined the team representing the New York advocacy group, which has vowed to sue Paramount should it settle with Trump. The group owns Paramount shares.

Lowell, who has represented Hunter Biden, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, is working on the case with attorney Norm Eisen, a Trump critic who helped House Democrats with strategy during Trump’s first impeachment hearings in 2019.

Eisen is a former ambassador to the Czech Republic who served as White House ethics advisor under President Obama.

Late Thursday, the two attorneys sent a strongly worded letter to Paramount’s chairwoman and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other board members arguing that a Trump settlement would cause “catastrophic” harm to the embattled media company.

Hunter Biden (left) with his attorney Abbe Lowell (right) at a House committee hearing last year.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

1st Amendment experts have labeled Trump’s lawsuit frivolous. But Paramount leaders are desperate to end the Trump drama and some believe a truce could clear a path for the Federal Communications Commission to approve the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

Paramount needs the FCC to authorize the transfer of the CBS station licenses to the Ellison family.

The prospect of a Trump settlement has carved deep divisions within Paramount, which includes CBS News and “60 Minutes.”

“Trading away the credibility of CBS’s news division to curry favor with the Trump Administration is an improper and reckless act that will irreparably damage the company’s brand and destroy shareholder value,” Lowell said in a statement late Thursday.

“The board is legally and morally obligated to protect the company, not auction off its integrity for regulatory approval,” Lowell said.

The FCC review of Skydance’s proposed takeover of Paramount has become a slog. Skydance and Paramount face an October deadline to finalize the sale or the deal could collapse.

Paramount, in a statement, said that it is treating the FCC review and the Trump lawsuit as separate matters. “We will abide by the legal process to defend our case,” a corporate spokesman said.

Paramount’s lawyers entered mediation with the president’s legal team in late April, but no resolution has been reached. Paramount offered $15 million to Trump to end his suit, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the president rejected the overture and asked for more.

On Thursday, Redstone disclosed that she has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and is receiving treatment. Last month, doctors removed her thyroid but cancer cells had spread to her vocal chords.

In their seven-page letter, Lowell and Eisen told Paramount’s leaders that, should they approve a Trump settlement to gain traction at the FCC, they would be violating their fiduciary duty to shareholders and potentially breaking federal anti-bribery statutes.

“We believe [a settlement] could violate laws prohibiting bribery of public officials, thereby causing severe and last damage to Paramount and its shareholders,” Lowell and Eisen wrote.

“To be as clear as possible, you control what happens next,” they said.

The admonition follows a similar warning from three U.S. senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) In a May 19 letter, the senators wrote that paying money to Trump to help win clearance for the Paramount sale could constitute a bribe.

“It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the three senators wrote in their letter.

In addition, two California Democrats have proposed a state Senate hearing to examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.

The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a yet-unscheduled joint committee hearing in Sacramento.

The California lawmakers, in their letter, said a Trump settlement could also violate California’s Unfair Competition Law because it could disrupt the playing field for news organizations.

Earlier this week, Paramount asked shareholders to increase the size of its board to seven members at the company’s annual investor meeting next month.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation was created in 2012 to protect and defend public interest journalism.

This spring, Lowell left his former major law firm, Winston & Strawn, where he had been a partner for years. He formed his own boutique firm, Lowell & Assoc., with a focus on “public interest representation in matters that defend the integrity of the legal system and protect individuals and institutions from government overreach,” according to its website.

Lowell’s firm also includes lawyer Brenna Frey, who made a high-profile exit from another prominent law firm, Skadden Arps, after it cut a deal with Trump to avoid becoming a target. That law firm agreed to provide $100 million in free legal services.

Last month, Frey appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes” to air her decision to resign from Skadden Arps.

“I was able to tell my story on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ because of the independence of a courageous news division, which is what’s at risk now,” Frey said in a statement.

It’s not easy for NFL long snappers to stand out, their exacting trade hinging exclusively on repeating the same action without fail or fanfare. Yet Jake McQuaide, the former Rams two-time Pro Bowl long snapper and veteran of 14 NFL seasons, drew attention Saturday when he stood up.

McQuaide rose during Mass at an Ohio Catholic church and snapped at Jason Williams, chancellor of the Cincinnati Archdiocese, demanding answers about rumors that two priests had viewed pornography on a parish computer.

Shortly thereafter, McQuaide was removed from the sanctuary by police officers.

During the outburst, McQuaide seemed to channel Sister Aloysius — Meryl Streep’s character in the 2008 film “Doubt,” — when he loudly questioned Williams, saying “We want to put these rumors to rest. Can you answer this for me, fact or fiction?”

According to video from Cincinnati news station WCPO, when someone at the alter told McQuaide, “this is not the time for this,” McQuaide responded by shouting, “I’m sorry, sir, this is the time and the place. I will stand up. Did the priest use our parish computer to look at pornography? …True or false? True or false?”

McQuaide’s challenge occurred while Williams was reading a letter from Archbishop Robert Casey to the Our Lady of Visitation congregation that said the rumors were investigated and “no wrongdoing — either criminally or ecclesiastically — has been substantiated.” The letter also said that one of the priests was taking a “previously planned sabbatical.”

“Like gossip, the spreading of rumors is sinful, and we should all work to overcome this tendency of our fallen human nature,” the letter said.

Two Green Township police officers escorted McQuaide from the church. McQuaide was not charged, according to the police.

McQuaide grew up near Green Township and attended Cincinnati Elder High, an all-male Catholic diocesan school within the Archdiocese of Cincinnati founded in 1912.

After attending Ohio State, McQuaide served as the Rams long snapper for 10 years, beginning in 2011 when the franchise was in St. Louis and ending after the 2021 season. Since then he has played for the Dallas Cowboys, Detroit Lions, Minnesota Vikings and Miami Dolphins, having appeared in 197 career games.

WASHINGTON — A former Homeland Security official during President Trump’s first administration who authored an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president is calling on independent government watchdogs to investigate after Trump ordered the department to look into his government service.

Miles Taylor, once chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, warned in an interview with the Associated Press of the far-reaching implications of Trump’s April 9 memorandum, “Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods,” when it comes to suppressing criticism of the president. That memo accused Taylor of concocting stories to sell his book and directed the secretary of Homeland Security and other government agencies to look into Taylor and strip him of any security clearances.

Taylor sent a letter via email to inspectors general at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security on Tuesday.

Coming on the same April day that Trump also ordered an investigation into Chris Krebs, a former top cybersecurity official, the dual memoranda illustrated how Trump has sought to use the powers of the presidency against his adversaries. Speaking to the AP, Taylor said the order targeting him sets a “scary precedent” and that’s why he decided to call on the inspectors general to investigate.

“I didn’t commit any crime, and that’s what’s extraordinary about this. I can’t think of any case where someone knows they’re being investigated but has absolutely no idea what crime they allegedly committed. And it’s because I didn’t,” Taylor said. He called it a “really, really, really scary precedent to have set is that the president of the United States can now sign an order investigating any private citizen he wants, any critic, any foe, anyone.”

Trump has targeted adversaries since he took office

Since taking office again in January, Trump has stripped security clearances from a number of his opponents. But Trump’s order for an investigation into Taylor, as well as Krebs, marked an escalation of his campaign of retribution in his second term.

Trump fired Krebs, who directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in November 2020 after Krebs disputed the Republican president’s unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud and vouched for the integrity of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Taylor left the first Trump administration in 2019. In the anonymous New York Times op-ed published in 2018, he described himself as part of a secret “resistance” to counter Trump’s “misguided impulses.” The op-ed’s publication touched off a leak investigation in Trump’s first White House.

Taylor later published a book by the same name as the op-ed and then another book under his own name called “Blowback,” which warned about Trump’s return to office.

After signing the memorandum April 9, Trump said Taylor was likely “guilty of treason.”

The letter by Taylor’s lawyer to the inspectors general calls Trump’s actions “unprecedented in American history.”

“The Memorandum does not identify any specific wrongdoing. Rather, it flagrantly targets Mr. Taylor for one reason alone: He dared to speak out to criticize the President,” the letter reads.

Taylor’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the request to the inspectors general was an attempt to “get the administration to do the right thing.” Lowell said that depending on the outcome of their complaint, they’ll explore other options including a possible lawsuit. Lowell, a veteran Washington lawyer, announced earlier this year that he was opening his own legal practice and would represent targets of Trump’s retribution.

Violation of First Amendment rights alleged

In the letter, Lowell calls on the inspectors general to do their jobs of “addressing and preventing abuses of power.”

The letter says Trump’s April 9 memo appears to violate Taylor’s First Amendment rights by going after Taylor for his criticism of the president, calling it a “textbook definition of political retribution and vindictive prosecution.” And, according to the letter, Trump’s memo also appears to violate Taylor’s Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The letter highlights Taylor’s “honorable and exemplary” work service including receiving the Distinguished Service Medal upon leaving the department, and it details the toll that the April 9 memorandum has taken on Taylor’s personal life. His family has been threatened and harassed, and former colleagues lost their government jobs because of their connection with him, according to the letter.

Taylor told the AP that since the order, there’s been an “implosion in our lives.” He said he started a fund to pay for legal fees, has had to step away from work and his wife has gone back to work to help pay the family’s bills. Their home’s location was published on the internet in a doxxing.

Taylor said that by filing these complaints with the inspectors general, he’s anticipating that the pressure on him and his family will increase. He said they spent the last few weeks debating what to do after the April 9 memorandum and decided to fight back.

“The alternative is staying silent, cowering and capitulating and sending the message that, yes, there’s no consequences for this president and this administration in abusing their powers in ways that my legal team believes and a lot of legal scholars tell me is unconstitutional and illegal,” Taylor said.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

A claim by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that an immigrant threatened the life of President Trump has begun to unravel.

Noem announced an arrest of a 54-year-old man who was living in the U.S. illegally, saying he had written a letter threatening to kill Trump and would then return to Mexico. The story received a flood of media attention and was highlighted by the White House and Trump’s allies.

But investigators actually believe the man may have been framed so that he would be arrested and deported from the U.S. before he got a chance to testify in a trial as a victim of assault, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press. The person could not publicly discuss details of the investigation and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Law enforcement officials believe the man, Ramon Morales Reyes, never wrote a letter that Noem and her department shared with a message written in light blue ink expressing anger over Trump’s deportations and threatening to shoot him in the head with a rifle at a rally. Noem also shared the letter on X along with a photo of Morales Reyes, and the White House also shared it on its social media accounts. The letter was mailed to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office along with the FBI and other agencies, the person said.

As part of the investigation, officials had contacted Morales Reyes and asked for a handwriting sample and concluded that his handwriting and the threatening letter didn’t match and that the threat was not credible, the person said. It’s not clear why Homeland Security officials still decided to send a release making that claim.

In an emailed statement asking for information about the letter and the new information about Morales Reyes, the Department of Homeland Security said “the investigation into the threat is ongoing. Over the course of the investigation, this individual was determined to be in the country illegally and that he had a criminal record. He will remain in custody.”

His attorneys said he was not facing current charges and they did not have any information about convictions in his record. The revelations were first reported by CNN.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s records show Morales Reyes is being held at a county jail in Juneau, Wis., northwest of Milwaukee. The Milwaukee-based immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera, which is advocating for his release, said he was arrested May 21. Attorney Cain Oulahan, who was hired to fight against his deportation, said he has a hearing in a Chicago immigration court next week and is hoping he is released on bond.

Morales Reyes had been a victim in a case of another man who is awaiting trial on assault charges in Wisconsin, the person familiar with the matter said. The trial is scheduled for July.

Morales Reyes works as a dishwasher in Milwaukee, where he lives with his wife and three children. He had recently applied for a U visa, which is carved out for people in the country illegally who become victims of serious crimes, said attorney Kime Abduli, who filed that application.

The Milwaukee Police Department said it is investigating an identity theft and victim intimidation incident related to this matter and the county district attorney’s office said the investigation was ongoing. Milwaukee police said no one has been criminally charged at this time.

Abduli, Morales Reyes’ attorney, says he could not have written the letter, saying he did not receive formal education and can’t write in Spanish and doesn’t know how to speak English. She said it was not clear whether he was arrested because of the letters.

“There is really no way that it could be even remotely true,” Abduli said. “We’re asking for a clarification and a correction from DHS to clear Ramon’s name of anything having to do with this.”

Balsamo, Bauer and Licon write for the Associated Press.

HONOLULU — Environmentalists are challenging in court President Trump’s executive order that they say strips core protections from the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument and opens the area to harmful commercial fishing.

On the same day of last month’s proclamation allowing commercial fishing in the monument, Trump issued an order to boost the U.S. commercial fishing industry by peeling back regulations and opening up harvesting in previously protected areas.

The monument was created by President George W. Bush in 2009 and expanded by President Obama to nearly 500,000 square miles in the central Pacific Ocean.

A week after the April 17 proclamation, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service sent a letter to fishing permit holders giving them a green light to fish commercially within the monument’s boundaries, even though a long-standing fishing ban remains on the books, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Honolulu.

The first longline fisher started fishing in the monument just three days after that letter, according to Earthjustice, which has been tracking vessel activity within the monument using Global Fishing Watch.

The Department of Justice declined to comment Friday.

The lawsuit noted that commercial longline fishing, an industrial method involving baited hooks from lines 60 miles or longer, will snag turtles, marine mammals or seabirds that are attracted to the bait or swim through the curtain of hooks.

“We will not stand by as the Trump administration unleashes highly destructive commercial fishing on some of the planet’s most pristine, biodiverse marine environments,” David Henkin, an Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. “Piling lawlessness on top of lawlessness, the National Marine Fisheries Service chose to carry out President Trump’s illegal proclamation by issuing its own illegal directive, with no public input.”

Designating the area in the Pacific to the south and west of the Hawaiian Islands as a monument provided “needed protection to a wide variety of scientific and historical treasures in one of the most spectacular and unique ocean ecosystems on earth,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit added that allowing commercial fishing in the monument expansion harms the “cultural, spiritual, religious, subsistence, educational, recreational, and aesthetic interests” of a group of Native Hawaiian plaintiffs who are connected genealogically to the Indigenous people of the Pacific.

Johnston Atoll is the closest island in the monument to Hawaii, about 717 nautical miles west-southwest of the state.

Kelleher writes for the Associated Press.

A roughly 11-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway is set to reopen Friday ahead of Memorial Day weekend, reconnecting Malibu to the Westside after months of closures.

But less than 48 hours before the planned reopening, the state said Wednesday that it remains “in the dark” regarding the city of Los Angeles’ plans for providing security to the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades area just off the highway.

Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl countered that the mayor did, in fact, have a plan to keep the area secure and closed to non-residents.

“As PCH is reopened, we will have a strict security plan in place, as we have for months,” Seidl said Wednesday afternoon. He did not immediately respond when asked whether he had shared the city’s plan with the state.

The leader of the state’s emergency services agency sent a sharply worded letter earlier Wednesday to a senior official in Mayor Karen Bass’ administration, chiding the city for not answering questions despite weeks of outreach from the state.

As of Wednesday morning, the mayor’s office had yet to provide the state with a plan for how it plans to provide security to the Palisades as part of the reopening, or whether it plans to establish new security checkpoints on arterial streets into the community, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Times.

Seidl said Wednesday afternoon that the city would put new checkpoints in place, though he did not provide specifics.

The affluent coastal enclave has remained closed to the public since the devastating January wildfire, months after other fire-damaged neighborhoods reopened. But with the California National Guard set to leave at the end of the month, officials must decide how to move forward. There seems to be a consensus among both state and local officials that the neighborhood should remain closed to the public, though the logistics of that decision remain an open question.

Checkpoints currently block public access at major ingress points to the community. But the reopening of PCH would necessitate several new checkpoints.

“Over the last few weeks, Cal OES has reached out to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and City staff and officials – including as recently as yesterday – offering technical and financial resources to support the City as it develops a security plan,” Nancy Ward, who leads the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, wrote in the letter, saying the state would also provide financial support for federal reimbursement-eligible security costs.

“Despite this outreach, we remain in the dark regarding the City’s plans and have heard that the City may request a multi-week delay of the reopening of PCH – despite the incredibly hard work by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, and many others to facilitate the reopening for Memorial Day,” Ward wrote.

Seidl said the city was not requesting a delay to the reopening.

The letter was sent from Ward to deputy mayor for public safety Robert Clark, Bass’ top aide overseeing police and fire issues.

Though she stopped short of directly criticizing Bass, Traci Park — the Los Angeles city council member who represents the Palisades — also expressed frustration with the process and lack of clarity.

“For months, Councilmember Park sounded the alarm on safety and called for a formalized plan from departments and consultants through the LA Recovery Committee, which she chairs. None have been forthcoming,” Park spokesperson Pete Brown said.

Concerned about the lack of movement, Park submitted her own proposal to the governor for Palisades safety as the highway reopens, Brown said.

The governor’s office had reached out to Park with concerns about the situation, according to someone familiar with the issue who was not authorized to speak publicly.

In late January, Bass briefly announced plans to reopen the Palisades to the public before reversing course less than 30 hours later after widespread outcry from community members who said the checkpoints should remain in place.

Newsom previously announced last month that the highway would reopen by the end of May, though he did not provide a specific date. His office declined to comment on the letter.

The soon-to-reopen section of highway, which spans from Chautauqua Boulevard just north of Santa Monica to Sweetwater Canyon Drive in Malibu will operate two lanes of traffic in both directions, according to a CalTrans document.

It’s a bitter feud the likes of which are seldom seen in law enforcement circles — or at least those that boil over into public view.

For over seven years now, Orange County’s top prosecutor and a decorated former cop have been locked in an acrimonious dispute that shows little sign of abating. Both parties have accused the other of fractured ethics and corruption, and even an independent arbitrator likened the situation to a simmering cauldron.

Damon Tucker, a former supervising investigator for the county, has alleged in a lawsuit that he uncovered potential evidence of money laundering, terrorist threats and extortion by his then-boss, Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer. Tucker claims in his lawsuit that Spitzer and others quashed the probe and then fired the investigator as an act of retaliation, leaving him humiliated and shunned by law enforcement.

Spitzer has publicly called Tucker a “dirty cop,” and accused him of working with his opponents — including former Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas — to launch an investigation to hurt him politically. Tucker’s behavior, Spitzer says, was a “disgrace to the badge.”

Now, in yet another escalation of this Orange County drama, Tucker has called on the California attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice, the State Bar of California and other agencies to investigate Spitzer; the OCDA Bureau of Investigation Chief Paul Walters; and former Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson, who is now an Orange County Superior Court judge.

“These allegations must be fully investigated,” Tucker wrote in a letter to those agencies.“Failure to investigate these men casts a shadow over our system of justice.”

Tucker’s call for an investigation of events dating back nearly a decade comes as the district attorney’s office is already facing increased scrutiny over its treatment of employees. Both Spitzer and Nelson face a potential civil trial next week over accusations they retaliated against female employees who say they were sexually harassed by former Senior Assistant Dist. Atty. Gary LoGalbo, a onetime friend of Spitzer’s who is now deceased.

Spitzer and Walters have declined to discuss Tucker’s accusations with The Times. Nelson, through a court spokesperson, also declined, saying judges were prohibited by ethical rules from discussing cases before the court or in media reports.

The California Attorney General’s office confirmed that it is reviewing Tucker’s complaint but would not comment further. The State Bar has also begun a review of the allegations and has requested more information and documentation, according to a letter reviewed by The Times. A spokesperson for the State Bar declined to comment or confirm whether a complaint was received, adding that disciplinary investigations are confidential.

The U.S. Department of Justice would neither comment nor confirm that it had received the letter. Tucker said he also sent a letter to California’s Commission on Judicial Performance. The commission also declined to comment.

A veteran investigator of nearly 30 years, Tucker was fired from the DA’s office in December 2020 over allegations he had initiated a unilateral investigation into Spitzer shortly after he took office.

Tucker sued the county — alleging he was fired and retaliated against for uncovering corruption — and in 2022 he won his job back, along with lost wages. Last year, he received a $2-million out-of court settlement from the county, according to Tucker’s attorney.

Kimberly Edds, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said a non-disparagement agreement signed by Tucker and Spitzer as part of the settlement prevented the office from commenting.

Tucker’s accusations date to an inquiry that was begun in October 2016, when another district attorney investigator, Tom Conklin, was assigned to assist the Fair Political Practices Commission in looking into allegations of campaign finance irregularities by Spitzer, who was at the time an Orange County supervisor but was considering a run for district attorney.

In his recent letter to multiple agencies, as well as in his lawsuit, Tucker alleges the investigation into Spitzer was left unfinished and, even though he and another investigator at one point suggested it should be forwarded to the FBI or state attorney general, the investigation was never referred to an outside agency.

A year after the 2016 investigation began, Conklin’s report was leaked to the Orange County Register, and the newspaper reported that Conklin had been unable to corroborate the allegations.

The leak came at a key time for Spitzer, who had just announced his campaign for district attorney. At the time, he told the Register the investigation had been politically motivated by his political rival, Rackauckas, and that nothing had been found. At the time, a spokesperson for Rackauckas confirmed the investigation but declined to comment on the allegations.

The leak sparked an internal investigation in the district attorney’s office and, when the initial investigator retired, Tucker was ordered to finish the case.

Tucker was tasked with finding out who leaked the report, but after reviewing the case, Tucker concluded that Conklin’s investigation was incomplete.

At least 10 identified witnesses in the case were never interviewed, and several leads had not been followed, according to an investigative summary written by Tucker, and given to a senior deputy district attorney he consulted with in the case.

During his investigation, Tucker reached out to superiors and colleagues at the district attorney’s office and said the allegations against Spitzer needed to be sent out to an outside agency, such as the FBI, for an impartial review.

Tucker said that as he continued to investigate and prepared to send the case to an outside agency, things suddenly changed.

The day after Spitzer was elected district attorney in 2018, Tucker said Walters ordered him to stop digging into the accusations, and to remove any mention of Spitzer’s name from questions in his investigation, according to an investigative summary and sworn depositions, taken in Tucker’s lawsuit against the county. Two days later, Tucker was removed from the case.

In a sworn deposition, Walters confirmed he ordered Tucker to remove questions about Spitzer from his investigation the day Spitzer became the district attorney-elect.

“That’s where I have to tell Tucker, ‘You can’t be asking all these questions about Spitzer,” Walters testfied. “It’s not the case. And I make him redact all that stuff.”

Tucker maintains that, up until the election, Walters supported his investigation.

“I was doing the right thing,” Tucker told The Times. “This should have been sent out.” Walters declined to respond to The Times about that accusation.

However, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office said it was Tucker who refused to turn over the investigation.

“He was given the opportunity and declined to do so,” said Edds, the D.A’.s spokesperson. “He was offered the opportunity repeatedly.”

Tucker disputes that assertion.

Spitzer has characterized Tucker’s investigation as being politically motivated, and has pointed out in sworn depositions that Tucker had donated to his opponent, Rackauckas, and was friends with Rackauckas’ chief of staff, Susan Kang.

According to county records, Tucker made a $2,000 donation to Rackauckas’ campaign in August 2018, after he’d been assigned to investigate the leak.

Tucker had also been critical of Spitzer during the campaign in multiple Facebook posts, before and after he took up the case.

“I think they sent him off on this fishing expedition to get something on me after the primary election in 2018,” Spitzer said in a deposition. “He’s investigating me while he’s making a major campaign contribution to my opponent? That’s not objective.”

So-called Hollywood ambassadors Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone joined with a coalition of entertainment industry groups for a letter delivered this week to President Trump urging him to support tax measures and a federal tax incentive that would help bring film and TV production back to the U.S.

The letter is signed by Voight, Stallone, all the major Hollywood unions and trade groups such as the Motion Picture Assn., the Producers Guild of America and the Independent Film & Television Alliance, indicating widespread support from the entertainment industry.

“Returning more production to the United States will require a national approach and broad-based policy solutions … as well as longer term initiatives such as implementing a federal film and television tax incentive,” the letter states.

In the letter, which was obtained by The Times, the groups say they support Trump’s proposal to create a new 15% corporate tax rate for domestic manufacturing activities that would use a provision from the old Section 199 of the federal tax code as a model.

Under the previous Section 199, which expired in 2017, film and TV productions that were made in the U.S. qualified as domestic manufacturing and were eligible for that tax deduction, the letter states.

The letter also asks Trump to extend Section 181 of the federal tax code and increase the caps on tax-deductible qualified film and TV production expenditures, as well as reinstating the ability to carry back losses, which the groups say would give production companies more financial stability.

The tax measures — particularly Sections 199 and 181 — are issues the entertainment industry has long advocated for, according to two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly. The letter itself came together over the weekend, they said. It was intended to present different measures that shared the same goal of increasing domestic production, one person said.

“Everything we can do to help producers mange their budgets is important,” said Susan Sprung, chief executive of the Producers Guild of America. “In an ideal world, we’d want a federal tax incentive, in addition to these tax provisions, but we want to advocate to make it as easy as possible to produce in the United States and make it as cost-effective as possible.”

Last week, Trump threw the entertainment industry into chaos after initially suggesting a 100% tariff on films made in other countries. Then, California Gov. Gavin Newsom jumped into the mix, calling for a $7.5-billion federal tax incentive to keep more productions in the U.S.

The proposals on the federal level come as states are upping their own film and TV tax credits to better compete against each other and other countries. Late last week, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the state’s budget, which increased the cap for its film tax credit to $800 million a year, up from $700 million.

The expanded tax incentive program allocates $100 million for independent studios and gives additional incentives to companies that produce two or more projects in New York and commit to at least $100 million in qualified spending.

The program was also extended through 2036, which could help attract TV producers, who often want to know that their filming location is committed if they’re embarking on a series.

Production in New York has been slow, and the state needed this boost, said Michael Hackman, chief executive of Hackman Capital Partners, which owns two film and TV studio properties in the state, as well as several facilities in California. The increase from New York could also push California to increase its own film and TV tax credit program.

Last year, Newsom called to increase the annual amount allocated to California‘s film and TV tax credit program from $330 million to $750 million.

Two bills are currently going through the state legislature that would expand California’s incentive, including increasing the tax credit to cover up to 35% of qualified expenditures (or 40% in areas outside the Greater Los Angeles region), as well as expanding the types of productions that would be eligible for an incentive.

“We have the best infrastructure, the best talent, we have everything going for us,” Hackman said. “So if our state legislature can get more competitive with our tax credits, I think more productions will stay. But if they don’t, this will result in more productions continuing to leave the state and going to New York and to other locations.”