Nation

President Trump’s aura of invincibility is starting to vanish. Three new polls — including the usually Trump-hospitable Rasmussen — suggest that Joe Biden did a better job as president.

Worse still (for Trump), he’s underwater on immigration, foreign policy and the economy — the very trifecta that powered his return. An incumbent taking on water like that is no longer steering the ship of state, he’s bobbing in the deep end, reaching for a Mar-a-Lago pool noodle.

To be fair, Democrats have a proud tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But suppose — purely hypothetically — that this sticks. Suppose Democrats win the midterms. And suppose a Democrat captures the White House in 2028.

Then what?

Trumpism isn’t a political movement so much as a recurring event. You don’t defeat it; you board up the windows and wait.

Even if Trump does not attempt a third term (a gambit the Constitution frowns upon), he will remain the dominant gravitational force in Republican politics for as long as he is sentient and within Wi-Fi range.

Which means any Democratic administration that follows would be well-advised to consider it is governing on borrowed time. In American politics, you are always one scandal, one recession or one deepfake video away from packing your belongings into a cardboard box.

Trump’s MAGA successor (whoever he or she might be) will inherit millions of ardent believers, now seasoned by experience, backed by tech billionaires and steeped in an authoritarian worldview.

So how exactly does the country “move on” when a sizable slice of its elite class appears to regard liberal democracy as more of an anachronism than a governing philosophy?

This is not an entirely new dilemma. After the Civil War, Americans had to decide whether to reconcile with the rebels or punish them or some mix of the two — and the path chosen by federal leaders shaped the next century through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the long struggle for civil rights.

At Nuremberg, the Allies opted for trials instead of firing squads. Later, South Africa’s post-apartheid government attempted to achieve reconciliation via truth.

Each moment wrestled with the same problem: How do you impose consequences without becoming the very thing you were fighting in the first place — possibly sparking a never-ending cycle of revenge?

Which brings us to even more specific questions, such as where does Trumpism fit into this historical context — and should there be any accountability after MAGA?

Start with Trump himself. Even if he is legally immune regarding official acts, what about allegations of corruption? Trump and his family have amassed billions since returning to office.

It is difficult to picture a future Democratic administration hauling him into court, especially if Trump grants himself broad pardons and preemptive clemency on his way out of office.

So if accountability comes, it would probably target figures in his orbit — lieutenants, enablers, assorted capos not covered by pardons. But is even this level of accountability wise?

On one hand, it is about incentives and deterrence. If bad actors get to keep the money and their freedom, despite committing crimes, they (and imitators) will absolutely return for an encore.

On the other hand, a Democratic president might reasonably decide that voters would prefer lower grocery bills to more drama.

Trump himself offers a cautionary tale. He devoted enormous energy to retribution, grievance and settling scores. It is at least conceivable that he might have been in stronger political shape had he devoted comparable attention to, say, affordability.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that the past Trump indictments strengthened him politically. Nothing energizes a base like the words “They’re coming for me,” especially when followed by the words “and you’ll be next,” next to a fundraising link. Do Democrats want to create new martyrs and make rank-and-file Americans feel like “deplorables” who are being persecuted for their political beliefs?

So perhaps the answer is surgical. Focus on ringleaders. Spare the small fry. Proceed in sober legal tones. Make it about the law, not the spectacle.

Even this compromise would invite a backlash. Democrats, it seems, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

The good news is that smart people are actively debating this topic — far better than trying to improvise a solution on Inauguration Day — just as similar questions were asked after Trump lost in 2020. A few weeks ago, for example, David Brooks and David Frum discussed this topic on Frum’s podcast.

Unfortunately, there is no tidy answer. Too much punishment risks looking like vengeance. Too little risks sparking another sequel.

It may sound melodramatic to say this might be the most important question of our time. But while this republic has endured a lot, it might not survive the extremes of amnesia or revenge.

Choosing the narrow path in between will require something rarer than a landslide victory: justice with restraint.

But do we have what it takes?

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

The Olympics are back, wearing their warm Winter Games gear. Although there were will be a couple of weeks of sports competitions to come, none are possible without an opening ceremony, a combination of solemn official protocol with a fantastic representation of the host country’s culture and character, evoking the Olympic spirit itself. There are few opportunities to mount an entertainment of this scale — not even a Super Bowl halftime show can compare.

This year we are in Italy, for the bi-metropolitan Milan-Cortina games, held in the city’s San Siro Stadium and in the north where the mountains are. The ceremonies, too, were split geographically, with Olympic cauldrons in both cities, with the athletes’ parade further shared with Livigno and Predazzo, national delegations divided according to where their events would be held.

1

2

1. Human bobbleheads of Italian composers Rossini, left, Puccini and Verdi. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times) 2. Dancers on stage in San Siro Stadium. (Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

The main business took place in the arena. Directed by Marco Balich, who specializes in big shows, it was elegant, in a sleek, clean-lined Italian way, and over the top, also in an Italian way. Color played a great part, the program beginning in white (a balletic interpretation of Antonio Canova’s sculpture “Psyche Revived by Cupid’s Kiss”), moving to to black and white (a nod to Fellini’s “La Dolce Vita” and its paparazzi), and then to a riot of color, as giant floating tubes of paint sent streams of colored fabric stageward.) There were dancing human bobbleheads of opera composers Verdi, Puccini and Rossini, as if they were mascots for Team Rigoletto, Team Tosca and Team William Tell. There were dancing gladiators and moka pots, a phalanx of runway models dressed (in Armani) in green, white and red, to represent the Italian flag.

In white and shiny silver, with an ostrich feather boa and a reported $15 million worth of diamond jewelry, there was a statuesque, statue-still Mariah Carey, who is not Italian, but sang in Italian, the standard “Nel blu, dipinto di blu,” known here as “Volare,” which merged into her own “Nothing Is Impossible.” (She must by now be accounted a citizen of the world.) Why did I find this so moving? I am not someone who ordinarily cares anything about Carey, but she was marvelous in this context.

Mariah Carey performed the Italian tune “Volare,” before leading into “Nothing Is Impossible.”

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

The parade of nations is also a fashion show; for whatever reason, the cold weather gear is generally better looking than the togs of summer. (As usual, Ralph Lauren designed the American outfits — white puffy jacket with knit caps of a Scandinavian pattern.) As ever, the countries arrived alphabetically (apart from Greece, who always gets to march first; Italy, coming in last as the host country; France, in penultimate position as the host of the next Winter Games; and the U.S., third to last as the host of the games, in 2034, after that). It makes neighbors of Lebanon, Lichtenstein and Lithuania, and so on, equal in standing if not in size. (I have a special fondness for the small delegations from the less imposing nations.) There was an especially big hand for the Ukrainian team, dressed in their national colors.

The second half opened with a cartoon in which an animated Sabrina Impacciatore (of “The White Lotus” and, “The Paper,” which NBC happily did not cross-promote), traveled backward through previous Winter Games before coming to life to lead an energetic production number that traveled back to now. (She should get some sort of athletic medal for this performance.) The Chinese pianist Lang Lang accompanied Cecilia Bartoli singing the Olympic anthem, and the great Andrea Bocelli, flanked by strings, offered a thrilling reading of Puccini’s “Nessun Dorma.” Surrounded by dancers, the Italian rapper Ghali read an antiwar poem by Gianni Rodari.

Sabrina Impacciatore leading a group of dancers during the ceremony.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

The theme of the evening, and of evenings going forward, it is hoped, was “Armonia,” or harmony, not just between the city and the country (expressed symbolically through dance), but, as a series of speeches made clear, among everybody, everywhere.

“At a time when so much of the world is divided by conflict, your very presence demonstrates that another world is possible. One of unity, respect and harmony,” said Giovanni Malagò, president of the organizing committee, addressing the athletes. Kirsty Coventry, the first female president of the IOC, noted that while Olympic athletes are fierce competitors, they “also respect, support and inspire one another. They remind us that we are all connected, that our strength comes from how we treat each other, and that the best of humanity is found in courage, compassion and kindness.”

And then there was Charlize Theron, of all people, quoting her countryman Nelson Mandela: “Peace is not just the absence of conflict; peace is the creation of an environment where all can flourish, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, gender, class, caste or any other social markers of difference,” This is, of course, exactly what some portion of this nation would call “woke,” and though such divisions are not the exclusive province of the United States, it was easy enough to read this as a message delivered to the White House.

Charlize Theron quoted her fellow countryman Nelson Mandela in her speech.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Finally, two Olympic torches were lit two Olympic cauldrons, in Milan and Cortina, their flames at the center of shape-shifting spheres. Almost inevitably, the ceremonies flirted with, or embraced, corniness at times, but even (or especially) when it was corny, it was terrifically affecting. I ran through half a dozen handkerchiefs over the course of the proceedings. Admittedly, I might be unusually susceptible to these things, but I doubt I’m the only one.

Let the games begin.

The president of the United States posted a racist video Thursday night depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. On Friday, the White House dismissed criticism — but the president deleted the post. Was this episode disappointing? Yes. Surprising? Not anymore.

Last spring, after Pope Francis had died, Donald Trump posted an AI image of himself as the pope just days before cardinals convened to elect a successor.

So, no — it is not surprising that the president would choose to post virulent anti-Black imagery during Black History Month.

But it is disappointing here in 2026 that an occupant of the Oval Office is still thinking like that.

Back in 1971, the president of the United States laughed when the governor of California referred to the African delegates at the United Nations as monkeys. Less than 10 years later, that governor became the president of the United States. And here we are, half a century later, and yet another president has amplified that racist trope.

Meaning white supremacy is still on the ballot.

That Nixon-Reagan-Trump throughline isn’t tightly wound around policy or principle, but simply that shared worldview. After all, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Reagan offered amnesty to immigrants — highly un-Trump-like moves. No, their commonality is best revealed in the delight each man took in an old racist attack against Black people.

For Americans who are 50 and older — roughly a third of the nation — this worldview has been the architect responsible for White House policy for most of our lives. And yet, when Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, the forensic investigation focused on grocery prices and her absence from Joe Rogan’s podcast. Some — in trying to explain why Harris lost — mischaracterized her role at the border or inflated her influence on the war in Gaza.

For some reason, race did not seem to receive the same level of scrutiny.

This factor was slighted despite decades of data, such as the wave of white nationalists endorsing Harris’ opponent and the birther movement questioning President Obama’s citizenship. The trio of presidents who are on the record as enjoying depictions of Black people as monkeys — Nixon, Reagan and Trump — all used racist dog whistles in their combined 10 presidential campaigns. Their administrations have tended to be more anti-civil-rights movement than post-civil-rights movement.

Our nation’s attempts at understanding ourselves are continuously undercut by the denial that for some single-issue voters, race is their single issue. Not the price of bacon or their religious convictions. Not Gaza. Just the promise of having a safe space for prejudice. And when the president of the United States entertains racist jokes as Nixon did in the 1970s or shares racist videos as Trump continues to do, undoubtedly there is a sense among the electorate that such prejudice has a home in the White House.

Before Trump used social media to push yesteryear’s ugliness, earlier in the week Harris relaunched her 2024 social media campaign account, calling it a place where Gen Z can “meet and revisit with some of our great courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders.” She exhorted: “Stay engaged. I’ll see you out there.”

Whether she plans to run again in 2028 is unclear. What we do know is she would not have posted an AI picture of herself as the new pope while Catholics were mourning Francis (or any other time). We know she would not have advocated for immigration officers to racially profile Black and brown Americans or disregard the 14th Amendment to detain children. We do not know how many of her policy proposals she would have been able to get across the finish line in Congress, but we do know her record of public service to the American people, in contrast with the current president who is suing the American people for $10 billion.

There is nothing wrong with revisiting Harris’ missteps on the campaign trail or debating her electability as she reemerges in the public spotlight. But now that Trump has resorted to posting monkey jokes about Black people, perhaps updated forensics will consider our well established history of racism among the factors in the 2024 election.

It is not a shock that a president of the United States thinks poorly of Black people. Not when you know that more than 25% of those who have held the office were themselves enslavers. But it is disappointing that 250 years into our nation’s story, some of us still deny the role that racism plays in shaping our politics and thus all of our lives.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Shaboozey has responded to the backlash over remarks he made at the 2026 Grammy Awards.

In a statement posted on the social media site X Monday, the country singer-songwriter said he wanted to “acknowledge the conversation” spurred by his heartfelt speech after his historic Grammy win for country duo/group performance.

After sharing that his mother, who he said worked “three to four jobs just to provide for [him] and [his] four siblings as an immigrant in this country,” had just retired from a 30-year career as a registered nurse, Shaboozey dedicated his awards to all immigrants Sunday.

While many praised his remarks for uplifting of immigrant communities at a time when they are increasingly being targeted by the federal government, others felt the musician had overlooked the history and experiences of Native Americans and Black Americans by not mentioning them. Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands in the development of this nation and enslaved people were brought to America involuntarily.

“To be clear, I know and believe that we — Black people, have also built this country,” Shaboozey wrote in his statement. “My words were never intended to dismiss that truth. I am both a Black man and the son of Nigerian immigrants and in the overwhelming moment of winning my first Grammy my focus was on honoring the sacrifices my parents made by coming to this country to give me and my siblings opportunities they never had.”

The “Amen” singer also acknowledged that winning his Grammy on “the first day of Black History Month and becoming the first Black man to win Best Country Duo is Black history.”

“It stands on the foundation laid by generations of Black people who fought, sacrificed, and succeeded long before me,” Shaboozey’s statement continued. “This moment belongs to all of us.”

On the Grammys stage Sunday, Shaboozey had concluded his speech by expressing his appreciation of and support to all immigrant communities.

“Immigrants built this country, literally,” he said. “So this is for them. For all children of immigrants. This is also for those who came to this country in search of better opportunity, to be part of a nation that promised freedom for all, and equal opportunity to everyone willing to work for it. Thank you for bringing your culture, your music, your stories and your traditions here. You give America color, I love y’all so much.”

He was just one of many Grammy-winning artists who directly or indirectly addressed the current political climate regarding federal immigration raids in Minnesota, where two protesters have been killed by federal officers, and in other states including California. Bad Bunny, Billie Eilish and Kehlani were among the others who spoke out.

Tulsi Gabbard’s political journey has been anything but straightforward.

As a teenager, she worked for her father, a prominent anti-gay activist, and his political organization, which opposed same-sex marriage. In 2002, she was elected to Hawaii’s House of Representatives, becoming — at age 21 — the youngest person to serve in the Legislature.

Gabbard was a Democrat and remained so for two decades, as she cycled from the statehouse to Honolulu’s City Council to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2020, she ran for president, renouncing her anti-LGBTQ views and apologizing for her earlier stance. She was a Bernie Sanders acolyte and a fierce critic of Donald Trump and, especially, his foreign policy. She denounced him at one point for “being Saudi Arabia’s bitch.”

Now, Gabbard is MAGA down to her stocking feet.

Despite no obvious qualifications — save for her fawning appearances on Fox News — Trump selected her to be the director of national intelligence, the nation’s spymaster-in-chief. Despite no earthly reason, Gabbard was present last week when the FBI conducted a heavy-handed raid at the Fulton County elections office in Georgia, pursuing a harebrained theory the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

Instead of, say, poring over the latest intelligence gleanings from Ukraine or Gaza, Gabbard stood watch as a team of flak-jacketed agents carted off hundreds of boxes of ballots and other election materials.

That’ll keep the homeland safe.

But as bizarre and unaccountable as it was, Gabbard’s presence outside Atlanta did make a certain amount of sense. She’s a longtime dabbler in crackpot conspiracies. And she’ll bend, like a swaying palm, whichever way the prevailing winds blow.

Some refer to her as the “Manchurian candidate,” said John Hart, a communication professor at Hawaii Pacific University, referring to the malleable cipher in the famous political thriller. In a different world, he suggested, Gabbard might have been Sanders’ running mate.

“It does take a certain amount of flexibility to think that someone who could have been the Democratic VP is now in Trump’s cabinet,” Hart observed.

The job of the nation’s director of national intelligence — a position created to address some of the failings that led to the 9/11 attacks — is to act as the president’s top intelligence adviser, synthesizing voluminous amounts of foreign, military and domestic information to help defend the country and protect its interests abroad.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with re-litigating U.S. elections, or tending to the bruised feelings of an onion-skinned president.

The job is supposed to be nonpartisan and apolitical, which should go without saying. Except it needs to be said in this time when all roads (and the actions of each cabinet member) lead to Trump, his ego, his whims and his insecurities.

There were ample signs Gabbard was a spectacularly bad pick for intelligence chief.

She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She claimed the U.S. was funding dangerous biological laboratories in the country — “parroting fake Russian propaganda,” in the words of then-Utah Sen. Mitt Romney.

She opposed U.S. aid to the rebels fighting Bashar Assad, met with Syria’s then-dictator and defended him against allegations he used chemical weapons against his own people.

She defended Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who were indicted for masterminding two of the biggest leaks of intelligence secrets in U.S. history.

Still, Gabbard was narrowly confirmed by the Senate, 52 to 48. The vote, almost entirely along party lines, was an inauspicious start and nothing since had dispelled lawmakers’ well-placed lack of confidence.

Trump brushed aside Gabbard’s congressional testimony on Iran’s nuclear capabilities — “I don’t care what she said” — and bombed the country’s nuclear facilities. The putative intelligence chief was apparently irrelevant in the administration’s ouster of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Her bizarre presence in Georgia — where Gabbard reportedly arranged for FBI agents to make a post-raid call to the president — looks like nothing more than a way to worm her way back into his good graces.

(Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that a U.S. intelligence official has filed a whistleblower complaint against Gabbard, which is caught up in wrangling over sharing details with Congress.)

California Sen. Adam Schiff said it’s “patently obvious to everyone Gabbard lacks the capability and credibility” to lead the country’s intelligence community.

“She has been sidelined by the White House, ignored by the agencies, and has zero credibility with Congress,” the Democrat wrote in an email. She’s responded by parroting Trump’s Big Lie “complete with cosplaying [a] secret agent in Fulton County and violating all norms and rules by connecting the President of the United States with line law enforcement officers executing a warrant. The only contribution that Tulsi Gabbard can make now would be to resign.”

Back in Hawaii, the former congresswoman has been in bad odor for years.

“It started with the criticism of President Obama” — a revered Hawaii native — over foreign policy “and a sense in Hawaii that she was more interested in appearing on the national media than working for the state,” said Colin Moore, a University of Hawaii political science professor and another longtime Gabbard watcher.

“Hawaii politicians have, with a few exceptions, tended to be kind of low-drama dealmakers, not the sort who attract national attention,” Moore said. “The goal is to rise in seniority and bring benefits back to the state. And that was never the model Tulsi followed.”

In recent years, as she sidled into Trump’s orbit, Hawaiian sightings of Gabbard have been few and far between, according to Honolulu Civil Beat, a statewide nonprofit news organization. Not that she’s been terribly missed in the deeply Democratic state.

“I’ve heard some less-charitable people say, ‘Don’t let the door hit your [rear end] on the way out,” said Hart.

But it’s not as though Gabbard’s ascension to director of intelligence was Hawaii’s loss and America’s gain. It’s been America’s loss, too.

A year ago, Colorado firefighters Rick Balentine and Tim Cottrell were driving trucks carrying donations from Aspen to Los Angeles for victims of the Eaton and Palisades fires.

As they headed west, they planned to stop in Las Vegas and, while there, made a spontaneous decision to see the Eagles’ residency at the Sphere. Balentine and Cottrell bought resale tickets on StubHub for around $400 each. Cottrell used his credit card and received a confirmation email. But once they arrived to the venue, they weren’t allowed in. The seller failed to send the tickets.

All Cottrell could find was an email that said his tickets had been canceled, moments before the concert was to start. Other than getting their money back, there was no further explanation.

“We knew they were aftermarket tickets,” Balentine said, “but never in a million years did I think that tickets could get canceled.”

“I was very disappointed. There needs to be more protection out there, both for consumers and for artists, so people aren’t getting ripped off all the time.”

The rising demand for tickets has spurred a growing marketplace for all kinds of high-profile live events, including music tours and sports series like the upcoming World Cup. Whenever fans are unable to secure tickets on the primary market, through sellers like Ticketmaster or AXS, many will turn to the secondary market for resale tickets. Those tickets are typically sold through platforms like StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. Customers who bought their passes directly from Ticketmaster can also resell them on that platform.

The majority of secondary-market transactions can be easy, leaving both the reseller and the customer satisfied. But with the rise of speculative or fake tickets, like the ones Balentine and Cottrell bought, securing valid tickets from the resale market has become more challenging.

What are speculative tickets?

Speculative tickets are offered by resellers who list concert passes they don’t yet have in their possession, with the intention that they will ultimately acquire the tickets and deliver them to the buyer. According to 2025 data from Live Nation, one in three Americans has fallen victim to a ticketing scam. But under California’s bill, AB 1349, selling speculative tickets could be banned on all resale platforms in the state. On Monday, the bill passed in an assembly vote and is headed to the state Senate for review.

Thousands of fans enjoy Shakira’s performance at SoFi Stadium in August.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Speculative tickets usually pop up as soon as a major artist announces a tour. Most recently, K-pop boy band BTS announced a world tour that includes four stops at SoFi Stadium. Before the general sale began Jan. 24, some sellers on Vivid Seats had already started listing tickets for over $6,000. Listings like these usually create a greater sense of scarcity, which can drive up ticket prices even more.

If enacted, the proposed legislation in California would require sellers to have event tickets in their possession before offering them for sale. The listing must include the location of the seat and specific refund rights. It prohibits a person from using software that automatically purchases more tickets than the specified limit, and it would raise the maximum civil penalty for each violation from $2,500 to $10,000.

The live music industry is a vital part of the state’s economy, contributing over $51 billion to California’s GDP and supporting over 460,000 jobs, according to the database 50 States of Music.

Ticketing fraud tends to affect more than just the consumer. Whenever an unknowing fan shows up to a venue with a fake ticket, it often falls on the venue and its staff to deal with the situation. Stephen Parker, the executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, said that if speculative tickets are banned in California, venues could save up to $50,000 in staffing expenses.

Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium, where many concerts and ticketed live events are held.

(Icon Sportswire/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

“They have to deal with fans who are crying, who are angry, who are upset because they thought they were going to go see their favorite artists that night, and they paid [over the] ticket’s face value only to not get a ticket that works or to not get a ticket at all,” said Parker.

Fighting ticket fraud and reining in a ticketing giant

There are currently dozens of legislative bills throughout the U.S. focused on event ticketing issues. Some states like Maryland, Minnesota and Maine have already passed restrictions on speculative tickets.

The action comes after both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, in 2024 and 2025. The DOJ’s lawsuit suggests breaking up the company, which it accuses of engaging in monopolistic practices. The complaint also alleges the company forces venues into exclusive ticketing contracts and influences artists to use only its services.

Founded in 1976, Ticketmaster has been the industry’s largest ticket distributor since 1995, with around 80% of live concerts sold through the site. The company merged with Live Nation in 2010.

Ticketmaster has also acquired a growing share of the resale market, under the platform Ticketmaster Resale. The site allows consumers to list, sell or find tickets to live events. The business functions similarly to other resale sites, but Ticketmaster does not allow speculative ticket sales on its platform.

The Federal Trade Commission is currently suing the company on accusations that it engaged in illegal ticket vendor practices for its resale business, like misleading artists and consumers with so-called “bait-and-switch pricing,” where advertised prices are lower than the actual total. Following the FTC’s complaint, the ticket seller made changes to its policies.

Additionally, Ticketmaster is no longer allowing users to have multiple accounts, which made it easier to purchase more tickets than the specified limit, and it is shutting down Trade Desk, the controversial software that helps resellers track and price tickets across several marketplaces.

Hundreds enjoy a performance by Banda Los Lagos during Jalisco Fest at the 2025 Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

“The FTC case against us is very frustrating because we think they’re sort of blaming the victim here. We’re the ones that are dealing with millions and millions of bots attacking us every day,” said Dan Wall, Live Nation’s vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs. “We’re trying to convince the federal government and state governments to get on the same page of recognizing where the problem is, which is overwhelmingly in the resale industry, and trying to do something about it.”

“We’re a much more artist and consumer-focused company, and so we don’t engage in the different kinds of business practices that are sketchy and unfair to the fans. We try to be a much more honest, legitimate outlet for getting resale tickets,” said Wall.

Critics find that the surge of anti-speculative ticketing bills around the country is a way for Ticketmaster to divert attention from its own legal troubles and shift attention onto the resale market. Live Nation is a key supporter of the California bill. Diana Moss, the director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, called AB 1349 “overkill” when it comes to the provisions and restrictions it places on the secondary market.

Fans cheer Sexyy Red at the Rolling Loud concert at Hollywood Park in March.

(Michael Owen Baker/For The Times)

“A lot of these bills in the states are a vehicle to disable the resale markets and hinder how they operate. Resale markets are important to consumers,” said Moss. “If you disable the resale market, then fans have no place to go — but back to Ticketmaster. That’s the whole game, disable the resale markets with legislation and regulation, and then everybody has to go back and deal with Ticketmaster and pay their monopoly ticket fees.”

Provisions in AB 1349 deem a ticket a license. The question of whether a ticket is a right or a license is an ongoing controversy in the ticketing world. Opponents of the bill are fearful that this change would give more power to Live Nation, as they could impose restrictions on how the ticket can be used, such as whether you’re allowed to sell your ticket on other platforms or if you can transfer it at all. Meghan Callahan, from the Empower Fans Coalition, a group that opposes the bill, equates this licensing change to taking a lease out on the ticket.

“Ticketmaster’s goal is to create less competition. This bill imposes restrictions on everybody else but themselves,” said Callahan. “They are trying to use consumer-friendly concepts and sneak in these other provisions to embolden their monopoly.”

Wall at Ticketmaster said that nothing on the consumers’ end would change if this bill were to pass, adding that tickets are already licenses “from the venue for you to come on the property during the time of the show and sit in that seat.”

“Honesty doesn’t favor one person or another. That’s what this [bill] is about,” said Wall.