movement

When Republican Spencer Pratt burst into Los Angeles politics, venting a torrent of online fury against Mayor Karen Bass’ handling of the Palisades fire, he pitched his mayoral campaign as a full-bore challenge to L.A.’s political status quo.

The former reality TV star, who lost his home in the blaze, started as a long shot but emerged as a national story, with the ability to harvest social media attention, rally a base and dominate the news cycle.

But in a city overwhelmingly Democratic, where Republicans make up just 15% of registered voters, even some of his supporters wondered how far he could rise. In the end, voters selected Bass, a Democratic centrist, and democratic socialist City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who ran to Bass’ left, to face off in the runoff.

Still, for many of the 200,000 Angelenos who voted for Pratt, his brash, social media-fueled campaign was not just a long exercise in trolling. Pratt gave voice to their discontent with the system of one-party rule and said things they too often felt uncomfortable saying.

And now, they face a difficult choice of who to support in November.

“I know a lot of people who are disappointed,” said Meghan Daum, an L.A. writer and podcaster and former Los Angeles Times columnist who endorsed Pratt. “They are saying, ‘OK, now what? What can we do?”’

While Pratt did not make the runoff, political experts said his candidacy tapped into Angelenos’ dissatisfaction with the Democratic establishment and resonated with a sizable number of Angelenos who are rarely represented in L.A. politics.

“He identified a previously invisible level of anger and frustration,” said Dan Schnur, a longtime politics professor at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, of Pratt. “The question going forward is whether he, or someone else, can shape that raw emotion into a movement.”

Pratt has yet to put out a statement conceding the race or contesting the results. As a stream of Republicans, including President Trump, made unfounded allegations of election fraud in California, the campaign’s most online candidate was conspicuously absent on X and Instagram.

Some Democrats in L.A. urged Pratt to make good on his promise to leave the city if Bass or Raman were elected. Late night TV host Jimmy Kimmel, a prominent Democrat, told Pratt he had rented him a U-Haul.

Despite the snark from Democrats, political observers say Pratt changed the terms of L.A.’s mayoral debate.

“He forced the more conventional candidates to talk about the issues in a way that would not have been the case if he weren’t in the race,” Schnur said.

“For the first time in years, there is a critical mass of citizens who are done pretending that what they see before their eyes isn’t really there,” Daum wrote on her Substack. “The people in charge will have to answer to those citizens.”

In the final weeks of the campaign, Pratt became ubiquitous in the national media. There were profiles in high-end publications, podcast interviews and regular reports from Fox News. But the results show he fell short of persuading enough Angelenos to make the runoff.

“It doesn’t appear that he’s impacted the political underpinnings of a deep blue city like Los Angeles,” Schnur said. “His impact was less ideological than attitudinal. He wasn’t convincing the voters to become more conservative, he was convincing them that it was OK for them to vent their anger in an unconventional way.”

Dissatisfaction is building in L.A. as the city’s cost of living mounts and a new generation of young Angelenos are unable to buy homes. Many are concerned about the lack of visible progress on street homelessness. Some are angry at what they see as city leaders’ poor preparation and response to the Palisades fire.

Ultimately, the momentum for change in Los Angeles was divided. As Pratt challenged Bass from the right, Raman tacked to the left of Bass on homelessness and policing and made affordability a key plank of her campaign.

Whatever their concerns about the status quo in L.A., many Angelenos were unwilling to vote for a Republican.

During the course of the campaign, Daum said she had numerous conversations with Angelenos who said: “I can’t associate with anybody who voted for Trump. I can’t have them in my house. I can’t have a conversation with them. I want nothing to do with them.”

A 42-year-old millennial who became famous on “The Hills” and owns a business selling “healing” crystals, Pratt had no political experience when he entered the mayoral race. He didn’t even appear to have a campaign manager.

“The system in Los Angeles isn’t struggling, it’s fundamentally broken,” Pratt said as he launched his campaign on Jan. 7, the anniversary of the fire. “It is a machine designed to protect the people at the top and the friends they exchange favors with while the rest of us drown in toxic smoke and ash.”

Bombastic and full of braggadocio, Pratt critiqued what he saw as Bass’ failure to prepare for and respond to the wildfires. He berated city leaders for not doing enough to get unhoused people off the streets. He railed against the city’s challenges with public safety, potholes, and the abuse of dogs on Skid Row. He even seized on a comment Bass made on the campaign trail about using taxpayer money to fund dental care for meth users.

As Pratt talked about homelessness, his message resonated with Marissa Comstock, 36, a stay-at-home mom and former software engineer in Eagle Rock.

“It’s totally obvious to me,” she said. “We need to get these people off the street.”

Last year, Comstock said she and her husband had a negative encounter at Griffith Park as they pushed their daughters around in strollers. Just a few minutes into their hike, she said, they were accosted by an unhoused person who screamed at them and threatened to cut off their daughters’ legs.

Since that incident, Comstock said, she takes her daughters only to places like the Huntington or Descanso Gardens that require membership to be admitted.

“I don’t feel comfortable even being on regular streets,” she said. “If there’s some crazy homeless person, what am I supposed to do?”

Pratt did extraordinarily well in capturing attention and developing a message, said Paul Mitchell, vice president of the Sacramento-based bipartisan firm Political Data Inc. Many Angelenos, he noted, had a better sense of Pratt’s viewpoint than they did of much more deeply funded California gubernatorial candidates, like Matt Mahan or Xavier Becerra.

During his campaign, Pratt did not express support for Trump or the Make America Great Again movement. He insisted he was a nonpartisan candidate running on local issues.

“I’m going to show everybody that I’m their mayor,” Pratt said on election night.

But even if Pratt was not explicitly MAGA, his reality TV theatrics mixed with antiestablishment populism were so MAGA-coded that he struggled to persuade disaffected liberal Angelenos. He referred to the homeless as “fentanyl zombies.” He railed against California’s “socialism.” He called Bass “Basura,” Spanish for trash.

When Trump spoke of Pratt, telling reporters “I heard he’s a big MAGA person,” Raman was quick to share Trump’s remarks on social media, warning Angelenos that Pratt was wildly out of step with their views.

While Pratt impressed some political observers with his performance in a May 6 televised debate with Bass and Raman, others said he alienated a significant portion of Angelenos with some of his social media antics.

“He could have talked about the drug use and the risks and the filth and the fire risks and all that,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP political strategist, of Pratt’s zombie rhetoric, “but then paired that with, ‘My God, these liberals are leaving these people out here to die,’ and expressed some humanity towards the population that’s on the streets.”

Ultimately, Daum said Pratt was a “terrible candidate.”

“He did a million things wrong,” she said. “The whole time, I was yelling on Twitter about how he’s got to stop it: the AI videos are gonna hurt him, the Basura stuff, the zombie stuff. Like, stop it! Stop it!”

As Pratt’s campaign came to an end, Stutzman said, it is not clear that he represents any kind of lasting political movement.

“The question remains: Did he create a political movement or did he exploit the opportunity to run for mayor to restoke his diminishing fame?” Stutzman said. “He’s in the mold of a Kardashian: He’s just found ways to be famous without ever really doing anything important. I suspect that this was more about him acting out as to what he is as a reality celebrity versus becoming a leader of a political movement in L.A. We’ll see.”

When Angelenos go to the polls in November, there are several paths for Pratt voters.

Some, Mitchell said, will probably sit the election out entirely.

“You’ll get some Republicans who vote for Raman because they’re like, ‘Well, she’s a socialist and I can’t stand her, but I’m just voting no on Bass.’ And then you’ll have a lot of Republicans who are like, ‘OK, Raman’s a socialist.’”

After Raman made it to the runoff, Bass’ campaign slammed the city council member for voting against hiring more police and blocking efforts to keep homeless encampments away from schools. Meanwhile, Raman positioned herself as the anti-status quo candidate.

In a statement celebrating her advance to the general election, Raman did not mention Pratt or his supporters, but railed against “powerful interests” in City Hall.

“Working people pay the price in higher rents, depleted services, and a city that has stopped working for them,” she said. “If you’re as frustrated by the broken status quo as I am, I hope you’ll join our movement to build a city that works for everyone.”

Even as Daum felt depressed that Pratt’s campaign was not continuing, she said she felt more engaged in L.A. politics than she had ever been. She planned to vote in November and would be watching both Bass and Raman to see how they responded to Angelenos’ concerns about street homelessness.

“If Karen Bass said, ‘OK, I get it, “housing first” is not the panacea that I’ve been thinking it is. Seriously, I’m gonna put together a task force of people who are going to actually think this through.’ … I would be following that. I would be very curious,” Daum said. “Same if Nithya said that, too. I’m open to either of them, I guess.”

Comstock said she would probably vote for Bass in the runoff.

“Nithya Raman is just way too far on the socialist scale for me and will likely do more damage, rather than Karen Bass’ ineffectualness,” she said. “I don’t want to go any farther left.”

On May 14, the high court in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh ruled that the centuries-old Kamal Maula mosque in the city of Dhar was actually a temple dedicated to a Hindu goddess. Two days later, saffron flags associated with Hindu far-right groups were all over the site, with supporters celebrating and filming rituals that were carried out.

The Kamal Maula mosque, also known as the Bhojshala complex, has been disputed for decades. And such claims are not unique to this mosque. Far-right Hindutva activists have made similar claims – that a given mosque was built atop a temple – across the country, emboldened by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rise to power in 2014.

Modi is a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which follows an ideology known as Hindutva.

But what is the Hindutva movement, and how did it emerge?

What does Hindutva mean?

Hindutva is a right-wing political and nationalist ideology that defines the cultural and national identity of India based on a particular interpretation of Hindu values. India is a constitutionally secular state, but advocates of Hindutva want the country to adopt Hinduism as its state religion.

The term Hindutva consists of two linguistic parts: The first is the word “Hindu”, whose origin likely traces back to the Sanskrit word “Sindhu”, the ancient name for the Indus River. With the evolution of linguistic usage, the ancient Persians and others replaced the letter “S” with “H”, and the term “Hindus” came to be used for the inhabitants living beyond the river.

The second part is the Sanskrit suffix “-tva”, which indicates essence or being, meaning that the term literally denotes “Hindu essence” or “Hindu identity or being”.

How did Hindutva originate?

Hindu nationalism emerged in protest against British colonial notions of the religion, but quickly grew into a majoritarian ideology that viewed the Indian identity through the lens of a specific interpretation of Hinduism.

Its early years coincided with sectarian Hindi-Muslim tensions in the early 20th century under British rule, culminating in the partition of the subcontinent at independence in 1947 and the formation of Pakistan on religious grounds.

Indian freedom fighter and ideologue Vinayak Savarkar coined the term “Hindutva” in his 1923 pamphlet Essentials of Hindutva, presenting a vision of Hindu identity based on the unity of territory, culture, and historical belonging, while considering India as the fatherland and the holy land of Hindus.

Based on this notion, some Hindutva theorists argued that Muslims and Christians do not fully belong to the Indian nation, as their holy places are located outside India – even though India is home to one of the world’s largest Muslim populations, and has more Christians than many European nations such as the United Kingdom.

Savarkar was, and remains, a controversial figure: He infamously wrote letters to the British pleading for his release from a notorious prison in the Andaman Islands.

From idea to movement

By 1925, the early Hindutva ideologue Keshav Baliram Hedgewar had founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – which loosely translates to National Volunteer Organisation – the mothership of the Hindu majoritarian political movement.

The RSS focused on organising and strengthening the Hindu community through local social and cultural activities. Over time, it expanded to include a network of affiliated institutions and organisations spanning religious activities, education, health, publishing, student politics and even the trade union sector.

Some of its early leaders publicly, in their writings, admired the European fascists and the manner in which they dealt with religious and ethnic minorities.

After India’s independence, the movement faced significant pressure following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948: Gandhi’s assassin was a former RSS member. Savarkar, the founder of the Hindutva ideology, was also arrested in connection with the assassination but was eventually acquitted because the prosecution could not present corroborating evidence against him.

Later, the movement shifted towards political action by establishing a party in 1951, which subsequently evolved into the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1980.

The party witnessed a remarkable surge in its political influence during the 1980s and 1990s by championing the construction of the Ram Temple in the city of Ayodhya on the site of the Babri Mosque.

In 1992, the demolition of the mosque by activists associated with the RSS and the BJP prompted a widespread wave of sectarian violence. In the wake of that violence, the BJP first came to national power in 1996 as India’s single largest party, but its government collapsed in 13 days after allies it depended on withdrew support. In 1998, it returned to power, but this time lost after 13 months. New elections followed in 1999, and the BJP emerged as the single biggest party again. It led a coalition government for a full five years until 2004, when the Congress party – now India’s largest opposition force – defeated it.

The Congress ruled for a decade until 2014, when Modi stormed to power with the largest mandate any party had received since 1984.

Thought and Ideology

Hindutva ideology posits that Indian identity is fundamentally rooted in Hindu culture and civilisation.

The ideology relies on historical narratives portraying the periods of Islamic and Mughal rule as an era that weakened Hindu heritage, calling for the restoration of Hindu identity and the strengthening of its presence in the public sphere.

Its most prominent ideas include: Rereading history from a Hindu nationalist perspective, viewing India as a sacred civilisational entity, calling for the return of those believed to have Hindu origins to their ancestral religion, and granting national status to symbols such as cows and the Sanskrit language.

Critics differentiate between Hindutva as a nationalist political project and Hinduism as a religion and spiritual philosophy, arguing that the former politicises religion and can contradict values such as tolerance and nonviolence that have long been central tenets of Hinduism, the faith.

Hindutva in political practice

Hindutva has gradually transitioned into the political and legislative spheres with the rise of the BJP to power. Its principles have begun to reflect in laws, public policies, and the nature of social debate within the country. Supporters argue that these policies preserve national identity, while critics contend that they undermine religious and cultural pluralism.

The most notable of these measures was the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution in 2019, which had granted the Muslim-majority region of Jammu and Kashmir a special autonomous status.

Additionally, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was passed that year, granting expedited citizenship to certain immigrants from neighbouring countries, excluding Muslims. It officially went into effect in March 2024, accompanied by the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which threatens to strip millions of Muslims of their citizenship and label them as infiltrators.

The impact of this vision has extended to local legislation in certain states, such as tightening restrictions on cow slaughter and enacting laws to regulate religious conversion and interfaith marriages, alongside calls for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code to replace certain personal status laws for minorities.

Hindutva has also been linked to the emergence of Hindu nationalist groups, such as the Bajrang Dal, which have been implicated in acts of violence and intimidation against Muslims, Christians and marginalised social groups, particularly over issues related to cows or religious conversion.

In January 1999, when the BJP was in power nationally, Bajrang Dal activists burned alive Graham Staines, an Australian Christian missionary, and his two sons, while they were sleeping in their car. And in 2002, while Modi was chief minister of the western state of Gujarat, independent India witnessed one of its worst massacres of Muslims, after a group of Hindu pilgrims on a train were burned alive under circumstances that are still contested.

Indian far-right groups ideologically aligned with the RSS have also been accused of lynching dozens of Muslims since 2014, often on accusations that they were carrying cows for slaughter. In almost all cases, none of the murderers have been punished, and in several instances, families of the victims have faced charges.

Secessionists in the western Canadian province of Alberta recently announced that they have gathered enough signatures to launch a referendum on independence from the rest of the country.

Leading secessionists said that they formally submitted about 300,000 signatures to election authorities earlier this week, far more than the 178,000 required for the province to consider a referendum.

“This day is historic in Alberta history,” secessionist leader Mitch Sylvestre said.

“It’s the first step to the next step — we’ve gotten by Round 3, and now we’re in the Stanley Cup final,” he added, referring to a hockey championship tournament.

Even if a vote were in favour of independence, an uncertain and protracted process would follow, including possible legal challenges and negotiations with the federal government.

But the possibility of a referendum has brought renewed attention to Alberta’s longstanding frustrations with federal power in Canada and calls for greater autonomy.

What is driving Alberta’s secessionist movement? What are the prospects of success for the referendum, and what could it mean for Canadian politics? Here’s what you need to know.

How many signatures were collected?

Alberta secessionists said on Monday that they had submitted nearly 302,000 signatures, more than the 178,000 required to qualify for referendum consideration.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she would move forward with the vote if the petition gathered enough signatures, although she does not support independence from Canada herself.

What would the referendum ask voters?

If the proposed measure makes it to the ballot, it would ask voters: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”

Does this guarantee a referendum, and could Alberta actually separate from Canada?

Meeting the signature requirement does not in itself guarantee that a referendum will take place.

Elections Alberta, the province’s electoral authority, still needs to verify the petitioners’ names, a process that has been stalled by a court ruling.

Indigenous groups have also filed a legal challenge, stating that separation would be a violation of their treaty rights.

There are also questions about whether the referendum will gather sufficient support among voters to pass. Polls have shown that about 30 percent of residents would support such a measure.

What’s behind Alberta’s bid for separatism?

While secession has never been so close to a vote in Alberta, pro-independence sentiment has been part of the province’s political culture — home to about 5 million people — for decades.

That sentiment is driven largely by the feeling of many in Alberta that the province is distinct — culturally, economically, and politically — from the rest of Canada.

The oil-rich western province has long expressed frustration with political decision-making in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, despite what it sees as its outsized economic contribution to the national economy through its massive fossil fuel industry.

Environmental regulations and efforts to address climate change have become another flashpoint, with secessionist leaders depicting Alberta’s primary industry as hamstrung by regulatory decisions made by bureaucrats with little understanding of the province.

“We’re not like the rest of Canada,” secessionist leader Sylvestre told the news service AFP. “We’re 100 percent conservative. We’re being ruled by Liberals who don’t think like us.”

“They’re trying to shut down our industry,” he added.

Have any other provinces considered separating from Canada?

Alberta is not the only region with a complicated relationship with the rest of Canada.

The French-speaking province of Quebec is home to a decades-old nationalist movement that has pushed to separate from Canada, rooted in a desire to recognise Quebec’s distinct linguistic and cultural identity.

The popularity of that movement has ebbed, with a March poll finding Quebecois secessionism at its lowest level of support since voters narrowly rejected a referendum in 1995. Still, the secessionist Parti Quebecois political party is polling high in advance of a provincial election set for later this year.

Has the push for independence attracted criticism?

As with all independence movements, the province’s bid for separation from the rest of Canada has become a source of passionate disagreement.

“It stands for something that most of us Albertans and Canadians don’t stand for,” Thomas Lukaszuk, the province’s former deputy premier and a strong supporter of federalist identity, told AFP. “It’s a form of treason.”

Expressions of support from the administration of United States President Donald Trump, who has angered Canadians by suggesting that the country should become a US state, have also sparked criticism that the secessionist movement is undermining Canadian unity.

Asked about the possibility of independence in January, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Alberta would be a “natural partner” for the US.

“Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they won’t let them build a pipeline to the Pacific,” Bessent told a US right-wing commentator. “I think we should let them come down into the US, and Alberta is a natural partner for the US. They have great resources. The Albertans are very independent people.”

“The separatists are not elected members. They’re just citizens of Canada residing in Alberta, and they actually formed delegations and are received by the highest levels of US administration,” Lukaszuk said. “That must be very empowering to them.”

Regardless of whether the proposed ballot measure succeeds, the development is likely to serve as a shot in the arm for the province’s secessionist forces.

“I think this is going to be a permanent change in our political culture,” independent historian and supporter of independence Michael Wagner told AFP, adding that the movement “is not going to just disappear”.

What happens next?

A provincewide ballot could take place as soon as October, as part of a larger referendum on several questions relating to constitutional issues and other matters, such as immigration, scheduled for October 19.

Justice Shaina Leonard issued a monthlong stay on the certification of the independence petition on April 10, following a legal challenge from several First Nations groups who say separation would violate treaty rights.

That ruling did not bar the gathering of signatures, and a decision on legal challenges from Alberta First Nations is expected later this week. A decision in favour of the First Nations challengers could render the process academic.

Xavier Becerra, a former cabinet secretary in President Biden’s administration, appears to be surging in the curiously unsettled California governor’s race.

Until recently, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary had been mired in the single digits in polling to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom and lead the nation’s most populous state.

But after former Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-Dublin) dropped out of the race earlier this month amid accusations ofsexual assault and other misconduct Becerra has seen a boost in polls, fundraising and endorsements.

On Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas endorsed Becerra alongside 14 Democratic members of the legislative body.

Arguing that Californians are under constant threat from President Trump’s policies, Rivas cited Becerra’s decades-long record in public office, including defending Obamacare and young immigrants, or dreamers, to argue that Becerra is best positioned to lead the state.

“There’s no time to learn on the job — we need a governor who’s ready to fight back on day one,” Rivas said in a statement, noting that Becerra sued the Trump administration 122 times while he was California’s attorney general. “We have a strong Democratic field for governor. But right now, we need someone ready on day one. Xavier Becerra is that leader.”

Becerra said he was honored to receive the legislators’ backing.

“I look forward to working with the Speaker and legislators on Day One to tackle the problems Californians care about most — from the skyrocketing cost of groceries and housing to our unyielding fight against the Trump Administration’s disastrous policies,” he said in a prepared statement. “Californians need an experienced and trusted leader who doesn’t need on-the-job training.”

Despite Becerra’s long tenure in state and federal office, the unflashy politician is not well-known among California voters. He was among the underdogs in the 2026 gubernatorial race. Swalwell, by contrast, was among the leading Democratic candidates.

Amy Thoma, a former Republican strategist who is no longer affiliated with a political party, noted that Becerra’s surge comes at a critical moment in the election, shortly before ballots land in Californians’ mailboxes.

“Voters are starting to tune into the race. Yes, they want someone who will stand up to Trump, but it also seems they want someone with experience who can address the very real issues facing the state,” Thoma said.

She added that Becerra’s life story is “incredibly compelling.”

“The word authentic is overused, but every time he talks about his love for this state, for his family and wanting to make California work for everyone, it comes across incredibly sincere,” Thoma said. “Voters can see through candidates who fake it.”

Becerra was respected by colleagues across the aisle, including former GOP legislative leader and state Republican party chairman Jim Brulte. Both men were elected to the state Assembly in 1990 and though their politics often sharply differed. However, they had a warm relationship.

“He was progressive and I am a conservative,” Brulte said. “We never agreed much on policy, but he is a good man with a great heart.”

The 2026 governor’s race has been unlike any in recent memory, with no clear front-runner in a crowded field of candidates and voters just beginning to pay attention to the contest shortly before the June 2 primary.

There were two prominent Republicans and eight prominent Democrats in the race, leading to fears among Democratic leaders in the state that their party’s candidates could be shut out of the governor’s race in the general election because of California’s unique primary system. The two candidates who win the most votes in the June 2 primary will move onto the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Democratic leaders remain concerned that despite California’s sapphire-blue tilt, the number of their party’s candidates in the race could lead to a splintering of Democratic voters that results in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot.

Six prominent Democrats remain in the race, after Swalwell and former state Controller Betty Yee dropped out.

The race — lacking a global superstar such as Arnold Schwarzenegger or the scion of a storied political family and former governor like Jerry Brown — is ephemeral. Anything can happen before the June 2 primary.

But Becerra is having a moment. In addition to the new endorsements, he has seen notable movement in polls, most recently in a survey released Monday by the state Democratic party. Becerra jumped nine points from the party’s last poll, tying with billionaire Tom Steyer at 13%.

While Becerra will never be able to match Steyer’s deep pockets, he raised more than $1 million on ActBlue, the top Democratic fundraising platform, in the week ending on April 18, making him the biggest fundraiser on the site in the nation.

“Ninety-seven percent were first-time donors,” Becerra’s campaign said in a statement. “This is not a donor base being recycled. It is a movement being born.”