politics

Reporting from Washington — A month after tweeting that he might order FEMA to cut federal disaster funding to California fire victims, President Trump declined to renew that threat and indicated that talks with state officials were going well.

Speaking to The Times and several regional newspapers in the Oval Office, Trump said Wednesday that he and Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke by phone about two weeks ago, after his Jan. 9 tweet that he had ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency not to send more disaster funding to state officials “unless they get their act together, which is unlikely.”

Asked Wednesday if he still thinks the federal government shouldn’t give California any more money until the state changes its forest management practices, Trump refrained from directly repeating the threat, but said something has to be done to keep California from burning year after year.

“I told my people, I said we cannot continue to spend billions of dollars, billions and billions of dollars,” Trump said. “Forest fires are totally preventable. They shouldn’t happen.”

Trump said he was encouraged by his talk with Newsom.

“He was very respectful as to my point of view,” Trump said. “I think he agrees with me. I respect the fact that he called. The forests are, because of whatever reason, … extraordinarily flammable, to put it mildly.”

Newsom’s spokesman Nathan Click said the governor and president had a “respectful conversation about the critical federal-state partnership necessary for emergency preparedness and disaster relief.”

“The governor will continue doing everything in his power to help the survivors of wildfires and make sure the state is prepared for future disasters,” Click said.

Environmental experts say the primary cause of increased fires in California is climate change and drought. The Trump administration has blamed poor forest management, though critics say such claims are misleading and in many cases false.

Thousands of Californians are still recovering from two massive fires this past fall that together killed nearly 90 people and burned thousands of structures.

Trump’s tweeted threat alarmed state and local officials. For weeks the White House and FEMA have provided no clarity about whether such an order would be implemented, and when. Even the California congressional delegation struggled to get information about what might happen.

For months the president has been critical of California’s forest management process, saying state environmental laws are too stringent and keep downed timber and other detritus such as leaves and fallen limbs from being removed before they can catch fire.

“It’s called forest management. You have very poor forest management,” Trump said. “You need good forest management and you will have either no forest fires or very small forest fires that are easily put out.”

Critics accuse the administration of trying to pressure California officials to open the state’s forests to increased logging.

The bulk of California’s forest land is either federal property or private property, and outside the state’s authority to manage, but Trump said California’s strict state environmental laws keep the federal government from managing its lands in the state properly.

“In many cases because of the state environmental rules, the federal government isn’t even allowed to go in and clean them out,” Trump said.

In November, the Camp fire destroyed the town of Paradise in the Sierra Nevada foothills, killing 86 people and destroying more than 13,900 homes in the area; and the Woolsey fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties left three dead and leveled about 1,500 structures in an unwooded area.

State politicians have implored Trump to remember what he saw when he visited Paradise in November to tour the destroyed area. He spoke at length Wednesday about his shock at the extent of the damage and how quickly the fire moved into and destroyed the town.

“That was a lot of bad luck,” Trump said. “It was dry. You had 80 mile-per-hour winds. It was a very flammable area.”

The latest from Washington »

More stories from Sarah D. Wire »

Hasan Piker has built one of the largest online political audiences, reaching millions without newsroom oversight or traditional editorial constraints. In this episode of Talk to Al Jazeera, the influential streamer reflects on bias, accountability, wealth, bans and the blurred line between journalism and digital influence. As algorithms replace editors and engagement supplants verification, we examine who shapes political narratives in the age of streaming and what responsibilities accompany that power.

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — In Waco, Tex., Richard A. Gephardt kicked off his Super Tuesday campaign by deriding Michael S. Dukakis as the Democratic presidential candidate with the most money and “the least message.”

The next day, in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Dukakis castigated Gephardt as “the prince of darkness” for appealing to the angry side of America with his complaints about unfair foreign economic competition.

In part, the two candidates generally deemed the front-runners in the Democratic race, who came here last week for a debate before the cream of the Southern Democratic Party, are flinging rhetorical brickbats at each other because of the 20-state treasure-trove of delegates up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.

Another Struggle

But Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, and Missouri Rep. Gephardt, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, are locked in another struggle as well, one that transcends even as rich a prize as Super Tuesday. At stake is nothing less than the heart, mind and future of the Democratic Party.

And that deeper struggle has injected a bitter, biting element into the campaign because the cleavages between the two leaders are sharply drawn along class, cultural and regional lines.

To put the matter in starkly simple terms, Dukakis, with his core support in the suburbs and among upscale city dwellers, reflects the beliefs and values of the party’s Eastern liberal Establishment, and the interests of the nation’s thriving bicoastal economy.

Gephardt, hailing from America’s economically hard-hit hinterland with his Missouri legacy of Harry S. Truman populism, is striving to speak to and for working-class voters. Such voters have been the foundation of classic Democratic majorities of the sort the party has seldom managed to assemble in recent years.

“Nothing is ever 100% black and white in politics,” says Southern pollster Claibourne H. Darden Jr. As he suggests, the realities of the immediate battle for votes are so complex that the underlying struggle may not be precisely reflected in the election returns across Dixie or the rest of the nation.

“But there’s a real socioeconomic division here,” Darden says. “Gephardt is after the ‘Bubba’ vote–the good old boys, the middle-middle section of the Democratic Party. And Dukakis is the darling of the educated liberals and the suburbanites.”

In a sense, their battle is a sequel to the 1984 contest between Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart, in which those two argued essentially over whether the Democratic Party needed to change. Although Mondale won the nomination, he lost the election and thus the argument: Virtually everyone entered the 1988 campaign agreeing that the Democratic Party needed to change.

The battle between Dukakis and Gephardt will help to settle the remaining question: In what new direction will the party now move?

Of course, Dukakis and Gephardt have to reckon with two other major rivals in the Southern contests–the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.

Jackson is expected to run very well here Tuesday, perhaps capturing more states than any of his rivals. But most analysts doubt that he can sustain that success outside the South on the scale needed to make him a serious threat for the nomination.

As for Gore, few believe the only white Southerner in the race can do well enough in his home region to make up for his lack of achievement in the early contests elsewhere.

Meanwhile, what seems to be happening in the competition between Gephardt and Dukakis is that their debate is redefining the governing grammar of the Democratic Party, creating a new syntax in which the definitive phrases are not “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “change” and “pain.”

To a considerable extent the dividing line between Dukakis’ supporters and Gephardt’s backers is based on the degree to which any group of voters feels hurt by current economic conditions and prospects and the urgency with which they want to alter those conditions.

By using his argument against unfair trade practices as an expression of the case for broader change, “Gephardt has found a clean way to tap into the anger of voters who feel the circumstances of the economy are working against them,” said Paul Tully, former political director of Dukakis’ campaign.

Last January, just before the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt defined his populism in the rhetoric of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he described as “the greatest populist of the century.” Recalling F.D.R.’s celebrated vow to crush “the forces of greed and privilege,” Gephardt called that dictum “the legacy and the life force” of the Democratic Party.

Listen to Gephardt 10 days ago at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, where he warned 3,500 Democrats that America was in decline and demanded change to reverse the tide.

“I want to put a Democrat in the White House in 1988 so we can make America move and soar again,” he declared. “But to move in that direction we must change America in fundamental ways. That’s what the election in 1988 is all about.

Must Stand for Change

“A lot of people don’t want change,” Gephardt warned. “Strong forces resist change for a whole lot of different reasons. You must understand that if you want to change America the only way it will happen is if you stand for change in the Tuesday, March 8, primary.”

This message, says Tully, has visceral appeal to “those Democrats who live in places where the economy is threatening or not encouraging.” Moreover, Gephardt’s insistence on tougher trade policies, denounced as “protectionist’ by the well-educated middle-class supporters of Dukakis, appears to strike a responsive chord among the blue-collar workers Gephardt is trying to reach.

For many of them, political professionals point out, the idea that it is time for the United States to get back at foreign competitors has not only economic significance but also patriotic resonance.

Because of this, many Democratic politicians believe this issue could help win back former Democrats who have turned away from the party and supported Ronald Reagan in recent years because they believed that Democratic national leaders were namby-pambies in dealing with foreign nations.

“The trade issue is a metaphor for the sense that people have that they have lost control of their economic destiny, for the sense that many people feel that ‘my standard of living is slipping, we’re drifting and we’re slipping,’ ” says Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a Gephardt supporter.

Dukakis is for change too, Tully asserts. But the Massachusetts governor is a self-decribed optimist. And the kind of change for which he argues is more businesslike and less impassioned, more methodical and less fundamental than what Gephardt preaches.

“It is more of a roll up your sleeves and get on with the work approach,” Tully says. “And it appeals to people who want change but who have a lower level of anxiety than Gephardt’s constituents.”

Central to Dukakis’ optimistic view and to his message of moderate change is the economic recovery in Massachusetts, for which he claims a large share of credit and which he seems to argue has almost unlimited relevance elsewhere in the nation.

“Over the last dozen years I’ve seen the Massachusetts economy turn around and come back strong,” Dukakis declared in a speech last fall on economic policy. “And over the past few months, campaigning around this country, I’ve seen example after example of the kind of strength and determination and spirit it will take to get our fiscal house in order and restore our competitiveness abroad.”

If Gephardt seems to respond to anger and frustration among the voters, Dukakis appears to try to smooth over grievances.

When the Democrats hold their nominating convention in July, Dukakis told the Atlanta dinner audience that Gephardt also addressed, “I hope we as a party will have learned the lessons of division. Let’s make 1988 a year for the promise of opportunity and not the politics of resentment.”

Ultimately, the argument between these two points of view will be settled at the ballot box.

And ironically, the circumstances of these two candidates and the special nature of those who normally vote in Democratic primaries suggests that–as in 1984–the apostle of fundamental change could be hard-pressed to win the nomination, while the moderate could lose in November.

More Electable

A good many Democrats who have reservations about Gephardt’s policies, particularly his views on trade, are nonetheless interested in the congressman’s candidacy because they think he would be more electable than Dukakis in November.

“Dukakis’ message is competence in domestic policy and the rule of law in foreign policy,” says Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the House members who–along with many leading Southern politicians–gathered here at Williamsburg for a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate-to-conservative office holders. “And, frankly, I’m not convinced it’s a winning message.

“The Gephardt message is very good for blue-collar workers,” continues Berman, who will not decide who to back until after Super Tuesday. “It could help us get back people we have been having trouble holding in general elections, people who were attracted to Reagan.”

Other Democrats are blunter in their assessment: “Dukakis looks like another 49-state blowout to me,” says a high-level Southern labor leader who declined to be identified. He thinks that Dukakis could not draw any significant amount of votes beyond what Mondale received in 1984, when he carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

By contrast, this official believes that Gephardt would “bring the white middle-class and blue-collar vote in the South back to the Democrats. We have to be a party that’s not just interested in redistributing wealth, that’s also interested in helping the middle class.”

But for all Gephardt’s potential assets in the fall, some think he may never have the chance to cash in on them because of the practical realities governing Democratic primary politics, particularly in the South.

“(Dukakis’) is an elitist campaign,” Martin Linsky, a public policy specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, says. “But the primary in the South is a setup for him. He gets the suburban, liberal upper-middle-class vote.” And, as Linsky points out, these are the voters most likely to go to the polls on Tuesday.

Gephardt Might Struggle

Moreover, while Gephardt’s message of change gives him much broader potential appeal than Dukakis, many professionals believe that without the financial and organizational resources Dukakis has amassed, Gephardt will have to struggle to get his potential supporters to the ballot box.

And Gephardt’s ability to win votes by emphasizing basic differences from Dukakis is complicated somewhat by the fact that neither man’s origins quite match his current billing.

As Gephardt’s rivals never tire of pointing out, while serving as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus he was widely considered to be a fixture of the congressional hierarchy. And the legislative connections he fashioned with lobbyists for business and labor have helped finance his presidential campaign–to the tune of more than $350,000, or about 6% of his total contributions.

“Dick, don’t give us that Establishment stuff when you’re out there taking their money,” Dukakis snapped at Gephardt during the debate here last week. And the Dukakis campaign released a negative commercial later in the week attacking Gephardt on just the same grounds.

For his part, Dukakis entered politics sounding more like a neoliberal than a traditional liberal. And even today his views embody his natural frugality and his abounding faith in the efficacy of high technology and rational management.

Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, who has known the governor all his political life, says: “Certainly Michael Dukakis is a progressive”–a term Brountas prefers to “liberal.” But he adds: “He’s very conservative fiscally. And he’s run the state in a tight-fisted way.”

In the end, many believe the outcome of the Gephardt-Dukakis battle in Dixie may depend on whether Gephardt can reach the voters whose anger is fueling his candidacy.

Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO, contends that Gephardt’s argument for retaliation against unfair trade practices has great appeal in his state, where the textile industry has been hard hit by foreign imports.

“Gephardt’s trade message can romp and stomp in this state,” Scott says. “But I don’t know if Gephardt can get the message out.”

Feb. 15 (UPI) — The Department of Justice said in a letter to Congress that it has released all the files related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The letter, sent to lawmakers on Saturday night, also included the names of more than 300 “politically exposed persons” who are mentioned in the overall Epstein files, which includes former presidents, politicians, business people and artists.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General sent the letter to inform the leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees — Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Jamie Raskin, D-Md. — that it has completed its review and release of the appropriate records related to Epstein.

The six-page letter is meant to confirm that the department has “released all ‘records, documents, communications and investigative materials'” in its possession, and includes lists of categories of records that have been released and withheld, a summary and basis for redactions, and a list of all government officials and politically exposed people in the documents that DOJ has released.

Congress in December passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act to require the Justice Department to release all unclassified records in a searchable and downloadable format.

While its deadline was Dec. 19, the department did not release the records until January, and when it did so, it was in a single release of a database that, while searchable, was not well-organized and or carefully redacted — including with the publication of the names of Epstein’s victims.

Congress has also been permitted to review unredacted versions of the documents.

The letter comes days after Bondi was grilled by members of both parties in a Congressional hearing that included shouting matches between the attorney general and some members of the committee holding the hearing.

Among the several hundred names included in Saturday’s letter are “all persons” whose names appear at least once in the released Epstein documents, Bondi and Blanche wrote.

“Names appear in the files released under the Act in a wide variety of contexts,” they wrote. “For example, some individuals had extensive direct email contact with Epstein or [Ghislaine] Maxwell while other individuals are mentioned only in a portion of a document, including press reporting, that on its face is unrelated to the Epstein and Maxwell matters.”

Among the names are Beyonce, Bill Cosby, Fidel Castro, Bruce Springsteen, Alyssa Milano and Diana Ross, Ben Shapiro and a host of other politicians, artists and business people and their spouses.

The Republican Party currently controls the White House and both houses of Congress in the United States. But will that change in November?

Among Republican voters, US President Donald Trump is still wildly popular, despite criticism over uneven economic conditions and brutal anti-immigration tactics. And within the Democratic Party establishment, there is no sign of a desire to shift towards a more progressive, less centrist platform – even as left-leaning Democratic Socialists make gains.

Host Steve Clemons asks Republican strategist John Feehery and Amy Dacey, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, about Trumpism and the election prospects of both parties.

In his first five years as California’s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom made more than $4 million from his wineries, restaurants, hotels and other hospitality businesses.

And that’s on top of his government salary, which is $142,577 a year.

The former mayor of San Francisco is the first candidate in the 2018 race for governor to release his state and federal tax returns. He filed jointly with his wife, the actress and filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom. On Monday, Newsom allowed reporters to review — but not photocopy — six years of the couple’s returns, from 2010 to 2015, at the San Francisco offices of his campaign consultants, SCN Strategies.

Newsom, the early front-runner in the June 2018 primary, cites his business expertise as a key credential in his campaign for governor. With the help of the wealthy Getty family, he opened a San Francisco wine store in 1992, expanding it over the last 25 years into a network of nearly two dozen businesses known as PlumpJack Group. They include Napa Valley wineries, hotels in Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs, and bars and restaurants in San Francisco.

Here’s what you should know about the tax documents:

The Newsoms reported an average of $1.4 million in income from 2010 to 2015

The Newsoms’ tax returns provided a window into a complex web of the family’s financial interests throughout California. The couple’s lowest adjusted gross income since 2011 was $1.37 million in 2013.

The Newsoms’ average income and tax bills in the years 2010-2015 were:

• Adjusted gross income: $1.4 million.
• Federal tax rate: 26.4%.
• Rate of charitable giving compared to income: 6.8%.
• Federal taxes paid: $384,687.
• State taxes paid: $139,146.

PlumpJack Group was founded by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom as PlumpJack Wine in 1992. Newsom is still a partner in the company, which has expanded to include restaurants, bars and resorts in addition to three wineries and two wine shops, including this store in San Francisco. (Phil Willon/Los Angeles Times)

(Phil Willon/Los Angeles Times)

2015 was a good year for the Newsoms

The couple, who now live in Marin County, reported an adjusted gross income of $1,720,383 in 2015, the highest amount they earned in the past six years. The Newsoms’ total tax bill came to $753,866, with $568,333 going to the Internal Revenue Service and $185,533 to the California treasury. They donated $62,973 to charity, including a $1,000 contribution to the Bay Area Discovery Museum.

The Newsoms’ biggest income source came from Airelle Wines Inc., which runs Napa wineries, at roughly $790,000.

They made hundreds of thousands of dollars selling silver bars — and donated more than $100,000 to charities each year

• The tax returns show the Newsoms made hundreds of thousands of dollars trading silver bars during Newsom’s tenure as lieutenant governor. In 2011 alone, they turned a profit of $499,452 on the sale of silver bars.

• Newsom’s 2013 book, “Citizenville,” appeared to be a moderate money-maker. From 2011 to 2015, Newsom reported a total of $370,325 in income as an author and by working in media. A spokesman for the lieutenant governor said he was unsure if some of that total included money Newsom was paid for his former talk show on Current TV, “The Gavin Newsom Show,” which aired in 2012 and 2013.

• The Newsoms reported an average of $102,212 in charitable donations each year — nearly 7 percent of their income. But apart from clothing and toy donations to the Salvation Army and Goodwill, it was unclear which charities received money from the couple. Because the Newsoms hold interests in a wide network of partnerships, corporations and trusts, and most of their charitable donations were channeled through them, it is unclear which organizations received the money. A spokesman for Newsom’s political campaign said some of the charities the couple donated money to included the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Best Buddies and Planned Parenthood LA.

Newsom owns a Tesla, and received tax credit for it

Over the years, the Newsoms have received a few tax breaks for their rapidly growing, environmentally conscious family.

• Newsom received a $7,500 “Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit” on his 2012 taxes after buying a Tesla Model S.
• He received a $500 tax credit in 2012 for installing energy-efficient doors, windows and insulation.
• In 2010, the Newsoms’ daughter Montana was their only dependent. Then came their son Hunter in 2011. Daughter Brooklynn arrived in 2013. The Newsoms’ fourth child, Dutch, will make his grand entrance on the 2016 return.

Releasing his taxes ratchets up the pressure on his rivals to do the same

Newsom’s release of his tax returns puts pressure on his rivals to make theirs public too. The move could be a sign that the lieutenant governor is banking on revelations that he thinks could be useful to his campaign, such as information detailing Antonio Villaraigosa’s income sources in the years since he left office as mayor of Los Angeles.

Villaraigosa and Newsom’s other chief rival, state Treasurer John Chiang, have agreed to make public their tax returns, but have not yet specified when they will do so. Another candidate, Delaine Eastin, a former superintendent of public instruction, has also vowed to release her tax returns.

A spokesman for the leading Republican in the race, venture capitalist John Cox, said it was too early to say whether he would make his tax returns public.

phil.willon@latimes.com

Twitter: @philwillon

michael.finnegan@latimes.com

Twitter: @finneganLAT

ALSO

This is how much money the candidates running to be California’s next governor have raised

Rivalry in the air as Newsom and Villaraigosa march with Armenians in Los Angeles

Who will be California’s next governor? New poll shows Newsom leads with 1 in 3 voters undecided

Foreign minister says regional powers have been ‘far more effective’ than European countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has derided the Munich Security Conference as a “circus”, accusing European powers of “paralysis and irrelevance” in efforts to revive nuclear negotiations with the United States.

Iranian officials were not invited to the annual security meeting in the German city.

“Sad to see the usually serious Munich Security Conference turned into the ‘Munich Circus’ when it comes to Iran,” Araghchi wrote on X on Sunday.

“The paralysis and irrelevance of the EU/E3 is displayed in the dynamics surrounding the current talks over Iran’s nuclear program. … Once a key interlocutor, Europe is now nowhere to be seen. Instead, our friends in the region [the Gulf] are far more effective and helpful than an empty-handed and peripheral E3.”

The E3 – which included France, the United Kingdom and Germany – were key players in the previous round of nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran. That process culminated in 2015 with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a landmark agreement aimed at limiting the scope of Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

The US under the first administration of President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018 and ramped up sanctions on Iran. Since then, the process has largely stalled. Still, the E3 maintained a role as a go-between with Tehran and Washington.

But since negotiations resumed last year, Gulf countries, such as Oman and Qatar, have taken the lead in facilitating talks between the US and Iran.

Araghchi made the remarks before leaving Tehran to lead a diplomatic and technical delegation to Geneva for a new round of nuclear talks with the US. The talks follow last week’s indirect negotiations in Oman, which is mediating the process, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

During his visit, Araghchi is expected to meet his Swiss and Omani counterparts, as well as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, and other international officials.

Abas Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, said Araghchi’s comments “indicate a policy shift from the Iranian side that the E3 mechanism … is no longer a valid channel for resolution”.

“This nuclear mediation has moved from Europe to the region, and now the heavy lifting in diplomacy is done by regional players,” he said.

On Tuesday, Oman is to host talks between the US and Iran in Geneva after previous indirect negotiations in Muscat on February 6. Those talks were attended by US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner.

US and Iranian officials previously held several rounds of talks in the Omani capital to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme last year. But that process was halted as Israel launched a 12-day war with Iran in June, which the US briefly joined by bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities.

The new rounds of negotiations come as tensions in the region remain high, with Trump moving more US military assets to the Middle East. On Friday, the US president said he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the region while openly talking about a change in Iran’s government.

Despite the new push for diplomacy, the two sides have maintained their positions. Iran has shown flexibility in discussing its nuclear programme, but the US wants to widen the talks to include Iran’s ballistic missiles and its support for regional armed groups – two issues that Tehran says are nonnegotiable.

Nina J. Easton does us a disservice by attempting to relate so closely the ‘60s violence of the Left and the ‘90s violence of the Right (“America, the Enemy,” June 18).

In terms of tragedy, the Oklahoma bombing stands alone, its carnage having exceeded by plenty any other terrorist act in U.S. history. It was designed to kill and maim as many people as possible. The Far Left simply hasn’t operated in that coldblooded a manner. For example, the explosives planted in 1970 in a Wisconsin ROTC building by the ultra-left Weathermen were timed to go off at 4 a.m., when few would be present.

The right-wing militias address no social ills; they tend only to their paranoid fantasies. By contrast, in an earlier day, the Black Panthers swaggered menacingly with weapons bared but also established breakfast programs to feed inner-city children.

The violent Left has taken hostages, blown up buildings, incited riots and, like their right-wing counterparts, imagined a world where government agents were hidden behind every door. But societal benefits like Social Security, equal voting rights and child-labor laws were initially espoused only by the Left, which worked tirelessly to bring these simple manifestations of fairness into mainstream political dialogue.

Conversely, right-wing militias exist only to prepare for, and eventually wage, war. They arm themselves against phantoms, against enemies so ill-defined that they could be pointing a gun at you or me–or anyone at all.

Searching through the rambling, angry diatribe that the militias spew over the airwaves and web sites, one cannot find even a hint of goodwill for humankind, or any sort of notion for a better world, however cocky or deranged. No, the right-wing militias discuss only war: how to plan, train for and eventually execute assaults on people who are different than they are, people whose skin color is different, whose political beliefs differ from those of the militia.

The Left in this country has given us a legacy–a mixed one, to be sure, but a rich history that includes organizing laborers and bread lines as well as violent cell groups. For every rock thrown, there have been hundreds of jobs saved and social benefits secured as a result of left-wing agitation in America. Right-wing militias are simply a powder keg waiting to blow.

Unfortunately, Easton has offered the raucous Right a fig leaf, behind which they can continue their frightening march to battle.

Winston Steward

Los Angeles

*

Easton fails to comprehend that political and moral consciousness undergoes changes during times of massive paradigm shifts. Her article compares and equates very different sets of people and differing sets of paradigms. It reads like one of those “high-concept” duds that the film industry makes because the marketing departments likes the pitch.

“America the Enemy” relies on the repetition of the premise “If ‘A’ existed in the 1960s Left, then ‘B’ exists in the 1990s Right.” It’s as if the force of a grammatical structure conveys meaning, even when the data doesn’t wash. Despite occasional accuracies that either A or B did in fact exist, the common or even causal relationship implied in the “if . . . then” structure usually does not exist.

Someone who experienced either period, or who did the necessary homework on either era, or who could handle Tom Hayden and Richard Flacks as resources rather than as sources of cognitive dissonance would certainly have qualms about getting this piece into print.

Seeing patterns that don’t exist, and linking unconnected things, are signals of the paranoid style in American politics described by historian Richard Hofstadter. Perhaps bad mental processes really are viral. However, a paranoid style in American journalism will not do.

Arthur M. Eisenson

Los Angeles

*

“America The Enemy” was a typical oversimplification of a complex issue. It will probably come as an unpleasant surprise to Easton and many others that the NRA has more than a few members, black and white, who are more truly liberal than those who favor the disarming of ordinary citizens. The NRA is one of the few subjects on which it is possible for Left and Right to agree.

Art Volkman

Inglewood

*

The story comparing the bombers of the ‘60s and ‘90s was terrible.

The cover matched photographs of the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion with Oklahoma City, but in the Greenwich Village case, the only people blown up were the bomb-makers themselves. Inside the magazine, a photograph of Tom Hayden in 1969 was matched with one of Timothy McVeigh–completely outrageous.

Hayden never blew up anybody. What is going on at The Times?

Jon Wiener

Los Angeles

*

Comparing ‘90s militias with ‘60s Marxist radicals was a masterpiece of liberal disinformation.

To accurately frame today’s political reality, one must start with the premise that the ‘60s radicals–in the form of state Sen. Tom Hayden, our hapless boy President Bill Clinton and their ilk–have taken over the government and are aggressively moving to destroy the Constitution, as Clinton’s budgetary, crime and anti-terrorism legislation proves beyond a doubt. Add in 30 years of irresponsible deficit spending by liberals in both major parties and it becomes obvious that the government will very soon be intentionally bankrupt. A general economic collapse and a depression will inevitably follow–all according to plan.

The militias are only reacting to these not-so-veiled attacks on the Constitution and preparing for civil warfare, the only logical upshot to this kind of treachery.

Loyal Americans who form legal militias in support of a limited democratic republic are our future, if this country and the Constitution are to survive into the the millennium.

You aren’t going to be able to hide that fact much longer.

Michael A. Pacer

Glendora

Feb. 13 (UPI) — The Department of Justice sued Harvard University on Friday for failing to hand over documents for an investigation into whether its admissions process discriminates against white people.

The Justice Department said its investigation is to determine if the Ivy League school is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action in higher education admissions. The investigation was launched in April and was to determine if the school’s admissions process for its undergraduate, law and medical schools follows the decision.

Harvard has said it follows the Supreme Court ruling.

“Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, this Department of Justice is demanding better from our nation’s educational institutions,” The Hill reported Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “Harvard has failed to disclose the data we need to ensure that its admissions are free of discrimination — we will continue fighting to put merit over DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] across America.”

The university responded that it is responding to the government according to the law.

“Harvard has been responding to the government’s inquiries in good faith and continues to be willing to engage with the government according to the process required by law,” a Harvard spokesperson said. “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach.”

The Trump administration had been working with Harvard to arrange a deal after the administration was seeking $500 million and reforms from the school, to end the pressure campaign, which included a freeze on more than $2 billion in funding, a civil rights investigation and regulatory changes.

On Feb. 2, The New York Times published a story that said Trump had agreed to drop a demand for $200 million to finalize the deal. That night, Trump made a series of posts on Truth Social saying he wanted a criminal investigation of the university and increased the demand to $1 billion.

On Feb. 7, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard, calling it a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

CAREFREE, Ariz. — Elizabeth H. paused recently outside the post office in this small, high-desert community, not far from where Easy Street meets Nonchalant Avenue.

She felt neither easy nor nonchalant.

“I think the climate imposed by the Trump administration is really sad and scary,” said Elizabeth, who asked to withhold her last name to avoid being attacked for the views she expressed.

“I don’t like the way that ICE is being used to bully citizens and even just people who are brown,” she continued. “And I don’t like that governors of blue states are being shut out while governors of red states are being welcomed. I just don’t think he treats us like we’re all Americans.”

For his part, Anthony D. finds little not to like about President Trump. He, too, asked not to use his last name, as did several others who agreed to talk politics.

“We finally don’t have a— in office that are destroying our country and worrying about everybody else in the world,” said Anthony, 66, a plumbing contractor and proudly blunt-spoken New York native. (Just like Trump, he pointed out.) “I mean, his tariffs are working. The negotiations are working. I just see a lot of positive coming out of that office.”

Even so, there’s something that bothers him: The way so many fellow citizens view the president and his America First agenda.

“Most people don’t like what he says, but look what he’s doing,” Anthony said as the late-morning crowd trickled into an upscale North Scottsdale shopping center. “You can hate the person, but don’t hate the message. He’s trying to do the right thing.”

Here in central Arizona, a prime battleground in November’s midterm election, there is precious little agreement about Trump, his policies and motivations.

Supporters see the president turning things around after four disastrous years of Joe Biden. Critics see him turning the country into a place they barely recognize.

There is puzzlement on both sides.

Over what others believe. Over how others can possibly believe what they believe, see the things they see and perceive Trump the way they perceive him.

And although some are eager for the midterm elections as a way to corral the president — “I don’t think they should only impeach, I think they should imprison,” Brent Bond, a 59-year-old Scottsdale artist, said of his hopes for a Democratic Congress — others fear an end to Trump’s nearly unfettered reign.

Or that nothing will change, regardless of what happens at the polls in November.

“The fact is, Trump is going to keep Trumping until he’s done,” said Elizabeth H., who’s semiretired at age 55 after a career in financial services. “My only relief is that he’s an old, old man and he’s not going to be here forever.”

Brent Bond would like to see Trump imprisoned, not just impeached.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Arizona’s 1st Congressional District climbs from northeastern Phoenix to the mountainous heart of the Sonoran Desert. It takes in the affluent enclaves of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley and — where the urban sprawl finally yields to cactus, palo verde and other flora — Carefree and the Old West-themed Cave Creek.

It is the whitest, wealthiest and best-educated of Arizona’s nine congressional districts, home to numerous upscale resorts, major medical campuses and a large population of retirees comfortably settled in one of many gated communities.

Affordability, as in struggling just to get by, is not a pressing issue here.

In 2020, Biden carried the district 50% to 49%. Four years later, Trump beat Kamala Harris 51% to 48%.

(The Down Ballot, which crunches election data, rated Arizona’s 1st District the median of 435 congressional districts nationwide, meaning in 2024 half were redder on the presidential level and half were bluer.)

For more than a decade, the area has been represented by Republican Dave Schweikert, a local political fixture since the 1990s.

He’s had to fight hard for reelection in recent years as the district, like the whole of Arizona, has grown more competitive. Rather than run again, Schweikert announced he would give up his seat to try for governor. The result is a free-for-all and one of the relatively few toss-up House races anywhere in the country.

A passel of candidates is running and the result will help determine whether Democrats, who need to flip three seats, will seize control of the House in November.

Despite those high stakes, however, the race doesn’t seem to have generated much voter interest, at least not yet. In dozens of interviews across the district, it was the relentless Trump who drew the most attention, admiration and exasperation.

Moe Modjeski, a supporter, allowed as how the president “is no altar boy.”

Even so, “I’ll take his policies over someone that might be nice and polite,” said the 69-year-old Scottsdale resident, a financial advisor who cited the sky-scraping stock market as one example of Trump’s success. “I mean, gas is about half the price it was a year or two ago.”

But for Liz R., who’s “never been a sky-is-falling type,” it certainly feels that way. The 75-year-old cited “everything from tariffs to ICE to destroying the healthcare system and controls for pollution.”

“I lived through the ‘60s and 70s and can’t remember a time when I feared so much for the future of our country,” said Liz, a retired medical technologist.

She’ll vote for a Democrat in November — to put a check on Trump, not because the Carefree resident has great faith in the party or its direction.

“I wish the Dems would get it together and maybe we could get more of a centrist that could unite and not get hung up on some of these social issues,” she said. “There’s a lot of economic issues, bread-and-butter issues, and I think that’s why the Republicans won [in 2024], because of the problems with immigration and inflation.”

As a border state, Arizona has long been at the forefront of the political fight over immigration. It was here lawmakers passed — and opponents spent years battling — legislation that effectively turned police into immigration officers, requiring them to demand the papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally

Thomas Campbell, with Keegan and Guinness, blamed blue-state politicians for any overreach by ICE agents.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Now that aggressive approach has become national policy, which is fine by Thomas Campbell, a retired architect and staunch Trump backer. He blamed any enforcement overreach on blue-state lawmakers.

“For some reason, the Democrats have decided they want to side with the criminals, so they don’t allow their police departments to cooperate,” said Campbell, 72, who stopped outside Paradise Valley’s town hall while running errands with his Irish setters, Guinness and Keegan. “If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be any” controversy over ICE’s tactics.

Martha Cornelison agreed the border with Mexico needed to be secured and that serious lawbreakers should be deported.

But why, she wondered, are immigration agents scooping up honest taxpayers, parents with children born in the U.S. and others keeping on the straight and narrow?

“I think they’re going after the wrong people,” said the 76-year-old Scottsdale retiree as a friend, Lily, nodded in agreement. The two were sharing a bench in Scottsdale’s pueblo-inspired civic plaza, a nearby fountain burbling in the 80-degree sunshine.

“I think we need to look at our county jails, look at our city jails,” said Cornelison, who made her living selling large appliances. “How many illegal immigrants are, say, in Florence, which is our state prison? Send them back. Don’t go after Mr. Gonzalez who’s doing my lawn. Empty out our prisons.”

Back at the North Scottsdale shopping center, Denise F. was walking Chase, her Shih Tzu, past a parking lot brimming with Teslas, Mercedes and Cadillac SUVs.

The 73-year-old voted for Trump because she couldn’t abide Harris. But she’s disgusted with the president.

“I don’t like the division in the country. I think Trump thinks he’s a king,” said Denise, a retired banker. “He’s poking the bear with Venezuela and Greenland, Iran” — she poked the air as she named each country — “to see who he can engage in a possible war, which is not the way I think the United States should be.”

As Denise was finishing up, Anthony D., her friend and neighbor, strolled up and joined the conversation, offering his laudatory view of the president. “Trump’s a businessman and he’s running the country like a business,” Anthony said, as Denise looked on impassively.

“How did I do?” he asked after saying his piece.

“Great,” Denise replied amiably and the two walked off together, Chase between them.

Two years ago, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass went to Sherman Oaks to cut a quick campaign ad for a trusted ally: Councilmember Nithya Raman.

Standing next to Bass, Raman looked into the camera and praised the mayor’s work on homelessness, saying she was “honored” to have her support.

“I couldn’t be prouder to work alongside her,” Raman said.

That video, recorded at a get-out-the-vote rally for Raman’s reelection campaign, feels like a political lifetime ago. On Feb. 7, Raman launched a surprise bid to unseat Bass, saying the city is at a “breaking point” and no longer capable of providing basic services.

Raman’s entry into the race, hours before the filing deadline, shocked the city’s political elite and infuriated the mayor’s supporters. Some observers called it a betrayal of Shakespearean proportions.

Raman’s name had appeared on a list of Bass endorsers just weeks earlier. Bass’ support for Raman’s 2024 reelection bid had helped the councilmember earn 50.7% of the vote and avoid a messy runoff.

“How can she treat a relationship like this, and dispose of it once it’s served its purpose?” said Julio Esperias, a Democratic Party activist who volunteered with Raman’s 2024 campaign at Bass’ request. “It’s a breach of trust, a betrayal, and it’s kind of hard for me to stomach at the moment.”

In 2024, Bass — then at the peak of her popularity — was featured prominently in Raman’s campaign mailers. She sent canvassers to knock on voters’ doors. A speech Bass delivered at Raman’s rally in Sherman Oaks was turned into a social media video with stirring background music.

Councilwoman Nithya Raman talks to attendees during an election night party held by the Democratic Socialists of America – LA chapter at The Greyhound on Nov. 4 in Los Angeles.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

That video, along with other posts highlighting Bass’ support for her, still appears on Raman’s Instagram page, which now promotes her run for mayor.

Bass, politically bruised over her handling of last year’s devastating Palisades fire, now faces an insurgent campaign from one of the City Council’s savviest players.

Esperias said he regrets helping Raman claw back the endorsement of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party in 2023, after it nearly went to her opponent.

Bass, for her part, has downplayed any hard feelings, saying she intends to run on her record — including her collaboration with Raman. Asked if she viewed Raman’s candidacy as a betrayal, she responded: “That’s not significant now.”

Mayor Karen Bass speaks before signing a rent stabilization ordinance passed by the Los Angeles City Council, the first update to the ordinance in nearly 40 years, at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy in Los Angeles Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2025.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

“I will tell you that it was a surprise, absolutely,” Bass said. “But I am moving forward, I am going to run my race, and I look forward to serving with her in my second term.”

Raman has been delivering a similarly complicated message, expressing deep respect for the mayor while arguing that the city is in desperate need of change.

On the morning of Feb. 7, before filling out her paperwork at the city clerk’s office, Raman called Bass to inform her she was running.

The next day, the two women met privately at Getty House, the mayor’s mansion. Neither would say why they met or what they discussed.

At City Hall, both supporters and critics of Bass have been retracing recent events, looking for clues as to how things went wrong.

In November, while watching election returns for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Raman told The Times that Bass was the most progressive mayor the city ever had — noting that Angelenos “vote their values.” Last month, Bass twice announced that she had Raman’s endorsement.

On Friday, Raman said she could not remember exactly when she endorsed Bass, saying she believed it came during a phone call with the mayor “probably in the fourth quarter of last year.” At the same time, she said her exasperation with the city’s leadership has been building for months.

“I have been actually frustrated by the conditions in the city for quite some time, particularly over this last year, where we are both unable to deliver basic services, like fixing streetlights and repaving streets for my constituents, but also are not moving toward a more accountable, transparent and efficient system of addressing issues like homelessness,” she said in an interview.

Gloria Martinez, center, of United Teachers Los Angeles, speaks at a rally outside City Hall featuring opponents of the effort to rewrite Measure ULA, a tax on property sales to pay for housing initiatives.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Raman pointed to Measure ULA, the voter-approved tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up, as a catalyst for her mayoral bid. Although she has been a supporter of the tax, she has also concluded that it is a major obstacle to building new housing.

Last month, Raman tried without success to put a measure on the June 2 ballot that would have scaled back the types of properties covered by the tax, in hopes of jump-starting apartment construction.

Raman also told The Times that Inside Safe, the mayor’s signature program to move unhoused people indoors, needs to be redesigned so it is “fiscally sustainable.” She said she “simply did not see any progress” from the mayor’s office on that issue.

Asked whether she betrayed Bass, Raman said her decision to run was driven by the growing problems facing the city — and the need for change.

“My most important relationship in this role is with the people of Los Angeles, not the politics of City Hall,” she said.

Bass campaign spokesperson Douglas Herman pointed out that Raman is head of the council’s housing and homelessness committee — and that she repeatedly voiced support for Bass programs that have delivered back-to-back reductions in street homelessness.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman scans a QR code to get election updates during an election night party in March 2024.

(Myung Chun/Los Angeles Times)

“While we are developing more cost effective models, it is absolutely urgent that we get people off our streets immediately,” Herman said. “Nithya Raman is acting like a typical politician and knows it because she congratulated Mayor Bass for cleaning dangerous and long-standing encampments in her district.”

Raman’s decision has sparked an outcry from an unlikely combination of Bass allies. Danny J. Bakewell, Jr., executive editor of the Los Angeles Sentinel, condemned Raman’s actions last week in an editorial that invoked the O’Jay’s 1972 hit “Back Stabbers.”

“One of life’s greatest disappointments is discovering that someone you believed was a friend is not,” wrote Bakewell, whose newspaper focuses on issues facing the city’s Black community.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file LAPD officers and opposed Raman’s reelection in 2024, offered a similar take.

“If political backstabbing were a crime, Nithya Raman would be a wanted fugitive,” the union’s board, which has endorsed Bass, said in a statement.

Zev Yaroslavsky, a former county supervisor and City Council member, does not believe that Raman’s recent history with Bass — endorsing her and later running against her — will be an issue for the electorate. In L.A. political circles, however, it will be viewed as a transgression, at least in the short term, he said.

“As a politician, you don’t have much currency. What you have is your word,” he said.

Yaroslavsky, director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said he is certain that Raman and the other major candidates — community organizer Rae Huang, reality television star Spencer Pratt and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller — have looked at polls showing that Bass is politically weakened and vulnerable to a challenge.

“If Raman becomes mayor, nobody’s going to remember this, including the political class,” he said. “If she doesn’t, it’ll be a little more difficult for her. It’s not irreparable. But there will be a residue to this.”

On the council, Raman belongs to a four-member voting bloc, each of whom won office with support from Democratic Socialists of America. While Bass is generally considered more conservative than Raman on public safety issues, the two share many of the same policy priorities, particularly around homelessness.

In her first campaign for City Council in 2020, Raman ran on a promise to address the city’s homelessness crisis in a humanitarian way, by moving unhoused residents into temporary and permanent housing.

Bass, a former state Assembly speaker and 12-year member of Congress, took office two years later and made homelessness her signature issue, convincing the council to expand her power to respond to the crisis.

Raman backed Bass’ declaration of a homelessness emergency, which gave the mayor the power to award contracts and sign leases directly. A week later, Bass staged her first Inside Safe operation in Raman’s district, on a stretch of Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood.

As recently as July, Raman appeared on a Bass press release touting the city’s progress on homelessness.

Bass first announced that Raman had endorsed her on Jan. 27. Raman said she did not begin seriously contemplating a run for mayor until the following week, as the filing deadline approached.

Over a tumultuous 48-hour period, former L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner exited the race, while real estate developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath announced that they, too, would stay out.

“I realized we were potentially not even going to have a real competition, and that troubled me,” Raman said.

Esperias, the Bass supporter, said he is still processing Raman’s decision to run.

He said Bass tapped him to help Raman in 2023 after one of Raman’s opponents, deputy city attorney Ethan Weaver, cleared a key hurdle in his bid for the endorsement of the county’s Democratic Party.

Esperias, who lives in L.A.’s Vermont Square neighborhood, said he worked with Raman’s team on a plan to persuade party members to pull Weaver’s endorsement, then flip it to Raman. While Esperias and others called and texted party members, Bass sent a letter urging them to endorse Raman.

Weaver, in an interview, said he immediately felt the difference. After Bass’ letter, interest in endorsing him evaporated.

“It changed the amount of people that would take my call,” he said.

Once the election was over, Esperias said, Raman sent a text message thanking him for his help during a tough campaign.

“I put my credibility, I put my relationships on the line to help build this coalition to get that endorsement,” Esperias said.

Raman argued that the support has gone both ways.

During Bass’ first mayoral campaign, Raman held a fundraiser at her Silver Lake home and introduced Bass to key people in her district.

“I did help her in her election as well, just like she helped me,” she said.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gavin Newsom writes in his upcoming memoir about San Francisco’s highborn Getty family fitting him in Brioni suits “appropriate to meet a king” when he was 20 years old. Then he flew aboard their private “Jetty” to Spain for a royal princess’s debutante-style party.

Back home, real life wasn’t as grand.

In an annual performance for their single mom, Newsom and his sister would pretend to find problems with the fancy clothes his dad’s friends, the heirs of ruthless oil baron J. Paul Getty, sent for Christmas. Poor fit. Wrong color. Not my style. The ritual gave her an excuse to return the gifts and use the store credit on presents for her children she placed under the tree.

California’s 41st governor, a possible suitor for the White House, opens up about the duality of his upbringing in his new book. Newsom details the everyday struggle living with his mom after his parents divorced and occasional interludes into his father’s life charmed by the Gettys’ affluence, including that day when the Gettys outfitted him in designer clothes at a luxury department store.

“I walked out understanding that this was the split personality of my life,” Newsom writes in “Young Man in a Hurry.”

For years, Newsom asserted that his “one-dimensional” public image as a slick, privileged politician on a path to power paved with Getty oil money fails to tell the whole story.

“I’m not trying to be something I’m not,” Newsom said in a recent interview. “I’m not trying to talk about, you know, ‘I was born in a town called Hope with no running water.’ That’s not what this book is about. But it’s a very different portrayal than the one I think 9 out of 10 people believe.”

As he explores a 2028 presidential run and basks in the limelight as one of President Trump’s most vociferous critics, the book offers the Democratic politician a chance to write his own narrative and address the skeletons in his closet before opponents begin to exploit his past.

A book tour, which is set to begin Feb. 21 in Nashville, also gives Newsom a reason to travel the country, meet voters and promote his life story without officially entering the race. He’s expected to make additional stops in Georgia, South Carolina, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The governor describes the book as a “memoir of discovery” that sent him interviewing family members and friends and digging through troves of old documents about his lineage that his mother never spoke about and his father smoothed over. Learning about his family history, the good and the bad, Newsom said, helped him understand and accept himself. Mark Arax, an author and former Los Angeles Times journalist, was his ghostwriter.

“I’ve changed the opinion of myself,” Newsom said when asked if he believed the book would revise his glossy public image. “It kind of rocked so many parts of my life, and kind of cracked things open. And I started to understand where my anxieties come from and why I’m overcompensating in certain areas.”

Newsom writes that his interest in politics brought him and his father, William, closer. His mother, Tessa, on the other hand, didn’t share his father’s enthusiasm.

She warned him to get out while he still could, worried her only son would eschew his true self.

“My mother did not want that world for me: the shrewd marriage of tall husbands and tall wives that kept each year’s Cotillion Debutante Ball stocked with children of the same; the gritted teeth behind the social smiles; the spectator sport of who was in and who was out based on so-and-so’s dinner party guest list,” Newsom wrote.

At the heart of her concern was her belief that Newsom’s “obsessive drive” into business and politics was in response to his upbringing and an effort to solve “the riddle” of his identity from his learning disorder, dyslexia, and the two different worlds he inhabited.

“As I grew up trying to grasp which of these worlds, if either, suited me best, she had worried about the persona I was constructing to cover up what she considered a crack at my core,” Newsom writes. “If my remaking was skim plaster, she feared, it would crumble. It would not hold me into adulthood.”

Newsom’s mother was 19 years old when she married his father, then 32. He learned through writing the book that his mother hailed from a “family of brilliant and daring misfits who had carved new paths in botany and medicine and left-wing politics,” he writes.

There was also secret pain and struggles with mental health. His maternal grandfather, a World War II POW, turned to the bottle after returning home. One night he told his three young daughters to line up in front of the fireplace so he could shoot them, but stopped when his wife walked in the door and took the gun from his hand. He committed suicide years later.

Newsom’s father’s family was full of more traditional Democrats and Irish Catholic storytellers who worked in banking, homebuilding, law enforcement and law. Newsom describes his paternal grandfather as one of the “thinkers behind the throne” for former California Gov. Edmund “Pat” Brown, but his family never held public office despite his dad’s bids for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the California Legislature.

The failed campaigns left his father in financial and emotional turmoil that crippled his marriage when Newsom was a small boy. A divorce set the stage for an unusual contrasting existence for the would-be governor, offering him brief exposures to the wealth and power of the Gettys through his dad.

Newsom said he moved casually between the rich and poor neighborhoods of San Francisco as a boy.

“It was a wonder how effortlessly I glided because the two realms of my life, the characters of my mother’s world and the characters of my father’s world, did not fit together in the least,” Newsom writes.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and his dad, Judge William Newsom, have lunch at the Balboa Cafe in San Francisco.

(Christina Koci Hernandez / San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

Though William Alfred Newsom III went on to become an appellate court justice, Newsom’s father was best known for his role delivering ransom money to the kidnappers of J. Paul Getty’s grandson. He served as an adviser to the family without pay and a paid administrator of the $4 billion family trust.

The governor wrote in the book that the ties between the two families go back three generations. His father was close friends with Getty’s sons John Paul Jr. and Gordon since childhood when they became like his sixth and seventh siblings at Newsom’s grandparents’ house.

Gordon Getty in particular considered Newsom’s father his “best-best friend.” Newsom’s dad helped connect the eccentric music composer “to the outside world,” the governor wrote.

“My father had this way of creating a safe space for Gordon to open up,” Newsom writes. “He became Gordon’s whisperer, his interpreter and translator, a bridge to their friends, a bridge to Gordon’s own children.”

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and his sister, Hilary Newsom, in a promotional portrait for the Search for the Cause campaign, which raises funds for cancer research, on Nov. 21, 2025.

(Caroline Schiff/Getty Images)

His father’s friendship with Gordon Getty exposed Newsom and his younger sister, Hillary, to a world far beyond their family’s own means. Gordon’s wife, Ann, and Newsom’s father organized elaborate adventures for the Gettys’ four sons and the Newsom children.

Newsom describes fishing on the Rogue River and riding in a helicopter while studying polar bears on the shores of the Hudson Bay in Canada. He recalled donning tuxedos and carrying toy guns pretending to be James Bond on a European yacht vacation and soaring over the Serengeti in a hot air balloon during an East African safari.

Throughout his travels, Newsom often blended in with the Gettys’ brown-haired sons. He wrote that the actor Jack Nicholson once mistakenly called him one of the “Getty boys” at a party in a 16th-century palazzo in Venice where guests arrived via gondola. Newsom didn’t correct him.

“Had I shared this encounter with my mother, she likely would have asked me if deception was something I practiced whenever I hobnobbed with the Gettys,” Newsom said in the book. “Fact is, I was always aware of the line that separated us from the Gettys. Not because they went out of their way to make us aware of it but because we, as good Newsoms, paid constant mind to the distinction.”

Newsom wrote that his mother seemed to begrudge the excursions when her children returned home. She raised them in a much more ordinary existence. Newsom describes his father’s presence as “episodic.”

“For a day or two, she’d give us the silent treatment, and then we’d all fall back into the form of a life trying to make ends meet,” he wrote. “After enough vacations came and went, a cone of silence took hold.”

Newsom’s mother worked as an assistant retail buyer, a bookkeeper, a waitress at a Mexican restaurant, a development director for a nonprofit and a real estate agent — holding as many as three jobs at once — to provide for her children. His mother’s sister and brother-in-law helped care for them when they could, but he likened himself to a latchkey kid because of the amount of time he and his sister spent alone.

They moved five times in 10 years in search of a “better house in a better neighborhood” with good schools, taking the family from San Francisco to the Marin County suburbs. Though his mother owned a home, she often rented out rooms to bring in extra money.

Tired of his mother complaining about finances and his father not coming through, Newsom wrote that he took on a paper route.

In the book, Newsom describes his struggles with dyslexia and how the learning disorder undercut his self-esteem when he was an emotionally vulnerable child.

Eager to make himself something more than an awkward kid with sweaty palms and a bowl haircut who couldn’t read, Newsom mimicked Remington Steele, the suave character on the popular 1980s detective show. He chugged down glassfuls of raw eggs like Sylvester Stallone in “Rocky” and ran across town and back like a prizefighter in training.

He found confidence in high school sports, but his struggle to find himself continued into young adulthood. Newsom wrote that he watched tapes of motivational guru Tony Robbins and heeded his advice to remake yourself in the image of someone you admire. For Newsom, that became Robbins himself.

“Find a person who embodies all of the outward traits of personality, bearing, charisma, language, and power lacking in yourself,” Newsom described the philosophy in the book. “Study that person. Copy that person. The borrowed traits may fit awkwardly at first, but don’t fret. You’ll be surprised by how fast the pose becomes you, and you the pose.”

His father scoffed at the self-help gurus and nurtured his interest in business.

More than a half-dozen friends and family members, including Gordon Getty, invested equal shares to help him launch a wine shop in San Francisco. Newsom named the business, which expanded to include restaurants, hotels and wineries, “PlumpJack,” the nickname of Shakespeare’s fictional character Sir John Falstaff and the title of Gordon Getty’s opera.

“Gordon’s really inspired me to be bolder and more audacious. He’s inspired me to be more authentic,” Newsom said. “The risks I take in business … just trying to march to the beat of a different drummer and to be a little bolder. That’s my politics. But I also think he played a huge role in that, in terms of shaping me in that respect as well.”

Newsom described Gordon and Ann Getty as like family. The Gettys also became the biggest investors in his wineries and among his largest political donors.

In an interview, Newsom said there are many days when he feels his mother “absolutely” was right to worry about the facade of politics and the mold her son stuffed himself into.

Gavin Newsom heads for his home neighborhood on Nov. 3, 2003, to cast hisvote for San Francisco mayor.

(Mike Kepka / San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

He described the day the recall against him qualified for the ballot amid the COVID-19 pandemic as humbling and humiliating, though it later failed by a wide margin. Still today, he said, there’s a voice in his head constantly questioning why he’s in politics, what he’s exposing his wife and children to and doing with his life.

By choosing a career as an elected official despite his mother’s warnings, Newsom ultimately picked his father’s world and accomplished his father’s dream of taking office. But he said the book taught him that so much of his own more gutsy positions, such as his early support for gay marriage, and his hustle were from his mother.

Newsom said he’s accepted that he can’t control which version of himself people choose to see. Writing the book felt cathartic, he said, and left him more comfortable taking off his mask.

“It allowed me to understand better my motivations, my purpose, my meaning, my mission… who my mom and dad were and who I am as a consequence of them and what truly motivates me,” Newsom said. “There’s a freedom. There’s a real freedom. And it’s nice. It’s just so much nicer than the plaster of the past.”

Limits to pardon powers

But there are limits to presidential clemency, and already, Trump has brushed against them.

In December, Trump announced that he would pardon Tina Peters, a former county clerk in Colorado who supported Trump’s false claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election.

Peters, however, was also convicted of state-level crimes, after she used her office to allow an unauthorised person to access her county’s election software.

A president may only pardon federal charges, not state ones. Peters continues to serve a nine-year prison sentence. Still, Trump has sought to pressure Colorado officials to release her.

“She did nothing wrong,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!”

While Trump has argued that presidents have the “complete power to pardon”, legal experts have repeatedly affirmed that clemency is not without bounds.

Pardons, for example, cannot be used to avoid impeachment or to undercut the Constitution, nor can they be used to absolve future crimes.

Still, the question remains how to enforce those limits — and whether new bulwarks should be created to prevent abuse.

Love points to the state pardon systems as models to emulate. Delaware, for example, has a Board of Pardons that hears petitions in public meetings and makes recommendations to the governor. More than half of the petitions are granted.

Like other successful clemency systems, Love said it offers public accountability.

She measures that accountability by certain standards: “Can people see what’s going on? Do they know what the standards are, and is the decider a respected and responsible decision-maker?”

Trump’s sweeping actions, however, have prompted calls for presidential pardons to be limited or eliminated altogether.

Osler cautions against doing so: It would be a “permanent solution to a temporary problem”.

“If we constrain clemency, we’ll lose all the good things that come from it,” Osler said.

Leaders gathered in Ethiopia’s capital for the African Union summit to discuss regional challenges. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke to Al Jazeera’s Haru Mutasa and said Africa should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — A restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Services will see two top people leave ahead of the midterm elections, unnamed officials familiar with the decision told media outlets Friday.

HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill and General Counsel Mike Stuart are expected to soon leave the agency, sources have reported to Axios, Politico and CNN.

“They are being offered jobs within the administration but will not be remaining in their current positions,” one source told Politico.

O’Neill is the second-in-command behind HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and is the interim leader of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. He has boosted anti-vax messaging, allegations of Medicaid fraud and the United States leaving the World Health Organization.

On Thursday, Kennedy announced that Chris Klomp, deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, would become chief counselor in charge of overseeing all Health and Human Services Department operations. Before joining the administration, he was a health tech executive and venture capitalist.

Kennedy also promoted Kyle Diamantas, deputy commissioner for human foods, and Grace Graham, deputy commissioner for policy, legislation and international affairs, to senior counselors for the Food and Drug Administration. They will also keep their current positions. John Brooks will also be a senior counselor at Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while keeping his job as chief policy and regulatory officer.

The moves are intended to focus attention on Make America Healthy Again policies, like dietary guidelines changes, eliminating artificial food dyes and improving healthcare affordability.

“What basically happened was that HHS Secretary Kennedy, and also the White House, realized that we want to be most efficiently and most effectively implementing that policy and moving the needle on these issues that we see as very clear and unambiguous wins for us,” the White House official told Politico. “And obviously the polling and such is very clear on these topics as well.”

CHICAGO — President Bush said Tuesday that he welcomed a Justice Department investigation into whether White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of a CIA agent in an effort to discredit or punish her husband, an administration critic.

Bush also dismissed calls by Democrats for the appointment of a special counsel to look into the matter. Administration critics argued that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is too partisan to preside over an impartial investigation.

On a campaign fund-raising trip through the Midwest, Bush said he is “absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job.”

“I want to know the truth,” Bush said. “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

The remarks were the president’s first on the burgeoning scandal, which burst into view over the weekend when it was disclosed that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate whether senior administration officials deliberately unmasked a CIA agent married to former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of Bush’s handling of intelligence before the war in Iraq.

The Justice Department said Tuesday that it was conducting a formal investigation into who leaked the agent’s identity to conservative columnist Robert Novak, an apparent violation of a 1982 law designed to protect intelligence operatives.

The allegations are serious; exposing the identity of a CIA operative is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. And the charges have handed Democrats a juicy political opportunity, enabling them to accuse the hawkish Bush administration of playing fast and loose with national security.

In the Senate, a resolution sponsored by about two dozen Democrats was introduced Tuesday calling for a “fair, thorough and independent investigation into a national security breach.”

Democrats took to the Senate floor to liken the leak to President Richard Nixon’s enemies list and to “kneecapping” the CIA agent in retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration’s policies.

“This is not just a leak; this is a crime, plain and simple,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.

The politically charged nature of the case was underscored Tuesday when Wilson, who has portrayed himself as defending the CIA career of his wife, Valerie Plame, confirmed on CNBC that he has been in contact with a number of Democratic campaigns, in particular that of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Wilson said he had donated money to Kerry’s presidential campaign and is considering endorsing him, although he said he also had contributed to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000.

Wilson has agreed to meet today with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Justice officials said they weren’t ruling out the possibility of acceding to the demands for a special counsel. Some former prosecutors said they believed the facts of the case were so murky that appointing a special counsel seemed premature.

For now, the politically delicate task falls to a low-profile group of Justice professionals. The team is headed up by John Dion, chief of the counterespionage section of the department’s criminal section, a 20-year spy catcher who has won department awards during Republican and Democratic administrations for his work investigating turncoats and security breaches.

“John is a very aggressive prosecutor who will call it as he sees it,” said Eric Dubelier, a Washington lawyer and former federal prosecutor who worked with Dion several years ago. “He will make a decision based on the facts and the law. Then, the question will be, ‘Who is the final arbiter?’ ”

But some members of Congress said there was already evidence that the investigation was going off-track.

They cite a heads-up the Justice Department gave the White House on Monday night that it had decided to launch a formal investigation, and that it would be sending out a letter Tuesday morning explaining which documents it wanted preserved.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House counsel’s office asked whether staff should be notified immediately; the Justice officials said it could wait until the next morning.

McClellan rebuffed a question asking whether the evening phone call could be seen as advance warning, calling it a “silly suggestion.”

Schumer said the notice created an opportunity for mischief, essentially giving White House staff an opportunity overnight to destroy evidence.

“If there were a special counsel, it is extremely doubtful that the White House would have been allowed to delay the request to preserve documents and other evidence,” Schumer said. “After all, every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence.”

Legal experts said the White House probably was already obliged under the law to preserve documents, given the widespread publicity the case had generated over the weekend. Others said they thought the White House should have acted more aggressively in ensuring that the documents be preserved.

“I think a conscientious lawyer would have done it immediately. We are not dealing with a rural D.A.’s office,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics specialist at New York University law school. Gillers said he thought that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’ own preservation order was “incredibly vague” and might have confused some employees.

Later Tuesday, Gonzalez expanded his notification to White House staff members by specifying that they preserve records of any contacts with members of the news media, including columnist Novak and Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce.

Phelps and Royce were apparently named because a story they wrote about Novak’s column in July disclosed that Plame was an undercover operative, which Novak’s column didn’t say.

Their story also quoted Novak as saying that an administration official had sought him out with the information about Plame. Novak now tells it differently, saying that the information emerged in an interview that he requested with the administration official. The Newsday account suggests a more aggressive role by the unidentified leaker.

Under Justice Department regulations, Ashcroft has full discretion in whether to appoint a special counsel, unlike the post-Watergate independent counsel statute, which ascribed that authority to a panel of judges. Congress allowed the counsel statute to expire in 1999 amid recriminations over the expense and scope of the Whitewater investigations.

In its place, then-Atty. Gen. Janet Reno enacted guidelines for when the department should veer from its normal rules in cases where officials have conflicts of interest. Those rules remain in effect.

“The attorney general is absolutely free to structure any special investigative appointment within the Department of Justice that he wishes. That has been done repeatedly as needed throughout history,” said John Barrett, a law professor at St. John’s University law school in New York, and a former member of the independent counsel team that investigated the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration.

Ashcroft himself has exercised the prerogative, setting up a special task force to scrutinize Enron after recusing himself from the investigation because he had once taken campaign contributions from the fallen energy trader.

Barrett said even if the independent counsel law were still in effect, the investigation would be going through a sorting-out process, trying to zero in on suspects, before deciding whether a conflict existed warranting an outside prosecutor.

“Even in the independent counsel model, the preliminary work was to be done by the Department of Justice. Someone has to do the initial spade work,” he said.

On Capitol Hill, such legal distinctions were buried under political rhetoric from both sides.

“If we need an independent counsel to investigate a private real estate deal,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), referring to the independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton’s and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Whitewater land venture, “certainly a breach of national security deserves the same level of scrutiny.”

California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, were among those supporting calls for an outside counsel. Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement: “Clearly, a well-respected special counsel from the outside — Democrat or Republican — is the only option to ensure a fair and thorough investigation that will have the confidence of the American people.”

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said of the Democrats’ call for a special counsel: “Surprise, surprise.”

DeLay said the appointment of a special counsel “makes no sense.”

“You have special counsels if you think the administration is trying to cover up or obstruct justice,” he said. “The White House is very upset about this … They’re trying to get to the bottom of this.”

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) ridiculed Democrats’ call for an outside counsel, noting they were among critics of the independent counsel statute in the past.

“We killed the independent counsel because it was used for politics by both sides of the aisle,” Santorum said.

Times staff writer Richard Simon in Washington contributed to this report. Reynolds reported from Chicago and Schmitt from Washington.

‘Illiberal’ PM, endorsed by ally Trump this week, to receive US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban says his country should fear the European Union more than Russia while promising to clear away the EU’s “oppressive machinery” before what looks will be heated parliamentary elections.

Delivering his annual state-of-the-nation speech on Saturday, Orban pledged to push out “the foreign influence that limits our sovereignty together with its agents” as the opposition Tisza Party maintains an 8 to 12 percentage point lead over Orban’s ruling Fidesz party eight weeks from the April 12 elections.

“Fear-mongering about [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is primitive and unserious. Brussels, however, is a palpable reality and a source of imminent danger,” said the 62-year-old leader, who compared the EU to the repressive Soviet regime that dominated Hungary for decades last century.

Since returning to power for a second time in 2010, Orban has waged a campaign against “pseudo-civil organisations”, “bought journalists”, judges and politicians in his drive to build what he calls an “illiberal state”.

His crackdown on immigration has provided a blueprint for right-wing leaders, such as United States President Donald Trump.

‘War or peace’?

In Saturday’s speech, Orban signalled his work of clearing liberal forces from the country is only “half-done”, noting that Trump, who is backing him to win the upcoming vote, “rebelled against the liberals’ global-scale business, media and political network, thereby improving our chances as well”.

On Friday, Trump posted a new endorsement of Orban on his Truth Social platform, saying he’s a “truly strong and powerful leader with a proven track record of delivering phenomenal results”.

The US president’s comments came as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio prepares to visit Hungary on Sunday. Rubio will fly in from the Munich Security Conference in Germany with a stopover in Slovakia for talks with nationalist Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Orban, who has cultivated warm relations with Putin during his current stretch in power, this week cast the April elections as a stark choice between “war or peace”, warning in a Facebook post that Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party would drag the country into the conflict raging next door in Ukraine.

The prime minister has doubled down on his strategy of portraying Magyar as a “Brussels puppet” with billboards depicting him saying “yes” to a demand for “Money for Ukraine!” from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Reporting from Washington — The Senate on Tuesday advanced the Obama administration’s aid package for small business but failed to relieve millions of companies from onerous new tax filings, accelerating the election year debate over which party is most responsible for gridlock in Washington and lost jobs on Main Street.

Two Republicans joined Democrats in the vote to move the bill, which includes a $30-billion loan fund and other tax breaks for small businesses.

But lawmakers could not reach agreement on a way to spare small businesses from a new requirement to notify the Internal Revenue Service of every purchase of goods worth more than $600.

“I have never seen it like this,” said National Small Business Assn. President Todd McCracken, who has been lobbying Congress for more than two decades. “It is what makes small-business owners feel like their heads are going to explode.”

While the gridlock is politically risky for Republicans, it is likely to be particularly damaging to the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, who have advanced several substantial business aid packages over the last two years but are being accused of not doing enough to revive the economy.

The small-business bill that advanced Tuesday, which President Obama stumped hard to pass, would create a new government-operated fund to help smaller banks make loans to small businesses.

And it would offer $12 billion in tax breaks to encourage investment and hiring. Businesses would be able to write off more of the cost of buying new equipment and making improvements to their stores. Those who are self-employed could deduct healthcare costs. The bill would also continue to waive Small Business Administration loan fees that were cut in the 2009 recovery act.

“This bill will do more to support small businesses than any bill has in years,” said John Arensmeyer, president of Small Business Majority, a left-leaning business group.

Senators voted 61 to 37 Tuesday to end a GOP filibuster of the measure, clearing the way for passage later this week. The bill is then expected to pass quickly in the House, where Democrats hold a commanding majority.

Obama hailed the vote as a crucial step Tuesday. “This is a bill that would cut taxes and help provide loans to millions of small-business owners who create most of the new jobs in this country,” he said in a statement.

Republicans, who have long cast themselves as the champions of small business, almost unanimously opposed the package. The two GOP senators who voted for it are retiring.

Most Republican lawmakers slammed the package as misguided. “If there’s one message that my constituents have made clear, it is that they’re tired of bailouts,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who heads the GOP Senate campaign committee, referring to the government backing of additional loans.

In Chicago, Roberto Carmona, chief executive of Crimson Leadership Group, a business-consulting firm with four full-time employees, said he was reserving judgment on the small-business legislation until he sees how it’s implemented.

“You see the battles, the trading,” he said. “Like all legislation, it looks one way when it’s going in.”

And although several leading business groups backed all or part of the bill, they attacked the Senate’s inability to deal with the other issue confronting small businesses: the tax reporting requirement.

R. Bruce Josten, senior lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is funding a multimillion-dollar campaign against Democratic congressional candidates nationwide, said the failure to eliminate the reporting mandate showed a “fundamental misunderstanding about the challenges facing this economy.”

The obscure section of the mammoth healthcare law that contains the burdensome IRS requirement was inserted to help offset the cost of expanding coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. It was supposed to generate approximately $17 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which Congress relies on for revenue estimates.

That plugged an important hole as Democrats struggled to keep the healthcare legislation from raising the deficit. (The law ultimately will shrink the deficit, according to final analyses of the bill).

But the provision, which goes into effect in 2012, has raised the prospect of an administrative nightmare for businesses.

“This is just one more opportunity for the government to make work,” said Richard Boehl, owner of QTE North America Inc. in Rancho Cucamonga, a small business that sells tools and supplies to machine shops and manufacturers.

“This is work that is not productive: It doesn’t produce any income; it doesn’t produce any profit. All it does is create an extra burden on the expense side of the ledger. And it’s going to bury a bunch of small businesses that are just barely hanging on, like me.”

Democrats and Republicans have said they are committed to modifying or eliminating the mandate, but they have been unable to agree on a solution.

Tuesday, Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal backed by the White House that would have scaled back the mandate by exempting businesses with 25 employees or fewer and by exempting transactions worth less than $5,000. The proposal was offset by eliminating a tax break for oil and gas companies.

Leading business groups said many businesses would still face the reporting headache.

Democrats in turn blocked a GOP proposal that would have eliminated the mandate entirely, but that also cut funding for public health programs and exempted more people from having to buy health insurance starting in 2014, a key provision designed to control premiums for everyone.

“Everyone wants to be our friend,” said McCracken at the National Small Business Assn. “But the effect is that everyone ends up being our enemy.”

noam.levey@latimes.com

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Andrea Chang in Los Angeles and Wailin Wong in Chicago contributed to this report.

Federal authorities announced an investigation Friday of two immigration officers who appeared to have made untruthful statements under oath about a shooting in Minneapolis last month.

It is among at least five shootings in which initial descriptions by the immigration officials were later contradicted by video evidence. Those included the fatal Minneapolis shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in which bystander video quickly raised questions about how federal officials initially described the incidents.

The inquiry announced Friday came hours after a federal judge dismissed felony assault charges against two Venezuelan men who were accused of beating an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel on Jan. 14. The officer, who is not named in court filings, fired a single shot from a handgun that struck one of the men, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, in the thigh.

In an unusual reversal, prosecutors asked to dismiss the cases because they said new video evidence contradicted allegations made against the men in a criminal complaint and at a hearing last month.

Here is a look at how the five shootings were initially described and what was later learned:

Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis

Date and location: Jan. 14, 2026, in Minneapolis.

What federal officials said initially: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the immigration officer was “ambushed” by Sosa-Celis and others, and fired a “defensive shot” out of fear for his life. “What we saw last night in Minneapolis was an attempted murder of federal law enforcement,” she said.

What came out later: Investigators have not released the new evidence that led charges to be dropped, but cracks were already apparent in a Jan. 21 court hearing. The immigration officer’s testimony recounting the moments before the shooting differed significantly from that of the defendants and three eyewitnesses. Available video evidence did not support the officer’s account of being assaulted with a broom and shovel.

Renee Good

Date and location: Jan. 7, 2026, in Minneapolis.

What federal officials said initially: Noem described the incident as an “act of domestic terrorism” carried out against ICE officers by a woman who “attempted to run them over and rammed them with her vehicle.” She said the immigration agent shot “defensively” to protect himself and the people around him. Good died of gunshot wounds to the head.

What came out later: Videos filmed from multiple angles challenged the administration’s narrative. Shortly before the shooting, Good is seen at the wheel of her SUV that is parked diagonally on a street. She tells an immigration officer, “I’m not mad at you.”

Seconds later, another immigration officer grabs at the driver’s side door while Good’s wife urges her to “drive, baby, drive.” It’s unclear in the videos whether the SUV makes contact with ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who shoots while standing near the front of the driver’s side of the SUV and then twice more while quickly moving to the driver’s side as the vehicle pulls forward.

Alex Pretti

Date and location: Jan. 24, 2026, in Minneapolis.

What federal officials said initially: Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said Pretti approached Border Patrol officers with a handgun and he “violently resisted” when they tried to disarm him. An agent feared for his life and fired “defensive” shots, she said. Pretti was pronounced dead at the scene. Border Patrol senior official Greg Bovino claimed Pretti intended to “massacre law enforcement,” and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller described him as “a would-be assassin.”

What came out later: None of the half-dozen bystander videos collected by investigators showed Pretti brandishing his gun, which he had a permit to carry. The videos showed Pretti was holding his mobile phone as a masked Border Patrol officer opened fire.

In a tense hearing Thursday in Washington, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky made leaders tasked with carrying out Trump’s mass deportation agenda watch a video of the shooting while he repeatedly scrutinized the forceful tactics used by immigration agents. Paul argued that Pretti posed no threat to the agents and said it was clear from the video that he was “retreating at every moment.”

Silverio Villegas González

Date and location: Sept. 12, 2025, in suburban Chicago.

What federal officials said initially: Homeland Security officials said federal agents were pursuing a man with a history of reckless driving who entered the country illegally. They alleged that Villegas González drove at officers and dragged one with his car. The Department of Homeland Security said the officer fired because he feared for his life and was hospitalized with “serious injuries.”

What came out later: Body-camera videos from local police contradicted the Trump administration’s account. Footage showed the agent who shot Villegas González walking around afterward and dismissing his own injuries as “nothing major.”

An autopsy made public in November declared Villegas González’s death a homicide. The report showed he was shot at “close range,” with wounds to his neck and fingers.

Marimar Martinez

Date and location: Oct. 14, 2025, in Chicago.

What federal officials said initially: A Homeland Security Department news release asserted that Martinez and the driver of another car involved in a crash with a Border Patrol officer were “domestic terrorists.” An FBI agent said in court documents that she was chasing the Border Patrol vehicle and drove at one of the officers after they got out of the vehicle. The officer was forced to open fire, the FBI agent alleged, striking Martinez seven times. She was treated at a hospital and arrested on felony assault charges.

What came out later: Videos emerged that her attorneys said showed agent Charles Exum steering his SUV into her truck.

In a text message presented during a Nov. 5 hearing, Exum appeared to brag about his marksmanship. “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys,” the text read.

The case against her was dismissed.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

Two golfers in Washington, D.C., have sued the federal government to try to prevent the Trump administration from overhauling a more than 100-year-old public golf course, accusing the administration of violating environmental laws and polluting a park that is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The suit, which also claims the administration is violating a congressional act governing the property, is the latest in a series of legal battles challenging President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to put his mark on public spaces in the nation’s capital, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which he ordered closed for renovation.

At the end of last year, a group of preservationists filed a similar lawsuit seeking to prevent the administration from demolishing the East Wing of the White House in order to build a ballroom — a project estimated to cost $400 million.

Trump, an avid golfer, also plans to renovate a military golf course just outside Washington that has been used for decades by past presidents.

The complaint filed against the Department of the Interior on Friday says that the Trump administration’s reconstruction of East Potomac Park — which includes the East Potomac Golf Course — would violate the congressional act that created the park in 1897. The act established the park for the “recreation and the pleasure of the people.”

The golf course has been recognized on the National Register of Historic Places in part for its efforts to racially integrate in the 1940s. Municipal golf courses make up only 18% of courses in America.

“East Potomac Golf Links is a testament to what’s possible with public land and why public spaces matter,” said Washington resident and plaintiff Dave Roberts. “It deserves better than becoming a dumping ground for waste and yet another private playground for the privileged and powerful.”

The lawsuit came after the Trump administration in December ended a lease agreement the nonprofit National Links Trust held for East Potomac and two other golf courses in Washington. The Interior Department said it did so because the nonprofit hadn’t implemented required capital improvements and failed to meet the terms of the lease.

The Interior Department press office said in an email Friday that it doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but that it would “ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable and accessible for people visiting the greatest capital city in the world which is in line with President Trump’s agenda.”

The White House also didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment Friday evening.

Construction on the East Potomac course has already begun, according to the lawsuit. In October, the National Park Service began dumping debris from the demolition of the East Wing of the White House onto the golf course, the complaint said, raising concerns that the materials could contain contaminants that could pollute the air.

As a result, the plaintiffs argued, the administration also violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by failing to consider the harmful environmental impacts of the project.

The National Links Trust said in December it was “devastated” by the decision to terminate the lease and defended its management of the courses.

The trust said that $8.5 million had gone toward capital improvements at the courses and that rounds played and revenue had more than doubled in its tenure managing the courses. It also said the termination of the lease jeopardized hundreds of local jobs.

The nonprofit has agreed to keep managing the courses for the time being, but long-term renovations will stop.

The first 18 holes of the East Potomac Park Golf Course were built from 1918 to 1923.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu contributed to this report.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — The Department of Homeland Security will shut down indefinitely at 12:01 a.m. EST Saturday after Senate Democrats opposed a bipartisan fiscal year 2026 budget .

Congress is taking a weeklong break next week, so no action is likely until at least Feb. 23.

While Congress is on break, some congressional lawmakers are planning to attend a security conference in Munich, Germany, while most others are returning to their home districts for the week.

“We are not even going to pretend that we are trying to figure it out,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told The New York Times.

She is among the federal lawmakers who are expected to make the trip to Munich next week.

“It doesn’t look great,” Murkowski said of the apparent ease with which the Senate allowed the pending shutdown to occur without doing more to overcome their differences.

The Senate voted 52-47 in favor of the department’s House-approved funding on Thursday, but the measure required 60 votes to overcome the Senate filibuster rule. Instead of returning for another go on Friday, lawmakers left the Capital.

The only Senate Democrat to support the department’s funding was Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Senate Republican leader John Thune of South Dakota changed his vote to “no” to make it possible for the measure to be reconsidered quickly when the Senate resumes session.

Congressional Democrats have called for defunding the department after the recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement surge in Minneapolis that resulted in the deaths of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti in January.

They are demanding that all immigration enforcement officers end broad sweeps, wear body cameras, remove their masks and use more judicial warrants instead of administrative warrants when undertaking targeted arrests, among other demands.

Border czar Tom Homan on Thursday said the surge has ended and most of the federal officers are leaving Minneapolis.

ICE and Customs and Border Protection will remain on duty amid the pending shutdown due to receiving three years of full funding in the recently One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, but Homeland Security’s remaining funding ends Friday.

The Department of Homeland Security shutdown affects the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Science and Technology Directorate, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which processes visa applications.

It also affects the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom sat onstage at the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Friday and described one of the primary ways he is responding as the Trump administration shifts federal climate priorities.

“I’m showing up,” he said.

In recent months, that has meant trips to Brazil, Switzerland and now Germany, where he has repeatedly positioned California as a global climate partner. The travel has also revived a recurring question from critics and watchdog groups: Who pays for those trips?

In many cases, the costs are not borne by taxpayers. The governor’s office said his international travel is paid for by the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit that is funded primarily by corporate donations and run by a board Newsom appoints.

For decades, California governors have relied on nonprofits to pick up the tab for official travel, diplomatic events and other costs that would otherwise be paid with taxpayer funds.

“The Foundation’s mission is to lessen the burden on California taxpayers by reimbursing appropriate expenses associated with advancing the state’s economic and diplomatic interests,” said Jason Elliott, a former high-ranking advisor to Newsom, who the governor added to the foundation’s board.

While the arrangement helps the state’s pocketbook, critics say it is another avenue for corporate interests to gain influence.

“The problem with the protocol foundation and others like it is that donors to these foundations receive access to the politicians whose travel they fund,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.

When did nonprofits start paying for gubernatorial travel?

The protocol foundation was created as a tax-exempt charity during Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration in 2004.

Similar nonprofits have existed since Gov. George Deukmejian created one in the 1980s. In the early 2000s, Gov. Gray Davis dramatically increased the use of nonprofits to cover travel, housing and political events.

When Schwarzenegger left office, his supporters turned the protocol foundation over to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s backers, who in turn handed it over to Newsom’s camp. The foundation describes its mission in federal tax filings as “relieving the State of California of its obligations to fund certain expenditures of the Governor’s Office.”

Newsom appoints members to the foundation board, which then is responsible for determining what expenses to cover in the governor’s office. In its most recent tax filing covering 2024, the foundation lists its board chair as Steve Kawa, who served as Newsom’s chief of staff when he was mayor of San Francisco. The foundation’s secretary in those filings is Jim DeBoo, who was Newsom’s chief of staff in the governor’s office until 2022.

The foundation reported total revenue of $1.3 million in 2024 and, after expenses, had a balance of less than $8,000.

What is the foundation paying for?

Publicly available records are vague, but annual financial disclosure forms show the foundation paid more than $13,000 for the governor’s 2024 trip to Italy, where he delivered a speech on climate change at the Vatican.

That same year, the foundation paid nearly $4,000 for his trip to Mexico City to attend the inauguration of Mexico’s first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum. The cost of both trips included flights, hotel and meals for his “official travel,” according to the disclosure records, which are filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission and known as Form 700s.

Newsom has reported receiving $72,000 in travel, staff picnics and holiday events from the protocol foundation since he took office in 2019, according to the disclosures.

The foundation paid $15,200 for the governor’s 2023 trip to China, where he visited five cities in seven days during an agenda packed with meetings, sightseeing and celebrations, including a private tour of the Forbidden City.

In 2020, the foundation paid $8,800 for Newsom to travel to Miami for Super Bowl LIV — where he said he was representing the state as the San Francisco 49ers faced the Kansas City Chiefs.

The governor’s office said it did not yet have the amount picked up by the foundation for Newsom’s travel to Brazil to attend the United Nations climate summit known as COP30 or to Switzerland for the World Economic Summit.

Who are the donors behind the foundation?

In some cases, the well-heeled funders behind the foundation’s cash flow are easy to identify on state websites.

Donations to the foundation that are solicited directly or indirectly by Newsom are recorded with the Fair Political Practices Commission as behested payments. A behested payment occurs when an elected official solicits or suggests that a person or organization give to another person or organization for a legislative, governmental or charitable purpose.

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation donated $300,000 in a 2023 behested payment earmarked for the California delegation traveling to China for the meetings on climate change. UC Berkeley gave $220,000 for the governor’s office’s trip to the Vatican in 2024.

Most donations simply indicate that they are directed for “general operating support” of the foundation. That includes two donations from the Amazon-owned autonomous vehicle company Zoox Inc. cumulatively worth $80,000.

Two charities set up to pay for Newsom’s inaugurations in 2019 and 2023 moved more than $5 million to the protocol foundation since 2019. The financial backers behind those inaugural charities include powerful unions, corporations, tribal casino interests, trade associations and healthcare giants — organizations with significant financial stakes in state policy decisions.

Past spending by the foundation has been criticized

During Schwarzenegger’s administration, his office avoided fully disclosing $1.7 million in travel costs paid for by the foundation, instead relying on vague internal memos and, in some cases, oral accounting, according to a 2007 Los Angeles Times investigation.

Schwarzenegger’s expenses picked up by the foundation included leased Gulfstream jets costing up to $10,000 per hour and suites going for thousands of dollars a night. The Times’ investigation found among the costs was $353,000 for a single round trip to China on a private jet in 2005.

The foundation also paid for Schwarzenegger’s travels to Japan, Europe, Canada and Mexico.

At the time, Schwarzenegger’s representatives told The Times the governor did not have to report the travel costs on his annual disclosure forms because the payments for the jets and suites were gifts to his office, not to him.

Newsom’s office said the governor travels commercially, not on private jets.