Matter

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

BBC viewers have been urged to look out for any clues as the broadcaster is reportedly gearing up to announce the return of one of its biggest shows very soon

A huge BBC drama is set to announce its comeback within a matter of days. Fans have been waiting on tenterhooks to see if another series will be released, and now the cast have finally aligned their schedules to make it happen.

The BBC are said to be gearing up to confirm Line of Duty will be back on screens for a seventh series. Fans have been urged to keep an eye out for any online announcements that will be followed by TV teaser trailers.

The police drama has been a smash hit with fans as it initially aired over six series from 2012 up until 2021. Cast members had been hinting at a comeback as Adrian Dunbar, who starred as Superintendent Ted Hastings, confirmed the show’s creator Jed Merucio was working on a new script.

READ MORE: Strictly’s fresh scandal as ‘secret video of married celeb kissing pro star’ emergesREAD MORE: Shetland cast: Who stars in series 10 as BBC drama introduces new characters

Now, it seems fans won’t have long to wait for an official announcement as a source said: “Although this has been discussed at length since the unsatisfactory ending of series six in 2021, it’s still going to create huge excitement when the Beeb makes the announcement.

“It’s one they’ve been preparing to make for weeks, but they’ve been trying to pick the right moment, since The Celebrity Traitors has been hogging quite a lot of limelight recently.” They added to Sun: “And the BBC very much view Line Of Duty as one of the jewels in its crown that they want to deliver with some fanfare.”

The BBC declined to comment when approached by the Mirror. Back in July, Actor Adrian said: “We’re really excited about getting our hands on a Line of Duty script, to see what happens to us.”

The Ridley star even teased what is to come on the programme, which could air in 2026, as he told The Times: “It is down to the BBC to make an announcement, but we’re keeping our fingers crossed that next year we’ll be working on a new series. No doubt Jed will think of some interesting twists and turns.”

Martin Compston played DS Steve Arnott in the show, which came to an end when his character and his team discovered the identity of “H”. He also shared details on whether viewers can expect more from the series.

“We’re always talking about possibilities and schedules and whatnot,” he said to The Sun. Martin didn’t dare share more and added: “Everybody’s got stuff going on at the minute, so I think anything, unfortunately, would be a way off.”

Before Martin discussed a potential new series, a source told the same publication that Adrian, Vicky McClure and Martin will reunite to film six new episodes. They said at the time: “This is the news Line of Duty fans have been waiting for since the sixth season left them deflated when it aired back in 2021.

“The BBC almost immediately requested more episodes to continue the story, but the success of the show meant Vicky, Martin and Adrian were instantly snapped up for other projects. But after several meetings with Jed [Mercurio, creator and writer] and the production team, they’ve finally managed to clear space in their calendars next year to commit to making the show.”

While last August, Adrian said that he was desperate to get back into character for another series. He told Good Housekeeping: “We all want another series.

“We filmed our last series in lockdown, which meant we didn’t get to do anything other than work, so we’re really keen to get together for one last hurrah.”

READ MORE: ‘Luxury’ advent calendar worth over £400 shoppers are bagging for under £90 with code

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Times are tough and inflation is real, but this holiday season, it’s still possible to shower your loved ones in luxury without breaking the bank.

There’s no rule that says indulgence has to come with a hefty price tag. As my friend Nicole likes to say, a luxury item is one that you wouldn’t think of buying yourself.

Does anyone need an iPhone case in rich pebbled leather? Probably not, but they absolutely might enjoy one.

On this list of gifts that feel expensive (but aren’t), you’ll find a rich smelling high-end candle alternative, an elevated bottle of indie nail polish with a display-worthy brass cap and one of the best olive oils you’ll ever taste from the fruit of 100-year-old California olive trees.

My editor challenged me to keep all the gifts under $40, and dear Gift Guide reader, I rose to the challenge — if you don’t count shipping costs. Remember: Luxury is a matter of extravagance, not price.

If you make a purchase using some of our links, the L.A. Times may be compensated. Prices and availability of items and experiences in the Gift Guide and on latimes.com are subject to change.

TORONTO — The Dodgers announced Thursday that reliever Alex Vesia is away from the team as he and his wife “navigate a deeply personal family matter,” and manager Dave Roberts said his availability for the World Series is uncertain.

Vesia, who has been the Dodgers’ top left-handed pitcher in the bullpen this season, was not present at the team’s World Series media session on Thursday, and was not seen at the club’s open workout at Dodger Stadium on Monday.

Roberts said that the club was reviewing its options within MLB’s postseason roster rules, but that for now Vesia’s status was considered day-to-day.

“We have a little bit of time — I think 10 o’clock tomorrow or something like that — to finalize our roster,” Roberts said. “But, yeah, we’re going through the process of trying to backfill his spot on the roster.”

One potential option for the Dodgers would be to place Vesia on MLB’s Family Medical Emergency List, which would require him to miss a minimum of three days but make it possible for him to rejoin the active roster later in the World Series.

For now, however, Roberts said “we’re just going day-to-day with really no expectations.”

In the Dodgers’ team statement, the club said “the entire Dodgers organization is sending our thoughts to the Vesia family.”

More than a month after he was arrested on suspicion of felony assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury, UCLA backup quarterback Pierce Clarkson has taken a major step toward being able to resolve his case while avoiding charges altogether.

After the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office referred the case to the L.A. City Attorney for possible misdemeanor consideration, the latter agency has decided to handle the matter via a city attorney hearing, according to Ivor Pine, deputy director of communications for the City Attorney.

A city attorney hearing is an informal proceeding that allows individuals who face certain misdemeanors to resolve their situation with a hearing officer without a criminal filing.

The resolution of such hearings, including conditions imposed to remediate and rehabilitate, are fact-dependent and vary matter to matter, according to Pine. If the participant successfully complies with the conditions, the case is diverted and no charges are filed. If the participant fails to comply, then criminal charges may be filed.

A UCLA athletic department spokesperson said Tuesday evening that there was no update on Clarkson’s status with the team. He had been suspended from all team activities pending the resolution of legal proceedings after his Sept. 5 arrest.

Before his suspension, Clarkson had been one of the top backups to quarterback Nico Iamaleava. The son of quarterback guru Steve Clarkson, Pierce Clarkson had transferred to UCLA this offseason after having spent last spring at Mississippi. The former St. John Bosco High standout spent his first two college seasons at Louisville, where he played sparingly.

Luke Duncan has been UCLA’s top backup in Clarkson’s absence, playing briefly at the end of the Bruins’ victory over Michigan State.

Small screen giant Netflix has once again turned to the big screen, this time with the release of its latest buzzy film, “Frankenstein.”

Written and directed by Guillermo del Toro, the film opened last weekend with a limited release in 10 theaters in Los Angeles, New York and a few other cities, and will expand to more sites for a total theatrical run of three weeks. The film stars Oscar Isaac as the titular egomaniacal scientist and Jacob Elordi as the Creature (who, contrary to popular belief, is not named Frankenstein — you can thank my English major for that tidbit).

The film is getting some awards attention, particularly for the performance of the prosthetics-and-makeup-laden Elordi, and notched a solid 86% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. As of Sunday afternoon, Del Toro posted that the film had sold out at least 57 screenings. “Frankenstein” will debut on the streamer on Nov. 7.

Del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is just the latest in a long line of adaptations of the classic 1818 novel by Mary Shelley. From the first silent film short in 1910 to Boris Karloff’s famed turn as the monster in 1931 and the Kenneth Branagh-directed movie in 1994 that starred Robert De Niro as the creature (Branagh played Frankenstein and Helena Bonham Carter was Elizabeth Lavenza), the classic horror story has proved ripe for filmmakers’ commentary on humanity, science and nature.

In fact, “Frankenstein” has been a lifelong passion project for Del Toro, who has made an award-winning career out of analyzing and depicting monsters, from 2006’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” to 2017’s “The Shape of Water.”

For Netflix, it’s a reminder of why film remains an important, if unlikely, part of the streamer’s strategy.

It’s no secret that Netflix has built its reputation — and its streaming prowess — on the strength of its series, from “Orange Is the New Black” to “Stranger Things” and “Bridgerton.” After all, popular episodic shows keep viewers on the platform, rack up hours of engagement and help draw new subscribers to the service.

The Los Gatos, Calif., company’s embrace of movie theaters may seem surprising given its longstanding testy relationship with movie theater exhibitors and their distribution strategy.

In fact, Netflix has also long said its main goal is to offer subscribers first-run movies on its platform, directly undermining the traditional 90-day “window” between a film’s release in theaters and when it appears in the home.

Earlier this year, Netflix Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos poured salt on the wound when he called the theatrical business “outdated,” at a time when many chains are struggling to fill seats to pre-pandemic levels.

Yet, theaters are still important to Netflix, which releases about 30 films annually in cinemas.

One reason: the allure of Oscar glory.

For the last few years, Netflix has submitted dozens of movies for awards-qualifying runs.

It’s typical for those films to be in cinemas for about two to three weeks before showing up on the platform. (Sometimes, those theatrical showings are for marketing purposes, like the recent “KPop Demon Hunters” singalong screenings.)

Netflix has won numerous Academy Awards over the years, ranging from animated feature (Del Toro’s “Pinocchio” in 2023), supporting actress (Laura Dern for “Marriage Story” in 2020 and Zoe Saldaña for “Emilia Pérez” in 2025) and director (Alfonso Cuarón in 2019 for “Roma” and Jane Campion in 2022 for “The Power of the Dog”).

Best picture, however, has continued to elude the company.

Theatrical releases also help the streamer to attract filmmakers and build relations with key talent. For instance, Netflix’s upcoming “Narnia” film from Greta Gerwig will get a two-week Imax run next year. Netflix previously ran Del Toro’s well-received horror anthology series “Cabinet of Curiosities.”

And while serial narratives may reign supreme, to maintain subscribers, you need other kinds of content to keep it fresh. That’s where movies (and live events) come into play.

As consumers decide which streaming services they can’t live without, a platform that has a little bit of everything has an advantage.

“Having a good mix of movies and serial content is really important,” says Alicia Reese, senior vice president of equity research in media and entertainment at Wedbush Securities. “A lot of people use this as their one and only subscription.”

In other fronts, is the fight over OpenAI’s new Sora 2 dying down? Maybe not, but there are signs of easing tensions.

On Monday, United Talent Agency, SAG-AFTRA, Creative Artists Agency, Assn. of Talent Agents, actor Bryan Cranston and OpenAI released a joint statement noting that Cranston’s voice and likeness was able to be generated “in some outputs” without consent or compensation when the tool was launched two weeks ago in a limited release.

“While from the start it was OpenAI’s policy to require opt-in for the use of voice and likeness, OpenAI expressed regret for these unintentional generations,” the statement said. “OpenAI has strengthened guardrails around replication of voice and likeness when individuals do not opt-in.”

Cranston, who brought the issue to SAG-AFTRA’s attention, said he was “grateful” to OpenAI for improving its policies and “hope that they and all of the companies involved in this work, respect our personal and professional right to manage replication of our voice and likeness.”

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

NBC News sent termination notices to 150 staffers last week, as the network struggles with declining TV ratings and ad revenue. Layoffs have been prevalent throughout the media landscape this year, but have been felt especially hard at broadcast news outlets, as audiences increasingly migrate to streaming platforms and cut the cord.

In addition to these issues, my colleague Stephen Battaglio reported that the NBC News layoffs were also attributed to the spin-off of cable networks MSNBC and CNBC. NBC News now no longer shares resources with those outlets, which will become part of a new company called Versant.

Affected employees were encouraged to apply for 140 open positions throughout the news group.

Finally …

I had to do it. With the Dodgers returning to the World Series, my colleague Jack Harris looks at the team’s season this year and how they fought through multiple injuries on the roster to eventually turn the ship around.

From the outside, the Dodgers know the easy narrative to their season.

About how, after beginning the campaign with the highest expectations imaginable, they spent much of the year failing to live up to the hype.

How, during what was already a dismal second-half slump, they seemed to reach rock bottom when they squandered a no-hitter and three-run lead in a stunning ninth-inning loss in Baltimore last month.

How, in the six weeks since, they’ve looked like a rejuvenated and refocused club, following that nightmarish defeat with a 15-5 finish to the regular season and torrid march through October — going 9-1 en route to a National League pennant and return trip to the World Series, which will begin with Game 1 on Friday night.

In hindsight, however, the Dodgers also insist the story isn’t that simple.

The peaks and valleys of this season, they felt, were never as extreme as they appeared.

“Obviously, the season went the way it went,” veteran third baseman Max Muncy said of a 93-win campaign that, despite including another NL West title, qualified as a disappointment compared to their preseason prognostications. “It’s a long season. It’s a lot of games. We dealt with a lot.”

But, Muncy added as beer and sparkling wine were sprayed all around him in the Dodgers’ clubhouse Friday night, in celebration of the team’s fifth Fall Classic trip in the last nine seasons: “We always knew what we had in the clubhouse. We always knew what we had on the field. Now, you’re starting to see it.”

This, indeed, was always the plan. One that, even in their worst moments, they believed would happen all along.

Last fall, the Dodgers’ run to a World Series championship truly did feel surprising. Their starting rotation was ravaged. Freddie Freeman entered the playoffs with ankle and rib injuries. And there were genuine October doubts to overcome, after upset first-round eliminations the two previous years.

That team also had identifiable turning points, from a belief-instilling clubhouse meeting called by manager Dave Roberts in mid-September, to an NL Division Series comeback against the San Diego Padres that catapulted them through the remainder of the playoffs.

When they finally reached the mountaintop, led by a hobbled Freeman and heroic performances from an overachieving bullpen, it was an accomplishment of determination and perseverance; a triumph that, even internally, not everyone always saw coming.

This year, by contrast, the Dodgers viewed their path differently.

On paper, the defining point of the season appeared to be that Sept. 6 loss to the Orioles — a day that began with another clubhouse meeting from Roberts, who gathered his team amid a stunning 22-31 slump that stretched to early July; then ended in disastrous fashion, when Yoshinobu Yamamoto lost a no-hit bid with two outs in the ninth, before a withering bullpen imploded to lose the game in a walk-off meltdown.

“Losing that game, to a team that’s not even in playoff contention, you started thinking, ‘What’s wrong with us?’” infielder Miguel Rojas recalled.

But looking back last week, several other teammates said, the Dodgers never fully felt the panic that was swirling around them.

Instead, they trusted the talent of their record-setting $415-million roster to eventually rise to surface. They banked on getting healthy, then eventually turning the ship.

“We’ve been there before,” Freeman said. “We knew we were OK.”

“At some point, we were gonna start clicking,” Muncy added. “[We just needed] guys coming back and getting healthy.”

Early in the season, after all, the Dodgers had been healthy and clicking. Their 8-0 start was better than any defending champion in MLB history. Their 29-15 record through mid-May had them on a 107-win pace.

“You look at the start of the season, when we had everybody, we were playing really good,” Muncy said. “If our team was our team the whole year, maybe we would’ve lived up to those expectations.”

The Dodgers, of course, did not have their full team for much of the next three months, when they played exactly .500 baseball (49-49) from May 16 through that Sept. 6 loss in Baltimore.

On the mound, the rotation was battered by injuries to Blake Snell, Tyler Glasnow, Roki Sasaki and Tony Gonsolin. That put added strain (and innings) on a bullpen still feeling the aftereffects of the previous October.

The lineup also dealt with its own injury problems. Freeman started the year still nursing his ankle, which required surgery over the offseason. Mookie Betts was behind the eight ball from the start following a spring-training stomach virus. In the summer, Tommy Edman, Teoscar Hernández and Kiké Hernández each missed time, then returned playing less than 100%. Muncy was in and out of action during the second half, too, suffering a knee injury in July and oblique strain in August.

In retrospect, Muncy noted, it was a dynamic that the Dodgers (who have MLB’s oldest average lineup age at 30.7 years old, and were coming off a physically taxing postseason run the previous year) always figured to grapple with.

“The reality of it is — and we all know this, everyone up top knows it — our team wasn’t going to make it through the full season without breaking at some point,” he said. “So it was just, how do you weather those [low] moments?”

Problem was, they didn’t always do that well, either.

For much of July and August, the Dodgers had one of the lowest-scoring offenses in baseball, suffering from an occasional lack of focus and intensity some people in the organization later attributed to a World Series hangover.

Their faulty bullpen only made matters worse, contributing to a 5-20 record in games decided by two runs or less from early July to early September.

When Roberts called for his pregame clubhouse meeting that day in Baltimore, it was only the latest in a string of speeches he’d delivered to different groups of players on the team in prior weeks. By that point, efforts to snap out of the second-half malaise had been ongoing for a while.

“We’re doing everything in our power, having closed meetings, doing everything that we can, to try to right the ship,” Shohei Ohtani said through an interpreter on the night the Dodgers fell to second place in the division after being swept by the Angels in August. “We just have to do a better job.”

“There’s no sugarcoating this,” Freeman echoed a few weeks later, when another confounding sweep to the Pittsburgh Pirates in early September was followed by another walk-off loss to the Orioles in team’s series-opener in Baltimore. “We need to figure this out, and figure this out quick.”

That, however, is where the 2025 Dodgers differed from the previous year’s team.

Even at their lowest, they didn’t feel hopeless.

Once they got healthy again, they believed better play would follow.

“Everyone was like, ‘We’re going to hit. We’re going to pitch well out of the bullpen. It’s just going to happen,’” Freeman said. “We’ll figure it out. We’ll get there.”

The main driver of the turnaround since was the pitching. Snell and Glasnow had already returned from their injuries by September, but didn’t find a rhythm until the final weeks of the year. Yamamoto also got hot, giving up just one run in his three starts after the near no-hitter. Emmet Sheehan and Clayton Kershaw, who had been out at the start of the year recovering from surgeries, flourished to give the rotation added depth.

Ohtani (while posting MVP numbers offensively) also built his way up to a full starter’s workload, after previously being limited to short outings coming off his second career Tommy John surgery.

Sasaki, meanwhile, made a late-season return in the bullpen, giving that group an anchor it had previously been missing.

“We started winning because our starting pitching was just so good,” Freeman said, after the group produced a 2.07 ERA in September and 1.40 mark in the first three rounds of the playoffs.

“As an offense, when you see your starting pitcher just throwing zeros over and over and over again, it’s like, ‘C’mon, just get one, get two, get three.’”

That kind of consistent production indeed began to reemerge too.

There was better health and improved individual performances, especially from Ohtani, Betts and Freeman (who combined for 22 home runs and 54 RBIs during the Dodgers’ resurgence in September). There was renewed emphasis from the coaching staff on quality at-bats and team offense (helping the Dodgers average 5.6 runs per game over their final 20 contests).

There was also increased accountability the players placed on one another, challenging themselves to elevate their game the closer they got to postseason baseball.

“We always knew we were going to be a really, really good team in October,” Muncy said. “Once you get to October, it’s, ‘Alright, it’s game time.’ That’s how we’re taking it.”

That mindset has continued to manifest in the playoffs, where many of the Dodgers’ biggest moments — from the wheel play they turned in Philadelphia, to the 11-inning marathon that sent them to the NLCS, to the string of low-scoring victories they pulled out against the Milwaukee Brewers — have been born of veteran poise and a battle-tested composure.

“It’s an advantage to having such a veteran group,” Kiké Hernández said. “We’ve played in a lot of big games together.”

And now, they’ll do so again in yet another World Series appearance, playing the kind of baseball just like they expected all along.

“Showing up to spring this year, it was, ‘Hey, we need to repeat,’” Muncy recalled. “It wasn’t like we wanted to repeat. It was like, ‘Hey, we need to’ … Because that’s just how good we are.”

There’s one piece of news seniors on Social Security have been itching to get for months now — news of an official cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for 2026.

At this point, it’s pretty clear that 2026 is not going to be one of those 0% COLA years. Though there have been 0% COLAs in the past, inflation has risen enough to date that experts can say with confidence that Social Security benefits will, indeed, be going up in the new year. The question is by how much.

Image source: Getty Images.

Current estimates seem to be floating in the 2.7% to 2.8% range. But we won’t know what next year’s COLA is for sure until the Social Security Administration makes its big announcement.

That said, Social Security’s upcoming COLA is probably going to be bad news no matter what it actually amounts to. It’s important to understand why — and take steps to work around that.

Why Social Security’s upcoming COLA probably won’t cut it

There’s a reason not to get too excited about Social Security’s 2026 COLA. That reason boils down to the fact that Social Security COLAs have been failing seniors for decades.

In fact, the Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group, says that seniors on Social Security lost 20% of their buying power between 2010 and 2024 due to insufficient COLAs. So chances are, next year’s COLA won’t keep up with inflation, either.

The problem stems from how Social Security COLAs are calculated. They’re based on annual third-quarter changes to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

Now, let’s look at that index’s name carefully. Notice the terms “urban,” “wage earners,” and “clerical workers.” Do those describe the typical Social Security recipient?

It’s true that plenty of retirees reside in cities. But that’s certainly not a given. In fact, many retirees are able to move outside of cities to lower their costs once they no longer have to worry about proximity to a job.

Many Social Security recipients, by nature, are also not workers. They’re retired. So it’s pretty silly to base Social Security COLAs on an index that measures the costs a different subset of people face.

Advocates have been pushing to base Social Security COLAs on the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, or CPI-E. But lawmakers haven’t exactly been jumping to make that change, so it’s not one to expect anytime soon.

Prepare to be disappointed now

No matter what raise Social Security recipients end up eligible for in 2026, chances are, it won’t cut it. Plus, if you’re on Medicare as well, any increase in the cost of Part B will eat away at your COLA.

If you want to improve your financial picture for 2026, you can’t sit back and wait for your COLA to take effect for that to happen. Instead, you should take matters into your own hands.

Here are some specific steps to take:

• Do a thorough review of your retirement budget
• Identify a few expenses you can reduce or even eliminate
• Explore options for going back to work, whether as an hourly employee or a gig worker
• See if it’s possible to downsize your home or rent out a room for income
• Explore moving in with a family member if money is very tight
• Review your Medicare plan choices carefully during open enrollment to lower your healthcare costs

There may be other steps you can take to improve your finances, too, and it’s worth exploring them. What you don’t want to do is assume that your Social Security COLA will be the solution to your financial problems.

Even if Social Security’s 2026 COLA is more generous than expected, chances are good that it won’t do the job of keeping up with inflation that it’s supposed to. The sooner you’re able to accept that, the sooner you can start making positive changes that have a real effect.

WASHINGTON — A grand jury has indicted New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James on a fraud charge in the latest Justice Department case against a perceived enemy of President Trump, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.

James was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on one count after a mortgage fraud investigation, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.

James’ office had no immediate comment Thursday.

The indictment, two weeks after a separate criminal case charging former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress, is the latest indication of the Trump administration’s norm-busting determination to use the law enforcement powers of the Justice Department to pursue the president’s political foes and public figures who once investigated him.

The James case remained under seal Thursday, making it impossible to assess what evidence prosecutors have. But as was the case with the Comey charges, the prosecution followed a strikingly unconventional case.

The Trump administration two weeks ago pushed out Erik Siebert, the veteran prosecutor who had overseen the investigation for months but had resisted pressure to file a case, and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who was once Trump’s personal lawyer but who has never worked as a federal prosecutor.

Halligan presented the case to the grand jury herself, as she did in the case against Comey, according to the person familiar with the matter.

Trump has been advocating charging James for months, posting on social media without citing any evidence that she’s “guilty as hell” and telling reporters at the White House, “It looks to me like she’s really guilty of something, but I really don’t know.”

James, a second-term Democrat, has denied wrongdoing. She has said that she made an error while filling out a form related to a home purchase but quickly rectified it and didn’t deceive the lender.

Her lawyer has accused the Justice Department of concocting a bogus criminal case to settle Trump’s personal vendetta against James, who last year won a staggering judgment against Trump and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he lied to banks and others about the value of his assets.

The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage-related allegations against Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, using the probe to demand her ouster, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose lawyer called the allegations against him “transparently false, stale, and long debunked.”

But James is a particularly personal target. As attorney general, she sued the Republican president and his administration dozens of times and oversaw a lawsuit accusing him of defrauding banks by dramatically overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements.

An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.

Richer, Sisak and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

Tyrese Gibson faces one charge of cruelty to animals stemming from a September incident in Fulton County, Ga., that left a neighbor’s 5-year-old dog mauled and dead.

The Fulton County Sheriff’s Office booked the 46-year-old singer-actor, a staple in the “Fast and Furious” film franchise, on Friday. He was released on a $20,000 surety bond. Attorney Gabe Banks said in a statement that Gibson voluntarily turned himself “to answer for a misdemeanor warrant.”

“Despite what others might say, throughout this entire process Mr. Gibson has cooperated fully with legal authorities and will continue to do so until this matter is resolved,” Banks said. “Mr. Gibson once again wants to extend his deepest condolences to the family who lost their dog and respectfully asks for privacy and understanding as this matter is handled through the appropriate legal channels.”

Police said earlier this week that Gibson failed to turn himself into law enforcement after an arrest warrant was issued stemming from a violent incident involving the actor’s Cane Corso dogs. On the night of Sept. 18, a neighbor of the “Morbius” star let her small spaniel out to her yard and returned five minutes later to find the dog had been attacked. The dog was rushed to a veterinary hospital but did not survive, police said.

The Cane Corsos were then seen at the house, where the owner called police, saying she was afraid to go outside. Animal control officers responded and were able to keep the dogs back while the neighbor went to her vehicle.

The arrest warrant issued for the movie star was part of an “ongoing issue” following multiple calls about the dogs in the last few months, Fulton County Police Capt. Nicole Dwyer said. Gibson received multiple warnings before the warrant was issued, and police also attempted to cite him before the attack, Dwyer said, but Gibson was not at his Atlanta home.

Police had a search warrant for Gibson’s property on Sept. 22, but the actor and the dogs were not there.

In a statement shared to the actor’s Instagram page on Wednesday, Gibson and Banks expressed condolences to the family “who lost their beloved dog in this tragic incident.” The “Transformers” and “Baby Boy” star said his heart “is truly broken,” the note said, and that “he has been “praying for the family constantly, hoping they may one day find it in their hearts to forgive him.”

The statement said that the attack occurred while Gibson, who “accepts full responsibility for his dogs,” was out of town. The actor has since rehomed the two adult dogs and their three puppies, the statement said, adding “the liability of keeping them was simply too great.”

Gibson also issued a personal statement, describing his passion for dogs and declaring that his animals have “never been trained to harm.” He said he has been in Los Angeles with family, mourning the death of his father.

“Please know that I am praying for you, grieving with you, and will continue to face this tragedy with honesty, responsibility, and compassion,” he added.

In another Instagram statement shared Tuesday, Banks explained that Gibson’s decision to bring the Cane Corso dogs into his home was for security against stalkers who had been “randomly showing up at his home” in recent years. Banks said that the dogs “never harmed a child, a person, or another dog” until the September incident.

Gibson said Tuesday: “I had no idea I would ever wake up to this nightmare, and I know the family must feel the same way. To them, please know that my heart is broken for you. I am praying for your healing and for your beloved pet, who never deserved this. I remain committed to facing this matter with honesty, responsibility, and compassion.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Happy Thursday. Your usual host, D.C. Bureau Chief Michael Wilner, is on assignment. So you’re once again stuck with me, California columnist Anita Chabria.

Welcome to another week of the onslaught and overload that is Trump 2.0. What should we talk about?

President Trump’s threat to use the military in more American cities? Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth’s He-Man rant to top military brass?

Or what about the government shutdown?

In a week with enough drama to make the Mormon wives on Hulu seem tame in comparison, it’s hard to know whether all of it matters or none of it. Because, of course, we desperately want none of it to matter, since it’s all just too much.

But too much is never enough for Trump. So let’s break it down, starting with the big man himself.

A protester holds a sign outside of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building on Sept. 28, 2025, in Portland, Ore.

(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

“I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” the Commander-in-Beef said during his Kim Jong Il-style televised address to military leaders.

“San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” Trump said. “This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it’s out of control.”

Yes, Los Angeles, you, with your whimsical opera whodunits and Hollywood ghost tours, are a threat to American stability. Knock it off or the National Guard will knock it off for you.

Those statements from Trump came minutes after Hegseth said to his military officers, “You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.”

Senior military leaders look on as President Trump speaks at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Sept. 30, 2025, in Quantico, Va.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Which sounds exactly like the kind of guy we should sent in to do crowd control at the Olympics. But before you dismiss the entire performance as strongman cosplay, consider how indifferent most Americans are to threats that the military will soon roll into Portland, Ore., or even our acceptance of troops in Chicago.

After L.A. and Washington, D.C., Trump has done exactly what he set out to do: Reduce our alarm at the use of the military on our streets so that it seems normal, almost benign. In fact, many now agree that this is the way to go. A recent study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention found that “nearly one third of respondents (32%) agree at least somewhat that the current federal government ‘should use the military to help enforce its policies.’”

Yikes.

It is, in fact, not OK. Protesting citizens are not the “enemy within.” Democrats are not the enemy. Jimmy Kimmel is not the enemy. Heck, even tech-bro libertarians aren’t the enemy, no matter how arrogant they are.

But the last few days have seen the president, through executive orders and speeches, label all dissent and dissenters as enemies — even using state agencies to do it. After the government shutdown, the Department of Housing and Urban Development displayed a banner on its homepage that blamed the “Radical Left.”

So the president has defined the “enemy within” as those who oppose him, and now informed the military personnel that they “have to handle it.”

Armed members of the National Guard patrol on Aug. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

What about the ‘beardos’?

That Hegseth, so clever. In between celebrating death and violence, he found time to attack female service members, “weak” men, those who would dare investigate wrongdoing in the military and of course, the most dreaded of insurgents: the “beardos.”

An apparent mash-up of “beard” and “weirdo,” which would please most eighth-grade boys, Hegseth used the term to describe what he said was an “unprofessional” look of some soldiers that is henceforth forbidden.

Of all the crazy and concerning in his 45-minute rant, why do I care about this moment?

Those beardos are mostly Black and brown men. Black men are prone to a shaving bump condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae and are sometimes granted permanent shaving waivers because of it. Hegseth wants to kick out of the military men with this painful condition who don’t shave.

It’s likely also aimed at Sikh service members, who grow beards as part of their religious observance. Until now they’ve been granted exemptions too. While this is a small number of servicemen, it’s significant that Hegseth’s “unprofessional” policy targets minorities.

Hegseth made it clear what he thinks of inclusion in any form, dubbing it an “insane fallacy” that “our diversity is our strength.”

Instead, he argued that it is widely accepted that “unity is strength.”

The troubling idea there is the confusion between unity and uniformity. Can’t a Black, bearded soldier have unity with a white, clean-shaven one? Can’t a female soldier share unity and purpose, a American identity, with a male fighter? Of course.

But Hegseth, who fired top Black and female military leaders this year, was never really talking about unity, was he? At least not the pluralism that has defined American unity until now.

The bipartisan flop

Let’s bounce to JD Vance, a “beardo” whose humorlessness has become his defining trait.

“There’s a lot of emergency healthcare at hospitals that are provided by illegal aliens,” he said on Fox News, in his ongoing press tour to blame the government shutdown on Democrats. The line here, a false one, is that Democrats are demanding the federal government pay healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants.

“We turned off that funding because of course we want American citizens to benefit from those hospital services,” Vance said.

Maybe if immigrants weren’t eating so many cats and dogs, they wouldn’t need so much healthcare. But I digress.

What Vance is maybe alluding to, disingenuously, is federal law that says anyone who enters an emergency room must be provided lifesaving services. So if an undocumented immigrant is in a serious car accident and is taken to a hospital, it is required to at least stabilize the person.

The same law was used, much to MAGA consternation, to protect some abortion services in dire cases — a protection Trump largely undid.

This raises the question, should we just let seriously injured brown people die in the waiting room because they can’t produce a passport?

But it’s also true that some states — through state funds — do insure undocumented immigrants, especially children and pregnant women. California is one of the few states that offer undocumented residents of all ages and genders access to its Medi-Cal coverage, though Newsom was forced by budget concerns to scale back that access in coming years. But states that do offer this coverage are, through a quirk in federal law, reimbursed at a higher rate for emergency services, also likely what has Vance in a tizzy.

The rationale behind offering this insurance has been proved out multiple times — preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. Give a guy a prescription for heart medication and he may not have a heart attack that lands him in the emergency room.

Federal programs, though, aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people. That ban includes folks who want to buy their own affordable insurance through the marketplaces created by Obamacare.

The real issue around insurance and the shutdown is how much the cost of this marketplace insurance is about to skyrocket for average Americans. About 24 million Americans get their health insurance through these plans, with most receiving a tax credit or subsidy to help with the costs. The Republican plan would take away those credits, leaving consumers — many in the middle class — with premiums that would at least double in the coming year.

It is somewhat shocking that Democrats are doing such a terrible job getting the word out about this — instead going on the defensive to the claims about undocumented insurance. Average people — Republican or Democrat — cannot afford a doubling of their insurance costs. This is a bipartisan issue. All Americans want affordable healthcare.

We should not sacrifice affordable insurance in favor of billionaire-friendly policies and because Democrats are fumbling an easy message.

So, unfortunately, in a week of chaos, yes, it all matters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Here’s how the U.S. government shutdown will impact California
The what happened: Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks
The L.A. Times special: Jane Fonda, derided as ‘Hanoi Jane’ and a traitor during the Vietnam War, is a modern-day force in Democratic politics

P.S. I’m starting a propaganda watch, because it’s becoming off the hook. This is from the Department of Homeland Security. “Defend your culture.” You mean, like, your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Before facing England on the field, Wales have been taking on their neighbours by trying to convince Tottenham Hotspur winger Mikey Moore to switch international allegiance to play for them.

Moore, who is on loan at Scottish Premiership side Rangers, has represented England Under-19s but qualifies for Wales through a grandparent.

BBC Sport Wales revealed last week that the Football Association of Wales (FAW) had contacted the 18-year-old Londoner, with Bellamy among those to have spoken to him.

“We look at every player that’s available,” he said. “I’d prefer it if it wasn’t aired, if I’m being honest, it does us no favours.

“We do our work behind the scenes. We do it for every player we feel is going to offer us something, but I’m always against pressure from the outside.

“I’ve spoken to a lot of players we feel would definitely benefit us in the future – we need a big squad, so we’re always aware of that. We would be naive not to be aware of it.

“No individual, I don’t believe, especially young players, should be in the public domain. I understand it but it’s not how I go about it. For me to mention individuals, I never do.

“But for us, we’re always aware of who can represent us. Do they have the mentality, do they have the ability to add to us? And if they do, then we’re always aware and always trying to be as active as we can, as we have been for a number of years.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump has revoked former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Secret Service protection that otherwise would have ended next summer, senior Trump administration officials said Friday.

Former vice presidents typically get federal government protection for six months after leaving office, while ex-presidents do so for life. But then-President Biden quietly signed a directive, at Harris’ request, that had extended protection for her beyond the traditional six months, according to another person familiar with the matter. The people insisted on anonymity to discuss a matter not made public.

Trump, a Republican, defeated Harris, a Democrat, in the presidential election last year.

His move to drop Harris’ Secret Service protection comes as the former vice president, who became the Democratic nominee last summer after a chaotic series of events that led to Biden dropping out of the contest, is about to embark on a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, including visits abroad to London and Toronto. The book, which refers to the historically short length of her presidential campaign, will be released Sept. 23, and the tour begins the following day.

A recent threat intelligence assessment the Secret Service conducts on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president, said a White House official who also insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The administration found no reason Harris’ protection should go beyond the standard six-month period for former vice presidents, the official said.

Trump’s vice president from his first term, Mike Pence, did not have extended Secret Service protection beyond the standard six months.

Still, it is not unusual for Secret Service protection to continue well beyond the statutory six-month window, particularly when former officials face credible and ongoing threats. But Trump’s decisions to revoke the protection have stood out both for timing and for targets.

During Trump’s second presidency, he repeatedly has cut off security for adversaries and figures who have fallen from favor, including his onetime national security advisor John Bolton and members of Biden’s family, including the former president’s adult children. Outgoing presidents can extend protection for those who might otherwise not be eligible; Trump did so for his family after leaving office in 2021.

The decision to strip Harris of protection is certain to raise alarms among security experts who view continuity of protection as essential in a polarized climate.

A senior Trump administration official said an executive memorandum was issued Thursday to the Department of Homeland Security ending Harris’ security detail and security services. Those had been extended from six to 18 months by the Biden administration, so they would have ended in July 2026, but now they will be terminated on Monday.

Harris lives in the Los Angeles area. The city’s Democratic mayor, Karen Bass, called Trump’s decision “another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation” and warned that it would endanger Harris. Bass said she plans to work with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, to ensure the former vice president’s safety, and she and Harris have already been in touch about the issue, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.

While she lost to Trump last November, Harris is seen as a potential candidate for 2028, and she has already announced she will not run for California governor in 2026. Harris is also a former senator, California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney.

Last year was a particularly politically charged environment with Trump facing two assassination attempts, and the Secret Service played a crucial role in protecting the now-president. While questions remain about how the agency prepared for a July 2024 rally in Butler, Pa., a Secret Service counter sniper shot a gunman dead after he fired eight shots, killing an attendee, wounding two others and grazing Trump’s right ear. Trump chose one of the agents who rushed to the stage to shield him, Sean Curran, to lead the agency earlier this year.

The news of the security revocation was first reported by CNN.

Kim and Gomez Licon write for the Associated Press. Gomez Licon reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Former President Obama endorsed California Democrats’ plans to redraw congressional districts if Texas or another Republican-led state does so to increase the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of Congress after next year’s midterm election.

Obama said that while he opposes partisan gerrymandering, Republicans in Texas acting at President Trump’s behest have forced Democrats’ hand.

If Democrats “don’t respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy,” he said at a fundraiser Tuesday in Martha’s Vineyard that was first reported by the Associated Press on Wednesday.

“I wanted just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas, and take it to the voters and see what happens,” Obama said, “… but we cannot unilaterally allow one of the two major parties to rig the game. And California is one of the states that has the capacity to offset a large state like Texas.”

Redistricting typically only occurs once a decade, after the census, to account for population shifts. In 2010, Californians voted to create an independent redistricting commission to end partisan gerrymandering. California’s 52 congressional districts were last redrawn in 2021.

Earlier this summer, Trump urged Texas leaders to redraw its congressional boundaries to increase the number of Republicans in Congress. Led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Democrats responded and proposed redrawing the state’s district lines and putting the matter before voters in a special election in November.

The issue came to a head this week, with Texas lawmakers expected to vote on their new districts on Wednesday, and California legislators expected to vote on Thursday to call the special election.

Obama called Newsom’s approach “responsible,” because the matter will ultimately be decided by voters, and if approved, would only go into effect if Texas or another state embarks on a mid-decade redistricting, and line-drawing would revert to the independent commission after the 2030 census.

“I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time,” Obama said.

Some inside jokes can be funny. Others not so much.

John Mateer seems to have fallen into the second category: The Oklahoma Sooners quarterback is now on defense regarding NCAA policy about student-athletes and sports betting.

Screenshots of Venmo transactions the QB made in 2022 began circulating Monday on social media. They appear to show that Mateer, then a Washington State freshman, wrote “sports gambling” to describe two separate payments to the same individual. The amounts were undisclosed.

One of those descriptions included in “UCLA vs USC” in parentheses. The Trojans defeated the Bruins 48-45 on Nov. 19, 2022, the day before both Venmo payments were allegedly made.

Current NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from engaging in sports betting at any level, although a proposal is being considered that would permit gambling on professional sports only.

Mateer released a statement Tuesday indicating that he had written those words in jest.

“The allegations that I once participated in sports gambling are false,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “My previous Venmo descriptions did not accurately portray the transactions in question but were instead inside jokes between me and my friends.

“I have never bet on sports. I understand the seriousness of the matter but recognize that, taken out of context, those Venmo descriptions suggest otherwise. I can assure my teammates, coaches, and officials at the NCAA that I have not engaged in any sports gambling.”

Oklahoma Athletics said in a statement that its student-athletes receive ongoing education on matters related to sports gambling and that it uses a service that provides comprehensive monitoring of sports gambling activities.

“OU takes any allegations of gambling seriously and works closely with the NCAA in any situations of concern,” the department said. “OU Athletics is unaware of any NCAA investigation and has no reason to believe there is one pending.”

Mateer played three seasons at Washington State, including the past two as the Cougars’ starting quarterback, before transferring to Oklahoma this offseason.

Europe can become incredibly busy during the peak holiday season and according to a travel expert, one of Italy’s top attractions is among those that have become too overcrowded

Europe’s top holiday spots are becoming unbearably crowded during peak season, warns a travel expert, with Italy’s most popular attractions among the worst offenders. World-renowned destinations like Barcelona have even hiked up their tourist taxes in an attempt to curb visitor numbers.

Research by Holidu reveals that Dubrovnik takes the crown as the world’s most overcrowded tourist hotspot, boasting 30 visitors for every local resident. But which other locations are bursting at the seams come summertime?

Speaking previously to Express.co.uk, Sara Rodriguez, a seasoned traveller and blogger at Madrid Travelling, revealed four places she found overwhelmingly busy.

Positano, Italy

Considered a gem of southern Italy’s Amalfi Coast, the picturesque landscape in Positano is nothing short of iconic. Colourful buildings are perched on cliffs that overlook the Mediterranean, giving Positano its name as the “vertical village”.

Despite its reputation as one of the most picturesque seaside villages on the coastline, Sara described the atmosphere as far too “hectic”. She elaborated: “While undeniably beautiful with its colourful buildings and seaside views, the narrow streets were packed shoulder to shoulder with other sightseers.”

She added: “The atmosphere felt more hectic than idyllic, and prices were inflated for tourists. I left feeling like I never got to experience the real Positano beyond the chaotic surface.”

Paris, France

The ‘City of Love’ is one of Europe’s most sought-after destinations, but Sara is just one of many visitors who are left less than impressed by the iconic French city.

She detailed: “The congested boulevards of Paris and the never-ending lineups at attractions like the Eiffel Tower and Louvre strained my patience. I didn’t really enjoy the atmosphere as much as I was waiting to take shots.”

TripAdvisor reviewers are in agreement, with one Louvre Museum visitor stating: “The art is crazy, but the queues are insane. Two hours to access the museum and then you can barely walk due to the quantity of tourists. They should regulate this.”

Excessive tourism has been widespread this year, with the Olympics and Paralympics taking place in the city. This occurs despite Paris City Hall’s decision to triple the tourist tax by 200 per cent for 2024.

The move was implemented to assist Île-de-France Mobilités, which oversees public transport, including the metro and bus services, in managing the increased passenger numbers anticipated for the international sporting spectacle.

Mykonos, Greece

The busy tourist period in Mykonos is generally from Greek Easter (April) to the end of October, with peak season from mid-July to late August. During this time, the island attracts visitors of all ages.

Holidaymakers fork out top prices for accommodation on the picturesque Greek isle, which costs considerably more than neighbouring spots such as Syros. However, the masses prove disappointing, according to Sara.

She explained: “When I finally went to the Greek island, I thought it would be a tranquil haven. Even while it was breathtakingly gorgeous, I felt that partygoers and inebriated vacationers overshadowed it. The restaurants were expensive and the beaches were noisy.”

Amsterdam, Netherlands

Amsterdam is renowned for its lively culture, fascinating heritage and stunning waterways, with the 17th-century canal network having developed into one of the most distinctive cityscapes globally. That said, its hordes of visitors make it incredibly busy considering the city is only an eighth of the size of London.

In addition to overnight stays, Amsterdam welcomed 15.1 million day visitors last year, with approximately 60 percent of them coming from within the Netherlands, according to the European Travel Information and Authorisation System.

Sara’s own experience was marred by congested streets, claiming: “The city centre was overrun with rowdy bachelor parties riding bikes through crowded streets. The museums were packed, and reservations at restaurants were impossible to get.”

Fox 11 anchor Elex Michaelson is one of the nice guys in L.A. media. His tough-but-fair-and-especially-polite lines of questioning made him a natural to help moderate debates for the L.A. mayoral and sheriff’s races three years ago. The 38-year-old Agoura Hills native is so nice that he’s known not just for his work but also … his mom’s cookies and brownies.

Michaelson gifts every guest who treks up to Fox 11’s West L.A. studios for his weekly public affairs show “The Issue Is” a box of the desserts. We’re talking former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, billionaire Rick Caruso, L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other political heavyweights on both sides of the proverbial aisle. U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) once brought a bag of Porto’s to Michaelson’s team in gratitude for all the cookies and brownies he had received over the years. Former Congress member and current California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter sent Elex’s mom, Crystal, a handwritten thank-you note.

“Every single time I see [L.A. County Sheriff] Robert Luna, he brings them up without fail,” Michaelson said with pride in a phone interview.

One not-so-famous person who has been lucky enough to enjoy them? Me.

Elex recently gave me a box when I appeared on “The Issue Is” just after U.S. Border Patrol sector chief Gregory Bovino, who took time off from bloviating about the border to accept the goodies because even la migra gets sweets, I guess.

Crystal Michaelson’s cookies and brownies are worthy of a stall at the Hollywood farmers market, and I’m not saying that just so I can appear on “The Issue Is” again soon.

The cookies last time around were blondies studded with chocolate chips and M&Ms. Slightly toasted on the outside, chewy on the inside, thick yet airy and spiked with an extra dash of vanilla, the blondies were beautiful. Just as delicious were the brownies, all about the firm, dark-chocolate-derived fudge that crackled with each bite. Both featured a generous sprinkling of sea salt, the crystals perfectly cutting through all the sugar and butter.

They didn’t last the drive back to Orange County.

Cookie diplomacy at the highest level of California politics

When Elex took his mom to a holiday party hosted by then-Vice President Kamala Harris some years back, most of the movers and shakers greeted her with the same enthusiasm they showed her son because of what she bakes.

“I’m not really a baker!” insisted Crystal, an artist by trade. She makes the goodies every Thursday afternoon, the day before “The Issue Is” tapes, with an occasional assist by Elex. “But it’s turned into a whole thing!”

The tradition dates back to elementary school, when Crystal treated Elex’s teachers and classmates to them as “a thank you.” Elex took some to the first and last day of his college internship for Fox 11 to hand out to the newsroom, then repeated the gesture when he worked at XETV in San Diego and ABC 7 in Los Angeles before returning to Fox 11.

“Their first and last impression of me,” he said, “were these cookies.”

Michaelson repeated the move every day for the first week of “The Issue Is.” The inaugural guests were Newsom, then-Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff (now California’s junior U.S. senator), and commentator Areva Martin.

“Everyone loved the cookies so much that they joked, ‘We won’t return unless we get more cookies,’” Michaelson said.

The crew insisted they get treated to them one more week, “and my mom just never really stopped since then,” even baking and shipping them to regular guests during the COVID era as a Christmas gift.

“One of the only things that seems to unite Republicans and Democrats [in California] is these cookies and brownies,” Elex said. “There’s nothing like the unifying power of food to bring people together to not just talk, but listen to each other.”

Crystal gets a shout-out in the show’s closing credits for “cookies, brownies and moral support.” She learned the recipes as a teen, from a family friend. They’re baked in a Pyrex baking dish, sliced into squares, then put in cardboard boxes that she decorates by writing, “The Issue Is … ”

People have suggested Crystal sell them, but she declines: “I’m not a baker.”

For now, she’s flattered by all the attention — Newsom once wrote a letter on his official letterhead raving about them. The only issue she sees with them …is Elex.

“He eats them too much,” Crystal said. “I’ve said before that maybe I should make them a little bit healthier. And everyone said, ‘No, don’t do that!’”

Today’s top stories

(Christian Murdock / Associated Press)

In-N-Out leaves California

• Billionaire In-N-Out owner Lynsi Snyder announced last month her move from California to Tennessee.
• The departures of several major companies from California have contributed to a narrative that the state is unfriendly to businesses.
• But despite challenges, including steep taxes, the state remains the fourth-largest economy in the world, boasts a diverse pool of talent and is a hub of technological innovation, economists said.

L.A.’s water wars

• Los Angeles gets 2% of its water supply from creeks that feed Mono Lake.
• Environmental advocates are calling for the city to take less water to help the lake reach a healthy level.
• The fully exposed tufa spires show L.A. remains far from meeting its obligation to restore the lake’s health.

Olympic drama

• A proposed ballot measure could force a citywide vote on L.A. 2028 Olympic venues.
• Organizers with the hotel workers union turned in a ballot proposal to require citywide voter approval of “event centers,” including sports facilities and concert halls.
• City officials fear the proposal, if it reaches the ballot and voters approve it, would force elections on several 2028 Olympic venues.

What else is going on

Commentary and opinions

• In America’s hardest-fought congressional district, voters seem to agree on one thing, says columnist Mark Z. Barabak: Release the Epstein files.
• Under Trump, the U.S. has returned to treating violence against women as a “private matter,” argues contributor Karen Musalo.

This morning’s must-reads

Other must-reads

For your downtime

(Eckhaus Latta CAAM at Art + Practice)

Going out

Staying in

And finally … your photo of the day

Image July 2025 Substack Spa Reading

(Tyler Matthew Oyer / For The Times)

Today’s photo of the day is from photographer Tyler Matthew Oyer of a 200-person literary reading inside of a pool at the Korean Spa.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff writer
Diamy Wang, homepage intern
Izzy Nunes, audience intern
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew Campa, Sunday writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to [email protected]. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

The concerns Gary Chapman raises [“Casting a Vote of Caution on Online Voting,” March 20] about the security of online voting are legitimate, but they ultimately will prove trivial when a technical solution is found.

His concerns about relative voter participation, however, are transparently partisan.

The fear on the left is that this particular technological advance will increase the relative participation of the “wrong,” presumably more conservative, voters. But when a change in electoral processes, e.g., “motor voter” registration, disproportionately benefits the right people, the left is in favor of it.

In a National Public Radio discussion I heard a few weeks ago on this topic, even some of the opponents of Internet voting conceded that the digital divide is shrinking. Sales of computers for use in the home are projected to grow faster among ethnic minorities than among whites. Even without that, an argument could be made that Internet voting might disproportionately increase minority voting: It isn’t hard to imagine that there are lower-income voters who have better access to an Internet-connected computer than they have to transportation to polling places.

The intent of Internet voting is not to disenfranchise anyone. It is, instead, to make it easier for anyone–everyone–to vote.

JONATHAN BALL

Altadena

A judge in the US state of Kentucky has sentenced a police officer involved in the 2020 shooting death of Breonna Taylor to 33 months for violating her civil rights.

The sentencing of officer Brett Hankison was announced on Monday at the Louisville court and represents a repudiation to prosecutors, who had requested he receive a one-day sentence.

US District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings sentenced Hankison at a hearing on Monday afternoon. She said that no prison time “is not appropriate” for Hankison and that she was “startled” that more people had not been injured in the raid.

Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency room technician, was killed in her apartment in the early hours of March 13, 2020, after police executed a so-called no-knock warrant, attempting to storm Taylor’s apartment unannounced, based on faulty evidence that her apartment was involved in a drug operation.

Thinking they were experiencing a home invasion, her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired one shot at the suspected intruders. Police responded with approximately 22 shots, some of which went into a neighbour’s apartment, endangering a pregnant woman, her partner and five-year-old son.

A federal jury in November 2024 found Hankison responsible for using excessive force in violation of Taylor’s civil rights.

But last week, Department of Justice lawyers asked that Hankison be given a one-day sentence, plus three years of supervised release, arguing that a lengthy sentence would be “unjust”. Hankison shot 10 bullets into the apartment, though the shots he fired did not hit her.

Death was a catalyst for calls for racial justice

Taylor’s death, along with the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis at the hands of a white police officer, led to racial justice protests across the United States over the treatment of people of colour by police departments.

During former President Joe Biden’s administration, the Justice Department brought criminal civil rights charges against the officers involved in both Taylor and Floyd’s deaths.

Hankison was convicted by a federal jury in November 2024 of one count of violating Taylor’s civil rights, after the first attempt to prosecute him ended with a mistrial.

He was separately acquitted on state charges in 2022.

The Justice Department’s sentencing memo for Hankison downplayed his role in the raid at Taylor’s home, saying he “did not shoot Ms. Taylor and is not otherwise responsible for her death”. The memo was notable because it was not signed by any of the career prosecutors – those who were not political appointees – who had tried the case. It was submitted on July 16 by Harmeet Dhillon, a political appointee by Trump to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, and her counsel, Robert Keenan.

Keenan previously worked as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, where he argued that a local deputy sheriff convicted of civil rights violations, Trevor Kirk, should have his conviction on the felony counts struck and should not serve prison time.

The efforts to strike the felony conviction led several prosecutors on the case to resign in protest, according to media reports and a person familiar with the matter.

The department’s sentencing recommendation in the Hankison case marks the latest effort by the Trump administration to put the brakes on the department’s police accountability work. Earlier this year, Dhillon nixed plans to enter into a court-approved settlement with the Louisville Police Department, and rescinded the Civil Rights Division’s prior findings of widespread civil rights abuses against people of colour.

Lawyers for Taylor’s family called the department’s sentencing recommendation for Hankison an insult, and urged the judge to “deliver true justice” for her.

On Monday, the Louisville Metro Police Department arrested four people in front of the court, who it said were “creating confrontation, kicking vehicles, or otherwise creating an unsafe environment”. Authorities did not list the charges those arrested would face.

“We understand this case caused pain and damaged trust between our department and the community,” a police statement said. “We particularly respect and value the 1st Amendment. However, what we saw today in front of the courthouse in the street was not safe, acceptable or legal.”

A pre-sentencing report by the US Probation Office said that Hankison should face 135 to 168 months imprisonment on the excessive force conviction, according to the sentencing memo. But federal prosecutors said multiple factors, including that Hankison’s two other trials ended with no convictions, should greatly reduce the potential punishment.

The 77th Emmys nominations have been announced and given the state of just about everything, it’s easy not to care.

Our president is dismantling large portions of the federal government and offering new tax breaks to folks like those portrayed behaving badly in “The White Lotus.” Flash floods, a potential measles epidemic and ongoing bloody wars in Ukraine and the Middle East seem to echo the pre-apocalyptic drumbeats from “Paradise.”

Masked federal ICE agents, who look like they could be part of the Federal Disaster Response Agency from “The Last of Us,” roam the streets of Los Angeles, arresting people who might not have the right documentation and taking them to detention centers that appear to be right out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Television itself is in a state of free fall, with streaming prices rising even as the number of new series sharply declines, and though “The Studio” makes it seem as if L.A. remains the geographic center of the entertainment business, the city’s increasingly empty soundstages and unemployed production workers tell another story.

So given that many Americans might very well agree to work for “Severance’s” sinister Lumon Industries if it guaranteed a decent paycheck and healthcare benefits, it seems impossible to gin up excitement about how many nominations HBO/Max, Netflix, Apple TV+ or any other entertainment conglomeration with an obscenely overpaid CEO received this year.

Except, you know, Jeff Hiller, whose amazing midlife breakout role as nakedly sincere Joel in “Somebody Somewhere” finally got the nomination it deserved. Or Jenny Slate, who deftly spun plates of hilarity, humanity and pathos in “Dying for Sex.” Stripped of his good looks and seductive accent, Colin Farrell still managed to mesmerize in “The Penguin,” which not only resuscitated an exhausted genre but took it to a new level of storytelling.

From its 15-year-old star to its risky single-shot direction and unsettlingly resonant themes, the limited series “Adolescence” was as close to perfection as a piece of television gets. Jean Smart (“Hacks”), Kathy Bates (“Matlock”) and Catherine O’Hara (“The Studio”) continue to prove the absurdity of Hollywood’s traditional sidelining of women over 40, while “Abbott Elementary” reminds us just how good a traditional broadcast comedy can be.

Artistic awards of any kind are inevitably absurd — how does one relatively small group of people decide what is “best” — and given the amount and diversity of television, the Emmys are more absurd than most.

According to Television Academy Chairman Cris Abrego, this was a record-breaking year in terms of voter turnout. Even so, it’s difficult to see categories dominated by one or two shows and not wonder how much TV the voting members managed to watch. If it were just a question of judging shows on submitted episodes, there would be no need for pricey FYC campaigns after all.

But the Emmys matter because television is art. And art matters. Even if it involves complaining about how ridiculous this year’s choices are, the nominations give us an opportunity to talk about art — what touched/impressed/moved/changed us, or not. What comforted us, disturbed us, made us laugh or look at things just a little differently and why.

That’s important, especially now when so much is in a constant state of upheaval, when everywhere we look people are questioning the future of democracy, civilization, the planet. Television can be used as an escape from “real life” — and heaven knows we could all use some of that — but it’s existence, and our appreciation of it, is very much part of that real life.

Art is a hallmark of civilization. It’s proof that we have evolved beyond the basic instincts of survival, that we understand the necessity of stories, images and music, and that we encourage their creation and appreciate the existence of even those things we personally do not perceive as great or even good.

Even as Peak TV gives way to the age of contraction, television remains one of our most universally experienced art forms. At its most basic level, it’s about curiosity — we watch television, whether it’s “Slow Horses,” “The Pitt” or “The Traitors” — to see what other people are up to, what they feel, say and do in a wide variety of circumstances and if we would feel, say or do something similar.

So yeah, the Emmys are not as important as ICE raids, flash floods, children dying of measles or the vanishing social safety net. When climate change has made the world so hot that the World Cup is under threat, it’s easy to consider conversations about why “Squid Game” or the final season of “The Handmaid’s Tale” received no major nominations, or how academy members could nominate Martin Short and not Steve Martin for “Only Murders in the Building,” a complete waste of time.

Until you consider the alternative. Because the day we stop celebrating and arguing about art is the day we’ll know the bastards have won.