people

Spencer Pratt, please give me a call.

We should talk.

You say you want to be mayor of Los Angeles, but do you really?

I know that being a candidate has rescued you from anonymity after your career in reality TV went off a cliff. You’ve got CEOs backing you, and fans raving, and you’ve managed to milk social media attention.

But at some point you might have to answer questions from the reporters you’ve been avoiding.

And if you win, you’re going to have to drive to City Hall five, six, seven days a week, and I don’t know if you saw my column a few weeks ago, but the fountain on the south lawn hasn’t worked in about 60 years. If you get elected, you better put a wrench in your lunch box, because nobody has figured out how to fix it.

So that’s the reality, pretty much. And the unions will want what they want, and the socialists on the City Council will be lying in wait, especially after President Trump blew you a cross-country air kiss and certified your MAGA credentials.

More than 30,000 people are waiting for their broken sidewalks to get fixed (I’m not exaggerating) but there’s no money, and if you hire several thousand more police officers as you’ve pledged, the city would be bankrupt for the next decade or so and you’d need to take out a loan to buy a doughnut.

So call me, like I say, because I think there’s still time to change your mind.

If you choose to proceed, and if you actually win, it might feel like you’re in a sequel to that reality show you did called “I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here,” and you may end up praying the show gets canceled. The mayor’s hours are long, and everywhere you go, someone will want you to fix this problem or that, and as you wander the halls of power you’ll think back on your campaign pledges and hear the constant echo of a line from H.L. Mencken:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Can I confess something?

I’m feeling guilty about all of this.

Not to sound presumptuous, but I feel partly responsible for the fact that you’re in contention for the job.

Like you, I’ve been calling out issues with the management of L.A., and I’ve been doing it for years. But I had the good sense not to run for mayor.

Why’s that?

Because unlike you, I know the fixes aren’t as easy as we’d like them to be.

When Karen Bass was running the first time, I had a long talk with her about her homelessness plan, among other things. At the end of the day, she asked for my input.

I reminded her that as much as people would like for the city’s top elected official to immediately clear the streets, a mayor is limited by shared power with the City Council.

By drug epidemics and untreated mental illness that are largely under county authority.

By uncertain funding from the nation’s capital.

By global forces that transformed the economy and created staggering levels of inequality that are made all the worse by the high cost of housing.

Bass was aware of all that, but said that having worked in Sacramento and D.C., and having built relationships with county supervisors, she’d be able to build better systems and get better outcomes.

So how has she done?

Not great. And then there’s the fire.

As I’ve said before, leaving the country despite forecasts of elevated wildfire risk was probably the worst mistake of her political career.

I don’t need to remind you of that. Having lost your house in the Palisades, you know that Bass badly underreacted, then stumbled on the rebuilding, and then had a hand in downplaying the Fire Department’s failure to adequately deploy and extinguish the fire that became an inferno.

To summarize, she’s left herself wide open to a challenge.

And she probably can’t believe how lucky she is that you might be her November competition, if the two of you bounce out Councilmember Nithya Raman and the other candidates in the June 2 primary.

I don’t hold it against you that you haven’t worked in government or politics before. These days, a lot of voters prefer outsiders. But it might have helped if you’d done something of purpose at some point in your life, like run a successful business or volunteer at a food bank. Were you junior high class president, or were you in the Boy Scouts? Anything could help.

Not that being the boyfriend and later the husband of someone on an MTV reality show called “The Hills,” which chronicled the work of a woman who went from “Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County” to an internship at Teen Vogue, can’t prepare a young man for statesmanship.

In this culture, you could ride that all the way to the White House.

But the flimsy resume could explain, Spencer, why you’ve been taking so many social media-fueled potshots at Bass without offering anything of substance.

Let’s arrest drug zombies.

OK, then what?

I’d advise you to study the primer by my colleagues Doug Smith and Andrew Khouri on what you can and can’t do about homelessness as a mayor in L.A. Clearly, you’ve got a lot of boning up to do. In fact, I’m reminded of a line by a Philadelphia columnist years ago, when he said of a politician who wasn’t up to the job: He’s been standing in shallow water for so long, he doesn’t realize he can’t swim.

If I were you, I’d consider the fact that President Trump made the mistake of promising easy fixes. He was going to deliver a massive infrastructure program. He was going to deliver healthcare reform that was better and cheaper for everyone. He was going to lower consumer prices on Day One, and here we are, with millions of people wondering how they’re going to pay their bills while Trump rigs it so he doesn’t have to pay the IRS.

All that being said, I’m glad you decided to run, because elected officials need constant reminders that their jobs are not secure, even when the challengers are way in over their heads. I’d almost like to see you win, because that’s one reality show I’d be sure to watch.

And I say this despite the fact that you once told your talk show buddy Alex Jones — who insisted that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Sandy Hook massacre of 20 children was a hoax — that melting ice caps are overrated. Or, as you explained it to Jones, “we’ve all seen footage of the polar bears swimming to new pieces of ice.”

When the general election rolls around, and the ice begins to break, will you know how to swim?

steve.lopez@latimes.com

May 22 (UPI) — U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced Friday that people in the United States temporarily who want to apply for a green card will have to leave first.

USCIS said in a statement that people who have traveled to the United States on a temporary visa but want a green card to remain in the country permanently “must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances.”

The new requirement could make it more difficult to obtain permanent residency in the United States, and may lead to family separations and longer wait times, experts have said.

“This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes,” Zach Kahler, spokesperson for USCIS, said in the statement.

“When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency,” Kahler said.

Kahler said that people visiting the country on visas for students, temporary workers or tourists “should not function” as the first step in the green card process.

The Christian humanitarian organization World Relief said in a statement that the change alters a “longstanding practice of allowing non-citizens who the United States lawfully and now qualify under U.S. law for lawful permanent resident status to ‘adjust status’ within the United States.”

There were about 1.4 million green cards granted in 2024, nearly 1 million of which were applied for and granted to people already residing in the United States, and at least 500,000 per year have received their cards the same way during the last two decades, The New York Times reported.

“Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened,” Sarah Pierce, a former policy analyst at USCIS, told The Times. “So that means we could have families separated for months or years.”

WASHINGTON — For much of President Trump’s second term, Republican senators have largely stayed in line, wary of the consequences of defying a president with a history of targeting those who cross him. This week, that dynamic noticeably shifted.

Senate Republicans blocked two of Trump’s legislative priorities, angered by the push to create a $1.8-billion federal fund to compensate people who claim to have been politically persecuted, including rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The revolt forced Republican leaders to pull a planned vote on legislation to fund the president’s immigration crackdown and security features for the president’s White House ballroom project.

In response, the president defended the fund and lashed out at its critics.

“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE”!

The president also called Republican senators who broke with him quitters who are “screwing the Republican Party.”

The friction, which has been building for weeks, is being watched as potential test to the limits of Trump’s grip on his party amid an already tense political environment heading into the midterm elections.

“This is kind of a perfect storm,” former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It may be that this time you can point to it and say this is when the great migration begins, away from some of the president’s policies and away from the fear that the president can target you.”

Whether this week marks the beginning of that moment — or simply another episode of political turbulence that fades — is the central question now handing over Trump’s second term.

Not the first break — but an escalation

This is not the first time Republicans have broken with the president. In November, Congress overwhelmingly voted to force the Justice Department to release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, an effort that Trump unsuccessfully tried to thwart for months.

The Epstein vote showed that on the right issue, under the right circumstances, Republicans could be moved to defy Trump. This week, the creation of the fund changed the circumstances again, and the number of Republican senators willing to act quickly grew.

This moment comes after months of rising costs during the war in Iran, efforts by the president to oust members of his own party and now a set of proposals that are proving hard to defend in an election year.

“What you have is basically a bunch of people who feel a bit under siege,” said Bob Olinksy, the senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress. “At the same time, they know that most of what the president is doing is unpopular, and they’re the ones who are going to be standing for reelection in November.”

Republicans push back

Senate Republicans leaders are now asking the Department of Justice to reconsider the terms of the fund, underscoring just how politically toxic the idea has become within the president’s own party.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told reporters that the politically speaking, the fund is “unexplainable.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told the New York Times the fund should be in real trouble. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) called the fund “utterly stupid” and “morally wrong.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican whom Trump has singled out for going against him, was equally unsparing, saying he opposed “using billions of taxpayer dollars to compensate convicted felons and thugs who attacked police.” He also criticized the administration for pushing domestic and foreign policy issues that he says are bad for housing and the military.

“If opposing these things makes me a RINO [Republican In Name Only], then I gladly accept that nickname,” Tillis wrote on X. “We need Republicans to do well in November, but the stupid stuff is killing our chances!”

The Republican push back comes as the concern about self-dealing runs deep across the electorate.

A recent poll Economist/YouGov poll found that 59% of Americans believe Trump is using his office for personal gain, though that belief is sharply divided among partisan lines. A CNN poll found that 37% of Americans say Trump puts the good of the country above his personal gain, while 32% say he is in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans.

Asked if the political environment influenced the actions this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that there is a “political component to everything we do around here.”

Funds and tax immunity clauses

Senate Democrats are wondering if the fund will mark a watershed moment for Republicans.

“Have Republicans finally found a bridge too far?” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters after Republicans left Washington without funding Trump’s priorities.

Democrats have called the fund an illegal abuse of power designed to line the pockets of Trump’s allies with taxpayer dollars. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it a “pure theft of public funds.”

The fund was created as part of a settlement resolving a $10-billion lawsuit Trump personally brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Alongside it, the deal says the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his businesses.

Under the tax immunity clause, Trump and his family could save more than $600 million, according to an analysis by Forbes.

The fund, however, has been the target of most of the bipartisan ire. Mostly because Trump and administration officials have not ruled out that it could stand to benefit people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6 riot.

The public funds, if disbursed, would come from the federal judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payouts. In the past, Republicans have taken issue with the fund. The GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee characterized it an abuse in 2017.

Several of the president’s allies have already talked about tapping into the fund.

Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney who served prison time in relation to campaign finance violations, said he plans to apply for compensation.

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and later pardoned by Trump, told CBS News he would seek a payout from the fund.

“I was targeted,” Tarrio said. “And I do believe that this fund does apply to me.”

Kate Cassidy said that she was told her passport photo didn’t match her current appearance

People across the UK may need to update their passports before their holiday. The reminder comes after one woman was stopped and questioned at the airport.

According to GOV.UK officials: “You must get a new photo when you get a new passport, even if your appearance has not changed.” However, it also states that you will “need to get a new passport to travel abroad or prove your identity if you change your name” and “your gender.”

GOV.UK adds you will also need to get a new passport if “your appearance” has changed and “you cannot be recognised from your passport photo any more (for example, you’ve had plastic surgery).”

The reminder for UK passengers to update their travel document, if needed, comes as 27-year-old Kate Cassidy, who had been dating One Direction’s Liam Payne for two years at the time of his death in 2024, shared her experience getting flagged by TSA staff after she was told her passport photo didn’t match her current appearance.

While she said she understood the rules, she pointed out that “there are way better ways to handle things and word things.” In her TikTok video, viewed almost 1 million times, she said: “I just got genuinely ridiculed at the Fort Lauderdale airport. I’m at the security line, and I gave the guy my passport, and they obviously do a photo view.

“If it matches your passport, you get the green light, and if it doesn’t match your passport, you get the red light. I got the red light because my photo, I guess, didn’t match my appearance.”

After showing her passport photo to the camera, she explained that airport security said she looked unrecognisable in comparison to the other picture. She said: “He calls over a woman, and she literally looks at my passport, she looks at me, she’s doing a double take, up and down, and this woman keeps going on and on and on about how, ‘this isn’t you, you’re giving me somebody else’s passport”.

Kate explained that the staff questioned, “new nose? New lips? Something to your eyes? New hair?”. Kate then pulled out her ID to confirm her identity, but she said that her ID was not hers either. Looking at Kate’s passport, ID and then her, Kate said: “She goes ‘one, two, three. Those are three different people’.”

READ MORE: Tesco makes ‘Kids Eat Free’ announcement affecting 332 stores from MondayREAD MORE: ‘Bungling doctors spent 7 years treating me for terminal cancer I never had’

The American social media influencer admitted: “I’m literally so embarrassed. She then goes and calls three different men over. One guy was like, ‘do you not have a work ID?’ and I was like, ‘I can pull up my Instagram, I don’t know what to do.’

“Keep in mind that everybody in line behind me is listening to this. I understand they’re doing their job. At the same time, I think there are way better ways to handle things and word things.”

In another video, after the airport incident, she listed exactly what procedures altered her appearance. She mentioned that she has cheek filler, chin filler, Botox, a boob job, nose job and lip filler.

She also noted she’s a natural blonde but dyes her hair brown. She further said she has “a whole head of extensions, fake nails, and I am also naturally super pale, so I do spray tans once a week.”

It’s not just travellers that need to think about this. Motoring experts on GOV.UK confirm: “You must change the photo on your driving licence if you cannot be recognised from your photo, for example, if you’ve had plastic surgery.” This includes learner drivers who will need to take their provisional licence to the test centre.

For L.A. cool girl and actor Taylour Paige, the perfect Sunday involves lots of shopping — shopping for statement jewelry at Maxfield, minimalist yet playful clothing at Jacquemus and vintage home decor at Pierce & Ward.

“I really love fashion,” says the Inglewood native. “I appreciate fashion. I respect fashion.”

In Sunday Funday, L.A. people give us a play-by-play of their ideal Sunday around town. Find ideas and inspiration on where to go, what to eat and how to enjoy life on the weekends.

Paige’s latest project, “I Love Boosters,” is centered on fashion as well. Written and directed by Boots Riley, the maximalist film follows the Velvet Gang, a pack of small-time shoplifters (played by Paige, Keke Palmer and Naomi Ackie) as they attempt to take down a ruthless fashion mogul in the name of “fashion-forward filantrophy.” It hits theaters Friday.

Once she learned that Riley was behind the film, she knew she had to be a part of it.

“When I met Boots, he was like, ‘This is the smaller role of the three in the Velvet Gang,’ and I was like ‘I don’t care. I want to work with you,’” says Paige, who has also starred in the film “Zola” and HBO’s “It: Welcome to Derry.”

With her baby and husband by her side, here’s how the new mom would spend a Sunday in L.A.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for length and clarity.

7 a.m.: Take a little walk and grab a matcha

I’m a mother so I could wake up anytime between 6 to 8 a.m. When I breastfeed, he’ll actually go back to sleep but it really just depends on the night we had. I’ll have my morning matcha. There was a period where I was making my ceremonial-grade matcha at home and I would like to get back to that, but there’s something about walking to get my matcha that I just really enjoy. I like that it’s a little outing. I like the matcha at Erewhon, but only because I know that when I ask for almond milk, they’re giving me the Almond Malk [brand] which only contains almonds and Himalayan salt. I also like Community Goods, which my homie Pedro runs. My typical breakfast is eggs with Celtic salt and I’ll drizzle some olive oil on it. Maybe I’ll have some cottage cheese or shredded carrots as well.

10:30 a.m.: Stock up at the farmers market

Once we’re up, I have to go to the farmers market in Atwater Village. I need my organic eggs, my strawberries, my lemons, my lemongrass, my hummus and my ghee. Maybe I’ll get like some gorgeous Japanese sweet potato cause I try to eat a sweet potato daily. I eat it with the skin on because you gotta get beta carotene [laughs]. Also, my husband makes this beautiful lemongrass tea that I love at night. It’s kind of been my little postpartum treat that I look forward to. I feel so feminine when I drink it. I don’t know how to explain it, but we get a big bunch at the farmers market on Sundays. Going to the farmers market makes me feel ready for the week.

12:30 p.m.: A second matcha and a late breakfast

Then we’re going to have a late breakfast at All Time. I’m getting the salmon with the crispy rice, broccoli, onions and two big eggs on top. It’s got a little bit of a tart taste. It has a special sauce that you pour on top of it. Probably because I’m sleep-deprived, I’m getting another matcha and a hot water with lemon.

2:30 p.m. Time for some shopping

Then we’re gonna stroll into Pierce & Ward, which is just a couple stores down. It’s a home interior design store. The storefront is literally the color green. It’s just beautiful. I love beautiful things. They do upholstering, but they have a lot of cute little tchotchkes. They’ve got incense. They’ve got beautiful stools, striped upholstering, but they also have, you know, soaps and again incense, and just cute things. The people are so kind in there.

Then we’re going to head over to Melrose Place. We’re going to Margiela and Violet Grey. I’m going to pop into Maxfield. I’m going to try on jewelry. I recently tried on this beautiful Jennifer Meyer emerald gold necklace that I wanted and I was like “How much?” They were like “14” and I was like “Oh, $1,400,” and they were like, “No, $14,000.” I was like, “Oh, OK, cute. I’ll be back.” They have gorgeous Phoebe Philo [pieces], Miu Miu flats, Louise Trotter’s Bottega. I’m having a ball trying things on. Maybe we’re going to swing into Jacquemus because it’s so cute. It’s like a French dream. The girls who work there are so kind and so fly. They told me that he had the couches specifically designed to look like his mom’s couches in his childhood home. They’re bright yellow. It just feels really happy and like a breath of fresh air, and obviously the clothes are beautiful.

4 p.m.: Discover new beauty brands at Formula Fig

There’s this place called Formula Fig. I’m not going to spend too much time in there. Of course they have really beautiful, curated skin care, but they also have cute random things for your hands and feet. You know how we have social media, which is constantly feeding us with things we don’t need, but because someone is selling it to us, it impacts us psychologically. I like that Formula Fig is an experience where you go into the store and discover on your own.

If we have time, we’ll hop in the car and head over to Arcana [Books on the Art]. I can ask anyone who works there, but I’ll ask Lee about absolutely anything. Let’s just say I don’t know what I want, but I know what I’m feeling, or what I want to learn more of, they’re actually art historians in there and they deeply care about books and artists and people. It ends up opening other tabs of people, artists, photographers, writers, painters, watercolor and musicians that I’ve never heard of or I’ve always wanted to know more about.

5:30 p.m.: Sushi for dinner

We’re going to drive our ass to Burbank and we’re getting Sushi Yuzu. Life hack: If they’re too full, we’ll literally go a couple blocks west and hit Kabosu, which is their sister restaurant. I’ve been going here for 10 years. It’s the greatest sushi, so fresh. I love every chef there. We’re starting with the garlic edamame, obviously. Then I’m getting the lime roll, the albacore crispy onion, the garlic sashimi, and I’m going to keep ordering and ordering and be so happy. I’ve put so many people on. I should get equity in the restaurant or something.

7:30 p.m.: Sunset walk before bed

You want a fart walk right after your meal, right? [laughs] So we’re going to go for a nice sunset walk in our neighborhood. Then we’re heading home, giving the baby a bath, I’m taking a shower and we’re going to bed at like 9:30 p.m.

When San Juan native Rafael Rodriguez opened Señor Big Ed in Cypress in the mid-90s, there were few Puerto Rican restaurants in Southern California.

“A lot of customers were driving long ways to come to eat at Señor Big Ed,” said restaurant manager Veronica Coronado. “They would get very emotional when they would eat the food, because it reminded them so much of their childhood.”

While cities like New York and Miami have come to be veritable hubs for Puerto Rican cuisine, the food community here in Los Angeles — more than 3,000 miles away from the island — still remains relatively small.

And yet, demand for Boricua cuisine is on the rise locally, due in part to a growing Puerto Rican population — about 47,000 residents, according to the Los Angeles Almanac — and rapper Bad Bunny’s recent Super Bowl halftime show that paid homage to his homeland and made history as the most-watched Super Bowl halftime performance of all time, with more than 4 billion views globally.

“His whole movement and everything that he’s been doing for the island … has really been this big boost for global awareness of the Puerto Rican identity and culture,” said Carmen DeLeon, the actor and chef behind Capicu, a Puerto Rican pop-up in L.A.

While longstanding restaurants like Señor Big Ed have anchored communities for decades, newer spots like Taínos in Woodland Hills and La Casa de Iris in Long Beach are expanding the Boricua food landscape in L.A.

“Everyone comes to look for this food because this is like gold,” said Edwin Torres, chef at Taínos in Woodland Hills.

In addition to traditional guisados, mofongo (mashed green plantains) and banana-leaf-wrapped pasteles, Taínos shares Puerto Rican dishes rarely seen outside of home kitchens. Soon, co-owner Odessa Rodriguez plans to add guanimes con bacalao, boiled flour dumplings with salted cod, a Taíno dish that traces back centuries.

“We’re not trying to reinvent the wheel. We are just trying to bring back essential plates that our ancestors ate,” Rodriguez said.

DeLeon, known as the Not Starving Artist on Instagram, started her pop-up in 2023 with her sister Anabel, serving small bites at bars, farmers markets and local events. The siblings grew up in Arizona cooking Puerto Rican food with their island-born parents, and DeLeon said she’s passionate about making the cuisine accessible to others.

“I want to attract people first, and then I can talk about where these dishes derive from and where the inspiration comes from,” she said.

The current menu features pizza empanadillas, vegan arroz con gandules (rice with pigeon peas), vegan tostones and gazpacho, and mini sandwiches with ham, cheese and sweet pimiento peppers.

DeLeon hopes more people will grow excited about Puerto Rican food as they discover the culture and meaning behind the cuisine.

“There’s so much history and structure and love behind this group of people, this environment, this culture, this food, this identity,” she said. “I hope that when people eat this food … I want your belly to feel full, I want you to feel as if you’re sitting at my house with my family.”

Similarly, Rodriguez hopes Taínos will become a cultural hub for Boricuas in L.A.

“It fulfills me to feel that I am providing a sense of comfort, nostalgia, home,” she said. “It’s bigger than food.”

Whether you’re craving nostalgic flavors from home or looking to experience L.A.’s small but growing Puerto Rican food scene, here are four restaurants serving up a taste of the Isla del Encanto. — Angela Osorio

These are some of the least welcoming cities in Europe.

European capitals continue to be beloved getaway destinations for countless Britons looking for a quick break from daily life. With straightforward access by plane or train, these cities are perfect for long weekend trips. Yet an increasing number of locations are gaining notoriety amongst travellers for being hostile, dirty and dangerous.

One city in particular has been singled out as a place to avoid, according to recent reviews from British visitors. Long considered the ultimate destination for a romantic retreat, Paris has faced significant backlash, reports the Express.

In a Reddit thread, one user branded the city as grimy and said locals were “unbelievably rude”.

ExplanationWorried14 wrote: “I said ‘merci’ when someone actually stopped at a crossing and he looked angry and shrugged like I was an idiot.

“Some school girls sang a song about me being an English w****, despite me wearing a long, flowing hippie dress that in no way revealed any flesh, and I felt unsafe.”

“Got followed by two men near the Louvre. Would never go back. I don’t know why people say it’s romantic… I guess those people are into some weird stuff.”

Another commenter pointed to rampant criminal behaviour and mentioned that the French capital came with a steep price tag.

Mister Pink said: “Lots and lots of crime is very visible all around in the form of pickpockets and con artists. Very expensive, and the Parisians generally were pretty rude.

“At least when you go to the nicer bits of London for food, the area tends to be quite nice to match the outrageous prices.”

Other well-known European cities fared little better in the eyes of the Reddit users, who were equally ruthless in their verdicts.

Berlin was branded as a city overrun with rude locals.

Philosophyguilty wrote: “Old school Berliners are vicious. If you live in Berlin for any length of time, you will have a tale or two about them.”

Softwarepanda agreed, writing: “Never been in a place with so much grumpiness.”

Brussels was labelled as having a “pretty grim vibe”, while Rome — a city forever synonymous with La Dolce Vita — was alleged to be crawling with “scammers and gropers”.

MINNEAPOLIS — A judge on Thursday handed down an extraordinary prison sentence — nearly 42 years — to the former leader of a Minnesota nonprofit who was convicted in a staggering $250-million fraud case that helped ignite an immigration crackdown by the Trump administration.

Aimee Bock ran Feeding Our Future, which had claimed it helped provide millions of meals to children in need during the pandemic. The U.S. Justice Department, however, said she was atop the “single largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the country.”

“I understand I failed. I failed the public, my family, everyone,” Bock said in federal court.

President Trump used the fraud cases against Bock and many others to initially justify a massive surge of federal officers to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area last winter, leading to a pushback by residents and the deaths of two people.

“Feeding Our Future operated like a cash pipeline, open to anyone willing to submit fraudulent claims and pay kickbacks,” prosecutors said in a court filing.

Bock had long proclaimed her innocence but was convicted last year of conspiracy, fraud and bribery.

“This case has changed our state forever,” Joe Thompson, formerly the lead prosecutor in the case, said outside the courtroom. “Aimee Bock did everything she could to earn this long sentence.”

The nonprofit sat atop a fraud network that included a web of partner organizations, phony distribution sites, kickbacks and fake lists of children supposedly being fed, prosecutors say. Dozens of people, many from the state’s large Somali community, have been convicted in a series of overlapping food fraud cases that have spent years in the courts.

Bock and co-conspirators enriched themselves with international travel, real estate purchases, luxury vehicles and other lavish spending, the government said.

Bock’s lawyer, Kenneth Udoibok, argued for no more than three years in prison, saying she had provided key information to investigators. He argued that Bock had been unfairly painted as the mastermind and insisted that two co-defendants were responsible for running the scams.

Meanwhile, authorities this week filed additional charges against others in a sprawling investigation into federal social service spending in Minnesota.

The targets include Fahima Mahamud, who was CEO of Future Leaders Early Learning Center, a childcare center in Minneapolis. Over three years, Mahamud’s organization was reimbursed approximately $4.6 million for services on behalf of people who didn’t make a required copayment, prosecutors allege.

A message seeking comment from her lawyer was not immediately returned Thursday. Mahamud was charged separately in February with fraud related to meals. She has pleaded not guilty.

Two other people were charged with conspiring to get $975,000 in Medicaid subsidies for housing services that were not provided. They’re expected to plead guilty in June, according to a court filing.

Two additional people were accused of receiving $21.1 million by billing Medicaid for autism therapy that was either unnecessary or not provided. Investigators said the two paid families as much as $1,500 per child per month to add their names to the program and get reimbursement.

Trump, who has long derided Somalis, last year blasted the state as “a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity.” He also criticized the leadership of Gov. Tim Walz, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in the 2024 election.

“Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from,” Trump wrote on social media.

Bock is white and the U.S. Attorney’s Office says the overwhelming majority of defendants in the cases are of Somali descent. Most are U.S. citizens.

The immigration surge led to repeated protests and confrontations between residents and federal officers and resulted in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Sullivan writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.

In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.

The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.

Others, worried about rising costs as a result from the war in Iran, had aired concerns ahead of the midterm elections. But the breaking point came when the Justice Department, with little warning, pushed to create what it termed the “anti-weaponization fund.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.

“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”

A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.

“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.

The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.

“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”

As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.

“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”

“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.

Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.

The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.

Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.

Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.

“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.

That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.

“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”

Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.

“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.

When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”

Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.

“We need to get some clarity,” he said.

Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.

Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.

“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”

Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.

“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.

At this year’s festival to unveil our inaugural Cannes issue, I had to opportunity to sit down with Sony Pictures Classics co-founders and co-presidents Michael Barker and Tom Bernard and EVP of Acquisitions, Production and Business Affairs Dylan Leiner on the Main Stage at the Marché du Film to discuss the company’s festival strategy, bidding wars, artificial intelligence and more. Watch the full conversation and read edited excerpts below.

How much does the festival reception of a movie, the reviews coming out of a festival, the buzz around it, shape decisions that you’re making? Or is it just confirming what your gut already knows?

Leiner: I want to tell one story that speaks to that, which was at the first Berlin Film Festival we attended after COVID. I remember, in the same day, I ran into three international distributors who all asked if we had seen “The Teacher’s Lounge.” And I didn’t even know what the film was. It wasn’t on our radar, it wasn’t in competition. So we quickly saw “Teacher’s Lounge” and we acquired the film [which went on to be nominated for the 2024 international feature Oscar]. And that was one of the great values of an in-person festival, the ability very quickly to communicate with distributors, with tastemakers, with critics from around the world and get that kind of information. Gut, personal taste… It plays into it a lot, but then we need reassurance. And being at a festival and being in this fishbowl environment is really helpful for that.

For a lot of people, myself included, the mystique of a festival is often around the bidding war narratives: Who’s going to pick up what and what are they going to pay? I’m curious for your take on the first big acquisition of this year’s Cannes, A24 buying “Club Kid” for a reported $17 million.

Bernard: Throughout the years, there were companies [that would] maybe overpay, or they were going to bid to get this movie no matter what, because they were the headline in all the newspapers covering this festival. So in terms of a company that’s branding — which, A24 is one of the best in branding — I think that that had to do with a little bit of the cash that went up. … There’s a branding aspect in a lot of festivals for a movie that’s a hot movie that the press has decided to seize on.

Barker: Here’s a key to how we have survived. It’s different from the way you talk about it. When we acquire a movie, whether anyone else has offers, we try to block it out. And we have trained ourselves to not let that noise bother us. What is it worth to us? What do we think it’s going to do? Dylan runs these incredible models of what it’ll do on the low end, what it will do on the high end. And then you decide where you want to be.

Bernard: Or we think we can make it work.

Barker: But at no point do we sit around and worry about who else has a higher offer for the movie. Because I have to say, in very few instances, on the movies we buy, are we the higher offer. We just do the best we can, and if we lose it, we lose it.

Bernard: [French film producer] Serge Silberman, a sage of the past, he always said, “You never lose money on a movie you didn’t buy.”

That brings up a question that I had about “Nuremberg,” which was a real success. What you’re saying is, it performed in alignment with your expectations. Were there any lessons that you took away from that in terms of future projects that might come along?

Leiner: Yes, it performed in accordance with our expectations. What’s interesting about that film, we acquired it here last year. Nobody else was really interested in the movie. … So our challenge basically was to figure out how to convince the filmmaking team that, because it was a very expensive film, that we were the right company to acquire the film on the terms that we could afford and that we could make it work. And it was a very intense series of phone conversations, in-person meetings.

Bernard: We felt like we were auditioning to get married to somebody. We were never going to be able to pay to make their money back. It was a $40-million movie, and they were really sort of out there without anybody really looking at it. And we said, “Listen, sell it to us. We think it’s going to be a great success. We’ll make your movie way more valuable over the test of time.”

Barker: There are two types of movies that are being made and distributed. One are the big tentpole studio movies. It’s about winning the weekend theatrically. These are the theatrical-driven movies. And it’s all about making that huge budget back very quickly. But the other kind of film, which is why we are in business, is the evergreen. Every one of our films, we open it with the best marketing push we can. Yes, we try to get the highest box office. But what we know will happen, even if the box office ends up being less, we believe in these films as long-term players. And these films have really long tails. You look at movies like “Run Lola Run” or “Call Me By Your Name” or even “Living” … They have generated revenues to the filmmakers and to us that’s way beyond what the box office would have portended when it opened.

I would be curious, what areas of the filmmaking process or the film distribution process do you think AI is appropriate for use, that you’ve experimented with it, that you’re excited about its prospects? And where are your red lines, if you have any?

Barker: One of the people on our staff — we really love our young staff. One of them was writing a screenplay with AI, and told me they got certain rules on AI. And I’m listening to all these rules. You can’t have your main character die in a first scene. You can’t have your romantic female lead be totally unlikable, people aren’t going to go. I’m listening to this, and I said, “Have you ever seen ‘Sunset Boulevard?’” And she goes, “No, what is that?” I said, “Go watch that movie.” She came back and she was like, “Holy cow.” I said, “Billy Wilder sat down and made that up based on what he observed.” AI is not going to be able to do that.

As someone who is “not the best person with bugs and stuff,” Stephanie Bernaba never imagined herself becoming an outdoorsy mom.

But the mother of three is getting more daring as gas prices and other travel costs make vacations more expensive. Bernaba, 47, has been steering her family toward local beaches, bike rides and hiking trails near their home in coastal Rhode Island instead of the faraway trips they once took.

“I’ve been trying to do more of that because one, it’s quality time. Two, it’s fresh air. And three, we’re not spending an arm and a leg,” she said.

That kind of calibration is shaping the summer travel season, which gets its traditional start in the U.S. with the long Memorial Day holiday weekend. Higher fuel prices resulting from the Iran war and other inflationary pressures are making most forms of travel costlier as people in many parts of the world form their plans.

The U.S. Travel Assn. expects annual travel spending to grow by a modest 1% this year, powered largely by domestic leisure travel despite the FIFA World Cup giving soccer fans from other countries a reason to visit the U.S. Airfares have climbed around the world along with the price of jet fuel as the war constrains global oil supplies.

Sticking closer to home may not cushion the sticker shock. The nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimated Americans would collectively spend an extra $3.5 billion on gasoline over the holiday weekend. The average price for a gallon of regular gas in the U.S. was $4.56 on Thursday compared to $3.18 a year ago, according to the motor club AAA.

Other travel expenses have gone up too. The latest consumer price index showed airfares were 20.7% higher in April from a year earlier, the cost of intracity transit, such as buses and subways, rose 5.6%, lodging cost 4.3% more, and eating out got 3.6% pricier.

Changing travel patterns

Despite elevated prices, industry forecasts suggest Americans still want to get away, even if it means replacing long trips with long weekends, choosing destinations closer to home and finding ways to cut costs by cooking meals or using buses and trains instead of driving.

AAA predicted that 45 million U.S. residents would travel at least 50 miles from home between Thursday and Monday. The Transportation Security Administration said it expects to screen 18.3 million passengers from Thursday to next Wednesday.

Many households are planning summer vacations but making tradeoffs such as shorter trips or cheaper lodging, according to Bank of America analysts. Mastercard said in a recent report that consumers appeared increasingly focused on value and were adjusting their destinations and timing instead of not going away at all.

“Generally, it’s certainly more of a demand reshuffling than a demand softening,” David Tinsley, a senior economist at Bank of America Institute, said.

For the Bernaba family, that has meant trading a big vacation for a shorter trip nearby this summer. Their scaled-back itinerary still is pricey: more than $400 for a ferry to Martha’s Vineyard for their car and passengers, and about $800 a night for each of the two hotel rooms the family of five needs.

Another family that had planned to join them backed out after seeing the price tag.

“The pinch is being felt all the way around,” Bernaba said.

Analysts have increasingly described travel spending as “K-shaped,” with higher-income households continuing to spend while lower-income families pull back or opt out entirely. Bank of America said lower-income households were significantly more likely to report having no summer travel plans this year.

Travelers are confronting other stressors besides cost.

Airlines around the world have canceled flights and trimmed routes to save on fuel and operating costs, leaving passengers with fewer options. Recent U.S. government shutdowns — which caused major flight disruptions and long security lines — are likely still fresh in travelers’ minds. The conflict in the Middle East and broader geopolitical tensions add another layer of concern, especially for those considering trips abroad.

The various factors impacting travel right now have made planning trips more mentally taxing and may be pushing people toward simpler and more accessible vacations that feel easier to manage, said Marta Soligo, a tourism sociologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

“The keyword here is unpredictability,” Soligo said. “Tourists don’t like unpredictability.”

Quality over quantity

Jim Wang, a personal finance blogger who lives in Maryland with his wife and four children, said his family’s original plan to travel to Spain to see a full solar eclipse in August began to unravel once they looked at the logistics.

Beyond thousands of dollars in airfare, the trip would have required multiple connecting flights, plus a car rental to reach northern Spain, where the path of totality is expected to pass.

“It’s like, ‘Oh, I don’t know if I want to see the eclipse that much,’” Wang said.

Instead, Wang’s family plans to head this summer to the Lake Tahoe area straddling California and Nevada, where they can stay at a relative’s cabin for free, hike and enjoy a slower pace with limited cellphone service. His wife’s parents and sister expect to join them.

“We’re still going to travel. It’ll just be different,” Wang said. “The vacations are no longer as grand for the adults. But for our kids, it’s still exciting.”

Nancy McGehee, a Virginia Tech hospitality professor who studies consumer behavior, said travelers are increasingly focusing more on the “why than the where” when it comes to vacations.

“What we’re seeing is people are saying, ‘All right, we can’t do that big splashy trip we wanted to do, but what else can we do?’” McGehee said. “It’s more quality over quantity that we’re seeing people go for.”

Back in Rhode Island, Bernaba has accepted that travel may look different for her family for a while.

“I think that’s probably why my mind has gone to doing more nature-y things,” she said. “Let’s learn how to use the earth to enjoy ourselves because that’s not going to cost as much money.”

Yamat writes for the Associated Press.

As plenty of Californians remain undecided about the gubernatorial primary’s unsettled Democratic field, some are waiting to cast their ballots, creating the potential for a slower vote count or a longer wait to find out the winners.

Though the landscape could change quickly if Democrats coalesce around a single candidate within the next several days — signs of which were emerging this week — for now, many Democratic-leaning voters appear to be waiting for new developments before making their final decisions, political analysts say.

“This has been a roller coaster of a race, and I think voters are waiting to see when the ride is going to end and cast a vote at that time,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist.

A larger-than-usual number of people casting mail ballots on or close to election day could extend the ballot-counting process, said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. County election officials said they were prepared for that possibility. Early returns so far haven’t made it clear whether most voters will wait longer than usual to cast ballots.

Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles County registrar, said the county was “fully prepared” for the possibility of receiving “a significant number” of ballots returned close to or on election day, June 2.

“It is not uncommon in primary elections, particularly those with a large number of contests and candidates, for some voters to take additional time to review their ballots and hold onto them longer before returning them,” he said.

Californians who want to vote on or close to election day can vote in person or use a mail-ballot return option that doesn’t rely on the U.S. Postal Service to help speed the process and avoid the risk of a mail ballot arriving late, election officials said.

Hesitation by Democratic-leaning voters reflects the toll of a historically uncertain primary race for governor. The contest has been marked by the unusual lack of a clear Democratic front-runner and the party’s failure to line up behind a single candidate after former U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out in April.

Early concerns within the party that a split Democratic electorate could put two Republicans on the November ballot under the state’s top-two primary system also heightened the sense of stakes among left-leaning voters.

Those factors, combined with a large slate of candidates, voter confusion about how candidates’ platforms differ and a desire to choose the person “most likely to win” have made Democratic-leaning voters uncertain, said Christian Grose, director of the USC Democracy and Fair Elections Lab.

“There’s a little bit of, whoever’s in the lead some Democrats are choosing to vote for … but people don’t know who that person is,” Grose said, noting that “some of that [could start] to go away” as the race tightens.

An indication that Democrats are starting to consolidate around Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, came Tuesday in a new survey released by the California Democratic Party. It showed Becerra with support from 21% of respondents, followed by billionaire Tom Steyer with 15%.

Republican-leaning voters appear to favor Steve Hilton, who had support from 22% of survey respondents. Republican Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, had 10%. Under California’s primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Tallies from a handful of counties showed varying early turnout so far.

In San Francisco, a relatively small number of ballots have been returned, indicating that voters may be waiting, Michelle Parker, president of the city’s elections commission, said Tuesday. If people vote by mail close to election day — rather than voting in person or using a drop box — it could affect the speed of vote-counting, a possibility the city’s election staff is prepared for, she said.

“We’ll see how quickly they come in, but knowing what the news has been like and watching what the dynamic has been like across the state, I’m not surprised people are waiting,” Parker said, referring to the governor’s race.

In San Bernardino County, 5.6% of mail ballots had been returned as of Tuesday, a rate comparable with previous elections, Registrar of Voters Joani Finwall said. Election officials “strongly encourage” voters to cast ballots early using drop boxes or early voting locations, Finwall said.

In Orange County, by contrast, data so far indicate that voters are not waiting, the Registrar of Voters office said. More than 129,000 vote-by-mail ballots had been returned by the end of the day Monday, more than had been returned by the same time in the 2024 and 2022 primaries. Of those, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats had voted.

If a large number of voters were to wait until June 2 to cast a mail ballot, the county would be able to efficiently process them, said Registrar of Voters Bob Page, noting that 90% of the county’s early vote-by-mail ballots were included in election night results in the 2024 presidential primary.

Voters should be prepared for the possibility that the gubernatorial results aren’t determined on election night, Grose said. One candidate could appear to be in the lead on election night and another could overtake them once all ballots are counted.

State election officials warned this month that some social media posts urging Democrats to vote “late” could be misinformation. Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office said it would look into such posts, one of which falsely attributed the message to historian Heather Cox Richardson.

Mail ballots must be postmarked on or before election day and arrive within seven days after the election; otherwise, they are considered late and not counted.

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, acknowledged chatter around people holding onto their ballots but said the survey released Tuesday indicated voters are “beginning to move towards specific candidates.”

Even as Becerra and, to a lesser extent, Steyer rose in popularity, other Democrats saw support in the single digits in the poll, including former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

“This race isn’t over; we’ve certainly seen a lot of twists and turns to this point, but you do see some clear consolidation taking place for both Democrats and Republicans,” Hicks said on a call with reporters. “I’m not concerned about California Democrats having their voices heard.”

Still, the race’s surprises have taken a toll on voters, Grose said: Swalwell’s exit under a cloud of sexual assault allegations, along with a guilty plea to federal corruption charges by Becerra’s former longtime advisor, two videos that raised questions about the temperament of Porter and a lack of disclosure by influencers being paid to promote Steyer.

“There is some uncertainty among Democrats about, ‘Is there one more shoe to drop for someone?” Grose said. “That’s one reason people are holding onto their ballots.”

Voters who want to cast ballots later than May 26 should return their mail ballots at a voting site, county election office or drop box, rather than via the Postal Service, by 8 p.m. on June 2 or should vote in person, recommended Alexander, of the California Voter Foundation.

Because mail ballots require election officials to conduct signature verification, they take longer to count than in-person ballots. In addition, recent changes at the U.S. Postal Service have slowed mail service, creating a higher potential for mailed ballots to arrive late.

Alexander also urged voters to take advantage of Saturday in-person voting, available at county election offices statewide the weekend before election day, and other early voting options.

“I am very sympathetic with voters who want to take their time to make their decision in this very fluid election,” she said. “The important thing is to have a plan.”

For a guy who has become known for his monstrous output of clips, comedy specials and content, it’s a wonder Josh Johnson has time to stop to think about what makes his comedy timeless. As a former writer and now one of the hosts of “The Daily Show,” much of Johnson’s humor outside of specials relies on his ability to deliver jokes on the dumpster fire du jour when it comes to pop culture and politics. But for his latest one-hour special, “Symphony,” premiering Friday on HBO, he wanted to orchestrate something different that would still be funny 40 years from now, regardless of what’s fashionable or who is running the country.

Using music as a canvas to paint a funny, layered portrait of the human experience, Johnson creates a set that comes alive with the sound of more than the laughter at the Wiltern, where the special was filmed earlier this year. With stories focused on surviving rowdy family, moments of loneliness, struggles with faith, and navigating our deepest human relationships, Johnson’s abilities as a pensive storyteller are conducted masterfully. The result is an hour that helps showcase his refined comedic voice, surprise the audience and sound the trumpets for his next round of touring.

This interview was edited for length and clarity.

Why was it important for you to veer so strongly into music as a theme of your new special, “Symphony”?

I think music, in a way that nothing else does, brought the central points and themes of the special home. In the beginning [scene] with the title card and the busker who has a [music-related] quote in front of him, that’s sort of the mission statement of the special and everything I’m trying to do. The thing to me is including the music to help bring about these ideas and bring each section home and bring it all the together in a way that obviously I’m also attempting to do through the comedy. I think thematically there’s nothing stronger to make the overall point than music.

What inspired you to shoot it at the Wiltern?

The Wiltern is so beautiful and it also lends itself to that sort of art aspect I’m talking about in the very beginning of the special. Things that have that look of the Wiltern help not just create a spectacle, but give you something really beautiful to look at. You get something really beautiful to listen to in the music, and then the comedy helps decorate the hour that we’re spending together.

“If you speak to a lot of people’s timelessness around family and culture and some of the bigger topics, but without naming names, I think that you create something that really stands the test of time,” Johnson says about his new special, “Symphony,” premiering Friday on HBO.

(Ser Baffo / HBO)

You definitely play around with the format of a typical special in this new hour. As somebody who has mastered the ability to release a crazy amount of comedy in recent years on YouTube and social media, what aspect of a traditional one-hour special do you still find important?

I think that everything that I’ve been doing so far is pretty topical and very of the moment, even when I’m not talking about a specific pop culture or political topic. I think that there’s a time for comedy of the moment, but then I also think there’s an aspect that you want to be timeless, and that’s what the specials are for me. You want the piece to be something that people watch 40 years from now, and I don’t always expect every single set that I put out to have that level of longevity. Because no matter how it feels right now, there’s going to come a time where we look at the people who take up so much of our bandwidth and our thoughts throughout the day as just a sort of passing political fashion or the things that we see as like huge indicators of where society is right now will eventually become forgotten crazes. But I think that if you speak to the human condition, if you speak to a lot of people’s timelessness around family and culture and some of the bigger topics, but without naming names, you create something that really stands the test of time.

There’s a duality between your timely comedy on “The Daily Show” and the timelessness you’re aiming for in specials. Was it important for you to separate the two ways that people might see you as a comedian?

People are going to have their takeaways from whatever you do. I try bringing the same amount of intention to everything, but as far as the way people see me, it’s something that’s kind of out of my control.

Religion comes up a lot in the special, the Bible specifically. I’d read somewhere that you had taken a break from practicing Christianity in recent years. If so, what was your reason for including the topic in your special?

I wouldn’t even necessarily call it a break, I just think that there’s moments you’ll find yourself in, where whether you grew up on a text or a certain few tenants that you live by, there’s always going to come a time where it’s really important to revisit those things… It’s not necessarily that I bring religion up in the special because I stopped practicing. It’s actually because I think that if I’m breaking life down into these sort of pillars that make up a person — I’m not saying religion has to be one of them — but I do find it to be an aspect for a lot of people. So if I’m once again trying to speak to things from a universal perspective as best I can, I think it’s something that that definitely comes up.

Comic Josh Johnson turns his new hour into a concertlike experience, using live music, a busker’s credo and L.A.’s ornate Wiltern Theatre to tie jokes into a single, sweeping theme.

(Ser Baffo / HBO)

Considering how well you use music as a backdrop for the special, how long did it take to come up with a concept for the hour? Did you write the jokes before coming up with the structure or vice versa?

I basically had a structure before I had a set, and I went to the director Jacob Menache about the idea for this thing like three years ago and we were talking about how best to make it work. That was long before I knew what jokes were going to go where, or how many things, how many aspects we were going to add to it, or anything. So I think that it’s been a long time coming, as far as like the actual structure of what you end up seeing.

Watching your special was the first time I paid real attention to who the musical director was in the credits. What was it like working with respected bassist and producer Derrick Hodge on creating the concept for the music in “Symphony”?

I look at Derrick as someone who was doing a lot of interesting things, and so I thought it was going to be a fantastic opportunity to get to work with him. I don’t know that much about music, to be honest. I try to dabble with producing here and there because I have ideas, but it’s the real musicians, the real artists that take the ideas that I might pitch out and create something with it. So I really leaned on Derrick as much as possible to like bring us home. I feel like so much of what I was trying to do was in bringing an overall idea of the structure of a set and asking Derek, “Hey, what do you think about this?” I don’t know if I could have ever thought up a way to create what I was trying to build without him.

Was there something about you that you felt like you wanted to get across in this special that maybe you haven’t gotten to in your previous specials?

It can be tough to show new shades of yourself when you put out a lot of stuff, and you are always kind of coming with stories about your life and your childhood or anything like that when I think of putting a set together, especially something that is attempting to be timeless. Overall, I think every new story is a new story to [the audience]. But I think that if you can express how you used to think versus how you think now, that can be revealing. Towards the beginning [of “Symphony”] I talk about how there are things I didn’t understand until pretty close to the special in theory, things I didn’t understand until like a week ago, or I’ve always held this belief, or something like that, and I think that if you can give people insight to your evolution as a person, I think that’s a really powerful thing.

“I think music, in a way that nothing else does, brought the central points and themes of the special home,” Johnson says.

(Ser Baffo / HBO)

Were there any things that occurred during the rehearsal process that genuinely surprised you?

Watching it come together was a huge surprise, because you know, [the director] Jacob’s out here in L.A., I’m in New York, and so I make the flight down and everything, but the Thursday rehearsal with the musicians [before the taping] was the first time I was seeing everything come together. It was first time I was hearing everything, and so I think watching something finally come to life after such a long period of time is always going to throw you for a loop.

Now that the special will finally be out, what plans do you have next about how to showcase your comedy?

I’m really excited for people to see what’s coming. I start the tour Comedy Band Camp in June. I have some surprises for people there as well, and I’m looking forward to showcasing lots of artists. I’m looking forward to showcasing as much as I can that helps me elevate the level of craft and what I bring to people. And so I’m doing that through even more collaborations. I’m going to be hyping up some people that maybe you’ve heard of, or maybe you haven’t heard of. The special is kind a beautiful kick off for the tour that I’m going to be doing because we are going to be on the road for quite a while, and I chose Comedy Band Camp as a theme, because camp is this thing that people are nostalgic for, it’s a place to go that is safe, where you make friends. Band is about people coming together for a shared goal, it’s about everyone having a singular purpose towards creating art. So I think mixing those two things together will be a unique experience that no one can get anywhere else, and it’ll be a challenge to present it as best as possible. But I have a lot of plans for how I’m going to do that.

WASHINGTON — Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from an attack by a mob of President Trump’s supporters sued on Wednesday to block anyone — including Jan. 6, 2021, rioters — from receiving payouts from a new $1.776-billion settlement fund for people who claim to be victims of politically motivated prosecutions.

The officers’ attorneys filed the federal lawsuit a day after acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation during a congressional hearing. Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Justice Department, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.

The lawsuit claims the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is an illegal slush fund that Trump will use to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” It describes the fund’s creation as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century” and calls for dissolving it.

“No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law,” the suit says.

The fund stems from a settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s designed to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Decisions on payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

More than 100 police officers were injured during the Capitol riot. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, but Trump used his pardon powers to erase all of those cases in a sweeping act of clemency last year.

The plaintiffs suing Trump over the fund are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who is running in Maryland for a seat in Congress. Hodges and Dunn both testified before Congress about their harrowing experiences on Jan. 6. Videos captured a rioter ripping a mask off Hodges as he was pinned against a door during a fight for control of a tunnel entrance.

The officers claim the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”

“Dunn and Hodges already face credible threats of death and violence on regular basis; the Fund substantially increases the danger,” the suit alleges.

On Tuesday, members of Congress peppered Blanche with questions about the fund. He described it as “unusual” but not unprecedented. Blanche failed to acknowledge that Trump’s Justice Department has investigated and prosecuted some of the Republican president’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also are named as defendants in the officers’ lawsuit. Spokespeople for the Justice and Treasury departments didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.

One of the attorneys for the officers is Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

MIAMI — Federal prosecutors on Wednesday announced charges against former Cuban President Raúl Castro in the 1996 downing of civilian planes operated by Miami-based exiles as the Trump administration escalated pressure on the socialist government.

The indictment was related to Castro’s alleged role in the shootdown of two small planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue. Castro, now 94, was Cuba’s defense minister at the time. The charges included murder and destruction of an airplane.

Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and other top Justice Department officials made the announcement in Miami at a ceremony to honor those killed in the shootdown.

President Trump has been threatening military action in Cuba ever since U.S. forces captured the Cuban government’s longtime patron, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. After ousting Maduro, the White House ordered a blockade that choked off fuel shipments to Cuba, leading to severe blackouts, food shortages and an economic collapse across the island.

Since Maduro’s capture, Trump has ratcheted up talk of regime change in Cuba after pledging earlier this year to conduct a “friendly takeover” of the country if its leadership did not open its economy to American investment and kick out U.S. adversaries.

Trump’s first administration indicted Maduro on drug-trafficking charges and used that to justify removing him from power during a surprise military raid in January that whisked the Venezuelan leader to New York to face trial.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday urged the Cuban people to demand a free-market economy with new leadership that he said will chart a new course in relations with the U.S.

“In the U.S., we are ready to open a new chapter in the relationship between our people,” Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, said in a Spanish-language video message. “Currently, the only thing standing in the way of a better future are those who control your country.”

Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, Carlos F. de Cossío lashed out at Rubio on X, saying he “lies so repeatedly and unscrupulously about Cuba and tries to justify the aggression he inflicts on the Cuban people.” Rubio “knows full well that there is no excuse for such cruel and ruthless aggression.”

Raúl Castro believed to wield power behind the scenes

There’s no indication Castro will be taken into U.S. custody anytime soon.

He took over as president from his ailing older brother Fidel Castro in 2006 before handing power to a trusted loyalist, Díaz-Canel, in 2018.

While he retired in 2021 as head of the Cuban Communist Party, he is widely believed to wield power behind the scenes, underscored by the prominence of his grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, who previously met secretly with Rubio.

Last week, CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Havana for meetings with Cuban officials, including Castro’s grandson. Two other senior State Department officials met with the grandson in April.

“The symbolic nature is absolutely crucial,” said Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman, a former prosecutor at the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami who handled national security cases and crimes involving Cubans.

“Even though Raúl Castro will likely stay and die in Cuba, you can use the indictment as a pressure point, a tactical advantage, to extract other concessions like the release of prisoners or to keep Russia out,” she added.

The investigation into Castro stretches back to the 1990s

Starting in 1995, planes flown by members of Brothers to the Rescue, a group founded by Cuban exiles, buzzed over Havana dropping leaflets urging Cubans to rise up against the Castro government.

The Cubans protested to the U.S. government, warning that they would defend their airspace. Federal Aviation Administration officials also opened an investigation and met with the group’s leaders to urge them to ground the flights, according to declassified government records obtained by George Washington University’s National Security Archive.

“This latest overflight can only be seen as further taunting of the Cuban Government,” an FAA official wrote in an email to her superiors after one intrusion in January 1996. “Worst case scenario is that one of these days the Cubans will shoot down one of these planes.”

But those calls went unheeded and on Feb. 24, 1996, missiles fired by Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jets downed two unarmed civilian Cessna planes a short distance north of Havana just beyond Cuba’s airspace. All four men aboard were killed.

Raúl Castro faced earlier indictment

Guy Lewis, who was a federal prosecutor, uncovered evidence linking senior Cuban military officials to cocaine trafficking by Colombia’s Medellin cartel. Following the shootdown, the investigation expanded, and prosecutors pursued charges against Raúl Castro for leading a vast racketeering conspiracy by Cuba’s armed forces.

“The evidence was strong,” Lewis said in an interview.

In the end, the Clinton administration indicted four individuals, including the MiG pilots, the head of the Cuban air force and the head of a Cuban spy network in Miami — the only one to see the inside of a U.S. prison — for providing valuable intelligence about the flights.

The incident led the U.S. to harden its position against Cuba, even though the Cold War had ended and the Castros’ support for revolution across Latin America was a fading memory.

But Castro himself was spared as the Clinton administration — which had quietly sought to expand relations with Cuba prior to the incident — raised foreign policy concerns about such a high-profile indictment.

“Raúl was definitely one who slipped through the noose,” Lewis said. “The crime is notorious. Three U.S. citizens and one legal permanent resident were killed in a premeditated orchestrated murder. That should never be forgotten.”

Goodman and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington.

Shakira’s long tax-fraud nightmare has ended with the government of Spain on the hook to refund nearly $70 million to the Colombian-born singer after prosecutors failed to prove she spent enough time in that country to owe it a chunk of her earnings.

Since 2018, the singer has been accused of defrauding the Spanish government in three cases, for the tax years 2011, 2012-2014 and 2018. Over the years, deals were offered, rejected and accepted; charges were dropped, other charges were filed; and an eight-year prison sentence was threatened.

Shakira maintained her innocence, saying in 2022 that “Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate,” referring to her relationship with Barcelona-born footballer Gerard Piqué, the father of their sons Milan and Sasha. Piqué and the singer, who met in 2010 when she did “Waka Waka,” the official song of that year’s FIFA World Cup, separated in 2022.

A representative for the singer, whose full name is Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll, did not respond immediately to The Times’ request for comment on the court decision.

However, despite there being no fraud, Shakira told People on Monday in a statement that “for nearly a decade, I was treated as guilty. Every step of the process was leaked, distorted, and amplified, using my name and public image to send a threatening message to the rest of the taxpayers.”

She added, “Today, that narrative crumbles, and it does so with the full force of a court ruling.”

Everything revolved around how many days Shakira spent in Spain in the years in question. With her legal residence in the Bahamas before she declared Spain her fiscal home in 2014, she had to spend more than half the year outside of her beau’s home country to avoid paying taxes there.

“They knew I wasn’t in Spain the required time, that Spain wasn’t my place of work or my source of income, but they still came after me, with their eyes on the prize,” Shakira told Elle in 2022, adding that she was confident that justice would prevail in her favor at trial. “I have enough proof.”

The amount the Spanish government owes her includes fines and interest in addition to the money she handed over, despite having no legal obligation to pay it.

In other Shakira news, she and Burna Boy just released the 2026 FIFA World Cup song, titled “Dai Dai.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government will permanently drop tax claims against President Trump, according to a settlement document that is part of a deal to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

As part of the settlement agreement, the U.S. is “forever barred and precluded” from examining or prosecuting Trump, his sons and the Trump organization’s current tax issues, according to a one-page document posted to the Justice Department’s website on Tuesday.

The settlement, which marks an extraordinary use of executive power, goes beyond resolving litigation and effectively helps shield the president from further examination of his finances and legal conduct.

The move comes after the Trump administration announced Monday the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate allies of the Republican president who believe they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted, an arrangement that Democrats and government watchdogs derided as “corrupt” and unconstitutional.

The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of $1.776 billion will allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts, creating what acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche called “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Blanche, who was grilled by lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, would not rule out the possibility that people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol will be considered for payouts from the new fund.

Democratic lawmakers and ethics watchdogs slammed the creation of the fund, saying it was corrupt, opaque and had the potential to become a “slush fund” for the president and his allies.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Democrats intend to “fight every element of this self-dealing settlement.”

“Not only is this another heinously corrupt act by the most corrupt administration in history, it’s clearly a violation of the law that prohibits interference by executive branch officials in IRS audits.”

The fund was announced after Trump, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and the Trump Organization agreed to drop their lawsuit against the IRS and the Treasury Department. The lawsuit alleged that a leak of confidential tax records caused them reputational and financial harm and negatively affected their public standing, among other allegations.

According to a separate settlement agreement posted to the Justice Department website Monday, Trump will receive a formal apology from the U.S. government but “will not receive any monetary payment or damages of any kind,” from the settlement.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that the fund is dedicated to “reimbursing people who were horribly treated.”

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Tuesday wouldn’t rule out the possibility that people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol will be considered for payouts from a new $1.776 billion fund to pay individuals who believe they were targeted politically.

Pressed during a Congressional hearing over whether those who assaulted police officers would be eligible for compensation from the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” Blanche responded that all people can apply if “they believe they were a victim of weaponization.” The acting attorney general also refused to say whether he would direct those responsible for deciding who receives payments — a commission whose members he is tasked with appointing — to restrict funds to those convicted of violence.

“What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners are effectively doing their jobs, and that includes setting guidelines as you’re describing,” Blanche told Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat. The decisions on payouts will be made a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

Appearing before Congress for the first time since taking the reins of the Justice Department last month, Blanche was peppered with questions about the fund announced on Monday to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Blanche said the fund was “unusual” but not unprecedented, adding that those who benefit will not be limited to Republicans or to people who were investigated or prosecuted by the Biden administration. At one point, Blanche said President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter — who faced gun and tax prosecutions under his father’s administration — could also apply.

Blanche defends $1.8 billion fund

Tuesday’s hearing was meant to address the Trump administration’s budget request for the Justice Department but quickly delved into other controversies that have escalated concerns about the erosion of the law enforcement agency’s tradition of independence from the White House. Blanche defended the creation of the fund without any acknowledgment that the Trump administration has pursued investigations of Trump’s political opponents, sparking criticism that the department is being weaponized in precisely the same way they allege it was under Biden’s administration to prosecute Trump.

In the weeks since assuming control of the Justice Department after Pam Bondi’s firing, Blanche has moved aggressively to advance the president’s priorities — pushing forward cases against Trump’s political foes, cracking down on leaks to media outlets and establishing the new fund to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Democrats described it as an illegal abuse of power designed to line the pockets of Trump supporters with taxpayer dollars. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations subcommittee holding the hearing, blasted the move as a “pure theft of public funds.”

“Rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene,” the Maryland Democrat said. “Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme.”

The fund is in keeping with Trump’s long-running claims that the Justice Department during the Biden administration was weaponized against him, even though then-President Biden himself was investigated during that time and his son was prosecuted. Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law.

Trump administration has been rewriting the history of Jan. 6

The mere possibility that violent rioters at the Capitol could be considered for payouts is consistent with a Trump administration pattern of rewriting the dark history of Jan. 6, a trend that began when the president pardoned and commuted the prison sentences of the participants in the melee and that continued with the Justice Department firing some prosecutors who put them behind bars.

Under questioning from Merkley, Blanche said that he “will definitely encourage the commission” responsible for deciding on the payouts to “take everything into account.” But when asked whether he believes those convicted of violence should be entitled to compensation, Blanche said: “My feelings don’t matter.”

When Merkley suggested that Trump was using the Justice Department to target his political enemies, Blanche replied that this was precisely the sort of “disgusting” behavior of the Biden administration that the fund was meant to address.

“That is completely inappropriate and wrong,’ Merkley said. “There is no comparison to the absolute fair minded pursuit of justice under the previous administration, and this administration’s pursuit of an enemies list.”

Questions over the meaning of ‘weaponization’

In announcing the fund Monday, the Trump administration did not name specific individuals who might stand to benefit from it. The money itself would come from the federal judgment fund, which pays out court judgments and compromise settlements of lawsuits against the government.

Blanche told lawmakers that the Justice Department is committed to “full transparency” in providing public information about beneficiaries of the new fund.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats. It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization,” Blanche said, though the administration has not said how it will define “weaponization.”

Meanwhile, there were signs of discomfort about the fund even among some Republican members of Congress. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters that he’s “not a big fan,” adding that he isn’t sure how the administration intends to use it, but doesn’t “see a purpose for that.”

Thune’s comments come after Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in a GOP primary on Saturday, called it a “slush fund.”

“We are a nation of laws,” Cassidy said. “You can’t just make up things.”

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

If anyone needs the axiom “Tell me who you’re with, and I’ll tell you who you are” whispered to them every morning as a reminder to do better, it’s Spencer Pratt.

Can someone do that ASAP, por favor?

Instead of holding events around Los Angeles to convince skeptics that his mayoral campaign is for everyone, the former reality television bad boy has bunkered himself inside an echo chamber of sycophants, friendly podcasters and milquetoast media outlets.

Instead of offering an on-ramp to join his pissed-off posse, he calls Mayor Karen Bass “Basura” — trash — and her supporters “Bassholes,” insults that his followers share and like on social media by the thousands.

Instead of enlisting surrogates to push an uplifting vision for L.A.’s future, Pratt elevates those who speak of the city as a West Coast Chernobyl.

He’s running on a message of righteous fury as a survivor of the Palisades fire, in an era when many Angelenos feel pessimistic about what’s next. In recent months, he’s raised funds at a faster pace than Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman and delivered a decent debate performance, while holding strong in the polls with two weeks left before the June 2 primary.

Now that Pratt has shown his electoral quest isn’t a farce, it’s time he shows all Angelenos that they can rely on a Republican entertainer with no political experience to head a largely progressive, multicultural metropolis.

Instead, he continues to double down on his doomsday message, exciting the type of people who have been whining that L.A. is a “Lost Cause” since the days of the Watts riots.

They’re the ones depicting Pratt in AI-generated videos as a superhero — Batman, Luke Skywalker and a gladiator, among others — battling Bass, cast as a clown, Darth Vader, the Joker or as herself handing out needles to half-crazed homeless people.

They hound anyone who points out that L.A. is nowhere near as apocalyptic as they make it out to be, when homicides are at their lowest since the 1960s, burglaries are down 30% from last year and unsheltered homelessness has dropped two years in a row. They follow Pratt’s example and call unhoused people with drug problems “zombies” and “bums” while depicting the L.A. of the past as a problem-free playground out of “The Wonderful World of Disney” that derailed once Democrats took over.

Not all of Pratt’s supporters are this obnoxious. But he repeatedly platforms the worst of them and shows no signs of stopping. That nihilism might sell books and gain followers — but it’s no way to prove to Angelenos he’s serious about fixing anything other than his reputation.

Mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, left, poses with a supporter during a campaign event in Sherman Oaks.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

Anyone who truly loves the city complains about it even on its best days. They realize L.A. can never be perfect, and that’s what makes it so wonderful. When people try to better their part of paradise, everyone benefits.

But Pratt needs to realize that Angelenos don’t want the city to be torn down, as dissatisfied as they may be. Criticizing the status quo is necessary — but waging a campaign of humiliation, a la Donald Trump, isn’t how to heal L.A. It won’t get large swaths of the city on your side, and it can’t spark the true change City Hall so desperately needs.

Instead, we get people like former Times contributor Meghan Daum — who now calls herself the “official Liberal Elite for Pratt” — gushing in the Atlantic about how her man is the “factory-reset option” to Make L.A. Great Again.

Resetting to when, Meghan? The 2000s of the Great Recession? The 1990s of anti-immigrant policies, the Northridge earthquake and the riots? The 1980s and its out-of-control gangs? The white flight of the 1960s? The 1950s of legal segregation and hideous smog?

Or just to the days when the problems that have long racked L.A. didn’t lap up to the denizens of Prattland — until they did?

These are the people who stayed largely silent as Trump unleashed ICE goons across Los Angeles last summer. They said nothing about housing affordability and violent crime in the years when those issues primarily afflicted South L.A. and the Eastside. They didn’t have a fit about homelessness until encampments spread beyond Skid Row.

Pratt’s loudest fans fundamentally loathe modern-day L.A., and that should chill all other Angelenos. These haters would be his primary constituents and populate his brain trust if he does beat Bass — and if he lets them take over, heaven help the City of Angels.

I’m not discounting Pratt’s chances of winning — he’s too savvy a media pro to fully flop. I knew Bass and Raman would misjudge the anger of Angelenos, fail to capitalize on that rage and find themselves on the defensive against Pratt’s populist push. I also figured he would eschew politeness for the demonizing that has tainted past L.A. elections, from Yorty’s mayoral campaigns of the 1960s to the San Fernando Valley secession movement a generation ago to the continued charges of communism thrown at the democratic socialist wing of the City Council.

I don’t blame Pratt for jumping into the race after his life was upended. And I sure don’t underestimate L.A.’s middle-class malaise, long a reactionary force in city politics with a winning track record that spans decades. But I can’t trust the guy and his crew for just now beginning to say they care about reforming L.A., when all he has fought for is his dark idea of the city.

And if you think L.A. needs a complete makeover, then you probably never really loved it in the first place.

On a recent podcast with Adam Carolla — who has long railed against L.A.’s liberal, multicultural ways and is planning to move to Nevada after his children graduate high school — Pratt huffed that he will “be done with trying to live” in the city if he doesn’t become mayor.

“I’ll go find somewhere that my kids will not have to see naked zombies,” he said, in a comment that was cheered on and seconded by his online army.

Do Angelenos really want to entrust their city to someone who might pick up his ball and quit on a place he professes to love, if he doesn’t get his way?

On a Thursday night in West Hollywood, a sleek, multi-level townhome is filled with stylish guests holding fragrance vials the way partygoers cling to cocktails. They raise scents to their noses as they mingle and float through the space.

In one nook, two well-known faces in the fragrance community, Tishni Weerasinghe (@thatbrownperfumegirl) and Chase Chapman (@thescentchase), host stations with their favorite home scents — pre-bedtime spritzes to everyday comforts for working from home — as a small group leans in, asking questions and noting which scents resonate. Inhaling the blend of white musk, floral notes and amber of Rouat Al Musk by Lattafa, a $16 fragrance from Weerasinghe’s collection, attendees oooh and nod in enthusiastic approval.

In another corner, guests try fragrance pairings, scents expertly paired with drinks, letting the aroma and flavors mingle through their senses. Outside on the rooftop, the crowd spills into smaller conversations over refreshments and city views.

Sarah Bowen, co-founder of the Smellers Club, sniffs a fragrance.

This is the Smellers Club. To an outsider, it might seem like a gathering centered around a niche fixation, but within this world, fragrance is much more expansive. Here, it’s a bridge between people, a tool for self-expression, a way to understand your own taste and increasingly, a reason to connect. The night’s gathering is taking place in the home of Daniel Scott and Ronn Richardson, the duo behind the fine home fragrance line Space.

Some guests are simply scent-curious, while others have deep roots in the world of fragrance. One attendee, Jess Blaise, the co-founder of Haitian Spotlight LA, credits her Haitian heritage and the fragrance rituals modeled by her mother for her connection to scent. She recently purchased a bottle of Carnal Flower by Frederic Malle for her personal collection, a luxe tuberose known for its white floral profile and appeal among niche collectors. Of her culture, she explains, “Part of your presentation — of dressing up — is your scent.”

The gathering was hosted in the home of Daniel Scott, left, and Ronn Richardson, co-founders of the home fragrance brand Space. Space offers a range of luxury home fragrances and candles.

Across Los Angeles, fragrance clubs are transforming what was once a solo ritual into something communal. From rooftop gatherings in West Hollywood to casual park meetups further east, these hangouts tap into a growing desire for laid-back, low-stimulation ways to spend time together, offering an alternative to the usual rotation of restaurants, bars and crowded nights out.

Reverie of Scent turns a small nook of Elysian Park into a mini fragrance lounge on Saturday mornings once a month. Founded in November 2025 by Marian Botrous, with support from her husband, Errol, and her sister, Marlene, the club started with just four members at the first meetup. By their sixth gathering this past April, attendance had quintupled, with a mix of regulars and newcomers at every session.

“It’s a huge world,” Botrous says of perfume. “Exploring it together makes it more interesting.”

Fragrance lovers hang out on the rooftop at Smellers Club’s West Hollywood gathering.

At her picnic-like gatherings, attendees show up with blankets, snacks and scents to swap or discuss. With 2-milliliter samples running up to $12, “collecting new scents gets expensive fast,” Bostrous says. “Our meetups make it accessible and fun.”

There’s a mix of casual socializing and structured discussion — conversations have explored the motivations behind wearing fragrance, from seduction to personal comfort, as well as the cultural impact of certain perfumes, like Chanel No. 5 and its connection to Marilyn Monroe and old-school luxury glamour. At one meetup, a member brought in a fragrance called Scentless Apprentice, inspired by the novel “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer” by Patrick Süskind (which Kurt Cobain loved so much that he wrote the Nirvana song “Scentless Apprentice”).

Artist Megan Lindeman, who founded Silverlake Scent Club in August 2025, is also bringing people together to explore scent as a shared social experience. Lindeman says she was inspired by Los Angeles’ broader scent culture and a curiosity about what it would feel like to center smell in a communal setting. The group meets monthly in her Silver Lake backyard, where attendees explore fragrance as both material and memory.

Black Girl Perfume Club was founded in 2023 by Taylyn Washington-Harmon, launching online before expanding into in-person meetups. Across Substack, Instagram and IRL gatherings, it brings together fragrance lovers and newcomers eager to deepen their understanding in an interactive way. “I started the club back when fragrance’s popularity was still pretty niche, and now seeing it move into the mainstream is really exciting,” says Washington-Harmon. As interest grows, she hopes more people will also explore the range of artistry produced by Black-owned fragrance lines.

Back at the house in West Hollywood, people continue to vibe at the event led by Sarah Bowens and Jon Kidd, Los Angeles natives and the duo behind the Smellers Club, launched in January. They’re siblings-in-law who grew up together in the church and are quick to note that their respective partners, Zana and Zion, are unofficial team members and rock-star supporters.

Jess Blaise tests out a scent by Selnu.

Between the both of them, Kidd brings the “fraghead” energy — a name for fragrance devotees who bring a passion and certain fluency of fragrance culture. Bowens, who comes from an events background, heads curation and considers herself more in the beginning stages of her fragrance journey.

When they first started hosting these events, Bowens wasn’t sure how captivating they’d be. “I was like, can people really sit here for hours and talk about fragrance?” she says. She got her answer quickly, watching guests chat, laugh and dive into lively conversations for hours.

Kidd points to wine and book clubs as “event muses” for the Smellers Club. “At a certain point, it stops being about the books or the wine — and for us, even the fragrances,” he says. “It becomes about the people.”

Chase Chapman sets up scents from his personal collection of fragrances for guests to discover at the Smellers Club gathering.

As people navigate adulthood and personal growth cycles, challenging habits and shedding old identities, there are a few underlying questions: Who am I, really? What do I actually like? And what feels good and in alignment with being at ease? Fragrance communities can be a surprisingly grounding place to explore these existential meditations. Bowens, for example, was recently drawn to strawberry-forward Fruits of Love by Dossier, which surprised her since she considered herself someone who didn’t like fruity scents. Such realizations are familiar in the community: You can miss out on something satisfying simply because it doesn’t match your predefined tastes.

Farah Elawamry, a fragrance-focused content creator known as Farah’s Thoughts, has examined fragrance marketing and its ties to rigid gender norms, explaining that “the iris note is always given to women’s fragrances and orris is always given to the masculine fragrance genre, and they’re literally the same note — one is the root, one is the flower.” Once you start diving into the history and psychology of fragrances, she says “you begin to question what you actually like versus what marketing people are telling you to enjoy.”

Compared with the typical nightlife scene in Los Angeles, attendee Shaunt Kludjian says gatherings like these feel more intentional. “This turned out to be better than the clubs in L.A.” he says. “Everyone’s just vibing and connecting over scent.” Kludjian is founder of the Los Angeles candle company Whiff and came to the event to network. Frustrated by traditional candle formats, he launched a line of portable candles packaged in small, tuna-like tins designed to make “home follow you wherever you go.”

As Kidd looks around and watches strangers become friends over a sniff of musk or jasmine, he reflects on part of the magic of the Smellers Club and other fragrance communities.

“Fragrance is a portal to your memory,” he says. “So by coming to something curated that’s a wonderful night, you’re ingraining a memory.”

What started as a question of what smells good has become something else — small moments of recognition between many people who, just hours earlier, had been total strangers. Maybe that’s the point. The bottles will get put away. Everyone will return to their separate corners of the city. But the feeling of being seen, of finding your people — even briefly — sticks with you long after the scents dissipate.

May 18 (UPI) — The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Monday restricted non-U.S. passport holders from entering the United States if they have been in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or South Sudan in the past 21 days.

The agency made the announcement as there have at least 346 cases and 88 deaths in the DRC, on top of several cases that have been confirmed in nearby nations in people who been there, the CDC said over the weekend.

The CDC said that is coordinating with various agencies and companies to manage travelers who have been exposed to Ebola as it also deploys employees to support containment of the outbreak in the three nations.

“CDC assess the immediate risk to the general U.S. public as low, but we will continue to evaluate the evolving situation and may adjust public health measures as additional information becomes available,” the agency said in a situation summary.

In the last five days, the World Health Organization confirmed that the Ebola virus circulating in the three countries right now is the Bundibuyo virus, one of four known strains that have affected humans since Ebola was discovered in mid-1970s.

Although there is an approved, licensed vaccine against Ebola which has successfully been used to quell outbreaks, the vaccine — called Ervebo — only protects against acquisition of the Zaire species of Ebola virus, making it useless in the current outbreak, according to the CDC.

WHO on Saturday declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern.

In its update, WHO said that there are “significant uncertainties to the true number of infected persons and geographic spread associated with this event at the present time. In addition, there is limited understanding of the epidemiologic links with known or suspected cases.”

Ebola spreads from wild animals to humans and from human to human through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids from infected individuals, and carries a case fatality rate of roughly 50%.

A number of affected Americans have reportedly been exposed to the virus during the outbreak.

The CDC has recommended that people who have traveled through the two countries in the last 21 days should immediately seek medical attention if they develop Ebola symptoms, which can include fever, weakness, vomiting, diarrhea or unexplained bleeding.

In addition to roughly 30 CDC employees dispatched to the region, and will join officials from several other global and regional health agencies, the WHO is expected to convene an emergency committee to advise the agency’s director-general on its response the outbreak.