plan

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration says making cents doesn’t make sense anymore.

The U.S. Mint has made its final order of penny blanks and plans to stop producing the coin when those run out, a Treasury Department official confirmed Thursday. This move comes as the cost of making pennies has increased markedly by upward of 20% in 2024, according to the Treasury.

By stopping the penny’s production, the Treasury expects an immediate annual saving of $56 million in reduced material costs, according to the official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to preview the news.

In February, President Trump announced that he had ordered his administration to cease production of the 1-cent coin.

“For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful!” Trump wrote at that time in a post on his Truth Social site. “I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies.”

There are about 114 billion pennies currently in circulation in the United States — that’s $1.14 billion — but they are greatly underutilized, the Treasury says. The penny was one of the first coins made by the U.S. Mint after its establishment in 1792.

The nation’s Treasury secretary has the authority to mint and issue coins “in amounts the secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States.”

Advocates for ditching the penny cite its high production cost — almost 4 cents per penny now, according to the U.S. Mint — and limited utility. Fans of the penny cite its usefulness in charity drives and relative bargain in production costs compared with the nickel, which costs almost 14 cents to mint.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the news.

Pennies are the most popular coin made by the U.S. Mint, which reported making 3.2 billion of them last year. That’s more than half of all the new coins it made last year.

Congress, which dictates currency specifications such as the size and metal content of coins, could make Trump’s order permanent through law. But past congressional efforts to ditch the penny have failed.

Two bipartisan bills to kill the penny permanently were introduced this year.

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Uta) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Make Sense Not Cents Act this month. In April, Reps. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), along with Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.(, introduced the Common Cents Act.

Jay Zagorsky, professor of markets, public polic, and law at Boston University, said that while he supports the move to end penny production, Congress must include language in any proposed legislation to require rounding up in pricing, which will eliminate the demand for pennies.

Zagorsky, who recently published a book called “The Power of Cash: Why Using Paper Money is Good for You and Society,” said otherwise simply ditching the penny will only increase demand for nickels, which are even more expensive, at 14 cents to produce.

“If we suddenly have to produce a lot of nickels — and we lose more money on producing every nickel — eliminating the penny doesn’t make any sense,” he said.

Mark Weller, executive director of the Americans for Common Cents group — which conducts research and provides information to Congress and the executive branch on the value and benefits of the penny — says “there has been an evolution over the past six months that inevitably the production of the penny will be halted.”

His group advocates for the U.S. to find ways to reduce the cost of producing the nickel, especially since it will be more in demand once the penny is totally eliminated from circulation.

“It’s incumbent on Treasury to come up with a cheaper way to make the nickel,” Weller said. “Let’s make sure we’re making our coins as least expensively as possible and maintaining the option to use cash in transactions.”

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

Thousands of hotel, bar and restaurant staff are planning industrial action in the Balearics. The UGT union says there will be a mass walkout on June 6 followed by several days of strike action in July, the height of the busy tourist season

Chaos is due to befall hotels Majorca, Ibiza and Menorca as workers prepare to strike.

The holiday islands could face significant disruption in June and July as thousands of hospitality workers plan further strike action. Unless a last-minute agreement is reached, a mass walk-out is planned for June 6, followed by several days of strikes in July, during the height of the tourist season.

The UGT workers’ union has warned strikes are nearing as no progress is being made regarding their demands for improved pay and conditions. The union warns the industrial actions will greatly affect holidaymakers and urges hotels to do everything possible to prevent it.

“If we don’t see the possibility of an agreement in principle, we will call a strike lasting several days,” declared the general secretary of its Services federation on the islands. The union has made it clear that their goal is to exert maximum impact on tourists.

Have you got a story to share? Email [email protected]

READ MORE: Brits heading to Spain should make four checks now after Airbnb crackdown

At the same time, overtourism protests are due to break out across major resort cities. They include plans to occupy beaches and super-glue apartment locks.

Protests are set to take place in Platja de Palma and Palmanova-Magaluf. The UGT, the largest union in the sector, is playing a key role in negotiating the Collective Agreement of the Balearic hotel industry.

A strike involving thousands of hotel workers, including restaurant and bar staff and cleaners, already took place on May 1. On June 6, the first of the new protests will occur outside the headquarters of the Mallorca hotel federation.

Demonstrations are scheduled for the end of June in Platja de Palma and Palmanova-Magaluf, with the peak planned for July, featuring several days of strikes over alternate weeks.

On June 6, a protest is planned for 10am at the UGT office in Palma. Following the update on negotiation progress, attendees will hold a midday rally outside the Mallorcan Hotel Federation building.

Another demonstration is set to take place at Platja de Palma at the end of next month, with a worker’s march culminating in a rally in front of the local hotel association headquarters. A similar protest will target the Palmanova-Magaluf area, highlighting the workers’ unrest in key tourist hubs around the Bay of Palma.

READ MORE: Balearic Islands ban influencers after cove is swamped by 4,000 touristsREAD MORE: Police intervene as protesters target tourists with new tactic in Spanish hotspot

The unions are fighting for adequate housing and addressing issues such as tourist overpopulation without life quality improvements for workers, increased job demands, salaries not matching living costs, and pay inequality for identical work.

The union wants wages to rise by 19 per cent across the three years to 2027, while the offer from employers flags at 8.5 percent.

In other recent protest news, the CEO of Jet2 Steve Heapy expressed fears that tourist levies could rise in response to overtourism protests in Spain, which have been rumbling on for years and are due to disrupt key destinations this summer. The CEO told a roundtable event at the Spanish embassy in London that he opposed tourist taxes, but feared rises would prove “irresistible”.

A roughly 11-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway is set to reopen Friday ahead of Memorial Day weekend, reconnecting Malibu to the Westside after months of closures.

But less than 48 hours before the planned reopening, the state said Wednesday that it remains “in the dark” regarding the city of Los Angeles’ plans for providing security to the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades area just off the highway.

Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl countered that the mayor did, in fact, have a plan to keep the area secure and closed to non-residents.

“As PCH is reopened, we will have a strict security plan in place, as we have for months,” Seidl said Wednesday afternoon. He did not immediately respond when asked whether he had shared the city’s plan with the state.

The leader of the state’s emergency services agency sent a sharply worded letter earlier Wednesday to a senior official in Mayor Karen Bass’ administration, chiding the city for not answering questions despite weeks of outreach from the state.

As of Wednesday morning, the mayor’s office had yet to provide the state with a plan for how it plans to provide security to the Palisades as part of the reopening, or whether it plans to establish new security checkpoints on arterial streets into the community, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Times.

Seidl said Wednesday afternoon that the city would put new checkpoints in place, though he did not provide specifics.

The affluent coastal enclave has remained closed to the public since the devastating January wildfire, months after other fire-damaged neighborhoods reopened. But with the California National Guard set to leave at the end of the month, officials must decide how to move forward. There seems to be a consensus among both state and local officials that the neighborhood should remain closed to the public, though the logistics of that decision remain an open question.

Checkpoints currently block public access at major ingress points to the community. But the reopening of PCH would necessitate several new checkpoints.

“Over the last few weeks, Cal OES has reached out to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and City staff and officials – including as recently as yesterday – offering technical and financial resources to support the City as it develops a security plan,” Nancy Ward, who leads the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, wrote in the letter, saying the state would also provide financial support for federal reimbursement-eligible security costs.

“Despite this outreach, we remain in the dark regarding the City’s plans and have heard that the City may request a multi-week delay of the reopening of PCH – despite the incredibly hard work by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Caltrans, and many others to facilitate the reopening for Memorial Day,” Ward wrote.

Seidl said the city was not requesting a delay to the reopening.

The letter was sent from Ward to deputy mayor for public safety Robert Clark, Bass’ top aide overseeing police and fire issues.

Though she stopped short of directly criticizing Bass, Traci Park — the Los Angeles city council member who represents the Palisades — also expressed frustration with the process and lack of clarity.

“For months, Councilmember Park sounded the alarm on safety and called for a formalized plan from departments and consultants through the LA Recovery Committee, which she chairs. None have been forthcoming,” Park spokesperson Pete Brown said.

Concerned about the lack of movement, Park submitted her own proposal to the governor for Palisades safety as the highway reopens, Brown said.

The governor’s office had reached out to Park with concerns about the situation, according to someone familiar with the issue who was not authorized to speak publicly.

In late January, Bass briefly announced plans to reopen the Palisades to the public before reversing course less than 30 hours later after widespread outcry from community members who said the checkpoints should remain in place.

Newsom previously announced last month that the highway would reopen by the end of May, though he did not provide a specific date. His office declined to comment on the letter.

The soon-to-reopen section of highway, which spans from Chautauqua Boulevard just north of Santa Monica to Sweetwater Canyon Drive in Malibu will operate two lanes of traffic in both directions, according to a CalTrans document.

A group of California legislators representing the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta area said Tuesday that they will fight Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to build a $20-billion water tunnel, contending the project is a threat to their region and would leave millions of Californians paying much higher water bills.

Newsom has said the tunnel project is vital to improving the reliability of water deliveries as climate change shrinks California’s snowpack and alters the timing of runoff. But the Democratic lawmakers criticized Newsom’s latest proposal to accelerate steps toward construction of the 45-mile tunnel by short-cutting permitting for the project and limiting avenues for legal challenges.

“Fast-tracking the Delta Conveyance Project is a direct attack on our region’s environmental integrity, economic stability and public trust,” said Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City). “We are united in our opposition to this project, not just because of what it threatens to destroy, but because of what it represents — a broken process that silences local voices.”

Wilson and other members of the Delta caucus spoke at a news conference in the Capitol. They said the project would harm the Delta’s farmlands, communities and ecosystem, and would place a large financial burden on ratepayers in Southern California.

They said the cost, most recently estimated at $20.1 billion, is likely to be much higher.

“The project would have to be paid for by ratepayers who are already overburdened with soaring utility costs and aren’t even aware of how the cost of this is going to impact them in their pocketbooks,” said state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton). “This project will set a precedent for bypassing well-established environmental laws.”

The tunnel would transport water from the Sacramento River to the state’s pumping facilities on the south side of the delta, where supplies enter the aqueducts of the State Water Project and are delivered to 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland, including parts of the Central Valley.

Supporters of the plan, including water agencies in Southern California and Silicon Valley, say the state needs to build new infrastructure in the delta to protect the water supply in the face of climate change and earthquake risks.

Opponents, including agencies in the delta and environmental advocates, say the project is an expensive boondoggle that would harm the environment and communities, and that the state should pursue other alternatives.

The legislators called for different types of water solutions, including investing in projects to recycle wastewater, boost water storage, and rebuild aging levees in the delta to protect freshwater supplies and reduce earthquake risks.

Newsom, who is set to serve through 2026 and then leave office, has said the tunnel project is critical for the state’s future.

The governor said his latest proposal would simplify permitting by eliminating certain deadlines from water rights permits; narrow legal review to avoid delays from legal challenges; confirm that the state has authority to issue bonds to pay for the project, which would be repaid by water agencies; and accelerate state efforts to acquire land for construction.

The governor’s approach, part of his latest budget proposal, was praised by supporters of the project and managers of water agencies, who said it would reduce regulatory and legal uncertainty.

Charley Wilson, executive director of the nonprofit Southern California Water Coalition, said the ability of the State Water Project to reliably deliver water is declining, while demand continues to rise.

“Southern California stands to lose up to 10% of our water supply from the State Water Project if we don’t act,” Wilson said, calling the project the best path to offsetting those losses.

Graham Bradner, executive director of the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, said the governor’s proposal would “save years of delay and potentially billions in costs by removing unnecessary hurdles.”

The legislators, however, said they will fight Newsom’s attempt to short-cut the established process.

“The governor is asking for a blank check, without cost caps, without meaningful oversight, without even committee hearings,” said state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento). “What we have before us is a proposal to advance this under the dead of night with no public oversight or input.”

Cabaldon stressed that the public ultimately would pay for the project.

“The real threat here is to the pocketbooks, the monthly water bills, of residents throughout Southern California,” Cabaldon said.

McNerny said he expects the group of legislators will “do pretty well in gathering Senate opposition.”

“There is going to be significant opposition. It’s going to be vocal. It’s going to be harsh,” he said.

The project has been supported by leaders of water agencies in Southern California who are considering investing in it.

In December, the board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California voted to spend $141.6 million for a large share of the preliminary planning work. The district, which delivers water for 19 million people, isn’t expected to decide whether to invest in building the tunnel until 2027.

The legislators spoke beside leaders of environmental, fishing and tribal groups who oppose the project. Malissa Tayaba, vice chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, said the project would harm the region and her tribe.

“It seems that to Gov. Newsom, our culture, our ancestors and the environment that sustains us is worth less than the ability to over-divert water from our rivers to send more water and money to commercial water interests,” Tayaba said.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have laid out their clearest plan yet for the “Golden Dome” missile defence programme, which would include putting weapons in space for the first time.

Speaking from the White House on Tuesday, Trump said he had “officially selected an architecture” for the system, designed to take down “hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles and advanced cruise missiles”.

“I promised the American people that I would build a cutting-edge missile defence shield to protect our homeland from the threat of foreign missile attack,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

The Golden Dome system, he added, would include “space-based sensors and interceptors”.

“ Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they’re launched from space,” Trump continued. “We will have the best system ever built.”

The announcement comes just less than four months after Trump signed an executive order kicking off the programme’s development. General Michael Guetlein – who currently serves as the vice chief of space operations at Space Force, a branch of the US military – is slated to manage the programme.

Speaking at the event, Hegseth hailed the plan as a “game changer” and a “generational investment in security of America and Americans”.

The White House did not immediately release further details about the missile defence system, and the Pentagon is reportedly still working out its capabilities and requirements.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this month that the space-based components of the Golden Dome alone could cost as much as $542bn over the next 20 years.

It noted that a high number of sensors and interceptors would be needed for a space-based system to be effective, particularly as foreign militaries like North Korea’s grow more sophisticated.

But on Tuesday, Trump outlined a much lower price tag and timeline.

“It should be fully operational before the end of my term. So, we’ll have it done in about three years,” Trump said.

He estimated the total cost to add up to about $175bn, adding that he planned to use existing defence capabilities to build the system.

But the funding for the programme has so far not been secured. At Tuesday’s news conference, Trump confirmed that he was seeking $25bn for the system in a tax cut bill currently moving through Congress, although that sum could be cut amid ongoing negotiations.

There is likely to be some variation in the total cost of the project. The Associated Press news agency, for example, cited an unnamed government official as saying that Trump had been given three versions of the plan, described as “medium”, “high” and “extra high”.

Those tiers corresponded to how many satellites, sensors and interceptors would be put in space as part of the programme. The news agency reported that Trump chose the “high” version, which has an initial cost ranging between $30bn and $100bn.

Questions over viability

As he explained his plans for the Golden Dome on Tuesday, Trump cited several inspirations, including Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defence system, which is funded in part by the US.

He also pointed to the work of a fellow Republican, the late President Ronald Reagan, who served in the White House during the Cold War in the 1980s.

As part of his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, Reagan had proposed a barrier to nuclear weapons that included space-based technology.

“ We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” Trump said.

But questions have persisted over the viability of a space-based defence system, its price, and whether it could ignite a new arms race.

Democrats have also questioned the possible involvement of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is a frontrunner among the technology companies seeking to build key components of the system.

A group of 42 Democratic lawmakers have called for a probe into Musk’s role in the bidding process, pointing to his position as a special adviser to Trump and his substantial campaign donations to the president.

“If Mr. Musk were to exercise improper influence over the Golden Dome contract, it would be another example
of a disturbing pattern of Mr. Musk flouting conflict of interest rules,” the Democrats wrote in a letter, calling for the probe.

On Tuesday, Trump did not directly respond to a question about which companies would be involved in the Golden Dome. Instead, he highlighted that the system would boost industries in states like Alaska, Indiana, Florida and Georgia.

He added, “Canada has called us, and they want to be a part of it. So we’ll be talking to them.”

SACRAMENTO — Latino legislators criticized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed budget cuts to Medi-Cal Monday afternoon, saying the plan to freeze enrollment and charge premiums for those adult immigrants without documentation already enrolled was a betrayal of California’s promise to protect the vulnerable.

Legislative pushback for the May budget revision, released by Newsom last week, comes after the governor announced an additional $12-billion budget shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year.

State Senator María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) said the plan to charge adult undocumented immigrants $100 per month for Medi-Cal was a form of redlining, and Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) said she doubted the two-tiered system was constitutional.

“The governor is proposing a troubling precedent — raising prices on one group of Californians based solely on their immigration status. It is illegal for Kaiser to do this. It is illegal for United Healthcare to do this. It is illegal for any doctor, hospital or clinic to charge higher prices to undocumented customers,” Durazo said at a California Latino Legislative Caucus rally outside the state Capitol on Monday.

The influential Latino Legislative Caucus has staunchly opposed cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s expanded version of the federal Medicaid program. The objections come despite California expecting decreased revenue in part due to President Trump’s tariff policies and increases in state spending, including the recent expansion of Medi-Cal coverage to cover all eligible Californians, including immigrants lacking documentation.

State Senator Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City), chair of a budget subcommittee on health, said Newsom’s proposal scapegoats immigrants for California’s economic woes. Immigrants, she said, are essential to California’s robust economy, recently ranked as the fourth largest in the world.

“If you were to remove the name from this document — if you were to remove the state, and people would just read this off to you and you closed your eyes — you would think, ‘Oh, that’s a budget proposed by a Republican in, perhaps, Alabama,’” she said.

During his news conference on Wednesday, Newsom encouraged state lawmakers and specially members of the Latino caucus to offer alternatives to balance the state budget if they disagreed with his proposal.

“Good people have different ideas, and I look forward to their ideas,” Newsom said.

On Monday, members of the Latino caucus did not mention any specific measures they would take instead of cutting Medi-Cal access, but pledged to offer budget balancing proposals in the days and weeks to come.

In May 1939, a ship called the St. Louis departed from Hamburg, Germany, with 937 passengers, most of them Jews fleeing the Holocaust. They had been promised disembarkation rights in Cuba, but when the ship reached Havana, the government refused to let it dock. The passengers made desperate pleas to the U.S., including directly to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to allow them entry. Roosevelt never responded. The State Department wired back that they should “wait their turn” and enter legally.

As if that were a realistic option available to them.

After lingering off the coast of Florida hoping for a merciful decision from Washington, the St. Louis and its passengers returned to Europe, where the Nazis were on the march. Ultimately, 254 of the ship’s passengers died in the Holocaust.

In response to this shameful failure to provide protection, the nations of the world came together and drafted an international treaty to protect those fleeing persecution. The treaty, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its 1967 Protocol, has been ratified by more than 75% of nations, including the United States.

Because the tragedy of the St. Louis was fresh in the minds of the treaty drafters, they included an unequivocal prohibition on returning fleeing refugees to countries where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” This is understood to prohibit sending them to a country where they would face these threats, as well as sending them to a country that would then send them on to a third country where they would be at such risk.

All countries that are parties to the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are bound by this prohibition on return (commonly referred to by its French translation, “nonrefoulement”). In the U.S., Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act, expressly adopting the treaty language. The U.S. is also a party to the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the return of individuals to places where they would be in danger of “being subjected to torture.”

In both Trump administrations, there have been multiple ways in which the president has attempted to eviscerate and undermine the protections guaranteed by treaty obligation and U.S. law. The most drastic among these measures have been the near-total closure of the border to asylum seekers and the suspension of entry of already approved and vetted refugees.

However, none of these measures has appeared so clearly designed to make a mockery of the post-World War II refugee protection framework as the administration’s proposals and attempts to send migrants from the U.S. to Libya and Rwanda.

Although there are situations in which the U.S. could lawfully send a migrant to a third country, it would still be bound by the obligation not to return the person to a place where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” The choices of Libya and Rwanda — rather than, for example, Canada or France — can only be read as an intentional and open flouting of that prohibition.

Libya is notorious for its abuse of migrants, with widespread infliction of torture, sexual violence, forced labor, starvation and slavery. Leading advocacy groups such as Amnesty International call it a “hellscape.” The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stated in no uncertain terms that Libya is not to be considered a safe third country for migrants. The U.S. is clearly aware of conditions there; the State Department issued its highest warning level for Libya, advising against travel to Libya because of crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping and armed conflict.

Although conditions in Rwanda are not as extreme, the supreme courts of both Israel and the United Kingdom have ruled that agreements to send migrants to Rwanda are unlawful. The two countries had attempted to outsource their refugee obligations by calling Rwanda a “safe third country” to which asylum seekers could be sent to apply for protection.

Israel and the U.K.’s highest courts found that Rwanda — contrary to its stated commitment when entering these agreements — had in fact refused to consider the migrants’ asylum claims, and instead, routinely expelled them, resulting in their return to countries of persecution, in direct violation of the prohibition on refoulement. The U.K. court also cited Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture.”

If the Trump administration had even a minimal commitment to abide by its international and domestic legal obligations, plans to send migrants to Libya or Rwanda would be a nonstarter. But the plans are very much alive, and it is not far-fetched to assume that their intent is to further undermine internationally agreed upon norms of refugee protection dating to World War II. Why else choose the two countries that have repeatedly been singled out for violating the rights of refugees?

As in Israel and the U.K., there will be court challenges should the U.S. move forward with its proposed plan of sending migrants to Libya and Rwanda. It is hard to imagine a court that could rule that the U.S. would not be in breach of its legal obligation of nonrefoulement by delivering migrants to these two countries.

Having said that, and despite the clear language of the treaty and statute, it has become increasingly difficult to predict how the courts will rule when the Supreme Court has issued decisions overturning long-accepted precedent, and lower courts have arrived at diametrically opposed positions on some of the most contentious immigration issues.

In times like these, we should not depend solely on the courts. There are many of us here in the U.S. who believe that the world’s refugee framework — developed in response to the profound moral failure of turning back the St. Louis — is worth fighting for. We need to take a vocal stand. The clear message must be that those fleeing persecution should never be returned to persecution.

If we take such a stand, we will be in the good company of those who survived the Holocaust and continue to speak out for the rights of all refugees.

Karen Musalo is a law professor and the founding director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at UC Law, San Francisco. She is also lead co-author of “Refugee Law and Policy: A Comparative and International Approach.”

Carol Parks, the chief of Los Angeles’ Emergency Management Department, sat before a budget committee last year and painted a dire picture.

Although tasked with responding to crises in the nation’s most disaster-prone region, her department had received just a tiny fraction of the city’s budget and was getting by with a staff of roughly 30.

There was no staffer devoted full-time to disaster recovery, which meant that if an earthquake or major wildfire struck, the city would have to scramble.

But the City Council and Mayor Karen Bass balked at devoting more money to the department.

Seven months later, flames tore through Pacific Palisades and nearby communities, destroying more than 6,000 structures and displacing tens of thousands.

Now, the Emergency Management Department is in charge of coordinating the monumental task of recovery — but with a budget smaller than what the city’s Police Department uses in roughly two days.

To supplement the bare-bones emergency management team, Bass turned to an Illinois-based disaster recovery firm, Hagerty Consulting, inking a yearlong contract for up to $10 million. She also brought a former EMD general manager, Jim Featherstone, back from retirement to serve as the de facto recovery chief.

More than four months after the fire, Palisades residents and some of their elected officials are increasingly frustrated, asking: Who is in charge? What have they been doing? How is Hagerty spending its time? And what is the plan to restore the Palisades?

L.A. brings on Hagerty

As flames chewed through the Palisades on Jan. 7, EMD assigned a mid-level staffer to take on the recovery. Soon, Featherstone — a former firefighter who once served as interim LAFD chief — arrived at the emergency operations center.

In public, Bass touted civic leader Steve Soboroff as the city’s recovery czar, with a controversy over his salary taking center stage for a period.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, left, and her disaster recovery czar Steve Soboroff, right, at Palisades Recreation Center in January.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

In practice, Featherstone — a self-described “operator” and “tactical person” — assumed the recovery director role, helping to choreograph a massive, multiagency response.

Zach Seidl, a spokesperson for Bass, disputed that characterization and said the two men had different roles. Featherstone’s “role is largely internal to the City,” while Soboroff, whose term ended last month, “worked externally with the community along with other engagement teams within the Mayor’s Office,” Seidl said in an email.

While the city code puts EMD in charge of coordinating disaster recovery, it operates with fewer resources than similar departments in other large California cities. A 2022 audit found that L.A. spent $1.56 per resident on emergency management — far less than Long Beach at $2.26 and San Francisco at $7.59.

With such a small team for a 469-square-mile city, EMD has struggled to staff its emergency operations center in crises, prepare for events like the 2028 Olympics and help residents recover from smaller-scale calamities like building fires, storms and mudslides.

Parks told the City Council in a 2024 memo that her department “lacks the experience and dedicated staff to oversee long-term recovery projects.” After recent emergencies, EMD handled recovery duties “on an ad hoc basis,” yielding “delays, postponements and possible denial of disaster relief funds,” she wrote.

To boost EMD, Bass in early February tapped Hagerty after hearing proposals from firms including AECOM and IEM. Her reasons for choosing Hagerty were unclear, although the firm had already signed a wildfire recovery contract with L.A. County’s emergency management office and had long worked with the state Office of Emergency Services.

It’s not unusual for a state or local government to retain a recovery consultant after a disaster, even if it has a recovery arm of its own. Hagerty has routinely been hired to help with hurricane recovery, including managing billions of dollars in funding after Superstorm Sandy in New York in 2012.

Because Bass hired Hagerty under her emergency authority, the city has also solicited bids for a longer-term recovery contract worth $30 million over three years, with Hagerty among the companies vying for it.

Initially, Hagerty spent “a significant amount” of time compensating for the lack of a city recovery team, said Featherstone, who supervises Hagerty’s work, at a budget hearing last month.

By contrast, L.A. County had a dedicated recovery operation that consultants could plug into — and the muscle memory from recent disasters like the Woolsey fire.

“The structure had to be built out,” Featherstone told council members at the budget hearing. “Folks were pulled out of their regular day-to-day functions … to start to build out a recovery capability.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass speaks with Pacific Palisades residents at a debris removal town hall on Jan. 26 in Santa Monica.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

That structure is a series of tactical teams focused on issues including infrastructure, economics, health and housing. Under each umbrella are multiple working groups composed of several city departments working with federal and regional agencies.

Under the infrastructure team, for example, is a debris removal group, a utilities team and a group for hazards such as mudslides, according to a recording of a recovery meeting reviewed by The Times. The housing team, meanwhile, brings together the Department of Building and Safety and the city Planning Department to streamline the permitting process.

Debris removal was one of the first orders of business — so that group was among the first to be organized and has been the “busiest,” as one EMD staffer said in a recording of an internal March meeting.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the primary responsibility for clearing debris from lots, with most expected to be done by Memorial Day and the rest largely due to be finished this summer. The city, with Hagerty, helped explain the debris removal process to residents, including the decision to opt in to the Army Corps cleanup or do it on their own.

With Hagerty’s guidance, the Emergency Management Department also created a dashboard showing the progress of debris removal, with real-time maps tracking the status of each lot.

Tracey Phillips, a Hagerty executive, told City Council members in March that her firm was organizing these tactical teams and holding weekly meetings so that “we can develop a short-term and mid-term operational framework.”

“This is the first step to that: [determining] who the players are, getting them in the room, getting them trained up and developing that operational cadence,” Phillips explained. “It’s already happening — it’s just not being reported and it’s not kind of coalesced yet.”

As of mid-March, Hagerty had about 22 employees working on Palisades fire recovery, billing the city at hourly rates ranging from $80 to nearly $400 per employee.

City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez is among those who say that some of the money used for Hagerty would have been better spent bolstering the Emergency Management Department’s rank and file — as Parks had requested last year.

“I don’t understand their purpose. I don’t need another contractor,” Rodriguez said in an interview. “What my city staff needs is staff to do the work.”

Asked whether funding for Hagerty would be better spent on EMD, Seidl, the spokesperson for Bass, said most of the firm’s work is reimbursable by the federal government, a point that Featherstone made at a March budget hearing. Featherstone also suggested that Hagerty’s guidance could yield more funding in the long run because of the firm’s expertise with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Hagerty and Featherstone declined interview requests from The Times. Joseph Riser, a spokesperson for EMD, provided written responses to questions.

EMD was “very pleased” with Hagerty for building out recovery teams “where they did not previously exist,” Riser said, noting that the firm has improved coordination and provided “high-level briefings” to City Hall and department general managers, among other duties.

Seidl emphasized that the mayor has taken steps to preserve EMD’s budget, “even in difficult budget times like this year.” He also touted steps the city has taken to hasten the recovery, like a one-stop permitting and rebuilding center, measures to allow for the re-issuance of permits for homes built in recent years, and restoring water and power in two months compared to the 18 months it took in Paradise after the 2018 Camp fire.

“Despite one of the worst natural disasters in recent history, L.A.’s recovery effort is on track to be the fastest in modern California history,” Seidl said.

Palisades residents strike back

Some Palisades residents say that Hagerty and EMD — and ultimately, Bass and her team — have done a poor job of communicating what their plan is going forward.

Citing the cornucopia of government agencies involved in the rebuild, City Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the Palisades, said, “Sometimes it feels like there are so many people in charge that no one is in charge.”

Maryam Zar, who runs the Palisades Recovery Coalition, said that at times, “we feel like we are doing this ourselves.”

Pacific Palisades residents attend a town hall on the L.A. Fire Health Study featuring leading scientists on post-fire health in the backyard of a private residence on Tuesday in Los Angeles. The study is a 10-year effort to study the exposures to dangerous substances and consequent health effects.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Zar and her group have been among the most vocal advocates for a logistics plan governing how thousands of homes will be rebuilt in a community with narrow streets and already-snarled traffic.

The group has circulated ideas that include a concrete plant in the Palisades, short-term housing for construction crews and one-way roads to ease congestion.

Zar said that Hagerty has “shown up to community meetings, and they have been so unable to deliver any kind of information.”

In an interview, Park said that “for weeks and weeks now,” she also has been asking Hagerty and city departments for “a logistics and operations plan” for moving people, vehicles and materials in and out of the Palisades.

Park has visited Lahaina, Hawaii, which was devastated by a wildfire in 2023, and studied other communities rebuilding from fires. She said those areas had consultants who were “very, very engaged” with communities in identifying priorities and solving problems. She wants the city and Hagerty to push forward on a longer-term recovery plan that establishes criteria for fire-safe rebuilding and a timeline for restoring parks, schools, libraries and businesses.

“I know that those things can take significant time to develop. But this is Los Angeles, and this is the Pacific Palisades, and we are not waiting around,” she said, adding that she and her constituents were “moving at warp speed.”

Riser, the EMD spokesperson, said that traffic and logistics were not handled in a “single, static, formal plan,” but that problems were being addressed in coordination with city and state agencies. He also said EMD has brought in traffic experts to “structure this work more effectively.”

“Recovery is dynamic and complex and changes daily as debris is cleared, infrastructure is repaired, and reentry phases evolve,” Riser said.

Frustration with Hagerty boiled over at an April 10 meeting of the Palisades community council, where Hagerty representative Harrison Newton touted recovery as “a chance to become more resilient to the next disaster.”

Residents could barely contain their fury, criticizing Newton for an abstract presentation that seemed divorced from their real needs around rebuilding, permitting and traffic control.

“It feels extremely generic,” said Lee Ann Daly, who then turned her ire toward City Hall. “You need to know that we have a trust issue with the people who are paying you. … We have a trust issue, and it’s huge.”

Palisades resident Kimberly Bloom, whose home burned in the fire, pressed Newton to provide a “concrete example” of Hagerty’s work in a prior disaster “that is not just another layer of bureaucracy, because that’s what it feels like at the moment.”

Newton referred residents to Hagerty’s website and spoke of how his firm provides “augmentation support,” prompting residents to interrupt and criticize his use of jargon.

After some back and forth, Newton emphasized that he and his team were trying to accelerate the city’s response to the issues raised by residents. Hagerty, he said, was “bringing more people to bear so they’re less thinly stretched, and you’re achieving work faster.”

What lies ahead

So far, more than 1,500 parcels in the Palisades have received a final sign-off from L.A. County that they are cleared of debris, paving the way to begin rebuilding.

As of this week, 54 construction permits for 40 addresses have been issued in the Palisades, said Seidl, who noted that hundreds of permit applications are now under review.

The burden will increasingly shift onto city agencies like the Department of Building and Safety to serve thousands of homeowners and businesses seeking plan checks, permits, inspections and certificates of occupancy.

The logistics of whole neighborhoods undertaking simultaneous construction projects on hillside streets, with only a few major arteries in and out, will test the recovery framework that EMD and Hagerty have been working to erect.

In the coming weeks, Bass is expected to name a new chief recovery officer, and her team is “currently interviewing … qualified candidates,” Seidl said. Featherstone, who was initially hired on a 120-day appointment, is now serving as an assistant general manager at EMD, and Parks, the EMD chief, has asked for funding in the coming fiscal year’s budget to keep him.

Hagerty could be replaced by a different firm if it loses the competitive bidding process for the multi-year recovery contract. One of the many “deliverables” for that contract is developing a long-term recovery plan.

That type of overarching plan governing the rebuilding — and direct communication about the plan — is what residents and local officials say they have been pleading for.

“We have more debris clearing to do, but we are also breaking ground on new buildings,” said Councilmember Park. “If we don’t get those plans under control and in place, this is going to turn into ‘The Hunger Games’ very quickly.”

A judge approved a plan Friday to move more than 100 youths out of a troubled Los Angeles juvenile hall that has been the site of riots, drug overdoses and so-called “gladiator fights” in recent years.

Los Angeles County Superior Judge Miguel Espinoza signed off on the L.A. County Probation Department’s plan to relocate dozens of detainees from Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, months after a state oversight body ordered the hall to be shut down.

The Downey facility, home to approximately 270 youths, most of whom are between the ages of 15 and 18, has been under fire since last December, when the Board of State and Community Corrections ordered it closed because of repeated failures to meet minimum staffing requirements. The probation department has faced a years-long struggle to get officers to show up to work in the chaotic halls.

But the probation department ignored the state board’s order to shut down. Since the body has no power to enforce its own orders and the California Attorney General’s Office declined to step in, Los Padrinos continued to operate in defiance for months. In that time frame, several youths suffered drug overdoses, a teen was stabbed in the eye and 30 probation officers were indicted for allegedly organizing or allowing brawls between youths.

Acting on a legal challenge brought by the L.A. County Public Defender’s Office, Espinoza last month ordered probation officials to begin shrinking the number of youths held at Los Padrinos so it could comply with state regulations.

Roughly three-quarters of the youths at Los Padrinos are awaiting court hearings connected to violent offenses including murder, attempted murder, assault, robbery, kidnapping and gang crimes, according to the probation department.

The probation department made its plan to de-populate Los Padrinos public earlier this month, promising to remove 103 detainees from the facility by June.

Under the department’s plan, youth who are awaiting trial on cases that could land them in the county’s Secure Youth Treatment Facility will be moved to Barry J. Nidorf Hall in Sylmar. Others will be moved out of Los Padrinos and into the lower-security camps, where some juvenile justice advocates say teens perform much better and are far less likely to act violent.

“This plan reflects our continued commitment to balancing public safety, legal compliance, and the rehabilitative needs of the young people in our care,” the department said in a statement. “It is key to note that the court denied an indiscriminate mass release of youth, and that Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall will not be fully depopulated or closed.”

Espinoza originally weighed shutting down the facility last year when the public defender’s office questioned the legality of its continued operation in defiance of the BSCC. On Friday, he declined to adopt a plan from the Probation Oversight Commission that could have resulted in the release of some youths through a review process.

Some members of the oversight body expressed frustration that Espinoza’s order won’t solve the larger issues that have plagued the probation department for years. Milinda Kakani, a POC board member and the director of youth justice for the Children’s Defense Fund, also noted the moves might cause some youths to backslide by returning them to Nidorf Hall after they had already graduated from the prison-like SYTF, which some derisively refer to as “The Compound.”

“I imagine it’s deeply damaging to a young person to go back to the facility they had worked so hard to get out of,” Kakani said.

Espinoza warned he could take further action if the department’s plan does not bring it into compliance with state regulations. It was not clear when the next BSCC inspection of Los Padrinos would take place and a spokeswoman for the oversight body did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The probation department must provide Espinoza with an update on conditions at Los Padrinos by July.

UN stresses adherence to principles of neutrality and independence in delivering life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza.

The United Nations has said it will not take part in a US-backed humanitarian operation in Gaza because it is not impartial, neutral or independent, as Israel pledged to facilitate the effort without being involved in aid deliveries.

“This particular distribution plan does not accord with our basic principles, including those of impartiality, neutrality, independence, and we will not be participating in this,” deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters on Thursday.

The US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation will start work in Gaza by the end of May under a heavily criticised aid plan that the UN aid chief Tom Fletcher described as a “fig leaf for further violence and displacement” of Palestinians in Gaza.

Speaking to reporters in Antalya, Turkiye, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday acknowledged the criticisms and said Washington was open to any alternative plan to get aid to civilians “without Hamas being able to steal it”.

“We’re not immune or in any way insensitive to the suffering of the people of Gaza, and I know that there’s opportunities here to provide aid for them,” Rubio said after speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier on Thursday.

“There are criticisms of that plan. We’re open to an alternative if someone has a better one,” he said.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said on Thursday that the UN “has a solid and principled operational plan to deliver humanitarian aid and life-saving services at scale and immediately across the Gaza Strip”.

Israel has accused Hamas of stealing aid, which the group denies, and has blocked the delivery of all humanitarian assistance to Gaza since March 2, demanding Hamas release all remaining captives.

A report by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification initiative released on Monday said the Gaza Strip “is still confronted with a critical risk of famine” after more than a year and a half of devastating war, with the vast majority of its approximately 2.1 million people at severe risk.

In a bid to address some concerns, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has asked Israel to expand an initial limited number of so-called secure aid distribution sites in Gaza’s south to the north within 30 days. It has also asked Israel to let the UN and others resume aid deliveries now until it is set up.

“I’m not familiar with those requests, maybe when they went into Jerusalem, but I will tell you that we appreciate the effort of the United States,” Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon told reporters on Thursday.

“We will not fund those efforts. We will facilitate them. We will enable them,” he said. “We will not be the ones giving the aid … It will be run by the fund itself, led by the US.”

Israel and the US have urged the UN and aid groups to cooperate and work with the foundation.

It is unclear how the foundation will be funded. A Department of State spokesperson said no US government funding would go to the foundation.

A fact sheet on the foundation, circulating among the aid community last week, listed respected former UN World Food Programme chief David Beasley as a potential adviser. However, a source familiar with the effort said Beasley was not currently involved.

WASHINGTON — The head of the U.S. Space Force is moving ahead with plans to pull talent from Air National Guard units to help build up the still new-military service — but several governors remain opposed and argue it tramples on their rights to retain control over their state units.

Overall, the plan would affect only 578 service members across six states and the Air National Guard headquarters and augment the Space Force without creating a separate Space Force National Guard — something the service has said would not be efficient because it would be so small.

“We are actively pursuing where do we want our part-time workforce? What type of work do they do?” the head of Space Force, Gen. Chance Saltzman, said Thursday at a Politico conference.

The transferred service members would be a part-time force like they are now, just serving under the Space Force instead of their state units.

But space missions are some of the most lucrative across the military and private sectors, and the states that lose space mission service member billets are potentially losing highly valuable part-time workforce members if they have to move away to transfer to the Space Force.

Last month, the National Governors Assn. said the transfers violate their right to retain control over their state units.

“We urge that any transfers cease immediately and that there be direct and open engagement with governors,” the association said in April. The group was not immediately available to comment on Space Force’s plan.

“There’s a lot of concern in the National Guard about these individuals who are highly skilled that want to be in the Guard being transferred out,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin said at an Air Force manpower hearing this week.

Congress directed the transfers in its 2025 defense bill. But the contention between the states and the Space Force has meant the service hasn’t so far been able to approach individual members about transferring in.

According to the legislation, each National Guard will get the option to either stay with their units — and get retrained in another specialty — or join the Space Force. Those who do transfer would be allowed to remain in their home state to perform their mission for at least the next 10 years, according to the 2025 legislation.

The affected personnel include 33 from Alaska, 126 from California, 119 from Colorado, 75 from Florida, 130 from Hawaii, 69 from Ohio and 26 from Air National Guard headquarters

Copp writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.

None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.

“Every court is ruling against you,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”

If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed by district judges.

It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.

Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve problem.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.

One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Prior to that time, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.

The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.

However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extended to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.

The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.

But several conservative law professors have disputed the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.

Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.

On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.

Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.

A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.

The justices are likely to hand down a decision in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing to accelerate his administration’s plan to build a $20-billion water tunnel beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by short-cutting permitting for the project and limiting avenues for legal challenges.

Newsom urged the Legislature on Wednesday to adopt his plan to “fast-track” the tunnel, called the Delta Conveyance Project, as part of his revised May budget proposal.

“For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We’re done with barriers,” Newsom said. “Our state needs to complete this project as soon as possible, so that we can better store and manage water to prepare for a hotter, drier future. Let’s get this built.”

The tunnel would create a second route to transport water to the state’s pumping facilities on the south side of the Delta, where supplies enter the aqueducts of the State Water Project and are delivered to 27 million people and 750,000 acres of farmland.

Supporters of the plan, including water agencies in Southern California and Silicon Valley, say the state needs to build new infrastructure in the Delta to protect the water supply in the face of climate change and earthquake risks.

Opponents, including agencies in the Delta and environmental advocates, say the project is an expensive boondoggle that would harm the environment and communities, and that the state should pursue other alternatives.

“It’s a top-down push for an unaffordable, unnecessary tunnel that fails to solve the state’s real water challenges,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta.

She said the governor “wants to bypass the legal and public processes because the project doesn’t pass the economic or environmental standards Californians expect.”

Newsom, who is set to serve through 2026 and then leave office, is pushing to lay the groundwork for the project.

Newsom said his proposal would: simplify permitting by eliminating certain deadlines from water rights permits; narrow legal review to avoid delays from legal challenges; confirm that the state has authority to issue bonds to pay for the project, which would be repaid by water agencies; and accelerate state efforts to acquire land for construction.

Announcing the proposal, the governor’s office said that “while the project has received some necessary permits, its path forward is burdened by complicated regulatory frameworks and bureaucratic delays.”

The State Water Resources Control Board is currently considering a petition by the Newsom administration to amend water rights permits so that flows could be diverted from new points on the Sacramento River where the intakes of the 45-mile tunnel would be built.

The governor’s latest proposal was praised by water agencies including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is currently spending about $142 million on the preliminary planning.

MWD General Manager Deven Upadhyay called Newsom’s proposal a “bold step” toward protecting water supplies, saying the approach would support completion of the planning work, reduce “regulatory and legal uncertainties,” and allow the MWD board to make an informed decision about whether to make a long-term investment to help foot the bill for construction.

Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors, said the governor’s approach makes sense to address costly delays and upgrade essential infrastructure that is “in dire need of modernization.”

Environmental and fishing groups, however, called Newsom’s proposal a reckless attempt to bypass the existing legal process and make it harder for opponents to challenge the project over what they contend would be harmful effects on the Delta region and the environment.

Scott Artis, executive director of the Golden State Salmon Assn., a group that represents fishing communities, called Newsom’s proposal “an attack on the salmon fishing industry and the state’s biggest rivers.”

Commercial salmon fishing has been canceled for three consecutive years because of a decline in the Chinook salmon population. Artis said building the tunnel would represent a “nail in the coffin of California’s once mighty salmon runs.”

WASHINGTON — House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks Monday in President Trump’s big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans.

The House Ways and Means Committee named its package “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in all capital letters, a nod to Trump himself. It seeks to extend the tax breaks approved during Trump’s first term — and boost the standard deduction, child tax credit and estate tax exemption — while adding new tax breaks on tipped wages, overtime pay, Social Security benefits and auto loans that Trump promised during his campaign for the White House.

There’s also a tripling of the state and local tax deduction, called SALT, from $10,000 up to $30,000 for couples, which certain high-tax state GOP lawmakers from New York and California already rejected as too meager. Private universities would be hit with a hefty new tax on their endowments, as much as 21%, as the Trump administration goes after the Ivy League and other campuses. And one unusual provision would terminate the tax-exempt status of groups the State Department says support “terrorists,” which civil society advocates warn is a way to potentially punish those at odds with the Trump administration.

Overall, the package is touching off the biggest political debate over taxes, spending and the nation’s priorities in nearly a decade. Not since 2017 has Congress wrestled with legislation as this, when Republicans approved the Trump tax cuts but also failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The cost assessments are only preliminary, and expected to soar.

“Republicans need to UNIFY,” Trump posted on social media before departing for a trip to the Middle East.

Trump said when he returns to Washington, “we will work together on any and all outstanding issues, but there shouldn’t be many — The Bill is GREAT. We have no alternative, WE MUST WIN!”

But one key Republican, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, implored his party not to impair Medicaid, arguing that cutting healthcare to pay for tax breaks is both “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

“If Republicans want to be a working-class party — if we want to be a majority party — we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people,” Hawley wrote in the New York Times.

Late Monday, the House Agriculture Committee released its proposals — cutting $290 billion from federal nutrition programs, in part by shifting costs to the states and requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to fulfill work requirements until they are 64 years old, rather than 54, to qualify for food aid.

Round-the-clock work ahead

As Republicans race toward House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline to pass Trump’s big bill, they are preparing to flood the zone with round-the-clock public hearings starting Tuesday and stitch the various sections together in what will become a massive package.

The politics ahead are uncertain. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said Monday that tax breaks would reduce revenue by $4.9 trillion over the decade — and that was before Trump’s new tax breaks were included.

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warned the price tag could climb to $20 trillion, piling onto the deficits and debt.

“I sure hope House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan,” Roy posted on social media, “…. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years.”

House Republicans have been huddling behind closed doors, working out final provisions in the 389-page tax portion of the package.

The legislation proposes to boost the standard deduction many Americans use by $2,000, to $32,000 per household, and increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for four years. It adds a new requirement focused on preventing undocumented immigrants from benefiting from the credit even if the children are U.S. citizens, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, estimates would affect 4.5 million children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents.

It would also increase the estate tax exemption, which is now $14 million, to $15 million and index future increases to inflation.

As for the president’s promises, the legislation includes Trump’s “no taxes on tips” pledge, providing a deduction for those workers in service industry and other jobs that have traditionally relied on tips. It directs the Treasury secretary to issue guidance to avoid businesses gaming the system.

The package also provides tax relief for automobile shoppers with a temporary deduction of up to $10,000 on car loan interest, applying the benefit only for those vehicles where the final assembly occurred in the United States. The tax break would expire at the end of Trump’s term.

For seniors, there would be a bolstered $4,000 deduction on Social Security wages for those with adjusted incomes no higher than $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples.

But one hard-fought provision, the deduction for state and local taxes known as SALT, appears to be a work in progress. The legislation proposes lifting the cap to $15,000 for single filers and $30,000 for couples, but with a reduction at higher incomes — about $200,000 for singles and $400,000 for couples.

“Still a hell no,” wrote Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) on social media.

Battle over Medicaid, food aid

Meanwhile, dozens of House Republicans have told Johnson and GOP leaders they will not support cuts to Medicaid, which provides some 70 million Americans with healthcare, nor to green energy tax breaks that businesses back home have been relying on to invest in new wind, solar and renewable projects.

All told, 11 committees in the House have been compiling their sections of the package as Republicans seek at least $1.5 trillion in savings to help cover the cost of preserving the 2017 tax breaks, which are expiring at the end of the year.

The final section from the Agriculture Committee proposed cutting the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, known as SNAP, by expanding work requirements, limiting future expansions of the program and forcing states to shoulder more of the cost.

Along with new work requirements for older Americans, it would also require some parents of children older than 7 to work to qualify, down from 18 years old. Only areas with unemployment rates over 10% would be eligible for waivers.

Some Republicans have already balked at the increased costs to the states, which would be required to contribute at least 5% of the cost of SNAP allotments beginning in 2028.

At the same time, the legislation would invest $60 billion in new money for agriculture programs, sending aid to farmers.

On Sunday, House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled the cost-saving centerpiece of the package, with at least $880 billion in cuts largely to Medicaid to help cover the cost of the tax breaks.

While Republicans insist they are simply rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” to generate savings with new work and eligibility requirements, Democrats warn that millions of Americans will lose coverage. In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, Medicaid has only expanded as most states have tapped into federal funds.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposals would reduce the number of people with healthcare by 8.6 million.

To be eligible for Medicaid, there would be new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility to be in the program twice a year, rather than just once.

There are substantial cuts proposed for green energy programs and tax breaks, rolling back climate-change strategies from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Amanda Seitz, Leah Askarinam and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

May 12 (UPI) — The first set of 49 White South African “Afrikaners” granted refugee status by President Donald Trump arrived in the United States on Monday.

The group departed Johannesburg on Sunday night on a private flight paid for by the U.S. government.

They arrived Monday in Washington at Dulles airport before being expatriated to multiple states, including Texas, Minnesota, Nevada and Idaho, where they will be on a pathway to U.S. citizenship and eligible for government benefits.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau welcomed the first group of Afrikaners, the State Department said.

“This tremendous accomplishment, at the direction of Secretary Rubio, responds to President Trump’s call to prioritize U.S. refugee resettlement of this vulnerable group facing unjust racial discrimination,” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.

“No one should have to fear having their property seized without compensation or becoming the victim of violent attacks because of their ethnicity.”

Trump threatened in February to cut all U.S. funding to South Africa seemingly over its land expropriation law, which allows local, provincial and national authorities to confiscate land if it is in the public interest and in few specific cases without compensation.

The American president has claimed without evidence that South Africa is taking land from White Afrikaners, who Trump went on to claim were victims of “racial discrimination” and “large-scale killings.”

“Your case manager will pick you up from the airport and take you to housing that they have arranged for you,” read a document in part for the arriving South Africans. “This housing may be temporary (like a hotel) while a local organization helps you identify more long-term housing,” it added.

According to the South African government, it has not expropriated any land.

On Monday, South Africa Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said “there is no persecution of White Afrikaner South Africans,” adding how police reports debunked Trump’s false assertion.

The law states property cannot be expropriated arbitrarily and can only be seized if an agreement with the owner cannot be reached, subject to “just and equitable compensation” being paid.

Meanwhile, South Africa’s government said the Afrikaners, who are largely descended from Dutch settlers from the Netherlands in western Europe, wouldn’t be stopped from going, “albeit under a false narrative.”

“You are expected to support yourself quickly in finding work,” U.S. immigration documents said. “Adults are expected to accept entry-level employment in fields like warehousing, manufacturing, and customer service. You can work toward higher-level employment over time,” they were informed.

Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, has accused Ramaphosa’s government of “openly pushing for genocide of white people” despite any evidence.

In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the U.S. Ebrahim Rasool for “race-baiting” following remarks accusing the United States of engaging in “supremacist” policies domestically and globally as South Africa has joined other nations in accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of committing acts of genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

“There’s no legal or any factual basis for the executive order sanctioning this action,” Vincent Magwenya, a spokesman for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, told NPR after learning of the granting of refugee status.

“None of the provisions of international law on the definition of refugees are applicable in this case,” he said, adding that South Africa’s sovereignty as a country was being “grossly undermined and violated” by the U.S. in a way that was “disturbing.”

According to the World Bank, inequality is among the world’s highest in South Africa, which had segregationist policies via “apartheid” that only began to fully unravel in the early 1990s.

A 2017 land audit report found that White South Africans own 72% of all farm and agricultural land, while Black South Africans owned 15%.

As of 2022, White South Africans account for less than 8% of its population of more than 63 million.

Scores of South African civilians, meanwhile, took to social media to post comedic memes and videos expressing doubt over the plight of the Afrikaners, joking how they will miss “privileged lives, domestic workers and beach holidays.”

Max du Preez, a white Afrikaner author, told BBC that the claims of persecution of white South Africans were a “total absurdity” and “based on nothing.”

A U.S. government employee, while not authorized to speak to reporters, told NPR what they considered this was “immigration fraud” after the Trump administration effectively suspended America’s refugee admission program.