people

WASHINGTON  — Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to buy thousands of special gloves that would allow agents to administer electronic shocks — a tactic the gloves’ manufacturer describes as a non-lethal “soft empty hand” for controlling people.

But videos posted by the manufacturer, Compliant Technologies of Richmond, Ky., show that the effects of the gloves are anything but soft.

In one video, the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E — an acronym for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — easily brings a strapping man in military fatigues down to his knees in less than a second.

The glove caused another man’s leg muscles to spasm, although the shock, applied on a forearm, was advertised as being strictly localized.

The videos were taken at defensive weapon exhibitions all around the U.S. Frequently, the volunteers who get zapped will yelp as they collapse limply down on a soft mat.

“That sucked! That was terrible,” one man said after going through a demonstration.

“It does suck. But, it sucks a lot less than other options,” the caption from Compliant Technologies reads.

Civil rights organizations say they fear that ICE agents — who have been widely criticized for harsh tactics and fatal shootings — are being given yet another weapon for their already packed arsenal to intimidate the public.

“There is a trust in law enforcement with extreme power over human life, because you believe the people you’re entrusting are trained and they’re careful,” said Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs in immigration with the American Civil Liberties Union. “ICE has broken that trust with the public… the mission is simply to scare.”

According to a notice published Monday by the Department of Homeland Security, there is a plan to purchase $10 million to $20 million worth of shock gloves. The plan was first reported by the Associated Press.

John Sandweg, a former acting ICE director under the Obama administration, questioned the wisdom of equipping agents with the shock glove because the agency has seen a decline in training and oversights during the second Trump administration. (The administration has often said training of agents has not declined.)

“Given the struggles the agency’s having with use of force, to deploy a less-lethal tool, especially when you see the administration really shift their focus to the side of the non-criminal population, it raises massive concerns,” Sandweg said.

Sandweg estimates ICE could purchase 10,000 to 15,000 pairs of gloves.

When sent a list of questions about the devices, which resemble thick work gloves, Compliant Technologies declined to comment. Its website says the gloves are used by law enforcement agencies around the country.

The shock gloves deliver 380 volts, far less than the 1,200 volts typically delivered by traditional tasers, studies say. According to the company website, the glove is designed to disrupt sensory nerves without puncturing or burning the skin.

In a statement, Homeland Security defended the plan to purchase the gloves.

“Every decision is made with careful consideration and appropriately reviewed to make sure that any technology ICE utilizes is consistent with all applicable law enforcement policies and standards,” the department said. “Our officers are highly trained in de-escalation techniques.”

Equipping an agency embroiled in controversy over its occasionally fatal enforcement practices with “sci-fi” technology will likely cause the public to make further efforts to evade ICE agents, instead of becoming more compliant, said Bryanna Fox, criminology professor at the University of South Florida and former FBI agent.

“If the public doesn’t understand it and they don’t trust it, they’re not going to view it as procedurally just,” Fox said. “What they’ll have is fear; they’ll think ‘Am I going to stand there and wait for the ICE to shock me, or am I going to run?’”

On its website, Complaint Technologies says it has tested the G.L.O.V.E on people with cardiovascular problems and pacemakers with no issues. It added that the technology does not interfere at all with heart activity.

However, some civil rights advocates note that Compliant Technologies has advised against using shock gloves on pregnant women, children and people with heart issues.

Shah said she believes that intimidation played a key role in the decision to adopt G.L.O.V.E technologies, adding that their use is meant to dissuade citizens from confronting or even recording ICE agents.

“At a time like this, ICE should be trying to do everything it can to rebuild public trust, to reconstruct itself as a credible law enforcement agency,” Shah said.

Referring to Trump aid Stephen Miller, the administration’s main architect of its immigration crackdown, she added, “Instead, it is spending as many taxpayer dollars as it can, as quickly as it can, to acquire technology to make good on Stephen Miller’s dystopian vision of the United States.”

Los Angeles County election officials are examining steps ahead of the November midterms to respond to the rising popularity of election trading via prediction markets, including a possible ban on wagering for county election workers.

The discussions follow a fracas during the June ballot count, when a handful of influencers suggested fraud could be occurring in L.A.’s mayoral primary because the results began diverging from the market’s prediction.

That incident, the most prominent interaction of prediction markets and a U.S. election to date, revealed a new dynamic in the battle for public trust in elections. Now, election administrators around the country are considering the possible implications of the markets’ forecasts, including whether they have the power to affect voter confidence in election results.

“We’re … trying to find our way in this,” L.A. County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan said in an interview. “It’s opened up a lot of questions that we’re grappling with.”

Three months before the midterms, with much of the American public concerned about democracy and trust in elections dropping, officials are paying attention to anything that could create further uncertainty around how elections are run.

The midterm contests are high stakes for both parties, which are battling for control of Congress amid a difficult economy, the war in Iran and low approval ratings for President Trump. And many Americans are wagering on what might happen — users have traded nearly $200 million on the midterm elections so far, a July analysis by NBC News found.

Prediction market platforms and their proponents say trading contracts on the markets is not the same as betting, likening it instead to trading on the stock market. Critics say it amounts to gambling, regardless of how the markets are set up.

The timeline for election administrators to think through the issue before November is tight, and it poses challenges for offices that already are stretched thin preparing for other possible election-day scenarios. What happened during the L.A. mayoral primary, however, has prompted discussions around the country, said Carolina Lopez, executive director of the Partnership for Large Election Jurisdictions, or PLEJ, a nonpartisan organization that represents election administrators.

“The potential effect on confidence [in elections] is significant,” Lopez said.

A spokesperson for Kalshi, one of the leading trading platforms, said the platform bans insider trading and welcomes any policy measures doing the same. The company takes “seriously our responsibility to be a responsible actor in this space,” spokesperson Jacki McGavick said.

Los Angeles could become one of the first major election jurisdictions to implement guidance or policy related to prediction markets. Delaware County, Pa., in suburban Philadelphia, already has taken such a step — adding prediction markets to an oath poll workers already were required to sign affirming that they have not wagered on the election.

Last month, Maryland’s top election official asked the state prosecutor to open an investigation into the legality of prediction markets. In late July, Wisconsin’s election administrator warned voters that it is illegal under state law to both vote in and bet on an election. That drew swift attacks from executives at Kalshi, one of whom claimed the state would “disenfranchise voters who use Kalshi.”

In L.A. County, Logan said his office is in the research stage for an insider-trading policy for staff. His office also is creating public messaging to deploy in various scenarios and factoring the potential dynamics around prediction markets into security planning.

Any potential for unrest or protests related to people’s monitoring of market forecasts is likely to come in the days following the election, while ballots still are being counted, Logan said.

Elections staff also is preparing FAQ documents about prediction markets and discussing how to talk about the issue with reporters, gaming out different scenarios, he said.

Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page said he advised his office’s staff before the primary, and plans to do so again before November, that participating in election markets could create a conflict of interest prohibited by county code. Staff betting could been seen by the public “as improper,” Page said he told his staff, “ which would undermine trust in the integrity of the election.”

Thirty-nine percent of likely midterm voters in a recent survey commissioned by PLEJ said their confidence in an election outcome would be reduced if the official result differed from prediction market odds. Three-quarters of those surveyed said they believed prediction markets create confusion around elections.

A majority was unable to correctly identify what prediction market odds represent, according to the survey results, with more than a third believing they showed the current number of votes for each candidate or an official projection from election officials.

The rise of the exchanges, which allow users to stake money on the chance that a given event will happen in the future, has provided a way to create predictions that some experts say are more accurate than political polling.

Leaders of the platforms have suggested they can help combat election misinformation by providing predictive insights and help decision-makers understand public sentiment. Kalshi launched what it termed a “midterms hub” late last month, which it said would contain not only market forecasts but also news, polling and fundraising data.

“Election markets have been my dream since the start of Kalshi,” Luana Lopes Lara, a co-founder of the platform, said on social media upon the hub launch. “The holy grail of prediction markets, they shed light on some of the most consequential, decentralized and human processes in the world, where good data is crucial and hard to find.”

She added: “It’s changed the way I interacted with the electoral process and made me smarter — I hope it does the same to you.”

McGavick, the spokesperson, said about 75% of Kalshi visitors view the odds without buying anything in order to understand what “the crowd forecasts.”

“Kalshi has become a leading indicator of where elections are headed,” she said.

As users trade contracts — each one representing a bet for or against a given event, such as a certain candidate winning an election — the market generates odds. On Tuesday, for instance, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass had a 61% chance of winning in November on Kalshi, while City Council member Nithya Raman had a 39% chance.

Either Bass or Raman could win, but if the public’s understanding of the markets is murky, experts say, voters may confuse their speculation for certainty.

In June, the market odds appeared to drive some public belief about what the results would be, Logan told reporters at a briefing last month — in this case, that Republican Spencer Pratt would be one of the top-two vote-getters, which ultimately did not happen.

“That put us in a position as election officials of having to respond to a whole new layer of misinformation,” Logan said. “Not only were we being asked how were the polls wrong … but [people were saying], ‘We saw numbers’ or ‘We saw odds.’”

Experts worry it could become more common for market odds to be cited by people who are dissatisfied with an election result as a new way to attempt to discredit a ballot count, adding a new quiver in the bow of election deniers and potentially confusing the public.

The existence of prediction markets “provides one more source of information” that could be used by bad actors to stir up confusion or distrust in election results, said Mindy Romero, executive director of the California-based nonpartisan Center for Inclusive Democracy.

“People might think … prediction markets are a good thing or a bad thing,” Romero said, “but you can’t deny that it is one more thing that could potentially be manipulated.”

Separately, prediction markets have drawn the attention of lawmakers in Congress for various reasons, including fears of insider trading. Members of both parties have proposed guardrail legislation this year. Several states are locked in legal battles with the federal government over whether they can regulate the markets under state anti-gambling laws.

Last week, as destructive wildfires raged in Washington, Oregon, California and elsewhere, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla joined with other Democratic senators from western states to urge the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to restrict the markets from offering betting on wildfires. They cited concerns that people could be tempted to influence fires or commit arson in order to “make sure their bets are successful.”

Schiff introduced a bill to prohibit such trading in March. Kalshi has a ban on markets tied directly to death and war. Kalshi and the other leading platform, Polymarket, also regularly report suspected insider trading to the federal government for investigation. Last month, federal investigators alleged that Trump’s teleprompter operator had used inside knowledge to win more than $100,000 after Kalshi spotted his activity.

In Los Angeles, Logan said his office may issue guidance by November, but the task will extend beyond the next election day.

“What we want to do is defend against anything that would devalue the elections process,” Logan said. “We don’t want voters to be discouraged from participating.”

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has charged nearly a dozen people with participating in a multimillion-dollar scheme to help hundreds of Chinese nationals fraudulently obtain green cards through sham marriages to U.S. citizens, officials said Wednesday.

American citizens were paid as much as $30,000 to enter into bogus marriages with immigrants seeking lawful permanent resident status as part of the scheme orchestrated from New York, according to court papers. The defendants charged up to $100,000 per green card, bringing in tens of millions of dollars over the course of the decadelong scheme, according to officials.

Authorities say they believe the group arranged more than 1,000 sham weddings, describing it as one of the largest marriage fraud prosecutions in U.S. history.

“This scheme was not a quick, fly-by-night operation but rather a yearslong, multibillion dollar cottage industry to criminally assist people who would not, or legally could not, otherwise become citizens of the United States,” Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told reporters.

The charges come against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s restrictions on both legal and illegal immigration that have sought to crack down on who is able to enter the country or become a citizen.

After recruiting U.S. citizens, the defendants would arrange fake weddings and in some cases stage photos of families at places such as restaurants afterward to make them look legitimate, according to officials. The defendants would then help the immigrants through the lawful permanent status application process.

“These schemes have real cost. They rob our country of its ability to know who should be and who should not be allowed in America,” Blanche said.

The 11 defendants, including people accused of officiating the sham weddings, are charged in an indictment filed in New York. It was not immediately clear Wednesday whether they had lawyers to speak on their behalf.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

A new LAPD report released Tuesday blamed poor planning and coordination for issues with the department’s response to protests that erupted on city streets last summer in opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

But apart from identifying those problems, the report concluded that police officers performed well in the face of “unprecedented” unrest that sometimes devolved into violence and vandalism.

Missing from the 62-page report — at least in the view of some longtime department observers — was any reflection about officers’ use of less-lethal weapons that left hundreds of people injured and drew strong condemnations from human rights groups.

The report largely blamed protesters for instigating violence and injuring officers, saying “agitators” intent on taking advantage of the disorder made it impossible to avoid using force.

The report said the LAPD was not prepared to deal with the protective equipment and “improvised weaponry” employed by some protesters, including people with oven mitts who picked up and lobbed tear gas canisters back in the direction of officers and others who used leaf blowers to redirect the gas.

During the department’s presentation of the report, one police commissioner, Jeff Skobin, pointed out that demonstrators and journalists who spoke at the meeting felt as though their perspectives weren’t reflected in the report whatsoever. He suggested that LAPD officials consider reaching out to journalists or press organizations as the department reevaluates its media policy.

Commission President Rasha Gerges Shields said the department could have examined whether reforms that were called for in 2020 had been implemented — and areas where the department still needed to improve.

“I just want to make sure that this isn’t just the end-all, be-all of this conversation,” she said.

In response, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said the report had considered past lessons learned, but the “unprecedented” nature of the protests justified the department’s actions.

“The level of violence — I have been doing this for 45 years, I have not seen that here or anywhere else in the country,” he said, noting that nearly 50 officers were injured.

The report said officers were targeted with rocks, bottles, commercial-grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails. Timely communication was a concern at times, the report said, with the department lacking a necessary number of radio wave frequencies.

When less-lethal weapons proved ineffective, the department deployed tear gas on two occasions, June 8 and 14, to disperse “violent groups” and restore order. It was the first time the department had used the measure since at least the 1970s. The decision to use gas “reflected the extreme conditions faced at the height of the unrest,” the report said. The report doesn’t specify who authorized the deployment of the gas.

But the gas also created tactical challenges, since many patrol and Metropolitan Division officers lacked protective masks, increasing their risk of exposure. The report said the chemical agents were “the only viable option to reestablish control.”

In just two weeks of protests, the report said, the department spent $17.47 million in personnel costs, including $12.14 million for overtime. Ultimately, the report concluded, the department “contained the unrest” without any loss of life or “major breaches of critical infrastructure.”

Some critics said the report failed to answer basic questions, such as how many less-lethal rounds were fired or how many officers were disciplined for misconduct.

Like past after-action reports, the review was hyper-focused on the threats faced by officers, critics said. But, they noted, it had little to say about how officers’ use of less-lethal weapons — sometimes in clear violation of the department’s own policies — that were widely documented documented on social media and in news accounts.

“If the department can’t even recognize the possibility that they might have a problem with how they police protests, after last summer, how can anyone expect them to do anything differently next time?” said Peter Bibring, a civil rights attorney who previously served as director of police practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

According to the city attorney’s office, more than 120 claims for damages have been filed against the city in connection to police actions during pro-immigration protests as of April. The city is still facing lawsuits stemming from the 2020 protests over the police killing of George Floyd. The latest spate of civil actions could tie the city up in costly litigation for years to come.

At Tuesday’s commission meeting, the 45-minute public comment period was extended to accommodate dozens of speakers, many of whom criticized the report for whitewashing what they described as the department’s heavy-handed response to the protests.

Despite years of costly lawsuits, oversight measures and promises by leaders to rein in indiscriminate use of force during protests, officers were shown on video last year trampling demonstrators on horseback and aiming so-called less-lethal launchers at people’s heads in a violation of department policy, speakers said. None of that, observers said, was mentioned in the report.

Others argued that the report seems to cast members of the media as nuisances to be dealt with, while ignoring instances in which journalists were targeted by law enforcement.

“It’s an insult,” said Nick Stern, a British news photographer who is suing the Los Angeles County after being struck by sheriff’s deputies while covering a protest in Paramount. “Journalists only show up as logistical problems.”

Another speaker noted the inflammatory language used in the report seemed to justify the aggressive tactics by describing protesters as operating in “cells,” likening them to Al-Qaeda.

Lt. Joseph Fransen, the study’s chief author, told the Commission that he took inspiration from the federal government’s 9/11 after-action report, which dissected mistakes leading up to the terrorist attack.

“These aren’t necessarily points of failure, these are just lessons to be learned in the future,” Fransen said of his report.

Officials have promised thorough investigations of all uses of force. The department limited its use of the launchers after a federal judge issued an injunction in January, but has deployed other types of crowd control weapons in subsequent protests. The judge ruled that officers have repeatedly violated previous court orders that allow the weapon to be used only to subdue protesters who pose a threat of violence.

The report found that, on several nights, the LAPD didn’t have enough personnel to process and transport all the people who were arrested. Between June 7-16, 2025, the department made 435 protest-related arrests, including 182 on June 10 alone. Three out of every four arrest was for unlawful assembly, while 16 arrests were made for violent crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer or attempted murder of a police officer. Most people were released on citation. Four-fifths of those arrested came from the county, while others traveled from surrounding counties or outside the state.

Aug. 12 (UPI) — Lightning struck a northern Ohio state prison, injuring at least 16 people, who were transported to the hospital, officials said Tuesday night.

The lightning struck the Grafton Correctional Institution, located about 30 miles southwest of Cleveland, Tuesday night, as inmates were returning from their evening meal, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction said in a statement.

Of the 16 people transported to an outside hospital, one was airlifted, it said.

The conditions of those injured were not immediately clear, though the department said, “there have been no reported deaths at this time.”

The incident comes as larges portions of Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia were under flood watches amid thunderstorms and heavy rainfall, according to the National Weather Service.

Ohio correctional authorities said they are continuing to assess and monitor the situation.

The Grafton Correctional Institution opened in 1988 on 1,396 acres, according to its website.

Sacramento — The two candidates for California governor came to Sacramento on Tuesday offering policy agendas that were both sweeping and vague on details, with both warning of the dangers posed by their rival’s political party.

Democrat Xavier Becerra vowed to lower healthcare costs for Californians and teased two new policies on energy and artificial intelligence. Republican Steve Hilton pledged to slash gas prices and utility bills to help remedy his dystopian view of California under Democratic rule.

The two candidates will face off in the Nov. 3 election to succeed outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom, and took time to deliver their campaign messages at an afternoon political forum in the state capital.

Hilton pointed to the size of the state budget, the homelessness crisis, high taxes, the cost of living, the unemployment rate and the business climate to argue that 15 years of Democratic control has proved disastrous in California.

“It’s just a complete failure on every front, and it seems to have been immune to any kind of challenge because it’s very powerful. The machine is very powerful, funded by government unions, and you’ve got this alliance of the government unions and nonprofits, and the Chamber of Commerce, and all of this,” he told hundreds of people at a convention center in Sacramento.

Becerra defended California’s Democratic leadership, which controls the state Legislature, the governor’s office and every other statewide political office, as a staunch bulwark against the ruthless agenda of the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress.

“We’re a state. We’re a family. You don’t blame just one parent when things go awry with one of the children,” he said in reference to more than a decade of Democratic governance in California. “We’re all in this together. We all have to work together. I could say that one of the members of the American family in Washington, D.C., has created more chaos than any Democrat in the state of California.”

After a chaotic and competitive June primary, Tuesday marked one of the few times the two men have addressed the same audience. They appeared at a forum hosted by the news organization Politico and sponsored by Airbnb, AT&T, energy company California Resources Corp., Google and the Western States Petroleum Assn.

In a state with a pronounced Democratic tilt, Becerra, a former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, is the front-runner in the race. Nearly 45% of the state’s voters are registered Democrats, while 25% are Republicans, according to a May report by the secretary of state’s office. Becerra has raised millions of dollars more than Hilton and benefited from well-funded independent groups that spent millions supporting his campaign.

Becerra repeatedly said he would not promise anything he could not deliver, saying that voters “want to see actual outcomes.”

“That’s also why I think you can’t do pie in the sky, inflated promises, because people want to see you deliver, and you can talk a great game, but unless you can deliver, people are going to crucify you,” he said.

He said he could not promise to build 3 million new housing units, as Newsom did eight years ago as a candidate for governor.

“That’s an inflated promise. But I will tell you, we will build, and I will tell you, there will be more Californians who own a home,” Becerra said.

Later, he told reporters he was not specifically referring to the figure Newsom had promised. “I could have said 2 million. I could have said 5 million. What I was saying is, it’s gonna be something that’s realistic,” he said.

Becerra was willing to make some big promises on healthcare.

“Am I going to promise you that I can drop the price of prescription drugs? Yes, because I did it before, and I know I can do it again. Am I telling you that I can keep Californians insured for healthcare, even though the guy in the White House stripped a trillion dollars out of the healthcare system? Yes, because I know how much money is in the healthcare system,” he said.

Pressed for specifics on how he would prevent people from losing their health insurance, Becerra hinted that the solution could be within the healthcare industry itself.

“There’s money in them there hills,” he said. “Healthcare is more expensive in California than anywhere else in the country, and healthcare is more expensive in the U.S. than it is anywhere else in the world. There is money that’s being spent that does nothing to dispense healthcare to you, and we’ve got to stop that game.”

Hilton acknowledged the long odds he faces in the November general election.

“I know I’m probably the only person in this room that actually thinks I can win this election,” he said.

Since the June primary, Hilton has been a constant presence on the campaign trail, crisscrossing the state, holding town halls and news conferences, making speeches and giving media interviews. Becerra has been far less visibly active.

Hilton argued that California is at a crossroads, pointing to residents and businesses moving out of the state.

“I’m here to say we can turn them around,” he said. “It’s an absolute crisis that we’re in if we don’t change direction.”

Hilton has vowed to cut gas prices to $3 per gallon, reduce utility bills, eliminate income taxes for Californians making under $150,000, increase the supply of starter homes and overhaul the business climate, particularly in the entertainment and agricultural industries. Just how Hilton would deliver on his agenda, given that Democrats control the California Legislature, remains unclear.

While he did not make any formal policy announcements at the summit, Becerra said there is “a lot of room to expand” on regulations and protections on AI, and he signaled support for a government-purchased stake in AI companies. “We can make it so they can prosper, but we prosper with them,” he said.

Hilton, who has released several AI-generated campaign ads, criticized Sam Altman of OpenAI and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei for doing little to earn the public’s trust on the fast-emerging technology. He also said there is space to both regulate and give AI more freedom.

“I think we’re in danger of both over- and under-regulating at the same time. I think we’re under-regulating some of the harms, for example, in relation to children and in relation to the creative community and their output, but we’re in danger of over-regulating some of the potential benefits,” including in the medical field, he said.

When asked whether the state’s voters are “stupid” for continuing to vote for Democrats, Hilton replied that they are not, but rather had not been offered a clear, positive alternative.

“There is a sense of inevitability about it, and I think that’s infected perhaps a lot of the political discourse in California,” he said. The notion that “it’s California. Democrats are always going to be in charge. What can you do?”

He said he believes he has a shot in the November election because he has a positive message, similar to that which helped propel the right-leaning Tories to a 14-year reign in the United Kingdom when he was a senior advisor to then-Prime Minister David Cameron.

Hilton labeled Becerra “unqualified” and didn’t discuss his endorsement by President Trump, which propelled his advancement to the general election.

“We’ve got everything going for us in California. We’ve got incredible assets and resources. We’ve got natural beauty, the best weather, great universities, amazing people, the incredible innovation ecosystem, the kind of startup hustle rebel spirit,” he said. “We just need, I think, a proactive, pro-business governor [who] recognizes that we’ve just ended up …, often with good intentions, frankly, in a situation where we’ve just got this massive, bloated bureaucratic government that’s stifling the spirit of California.”

In a striking demonstration of support, hundreds of fired up Californians rallied in Santa Monica to speak out against the Trump administration’s attempt to wrest local control over the state’s beloved coastline.

The Golden State’s top environmental leaders, along with prominent elected officials, environmentalists, business coalitions, community activists, Indigenous groups and everyday citizens, packed a public hearing Monday before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Coastal Management, which has been tasked with conducting an unprecedented investigation that could ultimately strip California of its power to say no to federal projects.

Experts see the investigation — framed as a performance review of the state’s coastal management practices — as a thinly veiled attempt by Trump officials to open California’s coast to more offshore oil drilling, more rocket launches and possibly even floating nuclear reactors. If the federal government succeeds, many worry it could set the stage for similar actions in other coastal states.

“I’m scared, not because we haven’t built something worth protecting — we have. I’m scared because this meeting is performance theater. In some ways, the decision seems already made,” said Maureen Ellenberger, a resident of Santa Barbara who said she is haunted by the possibility of another oil spill. “But I’m speaking today anyway, so there’s a record. So years from now… everyone will know we fought, that we did not consent.”

Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, speaks during a NOAA hearing as Larry Goldzband, executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, awaits his turn to make comments.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Citing California’s “environmental extremism,” Trump officials are attempting to decertify the state’s authority under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, or CZMA. The act grants coastal states the right to review and object to any project in federal waters that clashes with state policy.

For the last five decades, the CZMA has been celebrated as a bipartisan co-management framework between coastal states and the federal government — and in California, the process had been relatively smooth through every presidential administration until Trump’s.

Tensions escalated in May when U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick declared that “California has repeatedly and unfoundedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” and announced that he was ordering a fresh evaluation of the state’s CZMA compliance using a “new approach.” He specifically instructed NOAA, which is under his purview, to take offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, spaceport infrastructure, desalination projects and undersea cables into consideration, citing national priorities and economic interests.

Performance reviews under the CZMA are not uncommon (most states are subject to a routine review every five to 10 years) but what’s unusual in this case is the callout to specific industries, as well as the politically charged nature of how the review was announced (state officials learned they were under review through a social media post from the U.S. Department of Commerce.)

What was also unusual was the fact California had also just undergone a routine review during the Biden administration.

A draft of that review, which was completed in 2024, but not finalized because of the change in administration, gave top marks to the three California agencies charged with implementing the CZMA — the California Coastal Commission, the California State Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The review found no issues.

Joelle Gore, left, chief of the stewardship division at the NOAA Office for Coastal Management and Keelin Kuipers, right, acting director at NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management, listen to more than four hours of public comments.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

The new Lutnick-ordered review began in earnest on Monday with the only hearing that people can attend in-person during the 45-day-public comment period. (Two virtual hearings will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, and NOAA is required to review all written comments that are submitted from members of the public through Aug. 22.)

More than 15,000 people have written comments so far, and for more than four hours Monday, surfers, fishers, marine scientists, community activists, business owners, real estate brokers and Californians from a wide swath of interest groups — many traveling from Marin, San Jose, Mendocino and other parts of the state — lined up to speak before NOAA’s acting director for coastal management.

Nobody in attendance spoke in favor of the federal review. As people in the crowd held up signs declaring “NO FEDERAL TAKEOVER” and “NO SELLOUTS FOR BIG OIL,” speakers expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to take note of the state’s thriving marine economy.

The crowd erupted in whoops and applause after each person spoke their three minutes of public comments. A number of speakers, some moved to tears, expressed afterward that they had never been more proud to be a Californian.

“It was just example after example after example of how the state’s coastal management program is working — it was really putting into the record those facts and also just so many personal stories,” said Jennifer Savage, a longtime policy advocate for Surfrider Foundation who drove more than 670 miles from Humboldt to testify at the hearing. “It showed more than anything that being able to go to the beach is such a unifying shared joy in California.”

The State’s top environmental leaders also took turns speaking about how the CZMA has long facilitated open dialogue and collaboration between the state and federal government.

“We sincerely hope that this review is not merely a pretense for removing California’s ability to hold public hearings on offshore oil and gas projects,” said Kate Huckelbridge, executive director of the Coastal Commission. “California has received very little information about why this new federal review is being undertaken. Still, we welcome a fair and transparent evaluation. Our record speaks for itself.”

Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary for Natural Resources, provides public comment during a NOAA hearing.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Out of the more than 3,700 federal actions that have come before the Coastal Commission for review since the 1970s, the commission has aligned with the federal actions 96% of the time, Huckelbridge said.

Current and former coastal officials also spoke about their experiences with past reviews and questioned the unusual timing of this evaluation and how it doesn’t follow standard procedure.

“I have personally participated in several periodic reviews, and what has happened in this review is unprecedented and, quite frankly, bizarre. There is absolutely no basis for reopening the periodic review conducted in 2024,” said Jack Ainsworth, who had worked at the coastal commission for 34 years and led it for seven of those years. “I would also note that California is recognized as the gold standard for integrated coastal management in the United States and around the world.”

At a NOAA hearing Monday, the crowd applauded after each speaker expressed their love for the California coast and urged federal officials to keep things the way they are.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

What happens after this week’s hearings will be uncharted territory, but experts say that if the review does end up taking issue with California’s coastal management program, the state should be given the opportunity to respond to any proposed changes. The process laid out in the law appears to include multiple steps and opportunities for discussion, they said.

At a rally outside the meeting room Monday, more than a hundred environmentalists gathered alongside congressmembers, county supervisors, Indigenous leaders, environmental justice groups and business coalitions to further amplify the many voices that represent California.

Toni Cordero, a board member of Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Surfrider Foundation, and Environmental Defense Center, speaks at a rally before a NOAA hearing Monday.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

“The Creator put us here to coexist and to collaborate in caring for our mother ocean and for all her relatives, all of her inhabitants and all those who call this coast home,” said Toni Cordero, a former tribal chair of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation who also served as a deputy state attorney general for more than 25 years. “We must remember them. It is their homelands, their well-being and their futures that are also at stake under the guise of ensuring compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.”

The crowd waved signs and cheered again as Wade Crowfoot, California’s Secretary for Natural Resources, stepped up to speak.

“It has been clear from Governor Newsom to Attorney General Bonta to our legislators to our congressional delegation: California’s coast is not for sale, and a hostile takeover of our coast by the federal government… won’t be tolerated,” Crowfoot declared.

“So rest assured,” he said. “We stand in strong solidarity with everyone here today — whether you’re a tribal government, a local government, a conservation organization or just somebody that likes to get out and be on a beach that’s safe and healthy, we are making our voices heard.”

Los Angeles police Officer Daniel Flores may have broken the law when he secretly recorded his colleagues making ugly, unacceptable comments that were variously racist, homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise gross and unprofessional at best.

So L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman is right to take this, or any, violation of the law by a badge-wearing member of our police force seriously, no matter what Flores’ intent was.

But Monday, Flores was arraigned on 16 felony counts that could lock him up in state prison for 13 years (he pleaded not guilty).

That court hearing was preceded by an unusual and disturbing summary of the case filed with the court by Hochman. It seemed like an inappropriate attempt to smear Flores as a money-grubber with a convoluted plan to sue taxpayers into a sweet retirement (as opposed to intending to expose misconduct), while simultaneously giving an aw-shucks, it-was-all-in-good-fun defense of the ugly commentary of the recorded officers.

Regardless of what Hochman’s intent is in throwing the book at Flores, the result is one that will haunt this city for years to come: a police force in which the officers are clear that if you rat out the cops for misconduct, you get what you get.

“The message to everyone in the police department is keep your mouth shut,” said David A. Harris, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh and an expert on police misconduct. “You cannot stand up for principle or even for the policy of the police department, except at the risk of your own career and your own well-being, and perhaps your freedom.”

Hochman spoke with me for nearly an hour about his reasons for what many, myself included, see as his prosecutorial overreach in this case. Before I tell you the reasons why I think Hochman has it wrong — dangerously wrong — in the decision to charge Flores’ so harshly, I’ll tell you where we agree.

First, we agree that cops shouldn’t do things such as refer to Black people as “monkeys,” as my colleagues Libor Jany, James Queally and Richard Winton reported allegedly happened in this case.

Cops, we concur, should not call women “bitches.” They also should not call women “rapeable,” even if, as Hochman’s filing assures us, “the use of the phrase ‘rape’ was not in a sexual context.”

I am not sure what the nonsexual context of rape is, but OK.

Cops should not make fun of, in no particular order, people with disabilities; candidates applying for jobs; co-workers; Asian people; Hispanic people; or people who may be overweight — as the officers in this case allegedly did.

“These comments are deplorable. They’re despicable. They’re racist. They’re homophobic. They’re sexist,” Hochman told me. “There’s no place in our society for them, and they should be punished.”

So Hochman and I agree that Flores may have broken the law, and that the comments of his fellow officers are unacceptable.

And now the roads diverge.

Because faced with those competing truths, Hochman could have used prosecutorial discretion — the art of tempering the law with the mores and ethics of the community.

He could have used that discretion to cut Flores a break, charge him at a lower misdemeanor level or not at all, and put the focus where it belongs — on the officers who disgraced their badge with their behavior, and what is seemingly a culture of disrespect and degradation within the unit charged with choosing the next generation of officers.

These are the officers charged with recruiting the officers of the future, so the stakes here are high. This is misconduct that the people of L.A. need to know about, because if these officers are so casual in their hateful comments, can we trust their judgment on hiring?

“On one hand, being a whistleblower doesn’t give a person the right to violate the law,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, who did an investigation on police culture in the LAPD in 2000 in the wake of the Rampart scandal. “On the other hand, I would hope that the district attorney would take context into account. And 16 felony charges seems really excessive.”

LAPD Officer Daniel Flores, left, listens as his attorney Alan Jackson speaks to reporters Monday.

(Libor Jany / Los Angeles Times)

But Hochman argues that a “message has to be sent” because it’s a police officer who broke the law.

“If you don’t hold police officers accountable, it’s very hard to hold anybody accountable,” Hochman said. “I believe that no, we’re not going to let the ends justify the means, even if the ends may be laudable, like exposing bigotry, because it leads us down a very slippery slope.”

Hochman said Flores simply could have taken notes on the inappropriate comments and turned them in to superiors or the independent inspector general, which strikes me as either sweetly naive or disingenuous.

“The officer would be shunned; his career would be over, and he would probably find himself on the receiving end of some kind of retaliation,” Harris, the law professor, said of the likely outcome of that plan.

Chemerinsky said retaliation against whistleblowers has long been a part of the culture of the department. Make a complaint, his report in 2000 found, and an officer might get “freeway therapy,” transferred to someplace far from where they lived to send a message, or even find themselves without backup in a dangerous situation.

This decision to treat Flores so harshly, Chemerinsky said, comes off as “part of that long history of LAPD trying to very much crack down on whistleblowing.”

Hochman told me that he wants to make it “crystal clear” that “nothing in this prosecution should be read that we are in any way trying to chill whistleblowers.”

He added that he did use discretion.

“I hope you note in your article that the district attorney could have brought 122 felony charges, or 122 misdemeanors, or some combination of felonies and misdemeanors up to 122,” Hochman said.

Flores made 122 total recordings of 16 people. Hochman charged on the number of people recorded, not the number of recordings, he pointed out.

So sure, we can count that as discretion, I guess?

This is where Hochman has his messages dangerously backward. Sure, hold Flores reasonably accountable for taking matters into his own hands, if he broke the law in doing so. Certainly, Flores knew there would be consequences to his actions.

But that Hochman is trying to frame this as a fair and reasonable prosecution, while protecting the officers who made the comments by giving us their weak-sauce excuses about having no ill intent, does not provide this city the justice it expects and deserves.

Hochman, you may recall, replaced George Gascón, a prosecutor who was accused of forcing his own values on the city.

Now, Hochman seems to be doing the same with his heavy-handed approach to Flores.

Hammering on Flores does not reflect the values of the majority of the Los Angeles community that wants a police force in which integrity and respect are fundamental, impunity is the outcast, and whistleblowers aren’t attacked, even if it turns out their motives aren’t pure.

Personally, I don’t care what Flores’ intent was in making the recordings. I don’t care if the officers caught on tape didn’t intend to offend, and I don’t care what Hochman intends the message to be with his vast over-charging of Flores.

I care about the result: a city in which misogyny and racism are just locker room talk, but breaking the blue wall of silence is a serious crime.

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman is expected to lose her leadership role on the L.A. City Council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, which she has chaired since 2023, according to people familiar with the situation.

Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson is planning to announce this week that the committee will be split into a housing committee and a homelessness committee — neither of which will be led by Raman, the people said.

Harris-Dawson is a close ally of Mayor Karen Bass, whom Raman is challenging for re-election. He declined to comment.

“It’s hard to imagine that it’s not related to politics. The timing of it would be too much of a coincidence,” said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former Los Angeles City Councilmember and Los Angeles County supervisor who now serves as chair of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.

Raman’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the impending shakeup, which was reported earlier by the California Post.

The move comes at a pivotal moment in the mayor’s race on homelessness.

The city’s unsheltered homeless population increased this year after two straight years of decreases, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority reported last month.

While the citywide number has increased, the number of homeless people living on the street in Raman’s district decreased by 49%, a fact she has touted as she challenges Bass.

Raman and Bass have presented starkly different takes regarding the situation citywide and in Raman’s district.

The mayor has posited that her signature program, Inside Safe, which addresses homeless encampments by moving homeless individuals into temporary housing, was largely responsible for the drop in Raman’s district and that federal and state budget cuts partially led to the increase citywide.

She also attacked Raman’s performance as the chair of the Housing and Homelessness Committee.

“While Raman takes credit for the City’s work in her district, ignoring the fact that she’s the Chair of the Homelessness & Housing Committee for ALL of Los Angeles, Mayor Bass is working to move our city forward and address years of neglect,” said Bass’ campaign spokesperson Alex Stack in a statement last month about the homeless numbers.

Raman claimed that there have only been three Inside Safe operations in her district and that her committee has been stifled by inaction from the mayor.

“Council can pass legislation… move motions forward, but it is the mayor that has charge of the implementation and outcomes, she said at a press conference last month.

“So close to glory.”

That’s how Iván Barton described the moment he heard his last name called during the 2026 World Cup referee assignment meeting. It wasn’t to ask a question or to correct some administrative detail.

The next sentence changed his career forever: “Barton, your match is France vs. Spain. … After that, I didn’t hear anything else. I didn’t even know who my assistant referees would be.” The World Cup semifinal — one of the biggest matches a referee can officiate — had just been entrusted to the Salvadoran.

“It’s like going into shock, but a good kind of shock. ‘This is happening — it’s really happening.’ Reaching a semifinal is coming within a hair’s breadth of glory, because after a World Cup final, there’s nothing left,” Barton said.

Referee Iván Barton issues a yellow card to France’s Adrien Rabiot during a World Cup semifinal match against Spain on July 14 in Arlington, Texas.

(Lars Baron / Getty Images)

There’s one detail in that scene that captures the magnitude of the moment. While waiting for the meeting to begin, Barton was checking the airline’s app on his phone. His ticket was still scheduled for a return flight to El Salvador the next day. He had already started packing, convinced that his World Cup was over.

“I was already mentally preparing to fly back to El Salvador the next day,” Barton recalled. “When I heard ‘Barton,’ I thought, ‘What happened?’ Then they said, ‘Spain vs. France, semifinal.’ I didn’t even hear the names of my assistants.”

The first thing he did after that was call his wife.

“That’s when the tears of joy came,” he said. “It was also a moment to thank God for what was happening and immediately start preparing for the match.”

For the first time, both World Cup semifinal matches were officiated by CONCACAF referees. Barton officiated the France-Spain match, while American Ismail Elfath refereed the England-Argentina match. The confederation described both appointments as an unprecedented event for the region.

Barton said he fulfilled a dream working during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, but he and other CONCACAF referees were determined to show their ability to call the most important games.

“Qatar meant making a dream come true. Making it to 2026 was a huge challenge because the bar had been set very high,” Barton said. “There were high expectations. We approached it with a great sense of responsibility and humility.”

When the tournament ended, the feeling was different from that of his first World Cup.

“I feel happy, very proud to have placed our little El Salvador flag practically at the very top of world soccer,” he said. “That’s what fills me with the most pride. We continue to open doors not only for my country, but also for the entire region and for CONCACAF refereeing.”

The red card that made history

Among the four matches Barton officiated, the Turkey-Paraguay game went down in history at the 45+3-minute mark.

During a confrontation between Miguel Almirón and Turkey’s Mert Muldur, the Paraguayan star covered his mouth while speaking aggressively to his opponent.

Barton had to review the play via VAR, and as stipulated by the new amendment to Law 12, the incident resulted in a red card, since the situation had elements of confrontation and the gesture served to conceal provocative, derogatory or inflammatory communication.

The review confirmed his interpretation.

Referee Iván Barton issues a red card to Miguel Almirón for covering his mouth while confronting another player during a World Cup match.

(Dean Mouhtaropoulos / Getty Images)

Almirón became the first player sent off in a World Cup under this new provision.

For Barton, however, the story isn’t simply about a player covering his mouth.

“People get confused. It’s not just the act of doing it; it’s doing it in a confrontational situation against an opponent. That’s what changes the picture,” Barton explained.

Clarity is important.

The amendment aims to prevent players from hiding insults or other abuse — including discriminatory remarks — behind their hand, arm or jersey.

In Almirón’s case, Barton believed the conditions were met.

“In that match, it was clear that it had occurred during a confrontational situation in which the players were facing off,” Barton explained. “Seeing it on the VAR footage was clear. It was evident, and at no point was there any doubt about the decision that had to be made.”

The incident occurred shortly before halftime, when Paraguay was leading 1-0. The red card left Paraguay with 10 players for the entire second half, but the team went on to win the match 1-0.

For Barton, the red card illustrates something he believes the public still misunderstands: VAR does not eliminate the need for the referee to interpret the rules.

“VAR isn’t there to eliminate 100% of errors,” he said. “Errors will always be part of soccer because there are many issues open to interpretation, and that’s what the referee is there for — to interpret them.”

Breaks that changed the pace of the matches

There was another major change fans protested during the World Cup — the hydration breaks.

FIFA decided that during the 2026 World Cup, there would be a three-minute break midway through each half, regardless of the temperature or stadium conditions. The referee was required to stop the match around the 22nd minute of each half.

The decision was motivated by concerns about player welfare in some of the hottest venues and a committee agreed it would be best to use the breaks universally rather than whenever the weather conditions required it to assure no teams were hampered by not getting breaks, but the debate did not go away.

In some cases, the breaks interrupted the flow of the game just as a team was starting to take control.

Barton understands that criticism, but he also doesn’t believe the break necessarily has a favorable or unfavorable effect on a team.

“Team A is attacking, attacking, attacking Team B. Obviously, it won’t be beneficial for Team A because they’re at their peak. For Team B, it will be,” he said.

The scenario can change in the second half.

“And what if, in the second half, the roles are reversed and it’s Team B that’s attacking Team A? For Team A, it’ll be beneficial. It’s very relative. I don’t think you can generalize whether it’s positive or not because it depends on the circumstances of the game.”

There’s also a difference between analyzing the break from the spectator’s perspective and doing so from the field.

As a referee, Barton found an immediate benefit.

“For us as referees, it’s beneficial because having a break to rest a bit, regain our strength and get feedback from our colleagues to see if anything needs adjusting — well, of course that’s positive,” said Barton. “In the United States, summers are extreme and it often becomes very difficult to say, ‘In this game, yes; in this game, no,’ because that undermines the consistency that the application of a rule must have.”

The stars’ last names don’t change the rule

What happens when the player who needs to be disciplined is named Kylian Mbappé, Lionel Messi, Lamine Yamal or James Rodríguez?

In a stadium, those names carry weight. On the lineup sheet, according to Barton, they don’t.

“As a referee — contrary to what many people might think — you detach yourself from many situations, from the noise, from the pressure,” he said.

That doesn’t mean the referee is unaware of who’s on the field. According to him, it means he can’t let a player’s name influence his decision.

“On the field, there are no big names, no big teams. You see 11 players against 11 players,” Barton said.

The Salvadoran had already officiated games featuring Messi during his career in various tournaments and at the 2026 World Cup, he faced some of the most renowned soccer players on the planet.

“At no point do we think, ‘I’m not going to speak to him firmly or show him a card because it’s this player.’ No, absolutely not,” Barton stated.

The rules must apply equally to everyone.

“If you see an incident, a foul or something someone did, you make a decision regardless of who it is,” Barton said.

Barton explains the relationship in a way that makes it clear it’s not about ignoring the players’ status in the sport. It’s about understanding that, for those 90 minutes, roles are clearly defined.

“Obviously, we respect them for what they’ve achieved, for what they represent in soccer, but when it comes to applying the rules of the game, we see 11 players against 11 players — and that’s it,” he said.

Taking El Salvador to the biggest stage

Barton speaks little about himself and a lot about his country. Every assignment, he explains, ceases to be an individual endeavor.

“The higher you climb a mountain, the stronger the wind blows. The harder it is to maintain your balance,” he said.

His philosophy has changed little since he began his career.

“I haven’t achieved these things on my own. There’s a huge team behind me. … My family, CONCACAF, FIFA, the people who have always supported me,” Barton said.

The Salvadoran acknowledges that, during international competitions, he often finds that there are still people who don’t even know where El Salvador is located.

“When you get to competitions at this level, there are people who can’t even locate our country on a map,” Barton noted. “Serving as a means for others to learn about El Salvador and ensuring that representation is dignified is one of my greatest responsibilities.”

There’s a common perception among fans that FIFA assigns the matches each referee will officiate from the very beginning of the tournament.

Instead, each assignment depends on the performance shown during the previous match.

France captain Kylian Mbappe and Spain captain Rodri pose with referee Iván Barton and match officials before a World Cup semifinal.

(Florencia Tan Jun / Getty Images)

“First, you have to earn a spot in the World Cup. Then you have to earn the privilege of officiating a match. And after that, it depends entirely on how you perform in that match,” Barton said. “It’s just like the teams. No one is guaranteed to advance. Game by game, you prove whether you deserve to stay in the competition.”

After each match, there are technical sessions during which every major match decision is analyzed.

“We have debriefing sessions to review what we did well and what we need to improve,” he said. “We also work with a technical staff that conducts tactical analyses of the teams to prepare for the different scenarios a match might present.”

Although the semifinal against France and Spain holds a special place in his heart, Barton recalls other World Cup moments that will likely stay with him forever.

“The four walkouts before the matches were impressive. Hearing the World Cup anthem and walking out of the tunnel was always special,” he said.

“When the final whistle blew in the semifinal, I felt like I’d written my name into soccer history by representing my country. It was one of the most sublime moments of my career.”

Unlike many public figures, Barton decided to stay virtually off social media before and during the World Cup.

“Our minds are what we choose to feed them. If we feed them garbage, we’ll end up thinking that way,” he said.

Barton only opened official accounts after the tournament — and, according to him, not out of personal interest.

“There were too many fake profiles impersonating me,” Barton said. “I’m not swayed by flattery, just as I’m not affected by insults. … I’ve faced the most attacks in my own country, not abroad,” Barton confessed.

Even so, he insists on always responding with the same message.

“Behind the referee is a human being. There’s a father, a husband, a son,” he said. “It’s fine to criticize the work, but don’t cross the line into personal attacks.”

Jessica Williams always goes to bed laughing.

“Everything’s so sad,” the actor explains. “Not taking yourself seriously is the only way, because otherwise I would just be upset, especially as a Black woman in the year 2026. I hate when people are on ‘The Bachelor’ and they’re like, ‘I love laughing,’ but it’s true. I really love it.”

Williams, 37, knows a thing or two about making others laugh. A three-time Emmy nominee for supporting actress in a comedy series for her work on “Shrinking,” she’s made an art of it. On a show about grief and mental health, Williams is often on hand to bring the funny.

Curled up in a chair on the top floor of The Times’ offices in El Segundo, looking down on the runways of LAX boiling in the late July sun, Williams gives runway fierceness against the beige office walls. She is just like the pop of bubblegum pink polish on her toenails as she strikes a pose in a chic all-black linen ensemble — a delightful burst of cheer in a subdued environment, something effervescent amid so much inoffensive sameness. She’s always been that way.

I would know; I’ve known her since we were 12 years old, awkward adolescents in Marcia Barryte’s Dodson Middle School drama class. As we catch up, I remind her of a PG-13 scene she caused in eighth grade science class during an earthquake drill. (To be fair, the drama students were asked to play standardized patients, and she was assigned “hysteria.”) While the class collected our backpacks, she broke into an award-worthy performance, wailing about not wanting to die a virgin.

“No!” she gasps, covering her mouth but unable to hide the mischievous grin that’s broken across her face at the memory. “That’s very inappropriate. I love that.”

Under slightly different circumstances, it’s a storyline that could belong to her “Shrinking” character, Gaby Evans, a therapist who brings her sunny demeanor, audacious sense of humor and enviable stores of energy into every room. That’s partly because so much of who Gaby is has been carefully honed by the writers and Williams to align with the actor’s voice.

“We can write almost anything and Jessica can make it sound like it has stemmed from Gaby,” says series co-creator Bill Lawrence. “She’s in charge of Gaby’s voice — and it’s a tremendous safety net for us as a writing staff.”

Jessica Williams in “Shrinking.”

(Apple TV)

Williams agrees this has been her experience, one she’s grateful for in an industry often dead set on ignoring perspectives like hers. “At the end of the day, white guys are in charge of this business,” she says. “Progress in film and TV requires them to go to bat for us. I feel really lucky to be on a show where Bill pulled me aside and was like, ‘If I’m doing my job right, the first couple episodes, we write these stories, and then, there’s a moment where it switches to being your character and you are the shepherd of her.’ It made it really collaborative and a safe space for me to play.”

Three seasons in, the set has become the world’s best playground. For instance, the writers gave Williams ample runway in a scene where Gaby turns the tables and proposes to her boyfriend, Derek (Damon Wayans Jr.), after discovering an engagement ring in a desk drawer (and getting it stuck on her finger). “Look, if you’re a television writer and you have a proposal scene and you don’t let Jessica Williams run with it, you’re cheating yourself,” quips Lawrence.

That mutual trust doesn’t mean that Gaby and Williams are the same person — just that Williams’ lived experience has shaped who Gaby is. “The point of a scene is we don’t know what it’s going to be,” she says. “We learned our lines. We’re going to show up. The director’s here. They have an idea. We’re going to make this thing together. We’re going to ‘Yes, and?’ until we get the scene up.”

Her ability to take the ball and run with it is what caught Lawrence’s eye in the first place, discovering Williams as a correspondent on “The Daily Show.” “She works very hard at making it seem like it’s off the cuff,” he emphasizes. “She is quick to call the writing staff with questions and is always looking to improve things. That’s not always the truth with everybody. She works her ass off.”

Jessica Williams. (Ryan Pfluger / For The Times)

That work ethic was essential for her Season 3 arc, which found Williams facing some of the toughest acting challenges of her career. Gaby bonds with a new, albeit reluctant, patient, Maya (Sherry Cola), only to be devastated when Maya takes her own life. It’s the heaviest storyline of the season — and a heartbreaking look at the realities of suicide, loss and trauma in the lives of mental health professionals.

One of the show’s consultants had experienced a similar loss, and their insights helped the writing staff find dramatic resonance. For Williams, it was a chance to showcase what she always believed she was capable of. “For women, people of color, queer people, any minorities, we just want the opportunity to show what we can do,” Williams says. “I was rubbing my hands together. Like, ‘F— yeah. Let’s go.’ But I was also really nervous. Sometimes when I get scenes that are a bit more difficult, I wake up and I wonder if I can do it. Every single time it’s proving to myself that I can. It felt like I didn’t get to rest last season in a way that was really nice. Most times I feel like I’m just goofing, but that felt like, ‘Oh, I’m an actor.’”

That’s an inevitable side effect of appearing on a Bill Lawrence show. His blend of humor and pathos demands a high-wire act from his ensembles. “With Bill, you have to have the acting chops to be able to do the drama, but then be able to turn a joke very quickly,” says Christa Miller, who’s been married to Lawrence since 1999 and played major roles on “Scrubs” and “Cougar Town” before “Shrinking,” in which she stars as Liz. “You really have to be able to do it on a dime.”

Lawrence clocked early on that Williams had the chops to hold her own against heavyweights like Harrison Ford. “We knew comedically she would crush it. The only question mark was about who she was as an actress,” says Lawrence. “But she was great from the second she set foot onstage. It would’ve been a massive mistake not to let her showcase that stuff.”

The storyline also pushed Williams to reopen an old wound. In 2019, she lost her longtime boyfriend to a heroin overdose. “He had a therapist who had come recommended from my therapist,” she says. “I don’t remember that time that much because it was so intense and traumatic. I do remember my therapist was helping me work through it, but she was also like, ‘I’d like to check in with his therapist and see how he’s doing.’ That was the first place I went when they told me about that storyline. It was a good opportunity to work through that a little bit.”

Even though her grief was readily accessible, it also churned up emotions that Williams often tries to quiet. “There’s always something when someone dies, whether it’s suicide or an accident, where you feel guilt,” she reflects. “‘What could I have done?’ It was something that I’ve processed and am still processing, and it was easy to transfer that into Season 3. Grief is so ongoing. It’s a wound that I have forever, and I would give anything to not have it. But now I have it, and I live with it. It’s like an old friend.”

Williams describes the days filming those scenes as different for her, harder to shake. Driving home from the set in Burbank, she’d often take side streets back to her house in Eagle Rock, getting lost in music and her environment. “It felt like trying to shed it,” she explains. “I really felt it. But so many people responded to it in a way that was what I wanted. It’s such an intimate thing, this job, and to be able to portray something [that resonates], that’s the whole point.”

One emotion the work generated that she wasn’t expecting? Embarrassment. “I’m usually not embarrassed doing comedy,” she says. “I’m like, ‘There’s no rules. We can try anything.’ It doesn’t feel as vulnerable, whereas acting, there’s something fundamentally so indulgent about it.”

It’s a surprising admission; though I haven’t spent substantial time with Williams in years, she always seemed fearless to me. Willing to do whatever it took to get a laugh. It’s why our drama teacher invented an entirely new role for her in our spring musical, to showcase her generational comedic talent.

Williams agrees she was a cutup in class, but she never got the chance to do any capital-A acting in middle school. “I would get a part, and then I wouldn’t be able to do it,” she recounts. “Mrs. Barryte would have to call my parents and be like, ‘She did not do her homework. She has bad grades. She can’t do the play.’ I let people down. I remember feeling really sad about it.

“That taught me I’m a part of a team,” she reflects. “I have to be professional. I have to be ready. But I’m glad I don’t have to do my math homework to be able to perform. Public school’s tough — you had to be an awkward Black girl and get good grades to do the musical.”

That all changed when Williams found improv, joining the ComedySportz team at Harbor City’s Narbonne High (she continued on the college team while she was a student at Cal State Long Beach). “I cared about improv so much that I wasn’t not going to do my homework,” she says. “It just affected my life profoundly. I’m getting misty thinking about these programs that are underfunded, that s— really matters.”

Williams has also found reassurance in the response to her character. “She makes me more confident,” she admits. “Just seeing the response to Gaby. A lot of that is amazing writing, directing and an amazing crew, but it’s also my instincts.”

“The first time I was like, ‘Whoa, what the f—?’” she says of her three Emmy nominations for the role. “Second time, it was like, ‘OK, it wasn’t a fluke.’ And then the third time you’re like, ‘Oh s—!’ All the actresses that I admire are in this category, so I’m honored. But these are my peers too. So it’s like, ‘Oh, they see me.’ Gaby means something to people, it feels like — and that’s really nice. It encourages me to keep going.”

As for what that future will hold, besides at least one more season of “Shrinking,” Williams is hungry to do a play on Broadway, having not done theater since high school. Somewhere in there she’d like to capitalize on her tendency to play erudite characters and embody a detective in a thriller (preferably a paranormal one like her childhood faves “So Weird” and “The X-Files”).

Mostly, though, she just wants to keep doing what she’s been striving for since we were kids — “I want, when you watch me, for you to feel like you’ve seen something magic happen.”

Well, abracadabra.

SACRAMENTO — Lawyer Kamalpreet Chohan ran her finger down a list of 57 names of people scheduled to appear during a morning of hearings at the immigration court in Sacramento and pointed out one glaring commonality.

“None of these folks are represented,” she said.

Chohan is the coordinator of a program that sends volunteer lawyers to immigration courts to assist people without representation and help them navigate the complicated legal system, where the stakes are a future in the U.S. or deportation.

Appearing without a lawyer opens up even greater risk under the second Trump administration, with the courts playing a key role in its mass deportation agenda. Courts are increasingly denying asylum, deportation officers have arrested immigrants in court hallways and the administration has packed courtrooms to cut backlogs and reduced lead time on hearings, causing people to miss them.

Data show that legal representation can be crucial to winning in court, but many immigrants, unable to pay for a private lawyer or find a pro bono one, navigate the system without an attorney at their side.

“Folks go into immigration court not knowing what’s happening. They come out not knowing what’s happening. And when there’s an attorney present,” Chohan said, “it’s just so helpful.”

No guaranteed legal representation

Unlike criminal court, there is no guaranteed lawyer in immigration courts.

Immigrants have to hire one at a cost of thousands of dollars or hope to get represented by one of the nonprofit organizations assisting low-income immigrants. But waitlists with those organizations are long, and many parts of the country just do not have that many immigration attorneys.

Of the roughly 3.2 million pending deportation cases currently in U.S. immigration courts, people in 52% of those cases do not have a lawyer, according to an analysis of immigration court data by the Vera Institute of Justice, a think tank.

A Congressional Research Service study from 2024 found that only 19% of people who did not have a lawyer won asylum or another avenue to stay in the United States. Among those who did have a lawyer, 47% were successful.

“Having an attorney is just super critical to be able to navigate the system successfully,” said Adriel Orozco of the advocacy group American Immigration Council.

Chohan said she frequently runs into people who have been scammed by lawyers or people posing as lawyers who take their money but do nothing for their case.

“I will give him a list of attorneys who are free and we have vetted,” she said, referring to one man who said he had been scammed. “They have long waitlists, but he should still ask.”

Speaking later to the Associated Press, the man described how he left Guatemala after being threatened by gangs and came to the U.S. in 2024 seeking asylum. Ever since, he said, he has done everything that has been asked of him while he tries to make ends meet, occasionally painting houses. He spent $4,500 on a lawyer who in the end did nothing to help him, he said.

“He turned out to be a scammer,” said the man, who did not want to be identified for fear of endangering his case. He is worried about what comes next in court after being warned by the judge that he could be deported. “I don’t know what I’m going to do,” he said.

A busy day in court

Outside the Sacramento building where the court is housed is a long line of immigrants waiting for appointments with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is in the same building. Volunteers with a local anti-ICE resistance group stand ready to help.

Upstairs, two immigration judges are on the bench. One hears the in-depth individual cases of immigrants who are pursuing their claim of asylum.

The other judge has the master calendar docket, where dozens of immigrants will appear in brief hearings geared at making sure their case is ready to go to the next step.

Signs taped to the wall remind people not to make audio or video recordings inside the court complex. A security guard makes sure no one loiters in the hallways. Most people clutch stacks of papers documenting their cases.

After immigrants file into the courtroom for their hearings, Judge Susan Phan introduces Chohan and describes the services her organization offers.

“You are not required to meet with her, but it is a rare opportunity that we have someone volunteering their time,” Phan said before launching into the day’s work.

Details matter

Chohan, who works with the California Immigration Project, starts each hearing in the courtroom. She has a clipboard to take notes, extra copies of forms and a crate of books for restless children attending court with their parents. She spends the bulk of her time in the waiting room, talking to clients after their hearings and scanning their documents to flesh out what else they need.

Speaking to one young man from Mexico, she asks to see his asylum application, noting that the judge had pointed out that it was lacking in detail.

“Sometimes judges can deny a claim if there isn’t enough detail,” she said through one of the organization’s volunteer interpreters.

The organization frequently holds clinics to help immigrants fill out their asylum application. Chohan said she will alert him to the next one.

Another woman holding a stack of documents is there with her son and wanted to make sure her children could come with her if she is deported. Chohan also briefed her on what to expect at her upcoming asylum hearing and said the organization would send her an asylum filing guide.

Chohan highlighted places on forms where people need to give answers or answer in more detail. It’s OK to write “none, ” but she advises them to not leave boxes blank.

Everything submitted in Spanish must be accompanied by a translation into English that must be done by a person, not an automatic online translator. Copies of every page of a passport must be submitted. Documents must be sent in two weeks before the applicant’s hearing so the judge can review them.

Over and over, Chohan reminds immigrants to download their receipt showing they paid the $102 asylum application fee so they can submit it to the court.

Chohan said a lot of these procedures and forms are discussed in court, but it is happening fast and immigrants are listening through an interpreter, so they don’t always understand.

“A lot of times when they go into court, they’re just happy that they’re out of court and they’re not being arrested,” she said.

A changing court system

Chohan has witnessed the upheaval in the immigration courts during President Trump’s second term.

She was in the court hallways last summer when ICE officers waited to arrest immigrants after their hearings. Earlier this summer she watched as the administration started holding “mega masters,” hearings with dozens of respondents at a time that are meant to clear a backlog but have created chaos.

Chohan said there are not enough pro bono lawyers in the Sacramento area to help everyone who needs one, so the “attorney of the day” program is often the next best thing. She believes everyone should have access to a lawyer.

Until that day, she said, the program “helps bridge that gap.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

A small boat has crossed the English Channel carrying 230 people, the largest-ever recorded number to make the journey in a single vessel.

The boat arrived in the UK on Saturday, when a total of 258 migrants on four boats made the crossing.

The 230 people on one boat breaks the previous record from July when 165 people made the crossing on a single vessel.

A Home Office spokesperson said this latest incident demonstrated the “reckless and dangerous tactics employed by criminal gangs… who continue to put lives at risk by cramming ever greater numbers of people onto unseaworthy vessels”.

Follow BBC Kent on Facebook, external, on X, external, and on Instagram, external. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk, external or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250.

Years ago, at the height of his success, Anthony Jeselnik couldn’t sleep. It was making him crazy. Hoping to find relief, the comedian sought help from a therapist he assumed would guide him back to a healthy sleep schedule. Instead, he encountered an apathy that stunned him.

“So what?” he recalls her saying. “So what if you don’t sleep? If you wake up, read a book. Find ways to be productive in your loneliness.”

Anthony Jeselnik grows earnest when he talks about his love for books.

(Ariana Drehsler / For The Times)

The advice resonated. Today, the comedian is still reading alone, only now he has a dog — and an audience. A lifelong reader, Jeselnik has transformed his literary habit into a popular online book club, Jeselnik Book Club, where he recommends novels and invites discussion on his YouTube channel. His first video, posted in January and reviewing Jim Thompson’s “The Getaway,” garnered over 31,000 views. Each month, he chooses a novel and offers it up for discussion.

“My goal was to curate and give people their best shot at enjoying reading,” he says. It’s a valiant effort, considering that reading has been in a steady decline. Last year, it was reported that the number of American readers had declined by 40% over the previous two decades.

“People will say, ‘Oh, I don’t like reading books.’ You’re choosing the wrong books,” says Jeselnik, his voice likely ringing with his signature snark because he, for the most part, knows otherwise. In 2022, bestselling writer Isaac Fitzgerald, who recently released the anticipated “American Rambler: Walking the Trail of Johnny Appleseed,” witnessed the power of a Jeselnik recommendation.

“It helps with the masculinity crisis in that reading is masculine. It is a masculine thing to do,” Anthony Jeselnik argues, advocating that young men trade online conspiracy forums for literature.

(Ariana Drehsler / For The Times)

“A friend texted me that Anthony Jeselnik, a comedian whom I loved — but had never met nor interacted with — shouted out his love of my memoir, ‘Dirtbag, Massachusetts,’ on his podcast. I was thrilled,” Fitzgerald says. “At my events, both in Chicago and throughout the rest of that year, more and more people in my signing lines told me they’d heard of the book from Jeselnik’s podcast. I was also buoyed by how many of the people in the signing lines were young men.”

Since then, despite Jeselnik’s self-proclaimed loner status, Fitzgerald and Jeselnik have struck up a friendship. “The man is a real lover of books, with excellent taste and, unsurprisingly, confidence in his convictions,” Fitzgerald says. Earlier this year, the author held a book launch event for “American Rambler” at Skylight Books in Los Feliz. Jeselnik hosted. “I think he may have single-handedly invented a new way to do literary events. I don’t know what to call it … a literary roast?” Fitzgerald says. “Everyone laughed for an hour straight.”

In a sun-drenched luxury apartment above Hollywood Boulevard, Jeselnik explains that he mostly avoids the press — because he says he’s become weary of cancel culture and identity politics, conversations that have mired comedy.

Still, he welcomes the chance to discuss books, his voice swelling with excitement at the mention of authors Emily St. John Mandel and Ottessa Moshfegh — both personal favorites. Almost an hour into the conversation, the comedian reveals that he has Joan Didion’s author photo tattooed on his chest. His hand rests on his heart as he evangelizes her writing — a surprisingly tender moment of sentimentality from a comedian who has made a career out of stinging misanthropy.

“She has the cleanest prose. I think she’s the best writer of all time,” Jeselnik says. “I’ve read all of her novels, a lot of her essays. Her book about her husband dying is one of the most heartbreaking books.”

In fact, Didion is a natural match for the comedian. He is renowned for his precise and restrained use of language, delivering provocative truths about people’s ugliest impulses and asking the audience to laugh at them.

In the comedy world, Jeselnik has become legendary for his razor-edged one-liners, each joke ending with a dark reversal. He’s gained a reputation as the provocative bad boy of comedy with irresistible charm. Over the course of his career, he has enjoyed toying with this stage persona, which he jokes is that of a “borderline psychopath.” His roast of Donald Trump catapulted him to stardom, and he has released five hourlong comedy specials, the most recent of which, “Bones and All,” debuted in 2024. On Instagram, he has over 1 million followers.

“I was trying to be the devil onstage and somehow ended up as likable anyway,” he says of his storied career. This interests him in literature too — transcending reputation through good art. “Edgar Allan Poe wrote these books about psychopaths and killers. Authors do not equal their persona.”

“I’m trying to make reading cool again,” Anthony Jeselnik says. “Reading is a solitary act in the way that stand-up comedy is a solitary art form.”

(Ariana Drehsler / For The Times)

Jeselnik’s book club recommendations are eclectic and literary — the kind of titles name-dropped in MFA writing workshops and met with impressed nods at dinner parties. Most recently, he recommended “Stoner” by John Williams, “Dept. of Speculation” by Jenny Offill, and “Paradais” by Fernanda Melchor. He curates his recommendations painstakingly, choosing brisk reads of around 250 pages that he hopes will hook new readers.

“I’m trying to make reading cool again,” Jeselnik notes. “Reading is a solitary act in the way that stand-up comedy is a solitary art form.”

He hopes his fan base embraces a life of reading. Similarly, in 2025, comedian John Mulaney also began recommending books on social media. “There are so few books for guys that are literary. There’s a lot of John Grisham and Jack Reacher, but there’s not something literary that a guy can sink his teeth into,” Jeselnik says. “If it’s well written, and the writer is great, then I’ll go on any kind of journey they take me on. I don’t always understand everything that I read, either. But reading a great writer, it’s like listening to classical music.”

With anti-intellectualism in comedy on the rise, he says his book club stands as an antidote to the manosphere. Young men passing time on conspiracy theory-infested corners of Reddit should instead pick up a novel, the comedian argues. “It helps with the masculinity crisis in that reading is masculine. It is a masculine thing to do,” he says. “The Hemingways of the world were out there. It used to be a badass thing to be a writer, and a brave thing to put your thoughts onto the page and publish them.”

The comedian has been a voracious reader since childhood. When he was in a Montessori school, the teachers discovered that reading would soothe Jeselnik. “I could go sit in a corner, and you can be a juvenile delinquent reading juvenile delinquent books.” Reading gave him a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction that followed him into early adulthood — a penchant he would like to stoke in his fans.

Early on, when Jeselnik discovered Bret Easton Ellis’ work, it felt revelatory. “Once you got outside of the curriculum, it was revolutionary to me to read Bret Easton Ellis; to read about sex, gay sex, to read about drugs, and people, young people, doing this was fascinating.”

Starting a book club felt like a natural progression for Jeselnik’s decadelong career, he explains. “In terms of how I do things and my approach to stand-up, instead of doing a podcast, having a book club seems like a natural extension of that.” There’s an earnestness in his appreciation of great literature that translates to his videos. “You can tell that I like the book and want people to enjoy it at the same level.”

Jeselnik, 47, imagines his comedy career is winding down. Thankfully for his fans, he has other creative ambitions. “I’d love to take a crack at either short stories or writing a novel.”

He reflects on the trend of comedians who, later in their careers, seek new legitimacy. “You see a guy like Jim Carrey: the last thing he wants to do is make anyone laugh anymore. He wants to be taken so seriously,” he says. Jeselnik believes his stage persona spared him from that particular crisis of self. “People are afraid of me. Fans who approach me are careful because my stage persona is borderline psychopath,” he says. “I don’t feel that same need to be taken seriously. I think I am taken seriously.”

His comedic sensibility explores cruelty, shock, transgressions and antiheroes — and it’s also what continues to draw him to literature. “I love bank robbers. I love the idea of the villain winning. That is revolutionary to me. You’re raised on TV, and things have to be wrapped up in half an hour, and the moral has to hold,” Jeselnik says. “I love that books don’t have to play by those rules.”

Connors is a culture journalist in L.A. She covers books, food, entertainment and offbeat Los Angeles. She’s currently at work on a book of essays about tourism in all its forms.

SACRAMENTO — Weeks before voting ended in California’s primary for governor, Los Angeles-based influencer Shaka Smith took to Instagram to tell his more than 700,000 followers whom he was voting for and why.

“Healthcare shouldn’t bankrupt you, housing should not feel impossible, polluters shouldn’t pass their bill to us, and artists should not be replaced by AI,” Smith said. “That’s why I’m supporting Tom Steyer for governor.”

But Smith started the video with a disclaimer: “This is an ad, and honestly, I wish more political content said that first.” His caption specified that he was paid by Steyer’s campaign.

California is one of two states, along with Texas, that have passed policies requiring content creators to say if they’ve been paid by a political campaign to post, and the Golden State is considering cracking down by fining people who don’t.

Campaigns have long worked with celebrities and major influencers to win over voters, but now they are teaming up with smaller creators — sometimes with fewer than 100,000 followers — to reach more tailored audiences. That has sparked debates about whether disclosure rules for political advertisements should apply to content creators, who are expected to play prominent roles in the upcoming midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

“If you’re running for president and you are not currently trying to court some of these people or lining up your own people to act as surrogates for you, you’re already behind,” said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist who worked for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

Campaigns tap creators to spread their message

Questions about transparency have been fueled by high-profile instances of influencers making content intended to change minds or votes without disclosing they were being paid.

In 2022, the campaign of Democratic then-Senate candidate John Fetterman paid Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi of “Jersey Shore” to record a video teasing his GOP rival for leaving New Jersey before announcing his run in Pennsylvania. In 2023, content creators were paid by an influencer marketing agency with conservative ties to defend Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, a Republican, after he was impeached for alleged bribery and other accusations of misconduct, according to the Texas Tribune. The payments weren’t clearly disclosed in either case.

Steyer, a Democratic billionaire who spent more than $215 million of his own money on his unsuccessful bid for governor, took fire from rivals for paying content creators. He wasn’t the only contender in the race paying influencers, but he faced much of the blowback because he had already been accused of trying to buy the election for having poured much of his personal fortune into his campaign. Many of the creators who worked with Steyer’s campaign disclosed that they were paid, but the state’s campaign finance watchdog is investigating several other instances in which creators allegedly didn’t.

There are no federal disclosure rules

Sen. Adam Schiff of California introduced federal legislation last month, but it hasn’t received a vote yet. Some outside groups are urging the Federal Election Commission to pass its own rule.

California’s law requiring disclosure, passed in 2023, is difficult to enforce. The state’s campaign watchdog can seek a court order compelling an influencer to disclose that they were paid, but that can take months.

That prompted Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) to write a new bill to penalize content creators and political committees if the creator fails to state they were compensated. The bill would give the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission the power to fine influencers and committees if they are found to have violated the law, allowing the commission to bypass the court process. They could face fines of up to $5,000 per violation, according to the commission.

“Voters should have a right to know whether or not campaigns are paying for the messaging that they’re seeing,” Berman said.

Texas’ campaign watchdog passed a rule in 2024 requiring content creators to include disclaimers when they are paid for political advertisements, and the New York Legislature is considering a similar requirement. Other disclosure bills failed in recent years in Utah and Georgia.

Influencer says his ad had an impact

Smith, the L.A. influencer, hadn’t committed to a candidate for governor when a trusted friend told him to look into Steyer. That friend had been paid to post about Steyer.

Smith liked Steyer’s promise to increase taxes on billionaires and his refusal to accept donations from corporate political action committees.

He ended up doing two paid ads, both of which included compensation disclaimers that the Steyer campaign told him were a requirement.

Smith wouldn’t say exactly how much the campaign paid him, but he said it was in the thousands of dollars. He thinks the posts had an effect on his followers, with only a few detractors objecting.

“They kind of trust my voice,” he said of his audience. “They knew that if I’m saying it, it’s at least something they should look into.”

Creators respond to proposed policy changes

Dustin Torreverde, a content creator in Southern California who hasn’t been paid by a political campaign for social media posts, said it’s important for influencers to be transparent with their audiences. But the bill could pose an unfair burden on creators who are just trying to make a living, he said.

“A lot of us are very small creators,” he said. “So if we were to get penalized and we have to get lawyers, stuff like that, it’s going to be very difficult for us.”

Adina Flores, a libertarian content creator in Northern California who votes for both parties, said influencers should have to disclose if they are paid and that she generally supports penalties. She worries some people may take money to post political content without doing a “deep dive into the candidate to make sure that’s somebody they should support.”

Saurav Ghosh, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit focused on protecting American democracy, hopes disclosure requirements passed by states will lead to federal rules.

“Transparency is one of the most important pillars of our election system,” he said.

Austin writes for the Associated Press.

Nick Offerman is more than just his facial hair. For one thing, the actor made viewers weep with his Emmy-winning turn as Bill, a man who found unexpected love in “The Last of Us.”

Then again, Bill did have a great beard.

Fans who celebrated Ron Swanson and his mustache on “Parks and Recreation” have had much to enjoy with the two roles that earned Offerman Emmy nominations this year. As Chester A. Arthur, corrupt politician-turned-surprise president in Netflix’s limited series “Death by Lightning,” and retired professional wrestler and recovering addict Jinx in the Apple TV series “Margo’s Got Money Troubles,” he had two powerful redemption arcs to navigate. As well as some mighty coifs.

“I pride myself on that,” he deadpans. “It’s not something you can learn. I literally come by it honestly because it’s what Mother Nature provided me. Benedict Cumberbatch got the cheekbones and the nimble, articulate language tools. I got whiskers, and shoveling, and slow talking. We all get our things.”

Nick Offerman as Chester A. Arthur in “Death By Lightning.”

(Larry Horricks/Netflix)

Speaking by video chat from the Goodman Theatre in Chicago, where he’s playing Eugene O’Neill opposite wife Megan Mullally’s Broadway diva in “Iceboy! The Musical,” Offerman is humble and erudite, poking fun at himself while praising colleagues. He is “sincerely gobsmacked” by the double nod. He is also fresh-faced, because he’s filming the Alex Garland film “Elden Ring” in London during his downtime. “Here is this meager little mustache that someone made me, and I glue it on every night,” he says, holding up two tiny hairy wings.

In contrast, Arthur’s mutton chops just won’t stop. “If a president is not thin and has facial hair, then it’s been suggested that I should play him,” Offerman says. “People send me all of them, you name it: McKinley, Harrison, Teddy Roosevelt.”

Of course, the actor goes beyond whiskers to create his roles. To play Arthur, he read “Destiny of the Republic” by historian Candice Millard, which the show is based on. He also read Scott Greenberger’s biography “The Unexpected President.”

But ultimately he found his character on the pages of creator Mike Makowsky’s scripts. “The incredible advantage of great writing is that they’ve answered a lot of the questions for you,” Offerman says, adding, “Makowsky told me that he had me in mind when he was writing it. Once you learn about Chester, you’re like, ‘That’s a mixed compliment.’”

Nick Offerman.

(Billy Delfs / For The Times)

He says working on “Death” was “exquisite,” likening the shoot to a camp for theater kids, delighting in the depth of talent in the cast, and recalling when he and star Michael Shannon, at the time performing plays together in Chicago, used to get up to youthful drunken shenanigans, “like climbing a building outside the L&L Tavern.”

Jinx would probably have enjoyed that in his early years. When we see him on “Margo,” he’s been brought low by pain, prescription drugs and a lost love (Michelle Pfeiffer), trying to make amends with his daughter Margo (Elle Fanning), who’s struggling with single parenthood.

“Jinx desperately wants to be a good guy, he wants to be a good dad, he wants to be a good lover,” says Offerman. “He wants to be the hero of any circumstance, but unfortunately he has these frailties that I know too well.”

Offerman trained for three months with bodybuilder Grant Roberts “to create the body of, thankfully, a former pro wrestler, so you don’t necessarily need terrific abs,” Offerman says. Then for three weeks during the shoot he worked with pro wrestler Chavo Guerrero Jr. “I’m a former fight choreographer for the stage, and I do my own stunts, so I’ve been waiting this whole time to play a swashbuckler. By the time we were done, I was flying off the top rope.”

The physical preparation helped him find his way into the role. “What I learned about pro wrestlers, who are incredibly generous and loving people, is that they are all hurt, all the time. They’re all performing through pain,” he notes. “So how can I summon everything I have to blow away this audience with superheroic energy, even though I’m just this dumb theater-school kid?”

Offerman with “Margo’s Got Money Troubles” co-stars Elle Fanning, center, and Michelle Pfeiffer.

(Apple TV)

Jinx’s look is also key to the portrayal. For present-day scenes, Offerman sports his own beard, with some color added. But for flashbacks, “they made my spray tan extra dark, gave me this gorgeous mane of hair and put some braids in my beard. I was just over the moon. People complain about three hours in the makeup chair. I don’t complain because someone is putting their masterpiece on my head. I have the tractor and the hay rack that they’re building their float on that’s going to win the Rose Bowl Parade. It’s such a privilege to get to drive their masterpiece around.”

He soon faced Fanning. “She’s such a badass professional. It was so fun because she inspires me to also be more flexible and creative.” He calls Pfeiffer “a cinematic Mt. Rushmore. That was very thrilling because I traditionally have not been cast as people who have heat with glamorous movie stars.” He giggles.

“I understand that I have value as a performer, but I still don’t get how I got this part,” he says, sounding a bit baffled. “This is the best part of my life. I’ve had some wonderful parts that I’m very grateful for, but I’ve never had scenes with such complicated emotional relationships.”

He adds a point that could apply to Chester Arthur as well. “It’s fun to be a protagonist who gets to indulge in human weakness, knowing that we hopefully will bring the audience back around to caring about you.”

Turbulence can be a scary thing, but this is what you need to know

A Jet2 pilot has shared what turbulence is really like – and what he wishes passengers understood about it.

Reassuring people that turbulence is “normal”, Josh urged people to stay calm, and it’s nothing to panic about – a key fact he wishes more people knew. He explained in the airline’s Ask a Pilot blog that there are “a few things that’ll really help” nervous flyers stay calm and enjoy their trip, whether they’re heading on a short-haul hop or a longer flight.

But first, what is turbulence? Experts at the Flight Radar 24 explains: “Turbulence is a common yet complex weather phenomenon that affects aviation.

“Broadly speaking, it refers to irregular air movements that cause erratic changes in the altitude and/or attitude of an aircraft. Let’s take a look at the various types of turbulence, their causes, and some notable incidents they have played a part in.”

I’m scared of flying, what can I do?

Answering the question: “I’m a nervous flyer! Can you give me some tips on how to relax and enjoy the flight?” Josh set out practical ways passengers can feel more in control and less anxious in the air.

Josh explained “understanding that turbulence is completely normal” is the first step in dealing with nerves. Planes are designed and rigorously tested to cope with conditions far more severe than anything you’re likely to encounter on a routine journey.

If you are worried, “let the crew know if you’re feeling nervous. The team at Jet2 are incredibly customer-focused, and if you mention it, they’ll do everything they can to reassure you and make the journey as comfortable as possible. This might even include a cockpit visit on the ground before departure, which can really help build confidence.”

The pilot also recommends keeping yourself occupied with distractions such as music, films, podcasts or a good book. This can really help take your mind off the flight and make the time go faster.

He stressed: “Remember, flying is one of the safest forms of transport, with multiple layers of training, technology and procedures all working together to keep you safe. If you have any questions while onboard, just ask a member of our friendly crew who will gladly help you.”

What are the types of turbulence?

Flight Radar explains the types of turbulence that can range from light to extreme. However, it stresses: “Whilst turbulence can feel unsettling, especially to nervous flyers, it is important to emphasise that severe turbulence events are generally quite rare. Pilots carry out an extensive weather brief before a flight which identifies areas of known turbulence en-route, which are avoided if possible.”

Light Turbulence

Light turbulence causes slight and erratic changes in altitude and attitude of the aircraft. Passengers may feel a light strain against their seat belts. There is little or no difficulty in walking for crew members, and unsecured objects may be slightly displaced.

Moderate Turbulence

Moderate turbulence results in changes in altitude and/or attitude that are more intense than light turbulence but the aircraft remains under control at all times. Passengers feel a more definite strain against their seat belts and unsecured objects are dislodged. Walking becomes difficult for crew members.

Severe Turbulence

Severe turbulence causes large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude, with large variations in airspeed. The aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Passengers are forced violently against their seat belts, and unsecured objects can become airborne. Walking is impossible. Severe turbulence is generally quite rare.

Extreme Turbulence

Extreme turbulence results in the aircraft being tossed about violently, making it practically impossible to control. This category of turbulence may cause structural damage to the aircraft. Severe injuries to passengers and crew are possible if they are not securely fastened. Extreme turbulence is, as named, extremely rare.

Dorsey High’s 1982 City Section football championship team walked onto the stage with a youthful swagger. Though it has been decades since they celebrated within the halls of the school, it was like they had never left that courtyard.

Alumni and family cheered and danced alongside them at Dorsey’s first full athletics reunion. Soon after, the cheerleaders for the 1976 championship basketball team came out to perform. The up and coming sports teams for the 2026-27 school year came out with their families, as hundreds of people celebrated the legacy and the future of the school.

But Dorsey has undergone a lot of changes since the turn of the century.

In 25 years, it has gone from a well-attended school with a successful athletics program to one that has faded into the background of Los Angeles.

The last football championship came in 2001. The next year, Dorsey enrolled 2,211 students, the most in school history, according to Public School Review. Now, enrollment is hitting a low with 792 students, according to US News, and the athletic teams are trying to find that powerhouse status again.

Enter former football head coach Paul Knox. He had a solution — or at least an idea. Bring together the athletics alumni of Dorsey for a day of celebration, with a look ahead to the future.

On Saturday, hundreds of current and former Dorsey Dons came to the school for the reunion. There were a lot of stories, old photos, laughter and love being passed around from people who haven’t touched the campus in four decades. Alumni from all the way back in the 1950s came. Knox gave tours of the renovations the school has undertaken, and the event also highlighted the soon-to-be football stadium and new basketball gym.

Later in the day, the current teams were introduced to everybody in attendance as was the 1976 City championship basketball team. The chance to showcase both the past and present is what inspired Knox, who hasn’t coached at Dorsey since 2014, to put on this event.

“The atmosphere that is here, the pride that everybody has in the school in general … it’s one of the most passionate alumni that you are going to have,” Knox said.

Dorsey’s enrollment struggles are not unique. Across California, public school enrollment is down. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, enrollment dropped over 16,000 in the past year. Private and charter schools are on the up in both academics and athletics, leaving places such as Dorsey — that dominated for so long — behind.

Dorsey High alum and former major leaguer Don Buford sits under a towering ficus tree on campus Saturday during the school’s all-sports reunion.

(Caleb Otte / For The Times)

Dorsey has a long history of sending athletes to the professional leagues. Former major leaguer Don Buford, who graduated in 1955, was present at the event. He barely had a moment to himself as multiple other alumni wanted to chat and grab photos with him, and Buford was happy to exchange excited, reminiscent anecdotes.

Buford was sitting in front of a massive ficus tree, with roots the size of a 5-year-old child coming up out of the ground. He took a moment to look back when talking to a class of 1958 alumni, noticing the size of the plant.

“When I went here, this was just a little tree,” he said.

Eighty years of students coming through the halls of Dorsey watched the small seedling sprout into a towering, beautiful beast.

Knox, and the administration of the school, are treating this reunion as the initial seed for the rehabilitation of the athletics program and hopefully the entire school.

“The passion is there,” Knox said. “We’re really hoping to inspire the teams now, to show them that there’s depth behind the things they do.”

Beyond the prime directive of the event, it simply served as a way for the Dorsey community to experience joy. So many former players caught up with their coaches. People were introducing themselves to legendary alumni that they hoped to meet. Finding a face without a smile would’ve been a Herculean task.

The day also served as a chance to show the current students at Dorsey what opportunities are out there for them, whether that be from sports or otherwise. Former champions were highlighted alongside what Dorsey hopes are their future champions.

Baseball alumni all wore shirts that said “Legacy of Greatness … Five Rings, One Legacy.” Their most recent championship was in 2014. Little signs like that permeated the day, as did a big one displaying every Dorsey championship.

The idea that the school has a history of success, and they want to get back there, was the cornerstone of the event — without it being explicitly stated.

“Once you go here, you get that feeling,” Knox said.

Even with all the fanfare, the man giving out raffle tickets at the front entrance encapsulated it perfectly.

“It’s a great day to be a Don.”

At least 200 people have been evacuated after a wildfire broke out near Italy’s Lake Garda. Authorities said the fire started in the municipality of Tignale on the western shore of the lake. Lake Garda is one of the country’s most popular tourist destinations.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is trying again to limit the number of people born in the country who can become American citizens, in a sign that even after his first attempt at limiting birthright citizenship was rejected by the Supreme Court, he’s ready to renew his efforts.

The president said he was signing two executive actions on immigration, including one limiting the number of people eligible for citizenship after being born in the United States. The written executive order released Thursday was narrower in scope than the previous one shot down by the Supreme Court and appeared to focus on restricting automatic citizenship to specific categories of people, including children born to adults with connections to foreign embassies or organizations as well as anyone considered an “alien enemy” of the United States.

It also aimed to restrict birthright citizenship to anyone whose parents “engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship.”

A second order seeks to curb what Trump called “birth tourism” by increasing restrictions on visitors to the U.S. who want to obtain visas to give birth while in the country.

Trump said he thought his latest actions would be constitutional.

“I thought we were going to win it at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we had a bad decision, very unfair decision. Our country suffers because of it and we’re ending it a different way,” Trump said.

In June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s previous efforts to declare that children born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily aren’t American citizens, and upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship.

On the first day of Trump’s second term, he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen.

Trump’s administration immediately was sued by opponents who said the executive order went against the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which makes anyone born in the country a citizen, with very limited exceptions.

The executive order was blocked by several lower courts and never took effect.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s order by a 6-3 vote. But the vote was too close for many immigration advocates and legal observers who felt the legal question of birthright citizenship was a long-settled issue.

Weissert and Santana write for the Associated Press.

Rhea Seehorn possesses what Vince Gilligan calls “Jumbotron face.” As the creator of “Pluribus” and (with Peter Gould) “Better Call Saul,” Gilligan has relied on Seehorn’s ability to broadcast what her characters are thinking and feeling without saying much of anything. Gilligan loves silences and uses them in long stretches, allowing — or, perhaps more accurately, demanding — his audience to figure out what’s happening on their own.

And in Seehorn he found someone who, with a mere sidelong glance or knitted brow, can let you in on Gilligan’s secrets.

But Seehorn carries this ability wherever she goes, she tells me. People take a look at her and make assumptions. She’s 5 foot 4, lean and seems athletic, though she says she’s “the least athletic person that anybody knows.” That hasn’t stopped her from being cast as a golf instructor in the upcoming second season of the Owen Wilson comedy series “Stick” and a track and field coach in a movie she’s shooting right now called “Running.”

“I do not run,” she told the movie’s director, Gavin O’Connor. “I can tell people to run, but you don’t want to see me running.”

It’s not just work, though, where these deductions are made. Up until a few years ago, when people started recognizing her for playing poker-faced attorney Kim Wexler on “Better Call Saul,” Seehorn would be standing in a store and customers figured she worked there. Shopping at the Gap, she’d be asked if a T-shirt comes in medium. In Target, she’d be queried about where to find the Christmas decorations. Even on set, a background person would approach her, wondering if there’s any more plain bagels at craft service.

Why do you think this happens? I ask her. Because, even with her fame and her Golden Globe win for playing Carol, a sad woman forced to save the world from happiness and the hive mind in “Pluribus,” Seehorn, 54, says this still takes place on a regular basis.

“I’ve asked my friends, and apparently my daydreaming or thinking face looks focused,” she says. “I guess my interior monologue is highly interpretable to people, and if you’re standing in a store and you see somebody really thinking and thinking, they’re like, ‘She must be restocking the shelves.’ When in reality, I’m probably thinking about what I said wrong to somebody at a party in the ’80s.”

Rhea Seehorn as Carol Sturka in “Pluribus.”

(Apple TV)

Seehorn bursts out laughing, which she does often and with great gusto throughout our conversation. We’re at The Times, nine years after her last visit to our offices, which I know because she shows me a photo on her camera roll of her youngest stepson, McLain, taken when we were downtown and he was 9, young enough to still be thrilled about being in a “newspaper building.”

This prompts another take-your-kids-to-work memory.

“I brought him and Gray [the other stepson she shares with her partner of 12 years, real estate agent Graham Larson] to the set of ‘Better Call Saul’ when they were 7 and 9, and the thing they were most excited about was signing an NDA,” Seehorn says. “Everybody in the production office made a huge deal of it, pretending like they were spies, because I knew they’d think that was cool.”

Seehorn played Kim opposite Bob Odenkirk on “Better Call Saul” for six seasons, creating a character that evolved from a minor role to what Gilligan calls the “backbone of the series.” Dazzled by her versatility, Gilligan wrote “Pluribus” for Seehorn. But he didn’t want to tell her about it until he had a script and not just an outline. He asked “Saul” executive producer Melissa Bernstein to act as a spy and tell him if Seehorn was close to taking another job. One day, during the show’s final season, Bernstein told him he’d better pounce.

“I didn’t want to miss my opportunity,” Gilligan says over the phone. “That would have been a bummer. Rhea is the manager that makes the show work.”

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

Where Kim Wexler was a composed and poised overachiever, suppressing her emotions when things (as they often did) spiraled out of control, “Pluribus’” Carol Sturka lets it all hang out. She’s volatile and angry, drinking heavily to obliterate her regret and rage. The characters share a fierce drive to fight for what they believe is right, which, for Carol, means maintaining her autonomy and resisting the good-vibes group contentment of the Others. A hero has never been more reluctant than this curmudgeon.

Seehorn is the ultimate professional: pleasant, quick to credit her colleagues, a team player. So Carol’s bitter fury feels distinct from her friendly personality as well as anything we’ve ever seen her do onscreen. But it’s not entirely foreign. Talking about the “Pluribus” season finale, she said that while she’s never murdered anyone, she has felt out-of-control rage.

When did this happen?

“I’m not going to tell you that!” she answers, laughing.

I’m just trying to picture it, I tell her.

“I know, because a lot of people are like, ‘I’ve never seen you mad,’” Seehorn says. “I suppress. I suppress too much. That’s something I work on with my therapist. I used to scream and yell as a teenager. That’s how I fought. And I just decided in college one day — I think I had an out-of-body experience — that I don’t want to be this person. And it probably moved the needle too far the other way. Now, when I’m angry, often I withdraw and get very quiet. I say everything is fine and then I’m never speaking to you again.”

That could have made playing a highly reactive character like Carol therapeutic. Instead, it did a number on Seehorn’s body.

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

“Unlike Carol, I cry often when I’m extremely angry and in the middle of trying to tell someone how upset I am,” Seehorn says. “Like the anger disturbs my body so much that it makes me cry. No matter how much I tried to unplug from Carol, my body didn’t understand that I was pretending.”

We start talking about relationships and unhealthy withdrawal and letting things fester to the point that when the emotions come out, it feels abrupt and the other person has no idea what’s going on. And out of nowhere, Seehorn gives me a taste of Carol, growling the words, “Can you just get it?” with such ferocity that I’m almost physically blown back in my chair.

“God, you scared me with that,” I tell her.

“Thank you,” Seehorn says, beaming.

Because she’s a (generally) well-adjusted human being, Seehorn has developed ways of dealing with the terror and flop sweat that comes with playing the lead on an expensive, highly touted TV series, one that earned 18 Emmy nominations, including one for her lead turn. She converted the garage at her home into what sounds like a veritable wonderland. In one corner, there’s a tiny gym. There’s a place to record voice-over work, not a proper booth, which she’d like someday, but close. There’s a space to be quiet and read scripts. There’s an area where she can paint, sculpt, do jigsaw puzzles, Lego sets, embroider — all the things that ease her anxiety but also help her work through creative blocks.

“If I have too much of a vice grip on a scene and I can’t figure it out, I’ll do a jigsaw puzzle or draw while running the lines,” Seehorn says.

She loves creating things, but she also loves projects that involve following instructions. That soothes her. In the middle of enthusing about a cross-stitch embroidery project, she says, “Don’t roll your eyes at me!” Which I most definitely was not doing. That was my daydreaming, thinking face.

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

Sometimes these projects make their way inside the house, where Seehorn might turn on the television and watch what she calls “murder TV,” sitting under a big, curved metal dome lamp that feels like an interrogation spotlight. There, her brain still working on what she was doing in her office, she’ll lose herself on multiple fronts as she wrestles with a scene.

Seehorn loves watching shows like “Dateline” because they provide a sense of order in a chaotic world. Bad guy. Bad guy gets caught. Bad guy goes to jail. All is well. But it goes beyond that. As an actor, she loves watching people trying to lie — and failing. She can’t believe how bad people are at not telling the truth.

“Every single time, I’m like, ‘Dude’s lying,’” Seehorn says. “Women too, where I’m watching an interrogation scene and thinking, ‘There’s a zero percent chance you did not know someone was going to break in and shoot your husband.’ It’s funny because as actors, whenever we’re playing criminals that are lying to the police, we’re really good at it.”

Does that mean Seehorn is an adept liar? Yes and no. You’ve seen her act. She can make you believe anything. But when she does lie, she is compelled to confess, even when the fib is innocuous.

“I’ll be in a conversation where there’s a bunch of cool people talking about a movie they saw, and I’ll be like, ‘Oh yeah, that was great!’” Seehorn says. “And then I’ll leave and then I’ll come back and say, ‘I didn’t actually see it. I’m sorry.’ And they’re like, ‘Who’s that weird girl?’ I’m good at lying, but bad at holding the guilt.”

So when you’re telling me you don’t know any details about the second season of “Pluribus,” are you misleading me? I ask.

“I know nothing!” Seehorn says. The atomic bomb in the crate that a helicopter carefully deposits in Carol’s driveway in the last scene? “As soon as they said, ‘Cut,’ I went up to Vince and asked, ‘Now can you tell me what we’re doing?’ And he said, ‘I have no idea.’”

“And all these months later, I know no more than that,” she continues.

But if you did…

“You’d be getting a phone call from me about an hour after we say goodbye, confessing all,” Seehorn answers, smiling.

The phone still hasn’t rung.

(Ian Spanier / For The Times)

This time, it’s personal for Eric Goode.

The director’s first two docuseries — “Tiger King” and “Chimp Crazy” — were smash hits about larger-than-life characters engaging in questionable and illegal activity surrounding the care and ownership of animals. Both had an underlying conservation message but drew viewers in with the colorful and chaotic worlds they depicted.

Goode’s third, “Monsters of God,” premiering Thursday on HBO, is both a direct descendant and forges a new path. While it also features a hugely entertaining menagerie of criminals, who speak frankly about many of their illegal acts and how much they dislike each other, “Monsters” is largely a historical look at reptile smuggling going back more than half a century — unlike the contemporaneous stories in “Tiger King” and “Chimp Crazy.”

Goode had opportunities to bring in current events — one dealer was rearrested shortly after being filmed and there were major smuggling arrests in California in recent years — but realized he couldn’t keep piling on more stories. “We’re just setting the tone of this multibillion-dollar reptile-smuggling industry that you’ve probably never heard of,” says Goode’s producing partner Jeremy McBride.

But the other difference is that Goode has spent his entire life immersed in the world of reptiles, starting long before he even contemplated making a documentary. Goode had a pet tortoise when he was 6 and slept with a tegu lizard in his bed as a teen. He also saw the industry underbelly up close and personal. “In the ’70s and ’80s, I even bought reptiles from some of the very people that I chronicle in ’Monsters of God,’” he says.

“I had personal connections in these worlds, which helped us go much deeper than in my other stories,” he says. “I don’t know if it’ll be anywhere near as successful, but in terms of investigative journalism, we went much further.”

An archival photo of director Eric Goode with a southwestern pond turtle. In addition to filmmaking, he created the Turtle Conservancy in Ojai.

(A24 / Goode Films / HBO)

(He also acknowledges that his earlier series could tilt toward sensationalism and be exploitative. “I was naive when I started all this and learned a lot from ‘Tiger King,’” he says, adding that there was internal friction about what direction to go with the material. “Now we’ve refined the like-mindedness of what we were trying to do.”)

He credits his mother with opening his eyes to the larger issues when he was younger. “She struggled with me keeping things in captivity and would say, ‘You can’t play God, these animals belong in the wild.’”

That said, while he is proud the Big Cat Public Safety Act passed in the aftermath of “Tiger King” and believes people should be banned from raising chimps at home, he views reptiles differently. “Kids should be able to have a bearded dragon or a leopard gecko or ball python. It nurtures a love for nature and for reptiles,” he says, adding that he’s focused more on the harm caused by smuggling.

Despite his love of animals and a high school obsession with making Super 8 film, Goode was not, for much of his life, a likely candidate to be directing these documentaries. “My whole trajectory doesn’t make a lot of sense on paper,” he acknowledges.

After attending the School of Arts and Sciences, which his father founded in Marin County, Goode moved to New York. He worked as a production assistant on big films. “I hated it,” he recalls. “I hated being a cog in a wheel, just moving things around.” (Today, even as his productions have grown more elaborate, he still goes into the field with a small team. “I like that intimacy.”) He also went to art school but was largely bored there.

“I saw the creative energy in New York in the nightlife there,” he says. So while Goode was working as an artist, he also created Area, one of the city’s biggest nightclubs of the 1980s, where he brought in collaborators like Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, David Hockney and Kenny Scharf, with rotating themes like a carnival or natural history (which featured snakes and lizards). “Everyone came from somewhere else or were misfits and I was bringing in these interesting characters, which is very similar to what I’m doing in these films,” he says. “I like lifting up the rocks and finding the eccentrics out there.”

Area’s success led to a big career in nightclubs, restaurants and hotels. Then 20 years ago, he took his profits, along with his passion for reptiles, and created the Turtle Conservancy in Ojai. “I realized that the two most endangered groups of vertebrates in the world were primates and turtles,” he says, adding that nearly half of the smuggled animals seized at LAX in the last three years were turtles. When officials recently confiscated 350 turtles there, they brought them to the conservancy to care for them. “I’m going to go feed them after this interview,” Goode says.

The conservancy now has a worldwide reach in protecting turtles and their habitats and has become a leader in trying to stave off extinction for the ploughshare tortoise, whose fate is a major storyline in “Monsters of God.”

Tom Crutchfield, one of the reptile smugglers featured in the docuseries, with a monitor lizard in a photo taken circa 1970s.

(Photograph by Bill Love. Courtesy of Goode Films / HBO)

As filming was finishing, the conservancy became home to the first ploughshare births in captivity. “It was such a coincidence but really meaningful,” McBride says. “It anchors the film’s purpose and gives a little bit of hope in what otherwise feels bleak.”

This docuseries has been in the works for nearly 20 years, since Goode read Brian Christy’s “The Lizard King” in 2008 and tried to option it. “I even filmed him badly back then — the sound was terrible and the camera fell off the tripod during the interview,” he recalls. (Christy appears in the docuseries.)

In 2014, he finally got started but it was always on and off again as other projects got in the way. In “Tiger King,” Goode shows he’s first drawn to that story when he sees a guy with a snow leopard in his van, which happens while he’s filming Tom Crutchfield, one of America’s most notorious reptile smugglers. “But while I was making these other stories, I was always opportunistically filming reptile people,” he says, adding that they interviewed not only the criminals but federal law enforcement and others, seeking a broader scope than his previous films. “It was critical for us to get all sides of the story. Part of the reason it took so long was it sometimes took years to get someone to agree to talk.”

McBride says they finished with 1,500 hours of footage and interviews with a hundred different people, including the most notorious smugglers (some of whom were also murderers and drug dealers) and the law enforcement officials who dedicated years of their life undercover to catch them.

It’s a true crime story on some level but Goode says the series is more layered and complex than his previous projects.

“I don’t want people to think we’re the animal police,” Goode says. “Law enforcement has good intentions but they sometimes backfire with unintended consequences. Often, the more laws you create to prevent people from having a reptile, the more they want them. But sometimes prohibition does work.” (In Asia’s wet markets, the most endangered animals sell for more money with their protected status used as a marketing tool.)

“Hopefully, people come away recognizing that we have to think about doing things differently than maintaining the status quo, because a lot of what we’re doing is not working,” Goode says. “It’s a messy story without easy answers.”