politician

California’s tech companies, the epicenter of the state’s economy, sent politicians a loud message this year: Back down from restrictive artificial intelligence regulation or they’ll leave.

The tactic appeared to have worked, activists said, because some politicians weakened or scrapped guardrails to mitigate AI’s biggest risks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a bill aimed at making companion chatbots safer for children after the tech industry fought it. In his veto message, the governor raised concerns about placing broad limits on AI, which has sparked a massive investment spree and created new billionaires overnight around the San Francisco Bay Area.

Assembly Bill 1064 would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors unless the chatbots weren’t “foreseeably capable” of certain conduct, including encouraging a child to engage in self-harm. Newsom said he supported the goal, but feared it would unintentionally bar minors from using AI tools and learning how to use technology safely.

“We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether,” he wrote in his veto message.

The bill’s veto was a blow to child safety advocates who had pushed it through the state Legislature and a win for tech industry groups that fought it. In social media ads, groups such as TechNet had urged the public to tell the governor to veto the bill because it would harm innovation and lead to students falling behind in school.

Organizations trying to rein in the world’s largest tech companies as they advance the powerful technology say the tech industry has become more empowered at the national and state levels.

Meta, Google, OpenAI, Apple and other major tech companies have strengthened their relationships with the Trump administration. Companies are funding new organizations and political action committees to push back against state AI policy while pouring money into lobbying.

In Sacramento, AI companies have lobbied behind the scenes for more freedom. California’s massive pool of engineering talent, tech investors and companies make it an attractive place for the tech industry, but companies are letting policymakers know that other states are also interested in attracting those investments and jobs. Big Tech is particularly sensitive to regulations in the Golden State because so many companies are headquartered there and must abide by its rules.

“We believe California can strike a better balance between protecting consumers and enabling responsible technological growth,” Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, said in a statement.

Common Sense Media founder and Chief Executive Jim Steyer said tech lobbyists put tremendous pressure on Newsom to veto AB 1064. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that rates and reviews technology and entertainment for families, sponsored the bill.

“They threaten to hurt the economy of California,” he said. “That’s the basic message from the tech companies.”

Advertising is among the tactics tech companies with deep pockets use to convince politicians to kill or weaken legislation. Even if the governor signs a bill, companies have at times sued to block new laws from taking effect.

“If you’re really trying to do something bold with tech policy, you have to jump over a lot of hurdles,” said David Evan Harris, senior policy advisor at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which supported AB 1064. The group focuses on finding state-level solutions to threats that AI, disinformation and emerging technologies pose to democracy.

Tech companies have threatened to move their headquarters and jobs to other states or countries, a risk looming over politicians and regulators.

The California Chamber of Commerce, a broad-based business advocacy group that includes tech giants, launched a campaign this year that warned over-regulation could stifle innovation and hinder California.

“Making competition harder could cause California companies to expand elsewhere, costing the state’s economy billions,” the group said on its website.

From January to September, the California Chamber of Commerce spent $11.48 million lobbying California lawmakers and regulators on a variety of bills, filings to the California secretary of state show. During that period, Meta spent $4.13 million. A lobbying disclosure report shows that Meta paid the California Chamber of Commerce $3.1 million, making up the bulk of their spending. Google, which also paid TechNet and the California Chamber of Commerce, spent $2.39 million.

Amazon, Uber, DoorDash and other tech companies spent more than $1 million each. TechNet spent around $800,000.

The threat that California companies could move away has caught the attention of some politicians.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who has investigated tech companies over child safety concerns, indicated that despite initial concern, his office wouldn’t oppose ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s restructuring plans. The new structure gives OpenAI’s nonprofit parent a stake in its for-profit public benefit corporation and clears the way for OpenAI to list its shares.

Bonta blessed the restructuring partly because of OpenAI’s pledge to stay in the state.

“Safety will be prioritized, as well as a commitment that OpenAI will remain right here in California,” he said in a statement last week. The AG’s office, which supervises charitable trusts and ensures these assets are used for public benefit, had been investigating OpenAI’s restructuring plan over the last year and a half.

OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said he’s glad to stay in California.

“California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other companies do and threaten to leave if sued,” he posted on X.

Critics — which included some tech leaders such as Elon Musk, Meta and former OpenAI executives as well as nonprofits and foundations — have raised concerns about OpenAI’s restructuring plan. Some warned it would allow startups to exploit charitable tax exemptions and let OpenAI prioritize financial gain over public good.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups say it’s been a mixed year for tech regulation. The governor signed Assembly Bill 56, which requires platforms to display labels for minors that warn about social media’s mental health harms. Another piece of signed legislation, Senate Bill 53, aims to make AI developers more transparent about safety risks and offers more whistleblower protections.

The governor also signed a bill that requires chatbot operators to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content. But advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, removed their support for Senate Bill 243 because they said the tech industry pushed for changes that weakened its protections.

Newsom vetoed other legislation that the tech industry opposed, including Senate Bill 7, which requires employers to notify workers before deploying an “automated decision system” in hiring, promotions and other employment decisions.

Called the “No Robo Bosses Act,” the legislation didn’t clear the governor, who thought it was too broad.

“A lot of nuance was demonstrated in the lawmaking process about the balance between ensuring meaningful protections while also encouraging innovation,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.

The battle over AI safety is far from over. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said she plans to revive the legislation.

Child safety is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans are examining after parents sued AI companies such as OpenAI and Character.AI for allegedly contributing to their children’s suicides.

“The harm that these chatbots are causing feels so fast and furious, public and real that I thought we would have a different outcome,” Bauer-Kahan said. “It’s always fascinating to me when the outcome of policy feels to be disconnected from what I believe the public wants.”

Steyer from Common Sense Media said a new ballot initiative includes the AI safety protections that Newsom vetoed.

“That was a setback, but not an overall defeat,” he said about the veto of AB 1064. “This is a David and Goliath situation, and we are David.”

Tuesday is election day, and, as usual, the pundits are breathless, the predictions are dubious and the consultants are already counting their retainers. But make no mistake: Off-year elections matter. Tuesday’s results will shape the political landscape for 2026 and beyond.

Let’s start in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has decided to fight Texas Republican gerrymandering with a little creative cartography of his own.

Proposition 50, which began as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” wouldn’t just help level the playing field by handing Democrats five House seats; it would also boost Newsom’s presidential ambitions. Polls suggest it’ll pass.

When it comes to elections involving actual candidates, the main attractions are in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.

In the New York City mayoral contest, Zohran Mamdani — a 34-year-old democratic socialist who seems like the kind of guy who probably buys albums on vinyl — is leading both former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (running as an independent) and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

National Republicans are already making Mamdani the avatar of everything Fox News viewers fear.

President Trump went so far as calling Mamdani a “communist” and threatening to send in the troops if he wins.

One thing is for certain: Mamdani is already a symbol. If he wins, he’ll be evidence for progressives that politics can still be interesting, exciting and revolutionary. To conservatives, he’ll be evidence that Democrats have gone insane.

If you’re paying attention, these arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Across the Hudson, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill (whose resume includes having been a naval officer and a federal prosecutor) is a very different kind of politician — the “I’m a competent adult, please clap” variety.

Her gubernatorial opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, is an ex-state legislator who radiates the kind of energy usually found at bowling alleys and diners. He’s the grandson of Italian immigrants, the son of blue-collar workers and the spiritual heir of every guy in a tracksuit yelling at a Jets game.

Ciattarelli came dangerously close to winning the governorship in 2021, which should be cause for concern for Sherrill, who’s sitting on a slim lead.

The main problem for Ciattarelli is Trump, who, despite his bridge-and-tunnel aesthetic, does more harm than good in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican president since 1988.

Trump’s termination of the Gateway Tunnel project didn’t help either. It’s one thing to be loud and populist; it’s another to cancel something that would make voters’ commutes slightly less horrible.

Speaking of commutes, a few hours south, down I-95, Virginia will also elect a new governor. Here, Democrat Abigail Spanberger — former CIA officer, former U.S. representative, professional moderate — is coasting toward victory against Republican Winsome Earle-Sears, the lieutenant governor.

Earle-Sears, a Marine, trailblazer and gadfly, is about to add “failed gubernatorial candidate” to her resume.

Her biggest headline was firing her campaign manager (a pastor who had never run a campaign before), which sounds like a metaphor for today’s GOP. Her best attack on Spanberger involved attempting to tie her to something someone else (the Democratic attorney general nominee) did (sending a violent text about a Republican politician).

Virginia has a history of electing governors from the party that opposes the sitting president, and Trump’s DOGE cuts (not to mention the current government shutdown) have outsize importance in the commonwealth.

Depending on how things shake out in these states, narratives will be set — storylines that (rightly or not) will tell experts and voters which kinds of candidates they should nominate in 2026.

For example, if Mamdani, who represents the progressive wing, wins, but Sherrill and/or Spanberger lose, the narrative will be that cautious centrism is the problem.

If the opposite occurs, the opposite narrative (radicalism is a loser!) will take root.

The postmortems write themselves: “Progressive Resurgence,” “Year of the Woman” and/or “The Return of the Center.” The problem? It’s unwise to draw too many conclusions based on Tuesday’s election results.

First, it’s misguided to assume that what works in New York City could serve as a national model.

Second, even if Sherrill and Spanberger both win, it’s impossible to know if they simply benefited from 2025 being a good year for Democrats.

Still, what happens on Tuesday will have major repercussions. Within a day of the election, everyone with a stake in the midterms and future elections will claim the outcome means what they want it to mean. Within a week, narratives will have congealed, while heroes and scapegoats will have been assigned.

And the rest of us will be right here where we started — anxious, exhausted — and dreading the fact that the 2026 midterm jockeying starts on Wednesday.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

INDIO, Calif. — A Riverside County criminal grand jury indicted the longtime mayor of Coachella on nine counts, including one felony charge of violating conflict of interest rules related to government contracts and four felony counts of perjury.

Steven Hernandez, 42, who has served on the Coachella City Council for nearly two decades, pleaded not guilty Thursday morning at the Larson Justice Center in Indio.

Hernandez was a rising politician in Riverside County and Coachella, an agricultural city of 42,500 people about 130 miles southeast of Los Angeles. If convicted as charged, Hernandez would be barred from public office for life and face more than seven years in state prison, according to Riverside County Dist. Atty. Mike Hestrin.

Hernandez was raised in Coachella by his grandparents, who were migrant farmworkers. He was first elected to the council in 2006, becoming an integral part of a powerful group of Latino politicians in the valley east of Palm Springs. Under his leadership, the city made major infrastructure investments in its downtown, including an expanded library, a new senior center and a new fire station.

But Hernandez allegedly benefited from some of the votes he cast from the dais, catching the attention of the Riverside County District Attorney’s office.

The indictment, unsealed Thursday, charges Hernandez with several misdemeanors for using his role as a public official to influence governmental decisions in which he had a financial interest. Among those were votes, cast between 2021 and 2023, to use pandemic-era American Rescue Plan Act funds to rehabilitate the downtown fire station, as well as votes on a commercial project known as Fountainhead Plaza, an affordable apartment community called the Tripoli Mixed-Use project, and a transit hub near downtown.

It also charges Hernandez with a felony for “willfully and unlawfully” approving a contract in which he had a financial interest when when he voted for an agreement between the city and the Coachella Valley Assn. of Governments’ Housing First program, which serves chronically homeless people.

An Assn. of Governments spokesperson said the organization has fully cooperated with the district attorney’s office and grand jury and “there has never been an implication from investigators that the investigation had anything to do with actions by elected officials serving in their CVAG capacity.”

The perjury charges relate to claims made by Hernandez on his Statement of Economic Interests public disclosure forms, also known as the Form 700, the district attorney said.

The indictment named 13 witnesses who testified before the criminal grand jury, including a city council member, the city’s economic development director, a former council member and a former city manager.

Hernandez will remain mayor of Coachella “until otherwise notified,” according to city spokesperson Risseth Lora.

Along with serving on the city council, Hernandez works as the chief of staff for Riverside County Supervisor V. Manuel Perez. He was placed on “indefinite administrative leave” from the county, Perez said in a statement Wednesday, adding: “Although we are still waiting on more details, it’s our understanding that the charges are unrelated to his role in our office.”

Hernandez surrendered to Riverside County Sheriff officials at the Robert Presley Detention Center in Riverside on Tuesday and posted $112,500 bail. He appeared before Riverside County Superior Court Judge John J. Ryan on Thursday morning. Wearing a navy suit, he clasped his hands behind his back as his attorney entered the plea.

He donned sunglasses as he left the courtroom.

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

As Californians start voting on Democrats’ effort to boost their ranks in Congress, former President Barack Obama warned that democracy is in peril as he urged voters to support Proposition 50 in a television ad that started airing Tuesday.

“California, the whole nation is counting on you,” Obama says in the 30-second ad, which the main pro-Proposition 50 campaign began broadcasting Tuesday across the state. The spot is part of a multimillion-dollar ad buy promoting the congressional redistricting ballot measure through the Nov. 4 election.

Proposition 50 was spearheaded by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democratic leaders this summer after President Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of Republicans elected to the House in next year’s midterm election, in an effort to continue enacting his agenda during his final years in office.

“Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to rig the next election and wield unchecked power for two more years,” Obama says in the ad, which includes footage of ICE raids. “With Prop. 50, you can stop Republicans in their tracks. Prop. 50 puts our elections back on a level playing field, preserves independent redistricting over the long term, and lets the people decide. Return your ballot today.”

Congressional districts were long drawn in smoke-filled chambers by partisans focused on protecting their parties’ power and incumbents. But good-government groups and elected officials, notably former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have fought to take the drawing of congressional boundaries out of the hands of politicians to end gerrymandering and create more competitive districts.

Obama, long a supporter of ending gerrymandering, had already endorsed the ballot measure.

In California, these districts have been drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010, which is why state Democrats have to go to the ballot box to seek a mid-decade partisan redistricting that could improve their party’s chances in five of the state’s 52 congressional districts.

The ad featuring Obama, who spoke Monday on comedian Marc Maron’s final podcast about Trump’s policies testing the nation’s values, appears on Californians’ televisions after mail ballots were sent to the state’s 23 million registered voters last week.

The proposition’s prospects are uncertain — it’s about an obscure topic that few Californians know about, and off-year elections traditionally have low voter turnout. Still, more than $150 million has been contributed to the three main committees supporting and opposing the proposition, in addition to millions more funding other efforts.

Obama is not the only famous person to appear in ads about Proposition 50.

In September, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned for similar reforms across the nation since then, was featured in ads opposing the November ballot measure.

He described Proposition 50 as favoring entrenched politicians instead of voters.

“That’s what they want to do, is take us backwards. This is why it is important for you to vote no on Proposition 50,” the Hollywood celebrity and former governor says in the ad, which was filmed last month when he spoke to USC students. “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people.’ … Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

Isadore Hall, a former state legislator and Compton City Council member, launched a campaign Monday to challenge Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia.

Mejia, a young leftist who electrified the typically staid race for controller in 2022, announced his own reelection bid earlier this month.

Hall, who is backed by a slew of prominent endorsers, argues that Mejia has been more focused on “social media theatrics” than protecting tax dollars.

He said he would bring common sense leadership and accountability, citing his lengthy track record in elected office and master’s degrees in management and public administration, as well as experience weeding out government waste and fraud in Compton.

Hall, who moved to Los Angeles in 2016 and represented parts of the city in both the Assembly and the state Senate, said he launched his bid after being asked by “some elected officials,” along with several pastors and labor leaders, though he declined to provide specifics.

Hall’s endorsements include L.A. County Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, L.A. City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, California Treasurer Fiona Ma, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and five state legislators. If elected, Hall would be the city’s first Black controller; Mejia, who is Filipino American, previously made history as the first Asian American elected to citywide office in L.A.

“It’s one thing to be a great finance person or an auditor or a person who understands numbers … but you also have to have a temperament. You also have to understand the importance of governance,” Hall said, arguing that Mejia’s office is poorly managed and lacks good communication with city department heads and other local leaders.

Mejia has sought to demystify the city’s complex budget process and finances with frequent social media videos. His office has audited the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of helicopters, homeless shelter bed data and the implementation of an anti-tenant harassment ordinance, among other topics.

It’s still unclear whether other candidates will enter the race for controller — a coveted role that is one of three citywide offices, along with mayor and city attorney.

L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez has been rumored to potentially be interested in a bid for either mayor or controller, though she declined to discuss her plans with The Times last week.

Hall and Mejia represent vastly different flanks of the Democratic Party, and the coming race will almost certainly pit L.A. establishment politics against the city’s ascendant left.

Three years ago, despite being heavily outspent, Mejia made political mincemeat of Paul Koretz, who had held elected office since before he was born. Young voters who were previously unaware that L.A. even had a controller were galvanized by Mejia’s unorthodox campaign, which directed an unprecedented spotlight toward L.A.’s chief accounting officer, auditor and paymaster.

Mejia’s successful campaign coincided with a moment where faith in L.A. City Hall was at a nadir amid numerous criminal scandals and an explosive leaked recording of some City Council members frankly discussing politics in sometimes racist terms. The question in 2026 will be whether the civic pendulum has shifted and if the phrase “veteran politician” still doubles as an effective slur. Mejia will also now be running as the incumbent rather than an outsider.

Hall, 52, has spent roughly 15 years in elected office, beginning with the Compton school board in his mid-20s.

Like Mejia, who is now 34, Hall found success in politics relatively young. But his career ascended the old-fashioned way — through incrementally higher offices and with the support of the pastors, labor and community groups who have long powered the Democratic political machine in South L.A. and surrounding cities.

After losing a hard-fought bid for Congress in 2016, Hall was appointed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown to the California Agricultural and Labor Relations Board. Hall was originally seen as a shoo-in victor during his congressional campaign, but underdog challenger Nanette Barragán succeeded, in part, by hammering him on his ties to special interests in the oil, alcohol and tobacco industries, according to prior Times reporting.

Mejia first made his name with unsuccessful runs for Congress as a Green Party candidate. He found his stride and exploded as a political pied piper of sorts during the 2022 election, where his energetic TikTok videos, sharp billboards and occasional dances in a Pikachu costume helped fuel the energy of the moment.

Attempts by critics to paint Mejia in 2022 as too “extreme” because of his anti-police positions and past bombastic tweets largely fell flat.

He faced some growing pains in City Hall, including early staff turmoil within his office, but he has largely been a quieter presence than many expected.

As the race heats up, Mejia will almost certainly attack Hall for a number of controversies involving campaign finance.

During his 2014 campaign for state Senate, rivals attacked Hall for his use of campaign funds to pay for expensive dinners, limousine rentals, luxury suites at concerts and trips — expenses he defended as legitimate campaign costs.

In his 2016 congressional run, he was accused of illegally spending general election funds during the primary. A Federal Election Commission audit confirmed some misuse but took no enforcement action.

Hall said last week that he hadn’t been an expert in the complex rules of congressional campaign finance but held his accountant accountable for the error and learned from the experience.

Less than 24 hours after a bullet whizzed across a Utah college campus and claimed the life of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, polarizing figures from across the political spectrum swiftly canceled public events.

Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) decided to postpone a North Carolina stop on the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour this weekend, while Trump allies Stephen K. Bannon and Rudolph W. Giuliani reportedly nixed plans for a New York gathering due to “increased security concerns.”

Popular leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who was set to debate Kirk at Dartmouth College later this month, told Politico he would “wait for the temperature to lower” before holding in-person events again.

Kirk’s assassination comes amid a spate of attacks on high-profile political figures — including two assassination attempts on President Trump — that security experts say will change the way large-scale political events are held, with open-air venues increasingly seen as risky.

“In the current threat environment, outdoor venues for political events should be avoided at all costs,” said Art Acevedo, the former head of the Houston and Miami police departments.

Even with a security apparatus as powerful as the U.S. Secret Service, experts say it is incredibly difficult to establish a firm perimeter at outdoor rallies with a large number of attendees. The gunman who opened fire on Trump in Butler, Pa., during the 2024 presidential campaign did so from more than 400 feet away. Kirk was shot from a distance of more than 400 feet with a powerful bolt-action rifle.

The suspected gunman, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was arrested Friday morning, authorities said. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said ammunition recovered and linked to the shooting had anti-fascist engravings on it.

A PBS/Marist Poll conducted last year found that 1 in 5 Americans believe violent acts would be justified to “get the country back on track.”

Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman was killed alongside her husband at their Minnesota home in June by a gunman allegedly motivated by conservative politics. In April, police arrested a man who allegedly tried to set fire to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s residence while the Democrat slept inside with his family.

Politicians aren’t the only ones being targeted. The killing in December in Manhattan of a healthcare industry executive turned suspected gunman Luigi Mangione into an object of public fascination, with some applauding the act of vigilantism.

With Americans increasingly viewing their political foes as enemy combatants, researchers who study extremist violence and event security professionals say Kirk’s killing on Wednesday could mark a turning point in how well-known individuals protect themselves.

“The bottom line is, for public political and other figures, it is increasingly difficult to protect them anywhere, but even more so in an outdoor environment because it’s getting harder to screen people and devices in those open spaces,” said Brian Levin, a former New York City police officer and professor emeritus at the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino.

Kirk was being protected by roughly a half-dozen Utah Valley University police officers and a handful of private security guards Wednesday, according to campus security officials. While that kind of presence might deter a close-quarters threat, snipers and other assailants with long-range capabilities would not be affected.

Typically, security professionals seek to create three “rings of protection” around the focus of a public event, according to Kent Moyer, founder of World Protection Group, an international security firm.

The inner ring often consists of barriers and security personnel meant to separate Kirk from the crowd immediately in front of him, not someone hundreds of yards away. In the middle ring, security guards positioned farther from the focus of the event monitor the temperature of the crowd and try to clock individuals acting strangely or becoming aggressive. An outer ring would serve to search bags and screen individuals before they enter the event.

It did not appear there was any screening of attendees at the event where Kirk was killed, and it is legal to openly carry firearms on a college campus in Utah.

Levin said he expects to see drones deployed at similar events in the future, an assessment seconded by Acevedo.

“If you’re going to do an outdoor event you better make sure you have some kind of surveillance of rooftops,” Levin said.

When doing risk assessments, Levin said, police and security professionals need to be cognizant that politicians themselves are no longer the sole targets for political violence.

What Levin called “idiosyncratic actors” are increasingly likely to lash out at those connected to political and policy positions they find unjust. While Kirk was not a politician himself, he was a beloved figure in Trump’s orbit, and his activist group, Turning Point USA, has often been credited with driving younger voters to support the president.

“It’s not just elected officials. It’s pundits, it includes corporate people, people involved in policy and education,” said Levin.

But a heavy security detail doesn’t come cheap.

While elected officials are guarded by a range of federal and state law enforcement agencies, political influencers like Kirk must rely on their own vendors as well as security personnel hired by the venues where they speak.

Levin warned that law enforcement assigned to political events should be on high alert for retaliatory attacks in the near future, given the “dehumanizing” rhetoric some have taken up in the wake of Kirk’s killing.

Specifically, he pointed to Trump’s Oval Office remarks late Wednesday blaming Kirk’s death on “the radical left,” despite the fact that Kirk’s killer had not been identified at that time and federal law enforcement officials had not disclosed a motive in the shooting.

Trump also rattled off a number of attacks on Republicans during his remarks, while making no mention of Hortman’s slaying, the 2022 attack on the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — all violent incidents carried out by people who espoused right-wing political values.

“More and more people across the ideological spectrum, though more concentrated on the far hard right, think violence is justified to achieve political outcomes,” Levin said.

The Hollywood sign has been blown up in movies, altered by pranksters to read “Hollyweed,” “Jollygood” and “Hollyboob” and saw Tom Cruise staple some Olympic rings on it to promote the 2028 Games in Los Angeles. Politicians have used it as a prop for commercials and mailers the way they do kissing a baby or eating a taco. Out-of-town goobers and locals alike hike up to various vantage points around it for a selfie or group shot.

But the crown for the worst stunt involving the monument to everything dreamy and wonderful about L.A. now lies with the Border Patrol.

Earlier this week, Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol sector chief in charge of Trump’s long, hot deportation summer in L.A., posted on social media a photo of him and dozens of his officers posing on a patch of dirt in what looks like Lake Hollywood Park. Behind them is the Hollywood sign.

Arms are crossed. Hands are on belts. A few National Guard troops, one with a K9 unit, join in. None of the faces are masked for once. That’s because they didn’t have to be: Almost every one of them is blurred out.

“This is the team. They’re the ones on the ground, making it happen,” wrote Bovino, one of only two in the photo without a blurry face. “The mean green team is not going anywhere. We are here to stay.” And just in case readers didn’t get that la migra is hard, Bovino concluded his post with a fire emoji.

The faces of these supposedly brave men are more fuzzed out than Bigfoot in that famous footage from 1967.

Jeff Zarrinnam, chairman of the nonprofit in charge of maintaining the Hollywood sign, said “we have to stay neutral on these types of things,” so he didn’t offer his opinion on why a man who spent his summer terrorizing large swaths of the Southland would want to pose there. He did say the Border Patrol didn’t request special access to get closer to it as other politicians have in the past.

“It was probably a team-building effort for them, or a lot of them probably hadn’t seen it before,” he said. “It’s a symbol of America. Maybe that’s why they were standing up there. Who knows?”

L.A. Councilmember Nithya Raman, whose district is where the Hollywood sign stands, was not as charitable.

“To see an icon of this city used for an image designed to instill fear in Angelenos is chilling — particularly on the heels of Monday’s Supreme Court ruling which dealt a devastating blow to a city that has already faced so much hardship this year,” she said in a statement.

Bovino is expected to show up soon in Chicago to oversee the Border Patrol’s invasion of the Windy Cindy. His press team didn’t return my request for an interview or my questions about whether the photo was digitally altered — other than the face blurring and the ultra-sharp focusing on Bovino — and what he hoped to accomplish with it. The sign itself looks shrouded in fog, but who knows? The whole photo has a weirdness about it.

Nevertheless, Bovino’s smirk in the group portrait says it all.

This is a guy who came into town like so many newcomers before him wanting to make it big and willing to do whatever it took. Short, with a high fade haircut and nasal drawl, Bovino quickly became a constant on local news, selling himself as a mix of Andy Griffith (a fellow North Carolina native) and Lt. Col. Kilgore in “Apocalypse Now.”

He starred in slickly produced government-created videos portraying the Border Patrol as warriors on a divine mission to make the City of Angeles safe from immigrant infidels. He claimed local politicians were endangering residents with their sanctuary policies and gleefully thumbed his nose at a temporary restraining order barring indiscriminate raids like those, which the Supreme Court just ruled can start happening again. He was there, a cameraman filming his every strut, when National Guard troops in armed Humvees parked along Whittier Boulevard in July all so Border Patrol agents on horseback could trot through an empty MacArthur Park.

Bovino cheered on via social media when his “mean green team” rented a Penske truck to lure in day laborers at a Westlake Home Depot in August only to detain them. Even worse was Bovino showing up in front of the Japanese American National Museum with a phalanx of migra while California’s political class was inside decrying the gerrymandering push by President Trump. He pleaded ignorance on that last action when Gov. Gavin Newsom and others accused the sector chief of trying to intimidate them even as friendly media just happened to be there, just like they so happened to be embedded with immigration agents all summer as they chased after tamale ladies and day laborers.

Supporters played up his moves as if they were a master class in psyops, with grandiose codenames such as Operation Trojan Horse for the Penske truck raid and Operation Excalibur for the invasion of MacArthur Park. So Bovino and his janissaries posing in front of the Hollywood sign comes off like a hunter posing in front of his killed prey or a taunting postcard to L.A.: Thinking about you. See you soon.

But all of Bovino’s actions grabbed far more non-criminals than actual bad hombres and did nothing to make Southern California safer. Locals have countered his attempt at a shock-and-awe campaign with lawsuits, protests, mutual aid and neighborhood watches that won’t end. That resistance forced la migra to cry to their daddy Trump for National Guard and Marine backup, with an occasional call to the LAPD and L.A. Sheriff’s Department to keep away the boo birds who now track their every move.

Greg: hope you enjoyed your stay in L.A. Congrats — you made it! You’re the star of your own D-level Tinseltown production that no one except pendejos wants to see. You left L.A. as one of the most loathed outsiders since former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt. Stay gone. Wish you weren’t here.

NEW YORK — If Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vaults into national prominence as a Democratic leader, he may one day look back at Thursday as a key step in that direction.

SiriusXM announced that it was giving Beshear’s new podcast a national platform starting this month, along with featuring him in a regular call-in show on its Progress network.

President Trump’s appearances on podcasts were a pivotal media strategy in his successful 2024 Republican campaign. Moving forward, mastering a personal podcast could replace soft-focus biographies or wonky books as a way for politicians to increase their profiles.

Beshear said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this summer that he will “take a look” at running for president in 2028. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, also in the circle of potential presidential nominees, started his own podcast earlier this year.

Speaking to the anxiety of Americans

In an interview, Beshear said a motivating factor in his own podcast was people who have come up to him, especially during the Trump administration, to talk about their anxieties.

“That’s how Americans feel,” he said. “They feel like the news hits them minute after minute after minute. And it can feel like chaos. It can feel like the world is out of control. With this podcast, we’re trying to help Americans process what we’re going through.”

He’s already done nearly two dozen podcasts, with his audience heavily weighted toward Kentucky residents. His guests have included some potential Democratic presidential rivals, including Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban, former Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari and Kentucky-born actor and comic Steve Zahn have also appeared.

Beshear, the son of a former governor who’s been leading Kentucky since 2019, talks issues himself. Two of his friends, a Republican and a Democrat, are regular guests, and his 16-year-old son helps Dad navigate some youthful lingo.

Newsom attracted attention — some of it negative among Democrats — for interviewing conservative guests Steve Bannon, Michael Savage and Charlie Kirk on his podcast.

“I did disagree with him on certain guests because I don’t like to give oxygen to hate,” Beshear said. “But Gavin is out there really working to communicate with the American people, and he deserves to be commended for it.”

Newsom’s podcast started slowly in the marketplace but has caught fire in recent weeks, his regular audiences jumping from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands, said Paul Riismandel, president of Signal Hill Insights, an audio-focused market research company.

The California governor’s increased visibility, particularly on social media, is likely a factor in the growing popularity of the podcast, Riismandel said. But it’s also a function of how podcasts often catch on: Many tend to be slow burns as audiences discover them, he said.

Learning to master the format of podcasts

Whether ambitious politicians start their own podcasts or not, they’re going to have to be familiar going forward with what makes people successful in the format.

“With a podcast, the audience expects a more unfiltered, authentic kind of conversation and presentation,” Riismandel said. If politicians come across as too controlled, looking for the sort of soundbites that will be broken out in a television appearance, it’s not likely to work, he said. They have to be willing to open up.

“That is something that is probably new for a lot of politicians,” he said, “and new for their handlers.”

Beshear’s first podcast for SiriusXM will feature an interview with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), conducted in the company’s New York studio and debuting Sept. 10. The Progress network will air Beshear’s podcasts regularly on Saturdays at 11 a.m. Eastern.

The first live call-in show will be next Tuesday at noon, with Beshear joined by Progress host John Fugelsang.

Beshear stressed that his work for SiriusXM is “not just aimed at a Democratic audience.”

“We’re aiming,” he said, “at an American audience.”

Bauder writes for the Associated Press.

A court in Bolivia has transferred a high-profile opposition leader, Luis Fernando Camacho, to house arrest amid outcry over the length of his pretrial detention.

On Wednesday, a court ruled that Camacho, the right-wing governor of the eastern department of Santa Cruz, could be returned to his home and released from preventative detention on bail, provided he submits to house arrest.

He is expected to travel on Friday back to Santa Cruz, home to Bolivia’s most populous city, also called Santa Cruz.

“The judicial authority has ordered the end of preventive detention against Governor Luis Fernando Camacho and has replaced it with precautionary measures, including house arrest,” his lawyer, Martin Camacho, confirmed on Wednesday.

The lawyer said Governor Camacho would be able to resume his political duties under the work-release terms of his bail.

A political shift in Bolivia

Camacho has been held in pretrial detention since December 2022, when he was arrested amid weeks of deadly protests led by right-wing forces frustrated with the left-wing political leadership in La Paz.

Normally, pretrial detention in Bolivia should not last longer than six months. Last week, the Supreme Court of Justice called for a review of Camacho’s incarceration, and on Tuesday, a judge considering one of the two cases against him approved his release.

After Wednesday’s hearing, a second judge echoed the first’s decision to place Camacho under house arrest instead.

“This is the first step towards freedom,” Camacho said after Tuesday’s decision. “The elected representatives of justice today begin to restore the rule of law.”

Camacho’s release comes as the political sphere in Bolivia braces for a dramatic shift. The left-wing Movement for Socialism (MAS) party has led the country for much of the last 20 years.

But in the August 17 general election, all the left-wing presidential candidates were knocked out of contention.

Two right-wing politicians have instead progressed to the run-off race: centrist Senator Rodrigo Paz and former President Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, who has promised more radical change.

Camacho, meanwhile, has gained fame as a leader in Bolivia’s far-right Christian coalition, Creemos, which translates to “We Believe”. The Argentinian newspaper La Nacion even nicknamed him the “Bolivian Bolsonaro”, a reference to Jair Bolsonaro, a former Brazilian president currently on trial for allegedly conspiring to overturn an election.

For his part, Camacho has been held in La Paz’s Chonchocoro prison while facing “terrorism”-related charges.

Wednesday’s release to house arrest does not mean those charges have gone away.

The case against Camacho

Camacho still faces legal jeopardy, including the two high-profile cases that landed him behind bars.

The first concerns his actions during the 2019 political crisis that saw then-President Evo Morales flee the country.

Morales is considered to be the first president of Indigenous heritage in Bolivia’s modern history, but he had controversially sought a fourth term as president in the 2018 general election.

In the months afterwards, Camacho emerged as a prominent opposition figure, calling Morales’s victory a “fraud”.

He and other conservative leaders pressured the then-president to resign, in a campaign Morales compared to a “coup”.

Upon Morales’s departure from the country, Camacho delivered a symbolic resignation letter to the presidential palace, carrying a Bible in hand. For his role in the political crisis, Camacho faces charges of sedition and “terrorism”.

The second major case against Camacho concerns his actions during the 2022 unrest in Santa Cruz. He has been charged with criminal association and illegal use of public property.

By 2022, Morales’s former finance minister, Luis Arce, had been elected president of Bolivia, continuing the streak of MAS-led governments in La Paz.

Santa Cruz, considered Bolivia’s most prosperous economic hub and the largest by land area, had expected to see gains in the upcoming census, which would potentially translate into greater representation in the country’s legislature.

But because of disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Arce government announced the census would be delayed.

Anger over the decision spilled into Santa Cruz’s streets. The Pro Santa Cruz Civic Committee, a powerful right-wing group that Camacho had once led, carried out a strike that stretched on for nearly 36 days.

Protesters blocked roads, set fires and clashed with law enforcement. Dozens of cases of human rights abuses were reported to the government ombudsman, including sexual assault and murder. Prosecutors have accused Camacho of complicity in the turmoil.

Split opinions over Camacho’s release

But the Supreme Court of Justice has called for a review of the cases concerning Camacho and other prominent opposition leaders, including former President Jeanine Anez and Marco Antonio Pumari.

As Quiroga campaigns for the presidency ahead of the October 17 run-off, he has championed efforts to release the imprisoned opposition figures.

On his Facebook page on Tuesday, Quiroga celebrated the news of Camacho’s impending release.

“Justice cannot be an instrument of revenge. It must be the pillar of a free and democratic Bolivia,” Quiroga wrote.

“I salute the release of Luis Fernando Camacho and Marco Pumari, so they can pursue their defence in freedom. Let’s move forward, and remember that when there’s justice, there’s hope for all.”

Supporters in Santa Cruz also gathered in the street to celebrate Camacho’s anticipated return.

But outside the court in La Paz, some protesters called for his continued incarceration. They blamed Camacho for stirring the unrest that caused at least 37 people to be killed in the 2019 political crisis.

“Without justice,” they chanted, “there is no democracy.”

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has led tributes to Welsh Labour politician Hefin David, who has died suddenly, aged 47.

Mr David had been Member of the Senedd (MS) for Caerphilly since 2016.

Labour leader Sir Keir called him a “powerful voice for the people of Wales” who “dedicated his life to making sure every person and community in Wales had the opportunities and support they deserve”.

Gwent Police said a 47-year-old man was found unresponsive at a property in Nelson, Caerphilly county, on Tuesday evening, and the death was not being treated as suspicious.

First Minister and Welsh Labour leader Eluned Morgan called Mr David an “outstanding politician” who would be “greatly missed”.

His partner was Cynon Valley MS Vikki Howells, the minister for further and higher education in the Welsh Labour government.

Sir Keir said: “The entire Labour movement will join me in grieving the loss of Hefin David.

“He was a powerful voice for the people of Wales and a committed public servant, who dedicated his life to making sure every person and community in Wales had the opportunities and support they deserve.

“As Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly, where he was born and lived, he was incredibly proud of his community.

“Our hearts are with his family and those who knew and loved him at this painful time. May he rest in peace.”

The first minister said: “We are extremely saddened by the sudden death of Hefin. Our thoughts are with his family at this terrible time.

“Hefin was a much-loved member of the Labour family. He served Caerphilly as a councillor and a Member of the Senedd with pride and passion.

“He was an outstanding politician, warm and enthusiastic and a great communicator – especially on behalf of his constituents.

“He will be greatly missed.”

Gwent Police Chief Constable Mark Hobrough said his “thoughts and heartfelt condolences” are with Mr David’s family, friends and colleagues.

“After I joined Gwent Police as the chief superintendent for the area covering Caerphilly, I worked closely with Hefin on many occasions and I found him to be an engaging and thoughtful individual,” he said.

“A dedicated public servant to Caerphilly, his commitment to our communities will be a significant loss.”

Elected to Cardiff Bay in 2016, Mr David was one of the more prominent Labour backbench members and was never afraid to go against the party line.

Popular with politicians from across the political divide and journalists in Cardiff Bay, he made regular, lively contributions to Senedd debates, and was once reprimanded for calling Plaid Cymru councillors in his constituency as “mad as a box of frogs”.

He was also one of five Senedd commissioners, responsible for the day-to-day running of the institution.

The Welsh Parliament’s presiding officer, or speaker, Elin Jones, said the whole Senedd was “devastated by the tragic news of Hefin’s death”.

“Our thoughts go immediately to his partner, our colleague and friend, Vikki Howells MS and to his cherished children and family,” she said.

“Hefin was so full of life and enthusiasm for his constituents and their causes.

“He was a passionate politician, loyal to his party, his country, and constituents.”

Darren Millar, leader of the Welsh Conservative group in Cardiff Bay, said he was “very sad to hear the shocking news of Hefin David’s death”.

“My deepest condolences go to Hefin’s family and friends, and I would also like to extend my condolences to the Welsh Labour Party,” he said.

“He was a man who always stood up for his constituents and was respected on all sides of the Senedd.”

BOGOTA, Colombia — A Colombian senator and presidential hopeful whose shooting at a political rally in June recalled some of the darkest chapters of the country’s drug-fueled violence died Monday.

The family of Miguel Uribe Turbay said the politician died at a hospital in the capital, Bogota. Uribe, 39, was shot three times, twice in the head, while giving a campaign speech in a park and had since remained in an intensive care unit in serious condition with episodes of slight improvement.

“Rest in peace, love of my life. I will take care of our children,” his wife, María Claudia Tarazona, wrote in a social media post confirming his death. “I ask God to show me the way to learn to live without you.”

A teenage suspect was arrested at the scene of the June 7 attack in a working-class Bogota neighborhood. Authorities later detained several other people, but they have not determined who ordered the hit or why.

The shooting, which was caught on multiple videos, alarmed Colombians who have not seen this kind of political violence against presidential candidates since Medellin drug lord Pablo Escobar declared war on the state in the 1990s.

Uribe’s own mother, well-known journalist Diana Turbay, was among the victims of that period. She died during a police rescue after being kidnapped by a group of drug traffickers led by Escobar seeking to block their extradition to the United States.

“If my mother was willing to give her life for a cause, how could I not do the same in life and in politics?” Uribe, who was just 5 when his mother was killed, said in an interview last year with a Colombian news outlet.

Uribe, a lawyer with a masters degree in public administration from Harvard University, entered politics as a councilman for Bogota when he was 26. In 2022, he was the biggest vote-getter in the conservative Democratic Center party led by former President Álvaro Uribe.

“Evil destroys everything,” the ex-president, who is not related to the senator, said on social media. “They have killed hope. May Miguel’s struggle be a light that illuminates Colombia’s path.”

The senator was among the strongest critics of Colombia’s current government. In October, he joined the list of politicians seeking to replace Gustavo Petro, the first leftist to govern Colombia, in the May 2026 elections.

Authorities have floated several hypotheses about what led to the attack, while allies of the candidate have complained that the government ignored repeated requests to reinforce his state-provided security detail.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, tens of thousands poured into the streets dressed in white and waving the Colombian flag to reject the violence.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was among the politicians who lamented the senator’s death.

“The United States stands in solidarity with his family, the Colombian people, both in mourning and demanding justice for those responsible,” he posted on X.

Suárez writes for the Associated Press.

In April of 2006, I watched a posse of politicians gather at Skid Row’s Midnight Mission to introduce, with great fanfare and unbridled confidence, a 10-year plan to end homelessness in Los Angeles.

That didn’t work out so well.

Twelve years later, in his 2018 State of the City address, Mayor Eric Garcetti made a full-throated vow to quit fooling around and get the job done.

Los Angeles knows how to weather a crisis — or two or three. Angelenos are tapping into that resilience, striving to build a city for everyone.

“We are here to end homelessness,” he said.

Mission not accomplished.

We have a habit of setting lofty goals and making grand promises in Los Angeles and in California.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Better to have politicians and experts who study the pressing issues of the day and go out on a limb rather than shrug their shoulders.

“It’s hard to do anything if you don’t have a vision,” said Jessica Bremner, a Cal State L.A. urban geography professor. Transit, housing and infrastructure needs won’t materialize without that vision, she added. “Nothing will move.”

Agreed. And all of us, not just politicians, want to believe there’s a better version of our community — a brighter future.

But there is a big difference between a vision and a hallucination, and we’ve had some of both in recent years.

Here’s a sampling:

A mobile phone user looks at an earthquake warning application. After the Northridge quake, the state passed a law requiring seismic upgrades of hospitals by 2030. As of 2023, nearly two-thirds had yet to complete the required improvements.

(Richard Vogel / Associated Press)

In 2022, California set a goal of eliminating the sale of gas-powered vehicles after 2035 — which would dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions — and reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the state did more than set a goal. It passed a law requiring hospitals to upgrade seismic safety by 2030.

Los Angeles, under Garcetti, championed Vision Zero in 2015. The goal? Eliminate traffic deaths by 2025. Not reduce, but eliminate.

Steve Lopez

Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.

In 2020, the city embraced SmartLA 2028, a plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and gas-powered vehicles and build “a data-driven connected city, which addresses the digital divide and brings fresh ideas, including tele-health, clean tech and a switch to mass transit.”

In 2021, the California Master Plan for Aging set “five bold goals” to increase affordable housing and improve health, caregiving and economic security for older adults and those with disabilities by 2030.

In anticipation of L.A.’s hosting of the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, Metro introduced its “Twenty-eight by ‘28” initiative in 2018, outlining more than two dozen transit objectives.

The DTLA 2040 plan, adopted by the city in 2023, would add 70,000 housing units and 55,000 jobs over the next 15 years.

So how’s it all going?

The good news: There’s been a lot of progress.

The bad news: Where to begin?

Surely you’ll fall over backward when I tell you that funding shortages, politics, evolving priorities, lack of coordination, haphazard and disjointed planning, and less than stellar leadership have stymied progress on many fronts.

On homelessness, thousands have been housed and helped thanks to big initiatives and voter-approved resources. But as an observer once described it, we’ve been managing rather than solving the crisis and essentially bailing a leaky boat with a teaspoon. And now the agency at the helm is in disarray.

People experiencing homelessness pack their tents and belongings during the cleanup of an encampment on Wilshire Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

On climate change, California deserves a big pat on the back for at least acknowledging the crisis and responding with big ideas. But the Trump administration, which is likely to hold steady up to and beyond the point at which Mar-a-Lago is underwater, has all but declared war on the Golden State’s good intentions, eliminating funding for key projects and challenging the state’s authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Trump, Congress and fossil fuel companies in opposing the state’s ambitions. Meanwhile, a grim analysis last year, which can’t be blamed on Trump, said the state would have to triple the pace of progress to reach its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target.

As for the law requiring seismic upgrades of hospitals by 2030, as of 2023, nearly two-thirds had yet to complete the required improvements and many had asked for amendments and extensions.

L.A.’s Vision Zero, meanwhile, which promised the redesign of high-accident locations and multiple other safety upgrades for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, has been a singular embarrassment.

Rather than an elimination of traffic deaths, the number has surged, and an audit released earlier this year serves as an indictment of local leadership. It cited lack of accountability along with “conflicts of personality, lack of total buy-in for implementation, disagreements over how the program should be administered.”

“Incredibly disappointing,” said Michael Manville, a UCLA professor of urban planning. “The city remains incredibly dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians.”

Manville didn’t have very high grades, either, for Metro’s 28×28 foray.

“It’s a joke at this point,” he said, although even though he noted that some progress is undeniable, citing in particular the expected completion of the Purple Line extension to the Westside in time for the Olympics.

But many of the 28 original projects won’t make the deadline, and oh, by the way, there’s no money at the moment to pay for the promised fleet of 2,700 buses for what Mayor Karen Bass has called the transit-first, “no-car” Olympics.

One morning in June, I stood on Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima with L.A. City Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez. She was looking to the north, in the direction of an empty promise.

“This is the home of the future San Fernando Valley Light Rail,” Rodriguez said. “It was supposed to be one of the 28 by 28, and we’re now looking at probably 2031 to 2032 for its completion … in a community that has a majority dependence … on public transit.”

We also visited the site of a proposed Sylmar fire station for which there was a groundbreaking ceremony about two decades ago. Rodriguez said with the adjacent hills turning brown as fire season approaches, Sylmar is long overdue for the station, but the city is hobbled by a massive budget deficit.

“Now I’ve just got to get the money to build it,” Rodriguez said.

An image from video shows the aftermath of a traffic collision involving three vehicles on the southbound lanes of the 405 Freeway near Wilshire Boulevard. Former Mayor Eric Garcetti championed Vision Zero in 2015. The goal? Eliminate traffic deaths by 2025.

(KTLA)

Sometimes it seems as if the big goals are designed to redirect our attention from the failures of daily governance. Sure, there’s a 10-year wait to get your ruptured sidewalk fixed, but flying taxis are in the works for the Olympics.

And one convenient feature of long-term goals is that when 2035 or 2045 rolls around, few may remember who made the promises, or even recall what was promised.

In Professor Bremner’s vision of a rosier L.A. future, there would be more buses and trains on the lines that serve the Cal State L.A. transit station. She told me she talks to her students about the relationship between climate change and the car culture, and then watches them hustle after night classes to catch a bus that runs on 30-minute intervals or a train that rolls in once an hour.

As for the other big promises I mentioned, SmartLA 2028 lays out dozens of laudable but perhaps overly ambitious goals — “Los Angeles residents will experience an improved quality of life by leveraging technology to meet urban challenges. No longer the ‘car capital of the world’, residents will choose how they wish to get around LA, using a single, digital payment platform, with choices like renovated Metro rail and bus systems or micro transit choices, such as on-demand LANow shuttles or dockless bicycles.” But in the 50-page strategy document, the word “challenges” is mentioned quite a bit, and I worry that this particular reference could be the kiss of death:

“City of Los Angeles departments have varying funding sources, missions, and directives, which can inhibit unified, citywide Smart City technology initiatives.”

It’s a little too soon to know whether the DTLA 2040 goals will rank as vision or hallucination, but downtown is the logical place for high-density residential development and construction cranes are already on the job. As for the Master Plan for Aging, there’s been progress but also uncertainty about steady funding streams, particularly given current state budget miseries, and there’s no guarantee the plan will be prioritized by future governors.

“Goals are critical,” said Mark Gold, director of water scarcity solutions at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But they need to be followed up with implementation plans, with budgets, funding mechanisms, milestones and metrics.”

Gold recalls Garcetti’s promise in 2019 that all of L.A.’s wastewater would be recycled by 2035.

“That is nowhere close,” said Gold, but two other goals might be within reach. One is to have 70% of L.A.’s water locally sourced by 2035, the other is for 80% of county water to be local by 2045, using increased stormwater capture, recycled wastewater, groundwater remediation and conservation.

When he ran Heal the Bay, Gold implemented an annual report card for ocean water quality at various beaches. Maybe we ought to use the same system every time a politician takes a bow for introducing a bold, far-reaching goal.

Without the measuring stick, Gold said, “you end up looking back and saying, ‘remember when we were going to do this and that and it never happened?’ You have to continuously revisit and grade yourself on how you’re doing.”

Plans for the 2028 Olympics and Paralympics are linked to a fleet of buses to transport people to and from venues like SoFi Stadium to avoid a traffic meltdown. The plan includes a $2-billion ask of the Trump administration to lease 2,700 buses to join Metro’s fleet of about 2,400.

(Deborah Netburn / Los Angeles Times)

While it’s true, Manville said, that “L.A. seems to be better at kicking off grand plans than seeing them through, that’s not unique to Los Angeles.”

He cited “Abundance” as one of several recent books making the case that “lots of cities in blue states can’t seem to get out of their own way.”

The failures of virtuous Democrats are indeed on full display in California and beyond. But the other side of the aisle is not without its own sins, beginning with cult-like denial of climate change and, speaking of empty promises, undying devotion to a man who said he would end the war in Ukraine before he took office and bring down grocery prices on Day One.

Would you rather live in a state crazy enough to still think it can build a bullet train and outlaw carbon, or in one of the many hurricane-battered states crazy enough to think this is a swell time to get rid of FEMA?

If you’re reaching for the stars, making it to the moon isn’t a bad start.

[email protected]

NEW YORK — An executive order signed by President Trump this week aims to give political appointees power over the billions of dollars in grants awarded by federal agencies.

Scientists say it threatens to undermine the process that has helped make the U.S. the world leader in research and development.

The order issued Thursday requires all federal agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to appoint officials responsible for reviewing federal funding opportunities and grants, so that they “are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.”

It also requires agencies to make it so that current and future federal grants can be terminated at any time — including during the grant period.

Agencies cannot announce new funding opportunities until the new protocols are in place, according to the order.

The Trump administration said these changes are part of an effort to “strengthen oversight” and “streamline agency grantmaking.” Scientists say the order will cripple America’s scientific engine by placing control over federal research funds in the hands of people who are influenced by politics and lack relevant expertise.

“This is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S.,” said Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist studying group decision-making at the University of Washington.

The changes will delay grant review and approval, slowing “progress for cures and treatments that patients and families across the country urgently need,” the Assn. of American Medical Colleges said in a statement.

The administration has already terminated thousands of research grants at agencies such as the NSF and NIH, on topics including transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and diversity, equity and inclusion. It has also threatened funding for scientific research in its battle with prominent universities, including Harvard and UCLA.

The order could affect emergency relief grants doled out by FEMA, public safety initiatives funded by the Department of Justice and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Experts say the order is likely to be challenged in court.

Ramakrishnan writes for the Associated Press.

In a brazen move, Republicans in Texas have set out to redraw the state’s congressional map — an effort to boost President Trump and the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to respond in kind, gerrymandering blue California to give Democrats a lift and offset the Lone Star lunge for power.

That would mean scrapping the political lines drawn by an independent citizens commission, which voters created nearly two decades ago to take line-drawing away from the state’s politicians.

Our columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria disagree strongly, but amicably, on the wisdom and implications of Newsom’s threatened move. Here they hash it out.

Barabak: Gavin Newsom — or the 48th president of the United States, as he fancies himself — is perhaps second only to Donald Trump when it comes to surfing a political wave. And so it is with redistricting and retribution.

It may set partisan Democratic hearts to racing — which is part of Newsom’s intent — but it’s a bad move for all sorts of reasons. Not least, ignoring the will of California voters, who resoundingly told the state’s self-dealing politicians no mas!

I understand the fight-fire-with-fire attitude that animates partisan support for the get-even talk by 48, er, Newsom. But the danger is causing even more widespread damage.

Over the years, a lot of zeitgeist-y moves by the headline-hungry Newsom have come to naught. This is another that belongs on the scrap heap.

Chabria: I agree that the Vegas odds are on the side of this tit-for-tat being nothing more than a partisan headline-grabber.

But.

There is a larger and more important question here that boils down to how seriously you believe our democracy is in jeopardy.

If, Mark — as I think you are inclined to at least hope — this too shall pass and our next election will be free and fair, however it may land, then the idea of gerrymandering our congressional districts can be nothing but appalling. This is especially true in California, one of the few states in which the people have voted to ensure our electoral maps are drawn with nonpartisan fairness in mind.

If, like me, however, you think we are on a knife’s edge of losing our democracy to authoritarianism — or at least an oligarchy where hate is wielded for power — then gerrymandering becomes a form of peaceful resistance.

Newsom recently said, “We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment” — which gives you an idea of his thinking, and frankly, mine.

I’ll dive into that more, but maybe that’s where we start. Do you think our democracy is sound and what we’re witnessing is just a period of discontent that will pass without lasting harm?

Barabak: I sure hope so.

I yield to no one in my disgust with Trump and concern about what he’s doing. He’s authoritarian. Autocratic. Arrogant. Anti-democratic. And that’s not even getting past the letter “A.”

But actions like the one Newsom threatens on redistricting don’t take place in a vacuum, which is important to bear in mind. Short-term tactical gains can result in long-term pain.

For instance: In 2013 Democrats were so upset about Republican blockading of President Obama’s judicial and executive branch nominations that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the “nuclear option.” At Reid’s behest, the Senate narrowly voted to change its rules and disallow the filibustering of presidential nominees.

The result is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a whole clown car of Trump Cabinet members.

And while Democrats explicitly said the rule change would not apply to the Supreme Court, once the door was open Republicans shouldered their way through and eliminated the filibuster for those nominees as well. The result is Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and the high court’s 6-3 Trump-coddling conservative super-majority.

Those who fight fire with fire risk getting badly burned.

If Democrats want a war over redistricting, Republicans have a lot more ways to gerrymander and potentially gain seats — in places such as Florida, Missouri and Ohio — than Democrats.

Chabria: No doubt. But, and this is as low as it gets, I’ll pay the price of a Hegseth, maybe even two, if it really does save democracy. Here’s the reality: The only hope of a Congress that will curb Trump through the democratic process is shifting at least some power to Democrats in the 2026 election.

If Texas Republicans, under pressure from Trump, manage to redraw as many as five new GOP-leaning seats — and it doesn’t blow up in their faces, which it could — the move would boost the chances the House remains a Trump entourage and the prospect of authoritarianism goes from brush fire to wildfire.

The truth is that gerrymandering is far more common than most realize. Kevin Johnson, an expert with the Election Reformers Network, wrote recently that “In the 1990s, only 40% of the seats in the House of Representatives were considered a sure thing for one party or the other, now that figure is 83%.” That’s because most states gerrymander.

Really, the only truly competitive races take place in states such as California that have independent, nonpartisan folks drawing the election maps. So to play devil’s advocate, we’ve already lost to gerrymandering in the U.S. and California just doesn’t know it.

That’s a problem that could be solved if a future president and Congress wanted to do so. But it requires getting to a future president and Congress. I always put this on the record: I care neither about Republicans or Democrats. I care about democracy.

If California gerrymandered, helped turn Congress into a real check against authoritarianism and left fixing gerrymandering for later, would it really be so bad?

Barabak: Your crystal ball must be less hazy than mine.

I’m not all convinced that even a gain of five Texas House seats would guarantee GOP control of the House. (And let me put this on the record: I think what Trump and his Texas handmaidens are doing is thoroughly reprehensible.)

Since World War II, the out-party has picked up an average of more than two dozen House seats in midterm elections. Democrats need a gain of three to seize control.

There’s even, as you suggest, a chance Republicans’ political pigginess backfires by spreading their voters too thin, creating districts that Democrats might pick up if there’s a big enough blue wave.

Speaking of moves backfiring, it’s no sure bet Californians would approve Newsom’s gerrymander effort if he put it to a vote in a special election to override the commission.

Surrendering power to politicians is a pretty big ask in today’s environment. And it’s not as though Newsom has a deep reservoir of goodwill to draw upon; just look at his poll numbers.

He went to South Carolina to, allegedly, campaign for Democratic House candidates, even though the state hasn’t a single competitive contest. California has about 10 races that look to be at least somewhat competitive — yet you don’t see fellow Democrats clamoring for Newsom to drop by their districts.

Chabria: I don’t have a crystal ball. What I do have is a deep well of foreboding, but an optimist’s hope that your blue wave, power-to-the-people scenario happens.

In the meantime, Newsom said Friday that redistricting “is not a bluff,” and he is exploring multiple ways to do it.

On that list is a legal gamble. Our current redistricting laws say maps have to be drawn fairly every 10 years, after the census — but doesn’t specifically say we can’t gerrymander in between. Newsom is basically suggesting cheating with a sunset clause: Immediate redistricting that benefits Democrats, but that would expire when the regular redistricting happens.

It’s drastic, and may just wind up tied up in courts indefinitely.

But I am frustrated that politicians, pundits and even regular people continue to treat this administration as just politics as usual, and I appreciate that Newsom is not, even if part of it is driven by personal gain for a 2028 presidential bid. Perhaps our democracy has been on the brink before, but that makes this cliff no less dangerous. We the people need to think outside of our regular reactions to Republicans vs. Democrats or cultural wars or partisan divides or any of the far more harmless stressors that have plagued our system in the past.

What I like about Newsom’s jab is that it forces us to have conversations like this one, and ask ourselves how do we fight differently?

Because this fight is different.

Barabak: This may sound Pollyannaish, but I think there’s nothing about these frightful times that can’t be remedied at the ballot box.

Texas may have a competitive U.S. Senate race next year. If Texans don’t like the ruthlessness of GOP lawmakers and their power grab, they can send a message by electing a Democrat, helping the party overcome the odds and take control of the chamber. That would put a check on Trump, regardless of whether Republicans hang onto the House.

It’s in the hands of voters. If democracy is going to be protected and preserved, it’s up to them. Not scheming politicians.

In 2010, California voters drove the foxes from the henhouse, seeing to it that lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento would no longer have the power to draw congressional districts to suit themselves.

It wasn’t close.

Proposition 20 passed by a lopsided 61%-to-38% margin, giving congressional line-drawing authority to an independent mapmaking commission and thus ending decades of pro forma elections by injecting much-needed competition into California’s House races.

Now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is talking about undoing voters’ handiwork.

Newsom said he may seek to cancel the commission, tear up the boundaries it drew and let Democratic partisans draft a new set of lines ahead of next year’s midterm election — all to push back on President Trump and Texas Republicans, who are attempting a raw power grab to enhance the GOP’s standing in 2026.

The threatened move is a long shot and, more than anything, a ploy to boost Newsom’s White House ambitions.

It’s also highly presumptuous on his part, reflecting an increased arrogance among lawmakers around the country who are saying to voters, in effect, “Thank you for your input. Now go away.”

Take what just happened in Missouri. Last year, 58% of voters approved a ballot measure increasing the state minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. This month, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed legislation that limited the minimum wage increase and scrapped the sick leave requirement altogether.

In two other states, Alaska and Nebraska, lawmakers similarly tried but failed to, respectively, overturn voter-passed measures on paid sick leave and a hike in the minimum wage.

“It’s a damning indictment of representative democracy when elected officials are scared of the will of their own voters,” said Alexis Magnan-Callaway of the Fairness Project, a union-backed advocacy group that focuses on state ballot measures.

It is indeed.

But it’s part of a pattern in recent years of lawmakers, mainly in Republican-led states, undercutting or working to roll back voter-designed measures to enshrine abortion rights, expand Medicare and raise the minimum wage.

To be clear, those measures were passed by voters of all stripes: Democrats, Republicans, independents.

“People are transcending party lines to vote for issues that they know will impact their communities,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive organization. By ignoring or working to nullify the result, she said, lawmakers are helping contribute “to what we’re seeing across the country, where people are losing faith in our institutions and in government.”

And why wouldn’t they, if politicians pay no mind save to ask for their vote come election time?

In a direct attack on the initiative process, at least nine state legislatures passed or considered laws in their most recent session making it harder — and perhaps even impossible — for citizens to place measures on the ballot and seek a popular vote.

There can be issues with direct democracy, as Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center for Justice pointed out.

“There can be times when systems can be abused to confuse voters,” he said, “or where voters do things without maybe fully understanding what it is they’re doing, because of the way ballot measures are drafted or ballot summaries are offered.”

But it’s one thing to address those glitches, Morales-Doyle said, and “another thing to just basically say that we, as the representatives of voters, disagree with what voters think the best policy is and so we’re going to make it harder for them to enact the policy that they desire.”

In Texas, Republicans are wielding their lopsided power in hopes of erasing as many as five Democratic-leaning congressional seats, boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House in the 2026 midterm election. Trump, staring at the prospect of an emboldened, subpoena-wielding Democratic House majority, is backing the effort whole-hog.

That, Newsom said, is the fighting-fire-with-fire reason to tear up California’s congressional map and gerrymander the state for Democrats just as egregiously as Texas Republicans hope to do. “We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be. Or, we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment,” the governor asserted.

It’s awfully hard to argue against corralling the errant Trump and his Republican enablers. Still, that’s no reason to ignore the express will of California voters when it comes to reining in their own lawmakers.

Taking Newsom’s gerrymander threat at face value, there are two ways he could possibly override Proposition 20.

He could break the law and win passage of legislation drawing new congressional districts, face an inevitable lawsuit and hope to win a favorable ruling from the California Supreme Court. Or he could call a costly special election and ask voters to reverse themselves and eliminate the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, at least for the time being.

It’s a hard sell. One presumes Newsom’s message to Californians would not be: “Let’s spend hundreds of millions of your tax dollars so you can surrender your power and return it to politicians working their will in the backrooms of Washington and Sacramento.”

But that’s the gist of what they would be asked to do, which bespeaks no small amount of hubris on Newsom’s part.

If elections are going to matter — especially at a time our democracy is teetering so — politicians have to accept the results, whether they like them or not.

Otherwise, what’s the point of having elections?

In the wacky political world of Southeast Los Angeles County — where scandals seem to bloom every year with the regularity of jacarandas — there’s never been a mess as pendejo as the one stirred up this week by Cudahy Vice Mayor Cynthia Gonzalez.

How else would you describe an elected official telling gang leaders, in a video posted to social media, to “f— get your members in order” and take to the streets against Donald Trump’s immigration raids?

Gonzalez’s rant has set off a national storm at the worst possible time. Conservative media is depicting her as a politician — a Latino, of course — issuing a green light to gangs to go after la migra. On social media, the Department of Homeland Security shared her video, which it called “despicable,” and insisted that “this kind of garbage” has fueled “assaults” against its agents.

Gonzalez later asked her Facebook friends to help her find a lawyer, because “the FBI just came to my house.” To my colleague Ruben Vives, the agency didn’t confirm or deny Gonzalez’s assertion.

The first-term council member deserves all the reprimands being heaped on her — most of all because the video that set off this pathetic episode is so cringe.

“I want to know where all the cholos are at in Los Angeles — 18th Street, Florencia, where’s the leadership at?” Gonzalez said at the beginning of her video, which was quickly taken down. “You guys tag everything up claiming ‘hood,’ and now that your hood’s being invaded by the biggest gang there is, there ain’t a peep out of you!”

Gonzalez went on to claim that 18th Street and Florencia 13 — rivals that are among the largest and most notorious gangs in Southern California — shouldn’t be “trying to claim no block, no nothing, if you’re not showing up right now trying to, like, help out and organize. I don’t want to hear a peep out of you once they’re gone.”

The Cudahy council’s second-in-command seems to have recorded the clip at a party, judging by her black halter top, bright red lipstick, fresh hairstyle and fancy earrings, with club music thumping in the background. She looked and sounded like an older cousin who grew up in the barrio and now lives in Downey, trying to sound hard in front of her bemused cholo relatives.

The Trump administration is looking for any reason to send in even more National Guard troops and Marines to quell what it has characterized as an insurrection. If inviting a gang to help — let alone two gangs as notorious as 18th Street and Florencia — doesn’t sound like what Trump claims he’s trying to quash, I’m not sure what is.

Perhaps worst of all, Gonzalez brought political ignominy once again on Southeast L.A. County, better known as SELA. Its small, supermajority Latino cities have long been synonymous with political corruption and never seem to get a lucky break from their leaders, even as Gonzalez’s generation has vowed not to repeat the sins of the past.

Cudahy Vice Mayor Cynthia Gonzalez

(City of Cudahy)

“In her post, Dr. Gonzalez issued a challenge to the Latino community: join the thousands of Angelenos already peacefully organizing in response to ongoing enforcement actions,” her attorney, Damian J. Martinez, said in a written statement. “Importantly, Dr. Gonzalez in no way encouraged anyone to engage in violence. Any suggestion that she advocated for violence is categorically false and without merit.”

For their part, Cudahy officials said that Gonzalez’s thoughts “reflect her personal views and do not represent the views or official position of the City of Cudahy.”

Raised in Huntington Park and a graduate of Bell High, Gonzalez has spent 22 years as a teacher, principal and administrator in the Los Angeles Unified School District. In 2023, after Cudahy — a suburb of about 22,000 residents that’s 98% Latino — became the first city in Southern California to approve a Gaza ceasefire resolution, she told The Times’ De Los section that Latinos “understand what it means to be left behind.”

A few weeks ago, Gonzalez appeared alongside Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and elected leaders from Los Angeles and Ventura counties to decry the immigration raids that were just ramping up.

“I want to speak to Americans, especially those who have allowed our community to be the scapegoat of this administration that made you feel that your American dream hasn’t happened because of us,” Gonzalez said, adding that corporations “are using our brown bodies to avoid the conversation that this administration is a failure and they do not know how to legislate.”

Last week, she announced that she will be running for the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees for a third time, urging Facebook followers to forego donating to her campaign in favor of organizations helping immigrants. “Our priorities must reflect the urgency of the times,” she wrote.

In those settings, Gonzalez comes off as just another wokosa politician. But the feds now see her as a wannabe Big Homie.

Trying to enlist gangs to advocate for immigrants comes off as both laughable and offensive — and describing 18th Street and Florencia as “the Latino community” is like describing the Manson family as “fun-loving hippies.” Gang members have extorted immigrant entrepreneurs and terrorized immigrant communities going back to the days of “Gangs of New York.” Their modus operandi — expanding turf, profit and power via fear and bloodshed — will forever peg Latinos as prone to violence in the minds of too many Americans. Transnational gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13 are Trump’s ostensible reason for his deportation tsunami — and now a politician thinks it’s wise to ask cholos to draw closer?

And yet I sympathize — and even agree — with what Gonzalez was really getting at, as imperfect and bumbling as she was. Homeland Security’s claim that she was riling up gangs to “commit violence against our brave ICE law enforcement” doesn’t hold up in the context of history.

For decades, Latino activists have strained to inspire gang members to join el movimiento — not as stormtroopers but as wayward youngsters and veteranos who can leave la vida loca behind if only they become enlightened. El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, a manifesto published in 1969 at the height of the Chicano movement, envisioned a world where “there will no longer be acts of juvenile delinquency, but revolutionary acts.” Its sister document, El Plan de Santa Barbara, warned activists that they “must be able to relate to all segments of the Barrio, from the middle-class assimilationists to the vatos locos.”

From Homeboy Industries to colleges that allow prison inmates to earn a degree, people still believe in the power of forgiveness and strive to reincorporate gang members into society as productive people. They’re relatives and friends and community members, the thinking goes, not irredeemable monsters.

Gonzalez’s video comes from that do-gooder vein. A closer listen shows she isn’t lionizing 18th Street or Florencia 13. She’s pushing them to be truly tough by practicing civil — not criminal — disobedience.

“It’s everyone else who’s not about the gang life that’s out there protesting and speaking up,” the vice mayor said, her voice heavy with the Eastside accent. “We’re out there, like, fighting for our turf, protecting our turf, protecting our people, and like, where you at? Bien calladitos, bien calladitos li’l cholitos.”

Good and quiet, little cholitos, which translates as “baby gangsters” but is far more dismissive in Spanish.

Her delivery was terrible, but the message stands, to gang members and really to anyone else who hasn’t yet shown up for immigrants: if not now, when? If not you, who?

It’ll be a miracle if Gonzalez’s political career recovers. But future chroniclers of L.A. should treat her kindly. Calling out cholos for being cholos is easy. Challenging them to make good of themselves at a key moment in history isn’t.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office sent a letter on Friday requesting that the Trump administration remove California from its list of sanctuary jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law.

The Department of Homeland Security issued the list this week in accordance with an executive order President Trump signed in April that directs federal agencies to identify funding to sanctuary cities, counties and states that could be suspended or terminated.

In the letter, Newsom’s office contended that federal court rulings have rejected the argument that California law limiting law enforcement coordination with immigration authorities “unlawfully obstructs the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

“This list is another gimmick — even the Trump Administration has admitted California law doesn’t block the federal government from doing its job,” Newsom said in a statement. “Most immigrants are hardworking taxpayers and part of American families. When they feel safe reporting crimes, we’re all safer.”

California is among more than a half-dozen states that were included on the list for self-identifying as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. Forty-eight California counties and dozens of cities, including Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego and San Francisco, were also on the Trump administration’s list of more than 500 total jurisdictions nationwide.

The state strengthened its sanctuary policies under a law signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown that took effect 2018 after Trump won office the first time. Then, state officials tried to strike a balance between preventing local law enforcement resources from being used to round up otherwise law-abiding immigrants without obstructing the ability of the federal government to enforce its laws within the state.

Local police, for example, cannot arrest someone on a deportation order alone or hold someone for extra time to transfer to immigration authorities. But state law does permit local governments to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to transfer people to federal custody if they have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors within a given time frame. The limitations do not apply to state prison officials, who can coordinate with federal authorities.

The law has been a thorn in the side of the Trump administration’s campaign to ramp up deportations, which the president has cast as an effort to rid the country of criminals despite also targeting immigrants with no prior convictions.

In a release announcing the list, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said politicians in sanctuary communities are “endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens.”

“We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law,” Noem said. “President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law.”

The Trump administration’s assertion that California’s sanctuary policies protect criminals from deportation appears to irk Newsom, who has repeatedly denied the allegation. Trump’s threat to withhold federal dollars could also pose a challenge for a governor proposing billions in cuts to state programs to offset a state budget deficit for the year ahead.

Homeland Security said jurisdictions will receive a formal notice of non-compliance with federal law and demand that cities, counties and states immediately revise their policies.

America’s debt-addicted government just lost its triple-A credit rating from Moody’s, as it previously had from fellow rating agencies S&P and Fitch. Many in Washington shrugged the move off as minor or as unfair treatment of the Trump administration. The truth is more sobering: a flashing red signal that the United States is no longer seen as a “perfect” credit risk and that politicians should stop pretending economic growth alone can bail us out.

Yes, the mess is real, and it’s because habitual deficit financing — the very disease fiscally minded founding father Alexander Hamilton warned against — has become business as usual.

The reckoning comes as House Republicans push to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts with a “big, beautiful bill.” If handled correctly, it’s a good idea. But while the legislation aims to avoid tax hikes, it pairs modestly pro-growth provisions with a smorgasbord of costly special-interest giveaways. Worse, it assumes we can afford yet another $3 trillion to $5 trillion in debt without serious consequences. That’s the kind of magical thinking that spurred the credit downgrade.

Starting with Hamilton, American politicians long understood the importance of fiscal policy guided by the ethos of balanced budgets, low taxes and steady debt reduction. Their vision, combined with a deep respect for contractual repayment and financial responsibility, made America a creditor nation.

Washington abandoned that honorable legacy in recent decades. U.S. national debt held by the public is racing toward $30 trillion, and the cost of servicing it is ballooning. Interest payments are now one of the fastest-growing parts of the budget — $1 trillion in 2026 — crowding out core priorities and leaving us vulnerable to economic shocks. The Congressional Budget Office warns that even modest interest-rate increases could lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in added annual costs. It’s not a theoretical problem; it’s a real, compounding threat.

Which brings us back to the downgrade. Historically, downgrades like those from S&P in 2011 or Fitch in 2023 haven’t caused immediate crises, but they do raise borrowing costs and gradually erode investor confidence. The downgrades are not the problem, but symptoms of a deeper illness: lack of credible fiscal discipline. Market participants aren’t worried because Moody’s wrote a negative report; they’re worried because what Moody’s wrote is true.

If our political class continues to ignore warnings, the market will do what rating agencies only hint at: impose real discipline through higher borrowing costs, weaker currency demand and tighter credit conditions. Already, China and other countries have reduced holdings of U.S. Treasuries from 42% in 2019 to 30% today.

Meanwhile, the tax plan so far embodies Washington’s worst habits. It makes only temporary the most important pro-growth provisions of the 2017 tax cuts — like full expensing for equipment and research and development — while rendering permanent a raft of unrelated policies catering to favored industries and constituencies. That’s not tax reform; it’s pork-barrel politics dressed up as populist economics.

Worse still, the bill’s Republican supporters in the House justify it with the fantastical claim that it’s fiscally responsible based on the notion that it will raise trillions in growth-generated revenue. Even the most optimistic models show the current bill barely moving the growth needle. The administration claims growth will be enormous once it deregulates and sells off assets, but these distinct policies take a long time to bear fruit.

What a missed opportunity. According to Tax Foundation experts, making just four cost-recovery provisions permanent — bonus depreciation, R&D expensing, full expensing for factories and reforming the business-interest limitation — would more than double the tax bill’s long-run growth benefits.

That’s where legislators should be focused. Not on tax breaks for hand-picked industries or energy credits for hand-picked technologies — on structural reforms that maximize American investment, innovation and capital formation. Even such pro-growth tax policy must be paired with real spending restraint, something we haven’t seen in earnest since the 1990s. Otherwise, any gains from better tax policy will have red ink spilled all over them.

The lesson from Moody’s, and from history, is that America cannot borrow its way to prosperity. That was Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s view in the 1920s, and it remains true today. Mellon quietly prepared for debt defaults by building budget surpluses, knowing that while international repayments might fail, American citizens still had to be paid. That was back when Treasury secretaries respected taxpayers.

Now, as then, we stand at a crossroads. Will we restore Hamiltonian principles of fiscal prudence or continue down a path where downgrades become defaults and our creditors decide the terms of American fiscal policy? The next move belongs to Congress. Legislators can’t say they weren’t warned. If they fail the fiscal prudence test again, we’ll all pay the price.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.