Politics

California prison officials have opened a new psychiatric center for inmates, contending the $24-million treatment facility is proof the state is ready to shed federal oversight of mental-health care for prisoners.

The new building at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville will provide outpatient treatment for mentally ill inmates who do not require 24-hour care. Its opening was accompanied by positioning for the courts.

“It’s time for the federal courts to recognize the progress the state has made and end costly and unnecessary federal oversight,” Jeffrey Beard, secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said in prepared remarks.

The kind of care that California gives mentally ill inmates is the subject of fierce contention in U.S. District Court, where the state has filed a legal bid to end federal oversight as well as lift prison population caps that California concedes it cannot currently meet. A document filed Friday shows state’s prison population remains 49% above what the facilities were designed to hold, with Central California Women’s Facility at 82% above its design capacity.

In anticipation of also filing in court a request to end federal healthcare oversight, state officials have announced they intend this week to bring a group of Texas experts to inspect three prisons. Lawyers for inmates have asked a federal judge to allow them to accompany the state’s experts on their inspection tour. Lawyers for the state argue that doing so would be an “impermissible invasion into privileged communications.”

Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco has scheduled a hearing Tuesday morning to consider the dispute.

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

Molly Yard, National Organization for Women president, and Eleanor Smeale, former president, do not speak for all NOW members when they say they will not work for any current Democratic candidate (Part I, Aug. 25) other than Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.).

Granted, there probably isn’t a feminist alive who does not respect and admire Schroeder. I, for one, would rejoice to have her as our President.

But it is erroneous to suggest NOW members will sit out the 1988 elections because the other candidates are dull.

This NOW member believes we have several exciting, strong, intelligent candidates.

Furthermore, to imply there is no difference between a (Democratic Massachusetts Gov.) Michael Dukakis (who favors reproductive choice for all women, including medical funding of abortions for poor women) and a (Republican New York Rep.) Jack Kemp (who favors a constitutional amendment banning abortion for all women, even victims of rape) is not only inane, it is downright irresponsible.

I am distressed that as a NOW activist I might be associated with their unenlightened point of view. Speaking for myself, come 1988, I’ll be out there–and I suspect thousands of other NOW women and men will be there with me–working for the pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, pro-reproductive rights candidate. Schroeder? Dukakis? (Illinois Sen. Paul) Simon? Or . . . ?

JOANNE J. PARKER

West Los Angeles Chapter

California NOW Foundation, President

Opposition groups say release triggered by ‘political chess moves’ following US abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

Nicaragua’s left-wing government has announced the release of dozens of prisoners following pressure from United States President Donald Trump’s administration.

The government of President Daniel Ortega said in a statement on Saturday that “tens of people who were in the national penitentiary system have gone home to their families”.

The statement did not specify the exact number of people freed, or whether they had been detained for political reasons.

While the government described the move as a gesture to commemorate 19 years of Ortega’s government, Nicaragua is under considerable pressure from the US over its human rights record and a years-long crackdown on opposition leaders and activists.

Saturday’s prisoner release also reflects the growing pressure that left-wing governments in Latin America face to appease demands from the Trump administration, which has moved to exert greater dominance across the Americas region.

Tensions have soared since the US military attacked Venezuela on January 3 and abducted the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, who is facing US charges of narcoterrorism and drug trafficking, which he denies.

On Friday, the US Embassy in Nicaragua praised the release of opposition figures in Venezuela following Maduro’s removal from power, calling on Ortega’s government to follow suit.

“In Nicaragua, more than 60 people remain unjustly detained or missing, including pastors, religious workers, the sick, and the elderly. Peace is only possible with freedom!” the Embassy posted on social media.

A human rights NGO that tracks political prisoners in Nicaragua identified 19 people released on Saturday, the Reuters news agency reported.

Opposition leader and former prisoner Ana Margarita Vijil told Reuters that she did not know the exact number of people released, but said the group included a former mayor, Oscar Gadea, and an evangelical pastor, Rudy Palacios.

Palacios was detained in July after criticising the Nicaraguan government for human rights violations. He had also supported demonstrators who took to the streets to demand Ortega’s removal in 2018.

Ortega responded to those protests with a crackdown that left at least 350 people dead and hundreds detained.

Liberales Nicaragua, a coalition of opposition groups, praised the prisoners’ release on Saturday.

They said in a statement that there was “no doubt” that it resulted from “political pressure exerted by the US government on the dictatorship” and “political chess moves triggered by events in Venezuela”.

NEW YORK — Reviving a campaign pledge, President Trump wants a one-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a move that could save Americans tens of billions of dollars but drew immediate opposition from an industry that has been in his corner.

Trump was not clear in his social media post Friday night whether a cap might take effect through executive action or legislation, though one Republican senator said he had spoken with the president and would work on a bill with his “full support.” Trump said he hoped it would be in place by Jan. 20, marking one year since his return to the White House.

Strong opposition is certain from Wall Street and the credit card companies, which donated heavily to his 2024 campaign and to support his second-term agenda.

“We will no longer let the American Public be ripped off by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Researchers who studied Trump’s campaign pledge after it was first announced found that Americans would save roughly $100 billion in interest a year if credit card rates were capped at 10%. The same researchers found that while the credit card industry would take a major hit, it would still be profitable, although credit card rewards and other perks might be scaled back.

Americans are paying, on average, between 19.65% and 21.5% in interest on credit cards, according to the Federal Reserve and other industry tracking sources. That has come down in the last year as the central bank lowered benchmark rates, but is near the highs since federal regulators started tracking credit card rates in the mid-1990s.

Trump’s administration, however, has proved particularly friendly until now to the credit card industry.

Capital One got little resistance from the White House when it finalized its purchase and merger with Discover Financial in early 2025, a deal that created the nation’s largest credit card company. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is largely tasked with going after credit card companies for alleged wrongdoing, has been largely nonfunctional since Trump took office. His administration killed a Biden-era regulation that would have capped credit card late fees.

In a joint statement, the banking industry opposed Trump’s proposal.

“If enacted, this cap would only drive consumers toward less regulated, more costly alternatives,” the American Bankers Assn. and allied groups said.

The White House did not respond to questions about how the president seeks to cap the rate or whether he has spoken with credit card companies about the idea.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who said he talked with Trump on Friday night, said the effort is meant to “lower costs for American families and to [rein] in greedy credit card companies who have been ripping off hardworking Americans for too long.”

Legislation in both the House and the Senate would do what Trump is seeking.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) released a plan last February that would immediately cap interest rates at 10% for five years, hoping to use Trump’s campaign promise to build momentum for their measure.

Hours before Trump’s post, Sanders noted that the president, rather than working to cap interest rates, had taken steps to deregulate big banks that allowed them to charge much higher credit card fees.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) have proposed similar legislation. Ocasio-Cortez is a frequent political target of Trump, while Luna is a close ally of the president.

Sweet and Kim write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and West Palm Beach, Fla., respectively.

Protesters demand justice for Renee Nicole Good, a mother of three shot dead by an ICE agent in Minneapolis this week.

Protests against US President Donald Trump’s militarised anti-immigration push are sweeping the United States, after the killing of a Minneapolis woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent sparked outrage this week.

Indivisible, a social movement group, said hundreds of demonstrations were scheduled in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida and other US states on Saturday.

“ICE’s violence is not a statistic, it has names, families, and futures attached to it, and we refuse to look away or stay silent,” Leah Greenberg, Indivisible’s co-executive director, said in a statement.

Steven Eubanks, 51, said he felt compelled to attend a protest in Durham, North Carolina, because of what he called the “horrifying” killing of Renee Nicole Good by the ICE agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday.

“We can’t allow it,” Eubanks told The Associated Press news agency. “We have to stand up.”

Senior Trump administration officials have justified Good’s killing, saying she “weaponised” her vehicle and threatened the life of the ICE officer who shot and killed her.

But video footage from the scene showed Good attempting to drive away before being shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.

The incident has renewed scrutiny of Trump’s push to deploy heavily armed law enforcement officers to carry out an anti-immigrant crackdown across the US, with local authorities demanding that ICE agents leave their cities.

The killing of Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, came as the US Department of Homeland Security pushes ahead with what it has called its largest-ever immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

‘ICE Out For Good’

Many of Saturday’s protests were dubbed “ICE Out for Good”, with organiser Indivisible saying the rallies aimed to “mourn the lives taken and shattered by ICE and to demand justice and accountability”.

In Minneapolis, a coalition of migrant rights groups called for a demonstration at Powderhorn Park, a large green space near the residential neighbourhood where the deadly shooting occurred on Wednesday.

They said the rally would call for an “end to deadly terror on our streets”.

Reporting from a rally in Minneapolis on Saturday afternoon, Al Jazeera’s Manuel Rapalo said the protesters have been expressing outrage “but overwhelmingly, we hear people say they’re here to demonstrate peacefully.”

“We’re also hearing a lot of calls for justice. What I’m not hearing is too much optimism that there will be justice in this case,” Rapalo said, referring to Good’s killing.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who demanded that ICE leave the city after the deadly incident, said on Saturday that 29 people had been arrested overnight as police responded to continued protests.

Frey stressed that while most protests have been peaceful, those who damage property or endanger others will be arrested.

Minneapolis ​Police ‌Chief Brian O’Hara said one police officer ‌was injured ‌during the ⁠protest response.

Meanwhile, three US lawmakers representing Minnesota attempted to tour an ICE facility in the Minneapolis federal building on Saturday morning but were told to leave after initially being allowed to enter.

US Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison and Angie Craig accused ICE agents of obstructing members of Congress from fulfilling their duty to oversee operations there.

“They do not care that they are violating federal law,” Craig said after being turned away.

BOSTON — A federal judge said Friday that she expects to temporarily block efforts by the Trump administration to end a program that offered temporary legal protections for more than 10,000 family members of citizens and green card holders.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said at a hearing that she planned to issue a temporary restraining order but did not say when it would be issued. This case is part of a broader effort by the administration to end temporary legal protection for numerous groups and comes just over a week since another judge ruled that hundreds of people from South Sudan may live and work in the United States legally.

“The government, having invited people to apply, is now laying traps between those people and getting the green card,” said Justin Cox, an attorney who works with Justice Action Center and argued the case for the plaintiffs. “That is incredibly inequitable.”

This case involved a program called Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, and affects people from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. Most of them are set to lose their legal protections, which were put in place during the Biden administration, by Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security terminated protections late last year.

The case involves five plaintiffs, but lawyers are seeking to have any ruling cover everyone that is part of the program.

“Although in a temporary status, these parolees did not come temporarily; they came to get a jump-start on their new lives in the United States, typically bringing immediate family members with them,” plaintiffs wrote in their motion. “Since they arrived, FRP parolees have gotten employment authorization documents, jobs, and enrolled their kids in school.”

The government, in its brief and in court, argued that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has the authority to terminate any parole program and gave adequate notice by publishing the termination in the federal registry. It also argued that the program’s termination was necessary on national security grounds because the people had not been property vetted. It also said resources to maintain this program would be better used in other immigration programs.

“Parole can be terminated at any time,” Katie Rose Talley, a lawyer for the government told the court. “That is what is being done. There is nothing unlawful about that.”

Talwani conceded that the government can end the program but she took issue with the way it was done.

The government argued that just announcing in the federal registry it was ending the program was sufficient. But Talwani demanded the government show how it has alerted people through a written notice — a letter or email — that the program was ending.

“I understand why plaintiffs feel like they came here and made all these plans and were going to be here for a very long time,” Talwani said. “I have a group of people who are trying to follow the law. I am saying to you that, we as Americans, the United States needs to.”

Lower courts have largely supported keeping temporary protections for many groups. But in May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million.

The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision came after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case.

The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota leaders urged protesters to remain peaceful Saturday as people gathered nationwide to decry the fatal shooting of a woman by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis and the shooting of two protesters in Portland, Ore.

On Friday night, a protest outside a Minneapolis hotel that attracted about 1,000 people escalated as demonstrators threw ice, snow and rocks at officers, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said during a news conference Saturday. One officer suffered minor injuries after being struck with a piece of ice, O’Hara said. Twenty-nine people were cited and released, he said.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stressed that while most protests have been peaceful, those who cause damage to property or put others in danger will be arrested. He faulted “agitators that are trying to rile up large crowds.”

“This is what Donald Trump wants,” Frey said. “He wants us to take the bait.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz echoed the call for peaceful demonstrations.

“Trump sent thousands of armed federal officers into our state, and it took just one day for them to kill someone,” Walz posted on social media. “Now he wants nothing more than to see chaos distract from that horrific action. Don’t give him what he wants.”

The demonstrations in cities and towns across the country come as the Department of Homeland Security pushes forward in the Twin Cities with what it calls its largest immigration enforcement operation yet. Trump’s administration has said both shootings were acts of self-defense against drivers who “weaponized” their vehicles to attack officers. Video of the Minneapolis shooting appeared to contradict the administration’s assertions.

Steven Eubanks, 51, said he felt compelled to get out of his comfort zone and attend a protest in Durham, N.C., on Saturday because of what he called the “horrifying” killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis.

“We can’t allow it,” Eubanks said. “We have to stand up.”

Indivisible, a social movement organization that formed to resist the Trump administration, said hundreds of protests were scheduled in Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida and other states. Many were dubbed “ICE Out for Good,” using the acronym for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Indivisible and its local chapters organized protests in all 50 states last year.

In Minneapolis, a coalition of migrant rights groups called for a demonstration at Powderhorn Park, a large green space about half a mile from the residential neighborhood where the 37-year-old Good was shot Wednesday. They said the rally and march would celebrate her life and call for an “end to deadly terror on our streets.”

Protests held in the neighborhood have been largely peaceful, in contrast to the violence that hit Minneapolis in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by police in 2020. Near the airport, some confrontations erupted Thursday and Friday between smaller groups of protesters and officers guarding the federal building used as a base for the Twin Cities crackdown.

O’Hara said city police officers have responded to calls about cars abandoned because their drivers have been apprehended by immigration enforcement. In one case, a dog was left in the vehicle.

He said that immigration enforcement activities are happening “all over the city” and that 911 callers have been alerting authorities to ICE activity, arrests and abandoned vehicles.

Three congresswomen from Minnesota who attempted to tour the ICE facility in the Minneapolis federal building on Saturday morning were initially allowed to enter but then told they had to leave about 10 minutes later.

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison and Angie Craig accused ICE agents of obstructing members of Congress from fulfilling their duty to oversee operations there.

“They do not care that they are violating federal law,” Craig said after being turned away.

A federal judge last month temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing policies that limit congressional visits to immigration facilities. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by 12 members of Congress who sued in Washington, D.C., to challenge ICE’s amended visitor policies after they were denied entry to detention facilities.

The Trump administration has deployed thousands of federal officers to Minnesota under a sweeping new crackdown tied in part to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. More than 2,000 officers were taking part.

Some officers moved in after abruptly pulling out of Louisiana, where they were part of an operation in and around New Orleans that started last month and was expected to last until February.

Santana writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Allen Breed in Durham, N.C., and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

SEATTLE — A federal judge Friday blocked President Trump’s administration from enforcing most of his executive order on elections against the vote-by-mail states Washington and Oregon, in the latest blow to his efforts to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote and to require that all ballots be received by election day.

U.S. District Judge John H. Chun in Seattle found that those requirements exceeded the president’s authority, following similar rulings in a Massachusetts case brought by 19 states and in a Washington, D.C., case by Democratic and civil rights groups.

“Today’s ruling is a huge victory for voters in Washington and Oregon, and for the rule of law,” Washington Atty. Gen. Nick Brown said. “The court enforced the long-standing constitutional rule that only States and Congress can regulate elections, not the Election Denier-in-Chief.”

The executive order, issued in March, included new requirements that people provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and a demand that all mail ballots be received by election day. It also put states’ federal funding at risk if election officials didn’t comply.

Officials in Oregon and Washington, which accept ballots as long as they are postmarked by election day, said that could disenfranchise thousands of voters. During the 2024 general election, officials in Washington counted nearly 120,000 ballots that were received after election day but postmarked by it. Oregon officials received nearly 14,000 such ballots.

The judge found that Trump’s efforts violated the separation of powers. The Constitution grants Congress and the states the authority to regulate federal elections, he noted.

Oregon and Washington said they sued separately from other states because, as exclusively vote-by-mail states, they faced particular harms from the executive order.

Trump and other Republicans have promoted the debunked idea that large numbers of people who are not U.S. citizens might be voting. Voting by noncitizens is rare and, when they are caught, they can face felony charges and deportation.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jan. 9 (UPI) — Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the United States and Israel on Friday of “direct involvement” in his country’s ongoing anti-government street protests and of attempting to turn them violent, while dismissing their military intervention as “a weak possibility.”

Speaking during a news conference after meeting with Lebanese House Speaker Nabih Berri, Araghchi said the current wave of demonstrations in Iran was similar, “to a large extent,” to the popular protests that broke out in Lebanon in 2019, when the collapse of the national currency and rising prices of hard currencies triggered widespread unrest.

He said the government in Tehran was seeking to “avoid this problem” and resolve it through dialogue.

“What differs this time are statements by American and Israeli officials indicating their direct involvement and interference in the disturbances in Iran,” he said. “They are trying hard to turn these peaceful protests into violence.”

He cited, as an example, Mike Pompeo, the former U.S. CIA director and secretary of state, who addressed Iranian protesters in a post on X on Jan., saying: “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them ….”

According to the Norway-based Iran Human Rights non-governmental organization, at least 51 protesters, including nine children under 18, have been killed, hundreds injured, and more than 2,200 detained in the latest round of nationwide protests in Iran.

The unrest, which began Dec. 28 in Tehran’s bazaar over poor economic conditions, quickly spread to other parts of the country.

U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to attack Iran and “come to the rescue” of protesters if they are harmed by security forces.

Araghchi dismissed as “slim and weak” the possibility of U.S.-Israeli military intervention in his country, saying they had tried before — referring to the 12-day war in June 2025 — and that “it was a total failure.” He added that if they were to repeat it, “the results would be the same.”

The visiting foreign minister, who met with several Lebanese officials, said his two-day visit to Beirut was meant to consolidate bilateral political, economic and cultural ties and discuss how to confront mounting Israeli threats that “menace all the people of the region.”

“We are trying to open a new page in our relations … one that would serve and respect our mutual interests,” Araghchi said, expressing hope that his visit would mark the start of a new chapter and a “launching point” for Iran-Lebanon ties.

Lebanon’s new leaders, who have been in power for a year, have adopted bold decisions concerning Hezbollah, the country’s most powerful militant group, which has been financed and armed by Iran for more than four decades.

Chief among these was a decision to assert the country’s sovereignty and contain weapons –meaning disarming Hezbollah — in line with the Nov. 27, 2024, cease-fire agreement brokered by the United States and France to end 14 months of war with Israel.

Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji went a step further by asking Araghchi during their meeting early Friday whether Tehran “accepts the presence of an illegal armed organization on its territory” — similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Rajji said defending Lebanon is the responsibility of the Lebanese state, but this cannot happen in the presence of “an armed organization outside its authority.”

He called on Iran to discuss with Lebanon “a new approach regarding Hezbollah’s weapons,” so that they do not become “a pretext to weaken Lebanon.”

Araghchi replied that Iran supports Hezbollah “as a resistance group, but it does not interfere in its affairs, and any decision concerning Lebanon is left to the party itself.”

He added, however, that dialogue between the two countries is necessary to confront “challenges and risks” arising from differences in their approach “to certain issues.”

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam emphasized, in separate statements after talks with the visiting Iranian official, the importance of establishing sound relations with Iran, based on mutual respect and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.

Araghchi, who also met with Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem, dismissed threats to “deprive his country of its right to peaceful nuclear energy or to develop defensive capabilities” — conditions set by the United States and Israel to prevent an attack on Iran.

He confirmed that Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi is scheduled to visit Tehran on Saturday and, when asked by a reporter whether he would bring a new U.S. proposal for negotiations, said he was “waiting to see whether he is carrying any letter or proposal from any party.”

On Syria, Araghchi said Iran supports its sovereignty and unity and rejects any measures aimed at partitioning the country or occupying its territories.

“Syria’s stability is important for all countries in the region,” he added, noting that the Syrian authorities should understand that any rapprochement with the “Israeli Zionist” entity is not in Damascus’ interest and that normalization would lead to “Zionist conspiracies” against the Arab nation.

Over the past year, Syria and Israel have held intermittent negotiations aimed at reaching a security agreement to stabilize their shared border, prevent repeated Israeli attacks on Syrian territory and potentially pave the way for future diplomatic normalization.

WASHINGTON — The discussion of gay rights activist Roberta Achtenberg’s appointment as assistant secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development flared into passionate debate on the Senate floor Wednesday as conservative Republicans accused her of being a militant who would abuse her power and Democrats defended her with equal fury.

The San Francisco attorney and city supervisor was expected to be confirmed–but not before a phalanx of conservative Republicans led by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) challenged her record of gay activism and criticized her for purportedly leading a controversial fight to pressure the Boy Scouts of America into dropping a policy barring acknowledged homosexuals from serving as Scoutmasters.

Helms, who was quoted earlier as saying he opposed Achtenberg’s nomination because she is “a damn lesbian,” modified his objections on the Senate floor, arguing that his colleagues should reject the nominee “not because she is a lesbian, but because she is a militant activist who demands that Americans accept as normal a lifestyle that most of the world finds immoral.”

Waving a stack of letters of recommendation from organizations such as United Way, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) ardently defended Achtenberg’s record.

“Character assassination will not hold, whether it is in the press or in this beautiful hall,” Boxer said defiantly. “People who don’t know this woman and who admittedly don’t like her private life would try to destroy her. That has no place in . . . this great institution.

“If you are against a nominee, then you better come up with the truth, because what we heard here today from the senator from North Carolina saddens me deeply . . . and frightens me.”

The Senate’s discussion of Achtenberg, who is openly lesbian, marked the first time that a nominee’s sexual orientation has become an issue in a Senate confirmation process.

Helms, who had maneuvered behind the scenes to delay the Senate debate on Achtenberg, has already indicated that he will not attempt a filibuster to prevent a vote on her nomination. But an aide said that the senator wants to keep the debate going long enough “to have a thorough discussion of her nomination” in the hopes of persuading more than just a handful of Senate conservatives to vote against her.

Achtenberg’s nomination was recommended by the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee in a 14-4 vote May 5. Although that suggested that enough Republicans would vote for her to prevent any attempts at a filibuster, Helms’ opposition meant that the debate was likely to extend at least into early next week.

As they took to the floor in the highly charged debate, Achtenberg’s supporters and critics painted sharply contradictory portraits of the 42-year-old woman and her suitability to head the office that enforces the nation’s fair housing laws.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a former mayor of San Francisco, recalled Achtenberg’s role as a city supervisor in pressing to end housing discrimination against families with children, minorities and gays and said that as an assistant secretary at HUD “she will speak out to make sure our housing laws are fairly enforced.”

But Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) argued that Achtenberg was unfit for the nomination because of an activist record of “intolerance, discrimination and vendettas against those who do not share her beliefs.”

Lott and other conservative Republicans took particular issue with Achtenberg’s stance against the Boy Scouts and the resolution she sponsored as a city supervisor urging San Francisco to withdraw $6 million in deposits from the Bank of America because it had donated money to the Boy Scouts, which she said discriminated against homosexuals as Scoutmasters.

“The Boy Scouts are not exactly a subversive organization . . . yet Roberta Achtenberg used her public position to threaten and extort any organization that had ties with the Boy Scouts,” Lott said.

But Boxer had a different interpretation. Rather than spearheading a battle for homosexual Scoutmasters, Boxer said, Achtenberg was one of 59 members of the United Way board who supported a suggestion by a task force, which she did not participate in, to drop funding to the Boy Scouts because of its discriminatory rules.

One of the most heated moments in the early debate came when Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.) demanded to know of Helms whether he had been quoted correctly in referring to Achtenberg earlier this month as a “damn lesbian.”

Helms said he could not recall whether he used the word damn . But pressed by an angry Riegle, Helms added he “may very well have said” that and he challenged Riegle to “make what you will of that.”

Helms then left the hall, but the debate continued with Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill.) lashing out at him and the other conservatives for employing tactics of “fear and divisiveness.”

“It demeans our body to have a member taking credit for being quoted as a bigot,” Moseley-Braun said, referring to Helms.

Jan. 9 (UPI) — The government of Bolivia confirmed it will introduce changes to 35 articles of a decree that established a package of economic adjustments, including the end of fuel subsidies, as groups affiliated with the Central Obrera Boliviana continue blocking highways at 29 points across the country.

Deputy Minister of Autonomies Andrea Barrientos said the changes are procedural rather than substantive and are aimed at adding clarifications, such as respect for the Constitution and mechanisms for social oversight, according to local daily El Deber.

No date has been announced for the changes.

The government said the amendments will not affect eliminating fuel subsidies. The decree set new reference prices that imply increases ranging from 86% to more than 160% compared with subsidized levels.

Authorities argue the measure is necessary to restore public finances and correct fiscal distortions.

The labor confederation, which has led protests and road blockades for the past two weeks in La Paz, Cochabamba, Potosí, Oruro and Santa Cruz, is demanding the repeal of the decree and denied the existence of any pre-agreement with the government.

Government officials estimated Thursday that economic losses from the labor confederation’s road blockades could reach $100 million a day, when considering the overall impact on industry, commerce and transportation.

“Industrial groups are talking about $20 million to $40 million a day. In commerce, transportation …. Without a doubt, we are easily talking about around $100 million a day,” the official said.

In a new phase of the political confrontation with President Rodrigo Paz, Vice President Edmand Lara on Thursday introduced a bill seeking to nullify articles of the decree that ended fuel subsidies.

Since the elections, relations between Lara and Paz have deteriorated. The vice president says he was excluded from executive decision-making and has declared himself in “constructive opposition.”

Lara’s initiative targets provisions of the decree enacted in December that dismantled a subsidy system in place for more than two decades and sharply raised gasoline and diesel prices.

The vice president, who also presides over the Legislative Assembly, said several articles are “unconstitutional” because they encroach on congressional powers and alter key rules governing investments in natural resources.

Criticism has focused on a fast-track mechanism included in the decree to approve investment contracts involving natural resources.

Analysts, lawmakers and unions warn that the expedited process could weaken legislative oversight and bypass constitutional requirements, such as environmental licenses and prior consultations with affected communities.

Political tensions escalated further with a new decree allowing the president to perform his duties digitally during temporary absences from the country. Paz is expected to travel to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland later this month, a trip that would normally require transferring power to the vice president.

At the same time, constitutional challenges were filed with the Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional, whose ruling could be delayed due to a lack of quorum.

Opposition lawmakers, including members of the Libre alliance linked to former President Jorge Quiroga, also have objected to several articles of the decree.

WASHINGTON – The austere House budget drafted by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that has come to define the Republican Party was approved Thursday on a strict party-line vote, as the GOP argues that a balanced budget should now be Washington’s top goal.

The blueprint is merely a proposal, without the force of law, but its overhaul of the Medicare program and steep reductions to other social safety net spending serves as the GOP’s opening salvo in renewed budget negotiations with President Obama. It was approved, 221 to 207, with no Democrats and 10 GOP defectors, largely conservatives or congressman in swing districts.

Republicans are anxious to reopen the debate over government spending with the White House even though some attribute the party’s setbacks in the November election to the plan from Ryan, the party’s former vice presidential nominee.

Ryan achieved the party’s goal of balancing the budget in 10 years, a promise House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) made to restive conservatives to win their votes on other matters.

To bring revenues and spending into balance by 2024, Ryan relied on deeply reducing federal spending as well as new revenue coming from the New Year’s tax deal that raised income tax rates on the wealthy.

The centerpiece of the GOP plan would turn Medicare into a voucher-like program for the next generation of seniors, those younger than 55. When they become eligible, at age 65, those seniors will be offered a voucher that can be applied either to the purchase of private health insurance or toward the cost of Medicare, though the voucher may not cover all the costs of the policy chosen.

The Ryan budget also cuts Medicaid, the health program for the poor and seniors in nursing homes, as well as food stamps, welfare programs and student loans, while largely preserving money for defense accounts.

While Ryan temporarily counts the tax hikes from the New Year, his plan would ultimately lower top tax income rates from 39.6% to no more than 25%, while closing loopholes and deductions. The top corporate rate would also be dropped to 25%. Ryan believes that lower taxes will spur economic growth and essentially pay for themselves; but critics say the lower rates cannot be achieved without asking middle-income families to give up popular income-tax deductions or else adding to the deficit.

Before approving the Ryan budget, the House dismissed alternative proposals, including one from the Democratic minority that sought to raise taxes on corporations and wealthier Americans, while putting that new revenue toward infrastructure and state jobs, as well as decreasing the deficit. Also rejected was a more conservative budget that would have balanced in four years, as well as proposals from the progressive caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

The Senate, which has not approved a budget in four years, is set to do so later this week. The blueprint from the Democrats is a similarly partisan document, and passage will put the House, Senate and White House on another collision course as they begin budget talks toward the next deadline, in summer, when Congress will be asked to raise the nation’s debt limit.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Twitter: @LisaMascaroinDC

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg giving you the latest on city and county government.

For a long time, Spencer Pratt refused to be put into a political box.

The reality-television-personality-turned-national-figure-turned-mayoral-candidate told the New York Times in October that he hated politics and didn’t identify with either major party. He “demurred” when asked by the Hollywood Reporter about his personal politics.

But the supporters who are beginning to line up behind Pratt have made one thing clear: MAGA has entered the Los Angeles mayoral race, just one day after “The Hills” alumnus announced he’s running.

Despite his nonpartisan statements, Pratt has become a darling of the right wing, meeting with influential Republicans across the country who have latched onto his sharp criticism of Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom over their handling of the Palisades fire.

On Thursday, Pratt, who lost his home in the fire, finally commented on his political affiliation, saying he has been a registered Republican since 2020.

“I wasn’t going to change it now just to check a different box,” he wrote on X. “This is a non-partisan race — there will be no D or R next to my name. As Mayor, I will not serve either party. I will work with anyone who wants to help the city. No labels necessary.”

The confirmation of Pratt’s political affiliation came as endorsements flowed in from across the country — and not from Democrats, for the most part.

Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who has launched a congressional investigation into the response to the Palisades fire, posted on X that he was “glad” Pratt decided to run for mayor. Scott has toured the Palisades with Pratt, and the two met in Washington, D.C., after Scott announced the investigation.

Pratt was also endorsed by Richard Grenell, who is President Trump’s Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions.

“I endorse Spencer Pratt for Mayor of Los Angeles and will help raise money for him. Transparency is what we need. Spencer has the passion and the drive to make positive change for Los Angeles,” Grenell wrote on X.

Closer to home, Pratt picked up an endorsement from Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Trump supporter and a Republican candidate for governor.

“LA needs him, California needs him. He’s got integrity and the backbone we need,” Bianco posted on X.

Roxanne Hoge, chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, said the group welcomes into the mayoral race “every common sense voice who stands for good governance and stands for representing the people over public sector unions and developers and NGOs.”

Hoge said she has a “great affinity” for Pratt, whom she called a personal friend.

“I support his willingness to speak up and be a voice for the voiceless,” she said.

Hoge said the county organization has not endorsed in the race.

Former City Councilmember Mike Bonin, who represented Pacific Palisades until 2024, said Pratt and Trump have many similarities.

“If you look at the model of who he is as candidate, it’s similar to Trump: the reality television background; his most visible communication presence is on Twitter, just as Trump’s was. And he’s sort of developing a candidacy around frustration and blowing the system up, just like Trump did,” Bonin said.

Bonin said Pratt’s entry into the race could be “perilous” for Bass.

The mayor has also tried to tie Pratt to Trump, seeking to position herself as the anti-MAGA candidate in a deep blue city.

“Donald Trump and Spencer Pratt are cut from the same cloth — two Republican, reality star villains running with MAGA backing, spewing disinformation and misinformation to create profit and division. Good luck with that in Los Angeles,” said Doug Herman, a spokesperson for Bass’ campaign.

Candidates will be judged by the people they associate with, Bonin added.

“Show me who you walk with and I’ll tell you who you are,” said Bonin, who is executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles.

Rick Caruso, a former Republican who registered as a Democrat when he ran against Bass in 2022, has tried to distance himself from Trump. Caruso said during his mayoral campaign that he never supported Trump for president or donated to his campaigns.

Caruso, a billionaire developer who is considering a run for either mayor or governor, said he hadn’t spoken with Pratt in months but that he was glad the social media influencer was joining the race.

“I think it’s great [that Pratt is running],” Caruso said. “I think the more people that actively get in government service the better.”

Pratt did not respond to multiple texts requesting comment. A member of his team said he is “currently embargoed from doing interviews because of other projects that were previously in play before he announced.”

A campaign staffer did not specify what the other projects were and said Pratt would be able to speak in early February.

State of play

— A YEAR OF FIRES: A year after two of the most destructive wildfires in California history erupted just hours apart, survivors marked the day in Altadena and Pacific Palisades with a mixture of anger and somber remembrance.

— ENTER PRATT: Spencer Pratt announced his candidacy for mayor of Los Angeles on the anniversary of the Palisades fire. Pratt and his wife, Heidi Montag, lost their home in the fire. Since then, the reality TV personality has become a vocal critic of Bass and Newsom.

— WATERED DOWN: LAFD Chief Jaime Moore admitted Tuesday that his department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire was watered down to shield top brass from scrutiny.

— REPORT AND REFINE: The head of the Los Angeles Fire Commission said Tuesday that a “working draft” of the after-action report was sent to the mayor’s office for “refinements” before it was published last October. She added that in her long career in civic roles, she had learned that words like “refinements” could mean troubling changes to a government report, made for the purpose of hiding facts.

— FINAL ADDRESS: In his final State of the State address, Newsom shifted from the problem-solving posture that defined his early years in office to a more declarative accounting of California’s achievements, casting the state as a counterweight to dysfunction in Washington.

— KILLINGS PLUMMET: There were 230 homicides in Los Angeles in 2025, according to the LAPD. That was a 19% drop from 2024 and the fewest the city has seen since 1966, when the population was 30% smaller.

— MAYORAL MOVES: Bass spokesperson Clara Karger is leaving the mayor’s office and heading to public affairs firm Fiona Hutton & Associates. Karger was with Bass’ team for nearly three years. Her departure comes months after Bass’ deputy mayor for communications Zach Seidl left. Seidl was replaced by Amanda Crumley.

— LA|DC|NYC: Anna Bahr, who worked as a deputy press secretary for former Mayor Eric Garcetti and then ran communications for Sen. Bernie Sanders, is headed to the Big Apple to run communications for newly elected Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program brought Angelenos inside in Skid Row and South Los Angeles this week. The program also partnered with Project Street Vet to provide veterinary care — including vaccines, medications and check ups — to nearly 30 pets belonging to Inside Safe participants, the mayor’s office said.
• On the docket next week: The City Council’s Committee on Public Works will get updates on the city’s graffiti abatement program as well as the city’s efforts to address illegal dumping and to repair pot holes.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s move to freeze $10 billion in child-care funds in five Democrat-led states including California.

The ruling Friday afternoon capped a tumultuous stretch that began earlier this week when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told California officials and those in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York that it would freeze federal funding over fraud concerns.

On Thursday the states sued the administration in federal court in Manhattan. The states sought a temporary restraining order, asking the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s demands for large volumes of administrative data.

An attorney for the states argued Friday morning that there was an immediate need for funding — and that withholding it would cause chaos by depriving families of their ability to pay for child care, and would harm child-care providers who would lose income.

In a brief ruling, Judge Arun Subramanian said that “good cause has been shown for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The federal government’s effort has been viewed as a broad attack on social services in California, and jolted tens of thousands of working families and the state’s child-care industry. Providers told The Times that the funding freeze could imperil child-care centers, many of which operate on slim margins.

“The underscoring issue is that child care and these other federally funded social services programs are major family supports,” said Nina Buthee, executive director of EveryChild California. “They are essential infrastructure that our communities need and depend on, and should not be political tools. So the fact that this judge went in and blocked this very dramatic freeze, I think is only a good thing.”

In a trio of Jan. 6 letters addressed to Gov. Gavin Newsom, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was concerned there had been “potential for extensive and systemic fraud” in child care and other social services programs that rely on federal funding, and had “reason to believe” that the state was “illicitly providing illegal aliens” with benefits.

The letters did not provide evidence to support the claims. State officials have said the suggestions of fraud are unsubstantiated.

Newsom has said he welcomes any fraud investigations the federal government might conduct, but said cutting off funding hurts families who rely on the aid. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, about $1.4 billion in federal child-care funding was frozen per the letters from Health and Human Services.

“You want to support families? You believe in families? Then you believe in supporting child care and child-care workers in the workforce,” Newsom told MS NOW.

After Subramanian issued the ruling, Newsom’s press office said on X that “the feds went ghost-hunting for widespread ‘fraud’ (with no evidence) — and ended up trying to rip child care and food from kids.”

“It took a federal judge less than 24 hours to shut down Trump’s politically motivated child care cuts in California,” the account posted.

In instituting the freeze, Health and Human Services had said it would review how the federal money had been used by the state, and was restricting access to additional money amid its inquiries. The federal government asked for various data, including attendance documentation for child care. It also demanded beefed-up fiscal accountability requirements.

“Again and again, President Trump has shown a willingness to throw vulnerable children, seniors, and families under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against Democratic-led states,” Bonta said in a statement following the ruling. “Cutting funding for childcare and other family assistance is cruel, reckless, and most importantly, illegal.”

For Laura Pryor, research director at the California Budget & Policy Center, it is “a sigh of relief.”

Jan. 9 (UPI) — Venezuela said Friday it has begun an “exploratory diplomatic process” with the United States aimed at restoring diplomatic missions in both countries, according to a statement from the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry.

Foreign Minister Yván Gil said the talks are intended to address the consequences of what the government described as the “abduction” of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were arrested Saturday during a U.S. military operation in Venezuelan territory.

Gil reiterated comments previously made by interim President Delcy Rodríguez, saying Venezuela will respond to what it calls an act of aggression through diplomatic channels.

“Venezuela will face this aggression through diplomacy, convinced that this is the legitimate path to defend sovereignty, restore international law and preserve peace,” he said.

The government confirmed that a delegation of U.S. State Department officials has arrived in Venezuela to conduct “technical and logistical evaluations related to diplomatic functions,” as previously announced by Washington.

Gil also said a Venezuelan diplomatic delegation will travel to the United States to carry out corresponding duties, though he did not provide further details or a departure date.

Venezuela and the United States ended diplomatic relations in 2019, when Maduro’s government announced a formal rupture after Washington recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president.

At the time, the Venezuelan government ordered U.S. diplomatic personnel to leave the country, deepening a bilateral breakdown that had been building for years.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who is taking a tour of U.S. defense contractors, on Friday visited a Long Beach rocket maker, where he told workers they are key to President Trump’s vision of military supremacy.

Hegseth stopped by a manufacturing plant operated by Rocket Lab, an emerging company that builds satellites and provides small-satellite launch services for commercial and government customers.

Last month, the company was awarded an $805-million military contract, its largest to date, to build satellites for a network being developed for communications and detection of new threats, such as hypersonic missles.

“This company, you right here, are front and center, as part of ensuring that we build an arsenal of freedom that America needs,” Hegseth told several hundred cheering workers. “The future of the battlefield starts right here with dominance of space.”

Founded in 2006 in New Zealand, the company makes a small rocket called Electron — which lay on its side near Hegseth — and is developing a larger one called Neutron. It moved to the U.S. a decade ago and opened its Long Beach headquaters in 2020.

Rocket Lab is among a new wave of companies that have revitalized Southern California’s aerospace and defense industry, which shed hundreds of thousands of jobs in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. Large defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin moved their headquarters to the East Coast.

Many of the new companies were founded by former employees of SpaceX, which was started by Elon Musk in 2002 and was based in the South Bay before moving to Texas in 2024. However, it retains major operations in Hawthorne.

Hegseth kicked off his tour Monday with a visit to a Newport News, Va., shipyard. The tour is described as “a call to action to revitalize America’s manufacturing might and re-energize the nation’s workforce.”

Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson, a Democrat who said he was not told of the event, said Hegseth’s visit shows how the city has flourished despite such setbacks as the closure of Boeing’s C-17 Globemaster III transport plant.

“Rocket Lab has really been a superstar in terms of our fast, growing and emerging space economy in Long Beach,” Richardson said. “This emergence of space is really the next stage of almost a century of innovation that’s really taking place here.”

Prior stops in the region included visits to Divergent, an advanced manufacturing company in aerospace and other industries, and Castelion, a hypersonic missile startup founded by former SpaceX employees. Both are based in Torrance.

The tour follows an overhaul of the Department of Defense’s procurement policy Hegseth announced in November. The policy seeks to speed up weapons development and acquisition by first finding capabilities in the commercial market before the government attempts to develop new systems.

Trump also issued an executive order Wednesday that aims to limit shareholder profits of defense contractors that do not meet production and budget goals by restricting stock buybacks and dividends.

Hegseth told the workers that the administration is trying to prod old-line defense contractors to be more innovative and spend more on development — touting Rocket Lab as the kind of company that will succeed, adding it had one of the “coolest factory floors” he had ever seen.

“I just want the best, and I want to ensure that the competition that exists is fair,” he said.

Hegseth’s visit comes as Trump has flexed the nation’s military muscles with the Jan. 3 abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who is now facing drug trafficking charges to which he has pleaded not guilty.

Hegseth in his speech cited Maduro’s capture as an example of the country’s newfound “deterrence in action.” Though Trump’s allies supported the action, legal experts and other critics have argued that the operation violated international and U.S. law.

Trump this week said he wants to radically boost U.S. military spending to $1.5 trillion in 2027 from $900 billion this year so he can build the “Dream Military.”

Hegseth told the workers it would be a “historic investment” that would ensure the U.S. is never challenged militarily.

Trump also posted on social media this week that executive salaries of defense companies should be capped at $5 million unless they speed up development and production of advanced weapons — in a dig at existing prime contractors.

However, the text of his Wednesday order caps salaries at current levels and ties future executive incentive compensation to delivery and production metrics.

Anduril Industries in Costa Mesa is one of the leading new defense companies in Southern California. The privately held maker of autonomous weapons systems closed a $2.5-billion funding round last year.

Founder Palmer Luckey told Bloomberg News he supported Trump’s moves to limit executive compensation in the defense sector, saying, “I pay myself $100,000 a year.” However, Luckey has a stake in Anduril, last valued by investors at $30.5 billion.

Peter Beck, the founder and chief executive of Rocket Lab, took a base salary of $575,000 in 2024 but with bonus and stock awards his total compensation reached $20.1 million, according to a securities filing. He also has a stake in the company, which has a market capitalization of about $45 billion.

Beck introduced Hegseth saying he was seeking to “reinvigorate the national industrial base and create a leaner, more effective Department of War, one that goes faster and leans on commercial companies just like ours.”

Rocket Lab boasts that its Electron rocket, which first launched in 2017, is the world’s leading small rocket and the second most frequently launched U.S. rocket behind SpaceX.

It has carried payloads for NASA, the U.S. Space Force and the National Reconnaissance Office, aside from commercial customers.

The company employs 2,500 people across facilities in New Zealand, Canada and the U.S., including in Virginia, Colorado and Mississippi.

Rocket Lab shares closed at $84.84 on Friday, up 2%.

Jan. 9 (UPI) — The United States on Friday seized another oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea as it works to control Venezuela’s oil, military officials said.

The U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Marines captured the Olina overnight, officials said.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted on X that the ship was “suspected of carrying embargoed oil” and had tried “to evade U.S. forces” as it left Venezuela.

The U.S. Southern Command posted on X that it’s “unwavering in its mission to defend our homeland by ending illicit activity and restoring security in the Western Hemisphere.”

“In a pre-dawn action, Marines and Sailors from Joint Task Force Southern Spear, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, launched from the USS Gerald R. Ford and apprehended Motor/Tanker Olina in the Caribbean Sea without incident,” the post said.

The operation was part of Joint Task Force Southern Spear.

The Coast Guard is planning to boost its ability to inspect and repair seized foreign tankers, The Washington Post reported, signaling that it will continue to seize the tankers. Many of the tankers are in too poor condition to be accepted by U.S. ports.

The Coast Guard sent out an internal call for personnel to increase its teams of inspectors to visit seized tankers, assess them and fix safety concerns before they come to U.S. ports, The Post reported. The message does not say how many people it needs, but it does say that those eligible must be “capable of offshore boardings and long hours aboard the vessel.”

“These vessels are stateless and beyond substandard,” the Coast Guard said in its internal message.

Since President Donald Trump declared a “complete blockade” of Venezuelan oil exports in December, the Coast Guard has taken at least four ships.

In mid-December, the U.S. seized an oil tanker called The Skipper. It is held offshore near the Port of Galveston, Texas. On Wednesday, the U.S. seized the Bella-1 in the North Atlantic after pursuing the ship for weeks. It also seized the Sophia in the Caribbean.

On Friday, the Kremlin thanked Washington for agreeing to release two of the Bella-1’s Russian crew members.

“In response to our appeal, U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to release two Russian citizens from among the crew of the tanker Marinera, who had previously been detained by the American side during an operation in the North Atlantic,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement on Telegram. “We welcome this decision and express our gratitude to the U.S. leadership.”

“Ghost fleets” like the Bella-1 operate with false paperwork or flags. They ship sanctioned oil to China and other destinations. The U.S. government has said the oil sales fund narco-terrorism.

Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Post there are hundreds of these ships and are often in bad shape. If they don’t meet safety standards or risk a spill, they are denied entry to a U.S. port.

“They tend to be at the end of their service life — old, in poor condition,” Cancian said.

The city of Los Angeles violated the state’s open meeting law when council members took up a plan to clear 9,800 homeless encampments behind closed doors, a judge ruled this week.

In a 10-page decision, L.A. County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin said the City Council ran afoul of the Ralph M. Brown Act by approving the encampment strategy during a Jan. 31, 2024, closed session.

The encampment plan was part of a larger effort by the city to comply with a legal settlement with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, which had sued over the city’s handling of the homelessness crisis.

Kin, in his ruling, said the city is allowed under the Brown Act to confer with its attorneys in closed-door meetings to discuss legal strategy.

“However, what the City cannot do under the Brown Act is formulate and approve policy decisions in a closed session outside the public eye merely because such decisions are in furtherance of a settlement agreement,” Kin wrote.

Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, said her office had no comment on the decision, which was issued earlier this week.

The ruling delivered a victory to the Los Angeles Community Action Network, which advocates for homeless residents and had sued the city over the closed-door deliberations.

Lawyers for LA CAN have warned that the city’s goal of removing 9,800 encampments over four years has created a quota system that could make sanitation workers more likely to violate the property rights of unhoused residents. Under the agreement, the city must reach its encampment removal target this summer.

“The City Council approved an extremely controversial plan to clear almost 10,000 encampments entirely in secret,” said Shayla Myers, the group’s attorney. “They never disclosed the plan before they voted on it, or even after, and the only one they disclosed the plan to was the business community.”

Lawyers for the city have offered contradictory explanations for what transpired during the Jan. 31, 2024, meeting. Now, LA CAN is seeking a court order requiring that the city produce all records — including audio of the closed-door deliberations — to show what transpired.

The city’s strategy for clearing 9,800 encampments has become a major sticking point in its long-running legal battle with the LA Alliance. U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ruled that a tent discarded by sanitation workers can only count toward the city’s numerical goal if its owner has been offered housing or shelter first.

Feldstein Soto’s legal team, in a memo to the council, said later that the judge had “reinterpreted” some of the city’s settlement obligations.

In this week’s ruling, Kin found that the city violated the Brown Act a second time in May 2024, when the council went behind closed doors to take up another agreement — this one between the city and L.A. County on the delivery of homeless services.

The LA Alliance first sued the city and county in 2020, alleging that too little was being done to address the homelessness crisis, particularly in Skid Row. The city settled the case two years later, agreeing to create 12,915 new shelter beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.

After that deal was struck, the city began negotiating an accompanying agreement with the LA Alliance to reduce the number of street encampments. Those talks dragged on for more than a year.

The LA Alliance ran out of patience, telling Judge Carter in February 2024 that the city was 447 days late in finalizing its plan and should be sanctioned. The group submitted to the court a copy of the encampment removal plan, saying it had been approved by the City Council on Jan. 31, 2024.

Video from that day’s meeting shows that council members went behind closed doors to discuss the LA Alliance case. When they returned, Deputy City Atty. Jonathan Groat said there was nothing to report from the closed session.

LA CAN demanded that the city produce any vote tally on the encampment plan. The city declined to do so, saying there was no vote.

“To this day, [we] still don’t know who voted for it, or even if a vote was taken at all,” Myers said.

Lawyers for the city have argued that they were not required to issue any report from that closed session meeting. They also have said that the Brown Act allowed the two agreements — the one on encampment removals and the other with the county — to be discussed behind closed doors.

Carter ruled last year that the city had failed to comply with the terms of its settlement agreement with the L.A. Alliance. On Tuesday, he ordered the city to pay $1.6 million to cover the group’s legal fees.

The judge also instructed the city to pay about $201,000 for fees incurred by LA CAN and the LA Catholic Worker, which have intervened in the LA Alliance case.

On Thursday, lawyers for the city notified the court that they intend to appeal the order to pay the various groups.

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

New Delhi, India – On January 3, 2026, a single directive from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) quietly ended the Indian Premier League (IPL) season of Bangladesh’s only cricketer in the tournament, Mustafizur Rahman, before it could even begin.

The Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR), a professional Twenty20 franchise based in Kolkata that competes in the IPL and is owned by Red Chillies Entertainment, associated with Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, were instructed by India’s cricket board to release the Bangladesh fast bowler.

Not because of injury, form, or contract disputes, but due to “developments all around” – an apparent reference to soaring tensions between India and Bangladesh that have been high since ousted former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina received exile in New Delhi in August 2024.

Within days, Mustafizur signed up for the Pakistan Super League (PSL), the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) protested sharply, the IPL broadcast was banned in Bangladesh, and the International Cricket Council (ICC) – the body that governs the sport globally – was pulled into a diplomatic standoff.

What should have been a routine player transaction instead became a symbol of how cricket in South Asia has shifted from a tool of diplomacy to an instrument of political pressure.

Cricket has long been the subcontinent’s soft-power language, a shared obsession that survived wars, border closures, and diplomatic freezes. Today, that language is being rewritten, say observers and analysts.

India, the financial and political centre of world cricket, is increasingly using its dominance of the sport to signal, punish, and coerce its neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Bangladesh, they say.

The Mustafizur affair: When politics entered the dressing room

Rahman was signed by KKR for 9.2 million Indian rupees ($1m) before the IPL 2026 season.

Yet the BCCI instructed the franchise to release him, citing vague external developments widely understood to be linked to political tensions between India and Bangladesh.

The consequences were immediate.

Mustafizur, unlikely to receive compensation because the termination was not injury-related, accepted an offer from the PSL – picking the Pakistani league after an Indian snub – returning to the tournament after eight years.

The PSL confirmed his participation before its January 21 draft. The BCB, meanwhile, called the BCCI’s intervention “discriminatory and insulting”.

Dhaka escalated the matter beyond cricket, asking the ICC to move Bangladesh’s matches from the upcoming T20 World Cup, which India is primarily hosting, to Sri Lanka over security concerns.

The Bangladeshi government went further, banning the broadcast of the IPL nationwide, a rare step that underlined how deeply cricket intersects with politics and public sentiment in South Asia.

The BCB on January 7 said the International Cricket Council (ICC) has assured it of Bangladesh’s full and uninterrupted participation in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026, dismissing media reports of any ultimatum.

The BCB said the ICC responded to its concerns over the safety and security of the national team in India, including a request to relocate matches, and reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding Bangladesh’s participation while expressing willingness to work closely with the Board during detailed security planning.

Yet for now, Bangladesh’s matches remain scheduled for the Indian megacities of Kolkata and Mumbai from February 7, 2026, even as tensions simmer.

Navneet Rana, a BJP leader said that no Bangladeshi cricketer or celebrity should be “entertained in India” while Hindus and minorities are being targeted in Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, Indian Congress leader Shashi Tharoor questioned the decision to release Mustafizur Rahman, warning against politicising sport and punishing individual players for developments in another country.

A pattern, not an exception

The Mustafizur controversy fits into a broader trajectory.

While all cricket boards operate within political realities, the BCCI’s unique financial power gives it leverage unmatched by any other body in the sport, say analysts.

The ICC, the sport’s global body, is headed by Jay Shah, the son of India’s powerful home minister Amit Shah – widely seen as the second-most influential man in India after Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The IPL, meanwhile, is by far the richest franchise league in the world.

India, with 1.5 billion people, is cricket’s biggest market and generates an estimated 80 percent of the sport’s revenue.

All of that, say analysts, gives India the ability to shape scheduling of events and matches, venues, and revenue-sharing arrangements. This, in turn, has made cricket a strategic asset for the Indian government.

When political relations sour, cricket is no longer insulated.

Nowhere is this clearer than in India’s relationship with Bangladesh at the moment. India has historically been viewed as close to Hasina, whose ouster in 2024 followed weeks of popular protests that her security forces attempted to crush using brutal force. An estimated 1,400 people were killed in that crackdown, according to the United Nations.

India has so far refused to send Hasina back to Bangladesh from exile, even though a tribunal in Dhaka sentenced her to death in late 2025 over the killings of protesters during the uprising that led to her removal. That has spurred sentiments against India on the streets of Bangladesh, which escalated after the assassination of an anti-India protest leader in December.

Meanwhile, attacks on Hindus and other religious minorities in Bangladesh since August 2024 – a Hindu Bangladeshi man was lynched last month – have caused anger in India.

Against that backdrop, the BCCI’s move to kick Rahman out of the IPL has drawn criticism from Indian commentators. Senior journalist Vir Sanghvi wrote in a column that the cricket board “panicked” and surrendered to communal pressure instead of standing by its own player-selection process, turning a sporting issue into a diplomatic embarrassment.

He argued Bangladesh did not warrant a sport boycott and warned that mixing communal politics with cricket risks damaging India’s credibility and regional ties.

Echoing the concern, Suhasini Haidar, diplomatic editor of The Hindu, one of India’s largest dailies, said on X that the government was allowing social media campaigns to overpower diplomacy. She referred to how Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar had travelled recently to Dhaka to attend the funeral of former Bangladesh PM Khaleda Zia, and wondered why Bangladeshi cricketers couldn’t then play in India.

Cricket analyst Darminder Joshi said the episode reflected how cricket, once a bridge between India and its neighbours, was increasingly widening divisions.

That was particularly visible late last year, when India and Pakistan faced off in cricket matches months after an intense four-day aerial war.

The Asia Cup standoff

The 2025 Asia Cup, hosted by Pakistan in September, was meant to be a celebration of regional cricket.

But citing government advice, the BCCI informed the ICC and the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) – the sport’s continental governing body – that India would not travel to Pakistan.

After months of wrangling, the tournament was held under a hybrid model, with India playing its matches in the United Arab Emirates while the rest were hosted in Pakistan.

But in three matches that the South Asian rivals played against each other during the competition – India won all three – the Indian team refused to publicly shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts.

“There is no rule in cricket that mandates a handshake. Yet players often tie each other’s shoelaces or help opponents on the field, that is the spirit of the game,” Joshi, the cricket analyst, told Al Jazeera. “If countries are in conflict, will players now refuse even these gestures? Such incidents only spread hate and strip the game of what makes it special.

“Sporting exchanges once softened bilateral tensions; this decision does exactly the opposite, making the game more hostile instead of more interesting.”

The controversy did not end with the final. India won the tournament, defeating Pakistan, but refused to accept the trophy from ACC President Mohsin Naqvi, who is also the Pakistan Cricket Board chairman and Pakistan’s interior minister.

The trophy remains at the ACC headquarters in Dubai, creating an unprecedented limbo that has defied resolution despite multiple ICC and ACC meetings. The BCCI requested that the trophy be sent to India. Naqvi has refused.

From bridge to divider

Unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh has historically enjoyed smoother cricketing ties with India. Bilateral series continued even during political disagreements, and Bangladeshi players became familiar faces in the IPL.

The Mustafizur episode marks a turning point. The current moment stands in stark contrast to earlier eras when cricket was deliberately used to soften political hostilities.

The most celebrated example remains India’s 2004 tour of Pakistan, the so-called “Friendship Series”.

That tour took place after years of frozen ties following the Kargil War, an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place from May to July 1999.

The then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee personally met the Indian team before departure, handing captain Sourav Ganguly a bat inscribed with the Hindi words: “Khel hi nahi, dil bhi jeetiye” which translates to “don’t just win matches, win hearts too”.

Special cricket visas allowed thousands of Indian fans to travel across the border. Pakistani then-President Pervez Musharraf followed the games and publicly lauded Indian cricketers who developed followings of their own in Pakistan.

The 2008 Mumbai attacks, carried out by fighters that Pakistan acknowledged had come from its territory, froze cricketing ties.

But in 2011, when India and Pakistan faced off in the World Cup semifinal in Mohali, Indian then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, over – the two premiers watched the match together in what was widely seen as an act of “cricket diplomacy”.

By intervening in a franchise-level contract and linking it, however obliquely, to geopolitical tensions as has happened with the Mustafizur case, the BCCI sent a clear message, say analysts: Access to Indian cricket is conditional.

Sport journalist Nishant Kapoor told Al Jazeera that releasing a contracted player purely on political grounds was “absolutely wrong” and warned it would widen mistrust in the cricketing ecosystem.

“He is a cricketer. What wrong has he done?” Kapoor said.