Politics

New York City, United States – Since the recent termination of the nearly decade-old trade rule called “de minimis,” United States consumers and businesses have been exposed to slower shipping, destroyed packages and steep tariff fees on international goods – foreshadowing what could make for a chaotic holiday shopping season.

For major international carrier UPS, navigating the latest regulatory changes has proved more fraught than for its competitors FedEx and DHL.

Matthew Wasserbach, brokerage manager for Express Customs Clearance in New York, a firm that assists importers with documentation, tariff classifications, valuation, and other federal requirements, has witnessed the fallout as UPS customers seek his firm’s assistance to clear packages entering the US.

“Over the last few months, we’ve been seeing a lot of UPS shipments, in particular, becoming stuck and being lost or disposed of … This all stems from the ending of the de minimis,” said Wasserbach. “Their [UPS’s] whole business model changed once the de minimis was ended. And they just didn’t have the capacity to do the clearance … a lot of people are expecting to receive international packages, and they’re just never gonna get them.”

UPS did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Suspending tariff exemptions

Since 2016, the de minimis trade exemption determined that packages worth $800 or less were not subject to taxes and tariffs. According to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the number of shipments entering the US claiming the exemption increased by more than 600 percent from 139 million shipments in 2015 to more than one billion in 2023.

In August, this all changed. President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending de minimis treatment for all countries, spiralling US imports into a new landscape of paperwork and processes, subject to duties and tariffs based on their place of origin.

Just a month after de minimis ended, while shipping products with UPS, Tezumi Tea, an online Japanese tea and teaware company that sells its products online and through meetups in New York City, fell victim to the tariff backlog at US customs. Tezumi lost roughly 150kg (330lbs) of matcha, totalling about $13,000.

“We responded by increasing buffers in our supply planning across the dozen farms that we partner with,” said Ryan Snowden, a cofounder of Tezumi. “Even with those adjustments, the loss had a severe effect on a number of our cafe customers who suddenly needed to switch to another matcha blend.”

Now, UPS is no longer accepting shipments from Japan, and Tezumi has switched to shipping supplies through alternate carriers such as DHL and FedEx.

Disposing shipments

Wasserbach has witnessed similar instances of UPS losing imports.

“When a UPS package goes uncleared, it’s just basically sitting in a UPS facility, uncleared for a certain period of time,” said Wasserbach. “Then UPS indicates in their tracking that they’re disposing of the shipments without making, really, any effort, from what I’ve seen, to contact either the sender or the receiver, to get information they need to do to get the clearance.”

Wasserbach shared email chains with Al Jazeera from UPS customers who looped in his firm to their customs clearance UPS debacles.

In one exchange, UPS customer Stephan Niznik responded to a notice from the UPS Alternate Broker Team that their packages had been “destroyed”.

“The tracking says on multiple instances that UPS attempted to contact the sender (me), but this is false; aside from a request for more information on September 5 (which I responded to immediately), UPS never attempted to contact me,” wrote Niznik. “It is absolutely disgraceful that my package was mishandled – clothes and children’s toys were destroyed at the hands of UPS.”

In another email chain, UPS told customer Chenying Li that their package was released following an email from Express Customs Clearance stating that the shipment was cleared.

A week later, Li’s package was still showing as “Pending Release”, and when they asked for an update on the shipment, UPS responded, “At this time we are unable to provide an ETA,  as volume is currently backed up and awaiting delivery due to the De Minimis impact.”

‘Impose additional pressure’

In addition to the customs backlog, Virginia Tech associate professor David Bieri says cost prevention may provide one explanation for UPS choosing to dispose of packages rejected by US customs rather than return the shipments to senders.

“All these additional rules and regulations impose additional pressure on already relatively tight margins for these companies – UPS, FedEx, DHL and so forth,” said Bieri. “They need to make money, and sometimes it’s easier not to fulfil a service than to take on the additional cost of customs clearance and making sure that it gets to its final destination.”

Bieri added that UPS resorting to package disposal may indicate that they believe themselves to be in “a sufficiently strong monopolistic position that they can do such horrible practice – unilateral nonfulfillment of contract”.

Wasserbach told Al Jazeera that “with FedEx and DHL shipments, we aren’t seeing these problems”.

When asked whether FedEx has disposed of packages stuck in customs, a spokesperson wrote, “If paperwork is not complete and/or rejected by US Customs and Border Protection, FedEx actively works with senders to update paperwork to resubmit to CBP or return shipments to senders. In some cases, shippers can request that packages be disposed of if they would prefer not to pay to return to sender. In those rare cases, recipients are notified at the direction of the shipper. This is not a common practice. We remain business as usual.”

Final cost of delivery at your doorstep

But FedEx and DHL are encountering some of the same challenges as UPS. Since August, when de minimis ended and small packages were suddenly subject to taxes and tariffs, anyone who ordered from abroad was susceptible to unexpected fees on imported goods.

Without de minimis protecting packages worth $800 and less from import fees, the consumer essentially becomes the importer.

“You might order something you find a bargain abroad, and you don’t pay attention to where things are shipped from … and it might be shipped from China, and you might be in for a rude awakening once that thing arrives at your door,” said Beiri. “You paid the price and thought that this was it. But your deliverer is saying, no, actually, we’re passing that cost on to you. Because you’re acting as the importer.”

These fees could cost equal to or more than the item you ordered itself. “You’ve got to pay extra attention to small prints,” said Beiri.

With looming costs and lost packages on the horizon, Beiri says shoppers will likely make “substitution questions” – are you renovating or are you going on vacation? Are you splashing on Christmas gifts, or are you treating yourself to dining out?

“I think these are interesting times of having to make choices and asking yourself what can we do given that we have an affordability crisis, rent, insurance, making ends meet,” said Beiri. “That’s what’s currently going on.”

In order to better handle evolving trade policy, Wasserbach says that UPS will likely aim to hire a massive number of entry writers to assist with necessary documentation for legal transportation of goods across international borders. However, now that it is the busiest time of year in terms of delivering people their Christmas shopping, Wasserbach doubts an influx of hiring could make much of a difference, given the amount of training required.

The company’s revenue has already taken a hit on account of Trump’s policies. Tariffs on China and the elimination of the de minimis rule saw imports from China, UPS’s most profitable route, drop reportedly 35 percent earlier this year.

“I would assume it’s gonna get better next year,” said Wasserbach. “But as for solving this problem before Christmas, I don’t think that that’s gonna happen.”

On September 1, at an international press conference convened in response to threats from the U.S. government, Nicolás Maduro declared: “The Miami mafia has seized political power in the White House and the State Department; they have imposed their extremist Miami-centric vision and have ‘Miamisized’ U.S. foreign policy toward all of Latin America and the Caribbean; because threatening Venezuela is threatening the entire continent.”

This statement fits with a script distributed through Siscom, the messaging system used by Venezuela’s Ministry for Communication and Information to send orders to media and digital activists. “The U.S. warmongering maneuver is driven by extremist sectors in South Florida, representing less than 10% of the U.S. population, who seek to impose their agenda on the entire country, ignoring the majorities who oppose wars and want the government to focus on internal problems,” reads a paragraph from the document. 

La Hora de Venezuela obtained several of these scripts, distributed between March and September 2025 to 40,000 users participating in more than 600 Siscom groups. The main messages: the entire nation is enlisting as if it were Vietnam, while at the same time there is an atmosphere of calm and normalcy. But the scripts also aim to influence public discourse in the United States, by contrasting the “Miami lobby” with America First and MAGA, framing a military escalation against Venezuela as a useless cost in the face of its internal problems.

The propaganda apparatus takes phrases from U.S. politicians, analysts, and media outlets and amplifies to validate its propaganda and disinformation narratives. 

On December 3, 2025, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern announced that he would introduce a resolution to force a vote in Congress against the Trump administration’s “crazy escalations” against Venezuela. “No one, except the president and his billionaire allies, wants this war,” McGovern stated. 

A few hours later, Madelein García, a journalist for Telesur—the international propaganda channel dependent on the Venezuelan Ministry for Communication and Information—quoted and translated McGovern’s post. It wasn’t necessary for journalists, media outlets, or communicators allied to his government to claim that Washington was divided: it was enough to amplify the message of a congressman speaking from within the U.S. political system, while avoiding the sound of propaganda.

In general, McGovern’s statement echoed talking points included in an operational manual formatted as a slide presentation that had been circulated months earlier through Siscom, on August 29, by Johannyl Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice minister of Communication and Information. Page 7 of that script includes, for example, phrases such as “Rubio does not speak for MAGA; he speaks for the war lobbies” and “His agenda does not respond to the popular movement that backed Trump, but rather to military corporations and extremist minorities.”

García’s quote of McGovern served as external validation for narratives that the Maduro administration is trying to position. There was no need for sympathetic journalists, outlets, or communicators to talk about divisions in Washington over Venezuela: amplifying a Democratic lawmaker from within the U.S. political system was enough to make the framing sound less like official propaganda.

Days earlier, on November 29, 2025, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer had also questioned the policy toward Venezuela, arguing that it didn’t align with the “America First” principle, alluding to the unnecessary expenditure of resources and internal priorities. 

Schumer’s argument also resonated with ideas already laid out in the August 29 presentation: the split between America First and war, and the cost of escalation for ordinary citizens. Among the lines in the script sent by the Maduro Ministry of Communication official includes lines such as: “Trump promised to prioritize U.S. interests over military adventures,” “War impoverishes the people: trillions of dollars are lost in foreign conflicts while poverty, inflation, and the housing crisis persist at home,” and “Why fund interventions around the world when millions of citizens work two or three jobs just to survive?”

Venezuela News, an “unofficial” mouthpiece for pro-Maduro propaganda—and a frequent amplifier of disinformation—reported Schumer’s statements as further proof that figures in the Democratic leadership are questioning the coherence and legitimacy of an escalation against Venezuela. 

On September 2, Juan González—former director for the Western Hemisphere at the Council of National Security during the Biden administration—questioned the logic of the military deployment in the Caribbean: “So the U.S. government is using false information to justify a terrorist designation and then spending at least $7 million a day to have a carrier strike group kill 11 traffickers…?” Days later, the Venezuelan News Agency (AVN) turned it into a headline (“Former Biden advisor denounces false information and million-dollar waste”). González’s comment was also reported by Venezuela News and Globovisión.

Once again, the framing was perfect for amplifying the script’s narratives, without the need to manufacture the message through Maduro’s propaganda apparatus.

Creating discord between Maga and Rubio

Alongside narratives about America First and the unnecessary use of U.S. public resources, the scripts distributed by Siscom also lay out another divisive line: portraying U.S. policy toward Venezuela as the result of an internal fracture, in which a minority—associated with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several Florida Cuban politicians—drags the country into an escalation unwanted by the rest of the population.

These guidelines aim to intervene in the U.S. public conversation from within, seeking to sow discord by amplifying pre-existing tensions between the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement and parts of Washington’s political apparatus.

The same script sent by Siscom on August 29, for example, defines staging guidelines for content that includes “short, direct material that connects with the MAGA audience.” Another section features “impact phrases” such as “Rubio does not speak for MAGA; he speaks for the war lobbies,” “Trump defends America First; Rubio puts his interests first,” or “Florida cannot impose a war in Latin America on the rest of the United States.”

Extra News Mundo, another “unofficial” source of Venezuelan propaganda, and “Unleash Dracarys,” (pseudonym used by Dayra Rivas, Director of Digital Media at Information Ministry), published a video to multiply the reaction of right wing activist Laura Loomer -who opposes military action in Venezuela- against an interview to Cuban American congresswoman María Elvira Salazar, a supporter of Machado. The video reiterates the “MAGA vs. Florida” trope recommended in the Siscom script: Cuban politicians in Florida are trying to impose a war on Trump.

Everyone is happy

Regarding the story line of “everything is fine in Venezuela and nobody is afraid of Trump,” the Maduro propaganda took advantage of a December 4 photo essay in The New York Times, which opens with a video of a group of Caracas residents dancing salsa in a nightclub and showcases scenes of concerts, baseball games, and Christmas celebrations in a country seemingly at peace. At the same time, the piece warns that the surveillance by security forces has stifled open expression of dissent and concludes with a question: whether this tranquility can truly be believed.

A summarized version of the article, published on The New York Times’ Instagram account, received over a thousand comments, at least half of which were negative or dismissive. The carousel opened with the same video of Venezuelans dancing salsa, but the final point of the report—the question of whether this calm is real—was relegated to the background. Its celebratory tone resonated with several pieces of reassuring propaganda that began appearing more frequently. 

Since mid-November, at least five videos of Venezuelans dancing and celebrating were shared through Nicolás Maduro’s official Telegram channel. In one of them, Maduro was seen dancing and calling for a party every day of the week. All of this content was massively and coordinatedly amplified by state media and digital activist networks, in line with the Street, Networks, Media, Walls, and Word of Mouth Method signed by Maduro, that broadly defines the government’s information operation.

That same approach also appears laid out as an operational line in another playbook circulated through Siscom. In a presentation sent on August 26, ahead of the launch of the #YoMeAlisto campaign, it explains: “Psychological warfare is defeated with images of peace, discipline, and normality,” and “Our response is to show that the country does not grind to a halt, that it continues producing, working, and moving forward.”

Even more explicit was the exploitation of another New York Times article, published on November 26, 2025, which compiled criticisms from former diplomats, experts, and opposition figures regarding statements attributed to María Corina Machado. The article warns that, amid the Trump administration’s military deployment in the Caribbean, some voices fear that false claims are being exaggerated or disseminated to justify intervention, and mentions “debunked claims” on issues of drug trafficking and security.

The report also echoed propaganda lines included in government scripts that present the “war on drugs” as a pretext for continuing the escalation and militarization of the Caribbean. In the script sent on August 29, for example, one line appears particularly clear: “The Cartel of the Suns is a media fabrication to justify aggression,” along with others that maintain that the U.S. uses this framework to promote regime change and expand its presence in the region.

Screenshots of that New York Times article were quickly seized upon by a network of propaganda video creators. The campaign attempted to reinforce a line already present in Siscom documents: to discredit María Corina Machado, presenting her as a source of disinformation that is pushing the United States toward intervention. An opportune corollary to the more than 80 hoaxes and disinformation incidents directed against Machado from Maduro’s communications apparatus in 2024 and 2025. 

Journalism in Venezuela operates in a hostile environment for the press, with dozens of legal instruments designed to punish speech, such as the laws “against hate,” “against fascism,” and “against the blockade.” This content was produced by journalists who are in Venezuela and is being published with full awareness of the threats and constraints that, as a result, have been imposed on the dissemination of information from within the country.

COPENHAGEN — The leaders of Denmark and Greenland insisted Monday that the United States won’t take over Greenland and demanded respect for their territorial integrity after President Trump ‍announced the appointment of a ‌special envoy to the semiautonomous territory.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry would be the envoy prompted a new flare-up of tensions over Washington’s interest in the vast territory of Denmark, a NATO ally. Denmark’s foreign minister told Danish broadcasters that he would summon the U.S. ambassador to his ministry.

”We have said it before. Now, we say it again. National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and her Greenlandic counterpart, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said in a joint statement. “They are fundamental principles. You cannot annex another country. Not even with an argument about international security.”

“Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and the U.S. shall not take over Greenland,” they added in the statement emailed by Frederiksen’s office. “We expect respect for our joint territorial integrity.”

Trump called repeatedly during his presidential transition and the early months of his second term for U.S. jurisdiction over Greenland, and has not ruled out military force to take control of the mineral-rich, strategically located Arctic island. In March, Vice President JD Vance visited a remote U.S. military base in Greenland and accused Denmark of under-investing there.

The issue gradually drifted out of the headlines, but in August, Danish officials summoned the top U.S. diplomat in Copenhagen following a report that at least three people with connections to Trump had carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.

On Sunday, Trump announced Landry’s appointment, saying on social media that “Jeff understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World.”

Landry wrote in a post on social media that “it’s an honor to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the U.S.”

Danish broadcasters TV2 and DR reported that in comments from the Faroe Islands on Monday, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said he summoned the U.S. ambassador in Copenhagen, Kenneth Howery, to his ministry.

Greenland’s prime minister wrote in a separate statement that Greenland had again woken up to a new announcement from the U.S. president, and that “it may sound significant. But it changes nothing for us here at home.”

Nielsen noted that Greenland has its own democracy and said that “we are happy to cooperate with other countries, including the United States, but this must always take place with respect for us and for our values and wishes.”

Earlier this month, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service said in an annual report that the U.S. is using its economic power to “assert its will” and threaten military force against friend and foe alike.

Denmark is a member of the European Union as well as NATO.

Anouar El Anouni, a spokesperson for the EU’s executive Commission, told reporters in Brussels on Monday that it wasn’t for him to comment on U.S. decisions. But he underlined the bloc’s position that “preserving the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, its sovereignty and the inviolability of its borders is essential for the European Union.”

Moulson writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — As the dawn rose on President Trump’s second term, one key figure from his first administration stood back, content to focus on his personal business interests and not retake a formal government role.

Now, nearly a year into Trump 2.0, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has been drawn back into the foreign policy fold and is taking a greater role in delicate peace negotiations. Talks had initially been led almost solo by special envoy Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul who had no government experience before this year.

The shift reflects a sense among Trump’s inner circle that Kushner, who has diplomatic experience, complements Witkoff’s negotiating style and can bridge seemingly intractable differences to close a deal, according to several current and former administration officials who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the internal deliberations.

That role was on display this weekend as Kushner and Witkoff took part in a blitz of diplomacy in Miami.

On Sunday, they concluded two days of talks with Russian negotiator Kirill Dmitriev in Miami on the latest proposals to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The talks with Dmitriev came after they met on Friday in Florida with the Ukrainian negotiating team, led by Rustem Umerov, as well as senior British, French and German national security officials. The Ukrainians and European officials stuck around Florida for more talks with U.S. government officials facilitated by Trump’s envoys.

Witkoff and Kushner also squeezed in meetings on Friday with Turkish and Qatari officials to discuss the fragile truce between Israel and Hamas in Gaza as they look to implement the second phase of Trump’s ceasefire plan.

Kushner and Witkoff employ contrasting styles

Witkoff, a longtime pal of Trump’s, is seen by some inside the administration as an oversize character who has traveled the world for diplomatic negotiations on his private jet and does not miss an opportunity to publicly praise the president for his foreign policy acumen, the officials say.

Kushner has his own complicated business interests in the Middle East and a sometimes transactional outlook to diplomacy that has distressed some officials in European capitals, a Western diplomat said.

Still, Kushner is seen as a more credible negotiator than Witkoff, who is viewed by many Ukrainian and European officials as overly deferential to Russian interests during the war that began with Moscow’s invasion in February 2022, the diplomat said.

“Kushner has a bit more of a track record from the first administration,” said Ian Kelly, a retired career diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Georgia who now teaches diplomacy at Northwestern University. Kelly stressed, however, that the jury is still out on Kushner’s intervention.

Trump views Kushner as a “trusted family member and talented adviser” who has played a pivotal role in some of his biggest foreign policy successes, said White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly.

Trump and Witkoff “often seek Mr. Kushner’s input given his experience with complex negotiations, and Mr. Kushner has been generous in lending his valuable expertise when asked,” Kelly added.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott called Kushner “a world-class negotiator.” Pigott noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is grateful for Kushner’s “willingness to serve our country and help President Trump solve some of the world’s most complex challenges.”

In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” in October, Kushner spoke about his unconventional approach to diplomacy.

“I was trained in foreign policy really in President Trump’s first term by seeing an outsider president come into Washington with a different school of foreign policy than had been brought in place for the 20 or 30 years prior,” he said.

But some Democrats and government oversight groups have expressed skepticism about Kushner’s role in shaping the administration policies in the Middle East while he manages billions of dollars in investments, including from Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s sovereign wealth funds through his firm, Affinity Partners.

Similarly, Witkoff has faced scrutiny for his and his family’s deep business ties to Gulf nations. Witkoff last year partnered with members of Trump’s family to launch a cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial, which received a $2 billion investment from a United Arab Emirates-controlled wealth fund.

“What people call conflicts of interests, Steve and I call experience and trusted relationships that we have throughout the world,” said Kushner, who is not drawing a salary from the White House for his advisory role.

White House counsel David Warrington said in a statement that Kushner’s efforts for Trump “are undertaken in full compliance with the law.”

“Given that Jared Kushner was a critical part of the efforts leading to the historic Abraham Accords and other diplomatic successes in the first Trump Administration, the President asked Mr. Kushner to be available as the President engages in similar efforts to bring peace to the world,” Warrington said in a statement, referring to Trump’s first-term effort that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. “Mr. Kushner has agreed to do so in his capacity as a private citizen.”

Kelly and other veterans of U.S. diplomatic encounters with the Russians over many years are also skeptical about Kushner’s ability to secure a Russia-Ukraine deal because Witkoff technically remains in the lead.

“I don’t see that the Witkoff approach is going to work,” Kelly said. “He doesn’t really read the Russians well. He misunderstands what they say and reports the misunderstandings back to Washington and the Europeans.”

“They seem to have this idea that the magic key is money: investment and development,” Kelly said. “But these guys don’t care about that, they are not real estate guys except in the sense that they want the land, period.”

Kushner was out of the spotlight until he wasn’t

For the first half of the year, Kushner stayed out of the spotlight, even as he pushed, unsuccessfully in some cases, to install some former associates — those with whom he worked on negotiating the Abraham Accords — into powerful roles in the new administration, according to the current and former administration officials.

Kushner had told Trump and others that while he would not be joining the second-term White House, he stood ready to offer his counsel if it was desired. That is a role he also played on a few occasions during the Biden years as the Democratic administration tried, without success, to expand the Abraham Accords.

Although Kushner remained an informal sounding board for Trump and top advisers, he resisted getting directly involved, even as the president expanded his peacemaking pursuits, until it became clear to him and others that the job might be too much for Witkoff to seal on his own, the officials said.

As Trump’s efforts to forge an agreement to end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza faltered over the summer, Kushner came in, trading on his experience and contacts in negotiating the Abraham Accords to help Witkoff push Trump’s plan over the finish line.

Agreed to in late September after frantic talks surrounding the annual U.N. General Assembly, the 20-point plan is still a work in progress, but its implementation is being coordinated by Kushner and numerous members of his Abraham Accords team.

“We always bring Jared when we want to get that deal closed,” Trump told Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, shortly after the agreement. “We need that brain on occasion.”

As soon as the Gaza plan was finalized, Kushner said he was returning to his family and day job in Miami, where he heads a multibillion-dollar private equity firm. His involvement in high-stakes peacemaking was only temporary, Kushner said, joking that his wife, Ivanka, might change the locks if he did not get home soon.

“I’m gonna try to help set it up, and then I’m gonna hopefully go back to my normal life,” Kushner said in October.

But within weeks of shepherding the Gaza ceasefire, Trump turned again to his fixer-in-law to dive into the Russia-Ukraine negotiations. They had been deadlocked for months despite persistent efforts by the White House to lure both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky into an agreement.

Trump hinted then that he would continue to lean on Kushner when the stakes are highest, just as he has done.

Lee and Madhani write for the Associated Press.

Billionaire Larry Ellison has stepped up, agreeing to personally guarantee part of Paramount’s bid for rival Warner Bros. Discovery.

Ellison’s personal guarantee of $40.4 billion in equity, disclosed Monday, ups the ante in the acrimonious auction for Warner Bros. movie and TV studios, HBO, CNN and Food Network.

Ellison, whose son David Ellison is chief executive of Paramount, agreed not to revoke the Ellison family trust or adversely transfer its assets while the transaction is pending. Paramount’s $30-a-share offer remains unchanged.

Warner Bros. Discovery’s board this month awarded the prize to Netflix. The board rejected Paramount’s $108.4-billion deal, largely over concerns about the perceived shakiness of Paramount’s financing.

Paramount shifted gears and launched a hostile takeover, appealing directly to Warner shareholders, offering them $30 a share.

“We amended this Offer to address Warner Bros. stated concerns regarding the Prior Proposal and the December 8 Offer,” Paramount said in a Monday Securities & Exchange Commission filing. “Mr. Larry Ellison is providing a personal guarantee of the Ellison Trust’s $40.4 billion funding obligation.”

The Ellison family acquired the controlling stake in Paramount in August. The family launched their pursuit of Warner Bros. in September but Warner’s board unanimously rejected six Paramount proposals.

Paramount started with a $19 a share bid for the entire company. Netflix has offered $27.75 a share and only wants the Burbank studios, HBO and the HBO Max streaming service. Paramount executives have held meetings with Warner investors in New York, where they echoed the proposal they’d submitted in the closing hours of last week’s auction.

On Monday, Paramount also agreed to increase the termination fee to $5.8 billion from $5 billion, matching the one that Netflix offered.

Warner Bros. board voted unanimously to accept Netflix’s $72-billion offer, citing Netflix’s stronger financial position, the board has said.

Three Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds representing royal families in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to provide $24 billion of the $40.4-billion equity component that Ellison is backing.

The Ellison family has agreed to cover $11.8-billion of that. Initially, Paramount’s bid included the private equity firm of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, but Kushner withdrew his firm last week.

Paramount confirmed that the Ellison family trust owns about 1.16 billion shares of Oracle common stock and that all material liabilities are publicly disclosed.

“In an effort to address Warner Bros.’s amorphous need for ‘flexibility’ in interim operations, Paramount’s revised proposed merger agreement offers further improved flexibility to Warner Bros. on debt refinancing transactions, representations and interim operating covenants,” Paramount said in its statement.

Paramount has been aggressively pursuing Warner Bros. for months.

David Ellison was stunned earlier this month when the Warner Bros. board agreed to a deal with Netflix for $82.7 billion for the streaming and studio assets.

Paramount subsequently launched its hostile takeover offer in a direct appeal to shareholders. Warner Bros. board urged shareholders to reject Paramount’s offer, which includes $54 billion in debt commitments, deeming it “inferior” and “inadequate.” The board singled out what it viewed as uncertain financing and the risk implicit in a revocable trust that could cause Paramount to terminate the deal at any time.

Paramount, controlled by the Ellisons, is competing with the most valuable entertainment company in the world to acquire Warner Bros.

Executives from both Paramount and Netflix have argued that they would be the best owners and utilize the Warner Bros. library to boost their streaming operations.

In its letter to shareholders and a detailed 94-page regulatory filing last week, Warner Bros. hammered away at risks in the Paramount offer, including what the company described as the Ellison family’s failure to adequately backstop their equity commitment.

The equity is supported by “an unknown and opaque revocable trust,” the board said. The documents Paramount provided “contain gaps, loopholes and limitations that put you, our shareholders, and our company at risk.”

Netflix also announced Monday that it has refinanced part of a $59 billion bridge loan with cheaper and longer-term debt.

Bloomberg contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — Mayor David N. Dinkins, battered by the budget crisis and seeking to project a message of personal accountability, invited ordinary citizens to his office Monday with suggestions on how to better life in the city.

Hundreds of people started lining up before dawn with complaints and ideas–including sending a squad of cowboys and cowgirls through poverty-stricken areas to preach AIDS-awareness and anti-drug messages, offering centralized computer access to municipal information, encouraging volunteerism and sacrificing a day’s pay a year to help the city.

After being pre-screened in front of City Hall, people in line were funneled through a metal detector to chat with the heads of appropriate agencies. A far smaller group met the mayor himself.

Was it a sincere search for innovation or a folksy public relations exercise? “I’d say it was 50-50,” said Michael Attisano, who emerged from the mayor’s office after suggesting a consolidation of the city’s separate housing and transit police forces. “I think he is going to get a lot of good ideas today.”

“Even now, there are those who see this as some sort of a gimmick,” Dinkins said. “It really is a desire to convey to the people of our city that this government really cares about them.”

The mayor’s invitation for ordinary citizens to meet with him came during a major televised address on July 30 that was designed to reassure both the city and the New York State Emergency Financial Control Board, created during the great fiscal crisis of the 1970s. The review board has the power under certain circumstances to seize financial control of the city.

In his speech, the mayor laid out a mixture of money-saving ideas, including ordering the heads of all city agencies, except for the police and fire departments, to give up their chauffeurs.

The mayor announced that he would not accept a pay raise for at least a year and set aside Monday as the day when New Yorkers with concerns and innovative ideas could come to see him.

And come they did. Coreen Brown of Brooklyn, arrived before dawn with a complaint about a sewer problem. When she emerged from the mayor’s office after waiting in line for hours, she admitted that she had broken into tears and Dinkins had given her a tissue.

“I forgot everything I wanted to say. I was going to invite him to my house,” Brown said.

Others remembered to deliver their messages.

Irving Scharf, a store owner from Brooklyn, suggested among other things that the mayor set up a lending-library system of math videotapes so children who miss classes because of illness or those who need extra credit can increase their learning skills.

“I am not here to berate the mayor. I am here to encourage him,” said Thelma Williams of the Bronx, who pushed for increased volunteerism and the sacrifice of a day’s pay by New Yorkers to help the city.

Carlos Foster, a rodeo producer who also lives in the Bronx, arrived wearing cowboy garb and proposed riding into poorer areas of the city with 10 cowboys and four cowgirls to preach against substance abuse and for safe sex.

Hulan Jack Jr., the son of a former Manhattan borough president in the 1960s, suggested putting all city data in central computer depositories for quick access.

Jack said that Dinkins listened and then had a municipal computer expert deliver a 30-second capsule of what already was being done. “Then we talked another minute and a half, and that was it,” he explained after leaving the mayor’s inner office.

The Dinkins invitation to New Yorkers brought out a summer Santa Claus, complete with red suit, and a woman dressed as the Easter Bunny. Police looked on bemusedly, except when Tasia Figueroa arrived with her 11-foot python, Shorty, draped around her neck.

The mayor’s staff, after quick consultation with police, asked that the snake be parked with Figueroa’s fiance while she went into City Hall to voice her municipal license complaint.

SACRAMENTO — I’ve got a wish list for Santa and it’s topped by this urgent request: a remodeled president with at least an ounce of humanity and humility.

Maybe a Ronald Reagan type. I’m not referring here to ideology or policies. Just common decency, someone who acts presidential.

I know, forget it. That’s beyond Santa’s reach. It would require a miracle. And that’s not likely to happen with President Trump, who seems increasingly to be auditioning for the devil’s disciple.

But you’d think as we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, America could be led by a president who at minimum doesn’t publicly trash the newly deceased.

Someone who follows the basic rules of good behavior and respect for others that our mothers taught us.

For Trump, the Golden Rule seems to be only about cheapening the historic Oval Office with tasteless gilded garnishments, turning it into an extension of his Mar-a-Lago resort. That’s what you’d expect from someone who would pave over the lovely Rose Garden.

But I’ve gotten off the point: the despicable way our unhinged president treats people he deems the enemy because they’ve criticized him, as we’ve got a right and often a duty to do in a democratic America.

What our president said about Rob Reiner after the actor-director-producer and his wife Michele were brutally stabbed to death in their Brentwood home, allegedly by their son Nick, should not have shocked us coming from Trump.

After all, this is a guy who once said that the late Sen. John McCain, a Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, tortured, maimed and held captive for five years, was “not a war hero … I like people that weren’t captured.”

He also once mocked a disabled New York Times reporter at a campaign rally, saying: “The poor guy, you ought to see this guy.” Then Trump jerked his arms around imitating someone with palsy.

He frequently attacks female reporters for their looks.

Recently, he called all Somali immigrants “garbage. … We don’t want them in our country.” As for Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, a onetime Somalian refugee, “she’s garbage. Her friends are garbage.”

But even with Trump’s sordid history of insults and insensitivity, what he disrespectfully said about Reiner was stunning. He implied that the Hollywood legend was killed by someone angered by Reiner’s criticism of Trump. Again, everything’s all about him, in this egotistical president’s mind.

Trump said the Reiners died “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”

Then the next day, he doubled down, telling reporters that Reiner “was a deranged person. … I thought he was very bad for our country.”

Topping off the holiday season for Trump, he orchestrated the renaming of Washington’s classy John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts after himself. From now on, it’s to be called the Trump Kennedy Center.

What’s next? The Washington National Cathedral?

OK, next on my Santa’s wish list is a governor who spends his last year in office trying to improve California rather than his presidential prospects. Actually, he could do the latter by doing the former: making this state a better place to live and proving his ability to sensibly govern.

Too many of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s projects fall flat, collapse or are a waste of energy and dollars.

One recently announced Newsom venture particularly is questionable. He seems to be using state resources and tax money to expand his overdone war with Trump rather than helping Californians with their everyday lives.

The governor unveiled a new state-run website that tracks what his office calls Trump’s “criminal cronies.” It catalogs major criminal convictions that were followed by Trump pardons — from Jan. 6 rioters to former politicians and business tycoons.

Yeah, well, so what? I suppose some people may be interested in that. But at taxpayers’ expense? Will the information lower gas prices? Make it easier to buy a home? Pay for childcare?

Here’s just one example of a Newsom program that failed miserably:

Early in his administration the governor announced with great fanfare that he was increasing fees on telephone service to pay for upgrading California’s 911 emergency communication system. The state spent $450 million, couldn’t make the new stuff work and abandoned the project, the Sacramento Bee reported after a lengthy investigation. Now they’re apparently going to start all over.

A little hands-on supervision by the governor next time could help.

Also on my wish list: A Legislature that doesn’t hibernate through the winter and wait until late spring before starting to push bills.

They’d need to change legislative rules. But Democrats with their supermajorities could do practically anything they wanted — even work earnestly during the cold months.

Either that or just stay home.

Included in the gift package: Legislation focused more on quality and less on quantity. This year, the Legislature passed 917 bills. My guess is that 100 meaty measures would have sufficed.

There’s one more item on my Santa list that all of America needs: A new casual greeting to replace “How ya doing?”

Nobody really wants to hear how most people are doing and they probably don’t want to candidly say anyway — not in an elevator, on the sidewalk or in a restaurant.

“Bad stomach flu,” I might honestly answer. You really want to hear that while chomping on a hamburger.

So, what do we replace it with?

Maybe simply: “Good morning.” Or “Go Dodgers.”

Or “Go Trump” — far away out of earshot.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Ronald Reagan biographer, legendary California journalist Lou Cannon dies
The TK: Newsom taps former CDC leaders critical of Trump-era health policies for new initiative
The L.A. Times Special: In a divided America, Rob Reiner was a tenacious liberal who connected with conservatives

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Dec. 22 (UPI) — Beijing unveiled tariffs as high as 42.7% on imports of European Union dairy products on Monday, saying the subsidies Brussels provided to producers in the 27-country bloc were the cause of “substantial damage” to China’s dairy industry.

The import taxes of between 21.9% and 42.7%, which come into force Tuesday following a 16-month-long anti-subsidy probe by China’s Ministry of Commerce, will affect France’s famous Roquefort, other blue, fresh and processsed cheeses as well as whole and unsweetened milk and cream.

“The investigating authority has preliminarily determined that imported dairy products originating from the European Union were subsidized, causing substantial damage to the relevant dairy product industry in China, and that there is a causal relationship between the subsidies and the substantial damage,” the ministry said in a statement.

It said that the highest levy would be applied to the products of firms that had failed to cooperate with the investigation with firms that had been cooperative only subject to a rate of 28.6%.

Firms named in the ministry list hailed from across the bloc with France, the Netherlands and Belgium heavily represented. Italian and Spanish producers also feature. Most companies were hit with a rate of 28.6% or 29.7%.

The Netherlands’ Friesland Campina and its subsidiary in neighboring Belgium were both hit with the top 42.7% rate along with an “Other EU Companies” grouping, which is not specified. It is unclear if this group is all EU companies not named in the document that export to China.

The EU criticized the action, saying it was neither justified nor warranted.

The move came just over a year after the EU hit China’s massive EV sector with import tariffs of as high as 36.3%, alleging unfair competition due to subsidies provided to the industry by the Chinese government.

Among the big three EV makers — BYD, Geely and SAIC — BYD and Geely were slapped with duties of 17% and 19.3% respectively, along with a 21.3% tariff on other “cooperating companies.”

The top rate was applied to SAIC together with other EV makers deemed not to have cooperated with the EU’s investigation.

The EV tariffs also saw Beijing launch anti-competition probes into Europe’s brandy and pork products industries, leading to accusations the EU was dumping surplus pork production in the Chinese market.

In September, Beijing imposed short-lived tariffs of between 15.6% and 62.4% on EU pork and pig by-product imports, but revised them down to between 4.9% and 19.8% on Tuesday.

Walking out of a Skid Row market, Harold Cook, 42, decides to play a game.

How long after opening YouTube will it take for him to see an ad asking him to join the latest wave of sex abuse litigation against Los Angeles County?

“I can literally turn my phone on right now, something’s going to pop up,” said Cook, opening the app.

Within a few seconds, a message blares: “They thought you’d never speak up. They figured you was too young, too scared, too Black, too brown, too alone. … L.A. County already had to cough up $4 billion to settle these cases. So why not you?”

Since the historic April payout to resolve thousands of claims of sex abuse in county-run facilities, law firms have saturated L.A.’s airwaves and social media with campaigns seeking new clients. For months, government officials have quietly questioned who is financing the wall-to-wall marketing blitz.

The ad Cook heard was from Sheldon Law Group, one of several law firms active in sex abuse litigation in California that receive backing from private investors, according to loan notices and SEC filings. The investors, which often operate through Delaware companies, expect to profit from the payouts to resolve the cases.

Sheldon, based in Washington, D.C., has been one of the most prolific L.A. advertisers. The firm has already gathered roughly 2,500 potential clients, according to a list submitted to the county. The lawsuits started being filed this summer, raising the prospect of another costly settlement squeezed out of a government on the brink of a fiscal crisis.

“We act in the best interests of our clients, who are victims in every sense of the word and have suffered real and quite dreadful injuries,” a spokesperson for Sheldon Law Group said in a statement. “Without financial and legal support, these victims would be unable to hold the responsible parties, powerful corporate or governmental defendants, accountable.”

The financing deals have raised alarms among lawmakers, who say they want to know what portion of the billions poised to be diverted from government services to victims of horrific sex abuse will go to opaque private investors.

Kathryn Barger, a member of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, said she was contacted by a litigation investor who sought to gauge whether sex abuse litigation could be a smart venture. “This is so predatory,” Barger told The Times.

(Juliana Yamada/Los Angeles Times)

“I’m getting calls from the East Coast asking me if people should invest in bankrupting L.A. County,” Supervisor Kathryn Barger said. “I understand people want to make money, but I feel like this is so predatory.”

Barger said an old college friend who invests in lawsuits reached out this spring attempting to gauge whether L.A. County sex abuse litigation could be a smart venture. Barger said the caller referred to the lawsuits as an “evergreen” investment.

“That means it keeps on giving,” she said. “There’s no end to it.”

The county has spent nearly $5 billion this year on sex abuse litigation, with the bulk of that total coming from the $4-billion deal this spring — the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

The April settlement is under investigation by the L.A. County district attorney office following Times reporting that found plaintiffs who said they were paid by recruiters to join the litigation, including some who said they filed fraudulent claims. All were represented by Downtown LA Law Group, which handled roughly 2,700 plaintiffs.

Downtown LA Law Group has denied all wrongdoing and said it “only wants justice for real victims.” The firm took out a bank loan in summer 2024, according to a financing statement, but a spokesperson said they had no investor financing.

Lawyers who take the private financing say it’s a win-win. Investors make money on high-interest rate loans while smaller law firms have the capital they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and governments. If people were victimized by predators on the county’s payroll, they deserve to have a law firm that can afford to work for free until the case settles. Money for investors, they emphasize, comes out of their cut — not the clients’.

But critics say the flow of outside money incentivizes law firms to amass as many plaintiffs as possible for the wrong reasons — not to spread access to justice, but rather ensure hefty profit for themselves and their financial backers.

“The amount of money being generated by private equity in these situations — that’s absurd,” said former state lawmaker Lorena Gonzalez, who wrote the 2019 bill that opened the floodgate for older sex abuse claims to be filed. “Nobody should be getting wealthy off taxpayer dollars.”

For residents of L.A.’s poorest neighborhood, ads touting life-changing payouts have started to feel inescapable.

Waiting in line at a Skid Row food shelter, William Alexander, 27, said his YouTube streaming is punctuated by commercials featuring a robotic man he suspects is AI calling on him to sue the county over sex abuse.

Across the street, Shane Honey, 56, said nearly every commercial break on the news seems to feature someone asking if he was neglected at a juvenile hall.

In many of the ads, the same name pops up: Sheldon Law Group.

Austin Trapp, a case worker in Skid Row, was among several people in the neighborhood who said ads seeking people to join sex abuse litigation against L.A. County have become increasingly common.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Sheldon’s website lists no attorneys, but claims the firm is the “architect” behind “some of the largest litigations on Earth.” They list their headquarters online at a D.C. virtual office space, though the owners on their most recent business filing list their own addresses in New York. The firm’s name appears on websites hunting for people suffering from video game addiction, exposure to toxins from 9/11, and toe implant failure.

Sheldon Law Group was started by the founder of Legal Recovery Associates, a New York litigation funding company that uses money from investors including hedge funds to recruit large numbers of plaintiffs for “mass torts,” cases where many people are suing over the same problem, according to interviews with former advisers, court records and business filings.

Those clients are gathered for one of their affiliated law firms, including Sheldon Law Group, according to two people involved in past transactions.

Ron Lasorsa, a former Wall Street investment banker who said he advised Legal Recovery Associates on setting up the affiliate law firms, told The Times it was built to make investors “obscenely rich.”

“It’s extremely profitable for people who know what the hell they’re doing,” Lasorsa said.

The idea, he says, emerged from a pool cabana at a Las Vegas legal conference called Mass Torts Made Perfect in fall 2015.

A man visiting friends on Skid Row holds up his phone showing an ad recruiting clients for sex abuse case in Los Angeles County on December 11, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Lasorsa had just amassed 14,000 clients for personal injury lawsuits in one year using methods that, he now says, were legally dubious. A favorite at the time: using call centers in India that had access to Americans’ hospital records and phoning the patients to see if they were feeling litigious.

Near the pool at a Vegas hotel, Lasorsa said Howard Berger, a former hedge fund manager barred by the SEC from working as a broker, asked if he could turbocharge the caseload of Legal Recovery Associates, where he worked as a consultant.

Lasorsa said he soon teamed up with the founders of LRA — Gary Podell, a real estate developer, and Greg Goldberg, a former investment manager — to create “shell” law firms based in Washington. The nation’s capital is one of the few places where non-lawyers can own a law firm, profiting directly from case proceeds.

Goldberg, who is not licensed to practice law in D.C., would become a partner in at least six D.C. law firms including Sheldon Law Group by 2017, according to a contract between Legal Recovery Associates and a hedge fund that financed the firms’ cases.

Sheldon, which said it was responding on behalf of Podell, said in a statement that all their partners are lawyers, though declined to name them. Goldberg did not respond to a repeated request for comment.

The Sheldon spokesperson said Legal Recovery Associates is a separate entity that engages in its “own business and legal activities.”

Investors typically make money on litigation by providing law firms with loans, which experts say carry interest rates as high as 30%, representing the risk involved. If the case goes south, investors get nothing. If it settles, they make it all back — and then some.

Lasorsa said he helped the company gather 20,000 claims using the same Indian call centers before a bitter 2019 split. He later accused the owners of unethical behavior, which led to a half-million dollar settlement and a non-disparagement agreement that he said he decided to breach, leading to a roughly $600,000 penalty he has yet to pay, according to a court judgment.

Lasorsa was also ordered to delete any disparaging statements he’d made, according to the judgment.

D.C. law firms with non-lawyers as partners must have the “sole purpose” of providing “legal services,” according to the district’s bar. Some attorneys have argued no such service was provided by the firms associated with Legal Recovery Associates.

Troy Brenes, an Orange County attorney who co-counseled with one of the firms over flawed medical devices, accused the company of operating a “sham law firm” as part of a 2022 court battle over fees.

“The sole purpose … appears to have been to allow non-lawyers to market for product liability cases and then refer those cases to legitimate law firms in exchange for a portion of the attorney fees without making any effort to comply with the D.C. ethics rules,” Brenes wrote.

A spokesperson for Sheldon and LRA noted in a statement that “no court or arbitration panel has ever concluded” that its business structure violates the law.

In the medical device cases, the affiliate firm, which was responsible for funding the marketing campaign, took 55% of recoverable attorney fees, according to an agreement between the two firms. The profit divide mirrors the 55/45 breakdown between Sheldon Law Group and James Harris Law, a two-person Seattle firm they have partnered with on the L.A. County sex abuse cases, according to a retainer agreement reviewed by The Times.

A person on Skid Row in downtown L.A. shows an ad on their phone seeking plaintiffs to joint a lawsuit over sexual abuse in juvenile halls.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

This summer, ads linking to a webpage with the name of James Harris appeared online, telling potential clients they could qualify in 30 seconds for up to $1 million. When a Times reporter entered a cell-phone number on one of the ads, a representative who said they worked for the firm’s intake department called dozens of times.

After The Times described these marketing efforts in a story, Harris emphasized in an email that he did not know about the ads or the persistent calls and said they were done by his “referring firm.” The landing page the ads led to was replaced with the name of Sheldon Law Group.

Harris said his firm and Sheldon, which he described as “functioning as a genuine and independent co counsel law firm,” have “been highly selective and have only prosecuted cases that we believe are legally and factually meritorious.”

“I continue to believe that lawyer advertising, when conducted ethically and without misleading claims, serves as a vital tool for raising public awareness about legal rights and available recourse, particularly for survivors of abuse seeking justice,” he said.

Over the last five years, experts say, the practice of funding big mass tort cases has boomed in the U.S.

Of the five main firms in L.A. County’s initial $4-billion sex abuse settlement, two took money from outside investors shortly before they began suing the county, according to public loan filings.

The loans to both Herman Law, a Florida-based firm that specializes in sex abuse cases, and Slater Slater Schuman, a New York-based personal injury firm, came from Delaware-registered companies. Deer Finance, a New York City litigation funding firm that connects investors with lawyers, is listed on business records for both companies.

The loan documents do not specify which of the firms’ cases were funded, but show each deal was finalized within months of the firms starting to sue L.A. County for sex abuse. Neither firm responded to questions about how the outside funding was used.

Slater, which received the loan in spring 2022, represents more L.A. County plaintiffs than any other firm, by far.

Slater’s caseload surged after the county signaled its plan to settle for $4 billion in October 2024. Several of the main attorneys on the case told The Times they stopped advertising at that point, reasoning that any new plaintiffs would now mean less money for the existing ones.

The next month, Slater Slater Schulman ran more than 700 radio ads in Los Angeles seeking juvenile detention abuse claims, according to X Ante, a company that tracks mass tort advertisements.

By this summer, the number of claims jumped from roughly 2,100 to 3,700, according to court records, catapulting Slater far beyond the caseload of any other firm.

This fall, another Delaware-registered company took out a lien on all of Slater’s attorney fees from the county cases, according to an Oct. 6 loan record. The law firm assisting with the transaction declined to comment.

“These are extraordinarily complex cases and litigating these cases effectively requires resources,” said an outside attorney representing Slater in a statement, responding to questions from The Times.

The firm, which also represents roughly 14,000 victims in the Boy Scouts sex abuse cases, was singled out by the judge overseeing the litigation this fall for “procedural and factual problems” among its plaintiffs. The firm was one of several called out by insurers in the litigation for using hedge fund money to “run up the claim number.”

The firm has said they’re working “tirelessly” to address the issues and justice for survivors is its top priority.

April Mannani, who says she was assaulted in the 1990s by an officer while she was housed at MacLaren Children’s Center, said she feels lawyers on the sex abuse cases are putting profits ahead of the best interests of clients.

(Jimena Peck/For The Times)

Many plaintiffs told The Times they were discouraged to see how much money stood to be made for others off their trauma.

April Mannani, 51, sued L.A. County after she said she was raped repeatedly as a teenager at MacLaren Children’s Center, a shelter now notorious for abuse. Mannani accepts that her lawyers are entitled to a cut for their work on the case, but said she was disheartened watching the numbers of cases suddenly skyrocket this year. With the district attorney investigating, a pall has been cast over the entire settlement.

“We’ve been made fools of and we were used for financial gain,” she said. “They all just see it as a money grab.”

That firm that represents her, Herman Law, has filed roughly 800 cases against L.A. County. Herman Law took out a loan in 2021 from a Delaware-registered company affiliated with Deer Finance, according to a loan notice. The firm said they use traditional bank loans for “overall operations.”

Herman Law is the most prolific filer of county sex abuse cases outside of L.A. County since the state changed the statute of limitations.

Herman Law has filed about half of these roughly 800 sex abuse lawsuits that have been brought outside of L.A. County, according to data reviewed by The Times.

Herman Law has sued several tiny counties, where public officials say they’ve been inundated with advertisements on social media and TV looking for plaintiffs. Some counties say they threw out relevant records long ago and have no way to tell if the alleged victim was ever in local custody.

A judge fined Herman Law about $9,500 last month for failing to dismiss Kings County from a lawsuit despite presenting no evidence the county ever had custody of the victim, calling the claim “factually frivolous” and “objectively unreasonable.” An attorney for Herman Law said in a court filing the client believed she’d been in a foster home there, and the lack of records didn’t conclusively establish anything.

“There are not records. There’s nothing that exists,” said Jason Britt, the county administrative officer for Tulare County, which has been sued at least eight times by Herman Law. “Counties at some point are not gonna be able to operate because you’re essentially going to bankrupt them.”

The firm said its clients are always its top priority.

“No lender or financial relationship has ever influenced, directed or played any role in legal strategy, client decisions or case outcomes, including any matters involving the Los Angeles County,” the firm said. “Herman Law’s work is driven solely by our mission to advocate for survivors in their pursuit of justice and healing.”

Joseph Nicchitta, L.A. County’s acting chief executive officer, said he believed the region’s social safety net was now “an investment opportunity.” In an October letter to the State Bar, he called out the “explosive growth” of claims, arguing a handful of firms were “competing to bring as many cases as possible” to the detriment of their existing clients.

He estimated that attorney fees in the lawsuit would amount to more than $1 billion. “It begs reform,” he wrote.

SANTIAGO, Chile, Dec. 19 (UPI) — After nearly two decades of relative stability, the advance of organized crime has reshaped security across Latin America.

The expansion of illicit economies, armed disputes over territorial control and rising violence triggered new migration flows and partly explain the region’s political shift toward right-wing governments in 2025.

According to a report by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 39 organized crime groups are operating across Latin America.

The report said these groups have become more interconnected and sophisticated, “coordinating operations not only at the local level but also across borders and even continents.”

One of the main factors behind the expansion of criminal structures is business diversification, said organized crime specialist Hugo Contreras, who holds a doctorate in social complexity sciences and is a researcher at the School of Government at Universidad del Desarrollo.

“Organized groups stopped being just traffickers and adopted a portfolio of activities such as extortion, contract killings, smuggling, arms trafficking and human trafficking,” Contreras told UPI. “That has multiplied and diversified their sources of illicit income, as well as their territorial control and disputes.”

He said the trend has been compounded by institutional weakness, including collapsed prison systems that have turned into logistical hubs for criminal groups and judicial systems ill-prepared to confront the phenomenon.

“There has been an emergence of more aggressive and sophisticated transnational criminal gangs, with international networks, greater financial capacity and increased firepower,” Contreras said.

He added that the situation has been reinforced by “massive migration flows from different conflict regions, which these groups have exploited to conceal their members, recruit new people and expand their criminal activities into other countries.”

Pablo Carvacho, director of research and development at the Center for Justice and Society at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, shared that assessment, noting that organized crime is especially dynamic and adaptable.

“Migratory processes created space for the development of transnational illicit activities such as human trafficking and sexual or labor exploitation, particularly affecting a highly vulnerable group like migrants,” Carvacho told UPI.

“These flows served as an entry point for countries such as Chile, where criminal activity was not as developed as what we are seeing today,” he said.

The new scenario has deeply transformed internal security dynamics across the region, turning local problems into international threats that are more violent and more damaging to social and political stability, Contreras said.

Criminal organizations manage and contest territory, impose their own rules, control prisons and challenge state authority.

“This forces governments to move beyond traditional crime-control strategies and adopt comprehensive responses that combine financial intelligence, border security, international cooperation and prison reform,” he said.

Contreras said the impact varies widely across the region depending on how deeply organized crime has taken root in each country.

In 2025, Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil and Haiti ranked among the world’s 10 most dangerous countries based on indicators such as mortality, risk to civilians, geographic spread of conflict and the number of armed groups, according to a conflict index published by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, a nongovernmental organization known as ACLED.

The report said rising violence has been a common trend across Latin America this year. However, the sharpest deterioration was recorded in those four countries.

In Mexico, the organization linked the surge in violence to factors including an internal war within the Sinaloa cartel following the July 2024 arrest in the United States of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, one of the group’s historic leaders.

In Ecuador, ACLED warned that violence levels are on track to reach record highs in 2025. It said the homicide rate could be the highest in Latin America for a third consecutive year and that gang-related violence has caused more than 3,600 deaths.

In Haiti, gangs have taken advantage of the political instability the country has faced since 2021, expanding their operations from the capital, Port-au-Prince, to other areas.

In a different political context, criminal gangs in Brazil have also fueled major clashes as they fought for territorial control in cities such as Rio de Janeiro. A large-scale police operation in that city targeting the Comando Vermelho, one of the country’s main criminal groups, left 121 people dead.

The rise in violence and organized crime has contributed to at least 10 countries in the region electing right-wing governments in the 2024-2025 period.

Carvacho said more conservative platforms “place greater emphasis on public order and the intensive use of coercive tools, with strategies based on police force, military deployment, harsher criminal penalties and territorial control.”

He said these approaches often rely on emergency measures under states of exception, with rapid executive decisions and reforms, as well as a greater willingness to strengthen ties with foreign intelligence agencies, including those of the United States.

In Carvacho’s view, containing transnational organized crime requires coordination among countries because “emergency policies alone will not stop its advance.”

He said what can truly weaken these organizations is targeting their financial assets and reducing the pool of people, including children and adolescents, vulnerable to recruitment.

“Everything else is treating the symptoms of a disease,” Carvacho said. “It is arriving late to a problem that is not about criminal law but about vulnerability and the lack of opportunities in communities excluded from society. That is where the state must act.”

Fighting has resumed hours before the countries’ foreign ministers meet in Malaysia to discuss steps to de-escalate hostilities.

A “60 Minutes” story on the Trump administration’s imprisonment of hundreds of deported Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador was pulled by CBS News Editor-In-Chief Bari Weiss shortly before it was scheduled to air Sunday night.

The unusual decision drew a sharp rebuke from Sharyn Alfonsi, the correspondent for the piece.

Alfonsi said the decision was motivated by politics, according to an email she circulated to colleagues and viewed by the Times. Alfonsi noted that the story was ready for air after being vetted by the network’s attorneys and the standards and practices department.

“It is factually correct,” Alfonsi wrote. “In my view, pulling it now — after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.”

According to the CBS News press department’s description of the segment, Alfonsi spoke to released deportees who described “the brutal and torturous conditions they endured inside CECOT,” one of El Salvador’s harshest prisons.

In a statement, a representative for CBS News said the report called “Inside CECOT” will air in a future “60 Minutes” broadcast. “We determined it needed additional reporting,” the representative said.

Weiss viewed the segment late Thursday, according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly. She had a number of issues with story and asked for additional reporting, which could not be completed in time for airing on Sunday. A press release promoting the story went out Friday.

Weiss reportedly wanted the story to have an interview with an official in President Trump’s administration.

But Alonsi said in her email the program “requested responses to questions and/or interviews” with the the Department of Homeland Security, the White House and the State Department.

“Government silence is a statement, not a VETO,” Alfonsi wrote. “Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.”

Alfonsi’s email said she learned the story was pulled on Saturday and that she had not discussed the matter with Weiss.

Even if Weiss’ concerns might be valid, the sudden postponement of a “60 Minutes” piece after it has been promoted on air, on social media and through listings on TV grids is a major snafu for the network.

For Weiss, it’s perilous situation as her every move as a digital media entrepreneur with no experience in television is being closely scrutinized.

As the founder of the conservative-friendly digital news site who was personally recruited by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, journalists at CBS News and media industry observers are watching to see if Weiss’ actions are tilting its editorial content to the right.

Before it was acquired by Skydance Media, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a Trump lawsuit making the dubious claim that a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to aid her 2024 presidential election campaign against him.

Trump recently said “60 Minutes” is “worse” under Paramount’s new ownership following an interview with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, in which she was highly critical of the president and his administration.

Paramount acquired the Free Press for $150 million as part of the deal to bring Weiss over. Her first major move was to air a highly sympathetic town hall with Erika Kirk, the widow of slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. Erika Kirk has taken over as head of Turning Point USA, the political organization her husband founded.

PHOENIX — Vice President JD Vance said Sunday that the conservative movement should be open to everyone as long as they “love America,” declining to condemn a streak of antisemitism that has divided the Republican Party and roiled the opening days of Turning Point USA’s annual convention.

After a long weekend of debates about whether the movement should exclude figures such as bigoted podcaster Nick Fuentes, Vance came down firmly against “purity tests.”

“I didn’t bring a list of conservatives to denounce or to de-platform,” Vance said during the Phoenix convention’s closing speech.

Turning Point leader Erika Kirk, who took the helm after the fatal shooting of her husband, Charlie Kirk, has endorsed Vance as a potential successor to President Trump, a helpful nod from an influential group with an army of volunteers.

But the tension on display at the four-day gathering foreshadowed the treacherous political waters that Vance, or anyone else who seeks the next Republican presidential nomination, will need to navigate in the coming years. Top voices in the “Make America Great Again” movement are jockeying for influence as Republicans begin considering a future without Trump, and there is no clear path to holding his coalition together.

Defining a post-Trump GOP

The Republican Party’s identity has been intertwined with Trump for a decade, but he’s constitutionally ineligible to run for reelection despite his musings about serving a third term. Tucker Carlson said people are wondering, “who gets the machinery when the president exits the scene?”

So far, it looks like settling that question will come with a lot of fighting among conservatives. The Turning Point conference featured arguments about antisemitism, Israel and environmental regulations, not to mention rivalries among leading commentators.

Ben Shapiro, co-founder of the conservative media outlet Daily Wire, used his speech on the conference’s opening night to denounce “charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty.”

“These people are frauds and they are grifters and they do not deserve your time,” Shapiro said. He specifically called out Carlson for hosting Fuentes for a friendly interview on his podcast.

Carlson brushed off the criticism when he took the stage barely an hour later, and he said the idea of a Republican “civil war” was “totally fake.”

“There are people who are mad at JD Vance, and they’re stirring up a lot of this in order to make sure he doesn’t get the nomination,” he said. Carlson described Vance as “the one person” who subscribes to the “core idea of the Trump coalition,” which Carlson said was “America first.”

Turning Point spokesperson Andrew Kolvet framed the discord as a healthy debate about the future of the movement, an uncomfortable but necessary process of finding consensus.

“We’re not hive-minded commies,” he wrote on social media. “Let it play out.”

‘You don’t have to apologize for being white anymore’

Vance acknowledged the controversies that dominated the Turning Point conference, but he did not define any boundaries for the conservative movement besides patriotism.

“We don’t care if you’re white or black, rich or poor, young or old, rural or urban, controversial or a little bit boring, or somewhere in between,” he said.

Vance didn’t name anyone, but his comments came in the midst of an increasingly contentious debate over whether the right should give a platform to commentators espousing antisemitic views, particularly Fuentes, whose followers see themselves as working to preserve America’s white, Christian identity. Fuentes has a growing audience, as does top-rated podcaster Candace Owens, who routinely shares antisemitic conspiracy theories.

“We have far more important work to do than canceling each other,” he said.

Vance ticked off what he said were the accomplishments of the administration as it approaches the one-year mark, noting its efforts at the border and on the economy. He emphasized efforts to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies, drawing applause by saying they had been relegated to the “dustbin of history.”

“In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore,” he said.

Vance also said the U.S. “always will be a Christian nation,” adding that “Christianity is America’s creed, the shared moral language from the Revolution to the Civil War and beyond.”

Those comments resonated with Isaiah White-Diller, an 18-year-old from Yuma, Ariz., who said he would support Vance if he runs for president.

“I have my right to be Christian here, I have my right to say whatever I want,” White-Diller said.

Turning Point backs Vance

Vance hasn’t disclosed his future plans, but Erika Kirk said Thursday that Turning Point wanted Vance “elected for 48 in the most resounding way possible.” The next president will be the 48th in U.S. history.

Turning Point is a major force on the right, with a nationwide volunteer network that can be especially helpful in early primary states, when candidates rely on grassroots energy to build momentum. In a surprise appearance, rapper Nicki Minaj spoke effusively about Trump and Vance.

Vance was close with Charlie Kirk, and they supported each other over the years. After Kirk’s killing on a college campus in Utah in September, the vice president flew out on Air Force Two to collect Kirk’s remains and bring them home to Arizona. Vance helped uniformed service members carry the casket to the plane.

Emily Meck, 18, from Pine City, N.Y., said she appreciated Vance making space for what she called a wide variety of views.

“We are free-thinkers, we’re going to have these disagreements, we’re going to have our own thoughts,” Meck said.

Trump has spoken highly of both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as potential successors, even suggesting they could form a future Republican ticket. Rubio has said he would support Vance.

Asked in August whether Vance was the “heir apparent,” Trump said, “Most likely.”

“It’s too early, obviously, to talk about it, but certainly he’s doing a great job, and he would be probably [the] favorite at this point,” he said.

Cooper and Govindarao write for the Associated Press.

Dec. 21 (UPI) — The U.S. Coast Guard is chasing down a third foreign oil tanker in the Caribbean, which refused to be boarded amid President Donald Trump‘s pressure campaign against Venezuela, reports said Sunday.

“The U.S. Coast Guard is in active pursuit of a sanctioned dark fleet vessel that is part of Venezuela’s illegal sanctions evasion,” an unnamed official told NBC News. “It is flying a false flag and under a judicial seizure order.”

The tanker Bella 1 was placed under U.S. sanctions in June 2024 under counterterrorism authorities, according to the Treasury Department, which said the vessel was part of a shipping network linked to Sa’id al-Jamal, a U.S.-designated Houthi financial facilitator.

Vessels in that network have been used to transport sanctioned oil, including Iranian crude, and the proceeds are directed to militant groups, U.S. officials have said in describing the basis for the sanctions.

Separately, U.S. officials said federal authorities obtained a seizure warrant from a magistrate judge authorizing them to take possession of the Bella 1, The New York Times reported. Officials cited Bella 1’s alleged prior involvement in the Iranian oil trade rather than any alleged links to Venezuela.

The ship was allegedly not flying a valid national flag when U.S. forces approached it, which would allow for it to be boarded at sea under international law. But the ship refused to be boarded and continued sailing, one official told The New York Times as another called it “an active pursuit.”

If seized, the Bella 1 would become the third tanker apprehended by U.S. authorities. On Saturday, the U.S. Coast Guard seized another tanker in international waters near Venezuela after Trump declared a blockade of Venezuela.

That tanker was flying a Panamanian flag and was carrying Venezuelan oil that it expected to sell in Asia, officials alleged.

Last Wednesday, a sanctioned oil tanker called The Skipper was also seized after it left a Venezuelan port. The ship was diverted to Texas and was allegedly flying the flag of Venezuela’s neighbor, Guyana, which said the ship is not among those registered there.

DENVER — Colorado Gov. Jared Polis accused President Trump of playing “political games” Sunday after the federal government denied disaster declaration requests after wildfires and flooding in the state earlier this year.

Polis’ office said he received two denial letters from the Federal Emergency Management Agency late Saturday. The letters are in response to requests for major disaster declarations following wildfires and mudslides in August and what Polis had described as “historic flooding” across southwestern Colorado in October.

Polis and Colorado’s U.S. senators, fellow Democrats Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, decried the denials. Polis said the state would appeal.

“Coloradans impacted by the Elk and Lee fires and the flooding in Southwestern Colorado deserve better than the political games President Trump is playing,” he said in a statement.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said Trump responds to each request for federal disaster assistance “with great care and consideration, ensuring American tax dollars are used appropriately and efficiently by the states to supplement — not substitute — their obligation to respond to and recover from disasters.”

Jackson said there is “no politicization” in Trump’s decisions on disaster aid.

The Trump administration has also yet to act on California’s request for $33.9 million in long-term disaster assistance nearly a year after the Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom said FEMA officials refused his request for a meeting when he visited Washington a few weeks ago.

Trump has raised the idea of “phasing out” FEMA, saying he wants states to take more responsibility. States already take the lead in disasters, but federal assistance comes into play when the needs exceed what they can manage on their own.

Dec. 21 (UPI) — House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, R-N.Y., said Sunday that he expects lawmakers to pass a bipartisan compromise on extending Affordable Care Act tax credits.

Jeffries said on ABC News’ “This Week” that lawmakers will pass a bi-partisan compromise to extend ACA tax credits extension in the House, potentially forcing Senate Republicans hand on health insurance subsidies for at least 22 million Americans who will face higher premiums in the new year.

Congress adjourned for Christmas without reaching a deal on extending on the tax credits, which Jeffries promised that House lawmakers will address in early January.

“That will put pressure on John Thune and Senate Republicans to actually do the right thing by the American people, pass a straightforward extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits, so we can keep health care affordable for tens of millions of Americans who deserve to be able to go see a doctor when they need one,” Jeffries said.

Democrats have said if the two sides are unable to reach a deal on an extension, they will wield it against Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

Rep. Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., has said access to affordable health care remains among the most pressing issues among voters.

“It’s just pathetic,” Ryan said. “The last time there was a major national Republican effort to repeal the ACA, we had an overwhelming wave where they got absolutely wiped out, and I think that’s likely what will happen here again.”

A handful of centrist Republicans in vulnerable congressional districts bypassed the authority of House Speaker Mike Johnson to team up with key Democrats to authorize a vote on a three-year tax credit extension when the House returns to Washington the week of Jan. 5.

Some Republican leaders have said they favor allowing Covid-era tax credits that made health care more affordable for millions of Americans to expire or be phased out over several years. Other members of the GOP, however, have said they favor extending the credits for longer.

By a vote of 51-48 Thursday, the Senate rejected a three year ACA extension with four Democrats joining the GOP to vote it down.

Tensions are growing in Bangladesh after the killing of a student leader of last year’s uprising that ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Elections for a new government are due in February.

So, how volatile is the political situation?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Taqbir Huda – human rights lawyer and Clarendon Scholar at Oxford University

Asif Shahan – professor of development studies at the University of Dhaka

Fahmida Khatun – executive director at the Centre for Policy Dialogue in Bangladesh

The author of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire was upset about changes made to the report, without his involvement, that downplayed the failures of city and LAFD leaders in preparing for and fighting the disastrous Jan. 7 fire, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

The author’s complaints reached Mayor Karen Bass’ office in mid-November, after the LAFD had publicly released the report, said Clara Karger, a spokesperson for Bass.

“The Mayor has inquired with Chief Moore about the concerns,” Karger said last week, referring to LAFD Chief Jaime Moore.

The sources, who requested anonymity to protect their relationships with the LAFD and city officials, said the report by Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook was intended to be a final draft. Cook declined to comment.

The Times posted an article Saturday that analyzed seven drafts of the after-action report, obtained through a public records request. The most significant changes involved the LAFD’s deployment decisions before the fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire.

In one instance, LAFD officials removed language saying that the decision to not fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days.

Instead, the final report said that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

The deletions and revisions have drawn criticism from some who questioned the LAFD’s ability to acknowledge its mistakes before and during the blaze — and to avoid repeating them in the future.

In the months since the fire, residents who lost their homes have expressed outrage over unanswered questions and contradictory information about how top LAFD officials prepared for the dangerous weather forecast and how they handled a smaller New Year’s Day blaze, called the Lachman fire, which rekindled into the massive Palisades fire six days later.

On Saturday, after the report by The Times was published online, City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez issued a statement about the toning down of the after-action report.

“Today’s reporting makes clear that accountability is optional when after-action reports are conducted in-house with oversight by political appointees,” Rodriguez said. “If these reports are purposefully watered down to cover up failures, it leaves Angelenos, firefighters, and city officials without a full understanding of what happened and what needs to change. After-action reports must be independent to ensure honest assessments in order to avoid repeating disastrous errors and to protect our communities in the future.”

Former interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva, who oversaw the completion of the report before it was made public in October, did not respond to requests for comment.

Karger, the Bass spokesperson, said this month that the report “was written and edited by the Fire Department.” Bass’ office did not demand changes to the drafts and asked the LAFD to confirm only the accuracy of items such as how the weather and the department’s budget factored into the disaster, Karger said in an email.

The LAFD has refused to answer questions about the revisions and Cook’s concerns, citing an ongoing federal court case. Federal prosecutors have charged a former Palisades resident with setting the Lachman fire.

David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said it’s “disingenuous” of LAFD officials to cite the investigation as a reason they can’t respond to The Times’ inquiries.

“There’s nothing about the existence of a federal investigation that prohibits them from commenting,” Loy said. “They just choose not to comment.”

Three of the seven drafts of the after-action report obtained by The Times are marked with dates: Two versions are dated Aug. 25, and there is a draft from Oct. 6, two days before the LAFD released the final report to the public.

Some drafts of the after-action report described an on-duty LAFD captain calling Fire Station 23 in the Palisades on Jan. 7 to report that “the Lachman fire started up again,” indicating the captain’s belief that the Palisades fire was caused by a reignition of the earlier blaze.

The reference was deleted in one draft, then restored in the public version, which contains only a brief mention of the Lachman fire. Some have said that the after-action report’s failure to thoroughly examine the Lachman fire reignition was designed to shield LAFD leadership and the Bass administration from criticism and accountability.

Weeks after the report’s release, The Times reported that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the burn area on Jan. 2, even though they had complained that the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch. Another battalion chief assigned to the LAFD’s risk management section knew about the complaints for months, but the department kept that information out of the after-action report.

After The Times’ report, Bass asked Villanueva to “thoroughly investigate” the LAFD’s missteps in putting out the Lachman fire.

Moore, an LAFD veteran who became chief last month, has been tasked with commissioning the independent investigation that Bass requested.

Several key items were wholly deleted from the after-action report. The final version listed only 42 items in the section on recommendations and lessons learned, while the first version reviewed by The Times listed 74.

A section on “failures” was renamed “primary challenges,” and an item saying that crews and leaders had violated national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter deaths and injuries was scratched.

Another passage that was deleted said that some crews waited more than an hour for an assignment the day of the fire.

Two drafts contain notes typed in the margins with suggestions that seemed intended to soften the report’s effect and burnish the Fire Department’s image. One note proposed replacing the image on the cover page — which showed palm trees on fire against an orange sky — with a “positive” one, such as “firefighters on the frontline.” The final report’s cover displays the LAFD seal.

In addition to the mayor’s office, Cook’s concerns made their way to the president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, which provides civilian oversight for the LAFD. Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the board, told The Times that she heard rumors that the author of the report was unhappy, but that she did not seriously look into the matter.

“If I had to worry about every rumor that comes out of LAFD, I would spend my entire day, Monday through Friday, chasing down rumors,” she said.

She said she raised concerns with Villanueva and the city attorney’s office over the possibility that “material findings” were or would be changed.

“I did not feel like they were lying about anything,” she said. “I didn’t feel like they were trying to cover up anything.”

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

OMAHA — The Federal Railroad Administration has sent letters to two railroad operators demanding they make sure that Mexican crews can speak English and don’t operate a train more than 10 miles inside the United States.

A number of Mexican train crews who recently hauled trains over the border to rail yards in Texas had trouble understanding important safety information in English during inspections the Trump administration ordered, U.S. officials said.

Railroads Union Pacific and CPKC routinely rely on foreign crews at times to bring trains over the border to their rail yards in the U.S. before switching to American engineers and conductors. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen union said handoffs used to happen at the border. The engineers union has been worried about using foreign crews for some time because of safety, security and job concerns.

Union Pacific and CPKC said the railroads are committed to ensuring safety and security and will work to ensure they are complying with the rules.

The Trump administration has also been cracking down on truck drivers who don’t speak English, saying it seeks to make sure crews can communicate in an emergency and understand crucial instructions.

“Whether you’re operating an 80-ton big rig or a massive freight train, you need to be proficient in our national language — English,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said. “If you aren’t, you create an unacceptable safety risk.”

The Transportation Department has withheld $40 million from California, which it accused of not enforcing the English proficiency requirement. Duffy has also threatened to sanction several other states that he says have improperly issued commercial driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants.

That became a key concern after several deadly crashes involving semitrucks driven by immigrants in the country illegally.

Inspectors cite problems

Federal Railroad Administration Administrator David Fink told both railroads they could face enforcement action if inspectors find additional occurrences of train crews operating in the U.S. without being proficient in English.

Inspectors found problems in Union Pacific’s Eagle Pass rail yard and CPKC’s facility in Laredo, Fink said.

Union Pacific had a interpreter on hand to help its Mexican crews, but Fink said the railroad might try to remove that person in the future, and inspectors said they worried about how well the crews understood operating rules and required brake tests.

At CPKC’s rail yard, Fink said, inspectors found numerous instances of train crews having a hard time understanding operating bulletins and U.S. regulations that require information about hazardous materials and emergency responses to be maintained in English.

Unions support the move

The engineers union and the SMART-TD union that represents conductors welcomed the Trump administration’s move because they say Mexican crews aren’t as well-trained and need to understand crucial safety information.

Earlier this year, the engineers union also highlighted two arrests of members of Mexican crews on suspicion of smuggling — one accused of helping migrants cross the border illegally and the other for allegedly trying to bring drugs into the U.S.

“The administration should be commended for standing up for border security, public safety and American jobs by creating stronger safety standards for crews that bring trains from Mexico to the United States,” Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen National President Mark Wallace said. “It’s critical that locomotive engineers are able to speak to dispatchers and first responders in English when trains are moving on U.S. soil.”

Railroads’ response

“We have the same goals — a safe, secure border that keeps the supply chain fluid,” Union Pacific spokesperson Kristen South said. “Part of ensuring safe operations is good communication.”

CPKC spokesperson Patrick Waldron said the railroad — which operates one continuous network across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico — makes sure international crews at both borders do not travel more than 10 miles into the U.S.

“Safety is foundational to everything we do,” he said.

Union Pacific picks up and hands off trains to its partner, FerroMex railroad, at the border. It said changing out crews at its rail yard seven miles over the border in Eagle Pass helps keep freight moving, because previously the switch was done at a single-track bridge, forcing rail traffic to come to a halt. The railroad said it worked with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to make the change.

Funk writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.

The missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate and accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.

The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”

Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.

Scant new insight in the disclosures

Some of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.

Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.

The gaps go further.

The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountability.

Among the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.

The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.

There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Clinton but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.

Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress who fought to pass the law forced the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a years-long battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and alleged crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.

“I feel like again, the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.

Redactions, lack of context

Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.

The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.

Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases or freedom of information requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.

Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” probably from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.

Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions and was no explanation given for why any of them were together.

The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007 yet never charged him.

Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.

One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.

Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.

“For every girl that I brought to the table he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are under age, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”

The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.

Acosta, who was Labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.

He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.

“I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would probably view the survivors differently.

“There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.

Jennifer Freeman, an attorney representing Epstein accuser Maria Farmer and other survivors, said Saturday that her client feels vindicated after the document release. Farmer sought for years documents backing up her claim that Epstein and Maxwell were in possession of child sexual abuse images.

“It’s a triumph and a tragedy,” she said. “It looks like the government did absolutely nothing. Horrible things have happened and if they investigated in even the smallest way, they could have stopped him.”

Sisak and Caruso write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Kristin M. Hall, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III faced open hostility to the Reagan Administration’s tax revision proposal Tuesday as the Senate Finance Committee began what is expected to be at least three months of testimony on overhauling the current tax code.

“The best simplification this committee could do for the country would be just to adjourn,” Sen. Steven D. Symms (R-Ida.) complained.

Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas, a committee member, conceded that progress on tax revision could be slow. “Once the initial glow has faded,” Dole said, “there are a lot of questions this committee has to deal with.”

Warning of ‘Fiscal Disaster’

Meanwhile, Martin S. Feldstein, former chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, warned that the Administration’s tax proposal could be a “fiscal disaster if tax reform became a deficit-enlarging tax cut.”

Feldstein, who left the White House last year after several disputes over Administration policy toward budget deficits, told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax proposal “is at best revenue neutral and has a substantial risk of losing revenue.”

Other economists testifying before the House panel, which originates tax legislation, also expressed skepticism over the Administration’s contention that the tax plan would raise as much revenue as the current tax system. They contended that the package could exacerbate deficits that are now expected to remain larger than $170 billion annually well into the next decade, even if the package of spending cuts now working its way through Congress becomes law.

“I suspect that the President’s proposal is a revenue loser, particularly after 1990,” said John H. Makin, director of fiscal studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

But Baker, in defending the tax proposal to the Senate panel, insisted that Reagan’s plan would lose only $11.5 billion during the next five years, substantially less than 1% of the $4.7 trillion that the government estimates it will collect in total revenues during that period.

Contradictory Attacks

In grilling Baker, senators on the tax panel attacked the White House proposal on a wide variety of sometimes contradictory points.

Sen. William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.) complained that the proposal “tends to soak the middle class,” but he worried also that the plan would be too generous to consumers at the expense of those who save.

Some senators argued that the plan would do little to help businesses facing the threat of foreign competition, but others suggested that individuals should receive a more generous tax break even if it means increasing taxes for corporations.

Most members of the Republican-controlled committee warned that they would attempt to restore certain tax breaks that would be eliminated by the White House package.

In particular, they criticized Reagan’s proposals to abolish the deductions for state and local taxes and for two-earner couples, to eliminate the investment tax credit and alternative energy tax credits and to tax growth in the cash value of insurance policies. But Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N. J.), author of a separate tax revision proposal, argued that the White House tax plan does not go far enough in eliminating special tax preferences. He told Baker that he would try to eliminate some tax breaks for the oil industry and wealthy investors.

Exemption Hike Opposed

Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) challenged Baker’s contention that the best way to help families living below the poverty line to escape income taxes is to increase the personal exemption from the current $1,040 to $2,000 next year.

Mitchell said that he would introduce a proposal to limit the increase in the personal exemption and grant a larger increase than Reagan recommended in the standard deduction, or zero-bracket amount, a proposal that would help only taxpayers who do not itemize their deductions. Mitchell said that his approach would concentrate tax relief more directly on middle-income and lower-income families than would the Administration’s plan.

Baker vigorously defended the Administration’s plan against the attacks. “We think our plan is very fair,” he said, pointing out that the majority of taxpayers at every income level would receive tax reductions and that the average tax cut would be 7%.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has released thousands more documents relating to the prosecution of the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein, including photographs of prominent figures he spent time with. But campaigners behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which compelled the Justice Department on Friday to release all files still sealed, say far too much information in them has been redacted.

Furthermore, according to US media, at least 16 of the files – which they said were disclosed late – have since “disappeared” from the website where they were released. The deleted files included a photograph showing President Donald Trump.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump signed into law after it passed through Congress in November, required the government to release all remaining unclassified material in its possession relating to Epstein’s and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking cases. Maxwell is currently serving 20 years in prison for her part in the scandal.

Despite heavy redaction of many of the documents, which has angered Democrats and some Republicans alike, there is some new information about the powerful people who associated with the disgraced late financier.

The Justice Department said it will release more documents in the coming weeks.

Here’s what we know about what’s been released so far:

What’s new in this tranche of Epstein files?

This is just the latest release of documents relating to the prosecution of Epstein, who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. The first tranche of about 950 pages of court documents was made public in early 2024.

One document released this time around confirms that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was tipped off about the convicted sex offender’s crimes nearly a decade before he was first arrested.

In September 1996, Epstein survivor Maria Farmer complained to the FBI that the late financier was involved in child sex abuse. Farmer said officials failed to take steps to investigate.

While the name of the complainant is redacted in the document relating to this complaint to the FBI, Farmer has confirmed it was made by her.

Now in her 50s, Farmer said in a statement via her lawyers after the release on Friday that she feels “redeemed” and this was “one of the best days of my life”.

“I want everyone to know that I am shedding tears of joy for myself but also tears of sorrow for all the other victims that the FBI failed,” she said.

Newly released transcripts of grand jury proceedings also include testimony from FBI agents who described interviews that they conducted with girls and young women describing their experiences of being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest interviewee was 14, according to local media.

One woman, then aged 21, told a grand jury that Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and that she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.

“For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said.

They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said, adding that she told them that if they were under age, “just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”

Much of the material published had already been circulating in the public domain after years of court action and investigations.

However, many of the new photos – some of them heavily blacked out – feature well-known public figures.

Who features in the newly released photos?

Among the documents released on Friday are photographs in a folder labelled “DOJ Disclosures”. Most of the photographs were seized by the FBI during various searches of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the US Virgin Islands.

New photos show the musicians Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson and Diana Ross in photographs with Epstein and at times with other people whose faces have been blacked out.

In one image, Jagger can be seen sitting between Epstein and former US President Bill Clinton. Popstar Jackson is also pictured standing next to Clinton and posing for a photo with Epstein in front of a painting in another.

Other famous men featured in the newly released photos include the actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Chris Tucker, billionaire Richard Branson, former UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor – formerly known as Britain’s Prince Andrew – and his former wife, Sarah Ferguson.

In one black and white image, Andrew can be seen lying across the laps of five people whose faces have all been blacked out while Maxwell stands behind them.

The Justice Department did not include any details about the contents or context of the photos.

Virginia Giuffre, who was one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers and who died by suicide in April aged 41, accused Mountbatten-Windsor of sexual abuse when she was 17. He settled a lawsuit with her in 2022 but continued to deny the allegation.

Another prominent figure among the photos is Clinton. One photo shows him in a swimming pool with Maxwell and another person whose face has been blacked out. Another photo shows the former US president in a hot tub with a woman whose face is also redacted.

While Clinton has never been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein’s crimes, his spokesperson said the White House was using him as a scapegoat.

“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever. So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Clinton in the past has said he cut ties with Epstein before the late financier pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in Florida.

Does Trump appear in the Epstein files?

Trump hardly appears in the files at all. The few photos that do feature him are ones that have been circulating in the public domain for decades.

According to one court document released on Friday, Epstein was alleged to have taken a 14-year-old girl to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and to have introduced her to the president.

While introducing her, Epstein elbowed Trump, asking him – referring to the teenager: “This is a good one, right?” Trump smiled and nodded in agreement, said the document from a case against Epstein’s estate and Maxwell in 2020.

In the court filing, the unnamed plaintiff herself makes no specific accusation against Trump.

In response to media requests for comment about this court document, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Trump administration was “the most transparent in history” and by “recently calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, the Trump Administration has done more for the victims than Democrats ever have,” she added.

Have some of the files disappeared since they were published on Friday?

Apparently, yes. One image, originally labelled File 468, which showed the inside of a desk drawer, included a photograph of Trump alongside Epstein, US first lady Melania Trump and Maxwell.

Other missing photos were images of paintings depicting nude women and one showing a series of photographs on a cupboard and in drawers.

On Saturday, The Associated Press news agency reported that at least 16 files published on Friday had disappeared from the Justice Department’s webpage.

The department has not provided any explanation or statement to the public about this but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”

Democrats on the Oversight Committee in the US House of Representatives also released 68 photos, drawn from the 95,000 photos and files the Oversight Committee has so far received from the Epstein estate.

Democrats in the committee said the images, which they released on Thursday, “were selected to provide the public with transparency into a representative sample of the photos” and “to provide insights into Epstein’s network and his extremely disturbing activities”.

Following the Justice Department’s release on Friday, the committee’s Democratic members questioned in a post on X why the image featuring a photo of Trump, a Republican, was missing, stating: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

Why has so much been redacted?

Among the thousands of documents published on Friday, at least 550 pages were reportedly fully redacted.

One 119-page document labelled “Grand Jury-NY” is completely redacted as is a set of three consecutive documents totalling 255 pages. Each page is fully blacked out.

Campaigners behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act said they had hoped to obtain more information about how the sex offender had been able to avoid serious federal charges for so many years.

However, many crucial FBI interviews with Epstein’s accusers and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions are unreadable.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, sent a six-page letter to members of Congress laying out the redaction process, noting that the law mandates that the department omit or redact any references to victims and files that could jeopardise pending investigations or litigation.

Blanche explained that he had, therefore, instructed attorneys to redact or withhold material that contained personally identifiable information about victims; depicted or contained child sexual abuse materials; would jeopardise an active investigation or prosecution; or contained classified national defence or foreign policy information.

Without specifying which, Blanche added that in some instances, the department had withheld or redacted information covered by deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege and attorney-client privilege.

When will the remaining files be released?

The Justice Department has said the publication of thousands more documents concerning investigations into Epstein will be released in the coming days as the year-end holidays approach.

The department missed its original Friday deadline to release all the information it had on Epstein in violation of the law signed by Trump in November ordering a complete release within 30 days.

After the drop on Friday, the department published two much smaller tranches on Saturday, which went beyond the initial redactions and featured identities of prosecutors, FBI case agents and other law enforcement personnel who appeared before two federal grand juries in New York state.

Several US lawmakers expressed anger about the White House’s failure to produce all the documents required under the law within the time limit.

Representatives Ro Khanna, a Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Republican – the duo who introduced the petition that eventually led to the passing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act – strongly criticised the partial release on social media.

Massie wrote that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law”.

Khanna called the release so far “disappointing” and added: “We’re going to push for the actual documents.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer accused the Trump administration of being “hell-bent on hiding the truth” and reiterated that the failure to release all the Epstein documents by Friday’s deadline amounts to “breaking the law”.

Meanwhile, officials from the Trump administration have been publicising the photographs featuring former Democratic President Clinton and hailing the current government as “the most transparent in history”.

Can campaigners take further steps to obtain more of the documents?

In a statement, Schumer said Senate Democrats are working “closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by [US Attorney General] Pam Bondi”.

Representatives Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, said they are examining “all legal options” after “the Department of Justice is now making clear it intends to defy Congress itself.”

“Donald Trump and the Department of Justice are now violating federal law as they continue covering up the facts and the evidence about Jeffrey Epstein’s decades-long, billion-dollar, international sex trafficking ring,” Garcia and Raskin said in a statement.

Senator Ron Wyden, another top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee who investigated Epstein’s financial ties, said on social media that the failure to release all the files was “a continuation of this administration’s coverup on behalf of a bunch of pedophiles and sex traffickers”.

The Associated Press reported that if Democratic lawmakers so choose, they could go to court to force the Justice Department to comply with the law. However, that would likely be a lengthy process.

Separately, the House Oversight Committee has issued a subpoena for the Epstein files, which could give Congress another avenue to force the release of more information to the committee. But that would require Republicans to join them in contempt-of-Congress proceedings against a Republican administration.