people

The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory proposals that would substantially change health plan offerings on the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year, aiming, it says, to provide more choice and lower premiums.

But it also proposes sharply raising some annual out-of-pocket costs — to more than $27,600 for one type of coverage — and could cause up to 2 million people to drop insurance.

The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since the Republican-led Congress allowed enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Healthcare coverage and affordability have become politically potent issues in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a 577-page rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said in a news release Monday.

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — catastrophic plans — that last year attracted about only 20,000 policyholders, according to the proposal, although other estimates put it closer to 54,000.

“This proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them this year. It is not known how many people did so.

The payment rule cements this move by making anyone eligible if their income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for 2026) or if they’re earning more than 2½ times that amount but lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is now available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number likely will be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicate a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set healthcare provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example.

The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds if not thousands of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

If you’re reading this review of Gore Verbinski’s maniacal farce “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” in newsprint, congratulations on being a Luddite.

But if you’re reading it on a smartphone, then you’re one of the suckers that Sam Rockwell is hoping to reach when his unnamed time traveler barges into a late-night Los Angeles diner screaming, “I am from the future and all of this goes horribly wrong!” The patrons pause scrolling to glance at this unhinged, unwashed man wearing a crown of computer wires wrapped around his head like an IT messiah. Then they get a good look at his shoes when he stomps on their tables, kicking cheeseburgers as he tries to make these regular folks engage with the tech-pocalypse he swears is coming.

It’s a sermon we’ve heard plenty of times before and possibly even delivered ourselves. Coming from the ever-charismatic Rockwell, a lecture to stop wasting our lives online sounds no more insurmountable, only more immediate.

Half of the world will die, he foretells. The other half will be too distracted to notice. That is, unless a handful of strangers join him right now, right this moment, to fight for humanity’s cerebral freedom. Unsurprisingly, volunteers don’t raise their hands. (The one eager guy who does has failed him too often in other scenarios.) But Rockwell’s time traveler — he really is one — is used to a firewall of resistance. He’s given this speech at this diner 117 times. Some combination of the 47 people in it is fated to succeed.

That opening scene sounds as if an AI merged “The Terminator” with “Groundhog Day.” True, Matthew Robinson’s funny, savage and surprising script doesn’t downplay its inspirations. (He even lets Rockwell rip off Indiana Jones’ line about snakes.) But the screenplay gets so intricate and angry — and so shamelessly ambitious — you can’t believe someone in today’s Hollywood was willing to put up the money to get it made. Even helmed by proven hitmaker Verbinski of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, it’s a feat akin to convincing someone to fund a skyscraper-sized cuckoo clock that has a bird that pops out and heckles the crowd.

Eventually, a dubious crew enlists: public school teachers Mark and Janet (Michael Peña and Zazie Beetz), grouchy ride-share driver Scott (Asim Chaudhry), assistant Boy Scout leader Bob (Daniel Barnett), jittery mom Susan (Juno Temple) and forlorn Maria (Georgia Goodman), who keeps sighing that all she wanted was a slice of pie. Rockwell also impulsively yokes in Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), a grungy girl in a princess dress, who seems to be on her own suicide mission. The actors are mostly just pegs in a complicated plot, but they snap into place well.

The man from the future doesn’t have a plan — and worse, he considers himself the only person who isn’t expendable. The others can die (and do). As the group shuffles toward catastrophe, Verbinski intercuts their mission with flashbacks to their civilian lives. Their ordinary days, the digital indignities they’ve borne, that’s where Verbinski really gets mean.

The film’s feints and twists are fabulous as they explore how the internet’s promise has soured. One plotline involves a corporate brainstorm to make people love and nurture their own talking adbot, essentially a human-sized Tamagotchi. In another, school shootings have become such an epidemic that when Temple’s Susan gets summoned to identify her ninth-grader’s corpse, the other grieving mothers at the station calmly chitchat about traffic until one glances over at her nonchalantly and says, “First time?”

At first, the not-so-original idea that phones have turned children into zombies is a Romero-style parody of brain rot. (The young actor Cassiel Eatock-Winnik has a great scene as a vicious teen who stares down one of her elders and says, “You’re 35? That’s, like, older than most trees.”) But Verbinski reveals an unexpected angle of attack: Here, society has groomed the next generation to behave like machines. We don’t know why, exactly, but we can imagine a few reasons.

Even coping mechanisms take fire. Susan meets more parents who’ve snapped under the strain and become nihilistic trolls raising their daughter to be toxic so it won’t matter as much if she dies. Another character is quick to insist that everything he’s looking at — the walls, the people — is a facade. A 20-something gig worker named Tim (Tom Taylor) wants to permanently live in a VR simulation. His story is a little rushed but we get the idea that Tim’s not a jerk, just an idealist who can’t handle the tawdriness of the 21st century. As he puts it, “Why would I choose this world over that one?”

Verbinski doesn’t say much outright about the creeping concern that we’re living in a highly surveilled, aggressive and unpredictable police state. He’s able to make that point without words when cops arrive and our heroes-slash-hostages, none of whom have yet done anything worse than skip out on their bill, all assume the itchy trigger finger of the law will shoot them on sight. (And they’re right.) He also makes an ominous refrain of “Thank you for your service.”

It’s easier to howl at a classic like “Dr. Strangelove,” which mocked the leaders giddyuping the planet’s destruction, than at a present-day satire where we ourselves are the joke. As with “Idiocracy” (and eventually “Eddington”), our ability to fully appreciate this merciless, furious comedy might take a decade of remove. Even then, though, I won’t like James Whitaker’s cinematography, which goes for a deliberate ugliness but just looks dishwater drab.

“Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” anticipates the audience’s resistance. We do think for ourselves and so we scour the movie for flaws that will justify the urge to roll our eyes. For example: Why does Rockwell let some characters die and not others? Is the movie just as shallow as its j’accuse of us? Some quibbles get answered. Larger questions are left coyly unresolved so that we leave the theater uneasy.

There are so many overwhelming ideas in “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don’t Die” that, at over two hours, it does have the sense of a dissociative doomscroll. There’s even a plot point involving an algorithmic overlord that creates randomly generated armies: “Ghostbusters” with AI slop. The normie survivors try to convince themselves it might send something good, like they’re thumbing TikTok hoping for a treasure worth the time. Rockwell assures them it won’t. Nothing good will ever come. And what does arrive is so hellacious that it makes the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man look sweet.

The film is too cynical to take itself that seriously; Verbinski would roll his eyes at any thoughts and prayers it could do much good. Yet, anyone born with “19” at the start of their birthyear still remembers how it felt to leave the house without a black rectangle in their hands. That makes us all time travelers of a sort, too, beacons of an increasingly distant era in which it was possible to be unplugged.

But it’s OK if you’re on your screen right now. Just sit before a bigger one to see this film.

CHICAGO — Before she had toppled the moneyed and the mighty, back when perhaps a dozen people thought she had a chance to be a U.S. senator, Carol Moseley Braun went to Washington to drum up support for her ragtag campaign.

Waiting in the drafty outer hallways of power, she was treated like a poor relation. And the results were pathetic.

The official gatekeepers of money and political advice simply dismissed Braun and her candidacy for the Democratic Senate nomination from Illinois, recalls Tony Podesta, a college friend who is now is a Washington political consultant. He walked her through receptions, and she got nothing more than a few polite hellos. And although established women’s groups said, “Right on, keep going,” they kept their pocketbooks closed.

“Talk about your underdogs,” Podesta says, laughing. “I couldn’t even find a professional fund-raiser who she could pay to work for her.”

But with no organization, little money and a quintessentially Chicago political title as the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, Braun knocked out a three-term senator, Alan J. Dixon, in the March 17 Democratic primary.

This week, Braun went back to Washington for money and backing. And this time, it was the difference between the Prince and the Pauper.

With the head of the Illinois State Democratic Party in tow, she met with party powerbrokers, including Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell of Maine and Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. All are members of the white man’s club she ran against, but the reception was ecstatic.

Such is the nature of power in Washington. Braun had just eliminated one of their entrenched cohorts, “Al the Pal” Dixon, 64, who has been winning elections for 42 years. But now she stands a fair chance of making history as a double outsider: If she wins against Republican nominee Richard Williamson in November, she’ll be the first black woman in the Senate and only the fourth black to serve in that august chamber.

Although she dismisses political post-mortems that credit anything but her determination, there is evidence she was also buoyed by luck, timing and a third candidate, Al Hofeld, a 55-year-old personal-injury attorney who spent $4.5 million of his own personally injuring Dixon in negative TV advertisements.

“I think it’s fair to say that if this were hockey, Hofeld would get an assist,” quips Hofeld’s media consultant, David Axelrod.

Braun may have had one other unlikely man on her team: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In fact, without him she might never have entered the race.

Last autumn she was so disgusted by the tone and substance of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Thomas’ nomination to the high court–before and after the allegations of sexual harassment by Prof. Anita Hill–that she decided it was time to break into the men’s club on Capitol Hill.

“I was completely focused on how badly the process had failed,” she says. “If the Senate had done its job right from the start, we all would have been spared the mess. And who were these guys anyway? Where were the women, the minorities and the regular working people?”

She said as much, twice, on a public television talk show and was overwhelmed with letters, phone calls and friends urging her to take on Dixon, who had voted for Thomas. After several meetings, Chicago women activists identified three potential female candidates to challenge Dixon; it was decided that Braun, a University of Chicago Law School graduate who had served 10 years in the state Legislature, had the best qualifications and the best shot.

But she was not a shrinking violet thrust forward into the limelight. Now 44, she has been in the cut and thrust of Chicago politics since her early 20s, and she knew the risks. When a friend warned her that she could be a sacrificial lamb, she reportedly retorted: “If the best my party can do for me is recorder of deeds, then I don’t care about the future.”

With the backing of a coalition of women activists, suburban liberals and her most critical base, blacks throughout Chicago, Braun garnered 38% of the vote compared to Dixon’s 35% and Hofeld’s 28%. Less than two weeks before the upset, Braun had been 12 percentage points behind Dixon.

Hers was a last-minute sprint that came together through a confluence of events, including a television debate in which Hofeld hammered Dixon for his conservative voting record. For the first time, a broader spectrum of the public saw Braun demonstrate her speaking savvy and natural warmth.

In addition, Gloria Steinem came twice to Chicago on Braun’s behalf, attracting attention and contributions to the campaign. And the network of liberals in the suburbs–mostly white women–mounted a word-of-mouth effort to turn Braun into a winner.

In fact, women did well up and down the ballot in the Illinois primary. “I think women, more than men, are convincing elements of change,” says Axelrod. “That will give Carol an edge in November.”

But the “women’s vote” has never materialized consistently in past elections, and it’s still too early to tell whether Braun can make a convincing argument in November that she is a “change agent,” as Washington insiders are fond of saying.

“She’s got to broaden her base beyond blacks and some women and focus, focus, focus, on economic issues,” advise Axelrod and others.

Both Braun and Williamson are positioning themselves as outraged outsiders and setting each other up as a symbol of what catapulted America into an economic morass.

“The fundamental difference between my opponent and myself is that she has made her living for the past 14 years as a career politician and voted 13 times to raise taxes,” says Williamson, 42, a partner in a Chicago law firm who serves on President Bush’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control.

Speaking from a car phone as he made an eight-city campaign swing last weekend, he added: “I’m not saying it’s always evil to be a career politician–George Bush certainly is. It’s just among the elements that makes differences between my opponent and myself so stark.”

Although exhausted from her sudden status as a political phenomenon–already she’s done “Nightline” and the “Today” show–Braun last week offered her assessment of those differences:

“He’s a typical Reaganite and will have to answer for the policies of the new federalism that screwed up this country. He was part of it.”

Braun doesn’t expect this race to be more challenging than the primary seemed last November–but she does see land mines.

“It’ll be a tough race only to the extent that Williamson (who is white) plays the racial card, directly or subtly, by manipulating symbols like talking about my views on welfare reform,” she says.

Illinois has elected blacks statewide, but many more have been defeated. “If the election was held next week, she’d probably win because of the post-primary euphoria around her,” says Don Rose, a Chicago political consultant. “But we have a way to go, and we don’t know how the wild card–race–plays, and we don’t know how the national ticket plays.”

Williamson insists that he’ll fire anyone in his campaign who uses racism to attack his opponent.

“I won’t hold my opponent accountable for the race of her parents if she doesn’t hold me accountable for the race of mine,” says Williamson, who grew up and lives with his wife and three children on Chicago’s wealthy North Shore.

As he describes it, Williamson has spent most of his career in “public service,” although he has never run for office. He was an aide to the most conservative congressman in the Illinois delegation, Rep. Philip Crane, and later worked for the Reagan Administration as intergovernmental affairs director and for the Bush campaign in 1988.

A fiscal conservative who has etched out more moderate positions on social issues, Williamson is known as an intellectual who reads Hermann Hesse and gives windy speeches on public policy.

So far, he says, his status as a novice campaigner has created the biggest hurdles for him in formulating positions on the spot. For example, while the former Princeton University religion major personally opposes abortion, he decided after consulting “with my wife and others” that he was pro-choice–although he does not support federal funding for abortion. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, Williamson would support legalizing abortion. But when asked how that law should be defined, on a state or federal level, he bristled: “I’m not going to say any more; I think (reporters) are more interested in this subject than the public.”

The Braun-Williamson competition is as much a horse race for the locals made blase by the oddities of Chicago politics as it is for the national touts who haven’t seen its like since Shirley Chisholm ran for President in the 1970s.

Already, local pundits are joking on the radio that for the first time the Bridgeport neighborhood, home to the late Mayor Richard J. Daley and his son Richard M., the current mayor, may support a black candidate.

“Carol will get the vote,” says the radio announcer, “because Daley wants her out of town and safe in Washington, where she can’t run for mayor.”

The daughter of a policeman and a medical worker, Braun grew up in Hyde Park, an integrated neighborhood near the University of Chicago, admiring such women as Amelia Earhart and Bessie Coleman, a black aviator. After graduating from law school, Braun married a classmate and joined a Republican-controlled federal prosecutor’s office.

Her initiation into politics came in 1977, when she was pushing her young son in his stroller on Hyde Park Boulevard and ran into Kay Clement, a neighbor. Clement was on a search committee to find a replacement for Robert Mann, a well-known liberal state legislator who was among a group that called itself the “Kosher Nostra” and prided itself on being a constant burr in the elder Daley’s side. Clement asked Braun if she’d run.

“She was well-spoken, congenial, and I thought she had the character to continue on in the tradition of us Young Turks,” recalls Mann, now retired.

Braun served 10 years in the Illinois House, eventually becoming assistant majority leader and Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s floor leader in the mid-1980s.

In the Legislature, she dealt with Democratic politics skillfully but not always defiantly, which angered some of her radical black supporters. Similarly, she riled her white liberal cohorts at times and had problems with Mayor Washington when she formed alliances with his enemies and attempted to run without his approval for lieutenant governor.

“Carol is an ambitious woman, and that’s a sin in our society,” says Mann. “It’s OK for everybody else to be trading horses, making deals, being rainmakers–but not her.”

Braun left the Legislature to be the Chicago recorder of deeds in part to spend more time closer to home; she had been divorced and had a young son and an ill mother to care for.

As an administrator, she updated the deeds system with modern technology and created committees to eliminate patronage. Speaking of the deeds office, a Realtors association spokesman recently told the Chicago Tribune: “It’s not a dungeon anymore. You don’t have to carry your own candle.”

But the administration of Braun’s grass-roots primary campaign did not win as much praise; several members of her staff quit amid reports of conflict over the leadership of campaign manager Kgosie Matthews. And although Braun is likely to draw on the Chicago Establishment, organization is considered her weak point.

Kay Clement, who is on Braun’s committee, says the candidate has confidence in Matthews but plans to bring in more professionals once the money starts rolling in–which is expected at any moment.

Emily’s List, a fund-raising group for women Democratic candidates, gave $5,000 to Braun in the last weeks of the primary campaign and has vowed to support her further. “We will be in the mail for her in the next two weeks and plan to raise an incredible amount of money for her,” vows Ellen Malcolm, the group’s president.

And Chicago women such as Susan P. Kezio are determined that this time around, Braun will get the full respect due her in her hometown.

Kezio, 37, founder of the company Women in Franchising, says she tried during the primary to get Braun as a lunchtime speaker at the city’s Rotary One, the first Rotary Club in America.

“After Dixon spoke to us, I ran up to our director and proudly said, ‘Hey, I can get Carol Moseley Braun to speak,’ ” Kezio recalls. The director suggested they wait until after the primary. Then, a few weeks later, Hofeld came to speak.

Kezio was furious. She complained to the director, who said Hofeld had asked to address the Rotarians and Braun hadn’t. Apparently, Kezio’s request for Braun hadn’t registered.

But this week, according to Kezio, the Rotary director hunted down Braun and eagerly invited her to be a speaker. She said she’d be honored.

“Believe me,” Kezio says, “this time nobody is going to ignore Carol Moseley Braun.”

The NHS has issued crucial advice for anyone planning to travel abroad this year

The NHS has issued an important reminder for anyone planning international travel, emphasising that heeding this advice could prove life-saving. And it may be best to carry out a quick check at least eight weeks before your holiday.

On its website, the health service states: “If you’re planning to travel outside the UK, you may need to be vaccinated against some of the serious diseases found in other parts of the world.”

The NHS guidance continues: “Vaccinations are available to protect you against infections such as yellow fever, typhoid and hepatitis A. In the UK, the NHS routine immunisation (vaccination) schedule protects you against a number of diseases, but does not cover all of the infectious diseases found overseas.”

It takes just a few seconds to check whether you need a booster from your GP or whether your travel destination requires specific vaccinations.

Six to eight weeks

You should consult your GP or a private travel clinic between six and eight weeks before departure. Certain vaccines require time to become effective, while others necessitate several doses administered across multiple weeks.

Additional protection may be needed if you’re backpacking, camping, exploring rural locations, or going on an extended journey. People with pre-existing health conditions may also be more vulnerable to travel-related illnesses.

Which travel vaccines do I need?

It’s advisable to consult the Travel Health Pro website to determine which immunisations are necessary for your journey. Certain nations mandate an International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) for entry or departure. You should also keep a record of your vaccinations with you whilst travelling.

Where to get a vaccine?

Check with your GP practice to ensure your standard UK immunisations are up to date. They can also provide guidance on matters such as malaria prevention.

Alternatively, you can attend private travel clinics or pharmacies for specialist injections. Not all travel vaccinations are provided free of charge on the NHS.

If payment is required, request a written quotation for the complete course and any certificate charges.

Free jabs

The following travel vaccines are available free on the NHS from your GP surgery:

• polio (given as a combined diphtheria/tetanus/polio jab)
• typhoid
• hepatitis A
• cholera

The NHS says: “These vaccines are free because they protect against diseases thought to represent the greatest risk to public health if they were brought into the country.”

Jabs you need to pay for

You’ll have to pay for travel vaccinations against:

• hepatitis B
• Japanese encephalitis
• meningitis
• rabies
• tick-borne encephalitis
• tuberculosis (TB)
• yellow fever

The NHS further explain: “Yellow fever vaccines are only available from designated centres. The cost of travel vaccines that are not available on the NHS will vary, depending on the vaccine and number of doses you need.”

Where are you travelling?

The NHS have addressed some holidaymakers, adding: “If you’re only travelling to countries in northern and central Europe, North America or Australia, you’re unlikely to need any vaccinations. But it’s essential to check that you’re up to date with the routine vaccinations available on the NHS.

Pregnancy and other worries

If you’re pregnant, it’s advisable to consult your GP before getting vaccinated. While most vaccines are safe, professional advice is always recommended depending on where you are going.

In addition, if you have a condition such as HIV or you are undergoing chemotherapy, or have had a transplant, certain vaccines may not be appropriate for you.

Other things you need to know

There are other things to consider when planning your travel vaccinations, including:

• your age and health – you may be more vulnerable to infection than others; some vaccines cannot be given to people with certain medical conditions
• working as an aid worker – you may come into contact with more diseases in a refugee camp or helping after a natural disaster
• working in a medical setting – a doctor, nurse or another healthcare worker may require additional vaccinations
• contact with animals – you may be more at risk of getting diseases spread by animals, such as rabies

Carlos Aranibar is a former Downey public works commissioner and remains involved in local Democratic politics. But until a few weeks ago, the son of Bolivian and Mexican immigrants hadn’t joined any actions against the immigration raids that have overwhelmed Southern California.

Life always seemed to get in the way. Downey hadn’t been hit as hard as other cities in Southeast L.A. County, where elected officials and local leaders urged residents to resist and helped them organize. Besides, we’re talking about Downey, a city that advocates and detractors alike hyperbolically call the “Mexican Beverly Hills” for its middle-class Latino life and conservative streak.

Voters recalled a council member in 2023 for being too wokosa, and the council decided the next year to block the Pride flag from flying on city property. A few months later, Donald Trump received an 18.8% increase in voters compared to 2020 — part of a historic shift by Latino voters toward the Republican Party.

That’s now going up in flames. But it took a while for Aranibar to full-on join the anti-migra movement — and people like him are shaping up to be a real threat to President Trump and the GOP in the coming midterms and beyond.

On Jan. 27, Aranibar saw a Customs and Border Protection truck on the way home from work. That jolted Aranibar, an electrician with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’ Local 11, into action.

“It’s not something like that I was in a bubble and I was finally mad — I’ve been mad,” the 46-year-old said. “But seeing [immigration patrols] so close to my city, I thought ‘That’s not cool.’”

He Googled and called around to see how best to join others and resist. Someone eventually told him about a meeting that evening in a downtown Downey music venue. It was happening just a few days after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Minneapolis resident Alex Pretti after he tried to shield a fellow protester from pepper spray, and a few weeks after immigration agents tried to detain two Downey gardeners with legal status before residents hounded them away and recorded the encounter.

Aranibar joined more than 200 people standing shoulder to shoulder for the launch of a Downey ICE Watch group. They learned how to spot and track immigration agents and signed up for email updates. A box of whistles was passed around so people could alert their neighbors if la migra was around.

“Who here has been a member of a patrol?” an organizer asked from the stage.

Only a few people raised their hands.

“I saw familiar faces and new faces, energized — it was really nice,” Aranibar said afterward. “I got the sense that people in Downey have been fired up to do something, and now it was happening.”

A similarly unexpected political awakening seemed to be happening just down the street at Downey City Hall, on the other side of the political aisle.

Mayor Claudia Frometa set tongues wagging across town after video emerged of her whooping it up with other Latino Trump supporters the night he won his reelection bid. Activists since have demanded she speak out against the president’s deportation deluge, protesting in front of City Hall and speaking out during council meetings when they didn’t buy her rationale that local government officials couldn’t do much about federal actions.

“Mayor Frometa is not a good Californian right now,” councilmember Mario Trujillo told me before the Jan. 27 council meeting. During the previous meeting, Frometa cut off his mic and called for a recess after Trujillo challenged Frometa to talk to “her president” and stop what’s going on. “It’s not a time to deflect, it’s not a time to hedge — it’s a time to stand up. She’s giving us a bulls—t narrative.”

Even Downey Mayor Claudia Frometa, a supporter of President Trump, has called out his immigation policies.

(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)

That night, Frometa listened to critics like Trujillo slam her anew while wearing a wearied smile. When it was her turn to speak at the end of the night, she looked down at her desk as if reading from prepared remarks — but her voice and gesticulations felt like she was speaking from somewhere deeper.

“This issue [of deportations] which we have been seeing unfold and morph into something very ugly — it’s not about politics anymore,” Frometa said. “It’s about government actions not aligning with our Constitution, not aligning with our law and basic standards of fairness and humanity.”

As she repeatedly put on and removed her glasses, Frometa encouraged people to film immigration agents and noted the council had just approved extra funding for city-sponsored know-your-rights and legal aid workshops.

“This is beyond party affiliation,” the mayor concluded, “and we will stand together as a community.”

Suddenly, the so-called “Mexican Beverly Hills” was blasting Trump from the left and the right. Among Latinos, such a shift is blazing around the country like memes about Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show. Trump’s support among former voters has collapsed to the point that Florida state senator Ileana Garcia, co-founder of Latinas for Trump, told the New York Times that the president “will lose the midterms” because of his scorched-earth approach to immigrants.

Former Assembly member Hector de la Torre said he’s not surprised by what’s happening in a place like Downey.

“When it hits home like that, it’s not hypothetical anymore — it’s real,” he said. De La Torre was at the Downey ICE Watch meeting and works with Fromenta in his role as executive director of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, which advocates for 27 cities stretching from Montebello to Long Beach to Cerritos and all the southeast L.A. cities.

“People are coming out the way they maybe didn’t in the past “ he continued. “It’s that realization that [raids] can even happen here.”

Mario Guerra is a longtime chaplain for the Downey police department and former mayor who remains influential in local politics — he helped the entire council win their elections. While he seemed skeptical of the people who attended the Downey ICE Watch — “How many of then were actual residents?” — he noted “frustration” among fellow Latino Republicans over Trump and his raids.

“I didn’t vote for masked men picking people up at random,” Guerra said before mentioning the migra encounter with the gardeners in January. “If that doesn’t weigh on your heart, then you’ve got some issues. All this will definitely weigh on the midterms.”

Even before Frometa’s short speech, I had a hint of what was to to come. Before the council meeting, I met with the termed-out mayor in her office.

The 51-year-old former Democrat is considered a rising GOP star as one of the few Republican Latino elected officials in Los Angeles and the first California Republican to head the nonpartisan National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Her family moved to Downey from Juarez, Mexico when she was 12. Whites made up the majority of the suburban city back then, and it was most famous in those days as the land that birthed the Carpenters and the Space Shuttle.

Now, Downey is about 75% Latino, and four of its five council members are Latino.

So what did Frometa expect of Trump in his second term?

“I was expecting him to enforce our laws,” she replied. “To close our border so that we didn’t have hundreds of thousands coming in unchecked. I was expecting him to be tough on crime. But the way it’s being played out with that enforcement and the tactics is not what we voted for. No. No.”

Over our 45-minute talk, Frometa described Trump’s wanton deportation policy as “heartbreaking,” “racial profiling,” “problematic,” “devastating” and “not what America stands for.” The mayor said Republicans she knows feel “terrible” about it: “You cannot say you are pro-humanity and be OK with what’s happening.”

Asked if she was carrying a passport like many Latinos are — myself included — she said she was “almost” at that point.

A home in Downey shows support for Trump in 2024.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Frometa defended her relative silence compared to other Latino elected officials over the matter.

“We live in a time that is so polarizing that people want their elected officials to come out fighting,” she said. “And I think much more can be accomplished through different means.”

Part of that is talking with other Southern California Republicans “at different levels within the party” about how best to tell the Trump administration to “change course and change fast,” although she declined to offer details or names of other GOP members involved.

I concluded our interview by asking if she would vote for Trump again if she had the chance.

“It’s a very hard — It’s a hard question to answer,” Frometa said with a sigh. “We want our communities to be treated fairly, and we want our communities to be treated humanely. Are they being treated that way right now? They’re not. And I’m not OK with that.”

So right now you don’t know?

“Mm-hmm.”

You better believe there’s a lot more right-of-center Latinos right now thinking the same.

For three decades, the Dropkick Murphys have played their riotous brand of Boston Irish Celtic punk for legions of tattooed, mosh-pitting fans, but it wasn’t until last month that they found a new following among an unlikely demographic: C-SPAN viewers.

Washington policy wonks and political junkies who tuned in to watch former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith testify before the House last month were treated to lurid details about President Trump’s alleged involvement in 2020 election meddling and the Jan. 6 insurrection. What they didn’t bargain for were the animated actions of former D.C. cop Michael Fanone, who was in the chamber wearing a Dropkick Murphys T-shirt that read “Fighting Nazis Since 1996.”

Fanone, who was brutally attacked by a pro-Trump mob while defending the Capitol in 2021, was impossible to miss. He was seated directly behind Smith and the only guy visible in a band T-shirt. Also notable were his reactions to GOP suggestions that the attack on the Capitol never happened, or was everyone’s fault but Trump’s: He coughed out expletives and flashed colorful hand gestures. Dropkick Murphys T-shirt sales spiked.

“It was this crazy, organic thing,” says Ken Casey, lead singer of the band. “We never put up a poster saying, ‘Hey, wear our shirt!’ But over the course of the next week, we sold like 6,000 of those shirts.” And for those who want one now? The shirt is on back order.

Casey, who speaks in a thick, working-class Boston accent (think “The Departed” meets a Ben Affleck Dunkin’ Donuts commercial), isn’t a stranger to mixing music and politics. He has been outspoken onstage and in the recording studio about his opposition to MAGA’s immigration policy, racist rhetoric and war on the working class. And the band announced Tuesday they’re parting ways with the Wasserman Music agency because the namesake of the agency turned up in the Epstein files.

Casey spoke with The Times about challenging MAGA through the rebellion of punk rock.

The Dropkick Murphys’ “Fighting Nazis Since 1996” T-shirt is a hot item now thanks to its appearance on Capitol Hill, via Fanone. He’s been very active and adamant about countering MAGA’s Jan. 6 narratives, including testifying with his colleagues in front of the House select committee investigating the insurrection.

Ken Casey: “Michael is an old friend. He was at our very first Dropkick show in D.C. in 1996, so it’s not like he’s some kind of jump-on-the-bandwagon guy. I appreciate just how vocal he is. It’s one thing to talk the talk, but it’s another to walk the walk and be showing up at all those events, and really putting himself out there.

But why is it important for the Dropkick Murphys to speak out? You’ve no doubt lost fans.

I hate to say it, but in some ways, MAGA needs to be countered with a mirror of them, like in physical appearance. They love painting themselves as righteous warriors and the rest of the country as immigrants, or whatever other stupid s— they come up with. But it seems to trigger them more when someone like Michael Fanone and the Dropkick Murphys speak up to them because it just like explodes their mind. It’s like, “You’re supposed to be on my side!” It’s like no, remember when you were on our side? Before you got twisted up by this lying con man?

In some ways, no band has more to lose because our fan base is the population that might jump into MAGA. But there is that middle ground — the people who don’t have time for politics. Who don’t follow it as closely as you or I do. They hear things about Biden, hear things about Trump, and it’s like “I don’t know what to believe.” That’s where voices like [mine] are important. You’re hearing it from someone who really doesn’t have skin in the game. I’m an American citizen, not a politician. I don’t have corporate interest involved in this.

And then there’s the new interest in your band, from folks who are just discovering you, or maybe just know your material from film soundtracks like “The Departed” (“I’m Shipping Up to Boston”).

It’s also brought back fans and there’s this [renewed] punk rock urgency and importance to our shows. It’s gained us a lot of new fans, in theory, like people who don’t necessarily listen to punk rock, or who wouldn’t listen to our music or come to our shows, they now speak out and say, “I support Dropkick Murphys for what they’re doing.” It’s support in solidarity. For the [longtime] fans, it’s rekindled this new dedication. It’s reconnected us with some old fans who had drifted away.

What do you say to other music artists who are afraid to speak out against what they see as an injustice or wrongdoing?

We’ve already had every death threat, every friggin’ cancellation threat. So what would we say to other bands and other people who are keeping their head down because they don’t want to deal with all the drama that comes along with speaking up? Come on in. The water is great. There’s nothing to worry about. The [trolls] are a vocal minority — online is bots and paid influencer types. Don’t let anybody silence you.

At this year’s Grammy Awards ceremony, every other acceptance speech contained anti-ICE sentiment, so it does appear that more musicians are speaking out against Trump’s policies.

Listen, if executions in the streets of your citizens [by ICE agents] doesn’t get people to speak out, then nothing will. But it’s nice to finally see there’s a wave starting to peak, out of frustration and realization. I can also tell from the amount of attacks we get that there’s some backpedaling. Obviously, there’ll always be the die-hards — Trump could be molesting someone in front of their eyes, and they’d still stick with him. But there’s a lot of people trying to quietly distance themselves.

Ken Casey of Dropkick Murphys

(Riley Vecchione)

If we’re being historically accurate, the Dropkicks have always had something to say about what’s going on in this country.

The very first line sung on our very first album was in regards to how Reagan started the dismantling of unions and [created a] wealth gap, so we’ve been about it the whole time. We’ve been showing up on picket lines the whole time. Social justice, we’ve always been about it. But before Trump, we weren’t necessarily having to make it a social media presence type of thing. But we’re in a different time now.

The Republicans started to cosplay as working-class white males, and people bought right into it. There’s a portion of this country that is sick and twisted and MAGA has been a great vehicle for them, but then there’s also a big portion of the country that just got caught up in the lies and the bull— and the rhetoric.

Your band is part of a new initiative aimed at getting more punk bands to speak truth to power.

The Dropkick Murphys and Michael Fanone, along with the guys in Rise Against, have started a collaborative called Down for the Cause. It’s basically going to be kind of a punk rock collaborative because years from now, we don’t want punk rock to be disgraced by the silence. Just kind of get involved, not necessarily supporting candidates but more like taking back the air waves let people know that we don’t have to accept this unacceptable behavior. Also reminding people to vote, because if all those people didn’t stay on the sidelines in the last election, we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.

Your band just released a new song, “Citizen I.C.E.” But is it new?

The song is actually 20 years old. It was called “Citizen CIA.” It was basically a mock recruitment song for the CIA, poking fun at the damage the CIA has done around the world. Now we flipped it to a mock ICE recruitment song, with lines like “Too scared to join the military, too dumb to be a cop.” It’ll be out on a split album, “New England Forever,” that we did with a younger Boston band called Haywire. We’re touring with them now [ on the “For The People…In the Pit St. Patrick’s Day Tour”].

What do you say to people who say shut up and sing.

I get that even people who aren’t necessarily MAGA don’t want to listen to someone [on a] soapbox. But I view where we are as five-alarm fire, and if you got a microphone in front of your mouth, you better damn well be talking into it.

The head of the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, blasted Nithya Raman on Wednesday, calling the city council member an “opportunist” for launching a campaign to unseat Mayor Karen Bass after previously signaling her support for Bass.

Federation president Yvonne Wheeler said in a statement that her organization, which represents an estimated 800,000 workers, will “use every tool” in its arsenal to get Bass reelected.

“With Donald Trump’s ongoing war against the people of Los Angeles, our working families and immigrant communities, now is not the time for distractions from a political opportunist — especially one who backed the Mayor’s re-election campaign just weeks ago,” Wheeler said.

Raman, whose district stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, was announced as one of the mayor’s endorsers on Jan. 27 in a campaign press release listing Bass’ San Fernando Valley supporters. Two days later, she appeared in a second campaign press release as one of Bass’ female endorsers.

Raman launched her own last-minute mayoral bid on Saturday, saying that City Hall is unable to “manage the basics.”

The primary election is June 2, followed by a November runoff if no candidate secures a majority of the vote.

Raman’s campaign team did not immediately respond to Wheeler’s assertions after being contacted by The Times.

In her statement, Wheeler described Bass as a “lifelong progressive” while suggesting that Raman, whose council campaigns were backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and several other progressive groups, falls short on that front.

“You can’t truly be progressive unless you are a true champion of working people,” she said. “Karen Bass is the only candidate in this race who meets that criteria.”

The federation represents about 300 labor organizations in L.A. County, including unions representing teachers, social workers, construction trades and entertainment industry workers. In previous city elections, the group has spent big on its favored candidates, paying for campaign materials, door-to-door canvassers and other expenses.

Raman broke with the labor federation and her colleagues in September, voting against the $2.6-billion expansion of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Before that vote, labor unions said the upgrade would generate much-needed construction jobs at a time when housing production has been down. Raman and Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky warned the project was too financially risky and would saddle the city with significant budget shortfalls starting in 2031 — after Bass is out of office.

“What I fear is that we’re going to have a beautiful new Convention Center surrounded by far more homelessness than we have today, which will drive away tourists, which will prevent people from coming here and holding their events here,” Raman said at the time.

Bass supported the project, as did a majority of the council.

Raman also drew the ire of some construction union leaders last month by drafting a last-minute proposal to ask voters to change Measure ULA, a tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up. Raman, who described herself as a supporter of Measure ULA, brought her proposal to the council floor one day before the deadline to take action.

Raman, who backed Measure ULA in 2022, said she now believes it has had unintended consequences, putting a major damper on real estate development and inhibiting the production of much-needed housing.

WASHINGTON — Public health experts warned Tuesday that $600 million in cuts to federal public health funding announced by the Trump administration would endanger one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, leaving communities vulnerable to undetected disease spread.

The grant terminations affect funding for a number of disease control programs in California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, but the vast majority target California, according to congressional Democrats who received the full list of affected programs Monday. The move is the latest in the White House’s campaign against what it called “radical gender ideology” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “It’s dangerous, and it’s deliberate.”

Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC has increasingly turned away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs, claiming they “undermined core American values.”

The stoppage will derail $1.1 million slated for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, according to the president’s budget office.

The program is a “critical” tool used to detect emerging HIV trends, prevent outbreaks before they spread and reduce HIV incidence, said Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department.

“Without this program, we’re flying blind. The first step in addressing any public health threat is understanding what’s happening on the ground,” Simon said. “With HIV in particular, people often have no symptoms for years and can unknowingly spread the virus.”

The White House gave little explanation for the move but claimed the programs it targeted “promote DEI and radical gender ideology.”

Simon pushed back on the claim, calling the move “dangerous” and “shortsighted.”

“It’s particularly dangerous to put your head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem,” Simon said. “The success we’ve had over the past decades comes from finding cases early. … By treating people early, we can prevent transmission.”

Several local front-line service providers were targeted for cuts including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, which is set to lose $383,000 in investments for community HIV prevention programs.

The LGBT Center has not received official notice of the elimination but said the cuts would disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ communities and other underserved populations.

“These decisions are not guided by public health evidence, but by politics — and the consequences are real,” said LGBT Center spokesperson Brian De Los Santos. “Any reduction in funding directly affects our ability to provide care, prevention and lifesaving services to the people who rely on us.”

The Trump administration’s announced cuts are likely to face challenges from states and grant recipients.

The LGBT Center succeeded last year in blocking similar grant cancellations stemming from the president’s executive orders. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction ruling the administration could not use executive orders to “weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds” to bypass statutory funding obligations.

“We stand ready to bring more litigation against this administration if it is required in order to protect our community,” De Los Santos said.

The White House has repeatedly pushed to halt the flow of billions of dollars to California and other states led by Democrats, a strategy that has sharpened partisan tensions and expanded the scope of California’s legal fight against the administration.

In January, administration officials said they would freeze $10 billion in federal child care, welfare and social services funding for California and four other states, but a federal judge blocked the effort.

Trump later said he would begin blocking federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions such as California and Los Angeles, which have long opposed cooperation with federal immigration agencies.

Last year, the administration made broad cuts to federal funding for minority-serving institutions, leaving California colleges scrambling to figure out how to replace or do without the money. Federal officials argued that such programs were racially discriminatory.

In June, California congressional Democrats demanded the release of $19.8 million in frozen HIV prevention grants to the L.A. County Department of Public Health. That freeze forced the county to terminate contracts with 39 community health providers and nearly shut down HIV testing and other services at the Los Angeles LGBT Center.

The administration reversed course after sustained pressure from Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) and 22 fellow House Democrats.

“These grants save lives,” Friedman said of recent terminations. “They connect homeless people to care, they support front-line organizations fighting HIV, and they build the public health infrastructure that protects my constituents. Just like I did last time the Trump Administration came after our communities, I won’t stop fighting back.”

In a letter to Kennedy last year, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said that the Cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease.

Kennedy’s motivations are “grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,” Garcia wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called President Trump’s latest threats to public health funding “a familiar pattern,” and shed doubt on their long-term legal viability.

“The President publicly claims he will rip away public health funding from states that voted against him, while offering no details or formal notice,” Newsom said. “If or when the Trump administration takes action, we will respond appropriately. Until then, we will pass on participating in his attempt to chase headlines.”

WASHINGTON — The leaders of the agencies enforcing President Trump’s immigration crackdown faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with one Democratic lawmaker asking the head of ICE if he would apologize to the families of two U.S. citizens killed by federal agents and called domestic terrorists by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Todd Lyons, acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to apologize to the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during the hearing but said he welcomed the opportunity to speak to Good’s family in private.

“I’m not going to speak to any ongoing investigation,” Lyons said.

For the first time since the federal operation in Minneapolis led to the deaths of Good and Pretti, the heads of three immigration agencies testified before the House Homeland Security Committee.

Along with Lyons, the other witnesses were Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Rodney Scott, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Their agencies fall under the Department of Homeland Security.

Democrats and some Republicans have called for increased oversight of the Trump administration’s immigration operations since the shootings last month of Good and Pretti, both 37, by federal agents.

In the aftermath of the shootings, the administration replaced Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol official who led the charge in Minneapolis, with border policy advisor Tom Homan, a former ICE official. Officials also withdrew some agents and began requiring those in Minneapolis to wear body cameras.

“We must take the temperature down and look at the record of enforcement actions through rational eyes,” said the committee’s chair, Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.).

Garbarino asked for commitment from the ICE and CBP leaders to give the committee the full reports and findings of the investigations into the shootings of Good and Pretti once those conclude. Scott and Lyons agreed.

Scott, the CBP commissioner, told the committee members that officers face an unprecedented increase in attacks by people who interfere with law enforcement action. He said these actions are “coordinated and well-funded.”

“This is not peaceful protest,” he said.

Lyons, the ICE leader, told lawmakers that his agency has removed more than 475,000 people from the U.S. and conducted nearly 379,000 arrests since President Trump returned to the White House. He said the agency has hired more than 12,000 officers and agents.

He condemned so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which limit the collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE, as well as the rhetoric from public officials against ICE.

Lyons testified that 3,000 out of 13,000 ICE agents wear body cameras. Scott estimated that about 10,000 of 20,000 Border Patrol agents wear cameras, adding that “we’re building that program out.”

The agency heads faced intense questioning from Democrats on the committee, including those from California.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) asked Lyons about his comment last year that the deportation process should work “like Amazon Prime, but with human beings.”

Lyons said the comment had been taken out of context.

“I did say that we need to be more efficient when it comes to removing individuals from the United States, because ICE doesn’t detain people punitively — we detain to remove,” he said. “I don’t want to see people in custody.”

“Well, speaking of human beings, how many times has Amazon Prime shot a nurse 10 times in the back?” Swalwell responded.

Swalwell asked how many agents have been fired for their conduct under Lyons’ leadership. Lyons said he would get that data.

“Can you tell us if, at least — God, I hope at least one person has been fired for their conduct since these operations have begun,” Swalwell said.

Lyons said he wouldn’t talk about personnel.

Swalwell was the one who asked Lyons if he would apologize to the families of Good and Pretti. He also asked if Lyons would resign from ICE. Lyons declined.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) questioned Lyons about whether carrying a U.S. passport is enough for people to avoid being detained or deported. An October report by ProPublica identified more than 170 instances of U.S. citizens who were detained at raids or protests.

Lyons said U.S. citizens shouldn’t feel the need to carry their passports.

“No American citizen will be arrested for being an American citizen,” Lyons said.

Correa said a number of U.S. citizens in his district, which is majority Latino, have been detained, some for several days.

Lyons said he wasn’t aware of any cases of detained American citizens.

“Are you surveilling U.S. citizens today?” Correa asked.

Lyons said there is no database for protesters.

“I can assure you there is no database that’s tracking down citizens,” he said.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

When LAFC promoted Marc Dos Santos from assistant coach to manager two months ago, there were some perks that came with the new job. A raise, certainly. A better seat on the team charter.

But not as many as you might think.

“The office is a little bit bigger,” he said. “My parking space is exactly the same.”

The biggest perk, however, could also prove the more difficult. After five seasons working under Bob Bradley and Steve Cherundolo, Dos Santos is now the guy calling the shots. And if he misfires, it will be clear who deserves the blame.

Dos Santos welcomes the scrutiny.

“I never coach with the intention of what people think or what people are going to say,” he said. “I’m focused on the group and my job; the validation that is the most important for me is from my owners, from the people in the club that believe in me.

“I’m blessed with the pressure of coaching LAFC, It’s a privilege to be under pressure. But at the same time, I want to start well.”

He’ll get that chance Tuesday, when LAFC faces Honduran club Real España in the first round of the CONCACAF Champions Cup in San Pedro Sula. The MLS season will start four days later against Lionel Messi and Inter Miami, the reigning league champion, at the Coliseum.

Dos Santos, who speaks four languages, has already started putting his stamp on the team by tweaking LAFC’s playing style. Under Cherundolo, who spent his whole playing career in Germany, the team ran a German-influenced, high-press system that combined fast-paced attacking with defensive discipline, emphasizing quick transitions and a compact defensive organization.

But Cherundolo’s teams were also content to concede the ball as much as they controlled it. Dos Santos, conversely, spent the preseason implementing an aggressive possession-based attacking game.

“Marc had a lot to do with what we thought was really good about LAFC. But he had some ideas on how to tweak things,” said general manager John Thorrington, whose team is unbeaten in four preseason games, outscoring opponents 7-3. “What is really impressive is Marc and the staff have begun implementing these tweaks. Everybody is really buying in.”

Which is good since Dos Santos won’t have much of a chance to do any teaching once the season begins. LAFC will start the year with four games in 12 days; if it advances to the second round of the Champions Cup, the team will play nine times in 33 days.

Then in late May, after 16 MLS match days, the season will pause for more than seven weeks for the World Cup.

The vagaries of that schedule will require flexibility and depth and will likely force Dos Santos to rotate players in and out of the lineup. And though LAFC’s roster, led by South Korean captain Son Heung-min and former MLS Golden Boot winner Denis Bouanga, appears top heavy, the coach lauds the depth, with offseason additions including wingers Jacob Shaffelburg and Tyler Boyd and midfielder Amin Boudri.

“People could look very superficially,” he said. “But it’s also a league with a salary cap and there’s so many players that support what are called the more known or star players. That’s important.

“The focus is to surround these players with a system and a way of playing that is going to maximize everybody.”

Dos Santos, 48, has won everywhere he’s managed with one exception: his only other MLS head coaching stint in Vancouver, where he spent parts of three seasons, two of which were impacted heavily by the coronavirus pandemic.

He got his coaching start in his native Canada, then moved to Brazil, where he coached in the youth programs of two clubs and worked as a technical director for another. He returned to North America to manage three lower-division clubs and worked as an assistant with Sporting Kansas City of MLS before Bradley named him to the first LAFC staff in 2018.

After Bradley moved on, Dos Santos returned to LAFC as part of Cherundolo’s first staff. And now, as manager, he’s brought in his own lieutenants, replacing original LAFC assistant Ante Razov with former Seattle assistant Andy Rose — who played for Dos Santos in Vancouver — and adding Spanish coach Xavi Tamarit.

“When you go from assistant coach to head coach, you have to take a few steps back. But you need to make sure you delegate to competent people,” he said. “The people that have joined are really competent and do a really good job.”

The proof of that will come on the field and Dos Santos knows he has big shoes to fill. Under Bradley and Cherundolo, LAFC was the best club team in U.S. soccer over the past eight years, winning more games, earning more points and scoring more goals than any team in MLS. It made the playoffs seven times, played in two MLS Cup finals and two CONCACAF Champions League finals, won two Supporters’ Shields and a U.S. Open Cup.

Thorrington expects the winning to continue under Dos Santos.

“I am confident that we made this decision for the right reasons,” he said. “And those who are not convinced yet will be convinced very soon.”

If they aren’t, LAFC’s famously demanding fans will be calling for the coach’s head. So even though MLS is heavily promoting the regular-season opener with Messi and Inter Miami, Dos Santos isn’t looking past his real first game in charge, which is the Champions Cup game with Real España.

“For me, the only game that counts in my head right now is the game of Feb. 17 in Honduras,” he said. “That’s where I put my energy. And then we’ll deal with the Miami game.”

A plane passenger has sparked a debate after bringing up an unspoken ‘middle seat rule’ that she demands all fliers follow, but some people have claimed she’s being ‘cheeky’

Nobody relishes being stuck with the middle seat on a plane. We all have our preferences when it comes to flying, and for virtually everyone, that means either bagging the window or aisle seat, while the dreaded middle spot remains the universally unwanted option for most travellers.

The middle seat earns its poor reputation because it offers none of the perks associated with its neighbours. You’re denied the scenic views enjoyed by window-seat occupants, and you miss out on the additional legroom that comes from stretching into the aisle. What’s more, if you’re flying solo, you’ll typically find yourself sandwiched between two strangers.

One woman has recently taken to social media to argue that there should be an unwritten “rule” observed by all air travellers, granting middle-seat passengers a modest degree of comfort – though whilst many backed her stance, others branded her simply “cheeky”.

Australian Molly Wroe posted a video on TikTok documenting her middle-seat ordeal on a recent flight. Throughout her journey, she found herself trapped between two male passengers who wouldn’t allow her access to either armrest – which she insisted violated a crucial unspoken aviation etiquette.

She questioned: “Who’s gonna tell these men I get both arm rests because I’m in the middle??”

She reinforced her position in the caption, stating: “Middle person gets both armrests.”

This unofficial etiquette surrounding the middle seat has been debated before. It’s frequently suggested that passengers occupying the window and aisle seats shouldn’t monopolise their inner armrests, given they already benefit from an outer armrest plus the additional perks of avoiding the middle position.

Consequently, many argue that the middle seat passenger ought to have access to both armrests flanking their seat, as they’re denied the privilege of a decent view or extra legroom. This was precisely Molly’s argument in her video – though not everyone saw eye to eye with her stance.

Several commenters on her clip branded her “cheeky” for expecting access to both armrests. They contended there’s no “airline rule” stipulating the middle seat gets armrest priority, suggesting instead that she should simply ask her neighbouring passengers if they’d mind shifting their arms.

One person questioned: “Why would you get both, and they both get zero?” Another remarked: “Absolutely not, one each, which is fair; there are no rules regarding arm rests.”

A third commented: “Why don’t you tell them instead of filming? It’s not an official rule that the middle seat gets both armrests.”

However, others leapt to Molly’s defence, insisting it’s an unwritten rule rooted in basic courtesy. Whilst it’s neither a legal requirement nor an airline regulation that’s actively enforced, most passengers would willingly relinquish the armrest out of compassion, recognising that the middle seat is utterly miserable and warrants some degree of comfort.

One commenter remarked: “Everyone in the comments is not getting it, but you’re right. It’s an unofficial rule, but it’s just polite. Middle gets nothing, so they get both armrests. The window and the aisle each get their outer armrest and all the other perks.”

Another contended: “The window seat gets one armrest and the window, aisle seat gets one armrest and obviously the aisle to get up whenever they like, and the centre seat gets no window, no getting up when they like and BOTH armrests. THAT’S THE RULE ON ANY AND ALL AIRLINES.”

A third added: “They both have one on the outside, one gets the window, and one has free access to the toilet. Would seem fair to me.”

The photograph is so intimate, so vulnerable, it’s painful to look at.

It depicts a woman in her early 20s lying on a hospital bed twisted to the side, her wrists and ankles restrained. The black-and-white image — nearly five feet wide — is so crisp that bits of the woman’s toenail polish glimmer and the hair on her thigh appears to spark. Most pronounced: the loneliness and resignation on her face.

“I was 20 or 21 then. I’d had a psychotic episode and was taken to a public hospital in Massachusetts,” says Palm Springs-based artist Lisa McCord of the self-portrait she later staged. “I’m very transparent and I wanted to share my experience afterward. It was the ‘70s. I’d tell people, in school, I’d been in a psychiatric hospital and no one wanted to hang out with me — it was a very lonely time.”

McCord’s work is part of an exhibition at the Los Angeles Center of Photography addressing the idea of loneliness, now considered an epidemic in America. The exhibition, “Reservoir: Photography, Loneliness and Well Being,” was curated by LACP‘s executive director, Rotem Rozental, and includes participation from more than 40 artists representing “a wide array of geographies, approaches, ages, nationalities and lived experiences,” she says.

Rozental had been thinking about loneliness in our society — how increasingly pervasive it is — since the start of the pandemic. In late 2024 she began having conversations about it with LACP board chair and artist Jennifer Pritchard. Art reflects the world that we live in and Rozental felt that, as a photography center, LACP had an obligation to amplify “some of the larger issues” our society is grappling with.

“There’s something about photography that really brings people together around their vulnerabilities,” Rozental says. “Even if it just means you’re seeing, through an image, that someone else is experiencing what you’re experiencing.”

In this case: loneliness — “something that is looming heavy on everybody,” Rozental adds.

Asiya Al. Sharabi’s “Inward” (2025) addresses the uncertainty, and sometimes loneliness, of being a woman and an immigrant.

(Asiya Al. Sharabi)

Chronic loneliness is a serious, growing public health concern, says Dr. Jeremy Nobel, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and author of the 2023 book “Project UnLonely: Healing Our Crisis of Disconnection.”

“Most recent studies indicate that 50% of Americans are often lonely,” Nobel says, adding that a December 2025 study found that “loneliness is increasing, even after the pandemic. And it’s driving a change in behavior, the big one being that people are disengaging from each other and community activities, so that also isolates them.”

What’s more, chronic loneliness has tangible, dangerous effects on our health, he says.

“Loneliness increases the risk of heart attack and stroke and general early mortality by up to 30%. Dementia risk goes up by 40%, diabetes risk goes up 35% from being chronically lonely. That’s increased the urgency to address it as a public health crisis.”

It’s important to note, Nobel says, that there’s a difference between being alone and being lonely, with the former potentially good for your health.

“Being alone means you don’t have social connection. Loneliness is the subjective feeling that you don’t have the social connections you want,” Nobel says. “You can be lonely in a crowd, you can be lonely in a racist workplace, you can be lonely in a failed relationship or marriage. But being alone can actually be quite positive — solitude. You can be in touch with thoughts and feelings and can have emotional growth.”

Nobel consulted with many of the artists during the development of “Reservoir.” It was a natural pairing as his more than 20-year-old nonprofit, the Foundation for Art & Healing, explores how creative expression helps individuals and communities heal. The experience “definitely validated ‘how do creative people use their creative orientation to further explore and reveal what’s going on with loneliness,’” he says. “That’s the power of this exhibit.”

A detail shot from Diane Meyer’s “The Empty Space of Nothing #43” (2025)

(Diane Meyer)

To create the exhibition, Rozental selected six photographic mentors, all established artists, each of whom chose a theme around loneliness — “aging,” “immigration,” “technology and hyper-consumerism” or “the solo creative process,” for example. The mentors then invited artists to create new work responding to their themes. Over nine months last year, the groups of artists met monthly on Zoom — “six countries and seven time zones,” says Rozental — along with therapists, scholars and others to plumb the topic.

The resulting exhibition features mostly two-dimensional photography but also includes multimedia works and 3D installations.

L.A.-based artist Diane Meyer sourced about 100 old black-and-white photographs from private collections. Then she hand-painted each of them, blocking out most everything in the image except select figures with white paint. The individuals in the photos appear to float in a sea of clouds or snow, disconnected.

In one image, two young boys teeter on a seesaw, as if suspended in midair; in another, a middle-aged man lies on a blanket in the fetal position, white paint spilling over onto his blanket and body, as if he is sinking into a void. The creative process — which the work speaks to — is evident here, the artist’s hand noticeable. The paint is splotchy in places and the photographs are pinned delicately to a dark surface, their edges curling, giving the overall installation a textured materiality.

Meyer’s work is in stark contrast to Jacque Rupp’s installation on the opposite wall. Rupp’s slick multimedia work speaks to both technology and societal perceptions of aging women. After recently becoming a grandmother, the Bay Area-based artist asked AI to “imagine a grandmother in 2025.” The result is a black-and-white photo grid of several hundred female faces staring blankly into the camera, mouths closed and eyes vacant. Beside it is a TV monitor on which their faces morph into one another, without audio. The overall effect is polished and high-tech, touching on the perceived invisibility of women as they age.

“I felt that these two works needed to be in conversation,” Rozental says.

Julia Buteux’s “Have We Said Hello” (2025)

(Rotem Rozental)

Nearby, Julia Buteux’s three-dimensional installation of transparent fabric panels hang from the ceiling, shimmying in the air and inviting guests to walk around it. The Rhode Island-based artist downloaded images from social media and deleted the people from them. The backgrounds are colorful but all that’s left of the subject is a transparent imprint of their face and upper body. “So you’re getting the absence of the user,” Rozental says. It speaks to how isolating online social milieus can be.

Asiya Al. Sharabi — who is Yemeni American and lives between Egypt and Virginia — created large-scale, conceptual self-portraits that she manipulated in the printing process. One is a double exposure depicting the front and side of her face. It addresses issues of duality and the uncertainty of her standing in society as both a woman and an immigrant. In another, the artist sits in a rocking chair in a home beside a vase of dead flowers — but her body is transparent. “She almost disappears within the domestic space,” Rozental says.

McCord’s photograph is part of a larger interactive installation that includes a “visual diary” guests can flip through featuring photographs of her life over the decades paired with handwritten diary entries from 1977 to 2021. McCord narrates snippets from the diary, which visitors may listen to on headphones.

“Reservoir” aims, of course, to shine a light on the condition of loneliness. But it also hopes to serve as a public health intervention by hosting creative workshops — incorporating the photography in the exhibition — to address loneliness and spark connection.

“Creative expression changes our brains,” Nobel says. “It reduces levels of the stress hormone cortisol, it increases the levels of the feel-good hormones, so you’re less anxious about the world and in a better mood. It’s then easier to engage with others. It invites us to be less lonely and more connected, not just to other people, but ourselves.”

The exhibition, which closes March 14, is planned to travel internationally, including to the Museo Arte Al Límite in Chile, the Inside Out Centre for the Arts in South Africa and to the Karuizawa Foto Fest in Japan. The goal is to use the workshop element as a model that can be replicated in community arts organizations around the world.

Rozental says photography is the perfect conduit for that, calling the medium “a language, a space for connection and communication.”

“We hope that people will walk into this space and see themselves on the walls,” she says. “Maybe their burden will ease a little bit by knowing that they might feel lonely, but they’re not alone.”

Were you ready for some non-football consumerism? Ready or not, the Super Bowl’s annual blitz of commercials landed before and during the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots defense-first matchup, with some ads served up in advance while others were unveiled for the first time during the game. As in previous years, there were serious clunkers (looking at you Bud Light rolling keg ad), but also a few that transcended their buy-more mission (may you live forever, Melissa McCarthy). Other trends we noticed: celebrities double dipping to appear in more than one Super Bowl commercial (three if you’re Sofía Vergara), lots of borderline-gross humor (exploding heads, singing clumps of shaved body hair, singing toilets and plenty of ads trying to convince America that artificial intelligence tools aren’t a waste of time and energy).

While many of this year’s ads promoted AI and the usual rah-rah-America nods to patriotism, one trend we noticed was that the longer versions for some of the best Super Bowl ads, found online, were even better than the condensed cuts that made it to broadcast. What if next year, we make the Super Bowl three quarters and the commercial breaks 15 minutes long? Any takers?

While we wait for that brilliant idea to make it to the NFL’s offices, here are the big game ads we loved the most and a few that fumbled the ball — big time.

Abdel Hamid Karimeh says seven people injured as rescue teams search for people trapped under rubble.

At least six people have been killed and seven others were wounded when two adjoining buildings collapsed in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, the head of ⁠the municipal council said.

Abdel Hamid Karimeh, speaking at a press conference in Tripoli on Sunday, did not say how many people might still be ‌trapped under debris in the northern city’s Bab al-Tabbaneh neighbourhood.

Search and rescue operations were under way, with civil defence teams, supported by the Lebanese Red Cross and emergency and relief agencies, leading efforts.

Residents of the neighbourhoood also took part in rescue efforts, rushing to help remove debris and create openings in the collapsed building.

Members of the Internal Security Forces and Tripoli municipal police have evacuated residential buildings adjacent to the collapsed building, fearing their collapse, amid a heavy deployment of army personnel, Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported. It said eight injured people had been rescued.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun ordered all emergency services to be on high alert to assist in rescue operations and to provide shelter for the residents of the neighboring buildings, according to the NNA report.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said in a statement that the government is fully prepared to provide housing allowances for all residents of buildings that need to be evacuated.

“Given the magnitude of this humanitarian catastrophe, the result of years of accumulated neglect, and out of respect for the lives of the victims, I urge all those involved in politics, in Tripoli and elsewhere, to refrain from exploiting this horrific disaster for cheap and short-sighted political gains,” he said.

Lebanon’s infrastructure has suffered from decades of neglect, economic collapse, corruption, and damage caused by conflicts with Israel. Key issues include chronic electricity shortages, an unreliable water supply with contamination risks, and crumbling roads and buildings.

Khaled Meshaal, the head of Hamas abroad, has spoken at the Al Jazeera Forum on the rights of Palestinians to resist occupation. The political leader says the demand of disarmament is unacceptable.

WASHINGTON — Ever since a racist video was posted on President Trump’s social media account, the White House has offered shifting responses.

First it dismissed “fake outrage” by those denouncing it as racist, then it deleted the post and blamed a staff member.

Trump later told reporters Friday that “I didn’t make a mistake.” The Republican president claimed that before the video was posted, he did not see the part that depicted former President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes.

The chair of the Congressional Black Caucus was unsparing in her criticism when she spoke to the Associated Press.

“It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video,” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said.

The AP interviewed Clarke, who leads the group of more than 60 Black House and Senate members, hours after the video was deleted Friday.

Here is an interview transcript, edited for length and clarity.

What was your reaction when you saw that the post?

We’re dealing with a bigoted and racist regime. … Every week we are, as the American people, put in a position where we have to respond to something very cruel or something extremely off-putting that this administration does. It’s a part of their MO at this point.

Do you buy the White House explanation that this was an aide’s mistake?

They don’t tell the truth. If there wasn’t a climate, a toxic and racist climate within the White House, we wouldn’t see this type of behavior regardless of who it’s coming from…. Here we are, in the year 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of Black history, and this is what comes out of the White House on a Friday morning. It’s beneath all of us.

Has there been any contact between the White House and the Congressional Black Caucus on this? Could there be any good-faith exchange?

There has been no outreach from the White House. We certainly didn’t expect there to be. The outreach has to happen prior to these type of juvenile antics.

Republican criticism built more quickly Friday than it has during previous Trump controversies. What do you make of that?

It’s not lost on them, our communities that we represent, that elections are coming up. So it’s not lost on my colleagues, either. If they want to align themselves with this type of really profane imagery, this type of bigoted and racist attack on a former sitting president and his wife, they are throwing their lot in with an individual who has shown himself to be a disgrace.

It’s not common for President Trump to retract anything. What does that indicate to you that he did?

I think it’s more of a political expediency than it is any moral compass. … As my mother would say, “Too late. Mercy’s gone.”

What more do you hope to see from the White House about this?

My hope is that we can contain the harm that they’re doing. There are Black children who are listening to their president … seeing what he’s posting on Truth Social, [and] it will have an impact on how they view leadership of their own country. … I think that this administration has an opportunity to change course. They always do. We leave room for that. But, unfortunately, Donald Trump is hardwired this way.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

As a democracy, we have to stand up together against this type of racism, this type of bigotry, this kind of hatred that is coming from the president of the United States and those who surround him. … It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have stayed up for 12 hours.

Barrow and Zhang write for the Associated Press and reported from Atlanta and Washington, respectively.

Dust off your cowboy hats, prepare your tequila shooters and saddle up: Carín León has just announced his 2026 North American tour.

The Grammy-winning Mexican singer-songwriter will kick off the tour May 20 with a performance in Hidalgo, Texas. Over the course of this summer and fall, the Sonoran crooner will visit major U.S. cities including Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Chicago before wrapping up Oct. 9 in Portland, Ore.

In Los Angeles, the singer is expected to perform Sept. 20 at BMO Stadium, which accommodates over 20,000 fans for concerts.

The tour also includes his highly anticipated Las Vegas residency at the Sphere, which is already sold out on some dates. In September, León will make history as the first Latino artist to headline the one-of-a-kind venue, which will take place across seven nights in Sin City.

León is also doubling his stadium capacity for his singular Canada performance by moving to the TD Coliseum in Hamilton, Ontario, which holds an audience of about 18,000; the “Primera Cita” singer first performed in 2024 at the Coca-Cola Coliseum in Toronto, which holds roughly 9,000 people.

“Returning to the United States and Canada to reunite with my people fills me with excitement. I’m returning with new songs and all the history we’ve built together,” said León in a statement. “We’re preparing a very special production so we can feel closer than ever. De Sonora para el mundo… see you soon, mi gente.”

The “Que Vuelvas” singer last toured the states in 2024 following the release of his critically-acclaimed “Boca Chueca, Vol. 1,” which earned him his first Grammy for música mexicana album in 2025.

News of the upcoming North American tour follows another Grammy win for the balladeer, who on Sunday took home the golden gramophone once more in the same category as last year, this time for his 2025 album “Palabra de To’s.”

Throughout his career, León has bent the rules of música mexicana by collaborating with artists across a variety of genres, from Latin pop stars like Maluma and Camilo to U.S. country singers like Kane Brown and Kacey Musgraves.

The 36-year-old has always stood firmly on the idea that música mexicana extends beyond the regional confines of Mexico, sharing with The Times in 2023 that “Mexican music is no longer regional — it’s only become more global.”

Ticket sales for his North American tour begin Feb. 11, but resellers beware! León will be using Openstage Ticket Unlocks, which will reward real fans with personalized presale codes to limit bots.

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

During their recent magical World Series run, the champion Dodgers had many heroes, but one constant.

Whenever they needed a leader, they found one.

No matter how dire the circumstances, whenever they needed a hero, somebody stepped up.

Yoshinobu Yamamoto won a game on zero day’s rest. Will Smith won a game with one hand.

Freddie Freeman was an 18th-inning savior on one leg. Kiké Hernández was a ninth-inning savior with a bad elbow.

Everywhere you looked, there was a veteran Dodger willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the team.

That needs to happen again.

That needs to happen now.

A player needs to spearhead a decision that will not be made by the big business that runs this team, a decision that will bypass the biased blather and directly connect to their many besieged fans, a decision that only a player can make.

In the wake of Thursday’s White House confirmation that the Dodgers will be making the traditional champions visit there this spring, somebody needs to send a clear message to President Donald Trump.

“No.”

Federal immigration agents stage outside Gate E of Dodger Stadium on June 19. Sporadic immigration raids continue to roil Southern California.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

No, they won’t go.

No, they will not support the ICE raids that are taking place daily just outside their clubhouse doors.

No, they will not openly support an administration that has declared war on its fan base.

No, after basking in the adulation of four million diverse neighbors every summer, the players will not turn their backs on these people while the government continues to round them up despite no criminal history.

This isn’t about asking pro athletes to be politicians. This is about asking them to be people.

Some will say players should not be involved, that it’s a management decision high above the pay grade of the average southpaw or slugger. But when their backyard becomes a battlefield, those players need to fight back, and that time is now.

Dodger management will always leave any tough choice like this one up to the players. By virtue of hundreds of millions of dollars of salaries, the players are essentially partners who need to embrace that responsibility.

No matter what owner Mark Walter says, if the players don’t want to visit the White House, they won’t go.

No matter who shouts the loudest, whether it be conservatives or liberals, the players’ collective voice is the only one that counts.

So, when spring training begins next week, here’s hoping for a hero.

After being showered with numerous curtain calls by an adoring fan base, it’s time for the players to return the favor.

How about a standing ovation for the brave law-abiding immigrant family of four that cheers you from in the left-field pavilion even though they know they could be arrested and hauled away at any time?

How about a, “Let’s Go Dodgers” chant for the longtime residents with no criminal record who spent last October huddled around their TV sets clinging to your victories as reason for hope?

How about being there for so many who have been there for you?

A protestor wearing a Mookie Betts jersey and waving a Mexican and American flag stitched together protests ICE outside the Dodger Stadium game on June 21.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

This was an issue last year, when former Times columnist Dylan Hernández urged the Dodgers to cancel their initial White House visit.

“This was something we discussed with all the players, all of whom wanted to go,” team president Stan Kasten told Hernández. “Remember, everyone in here grew up wanting to be a world champion and all the things that come with it, and it comes with a champagne toast, silliness in the locker room, a parade, rings, an invitation to the White House. It’s what they all come to associate with being world champions. Everyone wanted to go, and so we did.”

So they went, all of them except an injured Freddie Freeman. The event was even attended by Mookie Betts, who had previously declined a visit when he was with the Boston Red Sox.

Since then, the landscape has dramatically changed in light of the ICE raids that ramped up during the middle of the season.

This is no longer simply about the rebuke of a president. This is about a fight against a system that has consistently terrorized southern California streets and recently, in Minneapolis, resulted in the deaths of two American citizens at the hands of agents of the American government.

Surely the Dodgers clubhouse leaders see this. Surely they feel this.

They can’t be so insulated that they don’t notice the protests in city streets that resemble those near Chavez Ravine. They can’t be so sheltered that they don’t hear the outrage from people who look just like their biggest fans.

The players can’t hide from this. The players need to handle this.

And, no, it’s not even up to manager Dave Roberts, who last week told the Times’ Bill Shaikin that he supports the visit.

“I was raised — by a man who served our country for 30 years — to respect the highest office in our country,” Roberts said. “For me, it doesn’t matter who is in the office, I’m going to go to the White House.”

Again, this is no longer about just Trump. This is about Tom Homan and Greg Bovino and Kristi Noem and all the other immigration officials that have wrought so much unfounded havoc.

Baseball clubhouses have traditionally leaned heavily to the right.

Nobody is asking anybody to disavow their beliefs. This is no longer about ideology, this is about standing up for those who are being wrongly arrested, being unfairly harassed or being made to feel constantly frightened in their own homes.

Dodger Stadium is one of those homes, and those who permanently live there need to do their best to provide comfort and safety for those who don’t.

Dodgers veteran leaders, this is your time.

Their White House visit would probably occur during the team’s trip to play the Washington Nationals in the first week of April. Here’s hoping that before the road trip, the secure and well-paid Dodgers veterans let the team’s kids understand what it means to be a Dodger and how declining a White House visit would be the Jackie Robinson thing to do.

Sending a title team to the White House is baseball tradition. Sending a message about equality and fairness and freedom is a Dodgers tradition.

Somebody in a Dodgers uniform needs to stand up for that tradition.

Anybody?

Welcome to Black History Month, 2026 style.

President Trump posted a video Thursday to his social media site that contains animated images depicting former President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as apes.

The White House took down the post Friday, and after first calling it nothing more than a meme, they dubbed it a mistake by a staffer. Sure.

But while the justifiable outrage over this overt racism spins itself into a brief media circus (because we all know something else will come along is about three minutes), let’s look a bit deeper into why this video is more than an affront to everything America stands for, or should stand for, anyway.

It’s no accident that the images of the Obamas are embedded deep inside a video about voter fraud conspiracies from the 2020 election (which are untrue, if I need to say it again). This video is an escalation in the assault that is likely to come on voting rights and voting access in the midterms.

“Absolutely, there’s a connection to the vote,” Melina Abdullah told me Friday. She’s a professor at Cal State Los Angeles and co-founder of Black Lives Matter-LA.

“This is about more than just about the Obamas,” added Brian Levin, a professor Emeritus at California State University, San Bernardino, and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. “It’s about people that are (perceived as) undermining our elections and our democracy.”

I caught Levin the day after he turned in a chapter about authoritarianism for a new book, which happens to look at how discrimination and the imposition of social hierarchies ties in with power.

Let me summarize. Vulnerable groups are smashed down as dangerous and not fit to be full citizens, so a smaller group of elites can justify power by any means to protect society from these lowly and nasty influences.

Let me make that messaging even simpler: Black and brown people are bad and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democracy because they don’t deserve the right.

How does that play out at the ballot box?

All that talk about voter identification and election integrity is really about stopping people from voting — people who legally have the right to vote. Those who are least likely to be able to obtain proof of citizenship — which might require a passport, or birth certificate along with the money and know-how to get such documents — are often Black or brown people. They are often also poor, or poorer, and therefore have less time and money to put into obtaining documents, and also live in urban areas where they share polling places.

Is it such a stretch to imagine some kind of federal oversight at those types of polling places, turning away — or simply intimidating away — legal voters who have long made up a strong block of the Democratic base?

Let’s hope that never happens. But the current undermining of the legitimacy of Black and brown voters is, said both Levin and Abdullah, systemic and concerning.

Trump’s latest video is “part of a floodgate of bigotry and conspiracy that relates to elections and immigrants and Black people and it’s important to condemn the manner in which these puzzle pieces are put together to label African Americans and immigrants as a threat to democracy with respect to the vote,” Levin said.

The premise of the video in question is that Democrats have engaged in a complicated and decades-long scheme to steal elections. It’s presented as a documentary, and the images of the Obamas have been weirdly inserted as almost a subliminal flash near the end.

If you’ve missed the white supremacist postings that have now become commonplace on official government communications such as those from the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security, let me assure you that Levin is right and this primate video is indeed part of a “firehose” of white nationalist rhetoric coming not just from Trump but from the federal government as a whole.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, for example, has turned its focus toward punishing diversity, equity and inclusion. Just this week, another federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, began a probe against Nike for allegedly discriminating against white people in hiring.

“It has been not even a dog whistling, but a Xeroxing of the exact kind of terms that that I’ve been looking at on white supremacists and neo Nazi websites for decades,” Levin said.

It’s not my place or intent to warn Black people about racism, because that would be ludicrous and insulting, but I’ll warn the rest of us because in the end, authoritarianism targets everyone. This video is a clear statement that Trump’s vision of America is one in which every non-white group, every vulnerable group really, is a second class citizen.

“He’s enabling an entire group of people who want to take this country back to a time when rampant violent white supremacy was enabled in the law,” Abdullah said. “What they mean is recapturing an old school, oppressive racism that is pre-1965 pre-Voting Rights Act.”

That message, Levin said, has “a resonance with a decent part of his base,” and when fed ceaselessly into the system, can have violent outcomes.

Levin uses the example of when Trump tweeted during the protests over the killing of George Floyd, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” a phrase with a violent and racist history.

Levin said Black people have always been the primary targets of hate crimes in the United States, but after that tweet, it was some of the “worst days” for violence aimed by race.

“When a high transmitter, like a president, circulates imagery with regard to prejudice, it creates these stereotypes and conspiracy theories, which then are the groundwork for further conspiracy theories and aggression,” he added.

Abdullah said she worries that even if the voter crackdown isn’t officially sanctioned, those empowered conspiracy theorists will take action anyway.

“So the people who are so-called ‘monitoring,’ self-appointed monitors … this is who’s going to be pulling people out of voter lines, and so this is what he’s whipping up intentionally,” she said.

Keep your eye on the ball, folks, because the far-right Republicans running the show are laser-focused on it. The midterm elections have to go their way for them to remain in power.

The easiest way to ensure that outcome is to only allow voters who see things their way.

For Mikayla Tencer, being self-employed already meant juggling higher taxes, irregular income and the constant pressure of finding her own health insurance. This year, it also meant rethinking how often she could afford to see a doctor.

The 29-year-old content creator in San Francisco paid $168 a month last year for a Blue Shield health plan through Covered California. This year — without enhanced federal subsidies that expired at the end of December — that same plan would have cost $299 a month, with higher copays.

“People assume that because I’m young, I can just pick the cheapest plan and not worry about it,” Tencer said. “But I do need regular care, especially for mental health.”

Tencer is among tens of thousands of middle-class Californians facing steep increases in health insurance costs after Congress allowed enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans to expire Dec. 31.

Those extra subsidies were enacted in 2021 as part of temporary, pandemic-era relief, boosting financial help for people buying coverage on state-run insurance marketplaces such as Covered California. The law also expanded eligibility to people earning more than 400% of the federal poverty level, about $62,600 for a single person and $128,600 for a family of four.

Mikayla Tencer records a TikTok video featuring eyeliners. Her blog showcases Bay Area attractions and local businesses.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

With the expiration of the enhanced subsidies, people above that income threshold no longer receive federal assistance, and many who still qualify are seeing sharply higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs. On top of the loss of the extra federal benefits, the average Covered California premium this year rose by 10.3% because of fast-rising medical costs.

To lower her monthly bill, Tencer switched to the cheapest Covered California option, bringing her premium down to about $161 a month. But the savings came with new costs. Primary care and mental health visits now carry $60 copays, up from $35.

When she showed up for a psychiatric appointment to manage her ADHD and generalized anxiety disorder, she said, she learned her doctor was out of network.

“That visit would have been $35 before,” she said. “Now it’s $180 out of pocket.”

Because of the higher costs, Tencer said she has cut therapy from weekly to biweekly sessions.

“The subsidies made it possible for me to be self-employed in the first place,” Tencer said. “Without them, I’m seriously thinking about applying for full-time jobs, even though the market is terrible.”

For another self-employed Californian, the increase was even more dramatic.

Krista, a 42-year-old photographer and videographer in Santa Cruz County, relies on costly monthly intravenous treatments for a rare blood disorder. She asked that her full name not be used but shared her insurance and medical documents with The Times.

Last year, she paid about $285 a month for a Covered California plan. In late December, she received a notice showing her premium would rise to more than $1,200 a month. The rise was due to her loss of federal subsidies, as well as a 23% increase in the premium charged by Blue Shield.

“It terrified me. I thought, how am I ever going to retire?” she asked. “What’s the point?”

Krista ultimately enrolled in a plan costing about $522 a month, still nearly double what she had been paying, with a $5,000 deductible. She said she cannot downgrade to a cheaper plan because her clinic bills her treatment to insurance at roughly $30,000 a month, according to medical statements.

To cut costs and preserve the ability to save for retirement and eventually afford a place of her own, Krista decided to move into an RV on private land. The decision came the same week she received notices showing a rent increase and a steep jump in her health insurance premiums.

Mikayla Tencer, a marketing influencer, with her elder dog, “Lucky” at Alamo Square Park.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

Krista said she had been planning for more than a year to find a long-term living situation that would enable her to live independently, rather than continue paying more for an apartment.

“Nobody asks to be sick,” Krista said. “No one should have their life ruined because they get diagnosed with a disease or break a leg.”

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, said that about 160,000 Californians lost their subsidies when the enhanced federal assistance expired because their incomes were higher than 400% of the federal poverty level.

Although overall enrollment in Covered California this year has held steady, Altman said, she worries that more people will drop coverage as bills with the higher premiums arrive in the mail.

Those fears are already playing out.

Jayme Wernicke, a 34-year-old receptionist and single mother in Chico who earns about $49,000 a year, said she was transferred from Medi-Cal to a Covered California Anthem Blue Cross plan at the end of 2023. Her premium rose from about $30 a month to $60, then jumped to roughly $230 after the subsidies expired.

“For them to raise my health insurance almost 400% is just insane to me,” Wernicke said.

Her employer, a small family-owned business, does not offer health insurance. Her plan does not include dental or vision care and, she said, barely covers medical costs.

“At a certain point, it just feels completely counterintuitive,” she said. “Either way, I’m losing.”

Wernicke dropped her own coverage and plans to pay for care with cash, calculating that the state tax penalty is less than the cost of premiums. Her daughter remains insured.

Two other Californian residents told The Times that they also decided to go without coverage because they could no longer afford it. They declined to provide their full names, citing concerns about financial and professional consequences.

Under California law, residents without coverage face an annual penalty of at least $900 per adult and $450 per child.

One, a 29-year-old self-employed publicist in Los Angeles requires medication for epilepsy. Last year, she paid about $535 a month for a silver plan through Covered California. This year, the same plan would have cost $823.

After earning about $55,000 last year, she calculated that paying for care out of pocket would cost far less. Her epilepsy medication costs about $175 every three months without insurance, and her annual doctor visits total roughly $250.

“All of that combined is still far less than paying hundreds of dollars every month,” she said.

Another, April, a 58-year-old small-business owner in San Francisco, canceled her insurance in December after her quoted premium rose to $1,151 a month for a bronze plan and $1,723 for a silver plan, just for herself. Last year, April said she paid $566 for both her and her daughter. This year, her daughter’s premium alone jumped from $155 to $424.

The bronze plan also carried a $3,500 deductible for lab work and specialist visits, meaning she would have had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket before coverage kicked in, on top of the higher monthly premium.

“The subsidies were absolutely what allowed me to sustain my business,” April said. “They were helping me sustain my financial world and have affordable care.”

She rushed to complete medical tests before dropping coverage and hopes to go a year uninsured.

“The scariest part is not having catastrophic coverage,” she said. “If something happens, it can be millions of dollars.”

Tencer, the content creator in San Francisco, believes that in order to make the nation healthier, affordable healthcare should be universal.

“Our government should be providing it.” she said. “People can’t go to the doctor for routine checkups, they can’t get things checked out early, and they can’t access the resources they need.”

Bad Bunny is constantly making history. Last Sunday he broke a new record by winning album of the year at the Grammys for his 2025 album, “Debí Tirar Más Fotos,” which was the first fully Spanish-language album to claim the title; and come Feb. 8, a.k.a. Super Bowl Sunday, he’ll be the headlining act at the Super Bowl halftime show.

Yet he is also teaching history. Bad Bunny’s latest record is not only a celebration of Puerto Rico and its people, but it offers a window into some of the challenges the embattled territory is currently facing — including massive migration, displacement and an infrastructure on the brink of collapse. In a moment when education is under attack, both in the United States and Puerto Rico, Bad Bunny is using pop culture’s biggest stage to offer the world a history lesson. And in this political context, that matters greatly.

In December 2024, I was contacted by Bad Bunny’s team to produce 17 pages outlining Puerto Rican history, to pair with each song’s YouTube visualizer for “DTMF.” Altogether, they have been viewed more than 775 million times.

I later produced 40 slides jam-packed with historical and cultural facts about Puerto Rico, which were screened at Bad Bunny’s 31-show residency in San Juan. These ranged from facts about the history of women’s suffrage to the founding of Puerto Rico’s oldest punk band, La Experiencia de Toñito Cabanillas.

When Bad Bunny was announced as the NFL’s choice to headline the halftime show, I was hardly surprised by the backlash from conservatives — including multiple Fox News hosts, podcasters and even President Trump, who said, “I don’t know who he is. I don’t know why they’re doing it … [It’s] crazy.”

As communities of color celebrated on social media, critics raised two questions: Why would a Spanish-speaking artist — even if he is the most-streamed artist on Earth — be chosen for that stage? And why wouldn’t they choose a more patriotic, Anglo-American artist?

While undoubtedly xenophobic in nature, these questions highlight their acute ignorance about the place that birthed Bad Bunny, and its ongoing entanglement with the United States.

Puerto Rico was first colonized by the Spanish from 1493 until 1898, the year that the United States occupied the country as part of the Spanish-American War. Later, in 1917, Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens through the Jones Law. Eventually, we drafted a constitution and became a Commonwealth of the United States in 1952. But there is never one single historical narrative.

What these facts occlude, however, is that Puerto Ricans are second-class citizens who cannot vote for the president — and those in the archipelago are not fully protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s early-20th century Insular Cases, we belong to the United States, but we are not part of it.

Put simply: We are a colony of the United States in the 21st century.

When drafting the historical narratives for “DTMF,” Bad Bunny understood that Puerto Rican history is often unknown, even to our own people. He was interested in making history available for those who don’t have access to higher education. He wanted me to write these narratives in a candid manner to be read by people in the barriadas y caserios (working-class neighborhoods and the projects). These were the places where I came of age in Puerto Rico.

With the success of “DTMF,” Puerto Rican history was amplified to the world. I’ve had countless conversations with journalists from around the globe, who marveled at how little they knew about Puerto Rico’s history or its relationship to the United States. This is precisely what I think drives those debates about language and who gets the right to claim Americanness — a lack of information.

And even though Bad Bunny is a U.S. citizen, conservatives have organized an alternative “All-American Halftime Show,” which reveals how “Americanness” is policed through language and race. This is the product of willful ignorance.

Puerto Rico’s history is also that of Latin American, Caribbean, United States and Latinx communities. I believe Bad Bunny’s performance will invite people to understand the beauty and complexity of our people’s history, even if it makes outsiders uncomfortable. That he will also be doing so entirely in Spanish in a moment when Latinx people in the United States are being arrested or interrogated by federal agents for speaking in Spanish — or simply for having an accent? That matters.

Of course, artists alone will not save us from the perils of racism and xenophobia — I learned that from my time in the punk community. We cannot just wait on anyone, especially not celebrities, to change institutions without some people power to back them up.

Yet given his enormous reach — just this week his latest album hit No. 1 on Apple Music in China — Bad Bunny has the power to move the cultural needle. And if there’s one thing to take from the Grammys ceremony last Sunday, it’s that he’s not alone — other artists have taken a stand on anti-immigrant violence. They are living up to the moment. That matters too.

So while conservatives organize their bland counter to the Super Bowl halftime show — with none other than Kid Rock as headliner — Bad Bunny will be offering the world a much more valuable history lesson, full of sazón, batería y reggaetón.

Jorell Meléndez-Badillo is the author of “Puerto Rico: A National History” and associate professor of Latin American and Caribbean History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.