policy

WASHINGTON — On New Year’s Eve, Lee Zeldin did something out of character for an Environmental Protection Agency leader who has been hacking away at regulations intended to protect Americans’ air and water.

He announced new restrictions on five chemicals commonly used in building materials, plastic products and adhesives, and he cheered it as a “MAHA win.”

It was one of many signs of a fragile collaboration that’s been building between a Republican administration that’s traditionally supported big business and a Make America Healthy Again movement that argues corporate environmental harms are putting people’s health in danger.

The unlikely pairing grew out of the coalition’s success influencing public health policy with the help of its biggest champion, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As Health and Human Services secretary, he has pared back vaccine recommendations and shifted the government’s position on topics such as seed oils, fluoride and Tylenol.

Building on that momentum, the movement now sees a glimmer of hope in the EPA’s promise to release a “MAHA agenda” in the coming months.

At stake is the strength of President Trump’s coalition as November’s midterm elections threaten his party’s control of Congress. After a politically diverse group of MAHA devotees came together to help Trump return to the White House a little more than one year ago, disappointing them could mean losing the support of a vocal voting bloc.

Activists such as Courtney Swan, who focuses on nutritional issues and has spoken with EPA officials in recent months, are watching closely.

“This is becoming an issue that if the EPA does not start getting their stuff together, then they could lose the midterms over this,” she said.

Christopher Bosso, a professor at Northeastern University who researches environmental policy, said Zeldin didn’t seem to take MAHA seriously at first, “but now he has to, because they’ve been really calling for his scalp.”

MAHA wins a seat at the table

Last year, prominent activist Kelly Ryerson was so frustrated with the EPA over its weakening of protections against harmful chemicals that she and other MAHA supporters drew up a petition to get Zeldin fired.

The final straw, Ryerson said, was the EPA’s approval of two new pesticides for use on food. Ryerson, whose social media account “Glyphosate Girl” focuses on nontoxic food systems, said the pesticides contained “forever chemicals,” which resist breakdown, making them hazardous to people. The EPA has disputed that characterization.

But Ryerson’s relationship with the EPA changed at a MAHA Christmas party in Washington in December. She talked to Zeldin there and felt that he listened to her perspective. Then he invited her and a handful of other activists to sit down with him at the EPA headquarters. That meeting lasted an hour, and it led to more conversations with Zeldin’s deputies.

“The level of engagement with people concerned with their health is absolutely revolutionary,” Ryerson said in an interview. She said the agency’s upcoming plan “will say whether or not they take it seriously,” but she praised MAHA’s access as “unprecedented.”

Rashmi Joglekar, associate director of science, policy and engagement at UC San Francisco’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, said it’s not typical for an activist group to meet with the EPA administrator. She said MAHA’s ability to make inroads so quickly shows how “powerful” the coalition has become.

The movement’s influence is not just at the EPA. MAHA has steered federal and state lawmakers away from enacting liability shields that protect pesticide manufacturers from expensive lawsuits. In Congress, after MAHA activists lobbied against such protections in a funding bill, they were removed. A similar measure stalled in Tennessee’s Legislature.

Zeldin joined a call in December with the advocacy group MAHA Action, during which he invited activists to participate in developing the EPA’s MAHA agenda. Since then, EPA staffers have regularly appeared on the weekly calls and promoted what they say are open-door policies.

Last month, Ryerson’s petition to get Zeldin fired was updated to note that several signers had met with him and are in a “collaborative effort to advance the MAHA agenda.”

Zeldin’s office declined to make him available for an interview on his work with MAHA activists, but EPA Press Secretary Brigit Hirsch said the forthcoming agenda will “directly respond to priorities we’ve heard from MAHA advocates and communities.”

The American Chemistry Council said “smart, pro-growth policies can protect both the environment and human health as well as grow the U.S. economy.”

EPA’s alliance with industry raises questions

Despite the ongoing conversations, the Republican emphasis on deregulation still puts MAHA and the EPA on a potential collision course.

Lori Ann Burd, the environmental health program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the administration has a particularly strong alliance with industry interests.

As an example, she pointed to the EPA’s proposal to allow the broad use of the weed killer dicamba on soybeans and cotton. A month before the announcement, the EPA hired a lobbyist for the soybean association, Kyle Kunkler, to serve in a senior position overseeing pesticides.

Hirsch denied that Kunkler had anything to do with the decision and said the EPA’s pesticide decisions are “driven by statutory standards and scientific evidence.”

Environmentalists said the hiring of ex-industry leaders is a theme of this administration. Nancy Beck and Lynn Dekleva, for example, are former higher-ups at the American Chemistry Council, an industry association. They now work in leadership in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, which oversees pesticide and toxic chemical regulation.

Hirsch said the agency consults with ethics officials to prevent conflicts of interest and ensures that appointees are qualified and focused on the science, “unlike previous administrations that too often deferred to activist groups instead of objective evidence.”

Alexandra Muñoz, a molecular toxicologist who works with MAHA activists on some issues and was in the hourlong meeting with Zeldin, said she could sense industry influence in the room.

“They were very polite in the meeting. In terms of the tone, there was a lot of receptivity,” she said. “However, in terms of what was said, it felt like we were interacting with a lot of industry talking points.”

Activists await the EPA’s MAHA agenda

Hirsch said the MAHA agenda will address issues such as lead pipes, forever chemicals, plastic pollution, food quality and Superfund cleanups.

Ryerson said she wants to get the chemical atrazine out of drinking water and stop the pre-harvest desiccation of food, in which farmers apply pesticides to crops immediately before they are harvested.

She also wants to see cancer warnings on the ingredient glyphosate, which some studies associate with cancer even as the EPA said it is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans when used as directed.

Although she’s optimistic that the political payoffs will be big enough for Zeldin to act, she said some of the moves he’s already promoting as “MAHA wins” are no such thing.

For example, in his New Year’s Eve announcement on a group of chemicals called phthalates, he said the agency intends to regulate some of them for environmental and workplace risks, but didn’t address the thousands of consumer products that contain the ingredients.

Swan said time will tell if the agency is being performative.

“The EPA is giving very mixed signals right now,” she said.

Govindarao, Swenson and Phillis write for the Associated Press. Govindarao reported from Phoenix.

Los Angeles unions enjoy a decided “brand advantage” over corporations among city voters, and the labor movement should use that popularity to advance “union-led solutions” to key public policy issues in 2007, a memo written by top labor strategists says.

The two-page memo, which was obtained by The Times, argues for broader, more straightforward engagement on policy issues than many unions have undertaken in the past. Some labor leaders prefer to focus on their own contract issues, and even those who are active in politics often soft-pedal the “union” label.

The document demonstrates labor’s confidence as it heads into a new year of big battles over politics, contracts and organizing.

Labor is preparing to fight a referendum, which was qualified by the business community, to block an expansion of the city’s living wage ordinance. Civilian city employees, grocery store workers, security officers and teachers are seeking new union contracts, and hotel workers near the airport and truck drivers near the port are engaged in organizing drives.

The memo relies heavily on public opinion research conducted by a Democratic pollster, David Binder, including a survey of 800 city voters last fall. The document was written by three veteran strategists, John Hein, Bob Cherry and Don Attore, all of whom have retired from the political operation of the California Teachers Assn. The three work closely with Working Californians, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.

“There is a significant opportunity for organized labor in Los Angeles,” the memo says. “In particular, we’d highlight these factors: unions’ fundamentally positive image and ‘brand advantage’ over business corporations; the overlap between union priorities and the key concerns of voters across the electorate in L.A., and the opportunity to expand public understanding of the connection between local government and the full range of quality-of-life issues.”

Gary Toebben, president and chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, said that unions, to the extent that they engage in policy issues, “are copying the Chamber of Commerce…. For other groups to want to be involved in efforts to build a better community, I say we welcome them to the cause that we have been championing.”

Toebben and other leaders of Los Angeles’ business community are focusing on a referendum to block a new law, which is heavily backed by labor, to expand the city’s living wage ordinance to cover workers at airport-area hotels. The success of the referendum, which probably will appear on the ballot in May, is crucial to persuading businesses to come to Los Angeles, expand and create jobs, he said.

Asked at a news conference last week about whether the referendum was wise given labor’s growing strength in the city, Toebben said it would be wrong to “just let the bulldozer run over you.”

Binder’s poll found that unions have more public support in Los Angeles than in other areas of the state and country. Among city voters surveyed, 55% agreed that “without unions, there would be no middle-class left in America.”

Reflecting the labor movement’s influence in city politics, the memo argues for talking up local government’s ability to deal with issues such as the economy, healthcare and the environment, which generally are considered federal and state matters.

The memo calls “for a public education campaign focused on union-led solutions to the quality-of-life issues that Los Angeles voters regard as most important.” The memo suggests that such a campaign be conducted before 2008, when state and national election campaigns will probably consume union energy.

“Los Angeles, against its own history, is a labor town now,” said Cherry, one of the strategists, who was a key figure in the successful effort to defeat Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s slate of ballot initiatives in 2005. “One of the things that comes through in the poll is that people really see the potential of unions to take up the cause of ordinary people on quality-of-life issues.”

Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian and UC Santa Barbara professor, said he had “a certain admiration” for unions involving themselves more in policy issues, though he wonders if the public may prove skeptical.

In the long term, “this is the way that unions will make a breakthrough — when people see that solutions to society-wide questions are part of a labor agenda,” he said.

Binder’s polling suggests that any attempts by business to challenge union priorities will not be easy. Seventy-three percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement: “Big corporations are taking advantage of people like you.” Sixty-one percent of the Angelenos surveyed believe that oil companies are manipulating oil prices, including reducing prices during election times to keep supportive politicians in office.

Maria Elena Durazo, the leader of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, was briefed on the polling. She said in an interview that in 2007, she wanted to continue to organize workers while looking for opportunities to take on “the greediness of the corporations, which is pretty clear and pretty blatant.”

“Strategically, we just don’t take on everything that’s out there,” she said. “We’ve tried to put our resources in places where they make a difference.”

Dan Schnur, a Republican political consultant who teaches at USC, said that a public education campaign might be particularly effective this year, when no state or federal elections are scheduled.

“The best time to reach the voters with any type of argument is when their guard is down,” Schnur said. “The closer you get to an election, the more difficult it is to get through to people, but having this discussion in an off-year makes it much easier to get your message through.”

*

joe.mathews@latimes.com

They added that the government was “focused on delivering a balanced approach with strengthened law enforcement to tackle supply coupled with investment in treatment, the development of a skilled workforce, sustainable recovery services and peer networks that will support people in recovery with employment, housing and education”.

For months, Gregory Bovino has been the public face of President Trump’s sweeping immigration raids across U.S. cities.

When the brash Border Patrol commander charged into Los Angeles last summer with the stated mission of arresting thousands of immigrants, he was unapologetic as agents smashed car windows, concealed their identities with masks, seized brown-skinned Angelenos off the streets, and descended on MacArthur Park on horseback.

In Minneapolis, when a federal officer shot and killed U.S. citizen Renee Good on Jan. 7, Bovino’s response to Fox News’ Sean Hannity was, “Hats off to that ICE agent.”

And when a Border Patrol agent shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse, on Saturday, Bovino again defended the killing. Pretti, he said, looked like someone who “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

But as public outrage has swelled against the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics, Bovino’s future is in limbo. On Monday, Trump deployed border advisor Tom Homan to Minnesota, with Bovino reportedly set to depart the region.

Now, the question remains: will Bovino’s departure really change the Trump playbook?

Ariel G. Ruiz Soto — a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank — said Bovino’s exit, if true, could represent a pivotal moment in immigration enforcement in the nation’s interior.

“I think it signals that the tensions have risen so significantly that there’s beginning to be ruptures and fragments within the Trump administration to try to figure out how to do this enforcement more efficiently, but also with more accountability,” Ruiz Soto said.

Other immigration experts, however, question the significance of sidelining Bovino.

“I think it’s a grave mistake to think the change in the personnel on the ground constitutes a change in policy,” said Lucas Guttentag, a professor of law at Stanford University who specializes in immigration. “Because the policy remains the same: to terrorize immigrant communities and intimidate peaceful protesters.”

Even if Bovino is ousted or given a lesser role, Guttentag said, national immigration policy is still shaped by Stephen Miller — the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor who has embraced hardline enforcement tactics.

“They’re still threatening to use military action,” Guttentag said. “They still want to keep the National Guard on call. All of those fundamental policies, as well as deporting people who had legal status, sending people to third world countries without any due process, adopting detention rules that deprive people of hearings to be eligible for release, all of that’s continuing.”

“Simply changing from Bovino to Homan,” he added, “doesn’t signal anything significant in terms of policy.”

::

So far, the Department of Homeland Security has remained publicly tight-lipped about what’s next for Bovino, and did not respond this week to inquiries from The Times.

However, the Associated Press reported Monday that Bovino and some federal agents were expected to leave Minneapolis as early as Tuesday. The Atlantic, citing DHS sources, reported that Bovino had been demoted from his role of Border Patrol commander at large and would return to his former job in El Centro, Calif.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin disputed that Monday, saying on X that Bovino “has NOT been relieved of his duties.” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt described him as a “wonderful person” and “a great professional” who would “continue to lead Customs and Border Patrol throughout and across the country.”

There has been mounting criticism of and public protest against the administration’s activities since the launch of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota last month. Trump said he sent Homan to Minnesota “to de-escalate a little bit.”

“Bovino is very good, but he’s a pretty out-there kind of a guy,” Trump said Tuesday during an interview on Fox News’ “The Will Cain Show.” “And in some cases that’s good. Maybe it wasn’t good here.”

::

A pugnacious 55-year-old who was born in California but raised in North Carolina, Bovino’s muscle-bound physique, green military greatcoat and gel-spiked hair seemed straight out of MAGA central casting.

Barreling into Los Angeles in June to command the Trump administration’s mass immigration raids, he seemed to relish confrontation as protests erupted and troops were deployed across the city.
“All over … the Los Angeles region, we’re going to turn and burn to that next target and the next and the next and the next, and we’re not going to stop,” Bovino told the Associated Press last summer. “We’re not going to stop until there’s not a problem here.”

When Bovino met legal setbacks, he was defiant.

In August, an appeals court upheld a temporary restraining order blocking his agents from targeting people in Southern and Central California based on race, language or vocation without reasonable suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.

Bovino responded by posting a video on X that first showed L.A. Mayor Karen Bass telling reporters that “this experiment that was practiced on the city of Los Angeles failed” before cutting to himself grinning. As a frenetic mix of drums and bass kicked in, the video transitioned to footage of federal agents jumping out of a van to chase people down.

“When you’re faced with opposition to law and order, what do you do?” Bovino wrote. “Improvise, adapt, and overcome!”

After Bovino led agents in Los Angeles, he pivoted to Chicago to serve as the commander of Operation Midway Blitz. Then, he went to New Orleans before heading to Minnesota to lead what officials called Homeland Security’s “largest immigration operation ever.”

The fatal shootings of Good and Pretti by federal agents this month sparked outrage and protests, both in Minneapolis and around the nation.

Ruiz Soto said that the controversy over the Trump immigration policy was no longer just about immigrants.

“It’s about constitutional rights and it’s about U.S. citizens,” Ruiz Soto said. “For the broader public, it’s now much more immersive. It’s now much more in their face.”

After Border Patrol agents tackled Pretti to the ground and shot him, many Americans were outraged to hear Bovino and other senior Trump administration officials make false statements regarding the incident.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Pretti approached federal officers on the street with a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun and “violently resisted” when officers tried to disarm him.

But according to videos taken on the scene, Pretti was holding a phone, not a handgun, when he stepped in front of a federal agent who had shoved a woman to the ground. The agent shoved and pepper-sprayed him and then multiple agents forced him to the ground. In the middle of the scrum, an agent secured a handgun. Less than a second later, the first shot was fired.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserted without evidence that Pretti had committed “an act of domestic terrorism,” and said her agency would lead the investigation into his killing.

Federal officials also denied Minnesota state investigators access to the shooting scene in south Minneapolis, prompting local and state officials to accuse the Homeland Security agency of mishandling evidence.

In the days since the shooting, Democrats in Congress have called for Noem to be removed from office.

“The country is disgusted by what the Department of Homeland Security has done,” Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday in a joint statement. “Kristi Noem should be fired immediately or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House.”

When asked by reporters Tuesday whether Noem would step down, Trump said: “No.”

By sidelining Bovino, Ruiz Soto said the Trump administration appears to be sending a larger message.

“They’re going to try to restrict or home in the Border Patrol’s authority or at least the way they participate in operations and are going to now go back,” he said. “Or at least try to emulate more of the prior ICE model.”

Guttentag, however, said that while the public is seeing a tactical retreat on the part of the Trump administration, the problems went beyond Bovino’s leadership.

“So it’s not just the leadership, it’s the lack of training,” Guttentag said. “It’s the message that we’re getting from the very top, the statements from the vice president and others, that they have legal immunity. It’s the instructions to be as aggressive as they can be, and it’s also the lack of quality in the hiring and training process. All of that continues regardless of who the person on the ground is.”

Here are a couple of points about the business community of Minnesota you may not have known.

First, it’s home to a surprisingly large cadre of 17 major corporations, members of Fortune’s roster of the 500 largest U.S. companies.

Some of America’s best-known consumer companies, including UnitedHealth Group, Target, Best Buy, 3M and General Mills have chosen the windy, cold and snowy — but heretofore tranquil — state for their headquarters.

Second, this collection of elite businesses largely has been silent about the federal government’s assault on the people of Minneapolis, which has been going on since the beginning of December. The silence ended Sunday, when 60 Minnesota businesses issued a joint statement through the state Chamber of Commerce calling for “an immediate deescalation of tensions.”

That so many businesses came together for the statement was an achievement, given the customary reluctance of corporate leaders to address incendiary political issues. But in terms of its actual content, the statement was pretty thin gruel, bristling with public relations-style circumlocution and vagueness.

If anything, the Minnesota statement underscores the quandary facing American corporations in the Age of Trump, when the president viciously and publicly attacks anyone he deems to be a personal adversary. For a business, that can translate into a threat to the top and bottom lines.

Business leaders faced with a choice between going along with Trump, or poking him with a stick, almost invariably have chosen the first path.

That Minnesota’s businesses even went as far as they did does suggests the tide may have turned on challenges to Trump’s policies. Even so, we’re still standing only on the edge of the water.

The refusal of the American business community to take a strong stand against Trump’s policies has been a long-lasting scandal.

“This shows the greatest cowardice in the history of the Business Roundtable,” says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the Yale School of Management’s expert in corporate leadership, referring to the organization of corporate chief executives that should carry the flag of backlash against Trump’s actions.

I asked the Roundtable to comment on the chaos in Minneapolis. It replied with a statement from CEO Joshua Bolten, a former White House aide to George W. Bush, endorsing the Minnesota Chamber’s call for “cooperation between state, local, and federal authorities to immediately de-escalate the situation in Minneapolis.”

Is that sufficient?

What’s needed is for leaders to name names and demand concrete steps, at least as long as our political leaders remain missing in action. In Minnesota — indeed, wherever Trump policies trample norms and values — the situation has become a moral crisis for all American society, including the commercial.

That said, it isn’t surprising that Minnesota’s big corporations, like almost all American corporations, have been gun-shy about confronting a political issue like this head-on. They can properly feel that they’ve been burned before.

Target, the second-largest public corporation headquartered in the state (after UnitedHealth), experienced a front-page blowback from political controversies twice in recent years.

In 2023, as I reported then, the company capitulated when a braying mob of anti-LGBTQ+ reactionaries targeted it for displaying Pride-themed merchandise in its stores during June’s Pride Month observances.

Target, which had proudly displayed such merchandise in previous years, told personnel in many stores to shrink or even eliminate their Pride-themed merchandise displays or move them to less conspicuous sections of the stores. Some LGBTQ+ designers discovered that their products had been taken off the shelves.

Last year, only days after Trump launched his second term with a flurry of antidiversity executive orders, Target announced it was “concluding our three-year diversity, equity and inclusion goals.” The company also withdrew from “all external diversity-focused surveys,” including a widely followed Corporate Equality index sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks corporate policies on LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion.

The backtracking backfired. Target’s sales cratered, in part because consumers were angry about its DEI reversals. During a conference call with Wall Street analysts following its first-quarter earnings report, CEO Brian Cornell attributed the company’s ugly performance to factors including “the reaction to the updates we shared … in January,” an allusion to its ending of DEI initiatives.

The escalating crisis in Minneapolis seems to have been the trigger for the state’s business leaders to issue their joint statement. “To get all 60 of the major CEOs to sign onto a statement was a remarkable feat,” says Bill George, a former CEO of Minneapolis-based medical device maker Medtronic and a former Target board member.

“Maybe some people wanted it to be stronger,” George told me, “but I believe a statement signed by every Minnesota CEO of size represents a turning point in the whole discussion between the federal government and the state government.” He hoped that it would be enough to prompt Trump to simply “declare victory” in Minnesota and “move on to other challenges.”

Still, the text of the Minnesota chamber’s communique illustrates that corporate America still is reluctant to confront Trump directly.

The statement refers, vaguely, to “the recent challenges facing our state,” which “created widespread disruption and tragic loss of life.”

In other words, the statement alludes to something having happened, but doesn’t identify who did it or even what it was. A “tragic loss of life,” after all, can befall people slipping on the ice and cracking their head, as well as someone being shot 10 times in an unprovoked attack.

The statement asserts that “for the past several weeks, representatives of Minnesota’s business community have been working every day behind the scenes with federal, state and local officials to advance real solutions. These efforts have included close communication with the Governor, the White House, the Vice President and local mayors. There are ways for us to come together to foster progress.”

It calls for “an immediate deescalation [sic] of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions.”

Lacking are specifics. What “real solutions” are on the table in these “close communications” with public officials? Who is in on these behind-the-scenes conversations? What actions would bring about “an immediate deescalation of tensions”?

I asked the Chamber of Commerce to answer those questions, but a spokesman told me the statement would have to stand by itself.

The statement doesn’t even mention Renee Good and Alex Pretti, whose killing finally provoked the Chamber’s members to speak out. Nor does it address the unmistakable discrepancies between how the Trump administration described the killings and their victims, and what millions of people can see in videos.

What’s infuriating is that for many Americans — including, notably, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey — the solution to this crisis is crystal clear: Get ICE and the Border Patrol out of Minneapolis neighborhoods. That even occurred to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which on Sunday advised Trump to “pause ICE enforcement in the Twin Cities to ease tensions and consider a less provocative strategy.”

One might have thought that Minnesota companies would be among the leaders pushing back against Trump policies, especially those unfolding in their front yards.

“Minnesota in general has been the hotbed of traditional progressive politics,” Sonnenfeld says. “The Minnesota business community was always the paragon of social investment — very philanthropic and socially responsible — and had soaring performance to show for it. Minneapolis was always the model showing that doing good is not antithetical to doing well.”

Minnesota business leaders clearly were becoming concerned that Trump’s anti-immigrant surge threatened their ability to do well.

“This situation is very harmful to their businesses,” George says. “It’s extremely important that their employees feel that they are safe and secure in their place of work, and that their corporate leaders have their back.”

Some Minnesota companies feared Trump’s immigration crackdown could make it harder to recruit executives.

“If this drags on, it will have a devastating effect on Minnesota companies’ ability to attract people from around the world,” George told me. “They depend upon bringing executives in from New York and L.A., but also from China, Japan and Europe. This situation is really a deterrent to that.”

Whether Minnesota’s corporate pushback will move the needle on Trump’s policy isn’t clear, though there are faint signs that he recognizes he isn’t winning fans on the issue.

On Monday he assigned his border czar, Tom Homan, to take charge of the Minnesota surge — not that Homan has the reputation of a peacemaker on immigration issues.

According to Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino, up to now the face of the surge, the agents involved in Saturday’s killing, including the two known to have fired gunshots at Pretti, are still on the job, though he said they were transferred out of Minneapolis “for their safety.” (There were reports Monday that Bovino is being sent out of Minnesota and back to his prior post in California.)

Nor are there signs that the surge is over. ICE and the Border Patrol are still on the streets of Minneapolis, so further mayhem is possible.

In the roiling debate over California’s proposed billionaire tax, supporters and critics agree that such policies haven’t always worked in the past. But the lessons they’ve drawn from that history are wildly different.

The Billionaire Tax Act, which backers are pushing to get on the November ballot, would charge California’s 200-plus billionaires a one-time, 5% tax on their net worth in order to backfill billions of dollars in Republican-led cuts to federal healthcare funding for middle-class and low-income residents.

Critics of the proposal have argued that past failures of similar wealth taxes in Europe prove they don’t work and can cause more harm than good, including by driving the ultra-rich out. Among those critics is San José Mayor Matt Mahan, a tech-friendly Democrat who is contemplating a run for governor.

“Over the last 30 years, we’ve seen a dozen European countries pursue national-level wealth taxes,” Mahan said. “Nine of them have rolled them back. A majority have seen a decline in overall revenue. It’s actually shrunk the tax base, not increased it, and it’s because it creates a perverse incentive and drives capital flight.”

Backers of the measure acknowledge such failures but say that they learned from them and that California’s proposal is stronger as a result.

Brian Galle, a UC Berkeley tax law professor and one of four academic experts who drafted the measure, said if it gets on the ballot, every voter in the state will receive a copy of the full text, a one-page explainer on what it does, and nearly two dozen additional pages of “rules for preventing wealthy people and their army of lawyers from dodging” it.

Many of those rules, he said, are based on historical lessons from places where such taxes have failed, but also where they’ve succeeded.

“If you understand the actual lessons of history, you understand that this bill is more like the successful Swiss and Spanish wealth taxes,” Galle said. “Part of that is learning from history.”

Warnings from Europe

Since the 1990s, several European countries have repealed net wealth taxes, including Austria, Denmark, Finland, France and Germany.

A major example cited by critics of the California proposal is France, which implemented a much larger wealth tax on far more people, including many millionaires. The measure raised modest revenues, which fell as rich people moved out of the country to avoid paying, and the measure was repealed by the government of President Emmanuel Macron in 2017.

In a 2018 report on net wealth taxes, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that European repeals were often driven by “efficiency and administrative concerns and by the observation that net wealth taxes have frequently failed to meet their redistributive goals.”

“The revenues collected from net wealth taxes have also, with a few exceptions, been very low,” it found.

Critics and skeptics of the California proposal say they expect California to run into all the same problems.

Mahan and others have pointed to a handful of prominent billionaires who already appear to be distancing themselves from the state, and said they expect more to follow — which Mahan said will reduce California’s “recurring revenue” beyond the amount raised by the one-time tax.

Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyzes the fiscal effects of public policies, said net worth taxes in other countries have “always raised quite a bit less revenue than what was initially projected,” in large part because “wealth is easy, as it turns out, to try to reclassify or move around” and “there’s all these tricks that you can do to try to make the wealth look smaller for tax purposes.”

A bus in London promotes a campaign by British millionaires advocating for an end to extreme wealth and inequality.

(Carl Court / Getty Images)

Smetters said he expects that the California measure will raise less than the $100 billion estimated by its backers because billionaire wealth in California — much of it derived from the tech sector — is relatively “mobile,” as many tech barons can move without it affecting business.

“Policymakers have to understand that they’re not going to get nearly as much money as they often project from a purely static projection, where they’re not accounting for the different ways that people can move their wealth, reclassify their wealth, or even just move out of the state,” Smetters said. “So far, we only know of a few people — with a lot of money — who have moved out of the state, [but] that number could go up.”

Kevin Ghassomian, a private wealth lawyer at Venable who advises rich clients, said he expects the administrative costs of enforcing the tax to be massive for the state — and much greater than the drafters have anticipated.

On the front end, the state will face a wave of legal challenges to the tax’s constitutionality and its retroactive application to all billionaires living in the state as of the end of 2025.

Moving ahead, he said, there will be litigation from wealthy individuals whose departure from California is questioned or who dispute the state’s valuation of their net worth or individual assets — including private holdings, which the state doesn’t have extensive experience assessing.

Valuating such assets will be “a nightmare, just practically speaking, and it’s going to require a lot of administrators at the state level,” Ghassomian said, especially considering many California billionaires’ wealth is in the form of illiquid holdings in startups and other ventures with fluctuating market valuations.

“You could be a billionaire today, and then the market plummets, and now all of a sudden, you’re a pauper,” he said. “It could really lead to some unfair results.”

Lessons from Europe

Backers of California’s proposal said they have accounted for many of the historical pitfalls with wealth taxes and taken steps to avoid them — including by making it harder for wealthy Californians to simply shuffle money around to avoid the tax.

“There are a lot of provisions that are designed based on what has worked well in other countries with wealth taxes in the modern era, especially Switzerland, and there are also provisions meant to shut down some of the holes in some of the earlier wealth tax efforts, especially the France one, that were viewed as not successful,” said David Gamage, a University of Missouri tax law professor and another of the proposal’s drafters.

Galle said the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development study found that many of Europe’s historical wealth taxes “hadn’t figured out how to solve the problem of what small businesses were worth,” so were more narrowly focused on publicly traded stock and real estate. “Over time, there was a lot of abuse where people shifted their assets to make them look privately held.”

The California proposal “tries to solve that problem” by including small businesses and other privately held wealth in their calculations of net worth, he said — and benefits from the fact that such wealth has gotten a lot easier to track and appraise in recent years.

Doing so would be a familiar exercise for many California billionaires already, he said, as it is hard to raise venture capital, for example, without audited financial statements.

Backers of the measure said it is harder for U.S. citizens to avoid taxes by moving abroad than it has been for Europeans, and that evidence from Switzerland and Spain suggests differing tax rates between a nation’s individual states do not cause massive interstate flight.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan, who might run for governor, opposes the proposed tax on California billionaires.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

For example, each state in Spain sets its own wealth tax rate, and Madrid’s is 0% — but that has not caused an exodus from other parts of Spain to Madrid, Galle said.

The risk of California billionaires avoiding the tax by simply moving to another U.S. state was further mitigated by the measure’s Jan. 1 deadline for avoiding the tax. Galle said the deadline “was intended to make it more difficult for individuals to concoct the kind of misleading, apparent moves that wealthy people have used in other places to try to avoid a wealth tax.”

Gamage said that “history shows if a tax on the wealthy can be avoided by moving paper around, claiming that you live in another location without actually moving your life there, moving assets to accounts or trusts nominally in foreign countries or other jurisdictions, you see large mobility responses.”

But when “those paper moves are shut down,” there’s much less moving — and “that’s the basis for the California model,” he added.

The outlook

Ghassomian, who said he has been “fielding a lot of inbound inquiries from clients who are just kind of worried,” said it is clear that the proposal’s authors “have done their homework” and tried to design the tax in a smart way.

Still, he said, he has concerns about the cost of administering the tax outpacing revenues, especially amid litigation. Residency battles alone with billionaires whose claims of departing the state are questioned could take “years and years and years” to resolve, he said.

“The revenue has to line up with expenditures, and if you can’t count on the revenue because it’s going to be tied up in courts, or it’s going to be delayed, then I think that creates some real logistical hurdles,” he said.

Smetters said predicting revenues from a tax on so many different types of assets is “really hard,” but one thing that has generally held true through history is that “most countries, even with less-mobile wealth, typically do not get the type of revenue that they were hoping for.”

David Sacks, a venture capitalist and President Trump’s AI czar who decamped from California to Texas, said on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week that the measure was an “asset seizure” more than a tax, and that the state would be headed in a “scary direction” if voters approved it.

Darien Shanske, a tax law professor at UC Davis and another drafter of the proposal, said he and his colleagues did their best to “look at the lessons of the past, and apply them in a way that makes sense and is generally fair and administrable” — in a state where wealth inequality is rapidly growing and a wealth tax presents unique opportunities.

“Having a tax on billionaires does make particular sense in California because of the large number that live here and the large number who have made their fortune here,” he said.

Shanske said the proposed tax is designed to provide California a way to “triage” soaring healthcare premiums resulting from legislation enacted by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans. The proposal asks for contributions from people who will quickly recoup what they are taxed given the exponential growth of their assets, he said.

Emmanuel Saez, director of the Stone Center on Wealth and Income Inequality at UC Berkeley and another drafter of the measure, said many of the repealed European taxes targeted millionaires while providing loopholes for billionaires to avoid paying, whereas California’s measure is “exactly the reverse.”

He said the measure will raise substantial revenue in part because California billionaire wealth more than doubled from 2023 to 2025 alone, and is “the innovative and first-of-its-kind tax on the ultra-wealthy that the moment requires.”

Thomas Piketty, a French economist and author of “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” called California’s proposed tax “very innovative” and “relatively modest” compared with massive wealth taxes after World War II — including in Germany and Japan — and said it would not only improve healthcare in the state but “have an enormous impact on the U.S. and international political scene.”

“In the current context, with a deeply entrenched billionaire class, wealth taxes meet even more political resistance than in the postwar context, and this is where California could make a huge difference,” he said. “The fact of targeting the revenue to health spending is also very innovative and can help convince the voters to support the initiative.”

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.