politics

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.

A shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security that took effect early Saturday affects the agency responsible for screening passengers and bags at airports across the country. Travelers with airline reservations may be nervously recalling a 43-day government shutdown that led to historic flight cancellations and long delays last year.

Transportation Security Administration officers are expected to work without pay while lawmakers remain without an agreement on Homeland Security’s annual funding. TSA officers also worked through the record shutdown that ended Nov. 12, but aviation experts say this one may play out differently.

Trade groups for the U.S. travel industry and major airlines nonetheless warned that the longer Homeland Security appropriations are lapsed, the longer security lines at the nation’s commercial airports could get.

Here’s what to know about the latest shutdown and how to plan ahead.

What’s different about this shutdown?

Funding for Homeland Security expired at midnight Friday. But the rest of the federal government is funded through Sept. 30. That means air traffic controllers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration will receive paychecks as usual, reducing the risk of widespread flight cancellations.

According to the department’s contingency plan, about 95% of TSA workers are deemed essential personnel and required to keep working. Democrats in the House and Senate say the Department of Homeland Security won’t get funded until new restrictions are placed on federal immigration operations.

During past shutdowns, disruptions to air travel tended to build over time, not overnight. About a month into last year’s shutdown, for example, TSA temporarily closed two checkpoints at Philadelphia International Airport. That same day, the government took the extraordinary step of ordering all commercial airlines to reduce their domestic flight schedules.

John Rose, chief risk officer for global travel management company Altour, said strains could surface at airports more quickly this time because the TSA workforce also will be remembering the last shutdown.

“It’s still fresh in their minds and potentially their pocketbooks,” Rose said.

What is the impact on travelers?

It’s hard to predict whether, when or where security screening snags might pop up. Even a handful of unscheduled TSA absences could quickly lead to longer wait times at smaller airports, for example, if there’s just a single security checkpoint.

That’s why travelers should plan to arrive early and allow extra time to get through security.

“I tell people to do this even in good times,” Rose said.

Experts say flight delays also are a possibility even though air traffic controllers are not affected by the Homeland Security Department shutdown.

Airlines might decide to delay departures in some cases to wait for passengers to clear screening, said Rich Davis, senior security advisor at risk mitigation company International SOS. Shortages of TSA officers also could slow the screening of checked luggage behind the scenes.

What travelers can do to prepare

Most airports display security line wait times on their websites, but travelers shouldn’t wait until the day of a flight to check them, Rose advised.

“You may look online and it says 2½ hours,” he said. “Now it’s 2½ hours before your flight and you haven’t left for the airport yet.”

Passengers should also pay close attention while packing since prohibited items are likely to prolong the screening process. For carry-on bags, avoid bringing full-size shampoo or other liquids, large gels or aerosols and items like pocketknives.

TSA has a full list on its website of what is and isn’t allowed in carry-on and checked luggage.

At the airport, Rose said, remember to “practice patience and empathy.”

“Not only are they not getting paid,” he said of TSA agents, “they’re probably working with reduced staff and dealing with angry travelers.”

Will the shutdown drag on?

The White House has been negotiating with Democratic lawmakers, but the two sides failed to reach a deal by the end of the week before senators and House members were set to leave Washington for a 10-day break.

Lawmakers in both chambers were on notice, however, to return if a deal to end the shutdown is struck.

Democrats have said they won’t vote to approve more Homeland Security funding until new restrictions are placed on federal immigration operations after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by immigration agents in Minneapolis last month.

In a joint statement, U.S. Travel, Airlines for America and the American Hotel & Lodging Assn. warned that the shutdown threatens to disrupt air travel as the busy spring break travel season approaches.

“Travelers and the U.S. economy cannot afford to have essential TSA personnel working without pay, which increases the risk of unscheduled absences and call outs, and ultimately can lead to higher wait times and missed or delayed flights,” the statement said.

Yamat writes for the Associated Press.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — The U.S. military is sending the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, to the Middle East as tensions with Tehran over its nuclear program ratchet up, President Donald Trump confirmed Friday.

Trump told reporters he’s sending the vessel because if the United States and Iran doesn’t “make a deal, we’ll need it,” The Hill reported.

The vessel and its supporting warships, which are in the Caribbean, will join the USS Abraham Lincoln in a trek that’s expected to take about three to four weeks, The Guardian reported.

“We have an armada that is heading there and another one might be going,” Trump said in an interview with Axios on Tuesday.

An unnamed official said Trump made the decision to send the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East after his Thursday meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S. Southern Command said in a statement to The Hill that it was carrying out “mission-focused operations to counter illicit activities and malign actors in the Western Hemisphere.”

“While force posture evolves, our operational capability does not. SOUTHCOM forces remain fully ready to project power, defend themselves, and protect U.S. interests in the region.”

U.S. and Iranian leaders have been involved in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear arms program. Tehran has shown willingness to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions, but has declined to consider requests to scale back its ballistic missile arsenal.

It’s one thing most everyone agrees on: federal funding cuts have left the Los Angeles County health system teetering toward financial collapse.

But the supervisors’ chosen antidote — a half-cent sales tax to replenish county coffers — is being condemned by a slew of cities as its own form of financial catastrophe.

“I heard from every city in my district,” said Kathryn Barger, the only supervisor who voted against putting the sales tax on the June ballot.

The resounding reaction? “Absolutely not,” she says.

“People are fatigued,” Barger said. “I’m not convinced that it’s going to pass.”

Observers wouldn’t have sensed that fatigue from the rowdy crowd of supporters that filled the board meeting Tuesday, along with seldom-used overflow rooms. The supervisors voted 4-1 at the meeting to put the tax on the ballot.

“There really are no other viable and timely options,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who introduced the measure along with Supervisor Hilda Solis. “Trust me, I looked high and low.”

The goal, supervisors say, is to generate $1 billion per year to backfill the dwindling budgets of local hospitals and clinics battered by federal funding cuts.

The county’s already bracing for impact. The Department of Public Health announced Friday it would shutter seven clinics. Officials say it’s just the beginning, with the county poised to lose more than $2 billion in funding for health services over the next three years. Hospitals could be down the road, they warn.

But many cities, some of which could have local sales tax hit more than 11%, are revolting on the plan.

“I have been getting calls and texts and letters like honestly I have not gotten in a long time,” Supervisor Janice Hahn told the audience as a message from Jeff Wood — the vice mayor of Lakewood — pinged on her phone. “They are really diving in on this one.”

In a series of opposition letters, the cities unleashed a torrent of criticism. Norwalk called the tax “rushed.” Palmdale said it had “significant flaws.” Glendale found it “deeply troubling and fundamentally unfair.”

Some bristled at the cost to consumers. Palmdale and Lancaster — some of the poorest cities in the county — could wind up with some of the highest sales tax rates in the state if the measure passes.

Some cities say the bigger issue is they don’t trust the county. They point to its checkered history of pushing ballot measures that don’t live up to their promises.

Measure B, a special parcel tax, was passed in 2002 to fund the county’s trauma center network. An audit more than a decade later found the county couldn’t prove it used the money for emergency medical services.

Measure H, the homelessness services tax measure, was passed in 2017 as a temporary tax. Voters agreed in 2024 to make the tax permanent and to double the rate — though some cities insist they’ve never gotten their fair share of the funds.

“It’s a historical issue,” said Glendora mayor David Fredendall, whose city opposes the sales tax. “We don’t trust it.”

The county decided to put the sales tax on the ballot as a general tax, meaning the money goes into the general fund. Legally, supervisors could use the money for whatever services they desire.

“They say ‘No, this is our plan’, but we’re going to expand from five to nine supervisors over the next few years before this tax expires,” said Marcel Rodarte, the head of the California Contract Cities Assn., a coalition of cities inside the county. “They may say we need to use these funds for something else.”

A general tax also is easier to pass, since it needs only a majority vote. Special taxes — levies earmarked for a specific purpose — need two-thirds of the vote.

The measure also asks voters to approve the creation of an oversight group that would monitor where the money goes. The supervisors also voted on a spending plan for the tax money, which would dedicate the largest portion of funds for uninsured residents over the next five years.

Some opponents predict the tax will stick around longer than advertised.

“A temporary tax is like Bigfoot,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a group that advocates for lower taxes. “It exists in fantasy.”

State of play

— FRIENDLY FIRE: Three hours before the filing deadline, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman jumped into the race for mayor, challenging her former ally Karen Bass. Her candidacy will be Bass’ most serious threat.

— DEFUND DETOUR: Shortly after, Raman staked out her position on cops, saying she doesn’t want the LAPD to lose more police. Raman called for department downsizing when she first ran for city council in 2020.

— LOYAL LABOR: The head of the AFL-CIO, the county’s powerful labor federation, blasted Raman as an “opportunist.” Federation president Yvonne Wheeler said her organization will “use every tool” at its disposal to get Bass reelected.

— PETITION PUSH: Scores of candidates for L.A. city offices picked up their petitions Feb. 7, launching their effort to collect the signatures they need to qualify for the ballot. The first to turn in a petition was Councilmember Traci Park, who is facing two challengers while running for reelection in a coastal district.

— EYES ON ICE: Los Angeles police officers must turn on their body cameras if they’re at the scene of federal immigration enforcement operations, according to a new executive directive issued by Bass. LAPD officers also must document the name and badge number of the agents’ on-scene supervisor.

— CONTESTING CLEANUPS: A federal judge ruled this week that the city of L.A. violated the constitutional rights of homeless people by seizing and destroying their personal property during encampment cleanups. Lawyers for the plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer to issue an injunction requiring the city to give homeless people the opportunity to contest the seizure of their property.

— HOTEL HIKE: Voters in the June 2 election will be asked to hike the city’s tax on nightly hotel stays — increasing it to 16% from 14% — for the next three years. The tax would then drop to 15% in 2029.

— PAYDAY POLITICS: The county is considering a proposal that would remove supervisors’ final decision-making power in contract disputes involving sheriff’s deputies and firefighters. Supporters say it’ll take politics out of labor negotiations while opponents warn of bloated labor costs.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature homelessness program went to Los Angeles City Council District 13, bringing 50 unhoused Angelenos indoors from an encampment.
• On the docket next week: The county’s back to its marathon budget briefings. Tune in Tuesday for presentations from the sheriff, district attorney and probation department.

Stay in touch

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

WHEELING, W. Va — In his bid to appeal to voters as a candidate of the future, Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton is playing heavily on the imagery of the past–specifically, on the mythologized image of his party’s 1960 candidate, John F. Kennedy.

For the past two days, the Arkansas governor and his running mate, Tennessee Sen. Al Gore, have walked in footsteps left by the late President Kennedy 32 years ago.

As the sun set Saturday night in the old steel town of McKeesport, Pa., they stood under a jaunty statue of the late President, built in Kennedy Park on a site he visited during his presidential campaign.

Sunday morning, they hit West Virginia, where Kennedy turned around his presidential campaign with a victory in the state’s 1960 primary. At the Weirton Community Center, where John Kennedy had spoken to townspeople and where his brother Robert came in November, 1965, to dedicate a bust of the assassinated President, Clinton summoned the memories.

“In 1960 that man, John Kennedy, came here to this place and said it’s time to change and that’s what I say to you,” Clinton said, pointing at the Kennedy memorial.

“We have not met the challenge of this new age. We have won the Cold War . . . but we’re losing the peace because we have refused to change, to do what it takes to compete and win in a tough world economy, and we’re going to do that. . . .”

Halfway through their six-day, 1,004-mile bus tour from New York to St. Louis, Clinton and Gore have been doing their best to look like a ‘90s version of John and Robert Kennedy, tossing around a football for the television cameras and jogging after church Sunday morning.

Sunday in West Virginia, where Democrats have long held sway politically, they toured a steel mill, posing in the hot orange glow of molten ore. After a stop in Wheeling, where Clinton taped a cable television show, the candidates headed to Ohio, where they spent the evening at a Utica farm, owned by the state’s Democratic party chairman.

At the carefully staged farm appearance, Clinton told about 60 people that he would work to save the family farm. “Al Gore and I represent a better future,” he said, standing in a muddy patch of soil. “We’ve already gotten you rain since I was nominated.”

While the locations were ever-changing as Clinton and Gore moved west by bus, the image was consistent–they were meant to be seen as vigorous and exciting. Indeed, they were met at virtually every stop by voters squealing as if they were witnessing the arrival of a rock band.

While the exuberant response buoyed the candidates and their wives, Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore, Clinton used the occasion to deliver a warning.

“In the weeks and months ahead, America will be put to the test,” he said. “Al Gore and I will ask you to vote for the future and vote for change. Our opponents will tell you that everything’s going to be all right and keep it the way it is.

“They’ll try to frighten you about us. . . . They’ll tell you that we’re too liberal and we’re too young and we’re too this and we’re too that and we’re too the other thing.

“I’ll tell you what–we’re too much (on the side of) the American people for their tastes.”

While Clinton is clearly hoping for a positive comparison with Kennedy, he runs the risk that voters will find him wanting compared to Kennedy. Vice President Dan Quayle found out in a 1988 debate with Democratic vice presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen that casting one’s self in the image of an assassinated leader can be troublesome.

“Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” said Bentsen, in a line that outlived the campaign.

Clinton, however, has had his path smoothed by Kennedy’s own allies. At McKeesport, for example, Pennsylvania Sen. Harris Wofford, a founding member of Kennedy’s Peace Corps, asserted that crowds as large as those greeting Clinton and Gore had not been seen since the Kennedy visit.

“We don’t know everything that John Kennedy would have done had he got a chance,” Wofford told more than 1,000 people who lined the park to see Clinton. “But he was cut down, and now we pass the torch to a new generation of Democratic leaders. One thing I do know–if John Fitzgerald Kennedy was here today, he would say: ‘I ask you to make Bill Clinton and Al Gore the next President and vice president of the United States.’ ”

The image-making was so pronounced that one member of the audience stood to ask Clinton what he thought about the Warren Commission’s determination that President Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.

Clinton passed the question to Gore, who reminded the townspeople that recently a House committee had concluded that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy of unknown origin.

“I believe that,” Gore said. “I think most Americans believe that.”

Clinton agreed with Gore’s contention that federal files held secret since the Kennedy assassination should be opened to the public. But he backed away from Gore’s pronouncement of support for the conspiracy theory.

“My opinion is slightly less formed,” Clinton said. “I don’t know whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or not, but I know there are a lot of questions that the American people don’t have answers for.”

The Kennedyesque image that Clinton is attempting to cultivate has paid him benefits in the areas where the late President is still revered. In Weirton, W. Va., for example, Peggy Petrella stood outside the community center and tried to catch a glimpse of Clinton, much as she had stood outside in 1965 when Robert Kennedy came to town.

“We were at a standstill in 1960 and we are certainly at a standstill now,” she said, noting comparisons between the two men.

Clinton and Gore’s efforts have drawn fire from Republicans, who have asserted that the two are not moderates in the John Kennedy mold but unabashed liberals.

Coming back from jogging on Sunday morning, Clinton and Gore brushed aside the criticism.

“It shows how impoverished they are,” Clinton said. “They have nothing to say to America. Nothing to be for, no record to run on, no vision of the future.”

He added later: “It’s a knee-jerk thing. You know, it’s almost like they have to have some sort of inoculation or a shot to get over that.”

At a House Judiciary hearing on Wednesday, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi was holding a document labeled “Jayapal Pramila Search History” that included a list of files from the unredacted Epstein archive accessible to lawmakers such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

That means over the course of a year Bondi’s Department of Justice has made time to speak with Ghislaine Maxwell — the New York socialite who helped Jeffrey Epstein run his billion-dollar child-sex-trafficking operation — and it made time to surveil a Democratic lawmaker who conducts oversight as a member of the Judiciary Committee. But it has yet to meet with the victims of Epstein’s crimes who want to talk.

When she took office, Bondi promised us transparency. She didn’t promise we would like what we would see from her.

The general public’s awareness of Epstein’s heinous crimes came with political baggage. However at this point, the question we all should wonder is: How does redacting the names of the men who helped fund Epstein’s operation benefit either political party? It may be good for the rich and powerful men trying to avoid accountability, but it’s not exactly a campaign platform.

Yet here we are as a country, chained to the same vocabulary used during an election, so a conversation that should be about right and wrong is accompanied by poll numbers and analysis about the midterm elections. As if the Justice Department’s refusal to interview rape survivors is an inside-the-Beltway topic and not reflective of a larger moral crisis. We have seen Congress kept out of session to avoid voting on the release of the Epstein files; we have heard equivocation about whether Epstein was a pedophile. We know Epstein’s island was a place where evil resided.

The investigation, or lack of investigation, into Epstein’s fellow abusers should not be seen by anyone as a political quandary in which the object of the game is to keep your party in power. The fact that there is a Republican-vs.-Democrat divide on accountability for sex abuse reveals a national moral crisis. When the abuse of children is viewed through a partisan lens, how else can one describe this period in America?

Fifty years ago, when President Carter was tasked with healing the nation after the Watergate scandal, he told Americans in his inaugural address that he was leaning on his faith, and one prophet in particular.

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?,” Carter said, quoting Micah 6:8. “This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our government, and a new spirit among us all. A president may sense and proclaim that new spirit, but only a people can provide it.”

The Hebrew prophet Micah was from a rural area, not born into the wealth of the royal court. He was not being compensated by those who were. Instead, Micah reflected the voice of the people who were forced to live in poor conditions because of corruption. He described the actions of the morally bankrupt judges, political leaders and other elites in graphic, violent terms, condemning those “who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones.”

This, he said, is what it is like being ruled by those who are not guided by what is good and what is evil, but rather what is most beneficial for themselves in the moment. When Micah spoke, it wasn’t about the latest poll numbers. His warnings about government corruption are not unique to any particular faith, nor are they married to any political party. They embody centuries of human history, a history that tells what happens to a society when power goes unchecked.

And be not mistaken, it was unchecked power — not any party affiliation — that provided Epstein and Maxwell with patronage. It was moral failure, not conservatives or liberals, that provided cover for their child-sex-trafficking ring.

So if for partisan reasons the abusers of children are not held accountable for their crimes, the language of politics fails us. The word for that is simply: evil.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Faced with numerous complaints about broken streetlights that have plunged neighborhoods into darkness, two Los Angeles City Council members unveiled a plan Friday to spend $65 million on installing solar-powered lights.

With 1 in 10 streetlights out of service because of disrepair or copper wire theft, Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Eunisses Hernandez launched an effort to convert at least 12% of the city’s lights to solar power — or about 500 in each council district.

Broken streetlights emerged as an hot-button issue in this year’s election, with council members scrambling to find ways to restore them. Councilmember Nithya Raman, now running against Mayor Karen Bass, cited the broken lights as an example of how city agencies “can’t seem to manage the basics.”

By switching to solar, the streetlights will be less vulnerable to theft, said Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Westside.

“We can’t keep rebuilding the same vulnerable systems while copper theft continues to knock out lights across Los Angeles,” she said.

Three other council members — Traci Park, Monica Rodriguez and Hugo Soto-Martínez — signed on to the proposal. All five are running for reelection.

Miguel Sangalang, director of the Bureau of Street Lighting, said there are 33,000 open service requests to fix streetlights across L.A., although some may be duplicates. The average time to fix a streetlight is 12 months, he said.

Repair times have increased because of a rise in vandalism, the department’s stagnant budget and a staff of only 185 people to service the city’s 225,000 streetlights, he said.

About 60,000 street lights are eligible to be converted to solar, according to Yaroslavsky.

Council members also are looking to increase the amount the city charges property owners for streetlight maintenance. Yaroslavsky said the assessment has been unchanged since 1996, forcing city leaders to rely on other sources of money to cover the cost.

Last month, Soto-Martínez announced he put $1 million into a streetlight repair team in his district, which stretches from Echo Park to Hollywood and north to Atwater Village. Those workers will focus on repairing broken lights, hardening lights to prevent copper wire theft and clearing the backlog of deferred cases.

On Monday, city crews also began converting 91 streetlights to solar power in Lincoln Heights and Cypress Park. Hernandez tapped $500,000 from her office budget to pay for the work. The shift to solar power should save money, she said, by breaking the cycle of constantly fixing and replacing lights.

“This is going to bring more public safety and more lights to neighborhoods that so desperately need it and that are waiting a long time,” she said.

In recent years, neighborhoods ranging from Hancock Park and Lincoln Heights to Mar Vista and Pico Union have been plagued by copper wire theft that darkens the streets. On the 6th Street Bridge, thieves stole seven miles’ worth of wire.

Yaroslavsky and Park spoke about the problem Friday at a press conference in the driveway of a Mar Vista home. Andrew Marton, the homeowner, pointed to streetlights around the block that have been targeted by thieves.

Many surrounding streets have been dark since shortly after Christmas, Marton said. He has changed his daily routines, trying not to walk his dog late at night and worrying for the safety of his family.

He said he reported the problem to the city and was told it would take 270 days to fix. He then reached out to Park, who contacted the police department, he said.

A couple of neighboring streets had their lights restored, he said, but his street remains dark at night.

Park said she and Yaroslavsky identified $500,000 in discretionary funds to pay for a dedicated repair team to fix streetlights, either by adding solar or by reinforcing the existing copper wire, in their respective Westside districts.

IMPERIAL BEACH, Calif. — Mike and Patricia McCoy answered the door of their cozy cottage in Imperial Beach, a short stroll from crashing waves and several blocks from the Tijuana River Estuary, where California meets Mexico and the hiking trails are named for them.

They offered me a seat in a living room filled with awards for their service and with books, some of them about the wonders of the natural world and the threat to its survival. The McCoys are the kind of people who look you in the eye and give you their full attention, and Patricia’s British accent carries an upbeat, birdsong tone.

A sign shows coastal conservationists Mike and Patricia McCoy as young adults “Making a Difference” at the estuary.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

In the long history of conservation in California, few have worked as long or as hard as the McCoys.

Few have achieved as much.

And they’re still at it. Mike at 84, Patricia at 89.

The McCoys settled in Imperial Beach in the early 1970s — Mike was a veterinarian, Patricia a teacher — when the coastal protection movement was spreading across the state amid fears of overdevelopment and privatization. In 1972, voters approved Proposition 20, which essentially laid down a hallmark declaration:

The California coast is a public treasure, not a private playground.

Four years later, the Coastal Act became state law, regulating development in collaboration with local government agencies, guaranteeing public access and protecting marine and coastal habitats.

During that time, the McCoys were locked in a fight worth revisiting now, on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act. There had been talk for years about turning the underappreciated Tijuana River Estuary, part of which was used as a dumping ground, into something useful.

Mike McCoy knew the roughly 2,500-acre space was already something useful, and vitally important. It was one of the last major undeveloped wetlands in Southern California and a breeding and feeding site for 370 bird species, along with fish, reptiles, rabbits, foxes, coyotes and other animals.

In McCoy’s mind, it needed to be restored, not repurposed. And certainly not as a giant marina, which would have destroyed a habitat that was home to several endangered species. At a 1977 Imperial Beach meeting packed with marina supporters, Mike McCoy drew his line in the sand.

The Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach is seen on Friday.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

“I went up there,” McCoy recalled, pausing to say he could still feel the heat of the moment, “and I said, ‘You people, and I don’t care who you are, you’re not going to put a marina in that estuary. That’s sacrosanct. You don’t mess with that. That’s a fantastic system, and it’s more complex than you’d ever believe.’”

The estuary won, but the McCoys weren’t done. As I began talking with them about the years of advocacy that followed, Patricia’s modesty blushed.

“We don’t want to be blowing our own trumpet,” she said.

They don’t have to. I’m doing it for them, with the help of admirers who were happy to join the symphony.

Patricia went on to become a member of the Imperial Beach City Council and served for two years on the Coastal Commission, which oversees implementation of the Coastal Act. She also helped Mike and others take the estuary restoration fight to Sacramento, to Washington, D.C., and to Mexico.

“This is what a real power couple looks like,” said Sarah Christie, legislative director of the Coastal Commission. “They wield the power of nature and the power of the people. You can’t overstate their contribution to coastal protection.”

The McCoys’ signature achievement has been twofold, said Jeff Crooks, a San Diego wetlands expert. They helped establish the estuary as a protected wildlife refuge, and they also helped build the framework for the estuary to serve as a research center to monitor, manage and preserve the habitat and collaborate with other managed estuaries in the U.S.

“It’s been a living laboratory for 40-some years,” said Crooks, research coordinator for the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Sewage and debris flow from Tijuana are an ever-present threat and decades-long source of frustration and anger in Imperial Beach, where beaches have been closed and some residents have planted “Stop the Stink” yard signs. Crooks said there’s been some progress on infrastructure improvements, with a long way to go.

Coastal conservationist Mike McCoy looks at a new interpretive sign at the Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach on Friday.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

But “even though we’re beating it up,” Crooks said of the pollution flowing into the estuary, it’s been amazingly resilient in part because of constant monitoring and management.

Chris Peregrin, who manages the Tijuana Estuary for the state park system, said the nonprofit Tijuana Estuary Foundation has been a good partner, and the president of the foundation board is guess who:

Mike McCoy.

The foundation ”fills gaps that the state cannot,” Peregrin said. “As one example, they run the research program at the reserve.”

For all their continued passion about the mission in their own backyard, the McCoys fret about the bigger picture — the alarming increase in greenhouse gases and the biodiversity decline. Through the estuary window, they see a planet in peril.

“They both think big like that,” Crooks said. “Mike especially comes from the mindset that this is a ‘think globally and act locally’ kind of thing.”

“Restoration is the name of the game, not intrusion,” Mike told me, and he wasn’t talking just about the estuary.

On the very week I visited the McCoys, the Trump administration delivered a crushing blow to the environmental movement, repealing a government finding that greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to the planet and public health. He called those claims, backed by overwhelming scientific consensus, “a giant scam.”

It’s easy to throw up your hands at such knuckle-dragging indifference, and Mike told me he has to keep reaching for more stamina.

But Serge Dedina, a former Imperial Beach mayor who was inspired by the McCoys’ activism as a youngster, sees new generations bringing fresh energy to the fight. Many of them work with him at Wildcoast, the international coastal conservation nonprofit he founded, with Patricia McCoy among his earliest collaborators.

“I wouldn’t be a conservationist and coastal activist without having worked with Patricia and Mike and being infused with their passion,” said Dedina. ”I think sometimes they underestimate their legacy. They’ve had a huge impact on a whole generation of scientists and conservationists and people who are doing work all along the coast.”

We can’t underestimate the legacy of the citizen uprising of 1972, along with the creation of an agency dedicated to coastal conservation. But it’s only fair to note, on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, that not everyone will be reaching for a party hat.

The Coastal Act has been aggressively enforced, at times to a fault in the opinion of developers, homeowners, commercial interests and some politicians. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the act into law, once referred to Coastal Commission agency staffers as “bureaucratic thugs” for tight restrictions on development.

There’s been constant friction, thanks in part to political pressure and the clout of developers, and one of the many future threats to the core mission is the need for more housing throughout the state. The balance between new construction and continued conservation is sure to spark years of skirmishes.

Coastal conservationists Mike and Patricia McCoy on a trail named after them at the Tijuana Estuary Visitor Center in Imperial Beach.

(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)

But as the Coastal Commission website puts it in marking the anniversary, the major achievements of the past 50 years include the “wetlands not filled, the sensitive habitats not destroyed, the access trails not blocked, the farms and ranches not converted to urban uses, the freeways and gated communities and industrial facilities not built.”

In the words of the late Peter Douglas, who co-authored Proposition 20 and later served as executive director of the Coastal Commission, the coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.

Saved by the likes of Mike and Patricia McCoy.

I had the pleasure of walking through the estuary with Mike, past the plaque dedicated to him and his wife and “all who cherish wildlife and the Tijuana Estuary.” We also came upon one of the new interpretive signs that were to be dedicated Friday, including one with a photo of Mike and Patricia as young adults “Making a Difference.”

Mike pointed a finger here and there, explaining all the conservation projects through the year. We saw an egret and a rabbit, and when I heard a clacking sound, Mike brightened.

“That’s a clapper rail,” Mike said, an endangered bird that makes its home in the estuary.

The blowing of the trumpet isn’t just for the McCoys.

It’s a rallying call to those who might follow in their footsteps.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

History is once again unfolding at the Milan-Cortina Winter Games as Team USA members break records and score dominant triumphs.

But as the Games move into their second week, a different and more provocative history is starting to repeat itself, casting a politically charged shadow over the event.

Champion skier Mikaela Shiffrin, snowboarder Chloe Kim, and freestyle skiers Hunter Hess and Chris Lillas are among the top athletes who have been vocal about their uneasiness in representing their home country during a period of deep political crisis revolving several volatile issues, including the violent federal crackdown in Minnesota by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Trump administration’s attacks nationwide on immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community.

“It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now,” Hess said at a press conference last week. “Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”

Trump blasted Hess’ comments in a Truth Social post, calling him “a real Loser,” adding, “He says he doesn’t represent his Country … If that’s the case, he shouldn’t have tried out for the Team, and it’s too bad he’s on it. Very hard to root for someone like this.”

Commenting on the athletes in an interview with CNN, Vice President JD Vance, who was attending the Games, said the athletes who are critical should expect “some pushback.”

Vance, who was booed when he was shown on a large screen during the opening ceremonies, added, “You’re there to play a sport, you’re there to represent the country and hopefully win a medal. Most Olympic athletes, whatever their politics, are doing a great job, certainly enjoy the support of the entire country, and I think recognize that the way to bring the country together is not to show up in a foreign country and attack the president of the United States, but it’s to play your sport and to represent the country well.”

Vice President JD Vance and his wife Usha at the Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Milan on Feb. 6. Vance said athletes should expect pushback if they criticize the country.

(Natacha Pisarenko/AP)

The outspokenness of the Winter Olympic athletes echoes a dramatic protest by Olympians Tommie Smith and John Carlos which electrified the 1968 Summer Games in Mexico City. The sprinters, who placed first and third respectively in the 200 meter race, spoke not with words but with black-gloved raised fists on the victory stand, producing one of the most iconic images in Olympic history.

As the national anthem played following their victories, Smith and Carlos expressed their anger about racial injustice in America by bowing their heads and raising their fists. The gesture provoked a seismic reaction internationally while infuriating Olympic officials who claimed Smith and Carlos used the world stage to humiliate their home country.

Smith and Carlos’ salute to Black Power is explored in HBO Max’s documentary “Fists of Freedom: The Story of the ’68 Summer Games.” The 1999 Peabody Award-winning film chronicles the fiery moment and its aftermath for Smith and Carlos, who earned both heroic praise and pointed condemnation.

George Roy, who produced and directed “Fists of Freedom,” said “there are similarities between what happened in 1968 and what’s going on now. The similarities are it’s the Olympics and the United States, and in both cases there are athletes saying they wish they could be a little prouder given the current state of things.”

U.S. athletes Tommie Smith, center, and John Carlos, right, hold their fists up in protest after winning medals at the 1968 Summer Olympic games.

(AP)

However, Roy, who has won multiple Emmys and is the founder of Jersey Line Films, added that there are marked differences.

“What Smith and Carlos did was so consequential because it affected them directly,” he said. “They were protesting along with millions in their community. Their point was that they were good enough to represent their country. But when they got back to the real world, they would have trouble getting into restaurants or finding an apartment.”

He added, “It was just more personal than what is happening now.”

In an interview included in the documentary, Smith said the gesture by him and Carlos was often misinterpreted.

“As soon as the national anthem was playing, my glove is going toward God,” said Smith. “The Black fist in the air was only in recognition of those who had gone. It was a prayer of solidarity. It was a cry for help by my fellow brothers and sisters in the country who had been shot, who had been bitten by dogs … It was a cry for freedom.”

He added, “I don’t like the idea of people looking at it as negative. It was nothing but a raised fist in the air and a bowed head to the American flag. Not symbolizing a hatred for it.”

Though he heard cheers, he also heard boos and jeers.

“Fists of Freedom” contains several interviews from sports and media figures who were present or covered the proceedings and had strong opinions about the gesture.

Bob Paul, who was the press secretary for the United States Olympic Committee in 1968, said, “[Smith and Carlos] were wrong. You are supposed to observe due order and decorum to the nth degree at every victory ceremony.”

Veteran TV sportscaster Brent Musburger, who at the time was a columnist with the Chicago American newspaper, wrote: “Airing one’s dirty laundry before the entire world during a fun and games tournament was no more than a juvenile gesture. Smith and Carlos looked like a couple of Black-skinned storm troopers.”

Incensed, Olympic committee head Avery Brundage ordered the sprinters to be expelled from the Games.

Despite the uproar, experts said the salute by Smith and Carlos was a defining moment for Black people, galvanizing the Civil Rights Movement. However, the two men encountered personal and professional difficulties when they returned home.

Both Smith and Carlos have participated in speaking engagements in recent years. They could not be reached for comment.

“We’re not Antichrists,” said Smith in “Fists of Freedom.” “We’re just human beings who saw a need to be recognized.”

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has addressed European leaders at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in an address seen as more conciliatory than in previous years.

Rubio on Saturday said Washington and Europe “belong together”, adding: “We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive.”

He also said the US under Trump wants to lead global “renewal and restoration … and that while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe”.

Rubio’s speech on Saturday was seen as more conciliatory than remarks made by US Vice President JD Vance last year, who used his appearance at the event to attack European policies on immigration and free speech, shocking European allies.

Despite the softer tone, Rubio still criticised Europe on migration. He warned of “civilisational erasure” caused by mass migration and said it is “destabilising” the West – a line that has been frequently repeated by US officials, including the president.

Other divisions remain between the once-ironclad allies. European leaders remain bruised by Trump’s desire to take control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO-member Denmark.

European leaders have used the MSC as an opportunity to pledge to shoulder more of the burden of shared NATO defences. Leaders said this is essential for Europe to counter a hostile Russia, with NATO chief Mark Rutte saying “a strong Europe in a strong NATO means that the transatlantic bond will be stronger than ever.”

“This is the right time for a strong Europe,” said French President Emmanuel Macron, who stressed on Friday that the continent was “clear in the support of Ukraine” and “building its own architecture of security”.

“This Europe will be a good ally and partner for the United States of America,” the French leader said.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the conference that Europe “must be ready to fight, to do whatever it takes to protect our people, our values and our way of life,” and added that the continent should focus on decreasing “some dependencies” and focus on creating a “more European NATO”.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged a “rift” had opened up between Europe and the US, prompted by culture wars, but issued an appeal to Washington: “Let’s repair and revive transatlantic trust together.

“In the era of great power rivalry, even the United States will not be powerful enough to go it alone,” said the conservative leader, who has ramped up defence spending in the top European Union economy.

Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine is set to enter its fifth gruelling year.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has been in Munich since Friday and meeting multiple allies, was expected to address the meeting on Saturday.

No Russian officials have been invited, but Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China has been invited and will deliver a key speech.

A US official said Rubio will meet with Zelenskyy at the conference. US officials have worked for months to try to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, with little success.

At the White House on Friday, Trump urged Zelenskyy to “get moving” to end the war. “Russia wants to make a deal… He has to move,” the US leader said.

Speaking at the MSC, however, Rubio said he did not know if Russia was serious about ending its war against Ukraine.

A German government source said Merz and Rubio met at the conference on Friday and discussed “Ukraine, the status of negotiations with Russia and further support for the country, particularly in terms of military aid”.

They also discussed Europe’s role in NATO, and “Rubio praised Germany’s steps to strengthen the alliance,” the source added.

Macron said a new framework was needed to deal with “an aggressive Russia” once the fighting in Ukraine ends.

At the conference, the US secretary of state also touched on issues outside Europe.

On China, he said the US owes it to the world to manage its relations with China, even when the national interests of the two superpowers do not align. Speaking about Iran, he said President Trump’s preference is to reach a deal with Tehran, but said that’s “very hard to do”.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has determined it is safe for Yemenis to return to their country, despite ongoing conflict.

The United States government has ended the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Yemen, ordering the more than 1,000 Yemeni refugees and asylum seekers living in the country to leave within 60 days or face arrest and deportation.

The action on Friday came as part of US President Donald Trump’s broad immigration crackdown, which is impacting those who fled perilous lives in war-torn countries.

It will terminate TPS for roughly 1,400 Yemeni nationals who have had access to the legal status since September 2015 because of armed conflict in their country, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced on Friday.

“After reviewing conditions in the country and consulting with appropriate US government agencies, I determined that Yemen no longer meets the law’s requirements to be designated for Temporary Protected Status,” Noem said in a statement.

“Allowing TPS Yemen beneficiaries to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interest,” she said, describing the revocation as an act of “putting America first.”

Contrary to Noem’s determination, Yemen continues to be riven by years-long conflict in one of the world’s poorest nations.

The State Department currently advises against travel to Yemen, citing “terrorism, unrest, crime, health risks, kidnapping, and landmines”.

TPS allows narrow groups of people in the US to live and work in the country if they’re deemed to be in danger if they return to their home nations, because of war, natural disaster or other extraordinary circumstances.

While the protections are technically temporary, historically, presidents have continued to renew TPS statuses for refugees and asylum seekers rather than revoking them and rendering them undocumented.

The TPS for Yemen was last extended in 2024 and was set to expire on March 3 of this year.

Yemeni beneficiaries with no other lawful basis for remaining in the US have 60 days to voluntarily depart the country or face arrest, the statement said, offering a complimentary plane ticket and a $2,600 “exit bonus” for those who “self-deport”.

Since coming to office last year, Trump has ended the status for Venezuelans, Hondurans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Somalis, Ukrainians and thousands of others.

The Trump administration has also expanded its travel restrictions since returning to power, imposing a total ban on citizens of 19 countries from entering the US, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations, including Yemen, Somalia and South Sudan.

Citizens from a further 29 countries, including Nigeria and Senegal, are subject to partial bans.

New opinion poll finds seven in 10 US adults disapprove of President Donald Trump’s handling of Greenland issue.

Denmark’s prime minister and Greenland’s premier met ⁠with United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio and agreed that talks would be pursued on the running of Greenland, the semi-autonomous Danish territory that President Donald Trump has threatened to take over.

Rubio held a 15-minute meeting with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Friday.

Greenland’s leader Nielsen said in a post on social media that during the meeting with Rubio, “it was emphasised that the conversations being made are the right way forward and the interests of Greenland were once again clearly highlighted”.

Prime Minister Frederiksen said on X after the meeting: “Constructive talk with Secretary of State Marco Rubio together with Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Chairman of Naalakkersuisut, at the Munich Security Conference.”

“Work will continue as agreed in the high-level working group,” she said.

The meeting between the Danish and Greenlandic leaders and the US state secretary comes amid severely strained ties between Europe and Washington, and NATO allies, amid President Trump’s repeated threats to take over Greenland and criticism of European nations as “decaying” and “weak”.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump said, “We’re negotiating ‌right ‌now for Greenland.”

“I ‌think Greenland’s going to want us, but we get along very well with Europe. We’ll see how it all works out,” he said.

After months of bellicose language regarding the US’s necessity to acquire Greenland, Trump abruptly stepped back from his threats last month, saying that he had reached an understanding with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that would give the US greater influence in the mineral-rich Arctic territory.

Late last month, the US, Denmark and Greenland also launched talks to find a diplomatic path out of the crisis.

Poll finds most US adults disapprove of Trump’s Greenland plan

The US administration has cited key national security concerns related to Russia and China to justify its demand to take control over Greenland and has accused Denmark, and Europe more broadly, of being unable to defend the strategic territory.

But, according to a new opinion poll conducted by The Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Trump’s push to seize control of Greenland has gone down badly with the US public and members of his own party.

The survey, conducted between February 5-8, found that about seven in 10 US adults disapprove of how Trump is handling the Greenland issue – a higher disapproval rating than the share of those who dislike how he is handling foreign policy generally.

Even among Republican supporters, about half disapprove of his attempt to turn Greenland into US territory, according to the poll.

Sweden said on Thursday that it would send fighter jets to patrol Greenland as part of a newly launched NATO mission in the Arctic aimed at placating Trump’s concerns over the threats posed by Moscow and Beijing.

The government said in a statement that Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets would patrol Greenland as part of the newly-launched NATO mission, Arctic Sentry.

“As a NATO ally, Sweden has a responsibility to contribute to the security of the entire territory of the Alliance. The Arctic region is becoming increasingly important from a strategic perspective,” Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said.

In a separate statement, the Swedish Armed Forces said the fighter jets would be based out of Iceland, where six aircraft have been stationed since early February as part of the rotating incident response force, NATO Air Policing.

Swedish special forces would also be sent to Greenland to take part in training exercises for a couple of weeks, the military said.

The debate comes as Jeri, who is not running for re-election, faces allegations of bribery and influence-peddling.

The head of Peru’s Congress, Fernando Rospigliosi, has announced a special plenary session to weigh the removal of the country’s right-wing president, Jose Jeri.

The session will take place on the morning of February 17, according to a statement Peru’s Congress posted on social media.

The debate comes as Jeri’s short tenure grows mired in scandal, just four months after he took office as interim president.

In October, Jeri — the leader of Congress at the time — took over as president following the unanimous impeachment of his predecessor, Dina Boluarte, on the grounds of “permanent moral incapacity”.

Boluarte herself assumed the presidency after her predecessor, Pedro Castillo, was impeached for attempting a self-coup.

Next week’s debate about Jeri’s future is the latest chapter in the ongoing instability facing Peru’s government. The country has seen eight presidents within the last decade, with several of them impeached or resigning before their term expired.

In recent months, Jeri has become increasingly embroiled in scandal, including one colloquially known as “chifagate”, named for the Peruvian-Chinese fusion cuisine known as “chifa”.

The scandal started when local media outlets obtained video of Jeri arriving late at night at a restaurant to meet with a Chinese businessman, Zhihua Yang, who previously received government approval to build a hydroelectric plant.

Their meeting was not listed in the official presidential agenda, as is required under Peruvian law. Critics have questioned whether Jeri’s outfit — which had a deep hood that rendered him nearly unrecognisable — was meant to be a disguise.

Additional footage placed Jeri at another one of Yang’s businesses days later. Jeri also allegedly met a second Chinese businessman, Jiwu Xiaodong, who was reportedly under house arrest for illegal activities.

Jeri has dismissed some of the off-the-books meetings as planning for an upcoming Chinese-Peruvian friendship event. Others, he said, were simply shopping trips for sweets and other food. He has denied wrongdoing but has acknowledged taking the meetings was a “mistake”.

“I have not lied to the country. I have not done anything illegal,” Jeri told the news outlet Canal N.

But critics have accused Jeri of using his position for influence-peddling at the unregistered interactions.

Similar accusations erupted earlier this month when Peruvian media highlighted the irregular hiring of several women in Jeri’s administration and contracts he awarded as possible evidence of bribery.

The debate over Jeri’s removal comes as Peru hurtles towards a general election on April 12, with the presidency up for grabs. Jeri will not be running to retain his seat.

Ralph C. Dills, a Texas sharecropper’s son who became the longest serving California legislator, died Thursday in a nursing home in the Northern California community of Rocklin. He was 92.

His son, Gregory Dills, said the cause of death was old age.

“My father simply stopped breathing while sleeping, at 5:30a.m.,” he said.

A Democrat, Ralph Dills served Gardena, Compton and Lawndale throughout most of his political career.

He served in the Assembly for 11 years and in the state Senate for 32 years.

His accomplishments included writing the legislation that created Cal State Long Beach, and El Camino College, and facilitating the creation of the UCLA Law School.

He also sponsored bills that instituted driver’s education in high school and advanced collective bargaining for teachers.

Popular with the Japanese American community in Gardena, he was one of just two Capitol lawmakers to oppose the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II.

He often told colleagues of his friendship with a community member, Joe Kubota, who had once loaned him money to attend USC.

The morning in 1942 that Japanese Americans were assembled for transport to Manzanar, an internment camp in the Owens Valley, Dills said, he drove Kubota to the assembly point at the Santa Anita racetrack.

Forty years later, Dills successfully wrote legislation, signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, that gave partial reparations to internees.

Born in Rosston, Texas, Dills moved to California with his parents and eight siblings when he was 15.

He graduated from Gardena High School in 1927 and earned a bachelor’s degree from UCLA, a master’s degree from USC, and law degrees from Loyola University and the University of the Pacific.

He was first elected to the Assembly in 1939. After spending 11 years there, he was a municipal judge in Compton for 14 years before returning to the Legislature in 1966 as a state senator. He retired in 1998 because of term limits.

In 1994, a victim of redistricting, he still managed to win in a new district outside his core area, using the slogan, “Too old to quit.”

An old-fashioned politician, Dills often was accused of catering to special interests, such as the oil industry.

He was once investigated by the FBI for vote-buying but was not charged.

And he usually spent most of his time at his 50-acre ranch in Loomis, in Placer County, rather than in his home district in Southern California.

Still, he repeatedly proved his political durability.

When Robert Pauley, son of oil magnate Edwin W. Pauley, moved into Dills’ Gardena district in 1974, he thought that, with ample money, he could defeat Dills in the Democratic primary.

But when the votes were counted, Dills had 56% and Pauley ran third with 21%. Another candidate got 23%.

“He was one of the toughest men in the Legislature,” Pauley said Thursday.

“He had support from the unions like none other,” Pauley said. “Our brochures had him in a black box, like he was deceased. But he beat me handsomely. He had an organization I underestimated.”

In 1982, another Dills primary opponent, life insurance underwriter Mickey Carson, sent a photographer to Dills’ ranch to get pictures of his “palatial” lifestyle outside the district.

“Call it a mansion, if you want,” he said. “All the newspaper reporters seem to be interested in is where I sleep.”

Conservationists accused Dills in 1994 of having the worst environmental record in the Legislature.

The senator acknowledged, “They were right. I did have the worst record.”

But, he said, in his old district, “I had oil, oil, oil. Tideland oil. Oil all over the joint. [And] I represented my district.”

In his new district, which included beach cities north to Venice, Dills switched to a pro-environmentalist position.

The League of Conservation Voters, which had endorsed an opponent in the 1994 race, gave him a perfect rating for 1995-96.

“I moved over to the beaches … where they don’t like oil,” Dills said.

“They want nice, clean fresh air and water…. [Now], I’m 100% with the environment,” he said.

Dills is survived by his daughter, Wendy Lewellen; two sons, Gregory and Leighton; and three grandchildren.

The family asked that donations in his memory be made to any Masonic order.

They said Dills was a 33rd Degree mason, in the Scottish and York Rites.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom told world leaders Friday that President Trump’s retreat from efforts to combat climate change would decimate the U.S. automobile industry and surrender the future economic viability to China and other nations embracing the transition to renewable energy.

Newsom, appearing at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, urged diplomats, business leaders and policy advocates to forcefully stand up to Trump’s global bullying and loyalty to the oil and coal industry. The California governor said the Trump administration’s massive rollbacks on environmental protection will be short-lived.

“Donald Trump is temporary. He’ll be gone in three years,” Newsom said during a Friday morning panel discussion on climate action. “California is a stable and reliable partner in this space.”

Newsom’s comments came in the wake of the Trump administration’s repeal of the endangerment finding and all federal vehicle emissions regulations. The endangerment finding is the U.S. government’s 2009 affirmation that planet-heating pollution poses a threat to human health and the environment.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin said the finding has been regulatory overreach, placing heavy burdens on auto manufacturers, restricting consumer choice and resulting in higher costs for Americans. Its repeal marked the “single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America,” he said.

Scientists and experts were quick to condemn the action, saying it contradicts established science and will put more people in harm’s way. Independent researchers around the world have long concluded that greenhouse gases released by the burning of gasoline, diesel and other fossil fuels are warming the planet and worsening weather disasters.

The move will also threaten the U.S.’s position as a leader in the global clean energy transition, with nations such as China pulling ahead on electric vehicle production and investments in renewables such as solar, batteries and wind, experts said.

Newsom’s trip to Germany is just his latest international jaunt in recent months as he positions himself to lead the Democratic Party’s opposition to Trump and the Republican-led Congress, and to seed a possible run for the White House in 2028. Last month Newsom traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and in November to the U.N. climate summit in Belém, Brazil — mocking and condemning Trump’s policies on Greenland, international trade and the environment.

When asked how he would restore the world’s confidence in the United States if he were to become president, Newsom sidestepped. Instead he offered a campaign-like soliloquy on California’s success on fostering Tesla and the nation’s other top electric vehicle manufactures as well as being a magnet for industries spending billions of dollars on research and development for the global transition away from carbon-based economies.

The purpose of the Munich conference was to open a dialogue among world leaders on global security, military, economic and environmental. Along with Friday’s discussion on climate action, Newsom is scheduled to appear at a livestreamed forum on transatlantic cooperation Saturday.

Andrew Forrest, executive chairman of the Australia-based mining company giant Fortescue, said during a panel Friday his company is proof that even the largest energy-consuming companies in the world can thrive without relying on the carbon-based fuels that have driven industries for more than a century. Fortescue, which buys diesel fuel from countries across the world, will transition to a “green grid” this decade, saving the company a billion dollars a year, he said.

“The science is absolutely clear, but so is the economics. I am, and my company Fortescue is, the industrial-grade proof that going renewable is great economics, great business, and if you desert it, then in the end, you’ll be sorted out by your shareholders or by your voters at the ballot box,” Forrest said.

Newsom said California has also shown the world what can be done with innovative government policies that embrace electric vehicles and the transition to a non-carbon-based economy, and continues to do so despite the attacks and regressive mandates being imposed by the Trump administration.

“This is about economic prosperity and competitiveness, and that’s why I’m so infuriated with what Donald Trump has done,” Newsom said. “Remember, Tesla exists for one reason — California’s regulatory market, which created the incentives and the structure and the certainty that allowed Elon Musk and others to invest and build that capacity. We are not walking away from that.”

California has led the nation in the push toward EVs. For more than 50 years, the state enjoyed unique authority from the EPA to set stricter tailpipe emission standards than the federal government, considered critical to the state’s efforts to address its notorious smog and air-quality issues. The authority, which the Trump administration has moved to rescind, was also the basis for California’s plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

The administration again targeted electric vehicles in its announcement on Thursday.

“The forced transition to electric vehicles is eliminated,” Zeldin said. “No longer will automakers be pressured to shift their fleets toward electric vehicles, vehicles that are still sitting unsold on dealer lots all across America.”

But the efforts to shut down the energy transition may be too little, too late, said Hannah Safford, former director of transportation and resilience at the White House Climate Policy Office under the Biden administration.

“Electric cars make more economic sense for people, more models are becoming available, and the administration can’t necessarily stop that from happening,” said Safford, who is now associate director for climate and environment at the Federation of American Scientists.

Still, some automakers and trade groups supported the EPA’s decision, as did fossil fuel industry groups and those geared toward free markets and regulatory reform. Among them were the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America, which praised the administration for its “efforts to reform and streamline regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ford, which has invested in electric vehicles and recently completed a prototype of a $30,000 electric truck, said in a statement to The Times that it appreciated EPA’s move “to address the imbalance between current emissions standards and consumer choice.”

Toyota, meanwhile, deferred to a statement from Alliance for Automotive Innovation president John Bozzella, who said similarly that “automotive emissions regulations finalized in the previous administration are extremely challenging for automakers to achieve given the current marketplace demand for EVs.”

A United States court has ordered the administration of President Donald Trump to facilitate the return of a Babson College student, Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, who was wrongfully deported last year.

In his ruling on Tuesday, US District Judge Richard Stearns gave the government two weeks to take steps to bring Lopez Belloza back.

He framed the order as an opportunity to correct a “mistake” – but he did not rule out holding the government in contempt if it failed to take the necessary actions.

“Wisdom counsels that redemption may be found by acknowledging and fixing our own errors,” Stearns wrote.

“In this unfortunate case, the government commendably admits that it did wrong. Now it is time for the government to make amends.”

A surprise trip turned deportation

Lopez Belloza, 19, was arrested on November 20 by immigration agents at Boston’s Logan airport.

The college freshman had been preparing to board a flight home to her family in Texas to surprise them for the Thanksgiving holiday.

She has since told The Associated Press news agency that she was denied access to a lawyer after her initial detention at the airport. The immigration agent told her she would need to sign a deportation document first, according to Lopez Belloza, who said she denied the offer.

For the next two nights, she said she was kept by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a holding room with 17 other women, without enough room to lie down.

Then, she was loaded onto a deportation flight, which took her to Texas, then to her native Honduras, on November 22.

“I was numb the whole plane ride,” Lopez Belloza told the AP. “I just kept questioning myself. Why is it happening to me?”

Her lawyers, however, had obtained during that time a court order barring her removal from Massachusetts for 72 hours. Lopez Belloza’s deportation violated that court order.

She has remained in Honduras for the last two and a half months, while legal challenges over her case proceeded.

A legal battle

In court, the Trump administration has apologised for the error in Lopez Belloza’s case, acknowledging that a mistake was indeed made.

“On behalf of the government, we want to sincerely apologise,” prosecutor Mark Sauter told the court.

But Sauter rejected accusations that the government wilfully defied the 72-hour court order, saying that Lopez Belloza’s deportation was the mistake of one ICE agent and not an act of judicial defiance.

The government has also argued that Lopez Belloza was subject to a removal order before her November 20 arrest and therefore should not be returned to the US.

Lopez Belloza was brought to the US from Honduras when she was eight years old, and in 2016, she and her mother were ordered to be deported.

But the college freshman said she had no knowledge of any deportation order and has told the media that her previous legal representation had assured her there was no removal order against her.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has rejected efforts to bring Lopez Belloza back to the country, even on a student visa.

In a February 6 court filing, US Attorney Leah B Foley wrote that a student visa “is unfeasible as the Secretary of State lacks authority to adjudicate visa applications and issue visas”.

“In any event,” Foley added, “Petitioner appears ineligible for a student visa.” She explained that Lopez Belloza “would remain subject to detention and removal if returned to the United States”.

The filing ended with a warning to the court to “refrain from ordering Respondents to return Petitioner to the status quo because this Court lacks authority”.

The Trump administration has questioned the authority of federal courts to intervene in immigration-related matters.

A series of mistakes

Critics, meanwhile, have accused the Trump administration of repeatedly failing to heed court orders it disagrees with.

Lopez Belloza’s case is not the first instance of an immigrant being wrongfully deported since the start of Trump’s second term.

Trump had campaigned on a pledge of mass deportation, and he has followed through with that promise, leading a series of controversial immigration crackdowns that have been accused of violating due process rights.

One of the most high-profile cases came in March 2025, when his administration wrongfully deported a Salvadoran father named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who lived in Maryland with his wife, a US citizen.

Abrego Garcia had been subject to a 2019 court order barring his removal from the US on the basis that he could face gang violence in El Salvador.

But he was nevertheless sent back to the country and was briefly held in El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a maximum-security prison.

On April 10, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, largely upholding a lower court’s decision.

But the Trump administration initially argued Abrego Garcia was outside of its power. Then, on June 6, it abruptly announced Abrego Garcia had been returned, only to file criminal charges against him and seek his deportation a second time.

Another case involved a Guatemalan man, identified only by his initials OCG.

He had been under a court protection order that barred him from being returned to Guatemala, for fear that his identity as a gay man would subject him to persecution.

But the Trump administration detained and deported him instead to Mexico, which in turn sent him back to Guatemala. He subsequently went into hiding for his safety.

In June, OCG was returned to the US after a court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. It also noted that OCG’s deportation “lacked any semblance of due process”.

Lopez Belloza continues her studies at Babson College remotely from Honduras as she awaits the outcome of her legal proceedings.

WASHINGTON — A dispute over whether federal immigration agents should be allowed to wear masks during enforcement operations has become one of the biggest obstacles to keeping the Department of Homeland Security funded, pushing the government toward a partial shutdown early Saturday.

Democrats have described the practice as corrosive to public trust, arguing that masked agents create the appearance of a “secret police” force. Republican lawmakers, President Trump and his top advisors, meanwhile, have drawn a hard line against requiring officers to remove their face coverings, insisting that doing so would expose them to harassment, threats and online doxxing.

“They want our law enforcement to be totally vulnerable and put them in a lot of danger,” Trump said at a White House event Thursday. He added that it would be “very, very hard to approve” Democrats’ demands, such as unmasking federal officers.

The standoff over masking stalled negotiations as lawmakers raced to meet a funding deadline for the Department of Homeland Security at midnight Friday. Without a deal, key agency functions — from airport security to disaster relief coordination — could be affected if the shutdown drags on.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) rides the Senate subway Thursday ahead of the latest partial government shutdown.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

As with every shutdown, the agency’s essential functions will continue to operate, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant Homeland Security secretary for public affairs, said in a statement. But employees performing those functions at agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Transportation Security Administration could go without pay if the shutdown stretches for weeks.

The heads of those agencies told the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee on Wednesday that the shutdown is expected to create severe and lasting challenges.

Vice Adm. Thomas Allan, the acting vice commandant of the Coast Guard, said a shutdown would delay maintenance for boats and aircraft, and halt pay for 56,000 active-duty reserve and civilian personnel. Ha Nguyen McNeill, acting administrator of TSA, recounted how the last government shutdown affected her workers and spiked wait times at airports.

“We heard reports of officers sleeping in their cars at airports to save money on gas, selling their blood and plasma and taking on second jobs to make ends meet,” she said, adding that some are still recovering from the financial impact.

Operations within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection — the agencies that are central to the budget impasse — are likely to be the least affected. That’s because both agencies still have access to $75 billion in funding approved last year as part of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”

By midday Friday, it remained unclear when the partial shutdown would end, as lawmakers left Washington for a security conference in Munich and progress between Democratic and White House negotiators remained nebulous.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump told reporters on Friday when asked about cutting a deal. “We always have to protect our law enforcement.”

The partial government shutdown comes at a moment of acute public anger at the agency’s approach to immigration enforcement, which has included the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis.

Since the shootings, the Trump administration has tried to quell tensions. Border policy advisor Tom Homan said Thursday that the administration was ending its immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced earlier this month that the agency would be acquiring and issuing body cameras to federal agents. Trump also said he wants to employ a “softer touch” to immigration enforcement after the killings of Good and Pretti.

But Democrats maintain that they need reforms written into law. Among their demands is requiring officers to wear and turn on body cameras, banning them from wearing masks, and ending the practice of “roving patrols” and instead requiring that they carry out only targeted operations.

“We will not support an extension of the status quo, a status quo that permits masked secret police to barge into people’s homes without warrants, no guardrails and zero oversight from independent authorities,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday.

Todd M. Lyons, the acting director of ICE, told a Senate panel Thursday that he does not want to see federal agents masked either, but said he is hesitant to bar face coverings because the threats to agents are too severe.

“I would work with this committee and any committee to work with holding individuals accountable that doxx ICE agents, because ICE agents don’t want to be masked,” Lyons said. “They’re honorable men and women, but the threats against their family are real.”

Federal immigration officials are more supportive of body cameras.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott told a House committee on Tuesday that he supports expanding the use of body cameras, but said more funding is needed to hire personnel to oversee the rollout.

“Fund the entire program so that we can be transparent and that we can make sure America knows what we’re doing, because that trust is critically important,” he said.

Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said that while the White House has made some “tweaks around oversight,” its actions continue to fall short.

The association, which represents 18,000 immigration attorneys, has urged Congress to refuse more funding for ICE and CBP before implementing reforms.

“The American public wants and deserves real, meaningful guardrails that are written into law that ensure this administration — and, quite frankly, any administration — will abide by the Constitution and respect fundamental principles of due process,” Johnson said Wednesday on a call with reporters.

“Congress has a critical opportunity right now to meet that demand,” he added.

Republican Sens. James Lankford of Oklahoma, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky talk during a hearing Thursday on oversight of federal immigration agencies.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

So far, Democrats maintain they will continue to bock funding bills without accountability measures in place.

California’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, were among the Senate Democrats who helped block passage of funding bills Thursday that would have averted a shutdown because they lacked accountability measures.

“I will not support more funding for ICE until there are new guardrails to rein in its lawless conduct,” Schiff wrote on X. “I’m a no on anything but real reform.”

Padilla said he would be a “firm no” until lawmakers agree that federal immigration officers need to be held accountable.

“Donald Trump and Republicans want Americans to forget about their lawless immigration roundup, but we won’t,” Padilla said.

US President Donald Trump says a second aircraft carrier strike group will deploy to the Middle East, increasing pressure on Iran as negotiations over its nuclear programme continue.

Some of the biggest names behind the artificial intelligence boom are looking to stack Congress with allies who support lighter regulation of the emerging technology by drawing on the crypto industry’s 2024 election success.

Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman are among tech leaders who’ve poured $50 million into a new super political action committee to help AI-friendly candidates prevail in November’s congressional races. Known as Leading the Future, the super PAC has taken center stage as voters grow increasingly concerned that AI risks driving up energy costs and taking away jobs.

As it launches operations, Leading the Future is deploying a strategy that worked two years ago for crypto advocates: talk about what’s likely to resonate with voters, not the industry or its interests and controversies. For AI, that means its ads won’t tout the technology but instead discuss core issues including economic opportunity and immigration — even if that means not mentioning AI at all.

“They’re trying to be helpful in a campaign rather than talking about their own issue all the time,” said Craig Murphy, a Republican political consultant in Texas, where Leading the Future has backed Chris Gober, an ally of President Trump, in the state’s hotly contested 10th congressional district.

This year, the group plans to spend up to $125 million on candidates who favor a single, national approach to AI regulation, regardless of party affiliation. The election comes at a crucial moment for the industry as it invests hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure that will put fresh strains on resources, with new data centers already blamed for driving up utility bills.

Leading the Future faces a growing challenge from AI safety advocates, who’ve started their own super PAC called Public First with a goal of raising $50 million for candidates who favor stricter oversight. On Thursday, Public First landed a $20-million pledge from Anthropic PBC, a rival to OpenAI that has set itself apart from other AI companies by supporting tougher rules.

Polls show deepening public concern over AI’s impact on everything from jobs to education to the environment. Sixty-two percent of US adults say they interact with AI at least several times a week, and 58% are concerned the government will not go far enough in regulating it, according to the Pew Research Center.

Jesse Hunt, a Leading the Future spokesman, said the group is “committed to supporting policymakers who want a smart national regulatory framework for AI,” one that boosts US employment while winning the race against China. Hunt said the super PAC backs ways to protect consumers “without ceding America’s technological future to extreme ideological gatekeepers.”

The political and economic stakes are enormous for OpenAI and others behind Leading the Future, including venture capitalists Andreessen and Horowitz. Their firm, a16z, is the richest in Silicon Valley with billions of dollars invested in AI upstarts including coding startup Cursor and AI leaderboard platform LM Arena.

For now, their super PAC is doing most of the talking for the AI industry in the midterm races. Meta Platforms Inc. has announced plans for AI-related political spending on state-level contests, with $20 million for its California-based super PAC and $45 million for its American Technology Excellence Project, according to Politico.

Other companies with massive AI investment plans — Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Corp. — have their own corporate PACs to dole out bipartisan federal campaign donations. Nvidia Corp., the chip giant driving AI policy in Washington, doesn’t have its own PAC.

Bipartisan push

To ensure consistent messaging across party lines, Leading the Future has created two affiliated super PACs — one spending on Republicans and another on Democrats. The aim is to build a bipartisan coalition that can be effective in Washington regardless of which party is in power.

Texas, home of OpenAI’s massive Stargate project, is one of the states where Leading the Future has already jumped in. Its Republican arm, American Mission, has spent nearly $750,000 on ads touting Gober, a political lawyer who’s previously worked for Elon Musk’s super PAC and is in a crowded GOP primary field for an open House seat.

The ads hail Gober as a “MAGA warrior” who “will fight for Texas families, lowering everyday costs.” Gober’s campaign website lists “ensuring America’s AI dominance” as one of his top campaign priorities. Gober’s campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In New York, Leading the Future’s Democratic arm, Think Big, has spent $1.1 million on television ads and messages attacking Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman who has called for tougher AI safety protocols and is now running for an open congressional seat encompassing much of central Manhattan.

The ads seize on Democrats’ revulsion over Trump’s immigration crackdown and target Bores for his work at Palantir Technologies Inc., which contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Think Big has circulated mailings and text messages citing Bores’ work with Palantir, urging voters to “Reject Bores’ hypocrisy on ICE.”

In an interview, Bores called the claims in the ads false, explaining that he left Palantir because of its work with ICE. He pointed out the irony that Joe Lonsdale, a Palantir co-founder who’s backed the administration’s border crackdown, is a donor to Leading the Future.

“They’re not being ideologically consistent,” Bores said. “The fact that they have been so transparent and said, ‘Hey, we’re the AI industry and Alex Bores will regulate AI and that scares us,’ has been nothing but a benefit so far.”

Leading the Future’s Democratic arm also plans to spend seven figures to support Democrats in two Illinois congressional races: former Illinois Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr. and Melissa Bean.

Following crypto’s path

Leading the Future is following the path carved by Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC that joined affiliates in putting $133 million into congressional races in 2024. Fairshake made an early mark by spending $10 million to attack progressive Katie Porter in the California Democratic Senate primary, helping knock her out of the race in favor of Adam Schiff, the eventual winner who’s seen as more friendly to digital currency.

The group also backed successful primary challengers against House incumbents, including Democrats Cori Bush in Missouri and Jamaal Bowman in New York. Both were rated among the harshest critics of digital assets by the Stand With Crypto Alliance, an industry group.

In its highest-profile 2024 win, Fairshake spent $40 million to help Republican Bernie Moreno defeat incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, a crypto skeptic who led the Senate Banking Committee. Overall, it backed winners in 52 of the 61 races where it spent at least $100,000, including victories in three Senate and nine House battlegrounds.

Fairshake and Leading the Future share more than a strategy. Josh Vlasto, one of Leading the Future’s political strategists, does communications work for Fairshake. Andreessen and Horowitz are also among Fairshake’s biggest donors, combining to give $23.8 million last year.

But Leading the Future occasionally conflicts with Fairshake’s past spending. The AI group said Wednesday it plans to spend half a million dollars on an ad campaign for Laurie Buckhout, a former Pentagon official who’s seeking a congressional seat in North Carolina with calls to slash rules “strangling American innovation.” In 2024, during Buckhout’s unsuccessful run for the post, Fairshake spent $2.3 million supporting her opponent and eventual winner, Democratic Rep. Donald Davis.

Regulation proponents

“The fact that they tried to replay the crypto battle means that we have to engage,” said Brad Carson, a former Democratic congressman from Texas who helped launch Public First. “I’d say Leading the Future was the forcing function.”

Unlike crypto, proponents of stricter AI regulations have backers within the industry. Even before its contribution to Public First, Anthropic had pressed for “responsible AI” with sturdier regulations for the fast-moving technology and opposed efforts to preempt state laws.

Anthropic employees have also contributed to candidates targeted by Leading the Future, including a total of $168,500 for Bores, Federal Election Commission records show. A super PAC Dream NYC, whose only donor in 2025 was an Anthropic machine learning researcher who gave $50,000, is backing Bores as well.

Carson, who’s co-leading the super PAC with former Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, cites public polling that more than 80% of US adults believe the government should maintain rules for AI safety and data security, and says voter sentiment is on Public First’s side.

Public First didn’t disclose receiving any donations last year, according to FEC filings. But one of the group’s affiliated super PACs, Defend our Values PAC, reported receiving $50,000 from Public First Action Inc., the group’s advocacy arm. The PAC hasn’t yet spent any of that money on candidates.

Crypto’s clout looms large in lawmakers’ memory, casting a shadow over any effort to regulate the big tech companies, said Doug Calidas, head of government affairs for AI safety group Americans for Responsible Innovation.

“Fairshake was just so effective,” said Calidas, whose group has called for tougher AI regulations. “Democrats and Republicans are scared they’re going to replicate that model.”

Allison and Birnbaum write for Bloomberg.

EL TORO — In an extraordinary step, Brig. Gen. Wayne T. Adams has permanently banished from local Marine bases the man he fired as his chief of staff, refusing him access to the officers’ club, the golf course and other facilities usually open to retired personnel.

Col. Joseph E. Underwood, 51, was fired from his post earlier this year and later retired amid allegations that included using base planes for golfing jaunts. Adams decided last week that, because of the charges, the colonel could no longer use the air bases at El Toro or Tustin, his spokesman, Maj. Jim V. McClain, said Monday.

“He’s debarred from this base–period,” McClain said. “He is not allowed to come aboard this base,” except for medical care and commissary visits with his wife, who is ailing, he added.

“The commanding general made the determination that, by the nature of the offenses, Col. Underwood’s presence on the El Toro and Tustin bases was prejudicial to the good order and discipline and proper functioning of these two bases,” McClain said of Adams’ decision.

Adams himself is under investigation by the Marine Corps inspector general’s office for his own use of military planes during trips to Florida, Big Bear and elsewhere.

McClain would not elaborate on what caused Underwood’s banishment. Underwood, however, said he believes that it came as a result of statements he made in an article two weeks ago in The Times Orange County Edition in his first interview since his disciplining.

“It’s so petty. Why don’t they just let it go away?” Underwood complained. “They’ve already killed Col. Sabow–what do they want from me?”

Col. James E. Sabow was the assistant chief of staff at El Toro who killed himself in January, after being suspended also in connection with allegations of misuse of base planes. Underwood and Sabow’s family have charged that what they characterize as the military’s mishandling of the investigation drove Sabow to suicide.

Military officials have vigorously disputed that assertion. McClain on Monday would not discuss Underwood’s claims that he was being “harassed” in the same way that Underwood said Sabow was or that his debarment was spurred by his comments in the Times article.

Underwood, known as “the mayor” of the El Toro base during a sometimes stormy four-year stint as chief of staff, asserted in the article that he had not done anything wrong in his use of base C-12 Beechcraft planes and that Adams had reneged on promises to end the matter quietly.

Underwood also asserted that Adams himself had once ordered a plane to pick him up from a family emergency, even after Underwood had specifically told him that doing so was against regulations.

The Marine Corps is now investigating whether Adams improperly mixed personal and business trips in that case and at least four other flights he took around the country.

In the newest step of that investigation, Adams is to meet in Washington today with the Marines’ inspector general, Maj. Gen. Hollis Davison, officials said.

In his position as commander of the Marines’ western air bases, Adams maintains authority over who can and cannot use government facilities. It was with this authority that he barred Underwood, a move that officials said probably cannot be appealed through the military.

McClain said 175 people–both military and civilian–have been barred from western air bases in the last five years. He did not have a breakdown of these people by rank, but Underwood and three other military officials, in Washington and on the West Coast, said debarments of officers–much less of a colonel–are extremely rare.

“It’s an extraordinary measure for someone of his rank and time of service to be debarred from a base–it’s just not done,” said one high-ranking officer close to the case.

Underwood, a veteran of three decades’ service, said that during his time at El Toro, there were debarments “many times for criminals–drug dealers, thieves, wife beaters, attempted rapists. . . . But how many colonels have ever been barred from a base? The answer I’m sure is zero. . . .”

While Underwood was visiting the East Coast last week, the El Toro command went so far as to boot the tires on his two cars on the base to ensure that he would see the base provost marshal and pick up the letter informing him of his debarment. The letter activates the order.

Since his firing earlier this year, Underwood had been staying in base officers’ quarters for about $5 a day, and he had planned to return there when he gets back to El Toro in mid-May. As a result of his banishment, he will have to find other temporary housing until he joins his wife in a few months to begin a vacation.

He also will not be able to attend official base functions or use facilities such as the officers’ club, the golf course and other recreational sites open to retired officers. He can only use the commissary when accompanied by his wife, McClain said.

One source close to the case said that Underwood’s debarment came in part because of prodding from the Marine Commandant’s office in Washington.

The banishment had been discussed in February at the time Underwood pleaded guilty to charges against him and agreed to pay fines and restitution before his retirement. The ban was not carried out at that time. But later, people from Washington “had seen him on the golf course at El Toro” and it angered them, the source said.

A probation officer who was caught on video bending a teen in half.

A Torrance police officer who shot a man in the back as he walked away from a crime scene.

Seven California Highway Patrol officers who piled atop a man screaming “I can’t breathe” as he died following a drunk driving stop.

All three cases had similar outcomes: charges dropped or reduced to no time behind bars after a plea deal.

After a year in office, a pattern has emerged for L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who found himself saddled with a number of misconduct and abuse cases against police officers filed by his predecessor, George Gascón.

During his 2024 campaign, Hochman often chastised Gascón for filing cases he claimed wouldn’t hold up before a jury — while also promising to continue bringing prosecutions against police when warranted.

In recent months, Hochman has downgraded or outright dismissed charges in many high-profile cases that Gascón filed. In the two misconduct cases Hochman’s prosecutors have brought to trial, the district attorney’s office failed to win a conviction.

Those outcomes have infuriated the loved ones of victims of police violence, local activists and even former prosecutors, who say Hochman’s backslide on the issue was predictable after he received millions in campaign contributions from police unions.

Greg Apt, a former public defender who served under Gascón as second-in-command of the unit that prosecutes police cases, said he quit last year out of frustration with the new leadership.

“I had concerns that the cases were not going to be treated the same way under Hochman that they were under Gascón, that alleged police wrongdoing would not be given the same level of oversight,” he said.

Hochman has scoffed at the idea that he’s too cozy with cops to hold their feet to the fire, saying his campaign’s war chest reflected bipartisan support that included Democrats who have been critical of police.

The district attorney said he’s made decisions based on what he can actually prove in court, and argued case reviews within the Justice Systems Integrity Division have become even more rigorous under his leadership.

“I’m going to look at the facts and the law of any case. I don’t believe in the spaghetti against the wall approach where you throw the spaghetti against the wall, and see if anything sticks, and let the jury figure it out,” he said. “That would be me abdicating my responsibility.”

Hochman’s supporters argue he has restored balance to an office that was often filing cases against police that were either legally dubious or flat out unwinnable.

Tom Yu, a defense attorney who often represents cops accused of wrongdoing, said Hochman is handling things in a more fair and objective manner.

Former Torrance Police Officers Cody Weldin, center, and Christopher Tomsic, right, pleaded guilty last year in a conspiracy and vandalism case in which they allegedly spray painted a swastika on a car. Attorney Tom Yu, defense for Weldin, is seen listening to the proceedings.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“By and large, he’s not going after the cops. But he didn’t dismiss all the cases either. I’m OK with that,” Yu said. “On a personal level, I think he’s doing a very difficult job in the police cases, because someone is always going to be unhappy with the decisions he made.”

It is difficult to win a guilty verdict for an on-duty shooting, with no such convictions in Los Angeles County since 2000. Laws governing use-of-force give officers great latitude, often protecting them even when they shoot someone who is later found to be unarmed or in situations where video evidence shows no apparent threat.

Hochman questioned why he is being criticized when the California attorney general’s office has reviewed dozens of fatal shootings of unarmed persons throughout the state since 2020 and filed no criminal cases.

“If you bring weak cases and you lose, it undercuts your credibility of being any good at your job,” Hochman said. “It undercuts your credibility in saying that we believe in the facts and the law and bringing righteous cases.”

Hochman brought 15 cases against police officers in 2025, according to documents provided to The Times in response to a public records request, compared with 17 filed by Gascón in his final year in office.

But while Gascón had a strong focus on the kinds of excessive force cases the public was clamoring to see charged when he was elected in 2020, Hochman has more often filed charges for offenses such as fraud and evidence tampering.

Hochman’s recent dismissal of charges against most of the officers involved in the death of Edward Bronstein has drawn outcry from his family and at least one former prosecutor.

Bronstein died after screaming in agony as six California Highway Patrol officers piled on top of him in Altadena in 2020. The officers were trying to get a court-ordered blood draw after Bronstein was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving.

Video from the scene shows Bronstein arguing with the officers while handcuffed and on his knees.

The officers warn Bronstein they’re going to force him down to get a sample. Right before they do, Bronstein mumbles that he’ll “do it willingly,” but they shove him face down while a seventh officer, Sgt. Michael Little, films the encounter. A minute passes. Then Bronstein’s body goes limp.

Officers can be seen trying to revive Bronstein, calling his name and slapping the side of his head, according to the video. But several minutes elapse before officers attempt to deliver oxygen or CPR. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón announces he will ask a judge to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez for the killing of their parents in 1989, a decision that could free the brothers.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In 2023, Gascón filed manslaughter charges against the seven officers, as well as the nurse who carried out the blood draw. But late last year, Hochman dismissed charges against all except Little, whose case was reduced to a misdemeanor, for which he received 12 months of probation. Little is no longer a CHP officer, according to an agency spokesman.

Prosecutors are still pursuing manslaughter charges against the nurse at the scene, Arbi Baghalian. His defense attorney, Joe Weimortz, said Baghalian had no control over the officers’ actions or the decision to pursue the blood draw. Weimortz also said he believed the officers were innocent.

Bronstein’s daughter, Brianna Ortega, 26, said in a recent interview that Hochman’s decision to drop the charges felt like a betrayal.

“It just seems like because they’re cops … they must get away with it,” Ortega said. “How are you going to put the blame on one person when all of you are grown men who know better? You have common sense. You have human decency. He is literally telling you he can’t breathe.”

The Los Angeles County coroner’s office could not conclusively determine Bronstein’s cause of death but attributed it to “acute methamphetamine intoxication during restraint by law enforcement.” Bronstein’s family was paid $24 million to settle a wrongful death suit in the case.

Hochman said his office reviewed depositions from the civil case — which he said Gascón did not do before filing a case — and did not believe he could win a manslaughter case because it was impossible to say any officer specifically caused Bronstein’s death. Hochman said the officers had no intent to harm the man and were following orders of a superior officer.

“We looked at each officer, what they knew, what their state of mind was at the time. Understanding that there was both a sergeant there and a nurse, who was in charge of not only taking the blood draw but obviously doing it in a safe manner, and then deciding whether or not we could meet the legal standard of involuntary manslaughter for each officer,” he said.

Edward Tapia, the father of Edward Bronstein, speaks at a news conference about his son, a 38-year-old Burbank man who died while being restrained by California Highway Patrol officers in 2020 after refusing to have his blood drawn after a traffic stop. The family received a $24-million civil rights settlement in 2023 after filing a lawsuit against the state.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Bronstein’s killing was one of three cases in which Hochman assigned new prosecutors in the months before a trial started or a plea deal was reached. Aside from the Bronstein case, the others ended in an acquittal or a hung jury. All three prosecutors who were removed from the unit that handles police misconduct cases had either been appointed by Gascón or had a political connection to the former district attorney.

“When somebody’s lived that case for years, and then you take them off, it suggests that you’re less than serious about winning that case,” said Apt, the former prosecutor on the Bronstein case.

Hochman said he was simply bringing in staff with more trial experience on each case, insisting politics had nothing to do with the transfers. One of the cases, which involved allegations of perjury against L.A. County sheriff’s deputies Jonathan Miramontes and Woodrow Kim, ended with a lightning fast acquittal. Records show jurors deliberated less than an hour before coming back with a not guilty verdict.

In the other case, Hochman’s staff came closer to convicting a cop for an on-duty shooting than anyone else has in L.A. County in a quarter-century.

Former Whittier police officers Salvador Murillo, left, and Cynthia Lopez during their arraignment at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles. Murillo was charged in a 2020 shooting that left an unarmed man paralyzed. Murillo’s trial ended with a deadlocked jury in November 2025.

(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)

Former Whittier Det. Salvador Murillo stood trial in November for shooting an unarmed man in the back as he fled down an alley in 2023. Nicholas Carrillo ran away on foot from a vehicle stop and was leaping over a fence — unarmed — when Murillo squeezed off four rounds. Two severed Carillo’s spine, paralyzing him.

The jury came back deadlocked, although a majority of the panel was leaning toward a conviction. Hochman said it is likely he will ask prosecutors to take Murillo to trial a second time, though a final decision has not been made.

This year, Hochman will have to weigh in on a pair of politically charged police killings.

Keith Porter Jr., a 43-year-old father of two, was shot to death by an off-duty U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on New Year’s Eve, a case that has gained national attention following outcry over on-duty shootings by ICE officers in Minnesota and elsewhere.

The Department of Homeland Security said the off-duty ICE agent was responding to an “active shooter.” Porter’s family has said he was firing a rifle into the air as a celebration to ring in the new year.

Melina Abdullah, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter L.A., was part of a group that met with Hochman about Porter’s killing and other cases last month in South L.A.

She described the encounter as confrontational — and a disaster.

“I don’t know how we can expect any safety and accountability with this man in office,” Abdullah said.

Hochman must also decide how to proceed with the case of Clifford Proctor, a former LAPD officer charged for shooting an unarmed homeless man in the back in 2015.

Proctor left the LAPD in 2017 and was not indicted on murder charges until 2024. Gascón reopened the case in 2021, after prosecutors previously declined to file charges.

On Monday, The Times revealed Proctor was able to fly overseas and live at home for a year without the district attorney’s office making any attempt to arrest him on an active murder warrant in 2025.

Hochman has not said if he intends to take Proctor to trial.

Hochman said that while he knows cases of police violence drive emotional reactions, he has to constrain himself to a cold analysis of the facts in front of him.

Reflecting on his confrontational meeting with Black Lives Matter activists, which centered on his recent move to dismiss charges in the 2018 killing of Christopher Deandre Mitchell by Torrance police officers, Hochman said he can’t pursue cases just because people are upset.

“They couldn’t point out anything in that analysis that they disagreed with,” he said. “Other than the result.”

The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory proposals that would substantially change health plan offerings on the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year, aiming, it says, to provide more choice and lower premiums.

But it also proposes sharply raising some annual out-of-pocket costs — to more than $27,600 for one type of coverage — and could cause up to 2 million people to drop insurance.

The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since the Republican-led Congress allowed enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Healthcare coverage and affordability have become politically potent issues in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a 577-page rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said in a news release Monday.

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — catastrophic plans — that last year attracted about only 20,000 policyholders, according to the proposal, although other estimates put it closer to 54,000.

“This proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them this year. It is not known how many people did so.

The payment rule cements this move by making anyone eligible if their income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for 2026) or if they’re earning more than 2½ times that amount but lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is now available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number likely will be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicate a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set healthcare provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example.

The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds if not thousands of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.