politics

In the race to become L.A.’s next mayor, the city’s top cop — LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell — has become a lightning rod for debate.

The two candidates — incumbent Karen Bass and City Councilmember Nithya Raman — have staked out differing positions about how the Los Angeles Police Department has performed under McDonnell.

Raman has vowed to replace McDonnell, saying he has not “met the moment” given the department’s response to federal immigration raids. Bass has publicly backed the chief she hired two years ago, saying the LAPD could be thrown into disarray if McDonnell is removed before the 2028 Olympic Games.

Raman’s potential ouster of McDonnell and desire to push reforms on the LAPD has pitted her against the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the powerful union for rank-and-file officers that campaigned against Bass during her first election but is now backing her. The union has poured millions of dollars into attack ads against Raman, who has said she declined contributions from the organization in the past.

In an op-ed published in the Protective League’s monthly magazine earlier this year, union president Richard Mendoza called the Democratic Socialists of America, which has endorsed Raman, an “imminent threat to our members.”

Last week, Raman faced criticism for an Instagram video in which she appeared to slam McDonnell and the mayor, saying at one point “only you can stop fascist liars.” She later denied that she was referring to Bass or McDonnell, saying her remarks were improperly edited — and that she had the video pulled.

The Raman campaign did not respond to numerous requests for an interview about her vision for the LAPD.

Raman, a Harvard-educated urban planner, has sought to burnish her credentials as a political outsider by publicly calling for a change in LAPD leadership — but she hasn’t given a clear timeline on when she would replace McDonnell.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell greets Mayor Karen Bass during a ceremony at police headquarters in downtown Los Angeles on May 27.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Last week, Raman told ABC7 she expected to replace McDonnell in 2030, after he has finished his first five-year term. Hours later, she pulled back a bit, issuing a statement saying she expects to replace him prior to the end of his term, which concludes in late 2029.

“Chief McDonnell is Mayor Bass’s police chief,” her statement said. “I have made it clear that I would seek a chief who can keep Angelenos safe and restore trust with our immigrant communities.”

Her comments at a mayoral debate this week threw further uncertainty about who will run the LAPD if she gets the top job.

Raman sidestepped a question about whether she would replace McDonnell before the Olympics.

“I believe he’s lost the trust of Angelenos, especially in light of the ICE raids,” she said, adding that she wasn’t sure that she could make a “unilateral decision” to fire McDonnell outright. Bass pounced on the comment, saying that the fact that Raman didn’t know the mayor has that authority to get rid of a police chief shows she is unfit for the office.

The LAPD didn’t immediately respond to a request Thursday for an interview with McDonnell.

Asked about Raman’s remarks during his regular appearance on Fox 11 Los Angeles on Wednesday, McDonnell said he found it “problematic” to hear criticism of the LAPD’s response to civil unrest from someone “who wasn’t there.”

He defended the department’s protest response, saying his officers acted appropriately when confronted by unruly demonstrators hurling bottles, bricks, Molotov cocktails and commercial-grade fireworks. Fifty-two officers suffered injuries, ranging from concussions to hearing loss, he said. Such “riotous situations” necessitated the use of tear gas against crowds, he said, something the department hadn’t done in decades.

“It was getting to a point where it could become a deadly force situation, which we were trying to avoid at all costs,” he said. “I don’t think it could’ve been done differently that could’ve had a better outcome.”

City Councilmember Nithya Raman speaks during a debate with incumbent Mayor Karen Bass on Oct. 13.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Conventional wisdom holds that new mayors will eventually select their own chief, a decision that is considered as important as any in defining a city leader’s legacy. Some have waited longer than others to do it. Bass, for instance, oversaw the reappointment of McDonnell’s predecessor, Michel Moore, shortly after her election and stood by him for a year before Moore’s abrupt resignation in early 2024.

Mayors in other big cities have faced similar dilemmas.

In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist whom Raman is sometimes compared to, recently announced that he intends to retain NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch, in a move that was decried by his progressive base. Mamdani told local media that he believed that Tisch was right for the job, based on a proven track record of rooting out corruption and had overseen a crime drop as commissioner, which is the equivalent of a police chief in L.A.

Bass selected McDonnell to lead the LAPD in November 2024 after a lengthy nationwide search.

His appointment was viewed with surprise in local political circles, where some questioned why a progressive mayor like Bass, with a background in community organizing, would hitch her fortunes to a law-and-order chief. Others argued that McDonnell was an appealing choice: An LAPD veteran who offered experience and respect after serving as the chief in Long Beach and later as L.A. County sheriff.

After numerous scandals under Moore, McDonnell was seen as offering stability while the city prepared for the massive security challenges of the World Cup and Olympic Games. In McDonnell, his supporters say, the mayor has an honest and principled leader who has managed to steady a department beset by low morale, dwindling staffing levels and aging facilities. Violent crime has fallen to historic lows under his watch, as it has it many other U.S. cities.

McDonnell, however, has faced withering scrutiny over a dramatic rise in police shootings last year and for the department’s use of hard foam projectiles, tear gas, horse-mounted officers and other tactics against protesters. Within the LAPD, some have also criticized McDonnell for taking a detached approach to running the department and ceding control to underlings, such as Assistant Chief Dominic Choi.

During Tuesday’s debate, Raman suggested that under McDonnell the LAPD has drifted back to being a more opaque, closed-off agency that no longer publishes basic information such as neighborhood-level crime statistics.

In a recent interview with The Times, Bass signaled her frustration with the slow pace of change within the LAPD.

Without singling out McDonnell by name, Bass said she was concerned about the lack of progress on revamping LAPD’s much-maligned disciplinary system, which the chief oversees and which — depending on who you ask — either punishes officers too harshly or fails to hold them accountable.

Bass said that when she toured police station houses after being elected, the number one complaint she heard was about the perception that lower-ranking officers are punished more severely than command staff.

“They feel that command gets away with a lot of things that the rank and file does not,” she said. “So I feel like the reform of the disciplinary system has not gone fast enough, and I am concerned about that.”

Bass has also vowed to make a priority of addressing police shootings of civilians, particularly those involving people experiencing mental health crises. Last month, she signed an executive directive calling for an outside review of the LAPD’s policies and training, which she referred to as “woefully inadequate.”

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell speaks at a news conference at the Hall of Justice on Aug. 6.

(Arwen Clemans / Los Angeles Times)

If McDonnell has any doubts about his future, he hasn’t hinted at them during recent public appearances, often talking about the department’s role in the Olympics.

Bass told The Times that a push to replace McDonnell right before the 2028 Olympic Games would leave the LAPD with a leadership vacuum just as its leaders are supposed to be focused on security plans for that event. The last time city leaders recruited a new chief, the search process was nationwide, lasting more than 10 months, she said.

“I think that [Raman] is naive on what it means to do that,” Bass said. “I think she’s naive, and not understanding the instability to the department when leadership is in flux. And so if it took her the same amount of time, that means we’d have a new police chief about seven to eight months before one of the most high-profile security events in U.S. history.”

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell with his wife Kathy, right, is introduced as the 59th chief of the Los Angeles Police Department with Dr. Erroll Southers, then the president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, left, and Mayor Karen Bass on Nov. 14, 2024.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

In some ways, Raman and Bass are not as far apart on public safety as they previously were. Both candidates have been critical of the license plate reader company Flock Safety, advocated for investing in alternatives to policing and have recently indicated that they are committed to keeping the LAPD from shrinking any further. And since launching her mayoral bid, Raman’s campaign has publicly distanced itself from the “defund the police” movement that Bass has consistently rebuffed.

Where the two candidates diverge most sharply was over a package of police raises negotiated by Bass in 2023 that Raman said has deepened the city’s financial problems. Sold as a way to boost recruitment, the pay increases are among the reasons the police union has endorsed Bass’ reelection. The next mayor will be asked to negotiate a new police contract, which is set to expire next year.

Matt Klink, an L.A.-based Republican political consultant, said that law enforcement groups, such as the Protective League, were skeptical of Bass when she first took office but now back her because she has “shown through her first term in office that she has consistently supported the police.” He said that Raman, on the other hand, has played to the far left by villainizing McDonnell and downplaying concerns about safety.

“Mayor Bass has a stronger record of supporting the police,” he said. “She backed our contracts and our budgets — she has generally supported public safety.”

UCLA professor David Turner said despite his wariness of Bass’ centrist drift, he and other progressives are equally skeptical of Raman, who, has repeatedly voted to increase the LAPD budget without any meaningful efforts to rein in police misconduct.

“That money was proposed by Mayor Bass and voted and approved by Councilmember Nithya Raman,” said Turner, who runs Million Dollar Hoods, which seeks to map the impact of mass incarceration. Still, he said, he hopes that Raman’s tough talk about McDonnell will translate into more accountability for the LAPD.

“What I’m looking for and what L.A. progressives are looking for is a certain level of boldness and a willingness not to capitulate to the [Protective League] and their whims,” he said.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and James Queally contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has for the first time explicitly ruled out the use of a nuclear weapon against Iran, but has not denied US media reports that his administration is considering deploying the US’s most lethal non-nuclear munition, nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” in the near future.

In an interview published on Thursday by right-wing American news site Newsmax, Trump suggested he does not plan to use nuclear weapons, but also clarified that the devastating aerial weapon, the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB – ‘mother of all bombs ) “is not nuclear”.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world,” he told Newsmax.

The comments marked Trump’s first definitive statement on the nuclear topic following speculation about a possible atomic conflict earlier in the US and Israel’s war on Iran. They also appeared to confirm speculation that another phase of the war is imminent, likely after the US midterm elections on November 3.

Here’s what we know:

What did Trump say?

Trump told Newsmax that the US might indeed launch another strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, particularly on Pickaxe Mountain, where Tehran is believed to be hiding a nuclear facility deep under layers of granite.

He ruled out using a nuclear weapon or a tactical nuclear weapon.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world,” he said.

He also clarified that the MOAB, which CNN reported the US government is considering using, “is not nuclear”.

Responding to a question about whether the MOAB is “tactical nuclear” – meaning smaller nuclear munitions – Trump reiterated that it is not.

“Well, the mother of all bombs is not nuclear,” Trump said. “It’s not nuclear at all. This is just an extremely large bomb.”

Trump declined to say whether he had authorised its use in Iran.

Trump also suggested renewed attacks are likely in the near future. The US cannot end the war now because it has to ensure Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon, he argued, saying he believes that “if they had it, they would use it, in my opinion, instantaneously”.

Trump also reiterated that the war would end “very soon” whether by force or diplomacy and that oil prices would then drop.

When asked if he would put “troops on the ground”, Trump said: “No, I don’t see that, I don’t see it.” Earlier in the war, Trump had made comments regarding sending in troops, a move analysts said would be devastating for US soldiers because of Iran’s mountainous territory.

What is the ‘mother of all bombs’?

The MOAB carries a massive payload of about 8,500kg (18,000 pounds or 8.5 tonnes) of high explosives. It weighs 9,800kg (21,605 pounds or nearly 10 tonnes) – about the same as four cars – and is just over nine metres (about 30 feet) long. Stealth bombers are too small to carry it, so it has to be deployed by larger, Lockheed C-130 Hercules transporters.

It is designed to explode a few metres above the ground, sending out intense fireballs that can blast buildings and other hard-surface structures within a 1km radius, experts have told Al Jazeera. It is so powerful that a mushroom cloud from its blast has been seen 32km (20 miles) away in tests, the US Air Force has said.

“Its large explosive charge can produce devastating blast effects against exposed personnel, equipment and vulnerable structures,” Brussels-based military and weapons analyst Elijah Magnier said. “Its purpose is to generate an exceptionally powerful blast across a surface area.”

However, Magnier said there is doubt about whether using the massive surface explosive would be effective against deeply buried nuclear installations in Iran. He added that the terrain in Iran could be difficult for larger cargo aircraft to access.

What has Trump previously said about nuclear weapons?

Trump has never explicitly mentioned using a nuclear weapon, but he has also never ruled it out.

Speculation regarding whether Washington might use nuclear weapons was rife in the early days of the conflict, largely because of the extreme nature of Trump’s numerous threats against Tehran.

In April, for example, as Iran enforced a blockade on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump posted on his Truth Social site that “…a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, if Iran did not agree to a peace deal and reopen the strait.

He also threatened to destroy Iran’s infrastructure, saying a bombing campaign “will be Power Plant Day and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one”, in Iran.

Experts widely interpreted his statements as a threat of nuclear destruction, but one that still failed to force Iran to the table.

Although Trump largely moved away from his sabre-rattling rhetoric in the following weeks, he reiterated at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month that he could “annihilate” Iran. He also told the assembly that he believed a deal would emerge after the midterms.

What is a ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon?

“Tactical” nuclear weapons (TNW) are smaller nuclear munitions designed for the battlefield as opposed to strategic nuclear munitions designed for mass destruction.

Some perceive TNWs as having a lesser impact than an atomic bomb, but experts warn that their names are misleading and they can nevertheless be devastating. Their explosive yield, between 0.3 and 50 kilotons, can impact areas within a 500-600km radius.

The US dropped a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, meaning that weapon would today be considered a TNW. The US, North Korea and Russia have TNWs in their arsenals, although no country has ever used them. TNWs are not subject to any international treaties and are largely unregulated.

What might another US attack on Iran look like?

With Trump failing to rule out dropping the MOAB, analysts speculate that the US might launch another – perhaps final – intensive bombing campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear and defence sites, particularly Pickaxe Mountain.

The US could also continue its naval blockade on Iranian ports, while providing escorts for commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has vowed to respond to escalatory strikes by targeting oil and digital infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf states.

Senior defence officials have also warned that Iran will invade its neighbours if the US launches a ground operation, although Trump appears to have ruled that out.

Earlier in the war, he hinted at the possibility of sending ground forces to retrieve some 400kg of “yellowcake” – highly enriched uranium that Washington and Israel claim Tehran has hidden underground.

Trump’s phone calls in March to Kurdish militia groups fighting Iran provoked speculation that Washington could coordinate with them for an invasion, although that did not happen.

Gas prices are high. Diesel prices are higher — about $8 a gallon in California, $2 more than the national average.

For truckers, that’s a crisis. Their big rigs get about a paltry six miles to the gallon and filling their tanks in the Golden State now costs up to $2,500 a pop. For the guys who own a single truck or the small companies (which is the majority of trucking businesses), it can be hard to pass along those extra fuel costs to customers — which, as my colleague Nilesh Christoper wrote about, is causing a lot of pain in the industry.

Truckers everywhere are stomping mad, and it’s a problem for President Trump and Republicans heading into the midterms. Eventually, higher diesel prices are going to mean higher prices on the goods those trucks are transporting, and that’s an even bigger problem.

Trump has been throwing spaghetti at the wall trying out one limp solution after another to bring prices down — cutting taxes, brokering deals with Russia, telling us it’s just not a problem. But of course, it is.

Truck drivers fill they diesel tanks at United Oil in Long Beach on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

One Southern California energy expert has spent recent days in Washington, D.C., trying to convince the administration that the solution lies in California, in the vast oil reserves under our cities and farms that we largely leave untapped for environmental reasons. Environment aside, it’s a long-running and compelling (to some, anyway) argument that may have found its moment, meaning California might become Trump’s next solution — or at least scapegoat — to a costly problem.

More on that, but first, a recap of where we are.

The red dye ploy

Three thousand years ago in Trump time, but which I mean earlier this month, the president signed an executive order that allowed truckers to use red dye diesel as a way to lower costs.

Red dye diesel is, you guessed it, my genius readers, diesel that has been dyed red — to differentiate it from the stuff at truck stops. Farmers and other agricultural types are allowed to buy red dye diesel without certain taxes to use in tractors and other equipment that doesn’t run on our roads.

The Trump order allows truckers to buy red dye and defer paying the roughly 25-cent-per-gallon federal tax on it. So it’s not really saving them money, just delaying payment.

“It’s a small step, but nonetheless, it’s a positive step,” said Michael Mische, a professor at the USC Marshall School of Business whose conservative-leaning take on energy policy has often raised the ire of the Newsom administration.

President Trump signs an executive order to lower the cost of diesel fuel during a campaign rally on Oct. 5, 2026, in Grand Island, Neb.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

But there’s a problem with Trump’s red dye plan. States have their own laws about red dye diesel, and the feds can’t change them. So even if truckers could find a place to buy red dye diesel (again, not sold at regular gas stations), and even if the incentive of paying taxes later made the search seem worthwhile, they would often be breaking state laws.

Eric Sauer, chief executive of the California Trucking Assn., a trade group that advocates for the industry, said his group has been advising members not to use the crimson fuel until it’s clear that states are going to change their rules. Some, like Missouri, have. California has not.

Either way, Sauer said, allowing truckers to use diesel dyed red really doesn’t increase the overall supply, just shifts it around — which is unlikely to bring prices down.

“It’s still the same supply of diesel fuel out there,” Sauer said.

Global supply

The global supply of crude oil, has been, shall we say, negatively affected by our war with Iran. Despite Trump’s assurances that the conflict is winding down, two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked this week, highlighting that perhaps Iran is unaware the war is over. Fears of that conflict and others sent energy prices soaring even higher.

Faced with that unpleasant reality, Trump this week also announced he was lifting sanctions on diesel exports from Russia, a move that shocked his own party and most of the world.

The PCK petroleum refinery stands illuminated at twilight on April 28, 2026, in Schwedt, Germany. The refinery, which produces gasoline, diesel, kerosene and bitumen, receives 20% of its oil from Kazakhstan through the Russian Druzhba pipeline.

(Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

That deal could bring 36 million barrels of Russian diesel, at most, to American shores, which sounds like a lot until you realize we use about 4 million barrels of the stuff every day. So Trump essentially sold out Ukraine and demolished what was left of our European standing for nine days of diesel — an amount unlikely to lower prices.

In California, that’s especially true because, as UC Berkeley professor Aaron Smith points out, about 70% of our diesel “is actually not made from crude oil and coming from oil refineries. It’s made from vegetable oils and animal fats.”

Yes, the Golden State relies heavily on so-called renewable diesel that, Smith says, “introduces, I think, another wrinkle” when trying to lower costs.

California’s fault

But let’s get back to Mische, the USC professor. For years, he’s been arguing that California’s refusal to pump more oil should be viewed as a national security concern.

California actually imports the majority of its crude oil, more than 60% from other countries, and our refineries for a number of debated reasons have been closing. Our imports have been growing in recent years. We also have no pipelines connecting us to the rest of the U.S., unlike many other states. That means we can’t easily get oil except what’s shipped in through our ports.

At the same time, the West Coast with its many military installations is undeniably pivotal to national security. Mische argues that without adequate fuel reserves for a shortage — like during a war — our military readiness could be jeopardized. He wants to see California not only pump more, but for the federal government to store more of that California crude.

A train of tank cars enters the Chevron EL Segundo refinery, one of the largest petroleum processing facilities in California, on April 8, 2026. California imports approximately 75% of its crude oil, with nearly one-third of the crude supplied from the Middle East. Prices at the pump in the state are averaging $5.93 per gallon today amid the war in Iran.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

These arguments haven’t gained much traction in our heavily Democratic state, which has moved forcefully away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources in recent years and which has little interest in increasing drilling. But Mische and his colleagues may have found their moment.

Earlier this year, they wrote draft executive orders about California’s oil industry that he says the Trump administration is considering — one would attempt to force California to pump more oil using the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950.

Trump has used that wartime act several times in the last few months, and Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance announced it would be used to expand production at a Texas oil refinery.

Mische said he spent last week in conversations with the administration on the proposed orders and is “confident” Trump will “issue additional executive orders under the Defense Production Act for California” by the end of the year.

Beyond the national security argument, such orders could please Trump because they do two things. First, if California pumps its own oil, it could free up some imported oil for other states, which could lower prices — though it would certainly take time and require more refinery capacity.

Second, and likely of more interest to the White House, it makes California — and Newsom — the villain for this sticky Republican problem. California will sue, of course, which would just help the Trump political narrative.

Kevin de León, a California Senate president emeritus and author of SB 100, California’s landmark 100% clean energy law, said he can easily envision Trump claiming that “we have lots of cheap oil in the United States that can lower your gas prices — but crazy lefty California is blocking us.”

Actually, it’s hard to imagine Trump not grabbing the chance to blame gas prices on the Golden State — or Newsom.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: ‘Very few people out in the streets’: ICE surge rattles California’s Central Valley

The California angle: Justice Dept. demands California prove citizenship for lists of voters or withhold ballots

The L.A. Times Special: The U.S is in the death business. Newsom can change that, and win votes
Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

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

“The Palestinian question is the greatest historical injustice of this century,” China’s foreign minister said.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi has told Israeli President Isaac Herzog during a meeting in Azerbaijan that Israel should stop and reverse its “forced establishment” of West Bank settlements, China’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

Wang told Herzog that China has consistently viewed the Palestinian question as the greatest historical injustice of this century, the ministry said in the statement on Friday.

Wang emphasised that the “two-state solution” is the right path to a resolution and said the immediate priority is to fully open access to the Gaza Strip so a humanitarian “catastrophe” is not allowed to spread.

Wang added that China is willing to work with the international community to push all parties to return to dialogue as soon as possible and seek a political settlement.

Wang is attending the Seventh Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, as the special representative of President Xi Jinping, China’s state news agency Xinhua reported.

China urges new Middle East framework

In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Cairo for the first time in a decade and called on Middle East countries to oppose external influence and consider reshaping the region’s security order.

Xi’s rare visit arrived as Beijing seeks to expand its influence in the region amid the US-Israel war on Iran.

The talks covered the US-Israel war on Iran, with both presidents urging “diplomatic solutions” to reach a “comprehensive agreement to end the war”, according to a statement from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s spokesperson.

In March, China criticised the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, with Beijing demanding an immediate halt to the joint attacks. Wang told his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar, that the attack on Iran came as negotiations between Washington and Tehran had “made significant progress, including addressing Israel’s security concerns”, China’s foreign ministry said in a statement following the start of the war.

China was Iran’s largest trading partner, buying up to 90 percent of its oil, according to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. In 2021, Beijing signed a 25-year “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement” with Tehran.

At the same time, Beijing has spent the past decade cultivating closer ties with Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, and remains a top trade partner of both the US and Israel.

Judge fines government for failing to fund universities as protests over Milei’s cuts turn violent.

“This cannot go on!” students shout during an assembly in the middle of the central hall of the University of Buenos Aires Exact and Natural Sciences building.

It is part of Argentina’s prestigious public university system.

The faculty’s central hall is covered with dozens of banners protesting President Javier Milei’s spending cuts. Students have called an assembly to announce the occupation of the university, a traditional form of protest in Argentina meant to raise public awareness and pressure the government.

They say they will take over the building for a day. Many students and professors here are concerned about the impact of Milei’s austerity policies on public universities and say the future of free higher education is at risk.

“Our best professors are leaving en masse. With salaries that cannot cover their basic needs, they are leaving for private universities,” Emiliano Gato, a physics student who is part of the group, told Al Jazeera.

“I dream of doing research and teaching at the public University of Buenos Aires. It’s a prestigious school. But now, with this austerity plan, I don’t know what will happen.”

Public universities in Argentina have become a major battleground of Milei’s austerity plan. Students and professors are protesting the lack of funding and the erosion of salaries, which they say is a major threat to the country’s public education.

Milei is implementing one of the harshest austerity plans in Argentina’s history.

Since taking office in 2023, he has laid off thousands of state employees, shut down ministries, reduced subsidies and cut government-funded programmes. The measures were meant to fight high inflation, which was a major problem in Argentina. Almost three years later, inflation has fallen to around 2 percent a month. Milei says his plan is going well.

“Argentina is growing at a remarkable pace. We have now recorded 27 consecutive months of sustained growth, and today the country is expanding at four times its historical rate. This growth is being felt across almost every sector of the economy,” said Milei during a recent visit to Washington.

Ripple effects

But not everyone agrees. His plan is also having a profound impact on public education, welfare plans for people with disabilities, pensioners and others who depend on state support. The opposition has tried to block many of Milei’s reforms.

Last year, Congress overturned presidential vetoes and approved two laws, one increasing funding for public universities and another declaring a disability emergency. But Milei’s government has refused to implement them, arguing that Congress failed to identify how they would be financed.

A federal judge has now begun fining the government 100,000 pesos (around $70) a day for failing to implement parts of the financing law, which requires Milei’s government to restore university salaries and student scholarships lost to inflation, regularly update budgets and provide funding for research, hospitals and infrastructure.

And that’s why thousands of people took to the streets on Thursday to demand that the government implement it. All around Buenos Aires, long columns of people blocked the centre of the city as they called for a general strike. Although the protest was meant to be peaceful, it soon turned violent. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets as protesters threw rocks.

The plaza in front of Congress resembled a battleground. At least 25 people were detained, and several others were injured, including members of the security forces.

Maria Teresa de Jesus is a professor in the University of Buenos Aires chemistry department. She says she makes around $700 a month and it has become difficult to make ends meet. “I have come to this protest as a last resort. I am professor. I love teaching, doing research. I shouldn’t be here,” she told Al Jazeera. “Public education is crucial in this country, to make education accessible to all. And the government is ignoring it.”

Many in Argentina continue to support Milei’s economic plan. They are hoping the government’s plan to exploit the country’s vast natural resources will pay off and translate into more jobs, higher wages and improved living standards.

But many others have stopped believing and are prepared to raise the stakes. They accuse Milei’s government of protecting the interests of a privileged few while asking the rest of the country to bear the cost of his economic plan.

Two women filed a lawsuit Thursday against former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, saying they were sexually exploited by him and other men in violation of a federal anti-trafficking law.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Orlando, Fla., comes nearly two years after the House Ethics Committee said the Florida Republican had regularly paid for sex, including once with a 17-year-old girl, purchased and used illicit drugs, and violated state laws while a member of Congress.

Gaetz had left office when the report was released and denied wrongdoing. But the report helped to tank his nomination to become attorney general in President Trump’s second administration.

Two women said they were in their early 20s in 2017 when they met Gaetz through Joel Greenberg, who was a tax official in Seminole County and is now in prison for a raft of crimes, including a sex crime.

Gaetz provided drugs and paid the women for sex, out-of-state travel, lodging and other expenses, according to the lawsuit.

“Much of the conduct alleged against me is false,” Gaetz said in response.

“The lawsuit relies almost exclusively on a Congressional Committee report that didn’t allow me to confront my accusers. Now I will finally have that chance,” he said in a statement.

Gaetz also appeared to mock the women on the social platform X, sharing a 2018 social media photo of the backs of three women in bathing suits looking at the ocean in the Bahamas.

“I’m shocked nobody responded to their repeated cries for help, posted to instagram,” he said Thursday.

The lawsuit also names Greenberg, another man and businesses tied to Greenberg’s family.

“Every part of this venture ran on an exploitative power imbalance,” the women’s attorney, Spencer Kuvin, said in the lawsuit. “On one side stood a sitting congressman, an elected tax collector, and a former state legislator, men with public office, private homes, and money to spend. On the other stood young financially vulnerable women in their early twenties.”

Gaetz hosts a political talk show on One America News Network. He was recently appointed to the board of Triumph Gulf Coast, which oversees how Florida spends money recovered for damage from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

White writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — New White House press secretary Katie Zacharia defended her legal background and justified her truncated inaugural briefing as she navigates a rocky first week as the president’s chief spokeswoman.

Zacharia sat down for an interview Thursday with the conservative Human Events outlet. In it, she said she did not have time to get fully prepared ahead of her first briefing on Tuesday and that it was always the plan to keep it short because President Trump would field questions from journalists later that morning.

“It was absolutely my goal to keep it short, considering he is his own best spokesperson, and he would love — and does love — gaggling with the media as he goes to Marine One,” Zacharia said. “So I wanted to give ample deference and not barge into his time.”

The initial briefing materials were given to Zacharia on Monday evening, then completed on Tuesday at 8 a.m., less than two hours before she would appear before the White House press corps. She had been up since 3 a.m. preparing, Zacharia said.

“I never had a full briefing beforehand, and I went out and I effectuated the briefing,” she said.

As for her legal background, Zacharia said she was preparing to take the bar exam in California at a time that she had just gotten married and was readying a move to China to join her new husband, who had been working in private equity in Beijing.

“I was obviously incredibly distracted and overwhelmed and excited for finally being married to someone who I’d been long distance from for at least a year,” Zacharia said.

She said the results of the bar exam, which she did not pass, were “somewhat inconsequential” because she would not need to be a barred attorney while living in China.

Zacharia, who has been under scrutiny for calling herself a “lawyer,” said she consulted several legal experts to ensure that title was accurate when offering legal analysis.

“It’s unfortunate that people dub this as some kind of conspiracy or want to put me in a camp. The truth is, I was very careful how I executed this, and I never came across as someone who was an attorney-at-law.”

She will not weigh in on legal matters in her White House capacity, Zacharia said.

She also divulged details of how she went about securing the White House press secretary job. Zacharia stressed that she did not want to be seen as lobbying for the position, left vacant when Karoline Leavitt announced she would depart the administration to spend more time with her family.

Zacharia, who was a communications advisor for the company that runs Truth Social, said she closely monitored the president’s social media posts to determine what was top of mind for him, then would go on air to talk about those topics.

“My philosophy is, I’m on TV enough where if he sees me and he likes me, then I will be recruited for the job. I do not believe that lobbying for that job would have been successful, and I wanted to work for it. I wanted to audition for it.”

Then on Oct. 7, as Zacharia was preparing to take one of her children to a pumpkin patch, she received a phone call from Trump about the press secretary position.

She promptly flew out the next day from her home in California to Washington, met with the president about the job on Friday and formally accepted the position later that day.

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration on Thursday sued California over its handling of voter fraud claims, asking a federal court to immediately bar the state from counting ballots from about 20,000 voters statewide — many in Los Angeles County — whom the administration alleges are “likely noncitizens.”

The lawsuit is highly unusual, particularly given that California voters have already begun voting in the Nov. 3 midterms via mail ballots, experts said.

It’s also highly inappropriate and based on questionable federal data that have proved wildly inaccurate in other states, state officials said.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “Courts have made clear the federal government has no role in running state elections. We will defend free and fair elections in the Golden State and call out every authoritarian attempt to undermine our democracy.”

U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, in his own statement, defended the lawsuit.

“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” he said. “If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation’s representative system of government.”

The lawsuit states that “as part of an investigation into unlawful voting,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducted a “multiagency and multilevel review” of state voter and federal citizenship data and determined with “high confidence” that around 20,000 “likely noncitizens” are registered to vote in the state.

It then forwarded those names to Homeland Security Investigations, which conducted its own investigation and concluded the same, the lawsuit says.

“This means that, consistent with state law, nearly 20,000 noncitizens in California have been sent a vote-by-mail ballot to participate in the federal election (or will receive one), with many addresses listed in Los Angeles County,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit comes two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, giving them 48 hours to set aside the same ballots in order to investigate those voters’ citizenship status.

McCotter had said the Trump administration would be forced to file for emergency relief in the courts if Weber and Logan did not comply.

The lawsuit comes about three months after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin wrote his own letter to Weber, alleging that there may be more than 190,000 noncitizens registered to vote in California.

The lawsuit makes no mention of that prior estimate, or why Homeland Security’s initial estimate was so much larger than its current estimate. It does say that USCIS identifying with “high confidence” that a voter is a likely noncitizen “means that the match between voter information on the voting roll and USCIS’ internal records is strong and consistent based on multiple identifiers that support a strong identity link.”

It also said, “The Federal Government notified California months ago that numerous noncitizens may be registered to vote in California. Despite knowing that California must send vote-by-mail ballots to every registered voter, the State made no serious attempt to work with the Federal Government to determine whether noncitizens are registered to vote.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for more information as to how the 190,000 figure dropped to 20,000.

In a letter back to McCotter, Weber noted both figures and accused the Trump administration of pushing forward to disenfranchise voters at the last minute before the midterms based on shoddy data work and no certainty that those voters are ineligible.

“Nowhere has the federal government clarified the basis for suspecting — not even confirming with any level of certainty — the listed individuals are non-citizens. And as one court recently noted, the federal government’s citizenship records are ‘known to be unreliable,’” Weber wrote, referring to a case brought against the Justice Department by the organization Common Cause. “To give just one example, in a similar incident in the State of Nevada, DHS initially alleged that Nevada’s voter roll included nearly 16,000 potential non-citizens. However, after working with the State of Nevada, DHS officials failed to establish that a single non-citizen was on the voter rolls.”

Weber called it “remarkable” that the Justice Department would demand that her office “review and confirm the citizenship status of each of the approximately 20,000 individuals on the list on the eve of an election and within a mere 48 hours” despite providing no clear evidence that those individuals are wrongly registered.

“This is an emergency of the DOJ’s creation,” Weber wrote. “California’s election administration will continue to be governed by applicable federal and state law, not by unsubstantiated claims and outrageous demands.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, posted about the lawsuit on X, noting the 48-window given to Weber and Logan had lapsed and writing, “Time is up for California.”

“This is not political or controversial,” he wrote. “We will not allow California to dilute the votes of American citizens.”

The Trump administration’s lawsuit says that while the U.S. “actively investigates and prosecutes incidents of unlawful voting,” it “is not practicable or feasible for the United States to investigate before the 2026 election concludes thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of individuals that two federal investigative offices identified on the California voter roster as likely being sent vote-by-mail ballots.”

Because of that, it argues, “California is thus knowingly imposing an obstacle on the United States’ ability to enforce [federal election law] by facilitating unlawful voting rather than working with the Federal Government to prevent it,” and the state is therefore legally barred from sending mail ballots to the 20,000 voters Homeland Security has flagged.

It asks the federal court in the Central District of California to declare the state’s actions — including providing and counting ballots for those 20,000 people — to be barred by law and in violation of the Supremacy Clause, and to issue an injunction barring the state from counting those ballots in federal elections “until those individuals’ citizenship status can be verified.”

The Trump administration’s attempts to use immigration data to reach conclusions about California voter rolls and intervene in California’s election is already being challenged in a separate federal case in the district of Washington, D.C., brought by attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo.

The UCLA attorneys filed their own emergency petition Thursday to preclude the Justice Department from moving forward with such actions against California, citing the letters McCotter sent to Weber and Logan.

A judge in that case ordered the parties to meet and file a status report with the court by Friday as to when each side would be able to brief the court on the issue.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

Poll shows right-wing candidate with two percent advantage over Lula going into second round of voting on October 25.

A new poll has found that right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro maintains a slight lead over President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as the two candidates seek an edge ahead of Brazil’s tense October 25 run-off vote.

A Quaest poll released on Thursday found that Bolsonaro, son of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, would receive 46 percent of the vote compared to Lula’s 44 percent, a difference within the two-percent margin of error.

Bolsonaro outperformed expectations during the first round of voting on October 4, beating Lula by less than two points despite most polls suggesting that the leftist president was on track for a marginal first-round win. Neither candidate secured a majority that would have avoided a run-off.

The poll, the first released by Quaest since the initial round of voting, shows that Bolsonaro has held onto his lead and remains the favourite heading into the second round.

Lula has sought to rally his supporters after the October 4 loss, holding large rallies that have drawn millions of people onto the street.

While Bolsonaro has remained ahead in the polls, analysts have pointed out that he has not benefitted as much from the elimination of several conservative candidates, whose supporters would presumably prefer him to Lula, as might have been expected after the first round.

Bolsonaro has made progress securing endorsements from right and centre-right parties, however, seeking to consolidate support from conservatives and build a coalition friendly to business interests and a policy agenda sought by investors.

Brazil’s Senate approved a constitutional amendment on Wednesday reducing the country’s maximum workweek from 44 to 40 hours per week without a reduction in pay, delivering a key priority for Lula as the president presses his case to an electorate that is anxious about cost-of-living issues.

“Today is a day to celebrate a historic achievement for millions of workers,” Lula said in a statement. “This means having more time to live, rest, be with family, watch your children grow up, take care of yourself, and enjoy life. Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve to have time to live.”

The president also recently banned sports betting, which had caused an explosion of gambling addiction and contributed to surging household debt across the country.

WASHINGTON — FBI employees fired for their roles in the investigation of President Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Florida estate sued on Thursday to get their jobs back, calling their terminations unlawful acts of “political retribution.”

The complaint adds to the growing list of legal challenges to the mass terminations under FBI Director Kash Patel of agents who participated in investigations of the Republican president or are seen as opposed to Trump administration interests.

The suit was filed in federal court in Washington on behalf of nine agents, intelligence analysts and staff operations specialists who were fired in February after dismissals of agents who had worked on the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Patel has said in congressional testimony that employees he has fired had “weaponized” the FBI. But the agents deny that claim in the lawsuit, noting that between them they had more than a century of distinguished and apolitical FBI service that involved responding to the Boston Marathon bombing, hostage recoveries and the investigation into the 2024 assassination attempt of Trump in Butler, Pa.

Their firings, the lawsuit says, create an “immeasurable loss” to “America’s national security.”

“In return for their service, they were fired because they did their jobs, as they always did to follow the facts and law without bias or favor. To this administration, this is an offense. To the rest of us, it is heroic,” said a statement from their attorneys, Margaret Donovan, Abbe Lowell and Rebecca Tinio.

“This lawsuit will prove their unlawful dismissal and hold the administration accountable for this blatant attack on the rule of law,” the statement added.

The Mar-a-Lago investigation produced criminal charges against Trump

The suit lays out a detailed recitation of the allegations against Trump, describing how he improperly stored dozens of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., that he took with him after leaving the White House, showed them off to people not authorized to see them and obstructed FBI efforts to get them back.

The investigation resulted in a dramatic 2022 FBI search of Mar-a-Lago that recovered classified records and later produced an indictment in federal court in Florida charging Trump with dozens of felony counts.

Trump denied wrongdoing, and the case was dismissed in 2024 by a Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, who ruled that the special counsel who filed the charges, Jack Smith, had been illegally appointed by the Biden administration Justice Department.

The nine fired FBI employees did not volunteer for the investigation but were rather assigned to it as part of their work on specialized counterintelligence and counterespionage squads, according to the lawsuit, which says they were nonetheless terminated because of baseless perceptions that the performance of their law enforcement duties had run “afoul of the political and personal loyalty to Trump that Defendants demanded.”

“By casting Plaintiffs’ work on the Plasmic Echo investigation as ‘politically weaponized,’ Defendants incorrectly presumed to know the personal political convictions of Plaintiffs and took unlawful action based on that presumption,” the lawsuit says, using the FBI code name for the classified documents investigation. “Worse still, Defendants incorrectly concluded that those personal political convictions affected or drove their work.”

The lawsuit seeks, among other remedies, reinstatement to the FBI, an awarding of back pay and a court order declaring that the firings were unlawful.

The suit says the firings were the culmination of a retribution campaign

Lawyers for the fired employees suggest their clients’ “fate was sealed” well before the February terminations, casting the ousters as the culmination of a long-running retribution campaign that kicked into gear once Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

The lawsuit notes how Patel, in his capacity as a conservative podcaster before becoming Trump’s FBI director, had derided the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search as “unlawful” and had accused the agents who had participated in it as being “corrupt government gangsters.”

Days after Trump was inaugurated, a top Justice Department official demanded that the FBI turn over a list of bureau employees who had participated in Trump-related investigations, an order that the then-director, Brian Driscoll, resisted and that was seen within the workforce as a potential prelude to mass firings.

Over the following year, the FBI and the Justice Department fired waves of employees involved in investigations of Trump, without hearings or proper notice that the plaintiffs’ lawyers say are required by law.

The lawsuit says that the Mar-a-Lago agents and analysts were fired in February after Patel disclosed to Reuters that the FBI, as part of the investigation, had subpoenaed his toll records, which show the date, time and length of a phone call but not the content of the communications.

“The Plaintiffs were unlawfully terminated not for any cause or any legitimate reason, but only to satisfy the President’s personal vendetta,” the lawsuit states. “The firings did not follow any internal investigation or disciplinary process within the FBI, and Plaintiffs were not given any notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to appeal.”

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

‘A major failure’

A round-faced man with dark-rimmed glasses, a moustache and short-trimmed hair, Ismael came to the US when he was only five years old.

Southern California became his home, and as an adult, he qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme, which offered temporary protection against deportation.

He lost his DACA status, however, in 2015 after a conviction for driving under the influence.

His family remembers him as a caring son and uncle, always willing to buy his niece and nephew new clothes or school supplies.

“Ismael was always looking after his siblings. He just had a big heart,” said his brother, Jose Miguel Ayala. “He was very protective of not just us, but my mum and dad too.”

He was 39 years old when he was brought to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.

Two weeks after his arrival, Ismael told his family that he developed a high fever and a painful sore on his backside.

On September 18, 2025, workers at Adelanto initiated a Code Blue alert for Ismael, signalling a life-threatening medical emergency. Medical staff rushed him from his dorm to the infirmary in a wheelchair.

ICE documents show that Ismael was given pain medication, an ointment and a fibre supplement.

But according to Physicians for Human Rights’ Cuneo, who reviewed the case, Ismael should have received a physical examination and antibiotics.

“That is a major failure,” Cuneo said.

That weekend, hours after Lucia’s visit, Ismael’s condition worsened. Just after midnight on Sunday, ICE records say he was vomiting, shaking and sweating.

According to ICE documents, he was later sent to an intensive care unit, where he went into cardiac arrest within minutes of his arrival and subsequently died.

“I believe Ismael’s death could have fully been prevented by timely care,” Cuneo said. “It was a simple abscess that was not treated in a timely manner.”

Fault Lines obtained a coroner’s investigation that reveals Ismael was critically ill when he first arrived at the hospital, a fact that was left out of ICE’s public report on his death.

The coroner’s report also contradicts ICE’s timeline for Ismael’s death. It indicates Ismael went into cardiac arrest early on September 21, nearly a full day before he passed away. Medical staff, however, managed to restore his heartbeat after intubating him.

That conflicts with ICE’s report, which only notes his pulse stopping once: shortly before his death was announced on the morning of September 22. ICE described his condition on September 21 as “calm and cooperative”, but it signalled no heart problems.

“If they had given him the medical care and what he needed, maybe he would be here with us,” Lucia said.

In a statement about Ismael’s death, ICE said detainees receive “comprehensive medical care” throughout their time in custody.

But California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta told Fault Lines that his office found “the exact opposite” during its inspections of the state’s detention centres.

“We’ve gone to these facilities. We’ve gone into Adelanto. We have done our own physical inspections,” Bonta explained.

“If what the ICE spokesperson said was true, Mr Ayala-Uribe would be with us today.”

An internal mortality review committee also found that the care provided to Ismael at Adelanto “deviated beyond safe limits of practice”, according to a document obtained by US media earlier this year.

It also suggests that medical staff delayed responding to calls about Ismael’s declining health in the days leading up to his death.

NEW YORK — Lawyers for the BBC say President Trump is trying to delay sitting for a deposition in the defamation case he brought against the British broadcaster until January 2027.

In a filing this week, they asked a Florida court to compel the president to appear in the $10 billion case after they say he canceled an agreed-upon date this week, citing “matters of national importance.”

“Two months of discovery remaining, the BBC still has not been able to depose, and does not even have a schedule to depose, the most central figure in this case: Plaintiff himself,” attorney Charles D. Tobin wrote in the filing. “Those delays have flouted the cooperative spirit of discovery and precluded the BBC from obtaining the evidence necessary to robustly litigate its defense.”

Trump, who has a history of avoiding depositions, filed the lawsuit against the BBC last December, seeking $10 billion in damages as he accused the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices related to a documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance.”

Britain’s publicly funded national broadcaster admitted filmmakers spliced together quotes from different sections of the speech Trump delivered to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before the storming of the U.S. Capitol, to make it seem like he was directly urging violence.

The 33-page lawsuit accused the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The broadcaster apologized to Trump over the edit and the head of the BBC and the British broadcaster’s top news executive both resigned. But the broadcaster has denied Trump’s claims that it defamed him.

In the filing this week, BBC lawyers said that they first requested dates for the deposition in July, and followed up repeatedly. Both sides, they said, eventually agreed on Oct. 16.

However, after weeks of silence, they wrote, “Plaintiff’s counsel responded on September 28, 2026, indicating that ‘the President is no longer available for his deposition on October 16 due to other matters of national importance’ and that counsel would ‘endeavor to provide you with a replacement date by the end of this week.’ He did not.”

Instead, they said, they were told last week that Trump “has no availability whatsoever for a deposition” before discovery is set to close on Dec. 18. and were told that Trump would instead make himself available the second or third week of January.

In a statement in response to the filing, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team did not address the reasons for Trump’s delay, but repeated its allegations against the BBC and said the president was holding the broadcaster “accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing.”

Trump voluntarily dropped a $500 million lawsuit he filed against his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen in 2023, days before he was set to give a deposition in that suit.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.

California sued the Trump administration for the 100th time in under two years Thursday, challenging the practice of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arresting people for civil immigration violations at or near state courthouses.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said such arrests have long been barred because they are unconstitutional and deeply disruptive to the rule of law and the rights of victims, witnesses, defendants and other parties to court proceedings.

“We’ve seen serious criminal charges dropped and entire cases jeopardized because victims and witnesses are too scared to come to the courthouse to testify,” Bonta said. “Our justice system cannot function this way.”

Bonta said his office having to take the Trump administration to court 100 times in less than two years, often alongside other Democrat-led states, was a “sobering milestone” and a reflection not of political interference on California’s part — as the president and his supporters have cast it — but of Trump’s nearly unbridled lawlessness.

“It’s very troubling when the most powerful person on the planet and the president of our country is the one trampling over the Constitution, breaking the law so blatantly and brazenly, so consistently, so frequently,” Bonta said.

Independent legal experts said several factors have driven the wave of lawsuits.

Presidents of both parties have increasingly flexed their executive power, and state attorneys general have increasingly sued in response. During Trump’s first term in office, California — under the leadership of then-attorney general and current gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra — sued the Trump administration more than 120 times over four years. Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton — now a Republican candidate for Senate — sued the Biden administration just over 100 times in four years.

Trump in this term quickly began implementing an array of policies leftover from his first term or outlined in the Project 2025 policy blueprint, many of which Bonta and other Democratic attorneys general were prepared to sue over, experts said.

Trump was also able to appoint a host of loyalists with the help of the Republican-controlled Congress, who helped advance policies that less loyal agency heads would have balked at, and which were sure to draw additional legal challenges, experts said.

Daniel Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law School and author of “Contested Ground: How to Understand the Limits on Presidential Power,” said California’s raft of lawsuits is a result of the current Trump administration “doing more aggressive things right off the starting block” — but also repeatedly targeting California specifically.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. However, it has consistently derided Bonta’s litigation against the administration as baseless and misguided.

When Bonta claimed in August that his lawsuits had saved California more than $200 billion, namely by reversing Trump cuts to federal funding meant for the state, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Bonta should stop “filing frivolous lawsuits” and “focus on addressing problems in his own state.”

ICE, which also did not immediately respond to a request for comment, has defended its arrests near courthouses as a “common sense” approach to apprehending offenders at times and locations where authorities know they will be.

The 100th case

Bonta’s lawsuit argues that such arrests are arbitrary and capricious given the chilling effect they have on justice in the state. They violate the Immigration and Nationality Act as intended by Congress, and interfere with California’s rights under the 10th Amendment to execute its “core sovereign judicial and police functions,” Bonta’s office said.

His arguments echo those made by other state officials in the past. During Trump’s first term, for example, then-California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye called the arrests “disruptive, shortsighted, and counterproductive.”

Arrests at or near courthouses began to rise again after Trump took office in January 2025. An ICE memo, issued in May 2025, said agents could conduct “civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses when they have credible information that leads them to believe the targeted alien(s) is or will be present at a specific location.”

Incidents quickly began cropping up. In June 2025, ICE agents arrested two women outside a Los Angeles courthouse after a hearing in a local criminal case. The same unfolded across the state.

Alejandro Barraza, a criminal defense and immigration attorney, said he has witnessed the impact firsthand.

In October 2025, a client was arrested driving home from a hearing at the Riverside Hall of Justice. In December, another client was arrested leaving the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse. And a third client chose to plead guilty in his criminal case rather than go to jury trial, despite Barraza’s advice that the case was worth fighting, for fear of being arrested by ICE.

“The victims are losing. Our clients are losing their rights to due process. Everyone is losing,” Barraza said.

In June, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in San Francisco struck down ICE’s expanded courthouse arrest policies nationwide. Although the lawsuit focused on immigration courthouses, the ruling also covered state criminal courthouses, restoring earlier restrictions that barred civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses except in limited circumstances. The Trump administration is appealing the ruling.

Since then, California court officials have tracked arrests by federal agents and reported them to the Judicial Council of California. Thirty people were taken into custody in June, 29 in July, 19 in August and 14 in September.

State legislators have tried to push back. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law strengthening California’s protections against civil arrests for people traveling to, attending or leaving courthouses for lawful purposes. The measure extends those protections to public ways within 1,000 feet of court facilities, while preserving an exception for arrests made under a valid judicial warrant.

Bonta said his lawsuit is necessary despite the new California law, in part because the Trump administration thinks that “no state law applies to them,” and courts have in some cases agreed — including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which this week blocked a state law that would have required federal immigration agents to display identification while working in the state.

The wider legal battle

Bonta’s office has had substantial success in halting some of the Trump administration’s biggest policy moves — including its plans to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of immigrants, its worldwide tariffs, its deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, and its withholding of billions of dollars in federal funding allocated to the state by Congress.

Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, said many of California’s lawsuits have been “legally meritorious,” as there is a “whole lot of legal error” coming out of the Trump administration — with a “lot of the overreach” having been “facilitated by the lack of internal checks” from loyal Trump agency heads.

However, he also said that as a California taxpayer, he doesn’t “appreciate having government using my tax dollars for what essentially are in many cases ideological lawsuits, even if meritorious,” because private litigants can and often do bring lawsuits of their own. He said he felt the same way about many of the lawsuits brought against the Biden administration by Republican states.

Bonta said he is proud of his team for challenging the Trump administration every time they believed it had broken the law and harmed California, despite Trump’s intentional effort to make that difficult.

“It was a shock and awe. It was flood the zone. It was trying to overwhelm with speed and volume, and we kept pace every time,” he said.

What happens next, he said, will depend on Trump. If he keeps breaking the law in ways that hurt the state or its residents, he’ll keep getting sued by California.

Oct. 15, 2026 Updated 9:38 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities are investigating letters with “suspicious substances” that have been mailed to congressional and election offices nationwide and are urging recipients to treat the mailings as “potentially hazardous.”

The investigation by the FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and U.S. Capitol Police was first disclosed in a message from the Senate Sergeant at Arms obtained Thursday by The Associated Press. The notice, sent to Senate offices, said that law enforcement officials were working to intercept any additional letters, but “it is possible that some letters may reach their destinations.”

In Congress, the threat appeared limited to the Senate, though the House was monitoring the situation, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

An FBI statement said the bureau and the Postal Inspection Service were “investigating a series of suspicious mailings sent to various addresses nationwide, including Secretary of State offices and their related election offices.”

“Some of the letters contained an unknown substance and we are working closely with our law enforcement partners to respond to each incident,” the statement read. “We are also working with our partners to identify the individual or individuals responsible for the letters.”

Mailed packages containing a powdery substance led to the evacuation this week of election offices in at least two states, Louisiana and Oklahoma. The Ohio secretary of state said the Postal Service intercepted a package containing a white powder intended for its office and noted that similar mailings had been sent to election officials in multiple states.

News of the letters comes just three weeks before Election Day and is reminiscent of a similar threat in 2023, when election offices in six states received mailings that contained a white powder. In some cases, the incidents disrupted work around local elections.

Some of those letters contained threats and traces of the powerful opioid fentanyl, leading some election offices to stock up on the overdose reversal medication naloxone.

The National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors issued a joint statement condemning what they said were threats against election staff.

“Those who administer our elections should never fear for their safety while carrying out their essential duties,” they said in their statement.

Deputy Postal Inspector Brendan Donahue told reporters Thursday that “any threat or attack on election officials is unacceptable” and that “we are also working with our partners on identifying the individual or individuals responsible for the letters.”

Mascaro and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

President Trump has recently developed a renewed appreciation for the importance of elections. Unfortunately for Venezuelans, he seems to have discovered it in Ukraine. Last week, he called for Volodymyr Zelensky to face voters, apparently unconvinced that an ongoing Russian invasion and martial law constitute sufficient reasons to postpone an election. In Venezuela, where his administration removed Nicolás Maduro nine months ago, elections would apparently be premature.

There are legitimate reasons to prepare carefully for elections, particularly given the condition of Venezuela’s electoral institutions. But nine months into the transition, the more interesting question is no longer simply why Delcy Rodríguez and Washington might prefer to postpone them. It is whether other actors, including some of those who have spent years demanding political change, are developing reasons to prefer the current arrangement as well.

Results amid uncertainty

Every additional month gives the ruling elite more time to influence the terms under which its own future will be decided. Cooperation in the oil industry is advancing, economic relations are being restored, and American companies have opportunities that were largely unavailable before Maduro’s removal. An election would introduce uncertainty into a relationship that has become increasingly useful to the Trump administration. That does not mean Washington has abandoned the idea of elections, but it does mean that postponing them carries fewer immediate costs than it otherwise might.

The calculation is not limited to governments and foreign investors. Venezuelan businesses are also beginning to see opportunities in the new environment. The prospect of renewed oil production, investment in electricity infrastructure, fewer financial restrictions, and improved international connections offers reasons to invest in a country that many had spent years trying to leave.

What happens if Venezuelans begin to associate the present arrangement with the prospect of economic recovery?

For a sector of Venezuelan society, the appeal may be even simpler. After years of economic collapse, shortages, political confrontation, and mass emigration, the possibility of a more normal life matters enormously. People want reliable electricity, decent wages, functioning businesses, and the ability to travel, save, and plan for the future. 

What happens if Venezuelans begin to associate the present arrangement with the prospect of economic recovery? A Venezuelan can continue supporting María Corina Machado while becoming increasingly reluctant to jeopardize the economic opportunities that Washington’s accommodation with Delcy appears to offer. And those opportunities do not even have to materialize fully for the calculation to change. Businesses make investments based on expectations, families make plans around the possibility of better incomes, and people who have spent years waiting for conditions to improve may be understandably hesitant to embrace another period of uncertainty. Their political preferences may remain exactly where they were, even as their willingness to bear the costs of political change begins to diminish.

The model of a tolerable status quo

This creates a peculiar possibility for Venezuela’s transition. The government could become more difficult to dislodge without becoming more popular. Economic normalization could make the existing arrangement increasingly tolerable to people who would still vote to replace it if given the opportunity. And the longer elections are postponed, the more time those expectations have to develop into economic interests that depend, or appear to depend, on the continuation of the status quo. Supporting political change and accepting the practical benefits of the present arrangement are not mutually exclusive.

This distinction matters because Delcy does not need to become popular for her government to become easier to live with. Nor does chavismo need to recover the support it enjoyed under Hugo Chávez. It may be enough that Venezuelans who would prefer a different government become increasingly reluctant to risk the improvements they are beginning to anticipate.

For traditional opposition parties, parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections offer opportunities that a presidential contest does not.

That creates a problem for the opposition. Machado may retain considerable popular support, but popular support does not automatically translate into pressure for an election. People can agree about who they want to govern them while disagreeing about how urgently the question needs to be settled, particularly when the alternative appears to involve another period of uncertainty.

The negotiating opposition may have reasons of its own to be comfortable with a slower timetable. For traditional opposition parties, parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections offer opportunities that a presidential contest does not. These are elections in which established party organizations, local networks, and political machinery matter considerably more than the popularity of any single national leader. Holding them before a presidential election could allow those parties to rebuild their institutional presence and strengthen their negotiating position within the opposition, including in relation to Machado. That does not mean they necessarily oppose her becoming president, or that they are deliberately working to postpone an election. But the order in which elections are held could have significant consequences for the balance of power within the opposition itself.

A frozen trip to democracy

There is, of course, another possibility. Economic recovery could strengthen civil society, give independent businesses more room to operate, and make a democratic transition easier. The return of investment and international connections need not come at the expense of political freedom.

The trouble is that nothing about economic normalization guarantees democratization, particularly when the institutions that determine whether elections take place remain under the control of the existing government.

Today’s Venezuelan authorities have taken a different approach. Elections are something to be held after the necessary reforms, agreements, and guarantees have been secured. Some of those conditions are reasonable, but without a deadline there is little to prevent the process from continuing indefinitely. The government can always identify another problem to resolve, Washington can always find another reason to prioritize stability, and some businesses and private sector leaders can always argue that the country needs more time to consolidate its recovery.

The danger is not necessarily that Delcy Rodríguez herself intends to remain interim president forever. It is that an arrangement nobody originally expected to last may become sufficiently useful, or simply tolerable, that ending it stops being an urgent priority.

Venezuelans do not have to choose between economic recovery and democracy. But unless elections become a concrete part of the political process, they may find themselves enjoying some of the benefits of a transition without ever reaching its intended destination.

French Football Federation’s ethics body calls on fans to keep politics out of stadiums amid student protests.

The ethics body of the French football federation is urging fans to stay neutral amid the nationwide student protests that are drawing international attention.

The police response to the largely peaceful demonstrations has prompted widespread accusations of brutality, and football fans in stadiums have expressed their support for students.

Officers have made extensive use of tear gas and batons to disperse crowds. More than 6,600 arrests were made nationwide as of last week, an unusually high number for a French protest movement.

A police tear gas grenade shattered a 14-year-old’s jaw and many of his teeth, while a 15-year-old lost a hand in an incident involving a stun grenade. Other teenagers have also suffered life-changing injuries blamed on police weaponry during protests.

During a Ligue 1 match between Lens and Lyon last week, the home fans unfurled a banner calling for an end to the “disproportionate and systematic police violence,” according to the National Council for Football Ethics (CNE).

The CNE also noted that at the half-hour mark of the match between PSG and Le Mans, supporters displayed a banner reading: “Your militias repress; our youth resists.”

The ethics body said in a statement that it was easy to understand why young supporters, who are often students, might take advantage of matches to publicly express their support for the demonstrators.

However, it added that the principle of political neutrality is “enshrined” in the laws of sport, both internationally through the Olympic Charter and FIFA statutes, and at a national level.

The CNE recalled that any speech or display of a political, ideological, religious or trade union nature are prohibited, as is the wearing of symbols or clothing that expresses political, philosophical, religious or trade union affiliation.

“Sport should unite, not divide,” it said. “The National Council for Football Ethics therefore calls on all supporters, who are an integral part of the football family, to uphold the principle of neutrality in all circumstances.

“The aim is to ensure that the stadium does not become a political or trade union battleground, but remains a place of celebration and shared enjoyment centred on sport.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that the Pentagon will not livestream the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, after the announcement faced bipartisan criticism and Vice President JD Vance said he wouldn’t watch it.

Trump said on social media that publicly airing the execution “might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan.”

But, he continued, “any very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device.”

The Pentagon has said Hasan’s execution is scheduled for Dec. 3. Trump said the execution can be viewed in person by immediate families of the victims, “if they so choose.”

The announcement earlier this month from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that Hasan’s execution would be public — and subsequent confirmation from the Pentagon that it would be livestreamed — prompted significant blowback from both Republicans and Democrats, with many pointing out that the images could be used to fuel radicalization.

When asked how the public execution comported with his Christian faith earlier this month, Vance said “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen.”

“So whatever the controversy is about the method of the execution, I hope that people don’t forget that this is a guy who brutally murdered a lot of innocent people,” Vance said.

But he continued: “Now, that said, I mean, look, if it’s ultimately livestreamed, I’m not going to be watching it.”

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who held the rank of major, walked into a medical building on Nov. 5, 2009, where soldiers were waiting in long lines to receive immunizations and medical clearance for deployment. He shouted “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great!” — and opened fire with a laser-sighted handgun. He also shot at the backs of soldiers fleeing toward the parking lot.

Hasan said it was an effort to stop them from going to Afghanistan and killing his fellow Muslims. A military judge barred him from presenting that as a defense during his 2013 trial. Hasan was left paralyzed from the waist down after being shot in the back by law enforcement, and he now uses a wheelchair.

Hasan could seek a lengthy delay of his execution, though given his behavior at trial, he may not want to.

Los Angeles County voters are concerned about a host of voter fraud issues that could disrupt the Nov. 3 general election, even though they have a high degree of confidence in local elections officials, according to a new poll funded by the nonprofit California Community Foundation.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents expressed concern that false rumors and misleading information online could confuse voters or make them believe that their vote won’t count, the poll found. Other top concerns included politicians interfering with the election and mail-in ballots getting lost, stolen or delayed.

Still, most of the voters surveyed expressed confidence in the county’s handling of election proceedings, with 68% saying L.A. County does an excellent or good job at running elections and counting ballots.

Once presented with information about how the county handles elections, that number rose to 72%. Around three-quarters of respondents also believe that the upcoming election will be fair, secure and accurate, the poll found.

The online poll was conducted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 by Tulchin Research, a San Francisco-based public opinion firm. It surveyed 500 voters in L.A. County considered likely to cast ballots in the Nov. 3 election and has a margin of error of 4.4%.

“Voters feel good about the local officials running their elections. So, reinforcing the fact that that is who’s in charge of the election and how the process works is reassuring to folks,” said Ben Tulchin, the polling company’s president. “It … reduces their anxiety about some of the outside criticism that California, L.A. County faces.”

The poll was funded by the California Community Foundation, which awards millions of dollars in grants to local charitable groups, to support the “A Count You Can Trust Coalition,” an initiative aimed at enhancing trust in local elections.

Recent polling has suggested that potential federal interference in the Nov. 3 election is a top concern statewide for California voters. The local poll was administered to shed light on how L.A. County voters feel, said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who co-chairs the A Count You Can Trust group with Miguel Santana, who leads the California Community Foundation.

“This is the epicenter of the California vote,” Villaraigosa said. “The concern is not as great as it is statewide. Here in L.A. County, people seem to trust the vote to a greater degree.”

A recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 61% of California voters identified interference by the Trump administration as a “major concern.” President Trump has fueled doubts over election integrity, spreading unverified claims of widespread voter fraud in blue states such as California.

Young voters and Latino voters expressed the lowest levels of confidence in how the county runs elections, the new poll found. The findings suggest those demographics need “a lot more reassurance” that elections are safe and that their votes matter, Tulchin said.

“It’s not surprising at all, and it means we’ve got work to do,” Villaraigosa said. “We got a lot of work to do to communicate to those people and to make it clear that, in fact, this vote can be trusted.”

Villaraigosa said he plans to focus his efforts on social media engagement and creating video content with poll workers to speak on how vote-counting works in the county.

The poll also asked respondents whether “things in Los Angeles County are going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?” Most — 62% — said wrong track, and 26% said right direction.

Among voter concerns in the upcoming election, 18% listed the economy, the cost of living and inflation as their biggest worry, followed by election integrity, fraud and interference at 17% of respondents. Concerns about Republicans and Trump “winning or retaining power” came in third, with 16% of respondents saying that is their biggest concern.

Homelessness and immigration, two issues that have been prominent the L.A. mayoral race between incumbent Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman, ranked low in the list of concerns for the surveyed voters. Tulchin noted that the focus of the survey was on election integrity, which could have had an effect on what issues were top of mind of respondents.

The survey findings indicate that L.A. County voters seem to trust the county more than voters statewide. Still, just over 30% of surveyed voters have a fair or poor view of how the county runs elections, Villaraigosa said.

“They’re concerned, but what we found in this poll is that there are a number of people who, while concerned, do trust this county,” he said.

With three weeks left to go until election day and polls showing her on the brink of losing, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has begun to channel the Sun King himself, Louis XIV:

L’État, c’est moi.

Gaslighting voters by insisting the political establishment that has left Los Angeles a mess and that she personifies is worth keeping in office for four more years is her only hope for victory. It’s a wild strategy that reached a crescendo during Tuesday night’s debate, as Bass kept bringing up the fact that L.A.’s ancien régime just doesn’t like her democratic socialist opponent, Nithya Raman.

“Your colleagues have a very difficult time working with you,” Bass snapped at one point, later claiming that Raman’s constituents don’t care for her even though the council member won reelection two years ago. The mayor twice bragged that immigrant rights groups support her; twice referenced Imelda Padilla, the moderate San Fernando Valley council member whose internet dragging of Raman has been out of the Burn Book from “Mean Girls”; and described her opponent as “not ready for prime time.”

Well, the way the mayor’s term has gone in the last couple of years, if it was a prime-time TV show, it might be called “Breaking Bad 2.” And it wouldn’t exactly be a hit.

If it were, two-thirds of Angelenos wouldn’t have decided to vote for anyone but Bass in the primary.

Bass arguably won the debate Tuesday night, but it felt like the technical “victory” — and that’s probably the wrong word — of a politician who is simply more polished. The mayor really needed a knockout punch, and that she did not achieve.

Instead, she in effect told voters that the last four years of disasters, inefficiencies and ineptitude are still a better option than taking a chance on the City Hall equivalent of the classroom dork.

Yet people are so angry at Bass and what she represents that a democratic socialist has a great shot at becoming L.A.’s next mayor — an unthinkable prospect even last year, with no one to blame but the ruling class that has left this great city hobbled, cynical and at the point of giving up.

So the establishment doesn’t like Raman: So what? And: Boo-hoo.

Casting Raman as a political leper while asserting that Bass represents stability and good times ahead isn’t the winning strategy that Bass and Raman’s critics think it is. It’s really just a sad coda for Bass.

She’s been a good soldier for L.A., someone who has participated in nearly every progressive movement to pass through Southern California since volunteering for Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign as a teenager nearly 60 years ago. Even as Bass embarked on a 22-year political career that has seen stops in Sacramento, Washington and City Hall, the native Angeleno always successfully depicted herself as a political outsider.

Because she was: a Black woman in a realm not meant for people like her. She was someone who co-founded a pioneering nonprofit in the crucible of a changing South L.A. in the 1990s and always seemed to land on the right side of history until becoming mayor in 2022.

Sadly, Bass didn’t turn out to be the visionary L.A. desperately needed.

Mayor Karen Bass, left, sits for Tuesday’s debate with Councilmember Nithya Raman, right. Between them are NBC4 reporter Conan Nolan, NBC4 News anchor Colleen Williams and Telemundo 52 anchor Alejandra Ortiz.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Like so many baby boomers, Bass eventually became The Man without realizing it. Today, she not only stands as the figurehead of the city’s liberal potentates, but she’s also calling on them to rally around one of their own — and they have responded in kind. Democratic politicians, bureaucrats and labor leaders, once rabble-rousers like Bass who nowadays seem to exist mostly to keep their sinecure, have labored mightily to convince unbelieving voters that Bass deserves another shot.

That’s always been the marvel of L.A.’s political establishment. It can take someone like Bass, once considered so radical that her days visiting communist Cuba in the 1970s torpedoed her chances of becoming then-presidential candidate Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020, and transform her into an anodyne incumbent. It can make democratic socialists like Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez, Ysabel Jurado and Hugo Soto-Martínez — people who explicitly ran to take on a sclerotic City Hall — full-throated Bass supporters who have refused to support one of their own in Raman.

Raman was also becoming part of L.A.’s political chosen ones, to the point she initially endorsed Bass. But she now embraces her turn as the machine’s biggest sellout — whether it’s a true change of heart or a chameleonic self-serving measure, as critics maintain, remains to be seen. It was Raman who said at the end of the debate, “When the mayor is confronted with issues, she blames the system. With your support, we can actually change the system” — catnip to enough Angelenos that Raman seems to be at the cusp of victory and a monumental upset.

After the debate, NBC reporter Robert Kovacic interviewed elected officials to let them hype up Bass or Raman. The latter’s proxy was City Controller Kenneth Mejia, another person loathed by L.A.’s political know-it-alls because he keeps bucking the establishment. Mejia gushed about how Raman “destroyed” Bass with the enthusiasm of a Swiftie.

Bass’ supporters were Councilmember Monica Rodriguez and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, both of whom gravely parroted their candidate’s warnings about just how dangerous a Raman mayoralty would be. Chavez Zbur reduced Raman’s not-bad performance to a “host of complaints” — ironic, because most of Bass’ night was spent bashing Raman instead of offering much of anything positive.

Rodriguez, meanwhile, told Kovacic that voters shouldn’t choose Raman because “we can’t afford that level of indecisive leadership.”

I rolled my eyes when Rodriguez — whose office declined a chance for her to sit down with me to talk up why Latinos should support Bass — said that.

She’s part of the fabled eastern San Fernando Valley Latino political machine, another group of former gatecrashers who assumed the trappings and stylings of the old guard once they assumed power. Rodriguez long blasted Bass with the same venom she reserved for Raman until the latter mounted her challenge — but now that Rodriguez’s power is under threat, she’s all of a sudden decided to become Bass’ ride-or-die?

Moves like that remind me of another French monarch, Louis XV. “After me, the deluge,” he is supposed to have said, a warning of what would happen once his reign ended.

If Bass’ vow to rule the same as before represents a decisive leader, more and more Angelenos seem to be saying, give us the Raman flood.

Besides, nobody ever said, nor ever put on a campaign sticker, “The establishment? It’s cool!”

The U.S. Department of Justice has ratcheted up its pressure campaign on California election officials to ferret out alleged voter fraud ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm election, demanding that officials statewide prove the U.S. citizenship of thousands of voters flagged by the federal government as potential noncitizens, or withhold or set aside their ballots.

Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter made the demand — which experts called highly questionable at a time when votes are already being cast — in letters to state election officials Tuesday, including Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office.

The letters, reviewed by The Times, call on the state officials to respond to the Justice Department within 48 hours.

McCotter wrote that the Justice Department had provided Logan’s office with a “password-protected thumb drive with a list of names the Federal Government believes are likely noncitizens who were sent a vote-by-mail ballot” for the Nov. 3 election.

“We request that you review the list within 48 hours to determine whether any citizens are listed. For individuals whom you cannot independently confirm citizenship status, we request that you immediately instruct the appropriate elections officials to segregate — not cancel — those individuals’ vote-by-mail ballots until their citizenship status can be determined,” McCotter wrote to both Weber and Logan.

The demand letter came from U.S. Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter, shown entering a news conference in September 2026 in Washington.

(Finn Gomez / Getty Images)

Voters on the federal list who haven’t already been sent a ballot should not be sent one until their citizenship is verified, while ballots already returned by voters on the list should not be counted until their citizenship is verified, McCotter wrote.

Weber’s office in a statement late Wednesday criticized the Justice Department for telling it to obtain a list of an unknown number of voters it hadn’t been given directly from Logan’s office, investigate all of those voters and “take action” all within 48 hours, based on inaccurate federal data that has led to U.S. citizens being purged from rolls in other states, and under threat of litigation despite the Justice Department providing no legal authority for the demand.

Weber said the Justice Department’s “relentless efforts to unlawfully gain access to states’ protected voter data and purge voter rolls serve only to cause chaos and fuel public distrust in our elections,” and that California already has “robust state law requirements” to ensure only U.S. citizens vote.

Logan said his office was reviewing the Justice Department letter in coordination with Weber and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, but had not accessed the USB drive because state officials “do not consider the device a secure medium” and accessing its contents “would conflict with established data privacy and information security protocols.”

He said that maintaining accurate voter records is a fundamental responsibility of his office, but also that federal and state laws “are clear on how voter eligibility is established — and any action to remove a voter from eligibility must be based on verifiable information, not assertions of unconfirmed data matching.”

Weber previously questioned the basis for a claim by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in July that there may be more than 190,000 noncitizen voters on California rolls, and rebuffed Trump administration offers to work with her office to purge state rolls of such ineligible voters ahead of November without additional information on how it reached its conclusions.

Similar Trump administration lists have been shown in other states to be substantially inaccurate, and to include many voters who are indeed citizens. Election experts say that makes the demand on California — where ballots have already been mailed out — even more concerning.

“One must question why the DOJ would violate its own rules about investigating elections close to election day, and over a week after they knew the state had already mailed ballots out, particularly when their past claims have been full of errors,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

Becker noted the Trump administration alleged that there were nearly 16,000 noncitizens registered in Nevada, later reduced that number to 185 after additional scrutiny, and then determined all of them were in fact citizens.

A Justice Department spokesperson, in a statement to The Times, defended the agency’s demands to California — saying it “should not be controversial, as the criminal statute is clear: only American citizens may vote in federal elections. It is a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections, and the DOJ is asking California to ensure that is not occurring.”

The spokesperson said the agency could not provide the exact number of voters whose citizenship is being questioned, but that it is in the thousands.

California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber speaks during the state Democratic Party convention in Anaheim on May 31, 2025.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

McCotter wrote that if Weber cannot implement his demands for how to segregate ballots and verify voter citizenship for those on the federal list, the Justice Department “will have no choice but to seek emergency relief” — an apparent reference to seeking court intervention.

McCotter copied on the letters First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles whose office previously sent Logan’s office a series of grand jury subpoenas for individual voter records as part of a criminal investigation into illegal voting.

Essayli’s office referred questions to the Justice Department. Bonta’s office referred questions to Weber and Logan.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, said that he is “not aware of anything like this ever happening this close to an election,” and that it may in fact be illegal under the National Voter Registration Act, which “prevents systematic purges of voters 90 days before the election.”

He said that the question of whether that preclusion against purges applies to the removal of noncitizens is an issue that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, in an Arizona case the high court will hear in December, but that the Justice Department’s actions strike him as “legally questionable.”

Hasen said the “whole point of that 90-day rule is to prevent the inadvertent disenfranchisement of eligible voters by mistake in the rush before the election,” and that risk is increased by the inaccuracies of similar lists presented by the Trump administration in other states. “So if there is an attempt to go to court — if DOJ tries to sue over this — they might have a hard time getting a judge to agree that this is something that the registrar must do or even can do.”

The fact that election officials are already busy receiving and preprocessing ballots would only bolster the state’s position in such a case, Hasen said.

“It’s obviously not a convenient time,” he said. “And given the fact that the lists have proven to be wildly inaccurate, at least in other states, it might be sending the registrar on a wild goose chase, when they have more relevant things to do in the election.”

But that “chaos” may be the point, Hasen said. “This is potentially another example of DOJ just making the work of state and local election administrators — which is already quite difficult and stressful — even harder,” he said.

Attorneys with the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, and a California voter named Pedro Trujillo, in which they challenged the Trump administration’s use of unproven federal databases to allege registered California voters are not citizens.

On Wednesday, they told the Justice Department that they would be seeking emergency relief from such practices, given McCotter’s letters.

“The federal government’s attempt to pressure California election officials into acting on lists that may misidentify eligible voters is an alarming abuse of power as election season gets underway. This puts our communities and our fundamental rights at risk,” said Carl Bergquist, a CHIRLA attorney.

The Justice Department in recent weeks has announced scattered arrests of alleged noncitizen voters around the country, and Trump administration officials — including Essayli — have pointed to such arrests as proof that noncitizens are voting illegally.

Such voting does happen, Hasen said, but after months of the administration aggressively searching for such voters, the relatively small number of arrests “belies the contention that it’s widespread” or criminal, with many of the few cases identified the result of “administrative error or misunderstanding” rather than an intent to illegally cast ballots.

In his letters to Weber and Logan, McCotter wrote that allowing “noncitizens to vote cancels citizen votes,” and that ferreting out illegal noncitizen voters is a joint responsibility of state and federal officials.

“States are responsible for voter registration, and the Federal Government is responsible for maintaining immigration records to enable verification of citizenship,” he wrote. “Working together, we can more effectively protect against voter dilution and promote election integrity.”

Oct. 14, 2026 10:49 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook’s lawyers say that a committee set up by the White House last week to investigate an accusation against her is “demonstrably biased,” though they did not close the door on the possibility that she would appear before the panel.

Lawyer Abbe Lowell also said in a letter Tuesday that Cook would not be able to participate in a hearing Nov. 5 because she “will be executing her official duties as Governor at financial and monetary policy meetings in Europe.”

The earliest that Cook could appear before a “committee of inquiry” that the White House set up last Friday would be after the Fed’s policy meeting Dec. 8-9, the letter said. The letter was sent to William Scharf, a counsel to President Trump.

Lowell’s comments are the latest turn in the Trump administration’s extended efforts to fire Cook from her position as one of seven members of the Fed’s board of governors. Trump has accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud in 2021, before she joined the board, a claim she has denied. No criminal charges have been filed.

No president has fired a Fed governor before, a reflection of the Fed’s traditional independence from politics. Yet Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the central bank lower its key interest rate, has taken numerous steps that economists say have threatened that independence. The Justice Department earlier this year sought to investigate then-Chair Jerome Powell over brief testimony he had given about an extensive building renovation, though a judge threw out subpoenas in the case and it was later dropped.

Cook was appointed by former President Biden and is the first Black woman on the Fed’s board.

Trump first tried to fire Cook in August 2025, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year she could remain in her position while litigation continued. The court also suggested, in a footnote to the ruling, that Trump could try again to fire her if the administration provided her adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. The committee of inquiry announced by the White House last Friday is an effort to meet those conditions.

Under the law governing the Fed, the president can only fire a Fed governor “for cause,” but the Supreme Court didn’t address whether Cook’s actions met that standard. The committee of inquiry will ultimately recommend whether there is cause to fire Cook, a White House memo last week said.

Lowell also said in the Tuesday letter that “we have significant concerns regarding the objectivity and fitness of the committee for its assigned purpose.”

One of its three members, Kevin Hassett, a top economic adviser to Trump, has already said the president has “cause” to fire Cook, the letter noted. The other two members — Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling and chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Andrea Rich — are also Trump appointees.

“A hearing with demonstrably biased members, unspecified additional allegations, and an unclear schedule for the disclosure of any additional evidence – with no explanation for why it was not previously produced – is not a process that respects the appearance or history of independence,” Lowell’s letter said.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, celebrated the 20-year anniversary of landmark climate legislation he signed while in office alongside Democrats including Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday.

“California is the perfect example of what can be done when people work together and when we don’t look at this as a Republican or as a Democratic issue,” Schwarzenegger said at an economic conference in Long Beach, noting that Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act had significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions while creating more than a half a million clean-energy jobs.

“This is the message that is so important for the world,” he said, because the state’s policies have become a model for other states and nations.

Newsom noted that the state had met “audacious” goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, touting 39,000 megawatts of clean energy that have been installed in the last seven years, 23,000 megawatts of battery storage created, and that no flex alert has been issued in the state in four years.

“So we’re not in the goal-setting business; we’re in the how business,” he said.

He added that the clean energy transition is “the most critical national security issue in the United States of America,” with economic and supply chain leadership at stake as China surpasses the U.S. in electric vehicles, clean-energy manufacturing and the deployment of renewables.

The state already met the climate change legislation’s ambitious target — returning emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — four years ahead of schedule. However, recent analyses indicate California is not on track to meet its future targets of cutting emissions 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2045.

The legislation paved the way for the creation of California’s nation-leading carbon market, cap-and-invest, which launched in 2013. The Legislature extended cap-and-invest’s life to 2045 last year, and the state is now initiating the process of linking its market with Washington state.

The event as well as a luncheon the prior day in Santa Monica were rare displays of bipartisan unity at a time of heightened political polarization in the United States. Schwarzenegger and Newsom piled praise upon each other during the Wednesday afternoon discussion, hugging at the end.

At the luncheon, former Gov. Gray Davis, whom Schwarzenegger ousted from office in the 2003 recall election, as well as billionaire hedge-fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, who unsuccessfully ran for governor this year, were among the Democrats in attendance, as well as former state Assembly Speaker Fabien Nunez and former state Sen. Fran Pavley, who were both pivotal in the passage of the climate-change legislation.

In addition to remarks highlighting the foundation of some of the nation’s bedrock environmental policies, such as former GOP President Richard Nixon creating the Environmental Protection Agency and signing the Endangered Species Act, there were moments of levity.

Schwarzenegger said he told fellow Republicans “f— you” when they balked at him naming Susan Kennedy, a Democrat, as his chief of staff, he said Tuesday.

During a breakout session at the Wednesday conference, he referenced his former wife, Maria Shriver, a scion of the Kennedy family, as he described his desire to hear from people on both sides of the aisle.

“So I had Democrats in my administration, and of course the Republican Party went nuts,” he said. “I didn’t care because, to me, I thought I wanted to hear what the Democrats were thinking. Plus, I was sleeping with one every night anyway.”