In a striking demonstration of support, hundreds of fired up Californians rallied in Santa Monica to speak out against the Trump administration’s attempt to wrest local control over the state’s beloved coastline.
The Golden State’s top environmental leaders, along with prominent elected officials, environmentalists, business coalitions, community activists, Indigenous groups and everyday citizens, packed a public hearing Monday before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Coastal Management, which has been tasked with conducting an unprecedented investigation that could ultimately strip California of its power to say no to federal projects.
Experts see the investigation — framed as a performance review of the state’s coastal management practices — as a thinly veiled attempt by Trump officials to open California’s coast to more offshore oil drilling, more rocket launches and possibly even floating nuclear reactors. If the federal government succeeds, many worry it could set the stage for similar actions in other coastal states.
“I’m scared, not because we haven’t built something worth protecting — we have. I’m scared because this meeting is performance theater. In some ways, the decision seems already made,” said Maureen Ellenberger, a resident of Santa Barbara who said she is haunted by the possibility of another oil spill. “But I’m speaking today anyway, so there’s a record. So years from now… everyone will know we fought, that we did not consent.”
Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, speaks during a NOAA hearing as Larry Goldzband, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, awaits his turn to make comments.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Citing California’s “environmental extremism,” Trump officials are attempting to decertify the state’s authority under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA. The act grants coastal states the right to review and object to any project in federal waters that clashes with state policy.
For the last five decades, the CZMA has been celebrated as a bipartisan co-management framework between coastal states and the federal government — and in California, the process had been relatively smooth through every presidential administration until Trump’s.
Tensions escalated in May when U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared that “California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” and announced that he was ordering a fresh evaluation of the state’s CZMA compliance using a “new approach.” He specifically instructed NOAA, which is under his purview, to take offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, spaceport infrastructure, desalination projects and undersea cables into consideration, citing national priorities and economic interests.
Performance reviews under the CZMA are not uncommon (most states are subject to a routine review every five to 10 years) but what’s unusual in this case is the callout to specific industries, as well as the politically charged nature of how the review was announced (state officials learned they were under review through a social media post from the U.S. Department of Commerce.)
What was also unusual was the fact California had also just undergone a routine review during the Biden administration.
A draft of that review, which was completed in 2024, but not finalized because of the change in administration, gave top marks to the three California agencies charged with implementing the CZMA — the California Coastal Commission, the California State Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The review found no issues.
Joelle Gore, left, chief of the stewardship division at the NOAA Office for Coastal Management and Keelin Kuipers, right, acting director at NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management, listen to more than four hours of public comments.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
The new Lutnick-ordered review began in earnest on Monday with the only hearing that people can attend in-person during the 45-day-public comment period. (Two virtual hearings will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, and NOAA is required to review all written comments that are submitted from members of the public through Aug. 22.)
More than 15,000 people have written comments so far, and for more than four hours Monday, surfers, fishers, marine scientists, community activists, business owners, real estate brokers and Californians from a wide swath of interest groups — many traveling from Marin, San Jose, Mendocino and other parts of the state — lined up to speak before NOAA’s acting director for coastal management.
Nobody in attendance spoke in favor of the federal review. As people in the crowd held up signs declaring “NO FEDERAL TAKEOVER” and “NO SELLOUTS FOR BIG OIL,” speakers expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to take note of the state’s thriving marine economy.
The crowd erupted in whoops and applause after each person spoke their three minutes of public comments. A number of speakers, some moved to tears, expressed afterward that they had never been more proud to be a Californian.
“It was just example after example after example of how the state’s coastal management program is working — it was really putting into the record those facts and also just so many personal stories,” said Jennifer Savage, a longtime policy advocate for Surfrider Foundation who drove more than 670 miles from Humboldt to testify at the hearing. “It showed more than anything that being able to go to the beach is such a unifying shared joy in California.”
The State’s top environmental leaders also took turns speaking about how the CZMA has long facilitated open dialogue and collaboration between the state and federal government.
“We sincerely hope that this review is not merely a pretense for removing California’s ability to hold public hearings on offshore oil and gas projects,” said Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the Coastal Commission. “California has received very little information about why this new federal review is being undertaken. Still, we welcome a fair and transparent evaluation. Our record speaks for itself.”
Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary for Natural Resources, provides public comment during a NOAA hearing.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Out of the more than 3,700 federal actions that have come before the Coastal Commission for review since the 1970s, the commission has aligned with the federal actions 96% of the time, Huckelbridge said.
Current and former coastal officials also spoke about their experiences with past reviews and questioned the unusual timing of this evaluation and how it doesn’t follow standard procedure.
“I have personally participated in several periodic reviews, and what has happened in this review is unprecedented and, quite frankly, bizarre. There is absolutely no basis for reopening the periodic review conducted in 2024,” said Jack Ainsworth, who had worked at the coastal commission for 34 years and led it for seven of those years. “I would also note that California is recognized as the gold standard for integrated coastal management in the United States and around the world.”
At a NOAA hearing Monday, the crowd applauded after each speaker expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to keep things the way they are.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
What happens after this week’s hearings will be uncharted territory, but experts say that if the review does end up taking issue with California’s coastal management program, the state should be given the opportunity to respond to any proposed changes. The process laid out in the law appears to include multiple steps and opportunities for discussion, they said.
At a rally outside the meeting room Monday, more than a hundred environmentalists gathered alongside congressmembers, county supervisors, Indigenous leaders, environmental justice groups and business coalitions to further amplify the many voices that represent California.
Toni Cordero, a board member of Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Surfrider Foundation, and Environmental Defense Center, speaks at a rally before a NOAA hearing Monday.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
“The Creator put us here to coexist and to collaborate in caring for our mother ocean and for all her relatives, all of her inhabitants and all those who call this coast home,” said Toni Cordero, a former tribal chair of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation who also served as a deputy state attorney general for more than 25 years. “We must remember them. It is their homelands, their well-being and their futures that are also at stake under the guise of ensuring compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.”
The crowd waved signs and cheered again as Wade Crowfoot, California’s Secretary for Natural Resources, stepped up to speak.
“It has been clear from Governor Newsom to Attorney General Bonta to our legislators to our congressional delegation: California’s coast is not for sale, and a hostile takeover of our coast by the federal government… won’t be tolerated,” Crowfoot declared.
“So rest assured,” he said. “We stand in strong solidarity with everyone here today — whether you’re a tribal government, a local government, a conservation organization or just somebody that likes to get out and be on a beach that’s safe and healthy, we are making our voices heard.”
May 29 (UPI) — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi is set to testify before the House Oversight Committee Friday over her handling of the release of the Epstein files.
The hearing will be behind closed doors and will not be filmed, and Bondi will not be under oath. But it will be transcribed, and that transcription will be released to the public.
The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March after months of releases. Her critics say she released files haphazardly and her team was sloppy in its redactions. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required the Department of Justice to redact only the name and identifiers of victims, but many of the files redacted the names of alleged perpetrators.
Convicted sex offender and billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges.
“We haven’t seen the full release of the files, so that’s already a violation of the law,” Dani Bensky, referencing the Epstein Files Transparency Act, told NPR. Bensky, who alleged that Epstein sexually abused her when she was a young ballet dancer, said Bondi’s release of the files without proper redactions, “sends such a chilling effect to the rest of the survivor community.”
“It should be transcribed, it should be filmed, and it should be publicly released as quickly as possible,” Bensky said. She added that transcription only isn’t good enough because, “context is lost.”
The survivors have repeated “same talking points over and over” to the DOJ, Bensky said. “And it’s just not getting any better.”
Some politicians are continuing to push for more transparency.
“We’re demanding that it be both videotaped under oath and released to the public,” Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the committee, told NPR.
The committee has questioned several important people about Epstein, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Clintons’ testimonies were recorded on video and the videos were released to the public.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., called it “highly disappointing” that Bondi would not appear for an official deposition.
“She deserves the same treatment as the Clintons and as everybody else,” Mace said. “I’ll be there, though, with bells on,” Mace said. “And I’ll be asking her the tough questions.”
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for human rights, will be alongside Bondi as her lawyer at the hearing, which has raised some eyebrows.
But legal scholars say it’s not unusual.
Barbara McQuade, former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told NPR that when a government official testifies on issues of that office, “an attorney for the government often appears on behalf of the United States to assert privileges.”
Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., another member of the Oversight Committee, told Politico that “the lack of videotape … contributes to the feeling that Americans have that there’s been a cover-up here.”
“I think she recognizes that she doesn’t have good answers to the questions that we’re going to ask, and a videotape makes it more real and brings more attention to it,” Walkinshaw said.
Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., told Politico he wanted to ask Bondi what specific directives she received from Trump or others on the handling of the Epstein case.
“I spoke with some of the survivors in Florida,” Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., told Politico. “They were curious why [Bondi has] been hiding so much and what she has to hide herself. Why wouldn’t she be more forthcoming about the files? … Who got to her? What do they have on her? Those are the kinds of questions that the survivors are curious about.”
“So am I, and so are the American people,” he added.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump participate in a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Wednesday. Photo by Samuel Corum/UPI | License Photo
California battles Trump plan to limit coastal oversight
In a striking demonstration of support, hundreds of fired up Californians rallied in Santa Monica to speak out against the Trump administration’s attempt to wrest local control over the state’s beloved coastline.
The Golden State’s top environmental leaders, along with prominent elected officials, environmentalists, business coalitions, community activists, Indigenous groups and everyday citizens, packed a public hearing Monday before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Coastal Management, which has been tasked with conducting an unprecedented investigation that could ultimately strip California of its power to say no to federal projects.
Experts see the investigation — framed as a performance review of the state’s coastal management practices — as a thinly veiled attempt by Trump officials to open California’s coast to more offshore oil drilling, more rocket launches and possibly even floating nuclear reactors. If the federal government succeeds, many worry it could set the stage for similar actions in other coastal states.
“I’m scared, not because we haven’t built something worth protecting — we have. I’m scared because this meeting is performance theater. In some ways, the decision seems already made,” said Maureen Ellenberger, a resident of Santa Barbara who said she is haunted by the possibility of another oil spill. “But I’m speaking today anyway, so there’s a record. So years from now… everyone will know we fought, that we did not consent.”
Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, speaks during a NOAA hearing as Larry Goldzband, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, awaits his turn to make comments.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Citing California’s “environmental extremism,” Trump officials are attempting to decertify the state’s authority under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA. The act grants coastal states the right to review and object to any project in federal waters that clashes with state policy.
For the last five decades, the CZMA has been celebrated as a bipartisan co-management framework between coastal states and the federal government — and in California, the process had been relatively smooth through every presidential administration until Trump’s.
Tensions escalated in May when U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared that “California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” and announced that he was ordering a fresh evaluation of the state’s CZMA compliance using a “new approach.” He specifically instructed NOAA, which is under his purview, to take offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, spaceport infrastructure, desalination projects and undersea cables into consideration, citing national priorities and economic interests.
Performance reviews under the CZMA are not uncommon (most states are subject to a routine review every five to 10 years) but what’s unusual in this case is the callout to specific industries, as well as the politically charged nature of how the review was announced (state officials learned they were under review through a social media post from the U.S. Department of Commerce.)
What was also unusual was the fact California had also just undergone a routine review during the Biden administration.
A draft of that review, which was completed in 2024, but not finalized because of the change in administration, gave top marks to the three California agencies charged with implementing the CZMA — the California Coastal Commission, the California State Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The review found no issues.
Joelle Gore, left, chief of the stewardship division at the NOAA Office for Coastal Management and Keelin Kuipers, right, acting director at NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management, listen to more than four hours of public comments.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
The new Lutnick-ordered review began in earnest on Monday with the only hearing that people can attend in-person during the 45-day-public comment period. (Two virtual hearings will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, and NOAA is required to review all written comments that are submitted from members of the public through Aug. 22.)
More than 15,000 people have written comments so far, and for more than four hours Monday, surfers, fishers, marine scientists, community activists, business owners, real estate brokers and Californians from a wide swath of interest groups — many traveling from Marin, San Jose, Mendocino and other parts of the state — lined up to speak before NOAA’s acting director for coastal management.
Nobody in attendance spoke in favor of the federal review. As people in the crowd held up signs declaring “NO FEDERAL TAKEOVER” and “NO SELLOUTS FOR BIG OIL,” speakers expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to take note of the state’s thriving marine economy.
The crowd erupted in whoops and applause after each person spoke their three minutes of public comments. A number of speakers, some moved to tears, expressed afterward that they had never been more proud to be a Californian.
“It was just example after example after example of how the state’s coastal management program is working — it was really putting into the record those facts and also just so many personal stories,” said Jennifer Savage, a longtime policy advocate for Surfrider Foundation who drove more than 670 miles from Humboldt to testify at the hearing. “It showed more than anything that being able to go to the beach is such a unifying shared joy in California.”
The State’s top environmental leaders also took turns speaking about how the CZMA has long facilitated open dialogue and collaboration between the state and federal government.
“We sincerely hope that this review is not merely a pretense for removing California’s ability to hold public hearings on offshore oil and gas projects,” said Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the Coastal Commission. “California has received very little information about why this new federal review is being undertaken. Still, we welcome a fair and transparent evaluation. Our record speaks for itself.”
Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary for Natural Resources, provides public comment during a NOAA hearing.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
Out of the more than 3,700 federal actions that have come before the Coastal Commission for review since the 1970s, the commission has aligned with the federal actions 96% of the time, Huckelbridge said.
Current and former coastal officials also spoke about their experiences with past reviews and questioned the unusual timing of this evaluation and how it doesn’t follow standard procedure.
“I have personally participated in several periodic reviews, and what has happened in this review is unprecedented and, quite frankly, bizarre. There is absolutely no basis for reopening the periodic review conducted in 2024,” said Jack Ainsworth, who had worked at the coastal commission for 34 years and led it for seven of those years. “I would also note that California is recognized as the gold standard for integrated coastal management in the United States and around the world.”
At a NOAA hearing Monday, the crowd applauded after each speaker expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to keep things the way they are.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
What happens after this week’s hearings will be uncharted territory, but experts say that if the review does end up taking issue with California’s coastal management program, the state should be given the opportunity to respond to any proposed changes. The process laid out in the law appears to include multiple steps and opportunities for discussion, they said.
At a rally outside the meeting room Monday, more than a hundred environmentalists gathered alongside congressmembers, county supervisors, Indigenous leaders, environmental justice groups and business coalitions to further amplify the many voices that represent California.
Toni Cordero, a board member of Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Surfrider Foundation, and Environmental Defense Center, speaks at a rally before a NOAA hearing Monday.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
“The Creator put us here to coexist and to collaborate in caring for our mother ocean and for all her relatives, all of her inhabitants and all those who call this coast home,” said Toni Cordero, a former tribal chair of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation who also served as a deputy state attorney general for more than 25 years. “We must remember them. It is their homelands, their well-being and their futures that are also at stake under the guise of ensuring compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.”
The crowd waved signs and cheered again as Wade Crowfoot, California’s Secretary for Natural Resources, stepped up to speak.
“It has been clear from Governor Newsom to Attorney General Bonta to our legislators to our congressional delegation: California’s coast is not for sale, and a hostile takeover of our coast by the federal government… won’t be tolerated,” Crowfoot declared.
“So rest assured,” he said. “We stand in strong solidarity with everyone here today — whether you’re a tribal government, a local government, a conservation organization or just somebody that likes to get out and be on a beach that’s safe and healthy, we are making our voices heard.”
Source link
Former AG Pam Bondi to testify before oversight committee on Epstein files
May 29 (UPI) — Former Attorney General Pam Bondi is set to testify before the House Oversight Committee Friday over her handling of the release of the Epstein files.
The hearing will be behind closed doors and will not be filmed, and Bondi will not be under oath. But it will be transcribed, and that transcription will be released to the public.
The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March after months of releases. Her critics say she released files haphazardly and her team was sloppy in its redactions. The Epstein Files Transparency Act required the Department of Justice to redact only the name and identifiers of victims, but many of the files redacted the names of alleged perpetrators.
Convicted sex offender and billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges.
“We haven’t seen the full release of the files, so that’s already a violation of the law,” Dani Bensky, referencing the Epstein Files Transparency Act, told NPR. Bensky, who alleged that Epstein sexually abused her when she was a young ballet dancer, said Bondi’s release of the files without proper redactions, “sends such a chilling effect to the rest of the survivor community.”
“It should be transcribed, it should be filmed, and it should be publicly released as quickly as possible,” Bensky said. She added that transcription only isn’t good enough because, “context is lost.”
The survivors have repeated “same talking points over and over” to the DOJ, Bensky said. “And it’s just not getting any better.”
Some politicians are continuing to push for more transparency.
“We’re demanding that it be both videotaped under oath and released to the public,” Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the committee, told NPR.
The committee has questioned several important people about Epstein, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Clintons’ testimonies were recorded on video and the videos were released to the public.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., called it “highly disappointing” that Bondi would not appear for an official deposition.
“She deserves the same treatment as the Clintons and as everybody else,” Mace said. “I’ll be there, though, with bells on,” Mace said. “And I’ll be asking her the tough questions.”
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for human rights, will be alongside Bondi as her lawyer at the hearing, which has raised some eyebrows.
But legal scholars say it’s not unusual.
Barbara McQuade, former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of Michigan Law School, told NPR that when a government official testifies on issues of that office, “an attorney for the government often appears on behalf of the United States to assert privileges.”
Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., another member of the Oversight Committee, told Politico that “the lack of videotape … contributes to the feeling that Americans have that there’s been a cover-up here.”
“I think she recognizes that she doesn’t have good answers to the questions that we’re going to ask, and a videotape makes it more real and brings more attention to it,” Walkinshaw said.
Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., told Politico he wanted to ask Bondi what specific directives she received from Trump or others on the handling of the Epstein case.
“I spoke with some of the survivors in Florida,” Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., told Politico. “They were curious why [Bondi has] been hiding so much and what she has to hide herself. Why wouldn’t she be more forthcoming about the files? … Who got to her? What do they have on her? Those are the kinds of questions that the survivors are curious about.”
“So am I, and so are the American people,” he added.
Source link