politics

The Trump administration has deployed ICE agents to airports across the United States amid staffing issues and delays. It’s seen as a negotiating tactic in a funding dispute with Democrats, who describe it as a dangerous move.

Democratic legislative leaders on Monday called on voters to boycott USC’s upcoming gubernatorial debate if the university does not invite candidates who were excluded from participating.

The unsparing letter adds another layer of controversy to Tuesday’s forum, which as a result of the university’s selection criteria would not include any of the leading candidates of color.

“We are writing to demand you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates,” said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish and women’s caucuses. “The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates’ attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters. Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.”

USC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Tuesday’s debate is scheduled less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes.

The university has been embroiled in controversy over the criteria it used to select the candidates it invited to participate in Tuesday’s debate, which is co-sponsored by KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision.

Specifically, critics have pointed out the methodology allowed San José Mayor Matt Mahan — a white candidate who recently entered the race and is polling poorly — to vault above former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee.

“The university’s selection process — built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale, has delivered a result that is biased,” the letter says. “When a methodology produces this outcome — one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to USC’s donor community and the co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future — the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”

Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.

USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.

“I had no conversations with the debate hosts or organizers,” Caruso said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “This is the most important election for California in a generation, and I encourage everyone to be engaged, learn as much as possible about each candidate, then form an opinion who can move California forward in the most positive of ways. Watching debates is a part of that process. That is why I believe debates should include all the credible candidates.”

The debate sponsors released a joint statement on Friday defending their decision.

“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” said the statement by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and its broadcast partners. “The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”

Hours later, the four prominent Democrats who were excluded from the debate called on their rivals to boycott the event, reiterating their concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.

The four Democrats who are participating in the debate — Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan — all issued statements criticizing USC’s selection criteria, but did not pull out of the debate.

“It is a shame that USC has decided to elevate one candidate at the expense of others,” Swalwell wrote on X on Sunday. “USC, and every host of a gubernatorial debate, should employ fair, objective, and honest criteria for all candidates. I remain hopeful they will do so Tuesday night.”

Porter expressed similar thoughts.

“Criteria used to determine which candidates qualify to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair, and objective,” she wrote on X. “I’m disappointed by how USC handled the process for Tuesday’s debate. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.”

In rejecting a key element of a legal challenge to the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, federal appellate judges on Friday demonstrated once again the willingness of U.S. courts to give the Bush administration considerable latitude in handling the war on terror.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, by a 3-0 vote, barred an Islamic charity from using a confidential government document to prove that it had been illegally spied upon, agreeing with the administration that disclosure would reveal “state secrets.”

The lawsuit, filed by Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and two of its attorneys, challenged the National Security Agency’s spying endeavor, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The U.N. Security Council has declared that Al-Haramain, which operates in more than 50 countries, belongs to or is associated with Al Qaeda.

The suit was one of 50 legal challenges brought across the country after the program’s existence was revealed in the New York Times.

Other courts have shown similar deference to the Bush administration on the state secrets privilege, which permits the government to bar disclosure in court of information if “there is a reasonable danger” it would affect national security.

But the ruling in this case was particularly striking because it came from a panel of three liberal jurists, all appointed by Democratic presidents.

Moreover, the charity, unlike other plaintiffs, says it has evidence of surveillance — a call log from the National Security Agency that the government inadvertently turned over in another proceeding.

In the ruling, Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote that the judges accepted “the need to defer to the executive on matters of foreign and national security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second-guessing the executive in this arena.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal constitutional law professor at Duke University law school, said the court showed “how much deference even a liberal panel of judges is willing to give the executive branch in situations like this, and I find that very troubling.”

Doug Kmiec, a conservative constitutional law professor at Pepperdine law school, said “the opinion is consistent with” a ruling by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati earlier this year striking down a challenge to the surveillance filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

He said the dual rulings indicated that “federal courts recognize that the essential aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program both remain secret and are important to preserve as such.”

The court’s ruling was not an absolute victory for the government. McKeown rejected the Justice Department’s argument that “the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret.”

That finding could prove important in numerous other cases in which the government contends that even considering legal challenges to warrantless wiretapping would endanger national security.

In addition, the 9th Circuit panel sent the case back to a lower court to consider another issue: whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires approval by a special court for domestic surveillance, preempts the state secrets privilege. McKeown said that issue “remains central to Al-Haramain’s ability to proceed with this lawsuit.”

Georgetown University constitutional law professor David Cole said he thought Friday’s ruling showed partial victories for both sides.

Indeed, lawyers for the government and for the charity said they were happy with the outcome.

“The 9th Circuit upheld the government’s position that release of this information would undermine the government’s intelligence capabilities and compromise national security,” the Justice Department said.

Oakland attorney Jon Eisenberg, who argued for Al-Haramain before the 9th Circuit, said: “The government wants this case dead and gone. It is not. We are alive and kicking.”

Eisenberg expressed optimism that his client would prevail under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a statute enacted in the aftermath of revelations of illegal spying on civil rights and antiwar activists in the 1960s and ‘70s.

“That provision would be meaningless if the government could evade any such lawsuit merely by evoking the state secrets privilege,” Eisenberg said.

In support of her opinion, McKeown detailed statements by government officials — including President Bush, then-Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and Gen. General Michael V. Hayden, principal deputy director for national intelligence — acknowledging the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and extolling its importance.

“In light of extensive government disclosures about the TSP, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of this litigation is a state secret,” wrote McKeown, an appointee of President Clinton. “Unlike a truly secret or ‘black box’ program that remains in the shadows of public knowledge, the government has moved affirmatively to engage in public discourse about the TSP.”

Nonetheless, after privately reviewing the secret document, McKeown said she and her colleagues Michael Daly Hawkins, another Clinton appointee, and Harry Pregerson, a Carter appointee, agreed it was protected by the state secrets privilege.

“Detailed statements underscore that disclosure of information concerning the Sealed Document and the means, sources and methods of intelligence gathering in this context of this case would undermine the government’s intelligence capabilities and compromise national security,” she said.

The state secrets privilege was first utilized successfully by the government in a case shortly after the Civil War.

The leading case in the area, U.S. vs. Reynolds, was issued by the Supreme Court in 1953 to block a lawsuit after the crash of a B-29 bomber.

Three widows of crewmen sued and sought the official accident reports. The Air Force said the reports could not be revealed because the bomber was on a secret test mission.

(When the reports were declassified in 2000, they revealed that the aircraft was in poor condition, evidence that might have helped the widows’ suit.)

The Bush administration has evoked the state secrets privilege numerous times in recent years. In most instances, courts have accepted the word of government lawyers, often with a fairly cursory review, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who, like Cole, has challenged the privilege in court.

McKeown took pains to say that the 9th Circuit had carefully scrutinized the government’s assertions.

She said the judges had taken “very seriously our obligation to review the documents with a very careful, indeed a skeptical eye, and not to accept at face value the government’s claim or justification of privilege.”

But she said the panel could go no further than what already has been publicly disclosed that “the Sealed Document has something to do with intelligence activities.”

When the court heard the Al-Haramain case in August, it also entertained arguments in a related case, Hepting vs. AT&T; Corp. In that case, lawyers representing millions of AT&T; customers are seeking damages from the telecommunications giant for allegedly sharing their private records with the National Security Agency as part of the surveillance program.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit panel issued a brief order saying that the AT&T; case had been severed from the Al-Haramain matter. A decision is expected in the next several months, although there is no deadline.

—

henry.weinstein@latimes.com

Exactly at 10 o’clock on a Monday morning, the strike of a gavel echoes through the courtroom, and the nine black-robed justices of the Supreme Court emerge from behind a red velvet curtain. As those assembled in the ornate hall take their seats, the lead lawyer rises, and the arguments begin.

Soon, most of the justices are up on their elbows, hurling questions at the attorneys. Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg take turns poking holes in the advocate’s argument. Justice Antonin Scalia, sympathetic to his case, leaps in to prop up his contention. “Aren’t you really arguing that . . . ,” Scalia offers helpfully.

Anthony M. Kennedy, looking pensive, asks a philosophical question. Troubled by the answer, Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens want to know how far the advocate seeks to push his claim. All the while, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist leafs through the briefs, trying to find a disputed passage of the law in question.

But one justice looks out of place. At the far end of the bench, Justice Clarence Thomas rocks back in his leather chair and gazes at the ceiling. He rubs his eyes and stares off into the distance. Sometimes, Thomas has a brooding look, as if he is pondering deeply. More often, he just looks bored.

“I don’t understand it. He is engaged,” says a former Thomas clerk, who like most of those who have worked for him, expresses great admiration for the justice. “He likes to argue out the issues in chambers” and displays a special interest in bankruptcy law and state tax disputes, he says. But Thomas’ interest is not apparent in the courtroom. While Scalia and Ginsburg may ask five or six questions during a one-hour argument, Thomas asked not a single question during the last term of the court.

Lawyers in Washington and visitors to the courtroom never fail to comment on how removed he seems. “What’s wrong with Clarence Thomas?” one lawyer new to the high court commented. “He just sits there.”

That’s a marked contrast from his 18 months on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, says a judge who observed him then. “He’s like two different people,” says the judge. “He was talkative, gregarious on our court, a real participant. Now he seems to be in a shell.”

This eerie courtroom silence has marked Thomas’ career for all of the three years since he inadvertently became the best-known member of the Supreme Court. At first it seemed that he was simply trying to retreat, somehow, from the stinging visibility of the “he said, she said” confrontation with Prof. Anita Hill that made him the ostensible villain in a TV drama about sexual harassment. It was, perhaps, the worst imaginable fate for a fiercely proud and intensely dignified man.

For a time he was the most carefully watched, most reviled man in town. On the November day he took the oath of office at the court, his ceremonial walk down the marble steps was cut short when a small group of protesters began to boo and shout, “Down with the Male Supremacist Court.” Not surprisingly, rather than beam for assembled photographers, Thomas turned away and walked back into the basement of the court. A few months later, the new justice accepted an invitation to judge a moot court competition at Seton Hall University Law School but canceled when word came that a women’s student group was planning a candlelight vigil.

Wounded, Thomas retreated into the silence that protects a judge who is even more rigid and dogmatic than his opponents feared. As the hoopla over the man has died down, his judicial record has become clearer. He has compiled the most conservative voting record on a conservative court and lambasted his colleagues for refusing to go further in changing the law. He has voted to revoke the right to abortion and return some prayer to the public schools. He cast a key vote to cut off further hearings in a death penalty case, even when newly revealed evidence might have proven the defendant’s innocence. He cast the deciding votes to make it harder for minorities to prove they were victims of job discrimination, harder for victims of stock fraud to sue lawyers and harder for environmentalists to be heard in court.

“He has shown himself to be exactly what his opponents said he would be: a knee-jerk right-winger,” says University of Virginia law professor Pamela Karlan. “He was always going to be tainted somewhat for how he got to the court, but I think he is going to be more tainted by how he is acting now. He’s shown no capacity for growth.”

Georgetown University Law Center Associate Dean Mark Tushnet concurs. “So far, it’s been the least impressive performance of any justice since Whittaker,” he says, referring to justly forgotten Charles Whittaker, who resigned from the court in 1962 after having a nervous breakdown in his fifth year.

But friends and admirers say Thomas is unfairly treated because he is a conservative. “He is not the justice that the NAACP would like,” says Stephen McAllister, a former Thomas clerk who teaches law at the University of Kansas. “He brings his own perspective to the law, but he certainly knows what it was like to grow up poor and black.”

Fueling the debate are Thomas’ activities outside the court. The confirmation fight separated Thomas’ allies from his enemies, and it deepened an already strong commitment to conservative values. While other justices avoid any appearance of partisanship, he boasts of his friendship with conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, speaks mostly to gatherings of conservatives, brags about not reading the papers and indulges a “not politically correct” fondness for smoking cigars and driving a black Corvette.

Both his demeanor and his record have renewed questions about his qualifications for the high court. No one, not even Thomas himself, had rushed to defend President George Bush’s assessment that he was “the best man for the job.” After all, he had had no significant legal experience as a prosecutor, defense attorney, trial lawyer, law professor or judge and had spent only a year as Bush’s appointee to the influential U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. But at the very least, Thomas promised, he would be impartial. “My personal views have no place in adjudication,” he said. “I can assure you, I have no agenda.”

Many of those who believed him, such as Sen. Arlen Specter, a moderate Pennsylvania Republican who cast a key vote for him, now admit they are dismayed by Thomas’ record. “Frankly, I have been very disappointed with his first three years,” Specter says. “I had thought his roots would show. But he came out of those hearings a changed man, an embittered man.”

*

Each day when the court is in session, Thomas and his wife, Virginia, leave their new home in suburban Virginia and drive into town before most Washingtonians have hit the road. “We travel everywhere together, like a pair of nuns,” Thomas tells friends. His wife, a senior policy coordinator for the House Republican Conference, was said by friends to have been deeply hurt by her husband’s confirmation ordeal. She said they survived by praying together. It “was not a normal political battle. It was spiritual warfare. Good versus evil,” she told a People magazine interviewer a few days after his confirmation.

Theirs is a strange sort of celebrity: They are instantly recognized but seldom seen outside carefully chosen venues. While none of the justices sits for TV interviews on Sunday morning, most make the rounds of bar groups, civic organizations and law schools, giving speeches and answering questions about the work of the court. As members of the nation’s highest court, they can count on a warm reception and instant respect.

Not so with the youngest justice. “It’s like he’s in the federal witness protection program,” says one prominent Washington lawyer.

Thomas has told friends he quit watching most television–for a time, he was a regular punch line on some sitcoms–and stopped reading most newspapers and magazines, with the exception of reliably conservative publications such the Washington Times. (He also refused requests to be interviewed for this story.) “They can say absolutely anything they want about me. I will never read them again to see it,” he told one friendly interviewer last year.

But the confirmation struggle sealed his loyalty to those who stood with him. Each morning as he lifts weights in the Supreme Court’s gym before his workday begins, he says he likes to listen to tapes of Rush Limbaugh poking fun at feminists, environmentalists and all manner of liberal crusaders.

The men are more than passing acquaintances. On May 27, when the rotund entertainer married for the third time in a ceremony at the home of Virginia and Clarence Thomas, the justice performed the official duties. After a sit-down dinner, the assembled guests gathered for “cigars and adult beverages on the deck,” according to Limbaugh’s office.

Among friends, Thomas hardly appears to be a bitter man hidden in his shell. “He is not brooding or angry at all,” says McAllister, his former clerk. “I found him to be warm, supportive and friendly. He has a positive outlook.” He has a big handshake and a hearty laugh, although his eyes have a wary look. As a speaker, he has an endearingly personal style. Far from being the polished high official whose comments drift above the audience, Thomas speaks slowly, emotionally, as if measuring each word to describe his joys and pain. Almost invariably he speaks of his childhood and recounts stories about his grandfather. Even if the tales are a bit familiar now, he comes across as warm, genuine and personal.

From the start, conservatives pointed to Thomas life story as his main qualification for the high office. Here was a man, the vaunted story went, who was born to a teen-age mother in a dirt-floor shanty near the marshes of Pinpoint, Ga., and grew up poor in the segregated South. When his mother could no longer care for him, young Thomas was rescued first by his grandparents and then by the Catholic schools, working his way through Holy Cross College and then Yale Law School, where he graduated a year behind Bill Clinton. “I was drunk with anger,” he told students at Holy Cross, describing himself in the late 1960s, “out of control with hostility toward what I saw as the oppression around me.”

But his up-from-poverty experience brought him to far different conclusions than did the middle-class upbringing of Thurgood Marshall, his black liberal predecessor on the court. Success depends on hard work and individual effort, says Thomas, espousing the lessons that conservatives champion, and government welfare checks or official “affirmative action” preferences serve only to hurt blacks by dampening their drive and cheapening their accomplishments.

Thomas was denouncing his sister back home in Pinpoint for being dependent on her monthly welfare check when he came to the attention of leaders of the incoming Ronald Reagan Administration at a 1980 conference of young conservatives in San Francisco. (The sister, Emma Mae Martin, was receiving welfare assistance while raising her children and caring for an aunt but soon after worked her way off welfare.)

Offers of government positions followed, and despite Thomas’ having announced that he would not work on “black issues,” he became assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department in 1981. A year later, he was named chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the laws against job discrimination, though he often seemed skeptical of its mandate. He had no patience with the civil rights activists who urged him to enforce the law more vigorously. All they do, he said, is “bitch, bitch, bitch, moan and whine and whine.”

In a steady round of provocative speeches, he denounced the conventionally liberal positions on race and civil rights, criticized environmentalists, called for strengthening property rights and praised as “splendid” an article calling for the reversal of the Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

His star rose quickly in the Reagan Administration, and Bush’s Court of Appeals appointment signaled what came next: He’d be the designated Republican successor to the aging Justice Thurgood Marshall.

In five days of Senate testimony–largely obscured by Anita Hill’s later accusations–Thomas publicly backed away from many of his earlier statements. “A judge must be fair and impartial,” Thomas said in his opening statement to the committee. “A judge must not bring to his job, to the court, the baggage of preconceived notions, of ideology, and certainly not an agenda.”

When asked about his previous comments on affirmative action or the right to abortion, about his criticisms of liberal decisions and his long track record of deriding the civil rights establishment, Thomas reverted to the same theme. He denied he had any such strong views, and regardless, none of it would affect his judicial role. A justice has a nearly sacred duty “to strip down like a runner, to eliminate agendas, to eliminate ideologies,” he said. When interpreting the law, “it is the will of the legislature that counts,” he added reassuringly.

Thomas raised eyebrows when he testified that he had never discussed or debated Roe vs. Wade, even during his law school days when the case was decided. Asked about the separation of church and state and the so-called “Lemon test” often criticized by conservatives, Thomas replied that he had “no quarrel” with it. (The term refers to the court’s 1971 ruling in Lemon vs. Kurtzman that it will strike down any law or government program that has religious purpose, advances religion or creates “an entanglement” between church and state.) “I think the wall of separation is an appropriate metaphor,” Thomas commented, sounding more like a Jeffersonian liberal than a Reagan-era conservative.

He also praised the doctrine of stare decisis , Latin for letting the matter stay as decided. Many senators were skeptical, but the nominee sought to reassure them. “I understand your concern that people come here and they might tell you A and then do B,” he told one senator who had pressed him on the abortion issue. “But I can assure you . . . I have no agenda.”

This was not the Clarence Thomas whose provocatively conservative speeches, articles and statements the committee Democrats had reviewed for weeks prior to the hearing. And it was not the Clarence Thomas whose true views became clear soon after he took his seat.

*

Thomas’ first opportunity to weigh in on abortion came in January of 1992, two months into his tenure, when the court agreed to hear a case from Pennsylvania challenging that state’s new abortion regulations. The law didn’t prohibit abortion but required pregnant teen-agers to obtain parental consent, wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure and, if they were married, to inform their husbands in advance.

Though the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey did not require the court to decide the fate of Roe vs. Wade and the right to abortion, and Pennsylvania’s lawyers urged the court to uphold the regulations as consistent with Roe, it looked like a suitable vehicle for the court’s conservatives, who were determined to overturn the abortion right. Three years earlier, in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, four members of the court–Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Byron White–had indicated a willingness to reverse Roe vs. Wade. Clarence Thomas could provide the fifth vote.

But that majority didn’t coalesce in the Casey case. Kennedy, citing the importance of precedent and stare decisis , joined an opinion affirming women’s basic right to choose abortion, and Roe was upheld. As expected, however, Thomas took the other side, signing on to one dissent by Rehnquist that called for Roe to be overturned and to a second, more fiery one from Scalia that compared the abortion ruling to the Dred Scott decision, the pre-Civil War era ruling that sanctioned slavery. Pretty strong stuff for someone who had had no views on the matter just a few months earlier. Since neither side in the case had argued that Roe vs. Wade should be flatly overturned, Thomas could have filed an opinion upholding the Pennsylvania regulations, but deferring a ruling on the broader question of Roe vs. Wade. According to the scuttlebutt from the court’s clerks that year, however, no such half-step was even considered in Thomas’ chambers. The justice’s mind was made up.

“He clearly lied to them (his confirmation committee) about legal issues, “ says Karlan, the University of Virginia professor. “I think he perjured himself about Roe.”

That same term, the issue of prayer in the public schools returned to the docket. For a decade, lawyers for the Reagan and Bush administrations had pressed the court to permit more religion in the schools and to stop insisting on such a strict separation of church and state. They had made little progress, but pressed ahead in a case from Rhode Island that arose when a middle-school principal invited a cleric to deliver a prayer at a graduation ceremony. After a Jewish parent complained, a federal judge ruled that the graduation prayer was unconstitutional and could not be repeated.

The case of Lee vs. Weisman was appealed to the high court when again there was a surprising setback for the conservatives. Thomas did join them once again, but Kennedy switched to the liberal side, and a 5-4 majority upheld the judge’s ruling, saying that officially sponsored religious invocations have no place in the public schools. An angry Scalia slammed the decision as as “jurisprudential disaster” and demanded the scrapping of the Lemon test for judging religion cases. Thomas, who had said he had “no quarrel” with the standard a few months before, signed Scalia’s dissent.

In his first three years on the court, Justice Thomas has rarely had a chance to write a major opinion. Having staked out a position on the far right, he rarely affects the outcome in key cases, except to supply the fifth vote for a conservative majority. He seems less interested in being an influential coalition builder than in forcefully stating his position. So far, his voice has been heard more loudly in political circles than within the confines of the court. So repeatedly, the chief justice has assigned him to write mundane decisions involving federal jurisdiction or bankruptcy disputes. However, Thomas has strongly asserted himself in two areas of law: prisoners’ rights and voting rights. Parting company even from conservatives such as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Thomas has called for reversing precedents that have benefited inmates and Southern blacks.

Thomas had been on the bench just two weeks when the court heard a case involving Keith Hudson, an inmate in a Louisiana prison. Late one night, Hudson, locked in his cell, got into an argument with a nearby guard, Jack McMillian. Assisted by two other guards, McMillian handcuffed and shackled the prisoner and took him into a hallway. As the others held Hudson, McMillian punched him in the face and jaw and kicked him in the stomach. A supervisor on duty watched but merely told the guards “not to have too much fun.” Hudson emerged with a badly swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate.

Hudson sued the officers in federal court, alleging he had suffered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A magistrate concluded that the beating was unrelated to any disciplinary purpose and awarded Hudson $800 in damages.

On a 7-2 vote, the court upheld the magistrate’s decision in Hudson vs. McMillian. Justice O’Connor said prison guards have broad authority to use all necessary force to enforce discipline or put down disturbances, but “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” violates the Eighth Amendment. Thomas, however, argued that the prisoner’s injuries were at most “minor” and accused his colleagues of creating “a National Code of Prison Regulation.”

His written dissent attracted attention, and not just for its strident conclusion. During his confirmation hearings, Thomas had displayed a minimal knowledge of constitutional law. He drew a blank, for example, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked him to name some of the most important high-court rulings of the past 20 years. But his dissent in the Hudson case delved into early English law and quoted a series of precedents from the 19th Century.

Around the court, that was seen as a sign that Thomas had turned over his writing duties to his young clerks. Most justices employ their clerks to do research or write preliminary drafts, but their final opinions tend to reflect their own personal styles. Not so with Thomas. “I don’t see any distinctive touches, what you might call ‘Thomasisms’ in his opinions,” says a veteran attorney who appears regularly before the high court.

The dissent in the prisoner’s case argued that in the 18th Century, “cruel and unusual punishments” referred to the punishment imposed by a judge. Therefore, the court should limit the Eighth Amendment only to officially imposed punishments and not to “a deprivation suffered in prison.” Of course, if Thomas’ view became the law, prison guards could use electric shocks, cattle prods and other means of torture without violating the ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

More than a few observers remembered how Thomas had, during his confirmation hearings, told the senators that he could identify with the plight of prisoners. From his courthouse window, he said, he saw “busload after busload” of young men going into the jailhouse. Leaning forward intently, he’d concluded, “I say to myself almost every day, but for the grace of God, there go I.”

Scalia, the court’s liveliest intellect, its most energetic questioner and its best writer, signed Thomas’ dissent, but he later confided to a friend that he did not fully agree with it. Rather, he wanted to protect his embattled new colleague from being “out there all alone.”

Twice since then, the court has revisited the issue of prisoners’ rights, and in both instances, Thomas has slammed the majority for adhering to the view that the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment in prison. “Judges or juries, but not jailers, impose punishment,” he wrote in a dissent issued in June. This time, however, Thomas spoke only for himself. Scalia had joined with the majority.

*

Thomas has stepped boldly into the mine field of voting-rights law, the controversial area that was the undoing of C. Lani Guinier in her bid to become Clinton’s attorney general. Unquestionably, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has had an enormous impact in the South. Under penalty of that law, Southern officials could no longer use techniques “subtle as well as obvious” to nullify the votes of blacks, and finally, a century after the Civil War, black citizens have gained a voice in government. The reach of the law, however, is uncertain, and Thomas has taken an active role in trying to define it. Some had expected him to show a special sensitivity because of his background, but instead he urged the court to overturn past rulings favoring blacks.

One case testing the act’s limits came before the court in his first month on the bench. In 1986, Lawrence Presley became the first black man in this century to be elected a county commissioner in Etowah County, Ala., after a judge ordered the county to select its commissioners by district, rather than county-wide. Presley won a seat in a new black-majority district, and the post was a powerful one, since each commissioner also controlled the budget for road maintenance in his section of the county. Soon after Presley was elected, however, the new county council voted to put all road decisions in the hands of the whole commission. With one stroke, the white majority had regained all power.

Presley sued, contending that this move to strip him of power violated the Voting Rights Act. But on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the claim in Presley vs. Etowah County. “This is a case where a few pages of history are far more illuminating than volumes of logic,” John Paul Stevens wrote for the three dissenters. Congress wanted to end schemes used to deprive blacks of political power, so the court should enforce the will of Congress, not thwart it, he said.

But writing for a conservative majority, Justice Kennedy said the 1965 law applies only “with respect to voting,” not to “routine actions of state and local governments.” Thomas joined his opinion.

Alice Presley told Emerge magazine that her husband had, in the tumultuous days of Thomas’ confirmation, believed that because of his background, “we ought to give the guy a chance.” But after the 1992 ruling, Presley, who died in January, 1993, realized he had made a mistake. “That really hurt him more than the decision. He would walk around saying, ‘I can’t believe Thomas voted against me,’ ” Alice Presley said.

Last year, Thomas cast the deciding fifth vote to rule that drawing congressional boundaries solely to create black-majority districts violated the constitutional rights of whites. And this year, Thomas went even further and disputed the entire 25-year history of using the Voting Rights Act to help elect more blacks in the South.

The issue arose in an unusual case from rural Bleckley County, Ga., where all power is exercised by a single county commissioner who acts as both executive and legislature. Blacks, who make up 20% of the population, said they were excluded from power and filed a suit under the Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals, relying on Congress’ 1982 amendments to the voting rights law, agreed with the black voters and ordered the county to switch to a five-member commission.

Those amendments underlined that any “standard, practice or procedure” used in the electoral process would violate the law if it denied racial and ethnic minorities the right “to elect representatives of their choice.” If a large black or Latino population is denied representation because of the way district boundaries are drawn, those lines are illegal, even if they were not intended to discriminate. Minorities are not guaranteed proportional representation, but the law tells judges they must examine “the extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the state or political subdivision.”

On the high court, the justices voted 5 to 4 to overturn the appeals court and uphold Bleckley County’s single commissioner system. Why? Three members of the majority–Kennedy, Rehnquist and O’Connor–said the courts can’t decide the size of a governing body because there is no “benchmark” for deciding what is fair. If Bleckley would need five commissioners to give blacks a voice, should the next county have 20 commissioners so it could serve a group with 5% of the population? they asked.

But Thomas, in a 59-page separate opinion, took the view that the Voting Rights Act does not cover the make-up of governing boards and the drawing of electoral boundaries, no matter what their effect on minorities. He said he would reject 25 years of court precedent on the issue and ignore what Congress has said on the subject.

His broad arguments, though familiar, have a certain power. The law as currently interpreted “encourages federal courts to segregate voters into racially designated districts . . . . In doing so, we have collaborated in what may aptly be termed the racial Balkanization of the nation,” he wrote.

Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot called his opinion, which Scalia joined, an “intellectual bombshell” and a “tour de force.” This is Thomas at his best, arguing that there is a price to pay for elevating race as the all-important factor in politics and the law.

But Thomas’ view of the law has one obvious drawback: Congress does not agree with him. As Justice Stevens pointed out in an opinion joined by Souter, Ginsburg and Blackmun, it is “crystal clear” that Congress wrote the law to apply to voting districts that denied minorities the right “to elect representatives of their choice.”

Sen. Specter, who had closely questioned Thomas to seek assurance that the nominee would abide by long-standing interpretations of federal civil rights law, heard Thomas give the desired assurances. “If there is a longstanding interpretation and Congress does not act . . . that certainly would be, at least from my way of looking at a statute, evidence that cannot be ignored in revisiting that particular statute,” he told Specter. But that was just the kind of longstanding interpretation of the voting-rights law that Thomas ignored in June.

*

While no one has proved whether Thomas told the truth when he “categorically denied” all of Anita Hill’s accusations, there is ample reason to believe that he did not honestly describe his legal views in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

That’s not a problem in the eyes of those who strongly supported Thomas from the beginning. “I think he is proving to be an excellent justice,” says Charles Cooper, the former Reagan Administration lawyer. C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel under George Bush, praises Thomas’ opinions on voting rights and the prisoners’ cases as “gutsy, not politically correct. I think he’s doing a great job. He’s been just what I had hoped for,” Gray says. Danforth says he has paid little attention to his performance on the court. “I stood by him as a friend,” he replies. “I’m not a critic.”

But disappointment and anger are strong in other circles. Ralph Neas, the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, concludes that Thomas has been exactly what he feared. “We opposed him because we thought he would be a right-wing ideologue, and that’s what he’s been,” Neas says. Before, Scalia had been generally seen as the court’s most conservative justice, and Thomas has voted with him in 86% of the cases. It is the closest pairing of justices since the liberal tandem of William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall retired.

Harsh criticism has come from blacks. Last November, Emerge magazine, which appeals to black professionals, published a scathing attack on Thomas titled “Betrayed” in which several black Republicans who supported Thomas three years ago said they now regret having done so. Film director Spike Lee commented that “Malcolm X, if he were alive today, would call Thomas a handkerchief head, a chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.” The magazine’s cover featured a photo of Thomas with his head wrapped in a handkerchief.

Reactions to Thomas differ so sharply in part because his friends indeed see a different person. Consider these two stories:

Sen. Danforth calls Thomas “warm, pleasant, funny, inspiring, just a delightful person to be with.” To illustrate, he cites his summer interns, who expressed an interest in seeing the Supreme Court. “I called Clarence, and he had them come over the next day. He took time with every one of them. The personal warmth just comes through. That’s the real Clarence Thomas,” the senator says.

William L. Robinson, dean of the District of Columbia School of Law, also wanted to bring some young students by the Supreme Court. A black civil rights lawyer who knew Thomas from his EEOC days, Robinson considered the justice a friend, even if they disagreed on the law.

“It would really mean a lot to these kids if they could see someone like him (Thomas) who made it. I just hoped he would duck his head in the room and maybe say ‘hello’ while we were there,” Robinson says. He called Thomas’s chambers repeatedly, explained why he was calling and left messages. “He wouldn’t even call me back. And I guess I’m pissed about it now,” Robinson says. That’s the real Clarence Thomas, too.

A more confident Thomas was on display this spring as the justice showed a new willingness to get outside the court. He gave talks at his high school and college alma maters, discussed crime before the Federalist Society, spoke to judges in New York and Baltimore, dropped by uninvited to chat with the disc jockeys at a local “oldies” radio station and even donned a football jersey and visited the practice field of his favorite team, the Dallas Cowboys. Why the Cowboys? Because the local Redskins are hugely popular in Washington and their arch-rival, the Cowboys, are generally hated, he explains. He also says he likes the Los Angeles Raiders “because everybody hates them.”

His Federalist Society speech on crime was powerful and provocative, sounding like the Thomas of old. He blamed the “rights revolution,” promoted by 1960s-era liberals, for much of the crime and mayhem that besets America’s cities today. It’s a view gaining increasing currency in Republican circles.

One thing seems certain. Justice Thomas and the controversy that follows him figure to be with us for many years to come. This fall, two new books on his confirmation fight are due to be published. Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson of the Wall Street Journal take a critical look in “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas.” The authors are not promising a “smoking gun” about sexual harassment, but they do say that the Bush White House deliberately painted a misleading picture of Thomas.

Meanwhile, Danforth gives an insider’s account of the 10-day fight to save his friend’s nomination in a book entitled, “Resurrection: The Confirmation of Clarence Thomas.” Danforth, according to an account in Washingtonian magazine, describes how Thomas’ nomination was saved by a quick prayer session in the moments before Thomas presented his final defense. Thomas, his wife, Virginia, and Danforth, along with Danforth’s wife, Sally, met in the restroom of Danforth’s office, the story goes, praying and listening to a recording of “Onward Christian Soldiers.” “We reached out to each other and held hands as we listened: ‘Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.’ I looked at Clarence. His eyes were closed, his head bowed; his foot beat time to the music.”

“An effective criminal justice system–one that holds people accountable for harmful conduct–simply cannot be sustained under conditions where there are boundless excuses for violent behavior and no moral authority for the state to punish,” Thomas said. He ticked off the modern-day explanations for crime–”poverty, substandard education, faltering families, unemployment, systemic racism”–but none of them can excuse an individual’s wrongdoing, he said. While he offered no precise recommendations for what can be done, his message about crime and personal responsibility seems sure to win broad approval.

As for the 46-year-old Thomas, he tells almost every audience that he is “getting comfortable” being a justice and is settling in for a long stay. “It’s a joy to work at the court,” he told a meeting of federal judges in New York. “And in good health, I hope to be there for another four decades or more.”

March 23 (UPI) — A sheriff in Riverside, Calif., has seized more than 650,000 ballots from a 2025 state election that allowed the state to redistrict to gain five congressional seats.

Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for California governor, said Friday that he is investigating allegations by an activist group that alleged the reported tallies don’t match the ballots.

“This investigation is simple,” he said at a press conference. “Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes reported.”

The election Bianco is investigating is the special election for Proposition 50, asking voters for endorsement to redraw the congressional districts in response to other Republican-led states, like Texas, redrawing their districts to pick up seats.

Californians voted to redistrict, and it was not a close election: 7.4 million in favor to 4.1 million.

A group called Riverside Election Integrity Team called for the investigation saying its examination of records shows about 45,000 more ballots were counted than received, Bianco said.

Local election officials said those allegations were based on a misunderstanding of how ballots are officially counted, the Palm Springs Desert Sun reported.

“County election staff follow detailed procedures established by state and federal law to protect the integrity of the vote and to ensure that every eligible ballot is processed and counted in accordance with those legal requirements,” Riverside County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen said in a statement.

Bianco seized the ballots with two warrants signed by a judge. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent Bianco a letter March 6 alleging, “my office has serious concerns as to whether probable cause existed to support the issuance of the warrants and whether your office presented the magistrate with all material evidence as required by law.”

Bonta also alleged that Bianco’s office is not qualified to count ballots and the investigation “sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections.”

Bianco replied: “A judge approved the warrant, so Bonta’s opinion means absolutely nothing.”

Bianco also said Friday that he would give the investigation to a judge-appointed special master.

Democrats and Republicans in the state have said the investigation is baseless.

“It looks to me like it’s a politically motivated effort,” Jon Fleischman, former executive director of the California Republican Party, told The New York Times. “It’s awfully coincidental that he would be taking this high-profile and extreme of an action literally two months before he’s facing a statewide election.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a Democrat, said Bianco’s claims are not supported by the evidence.

“The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office has taken actions based on allegations that lack credible evidence and risk undermining public confidence in our elections,” Weber said in a statement on Friday.

“Investigations into election processes must be conducted by those with the appropriate legal authority and subject matter expertise. Similar claims raised in other states by individuals without election administration experience have been thoroughly reviewed and debunked.”

Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat running for governor, said Bianco is trying to gain national exposure.

“What we’re seeing from Chad Bianco is a dangerous abuse of power and no different from what we’re seeing from Donald Trump and the extreme Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters nationally,” Villaraigosa said in a statement.

“Seizing hundreds of thousands of ballots without credible evidence is an attack on the very foundation of our democracy. If you’re willing to undermine free and fair elections for MAGA stardom, you have no business holding public office.”

WASHINGTON — The Senate is on track to confirm Markwayne Mullin as Department of Homeland Security secretary, President Trump’s nominee to take over the embattled department after firing Kristi Noem amid a public backlash over the administration’s immigration enforcement and mass deportation operations.

Mullin, a Republican senator from Oklahoma known for his close friendship with Trump, has tried to present himself as a steady hand, saying that his goal as secretary would be to get the department off the front page of the news. But Mullin tangled with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who questioned Mullin’s character and temperament during last week’s combative confirmation hearing.

Senators advanced Mullin’s nomination on Sunday during a rare weekend session on a largely party-line vote, and confirmation is expected late Monday.

He would take the helm of the department at a difficult time. The department’s routine funding has been shut down, leading to long waits at U.S. airports during the busy spring break travel season, as Democrats demand changes in immigration enforcement operations after the deaths of two U.S. citizens during protests this year in Minneapolis.

Trump announced over the weekend he’s ordering immigration officers to help Transportation Security Administration agents, which lawmakers and others warned could escalate tensions at crowded airports.
Although the senator comes to the position after more than a dozen years in Congress, and with the management experience of running an expanding family plumbing business in Oklahoma, he has not been seen as a key force in immigration issues.

A former mixed martial arts fighter and collegiate wrestler who has led early-morning workout sessions in the members-only House gym, he became close with members of both parties and is often seen as a negotiator in partisan Washington.

It is his loyalty to Trump that landed him the job, and he’s not expected to sway from the president’s approach. Mullin was a strong supporter of Trump’s immigration agenda and ICE officers before being tapped for the Homeland Security job.

“I can have different opinions with everybody in this room, but as secretary of homeland I’ll be protecting everybody,” Mullin said during his confirmation hearing.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff and a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election as part of an investigation that he called a “fact-finding mission” to determine if they were fraudulently counted.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the state’s top law enforcement official, has sharply criticized the probe, which he called “unprecedented in both scope and scale.”

In a March 4 letter to the sheriff, Bonta said the seizure of the ballots “sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections.” He threatened to seek legal recourse if Bianco does not halt his investigation.

Bianco said Friday that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected.

Here is what we know.

Why were ballots taken?

According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 took about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.

Bianco said that it’s his “constitutional duty” to investigate a potential crime and that he is not trying to change the election results.

The investigation includes all of the ballots cast in the county, where Proposition 50 passed with 56% of the vote, a margin of more than 82,000 ballots. Statewide, it passed with 64% of the vote, a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots.

Bianco said he had been contacted by “a group of citizen volunteers” that said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast. He did not name the group, but the allegations match those made by a group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team.

In a February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed the group’s allegations and said they were based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.

The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes — a variance of 0.016%.

How did the sheriff get the ballots?

Bianco said his department served the registrar with a warrant “approved and signed by a judge” on Feb. 9.

According to Bonta’s office, an additional warrant was issued on Feb. 23. Bianco said the warrants are now sealed.

In the March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general said he had “serious concerns” about whether the sheriff had probable cause to seize the election materials.

Bonta questioned whether Bianco had concealed information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants, including details from the registrar’s analysis of the citizen group’s allegations.

An official from Bonta’s office told The Times that the attorney general “found out in the middle of the week that [Bianco] was going to execute the warrants on a Friday.” Bonta’s office asked the sheriff to slow down and share information about the investigation, but “instead of waiting, he actually moved it up” and seized the ballots sooner than planned, said the official, who would only speak on background.

Bianco said a Riverside County Superior Court judge ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count. His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said.

The ballots would have soon been destroyed

California law requires county officials to keep election materials — including ballots and voter identification envelopes — for 22 months for elections involving a federal office and for six months for all other contests.

The materials must be sealed and then destroyed at the end of the retention period.

The Proposition 50 election took place on Nov. 4, so the ballots are scheduled to be destroyed in May.

Why investigate now?

Political observers say that Bianco — a leading gubernatorial candidate — appears to be vying for attention from President Trump and his supporters.

Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said the investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.”

“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. “People who don’t know his background will know now. This is clear signaling.”

Trump has repeatedly called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections. He remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud.

In January, the FBI raided the elections office in Fulton County, Ga., seizing 2020 presidential election records. And this month, the Republican leader of Arizona’s state Senate said he had handed over 2020 election records to the FBI, complying with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to a controversial audit of the election in Maricopa County.

Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter.

A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.

The top two vote getters, regardless of party, will advance to the November election.

Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for Proposition 50 and had nothing to do with his campaign for governor.

March 23 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Sunday said there will be no end to the partial government shutdown until Congress passes the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

“I don’t think we should make any deal with the Crazy, Country Destroying, Radical Left Democrats unless, and until, they Vote with Republicans to pass ‘THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,'” Trump posted on Truth Social.

“It is far more important than anything else we are doing in the Senate, and that includes giving these same terrible people, the Dems (who are to blame for this mess!), a Five Billion Dollar cut in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] funding, a deal which, even when disguised as something else, is unacceptable to me and the American people – UNLESS it includes their approval of Voter I.D., (with picture!), Citizenship to Vote, No Mail-In Voting (with exceptions), All Paper Ballots, No Men In Women’s Sports, and No Transgender MUTILIZATION of our precious children,” he added.

Trump also wrote that Thune should “clearly identify” the Republicans who are not supporting the bill and said they were, “Voting against AMERICA.”

“They will never be elected again! In other words, lump everything together as one, and VOTE!!! Kill the Filibuster, and stay in D.C. for Easter, if necessary,” he said.

Lawmakers have not supported abandoning the supermajority needed to end debate.

The DHS, which includes the Transportation Security Administration, shut down on Feb. 14 because Congress couldn’t agree on a funding bill for the department. Democrats don’t want to fund it until guardrails are put on the agency, and Republicans haven’t agreed to Democrats’ demands.

Because of this, TSA workers have been working without pay for more than a month. Some are quitting or taking days off work, creating long lines at airports.

Congress is scheduled to leave Washington in a few days for a recess. If there’s no deal, the partial shutdown could last two months. It would be the longest shutdown of a federal agency.

The Senate is considering staying in session to resolve the shutdown, but House Republicans say they won’t change plans, Politico reported that three anonymous sources said.

The House will likely vote again Thursday.

Trump told NewsNation Sunday that Democrats were going to fold after he said he would send Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to help TSA agents.

But Sen. Lisa Murkowsky, R-Alaska, doesn’t agree that plan is appropriate.

“This is not the answer for what we need to do. We need to figure out how we get DHS funded. My preference, of course, is to get all of DHS funded, get it done and behind us. But I think we all need to be looking to see if there are any [other] avenues that can gain support. We got to figure it out before [the end of] next week,” The Hill reported she said.

Citing concerns about affordability, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is proposing revising the state’s 2019 climate law, asking to delay implementation by several years and to adopt a different greenhouse-gas accounting method.

The changes would effectively water down a law viewed as one of the most ambitious state climate policies in the U.S.

Hochul called the law’s current targets “costly and unattainable” in a statement released Friday. “This is solely out of necessity — to protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy,” she said.

The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act targets a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and an 85% cut by 2050. As of 2023, the state had lowered its emissions by about 14%.

Meeting the 2030 deadline would drastically drive up energy bills for New Yorkers, Hochul, a Democrat, has said. Regulations to implement the law are already delayed; Hochul wants to push them back to 2030 and create a new emissions target for 2040.

Energy bills have surged around the U.S., partly as a result of AI-driven demand. As of November, the average residential electricity price in New York was 26.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, ranking eighth highest in the country, according to Empire Center, a nonprofit think tank in Albany. The Iran war has sent oil and gas prices surging.

The proposed weakening of the law comes amid the Trump administration’s dismantling of federal climate regulations and clean energy incentives, which environmentalists have looked to Democrat-led states and cities to counter.

“Lots of people around the country — really around the world — have been looking to see how New York does in implementing this strong climate law,” said Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University law professor who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

“If a very blue state like New York moves backwards on climate change as well, that’s a negative sign for the country,” he said. “If you can’t do it here, can you do it anywhere?”

Hochul, who is running for reelection this year, is seeking to advance changes through the state’s budget, which is due April 1. The proposal is expected to meet resistance from some Democratic lawmakers.

“We will negotiate with the governor,” said State Sen. Pete Harckham, who chairs the body’s environmental conservation committee. “We’ll be able to get to, I think, a resolution of this.”

Policymakers including Harckham and State Sen. Liz Krueger, who chairs the finance committee, penned a letter to Hochul earlier this month urging her not to back a delay.

Given Washington’s war on climate policy, they wrote, “it is incumbent on states like New York to reject this new wave of climate denial and put forward bold policies that will save New Yorkers money, reduce pollution and protect a livable climate.”

Krueger said Friday the proposed changes would increase the likelihood that the climate law will never be fully enacted.

“This is a serious problem,” she said. “We need to be spending the money for the infrastructure to help meet the targets.”

Business groups and Republicans in Albany have argued that implementing the law as it stands would drive up costs and worsen the affordability crisis. State Sen. Tom O’Mara has urged changes. “It is time [to] amend the CLCPA to account for economic realities,” he said in a statement. The Business Council, representing New York companies, last month said the deadlines stipulated “are proving unachievable.”

Even some Democrats have advocated for amendments. State Assemblymembers Carrie Woerner and John T. McDonald said last week that “the reality is difficult to ignore: New York is not on track to meet the CLCPA’s targets on the timeline written into law.”

“The real question is whether New York can remain committed to deep decarbonization while adapting its strategy to today’s conditions,” they added. “The goal should not be abandoning ambition. It should be pursuing it intelligently.”

In 2025, environmental groups sued Hochul’s administration after the state failed to set up a regulatory program for the climate law.

“The main effect of these proposed changes is to allow the Hochul administration to do nothing for at least the next four years,” said Rachel Spector, deputy managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization that represents the groups. “These proposals will do nothing to benefit New Yorkers. The only beneficiaries would be Hochul along with gas utilities and corporate polluters.”

Hochul also wants to align New York’s emissions-counting standards with other U.S. states and the international community. That might mean switching from a 20-year emissions-counting methodology to a 100-year one. The shorter timeframe highlights the pollution impact of methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas and the main component of natural gas. The 100-year metric essentially balances out short- with longer-lived gases like carbon dioxide.

“It’s ultimately a way to cheat on a test,” said Liz Moran, New York policy advocate at Earthjustice.

In October, a judge ruled in favor of the environmental groups, putting pressure on Hochul to enact a so-called cap-and-invest program that would help generate revenue for the state to transition to renewable energy.

However, a memo released in February by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority concluded that implementing the policy would result in rocketing energy bills for New Yorkers.

It modeled a scenario in which the law were “implemented with regulations to meet the 2030 targets” and found that upstate New York households relying on oil and natural gas “would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year.”

Many Democrats and environmental advocates have pushed back on the narrative that climate policy is spiking costs. Harckham said the solution to improving affordability and lowering emissions is clear: “It’s renewable energy.”

“We set a law for ourselves,” he added. “We should be held accountable to it.”

Raimonde writes for Bloomberg.

WASHINGTON — Californians may be forced to put their ballots in the mail well before election day to be certain they will be counted.

That’s the likely outcome of a Republican challenge to mail ballots that came before the Supreme Court on Monday.

The court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires that ballots must be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal.

In the 19th century, Congress set a national day for federal elections on a Tuesday in early November, but it did not say how or when states would count their ballots. The Constitution leaves it to states to decide the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”

California and 13 other states count mail ballots that were cast before or on election day but arrive a few days late. And most states accept late ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.

By law, California counts mail ballots that arrive within seven days of election day. In 2024, more than 406,000 of these late-arriving ballots were counted in California, about 2.5% of the total.

Other Western states — Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska — also count late-arriving mail ballots.

But President Trump has repeatedly claimed that voting by mail leads to fraud, and the Republican National Committee has gone to court to challenge the state laws that allow for counting the legally cast ballots of citizens which are postmarked on time but arrive late.

GOP lawyers argued that the phrase “election day” has always meant ballots must be in the hands of election officials on that day. In their questions and comments, all six conservatives agreed.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. saw a real prospect of fraud. There could be “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late and “flip the outcome,” he said.

Democrats and election law experts say that the proposed new rule conflicts with more than a century of practice, because most states allowed for some people to vote by mail if they were traveling on election day. They argued that election day is like the federal tax day of April 15. While tax returns must be postmarked then, the tax returns are legal even if they arrive at the Internal Revenue Service a few days later.

The GOP filed its challenge in Mississippi, which accepts ballots that arrive up to five days after election day. A district judge rejected the claim, but a 5th Circuit Court panel with three Trump appointees ruled that ballots are illegal if they are not received by election day.

The case before the court is Watson vs. Republican National Committee.

California has been criticized for taking weeks to count all the votes, but that issue was not raised in this case.

March 23 (UPI) — With just weeks to go before the April 12 general elections, Peru’s electoral landscape is defined by unprecedented fragmentation and a voter base that appears to be turning away from the traditional political class.

Right-wing candidates Keiko Fujimori and Rafael López Aliaga remain virtually tied for first place in national popularity, according to a Datum Internacional poll for the newspaper El Comercio, published Sunday.

However, analysts say the figure that truly dominates the race is not any candidate’s percentage, but rather the 57% of Peruvians who still do not know whom they will vote for or who plan to cast a null ballot.

The public opinion survey showed that only 43% of Peruvians say they have decided on their vote and will not change it. According to data collected by the pollster, this scenario has remained stable since the beginning of the month, Canal N reported.

Datum analyst and CEO Urpi Torrado said the real protagonist of this process is the “undecided bloc.” According to her assessment, the disconnect is so deep that 53% of voters admit they do not even know the party symbol of the candidate they say they will support.

The results show a technical tie at the top, but with extremely low figures for a race of this magnitude. Keiko Fujimori, of Fuerza Popular, leads with 11.9%, followed closely by Rafael López Aliaga, of Renovación Popular, with 11.7%.

Further behind are rising figures such as leftist Alfonso López Chau with 6.5%, actor Carlos Álvarez with 5.0% and social democrat Jorge Nieto with 4.6%.

Analyst Carlos Meléndez told television channel Latina Noticias that this dispersion of votes, spread across a record 36 candidates, ensures that the June 7 runoff would be decided by very narrow margins.

Analyst Pedro Tenorio said that 75% of citizens believe the candidates do not understand their real problems. Even so, he noted a trend toward center and right-wing positions, which together account for 52% of voter identification, compared with a weakened 11% identifying with the left.

According to experts, the risk is that the next president could come to power with very weak initial legitimacy, facing an equally fragmented bicameral Congress that could deepen political instability and legislative gridlock.

The overall political environment is one of extreme fragility. Unlike previous processes, there is no “coattail effect” or consolidated ideological currents. The prevailing sentiment is rejection, with 81% of the population saying they do not feel represented by any political group.

This detachment has translated into a subdued campaign, where candidates struggle to break through a ceiling that does not exceed 15%.

The emergence of figures such as Wolfgang Grozo, a retired major general and former director of intelligence of the Peruvian Air Force, who has risen in the polls thanks to a strong presence on Instagram and TikTok, shows that sustained anti-establishment sentiment could trigger a last-minute shift among undecided voters and drastically alter the race.

This scenario is not unfamiliar in Peru. In the 2021 general elections, Pedro Castillo staged one of the biggest political upsets in the country’s history, going from a virtually invisible candidate in the polls to winning the presidency in a context of extreme fragmentation.

At that time, weeks before the first round, Castillo, a primary school teacher and union leader from Cajamarca, appeared in the “others” category with less than 3% voting intention. His rise was explosive in the final 10 days, driven by intensive campaigning in rural areas that urban polls failed to capture in time.

Castillo won the first round with just 18.9% of valid votes. It was the first time in the country’s history that a candidate advanced to the runoff with such limited support, highlighting a total crisis of representation among the 17 candidates competing in that election.

SACRAMENTO — President Trump claims Gov. Gavin Newsom is unfit to be president because he has a “learning disability.” It’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The centuries-old pot-kettle idiom points out hypocrisy — as when one person accuses another of a flaw that afflicts himself.

California’s governor has battled dyslexia all his life — very successfully, by any measure. Dyslexia is a learning disability that makes reading and writing difficult. But it doesn’t mean a stricken person is unable to learn. He just needs to learn differently, as Newsom has done since he was a teen.

Trump apparently isn’t dyslexic. But he clearly has some learning disabilities — including stubbornness, narrow-mindedness and intolerance.

The president still hasn’t learned, for example, that he lost the 2020 election. He persists in the belief — or maybe it’s merely another boldface lie — that the election was stolen in a Joe Biden conspiracy. That’s a bizarre fantasy.

He also didn’t learn from past administrations that a commander in chief should not wage war against Iran without a concrete plan to keep open the Strait of Hormuz so Middle Eastern oil can keep flowing to the world.

And he never has learned what most of us were taught by our parents: that you don’t berate your friends if you expect to keep them friendly — lashing out, for instance, at allies before and after their balking at sending warships to help protect the vital strait.

Moreover, he didn’t learn that the nation’s founders embedded a checks-and-balances governing system in the Constitution and that Congress has a role in imposing tariffs.

When the normally Trump-friendly Supreme Court ruled against his unilateral tariff agenda, the spoiled president did what he usually does: attack, insulting the justices who struck down his edicts.

“Fools,” “lapdogs” and a “disgrace to our nation,” he whined. “It’s an embarrassment to their families.”

Trump still hasn’t learned to shut up and try to be civilized.

Not even after shocking everyone by saying of the late Republican Sen. John McCain, a Navy Pilot who spent more than five years as a tortured POW in the Hanoi Hilton: “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

Any respect I might have had for the guy vanished in 2015 when the then-candidate for president publicly mocked a New York Times reporter’s disability. At a campaign rally, Trump jerked his arms and flailed his hands while making fun of the reporter’s palsy-like ailment.

So it wasn’t a surprise recently when Trump tore into Newsom for his dyslexia four times in one week.

Yes, Newsom has his eye on the 2028 presidential election and has been scoring points nationally with Democratic activists by using Trump as a punching bag. But Trump keeps offering himself up as an irresistible target.

Regardless, there’s no excuse — even in hard knocks politics — for attacking someone because of his disability.

“Gavin Newscum” — Trump’s synonym for the governor — ”has admitted he has learning disabilities, dyslexia,” he told reporters in the Oval Office. “Honestly, I’m all for people with learning disabilities but not for my president.”

“Everything about him is dumb,” Trump added.

In a Fox News Radio interview, Trump said that “presidents can’t have a learning disability.” And on Facebook, Trump wrote: “I don’t want the president of the United States to have a cognitive deficiency.”

A quick Google search could have shown Trump that several presidents have had learning disabilities, including dyslexia.

Start with George Washington, who struggled with grammar and spelling. And Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, who had trouble with reading and spelling.

Other presidents with learning disabilities: Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. “It’s a poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word,” Jackson asserted.

Scientist Albert Einstein was dyslexic. So were Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and Thomas Edison.

Dyslexia affects roughly one in five Americans to some degree — more than 40 million people, although relatively few are aware of it, according to researchers.

Newsom has spoken openly for years about his struggles with dyslexia. It’s difficult for him to read, especially prepared speeches. So he reads and re-reads, underlines and highlights and meticulously takes notes. When a speech must be read off a teleprompter, he practices for hours.

In January, the governor began his State of the State address to the Legislature with this ad-lib:

“I’m not shy or, you know, embarrassed about my 960 SAT score. But I am a little bit about my inability to read the written [speech] text. And so it’s always been something that I have to work through and I’m confronting.”

In his recently released autobiography, “Young Man in a Hurry,” Newsom writes: “My high school grades were all over the place and I scored lousy on the SAT, three hours of dyslexic torture.”

Early in his political career as a San Francisco supervisor, he writes, “speaking to a crowd was not unlike the fear I felt in third grade reading to my classmates …. So I learned to memorize my talking points and best lines … and wing it from there.

“This is how I discovered one of the secret powers of dyslexia. I could read a room with the best of them. I’d walk in and immediately size up the faces, mood and manners. … I learned that an audience didn’t mind occasional hiccups of speech as long as you looked them in the eye.”

Newsom was twice elected mayor and twice governor.

None of this means he should necessarily be elected president.

There may be policy and political reasons to consider him unfit — but not because of any learning disability.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom leads Harris for president among California Democrats, poll finds
The TK: Democrats excluded from USC gubernatorial debate urge rivals to boycott in solidarity
The L.A. Times Special: Rep. Eric Swalwell’s private AI company raises money, questions

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

To hear Darrell Issa and his supporters tell it, the San Diego County businessman is a modern-day Horatio Alger who built his company “from scratch” and clawed his way to a fortune that has given him instant credibility as a U.S. Senate candidate in next month’s primary.

But a closer look at the 44-year-old Issa’s financial beginnings reveals a more complex tale, rooted as much in discord as in dogged determination.

His admirers praise his business savvy, his innovation and his aggressive marketing of cutting-edge technology in the car security industry.

However, Issa also has left a trail of spurned associates from New York to California who accuse him of distorting his record and of trampling them on his way to the top.

The car security company that Issa now says he “started” in his hometown of Cleveland 16 years ago actually came under his control after a bruising battle with the former owners, records and interviews show. The clash and its aftermath featured accusations of underhanded tactics and intimidation, a suspected arson, even a glimpse of an Issa arrest in his youth on charges that were later dismissed.

“It’s an ugly past chapter,” Issa acknowledged in a recent interview. “If I had not succeeded in business and they had, I could be saying this in reverse.”

The pristine headquarters of his $70-million-a-year operation north of San Diego seem far removed from his working-class Ohio roots, where he and his competitors were scrambling in the 1980s to gain a foothold in the growing car security business. It was a rough-and-tumble time for Issa–and tensions ran particularly high after a suspected arson fire ripped through his manufacturing plant in 1982.

No one was ever charged in the fire, but authorities were troubled by a dramatic escalation in the facility’s fire insurance just weeks earlier. Even before the blaze was put out, investigators began peppering Issa and his partner with “crazy questions” regarding their whereabouts before the fire, Issa recalled.

Authorities later checked their criminal records and their financial histories. The rap sheets turned up an old run-in with the law that now seems ironic for a staunch law-and-order candidate who struck it rich selling car alarms: A decade earlier, Issa had been arrested at the age of 18 on charges that he and his brother had stolen a car.

A grand jury indicted the Issa brothers on charges of felony theft of a red Maserati from a Cleveland dealership in 1972 after a witness reported seeing them pushing the sports car down the street just before midnight, records and interviews show. But the charges were dismissed–months before the older brother, Bill, was convicted of stealing another car amid a string of offenses.

The Issas both say that they were arrested only because they were near the car–and because Bill had a bad reputation with police. “If I hadn’t been there, they wouldn’t have bothered my brother,” Bill Issa said, adding that he recalls that the charges were dismissed because a witness changed part of his story.

“The fact is,” Darrell Issa said, “I was exonerated of all wrongdoing. My brother went on to have a long and sordid career. I told the campaign a long time ago, ‘You want to just publish my brother’s record on the Internet and get it over with?’ They said, ‘No, don’t worry about [your] family.’

”. . . I am not my brother, I am not my brother’s keeper.”

Takeover of Company

Issa smiled and shook his head when the name of one of his former business associates in Cleveland was first raised in a recent interview.

“Ah, Joey Adkins,” he said. “I remember him.”

Issa has spent about $6 million of his own money to air commercials in which he tells, among other things, of “building a world-class business from scratch” and using his $7,000 life savings to start the company.

But Adkins, 42, who is now repairing video equipment at his rundown shop outside Cleveland, was there at the beginning, too. The company that Issa says he founded had belonged to Adkins until Issa seized control in 1982.

Issa says he simply did what any good businessman would have done under the circumstances.

Adkins counters: “Darrell stole that company out from under me. He screwed us.”

Adkins started work in the late 1970s on anti-theft devices for automobiles, developing a product called Steal Stopper that killed the ignition switch unless a digital code was entered. His company, A.C. Custom Electronics, secured a contract with Ford Motor Co. and, by 1981, was reporting nearly $1 million in annual revenues, tax returns show.

Meanwhile, Issa was breaking into business himself.

In 1980, after leaving active military duty, he bought into Quantum Enterprises, which had previously manufactured CB radio parts. When the CB market began dying, the company resorted to developing gadgets, such as a potato peeler, but it suffered what Issa described as “incredible losses.”

The company also had begun doing electronics work for Adkins. The relationship went smoothly until Adkins turned to Issa for a $60,000 loan that would eventually cost him his business after Adkins pledged his company’s stock as collateral.

A similar loan from Issa was repaid the previous year. But this time, Adkins asked for a few more weeks to repay the loan–and Issa says he agreed.

Within days, however, Issa went to a judge and–under an Ohio law that did not require the debtor to be present–won a judgment for the outstanding $60,000.

Issa promptly called Adkins at home to declare that he now owned his auto security company, Adkins recalled. “I was completely floored,” he said.

Why, after promising more time, did Issa go to court to collect?

Issa says he learned only after extending the loan that Adkins’ company was saddled with mounting debts and was bordering on insolvency. Rather than risk losing his investment, he said he went to court for protection.

“We had every right to do so,” he said. “There wasn’t any stealing of any company.”

Issa’s partner at Quantum, Miles Hunsinger, also blames red ink for Adkins’ troubles and the company takeover.

“If Darrell hadn’t grabbed them up, someone else would have very shortly. They were done,” Hunsinger said. “Darrell was sharp enough to understand that the basic premise of their design and their name held promise, and he took it and ran with it.”

But Adkins said A.C. Custom was on solid financial ground and could have paid off the note as agreed.

Moreover, he charged that Issa had been scheming from the start to take over his company–a charge buttressed by Adkins’ former bookkeeper.

The bookkeeper, Karen Brasdovich, said Issa had grilled her about Adkins’ finances, including his late payment of bills. Only later, she says, did she suspect that Issa may have then used that information to seize the firm.

“He picked my brain. It really bothers me to this day that I fell for that,” she said.

Issa said he did not recall the episode. Nor did he recall an alleged incident in the days after he took over A.C. Custom.

One of Issa’s first tasks as the new boss was to remove an executive named Jack Frantz.

According to Frantz, Issa came into his office, placed a small box on the desk and opened it. Inside, he said, was a gun.

“He just showed it to me and said ‘You know what this is?’ ” Frantz said.

Issa invited Frantz to hold the gun at one point and told him he had learned about guns and explosives during his military days, Frantz said. Because he was about to be fired, Frantz said he saw it as “pure intimidation.”

The bookkeeper, Brasdovich, also recalled Issa having a gun at the company that day. “It was pretty terrifying,” she said.

Issa confirmed that he wanted to remove Frantz–who years later was convicted in a telemarketing scheme–because he failed to collect outstanding bills.

But, as for having a gun, Issa said, “Shots were never fired. If I asked Jack to leave, then I think I had every right to ask Jack to leave. . . . I don’t recall [having a gun]. I really don’t. I don’t think I ever pulled a gun on anyone in my life.”

Issa said he moved quickly to pay off the company’s creditors, partly with $7,000 in life savings. He wound up with the Steal Stopper name and product line, which he would sell for years to come.

Adkins blames the episode for triggering his slide into bankruptcy, family rifts, bouts with alcohol and a recent jail stint for drunk driving.

“It’s been a rough 17 years,” he said. “He’s got $250 million, and I’m lucky if I can pay my taxes.”

Adkins is still estranged from his sister, who sided with Issa in the dispute and runs his Cleveland facility even today.

“Darrell always worked his tail off, and I thought he was very fair,” said the sister, Ernestine Brown. “But my family more or less disavowed me when I went to work for Darrell.”

1982 Plant Fire Raises Suspicions

Perhaps the darkest chapter in the saga came Sept. 7, 1982, seven months after Issa took control of Steal Stopper.

Just before 3 a.m., a police officer spotted smoke billowing from Issa’s Quantum manufacturing plant in Maple Heights near Cleveland.

Before the blaze was brought under control three hours later, a firefighter was seriously injured.

Issa said he was “flabbergasted” that investigators immediately began asking him and his partner “where we had been the night before.” He told them he thought the fire began accidentally.

Investigators didn’t think so. Case files from Maple Heights, the Ohio fire marshal and insurers pointed repeatedly to the likelihood of arson in the blaze, which officials estimated caused $800,000 in damage.

Although an accident could not be ruled out, the uneven and unnatural burn patterns made the blaze “suspicious in nature,” the state concluded two months later. Flammable liquid appeared to have been poured on the only area not covered by fire sprinklers, investigators found.

Circumstantial evidence also aroused suspicion of arson.

Weeks before the fire, Issa and Hunsinger boosted their fire insurance from $100,000 to $462,000 on property stored for other companies, including Issa’s Steal Stoppers. At the same time, a separate company that contracted with Quantum to outfit bug zappers increased its insurance to $400,000, and, according to an insurance report, one investigator was “concerned about the coincidence.”

Fire investigators also noted that a computer was taken off the site eight days before the fire, “allegedly to be reprogrammed” by Issa’s lawyer, and that business blueprints were put away in a safe–which was “not previously done before.”

An unexplained note was typed at the bottom of a state fire marshal’s lab request: “RUSH–Have suspect or conspiracy.”

No one was charged. And with the two main investigators now deceased, fire officials say they do not know why.

“There was finger-pointing every which way,” recalled Issa, who sued when his insurance company contested his claim. He reached an out-of-court settlement that he said did not begin to cover his losses. But, he added, “that’s the breaks of the game.”

Shadowed by Controversy

Since then, most of the breaks have gone his way for a man who once told an interviewer he was “a recipient of all that was good of the greed of the 1980s.” But controversy has shadowed him.

Issa moved his alarm operation to San Diego County in 1985. Now he and his wife own Directed Electronics Inc., which bears his initials.

He has achieved both rising revenues–sales are expected to reach $100 million by the turn of the century–and rising stature among industry leaders.

“He’s a man with a vision, with core beliefs and a strong business savvy,” said Jonathan Thompson, vice president of the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Assn. “I would call him a hands-on industry leader, someone who’s willing to roll up his sleeves.”

Issa played a key role in developing tougher standards for alarm installers, and supporters say he has often been ahead of the curve in anticipating trends–such as his use of cheaper overseas manufacturing in Taiwan.

He has also proved aggressive in using courts to repel what he sees as threats to his empire, bringing dozens of claims in recent years over alleged patent infringements and illegal distribution of his products.

Issa has almost always prevailed, said one of his lawyers. “You’re going to go out and try to enforce your [patents],” said David Doyle. “Darrell has come to take all this very, very seriously.”

He recently won a total of $15 million in suits alleging that a Michigan alarm maker had purloined his technology. One of his few setbacks was a 1984 order banning his company from distributing a knockoff of the Club steering wheel lock.

Confrontation seems to have become a trademark for Issa.

Issa acknowledges that he has made enemies and says he has tried to learn from his sometimes poor choices of past associates. “We have gone out of our way to stay away from shady characters,” he said.

He challenges accusations against him as the bitter and baseless grumblings of failed entrepreneurs. “It’s sour grapes, period. But that’s business,” he said. “You tell me how I can sell a million products a year and not run into some of these [problems].”

One of his harshest critics is John Pleck, a New York businessman whose firm won more than $40,000 from Issa’s company in 1993 after saying that Issa denied him his share of the proceeds from a new car alarm product for BMW.

“As far as I’m concerned, Darrell is a confidence man,” Pleck said in an interview. “He always found a way to break his promise.”

No more complimentary is Bob Raines, Issa’s former partner during a short-lived corporate marriage in San Diego County. In 1985, Raines’ home alarm company, called Astro-Guard, acquired Issa’s company. Issa ran the merged operation as president, but he and Raines soon clashed over money. Raines maintains that Issa tried to run the company into the ground after Raines refused to sell out.

The two parted ways in a split that Issa described as “amicable.”

But Raines says now: “He’s a real operator. He’s so shrewd. I wouldn’t have any personal dealings with him again.” Raines said he survived the split only by selling off his boat and his motor home and spending $100,000 in retirement money.

Around the same time, Scotty Herd was forced to suddenly shut down his $4-million-a-year distributing company in Carson–a turn of events he blames on Issa.

The company, Black Bart, distributed security products from Astro-Guard in the mid-1980s. Herd said that Issa, as president of Astro-Guard, was negotiating an agreement to purchase Black Bart when he cut off shipments to the company, forcing it out of business.

“He was looking . . . to bring us to our knees and then just walk in and take over the company,” said Herd, a Beverly Hills real estate investor. “Except he didn’t take it over, he destroyed it.”

Issa, discussing the episode in a 1989 deposition in another dispute, maintained that he stopped shipping products to Black Bart because of its growing debts and bouncing checks, not because of any scheme to ruin the company.

Issa said that once Black Bart’s collapse was complete, he was quick to “strip off the majority of their sales people” and lobby their old clients for new business.

Issa saw the maneuver as simply “a way for everyone to benefit from the silver lining of a cloud.” Herd called it “picking over the bones.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Building of Issa’s Business

1980: Just out of the military, Issa buys into a struggling electronics company in Cleveland.

1982: A dispute over his $60,000 loan to an associate allows Issa to take control of auto security company in Cleveland. Months later, suspected arson fire rips through his manufacturing plant; no one is ever charged.

1985: Issa’s auto alarm company is bought out by a San Diego County home alarm maker. He moves to California to become president of the newly merged operation.

1986: Partnership ends after disagreements over money, and Issa creates his own California alarm maker, Directed Electronics Inc. The Viper, a fully customized alarm, is introduced.

1991: As its alarm sales climb, the company is named to a list of the 500 fastest-growing businesses in the United States.

1996: The company moves into the lucrative car audio market.

1997: Sales of more than $70 million for the year are reported, as Issa begins bid for the Senate.

IMPERIAL — Whenever the weather changes suddenly, or the skyline becomes shrouded in a windy haze, Fernanda Camarillo braces herself for an asthma attack.

Her condition has become more manageable, but the 27-year-old said it’s still scary when her chest tightens and she starts to wheeze. It was one of her first thoughts when she heard about plans to develop a massive data center next to her home in Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico that struggles with poor air quality.

“A lot of people in the county are asthmatic,” she said, explaining that she worries the new center would add more pollution. “I’ve been anxious — so many of us are voicing our concerns.”

Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly changing and expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence, or AI as it’s known. States and communities nationwide have started pushing back, citing concerns that the projects could strain power grids, increase utility bills and have negative health and environmental impacts.

In California, state legislators are debating how to protect residents and natural resources without creating so much red tape that developers go elsewhere, taking their jobs and taxable earnings with them.

No Data Center signs are posted in the front yard of a home that is right behind the proposed site.

“We can be supportive of innovation and a technology that is needed but also protect our communities and our health and our environment,” said state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). “We can do both at the same time.”

The California Legislature is considering bills to prohibit the projects from being exempted from the state’s stringent environmental law and to impose new tariffs on new major energy users that strain power supplies. Lawmakers also have proposed restrictions on new data centers, requiring companies to provide verifiable estimates on expected water and energy usage before they can be granted a business permit.

Imperial resident Fernanda Camarillo, who is an asthmatic, holds some of her medications.

Members of Congress also expressed concerns. Rep. Ro Khanna, speaking at a town hall about AI last month at Stanford University, said legislators must ensure data centers serve the communities that power them.

“We live in a new gilded age,” said Khanna (D-Fremont). “What kind of future are we going to build?”

::

Eric Masanet, a professor at UC Santa Barbara specializing in sustainability science for emerging technologies, described the facilities as the “brains” of the internet. The sprawling centers are filled with banks of specialized computers that process online shopping orders, stream movies, host websites, encode Zoom and other videoconferencing apps, store data and serve as switching stations for the digital world that’s now woven into daily life.

Data centers, particularly those that power AI, use significant amounts of water and energy. The facilities accounted for about 4.4% of the nation’s total electricity consumption in 2023, up from 1.9% in 2018, according to a report provided to Congress from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The researchers projected that figure will reach 6.7% to 12% by 2028.

Many companies, including big tech giants like Meta, Google and Amazon, are making major investments in AI.

“We are building a lot more data centers faster than we ever did — and a new AI data center is 10 to 20, maybe 30 times, the size of the largest data centers we had before,” Masanet said.

The proposed site of the 950,00-square-foot data center is on a dusty parcel that is next to the Victoria Ranch housing community and adjacent to farmland in Imperial, Calif.

It’s unclear how many data centers are in the state. A California Energy Commission spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times it does not track this information. Data Center Map, a nongovernmental website that tracks data centers across the world, lists 289 facilities in California, with more than 4,000 nationwide.

The federal government has, so far, largely left it to states or localities to regulate data centers.

The facilities can generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes.

But some new proposals are sparking a backlash. More than 200 community and environmental organizations, including a dozen from California, sent an open letter to Congress in December calling for a national moratorium on new data centers.

Robert Gould, a pathologist with San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, one of the organizations that signed the letter, explained data centers are causing a shift away from renewable energy and back toward fossil fuels because the facilities need a reliable and constant stream of power.

Cornell University researchers last year estimated that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030, unless steps are taken to change course.

Gould said fossil fuel emissions are associated with various cancers, an increase in hospitalizations for older adults due to respiratory conditions, and asthma attacks or stunted lung growth in children. Particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions is also linked to cardiovascular events and negative effects on maternal fetal health.

Gould’s organization has noticed an alarming trend.

“These are generally placed in communities that are the least able to defend themselves,” he said.

Farmworkers toil in the noon heat to pick vegetables in Imperial. Agriculture is an important part of the Imperial Valley economy.

::

The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California where a proposed center faces fierce opposition from residents.

The county in 2025 granted the project an exemption for the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. The landmark 56-year-old state law has been credited with helping to preserve California’s natural beauty and protecting communities from hazardous impacts of construction projects — but also blamed for stymieing construction.

Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, a California-based limited liability company that started two years ago, plans to develop a 950,000-square-foot facility in the county that’s designed for advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning operations. The company says it will use reclaimed wastewater and EPA-certified natural gas generators, and create 2,500 to 3,500 construction jobs and 100 to 200 permanent positions.

“We are committed to Imperial County and to creating lasting economic opportunity,” the company website states. “The project will generate $28.75 million in annual property tax revenue for local schools, fire departments, libraries, and essential services.”

The Imperial County Board of Supervisors is moving toward finalizing the proposal.

Farmland spreads out in front of the Imperial Valley Fair near a proposed data center in Imperial.

Sebastian Rucci, an attorney and chief executive officer of Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, said he commissioned multiple studies assessing the proposed center’s potential effect on issues like traffic or the environment that found no or minimal harms. He threatened to pull his proposal if a CEQA review was required.

“CEQA leaves you in an unknown territory — some of the environmental groups have used it for extortion, they sue, they have no basis for the suit but they delay you, and then they can squeeze money out of you for settling the lawsuit,” said Rucci.

The exemption, however, has alarmed residents, who have spoken up at county board meetings and launched a community organization, Not in My Backyard Imperial, to protest the data center and demand a CEQA review.

“It feels like it’s us against the county,” said Camarillo, adding that many feel the board has dismissed their questions and concerns.

None of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors responded to requests for comment.

Resident Fernanda Camarillo’s home is right behind the proposed site of the data center in Imperial.

The center would be a neighbor to Camarillo’s house in Victoria Ranch, a family-friendly area with beige stucco homes topped with terracotta tile roofs. She worries about noise, pollution and spiking utility bills. Power companies that have to upgrade grids to meet data centers’ energy demands sometimes seek to recoup that cost by hiking up rates for all consumers.

Camarillo, a substitute teacher, is also scared for her students. The air quality in Imperial Valley is already so poor that schools use a system of color-coded flags to signal whether it’s safe for children to go outside during gym or recess, she said.

“I think they see [the valley] as easy pickings because we are a low-income community and we have such a large population of Latinos here,” Camarillo said.

A quick drive around the neighborhood shows others share her concerns. Signs protesting the data center pop up throughout the community, displayed on front lawns or nestled into rocky garden beds.

Victoria Ranch was quiet and peaceful on a sunny Sunday in late February. Francisco Leal, a resident and lead organizer for NIMBY Imperial, said that’s a major part of its appeal.

The colorful dusk sky hovers over a Little League baseball game at Freddie White Park in Imperial. The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California.

Leal wants answers about everything from potential health hazards and impacts on the local water supply to whether the fire department is equipped to handle a large-scale electrical blaze. But without a CEQA review, he says residents are left to trust assurances from the developer or privately hired consultants.

Leal plans to sell his property if the project goes forward, but the thought makes him emotional.

“It’s not just a house; it’s a home,” he said. “This is the only home my kids have ever known and all of our family memories are here.”

Gina Snow, another resident, isn’t necessarily against bringing a data center to the county. But she wants the proposal to undergo a CEQA review.

“Clearly we understand that there is economic development and the potential for that to be positive for the county, but at what cost?” she said.

Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, stands on the site of the proposed data center.

::

Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, said the community has good reason to be wary. Various industries have come into the region over the years and made grand promises that never panned out.

“We became a sacrifice zone,” she said, adding industries use the area’s resources while ultimately doing little to permanently improve the lives of most residents.

Flores said the community continues to struggle with a range of problems, including poor air quality, high poverty rates, weak worker protections and crumbling infrastructure. She believes a data center could add new and potentially dangerous challenges.

The valley has long, brutal summers with temperatures that swell to 120 degrees. If the data center strains the grid and causes a lengthy blackout, or low-income residents have their power shut off because they can’t afford the rising bills, Flores fears the situation could quickly turn deadly.

The city of Imperial also has concerns. The city has filed a lawsuit calling on the county to halt the project, arguing it should not have received a CEQA exemption.

The controversy has drawn attention from Padilla, whose district includes Imperial Valley. Padilla has echoed residents’ calls for more transparency from the county and introduced Senate Bill 887, which would ban data centers from receiving exemptions from CEQA.

“I am not anti-data center or anti-artificial intelligence,” Padilla said. But, he added, we need to “find a way to do this right and make sure there is adequate review and understanding.”

A dusty haze settles over the city of Imperial at dusk near the site of a proposed data center.

Another measure from Padilla, Senate Bill 886, would direct the Public Utilities Commission to create an electrical corporation tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades.

Other related legislation this year includes Assembly Bill 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) that would require data center owners to provide an estimate about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license, and Assembly Bill 1577, by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), which would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption and energy efficiency.

While lawmakers weigh new policies at the statehouse, Camarillo said she hopes the priority will be protecting communities.

“Innovation is important, but innovation for the sake of innovation has never really been something that hasn’t had negative impacts,” she said. “Think about human lives.”

March 23 (UPI) — Senate Republicans have advanced the nomination of Sen. Markwayne Mullin for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, paving the way for his confirmation as early as Monday evening.

The Senate voted 54-37 Sunday afternoon to invoke cloture, clearing a procedural hurdle permitting a final vote on his confirmation.

The vote was mostly along party lines, with Democratic Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico joining their Republican colleagues in approving the motion.

Nine lawmakers, including eight Democrats, did not vote, including GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, who has been vocally opposed to Mullin’s confirmation.

Paul was the only Republican to vote against the Oklahoma senator when his committee voted last week to advance his nomination to the full Senate.

The Senate is expected to vote on his confirmation Monday night.

President Donald Trump nominated Mullin after firing Kristi Noem following months of controversy over her leadership of the department, especially after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis and a $220 million advertising contract.

Fetterman was among those who called for Noem’s firing, and said he was supportive of Mullin to lead the DHS.

He has said he approached Mullin’s confirmation “with an open mind.”

“My AYE is rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security,” he said.

Following Sunday’s vote, Heinrich issued a statement, similarly addressing the Oklahoma senator as “a friend” with whom he shares “a very honest and constructive working relationship.”

“We often disagree and when we do, we work to find whatever common ground we share,” he said.

“I have also seen first-hand that Markwayne is not someone who can simply be bullied into changing his views, and I look forward to having a secretary who doesn’t take their orders from Stephen Miller.”

Miller is Trump’s far-right Homeland Security adviser.

Mullin is likely to be confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate, despite opposition from Paul, who voted against him during last week’s committee hearing and did not vote on Sunday.

Paul confronted Mullin during the committee hearing over reportedly calling him “a freaking snake.” He also accused Mullin of lying when he told a reporter he had told Paul that he “completely” understood why a man had attacked him in late 2017, breaking five of his ribs.

“You got a chance today. You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record,” Paul said in his opening statement.

“You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified, so today, you’ll have your chance.”

When it was Mullin’s turn to give his opening statement he began by addressing Paul’s comments, stating that he had made the remarks while Paul was in the same room and that it was due to his behavior of seemingly going against hardline Republican policies.

“As far as my terms of a snake in the grass, I worked to try to fix problems. I’ve worked with many people in this room. It seems like you fight Republicans more than you work with us.”

March 23 (UPI) — President Donald Trump‘s border czar Tom Homan has confirmed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will be deployed to U.S. airports starting Monday, despite strong opposition from unions and Democrats.

Homan told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that he was working on the plan’s execution with acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and Transportation Security Administration Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill.

“So, we’ll put together a plan today and we’ll execute it tomorrow,” he said.

On Sunday, Trump threatened to send ICE agents to U.S. airports over a protracted fight with Democrats over Department of Homeland Security funding.

Funding for DHS lapsed Jan. 31 after Congress failed to pass legislation to keep the department open, with Democrats are demanding reforms in response to federal immigration agents deploying aggressive tactics during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The partial shutdown is affecting the TSA, which is under the DHS. Airports are reporting long lines and congestion due to a shortage in TSA staff, who haven’t been paid since DHS funding ran out.

Trump threatened on his Truth Social platform that ICE will perform security at airports where they will arrest undocumented migrants, raising questions about whether the agents are being sent only to relieve pressure on TSA or to carry out immigration enforcement at major travel hubs.

Homan on Sunday sought to frame the move as a way to alleviate congestion and move long lines of travelers though security.

Asked if ICE had the specialized training to inspect bags and passengers, Homan said he doesn’t expect the immigration agents to be ‘looking at an X-ray machine, because we’re not trained in that.”

“But there are certain parts of security that TSA is doing that we can move them from those jobs, and put them in the specialized jobs to help those lines,” he said, adding that discussions with the TSA concerning what security roles ICE agents would perform were ongoing.

“We will have a plan by the end of today … what airports we’re staring with and where we’re sending them,” he said, suggesting that the worst affected airport will be given priority.

“So it’s a work in progress, but we will be at airports tomorrow helping TSA move those lines along.”

He also confirmed that ICE agents will perform immigration enforcement at the airport, underscoring that their deployment is mainly to aid TSA.

Republicans have attempted to characterize the shutdown as Democrats prioritizing undocumented immigrants over airport security, while the Democrats have blamed Republicans for blocking more than half a dozen attempts to pass legislation to fund the TSA, including on Saturday. The GOP lawmakers say they want to fund the entirety of the DHS.

“Instead of sending ICE agents to harass travelers at airports, why don’t Republicans get their act together and agree to pay TSA workers like we’ve asked them to SEVEN TIMES now?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement on X on Sunday.

Vice President JD Vance accused Schumer of continuing “to hold TSA funding hostage.”

“Thankfully, ICE will bring sanity to our airports starting tomorrow, but it’s far past time for Democrats to fund DHS,” he said.

Following Homan’s interview, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., accused the Trump administration of using ICE “to strike fear and terror on our airports.”

“Mr. President, it’s pretty simple: if you want TSA agents to get paid (as they should), then pass the Democrats’ bill to fund TSA,” he said on X. “No need for your out-of-control paramilitary to do yet another thing they aren’t trained to do.”

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport has been informed it is among those where ICE agents will be deployed Monday, Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens said in a statement.

The agents will report to the TSA and will be assigned to line management and crowd control within domestic terminals, he said, adding that federal officials have indicated that they are not intended to conduct immigration enforcement activities.

“Our administration remains hopeful the Federal Government can soon find a way to fully fund TSA and pay their employees to resume standard operations at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport — and all airpots we connect to,” he said.

The deployment of ICE agents is also being lambasted by the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest government worker union in the United States.

It accused the Trump administration of sending ICE agents to do the jobs of the more than 50,000 TSA employees who have worked without pay for more than five weeks.

It also expressed worry that the ICE agents will be undertrained for what they may be required to do, arguing that stationing them at security checkpoints will create security risks.

“Our members at TSA have been showing up every day, without a paycheck, because they believe in the mission of keeping the flying public safe,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement.

“They deserve to be paid, not replaced by untrained, armed agents who have shown how dangerous they can be.”

The leaders of several flight attendant unions also criticized the Trump administration on Sunday for using the TSA and frontline security officers “as pawns in this dangerous game,” stating that the DHS can use its billions of dollars in discretionary funding to pay them.

“This latest threat of ICE invasion at the airports is another distraction from solutions that protect Americans,” the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 135 and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said in a joint statement.

PHILADELPHIA — George W. Bush and his campaign have enjoyed remarkable success synchronizing the message from everyone at the Republican National Convention this week.

Except his parents.

After maintaining a low profile all year, former President Bush and former First Lady Barbara Bush have been drawn into a pointed war of words with President Clinton–the man who ousted the elder Bush from the White House in 1992.

The confrontation, which escalated when Barbara Bush criticized Vice President Al Gore on Wednesday, worries many Republicans, who fear it will both distract from the convention’s velvet-glove feel and reinforce questions about whether the younger Bush would be this close to the presidency if his name was Smith.

“It plays into [the Democrats’] hands,” complained one Bush campaign insider about the feud. “It’s what they want: a distraction from a perfect convention.”

Indeed, Democrats have welcomed the controversy. “It reminds everybody . . . that Bush thinks the presidency is an office you can inherit,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew on Wednesday.

Karl Rove, Bush’s chief strategist, rejected the notion that the Bush family-Clinton tiff was interfering with the convention’s carefully scripted message of moderation and civility. “I think what’s more important . . . is that the vice president is such a weak candidate that he’s forced to rely upon a constant barrage of attacks launched by President Clinton,” Rove said. “I think people see it as inappropriate and it paints a picture of Al Gore as a weak candidate and a weak leader.”

She’s Skeptical Gore Can Restore Respect

Barbara Bush added fuel to the flap when, with her husband Wednesday on ABC-TV’s “Good Morning America,” she first inferred that Clinton had brought disrespect to the presidency, then said she was skeptical Gore could return respect to the office. “It would be very difficult, I think, with some of the things he’s done,” she said.

She did not elaborate.

The multi-generational battle–which before Barbara Bush’s comments had seen Clinton criticize the younger Bush and both the younger and elder Bush criticize Clinton–underscores the unique circumstance of this campaign. Only once before in American history has a president’s son also won the office. And that man, John Quincy Adams, ran 24 years after the term of his father, John Adams, had ended, long enough for the passions of his presidency to cool.

In contrast, the younger Bush is running at a time when the wounds of his father’s defeat are still open, especially among Republican activists who viewed Clinton as morally unfit for the office even before the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

But in both public and private, George W. Bush has always emphatically rejected suggestions that he has sought the White House to avenge his father’s defeat. And for most of the campaign, the younger Bush has been extremely sensitive to avoid the impression his presidency would amount to a restoration of his father’s.

Bush, for instance, hasn’t campaigned with his father since the former president referred to him at a New Hampshire rally as “this boy . . . of ours.”

Media Stir Debate on Father’s Influence

That arms-length relationship began to break down last week, when Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. As Defense secretary, Cheney had been an architect of the Persian Gulf War that marked the greatest triumph of the elder Bush’s presidency. And President Bush’s apparent backstage support for Cheney inspired a new wave of media discussion about his influence on his son’s campaign.

Clinton stirred the pot Friday at a Democratic fund-raiser in Rhode Island, where he suggested that Bush was running for president on minimal qualifications. Speaking as if he were Bush, Clinton said derisively, “I mean, how bad could I be? I’ve been governor of Texas; my daddy was president; I own a baseball team.”

Democratic insiders say Clinton may have turned on Bush in response to Bush’s own barbed comments that day on his inaugural campaign swing with Cheney. Bush described his running mate as “a solid man . . . a man who understands what the definition of ‘is’ is.” That was a reference to an often-ridiculed answer from Clinton during his 1998 grand jury testimony in the Lewinsky scandal.

Whatever the cause, Clinton’s comments drew sharp retorts from both the younger and elder Bush. The former president told NBC earlier this week: “I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’m going to wait a month. And then, you give a call. . . . And if he continues that, then I’m going to tell the nation what I think about him as a human being and a person.”

Since then, the elder Bush has studiously avoided further comments; he told Fox News on Wednesday that his son “probably wished I kept my mouth shut, but I haven’t heard from him yet.”

Some Bush campaign officials say the former president’s high personal popularity–recent polls found about two-thirds of Americans now have a favorable opinion of him–means there’s little risk in his increased visibility over the last few weeks. In any case, one senior Bush aide said that after this week, the parents will quickly recede into the background again.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — A statue of Christopher Columbus has been placed on the grounds of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, the latest effort by President Trump’s administration to recognize the controversial explorer.

The statue is a replica of one that was tossed into Baltimore’s harbor in 2020 during Trump’s first term at a time of nationwide protests against institutional racism.

Trump endorses a traditional view of Columbus as a leader of the 1492 mission seen as the unofficial beginning of European colonization in the Americas and the development of the modern economic and political order. In recent years, Columbus also has been recognized as a primary example of Western Europe’s conquest of the New World, its resources and its Native people.

“In this White House, Christopher Columbus is a hero, and President Trump will ensure he’s honored as such for generations to come,” the White House posted on X.

“We are delighted the statue has found a place where it can peacefully shine and be protected,” said John Pica, a Maryland lobbyist and president of the Italian American Organizations United, which owns the statue and agreed to lend it to the federal government for placement at or near the White House.

The statue, made mostly of marble, was created by Will Hemsley, a sculptor based in Centreville on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

The original statue was toppled by protesters July 4, 2020, and thrown into Baltimore’s Inner Harbor during the national social justice reckoning in the months after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. It was one of many statues of Columbus that were vandalized around the same time, with protesters saying the Italian explorer was responsible for the genocide and exploitation of Native peoples in the Americas.

In recent years, some people, institutions and government entities have displaced Columbus Day with the recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day. President Biden in 2021 became the first U.S. president to mark Indigenous Peoples Day with a proclamation.

Trump dismisses the shifting views on Columbus as the work of “left-wing arsonists,” bending history and twisting Americans’ collective memory. “I’m bringing Columbus Day back from the ashes,” he declared last April. Echoing his 2024 campaign rhetoric, he complained that “Democrats did everything possible to destroy Christopher Columbus, his reputation, and all of the Italians that love him so much.”

Witte writes for the Associated Press.

Gregoire headed a list uniting the traditional left, the Greens and the Communists to victory in French capital.

The Socialist Party’s Emmanuel Gregoire has won the Paris mayoral race, as the results of nationwide municipal elections showed gains for the traditional left and right, and a major win for the far right in the city of Nice.

Sunday’s run-off votes in more than 1,500 communes saw Gregoire on course to become mayor of the French capital, with exit polls showing that the far-right National Rally (RN) fell short of taking control of the key southern cities of Marseille and Toulon.

Gregoire, who headed a list uniting the traditional left, the Greens and the Communists, clinched the prized mayoralty with an estimated 51 to 53 percent of the vote, according to pollsters, seeing off Conservative rival Rachida Dati, who conceded defeat.

The 48-year-old son of a teacher and civil servant is stepping into the spotlight after previously serving as deputy to outgoing mayor and fellow Socialist Anne Hidalgo. During his bid, he had promised that Paris would stand as a “city of refuge” and a “bastion against the right and the far right”.

In Marseille, the second-largest city in the country, Socialist Mayor Benoit Payan was on track to be re-elected with 56.3 percent of the vote, according to an Elabe poll for BFM TV. RN’s chances of winning the coveted prize took a hit after the withdrawal of a hard-left candidate from France Unbowed (LFI) aimed at uniting left-wing voters.

Socialist Party chief Olivier Faure hailed the wins in Paris and Marseille, positioning his party as a bulwark against the far right. “Only the left can prevent France from this regression,” he said.

In Toulon, an Elebe poll showed centre-right candidate Josée Massi leading at 53.5 percent, with RN candidate Laure Lavalette conceding defeat. Yet, senior RN officials rejected suggestions that the party’s loss indicated it had hit a “glass ceiling” ahead of next year’s presidential election.

“The National Rally and its candidates have achieved tonight, in this municipal election, the biggest breakthrough in its entire history,” RN chief Jordan Bardella said, alluding to wins in local constituencies where it previously had no presence.

In the first round, Bardella’s anti-immigration party won re-election in the southern city of Perpignan, and it won in smaller cities, too. And on Sunday, exit polls indicated that Eric Ciotti, a former mainstream conservative who is now an ally of the RN, won in Nice, France’s fifth-biggest city.

Former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe was re-elected mayor in his northern city of Le Havre, according to the TF1 and LCI broadcasters, delivering a better-than-expected performance that boosts his hopes of running for president in 2027.

Philippe, a centre-right politician who served as prime minister under centrist President Emmanuel Macron, made a speech with a clear national message, saying his victory showed that “there were reasons to be hopeful” in the values of France and that the extremes can be beaten.

Turnout at 5pm local time (16:00 GMT) was just higher than 48 percent in France’s mainland, more than than in the 2020 vote held during the COVID-19 pandemic, but four points lower than in 2014, according to the Ministry of Interior.

HAVANA — Reggaeton boomed in a neighborhood bar in Old Havana on a recent night, when, suddenly, the music stopped and everything went dark.

The customers groaned. Another blackout.

A U.S. blockade on oil shipments to Cuba has plunged the island into its worst energy crisis in modern history. The country’s already cratering economy now teeters on the verge of collapse, with vehicles idled by a lack of gas, hospitals forced to cancel surgeries and millions living without a steady supply of electricity and water.

It is the result of a calculated pressure campaign by President Trump, whose administration is negotiating with Cuba’s leaders over the future of the communist-ruled Caribbean island.

People fed up with rolling blackouts have staged sporadic protests in recent days, banging pots and shouting slogans against the government, rare demonstrations in a country known for repressing dissent.

Some power outages hit isolated areas, but in recent weeks Cuba has experienced three island-wide blackouts. The most recent one struck Saturday night and continued into Sunday.

Two men sell food from a cart in front of the Kempinski hotel Friday night in Havana.

As Havana and Washington hash out a possible deal — which is likely to include some form of economic opening, and perhaps limited changes to Cuba’s leadership — many people here say they feel like pawns in a geopolitical game beyond their control.

Some, like those at the bar, who kept drinking in the dark after the power vanished, say they have little choice but to adjust to a life where flushing a toilet, cooking a pot of rice or riding a bus to work is now considered a luxury.

“The U.S. is trying to punish the Cuban government,” said one customer, named Rolando. “But it’s the people who are suffering.”

Cuba’s struggles long predate the oil embargo. For years, Cubans have complained of food shortages, crumbling public services and political repression. Demographers say Cuba is undergoing one of the world’s fastest population declines — a 25% drop in just four years — as birth rates fall and emigration soars.

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel blames “genocidal” economic, financial and trade restrictions imposed by the United States in the decades since Fidel Castro’s army toppled the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959.

1

2

1. Young people play dominoes in the streets of Old Havana. 2. A woman reacts to her granddaughter at a bar in Old Havana. (Natalia Favre/For The Times)

But many Cubans blame their own leaders for mismanaging the economy — and straying from the ideals of Castro’s revolution. They were raised to believe in an implicit social contract, which maintained that while Cubans might not have luxuries or be allowed all civil liberties, they would always have free education and healthcare, a place to sleep and enough to eat.

“The pact has failed,” said Juan Carlos Albizu-Campos Espiñeira, an economist at the Christian Center for Reflection and Dialogue in Havana.

He faults the government for soaring inflation and a misguided investment strategy that pumped money into the tourism industry while neglecting fundamental sectors like industry and healthcare.

“This is the worst moment in Cuba’s history,” he said. “But things were really bad before this.”

The Vedado neighborhood in Havana.

Life has long been challenging for Pablo Barrueto, 63, who works mornings at a construction site and now spends afternoons filling plastic jugs from a tap on the street and hauling them up narrow stairwells to neighbors who have been without water for weeks.

His two jobs barely enough cover food for him and his partner, Maribel Estrada, 55, who earns $5 monthly as a security guard at a state-run museum.

The pair, who live in a cramped studio apartment in a crumbling colonial-era building, can’t afford butter or mayonnaise, so breakfast is a piece of plain bread. Barrueto said he often goes to bed hungry. It has been years since he has tasted pork or beef.

“I work so hard,” said Barrueto, who on a recent afternoon was cooking beans in a pair of tattered jeans. “But I don’t see the fruits of my labor.”

Pablo Barrueto, center, fills water containers from a public tap after more than 17 days without running water.

Estrada has developed ulcers on her legs, but the doctor who prescribed her antibiotics said she wouldn’t be able to find them on the empty shelves of state-run pharmacies. On the black market, the medication was being sold for more than what Estrada makes in a month.

“If I lived in another country, my legs wouldn’t look like this,” she said, rolling up her pants to show the chronic sores on her calves.

Estrada said she was reaching a point where she would accept anything that would improve her life, even U.S. intervention.

“If things don’t get better, they should just hand over the country to Trump,” she said.

The U.S. has long played a major role in Cuban history, from its involvement in the island’s war of independence from Spain to the heavy hand of American companies in Cuba’s sugar industry. Washington repeatedly backed unpopular leaders who protected U.S. interests, including Batista, whose corrupt and repressive regime sparked support for the Cuban Revolution.

For decades, the island was celebrated by U.S. critics worldwide as a scrappy symbol of anti-imperialism and a utopic experiment in socialism. But in recent years, amid a government crackdown on dissent, some of that support has faded.

A man holds his ration book and cash while waiting to collect his daily bread in Havana.

The Trump administration’s bellicose new push to dominate Latin America with tariffs and military intervention has scared allies who in the past might have come to Cuba’s rescue.

Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, all led by leftists, have declined to provide emergency fuel shipments in recent months out of fear of angering Trump.

The current crisis was set in motion on Jan. 3, when the U.S. launched a surprise attack on Venezuela, killing 32 Cuban security guards stationed there — in addition to scores of Venezuelan troops and civilians — and capturing President Nicolás Maduro.

As the U.S. seized control of Venezuela’s oil industry, the impacts immediately rocked Cuba, which had long relied on subsidized oil shipments from Maduro’s regime.

Cuba’s leaders say the country has not received a single fuel shipment in three months, debilitating an economy that depends on oil to generate the electricity.

There is little relief in sight.

An employee of a MIPYME sells vegetables and other goods to a customer Friday in Havana.

A state-owned Russian oil tanker loaded with 750,000 barrels of crude is currently crossing the Atlantic. It’s unclear whether the U.S. will try to stop the ship from reaching Cuba, where the oil, once refined, could provide Havana with energy for several weeks.

At the same time, the “Nuestra América” humanitarian convoy is in the process of delivering more than 20 tons of critical supplies to Cuba, some of which will arrive by boat in the coming days.

David Adler, a general coordinator of Progressive International, a global leftist group that helped organize the flotilla, said he hoped the delivery of medicine, food, baby formula and solar panels would highlight the severity of Trump’s restrictions on Cuba.

“We’re beginning to come to grips with the fact that there will be mothers and children and elderly and sick people who will die simply as a result of this senseless and cruel and criminal policy,” Adler said. “Why are we inflicting such cruel punishment on a country that does not represent any threat to the United States?”

In Cuba, where many fear the prospect of no electricity come summer, with its muggy heat and swarms of disease-carrying mosquitoes, people are getting creative. With virtually no public transport and few drivers able to find — or afford — gas that costs more than $5 a gallon, many people have resumed riding bicycles. Others have fashioned electric-powered scooters into slow-moving taxis.

Young people talk in the street in central Havana.

One man in the small town of Aguacate made headlines after he modified his 1980 Fiat Polski to run on charcoal, the same fuel many people here are now cooking with.

Camila Hernández, who works at Havana’s airport, had hoped to celebrate her 21st birthday at home with friends, eating and dancing. “It would have been wonderful,” she said.

But it had been weeks without regular electricity in the home she shares with her parents and boyfriend. His family’s home had power — but lacked water.

To avoid yet another night sitting in the darkness, she marked her birthday by strolling to the Paseo del Prado, an iconic boulevard not far from the waterfront cooled by a light sea breeze.

Her boyfriend’s mother, Yusmary Salas, 47, said poor living conditions were testing her patience. “I can’t even go to the bathroom without planning how I will flush the toilet,” she said. She said she is hungry for change, but has no idea what shape it will take.

Trump insists he “can do whatever I want” in Cuba, and recently said he expects to have the “honor” of “taking Cuba in some form.”

Pablo Barrueto carries a water container up to his home in Old Havana.

Such talk rattles many here who grew up in a country where government buildings still bear the revolutionary motto: “Homeland or death, we will prevail.”

Salas said she hopes that whatever comes next is peaceful, and that Cubans, long a proud people, have their dignity restored. And their power restored, too.

At the darkened bar in Old Havana, workers scrambled to light candles and serve beer that, without refrigeration, would soon go warm. Someone with a battery-powered speaker hit “play” on a song, the 2004 Daddy Yankee hit “Gasolina.”

“Dáme más gasolina!” they sang together. “Give me more gasoline!”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy was supposed to start the year with a bang, fueled by a jump in tax refunds from President Trump’s tax cut legislation. But soaring gas prices are on track to eat up those refunds, leaving most Americans with little extra to spend.

“Next spring is projected to be the largest tax refund season of all time,” Trump boasted in a prime-time speech in December intended to address voter concerns about the economy and stubbornly high prices, though exaggerating the anticipated refunds.

But that was before the Iran war, which the U.S. and Israel began on Feb. 28. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed since then, with the nationwide average price of gas reaching $3.94 Sunday, up more than a dollar from a month earlier.

Gas prices are likely to remain elevated for some time, even if the war ends soon, because shipping and production have been disrupted and will take time to recover. Economists now expect slower growth this spring and for the year, as dollars that are spent on gas are less likely to be used for restaurants, new clothes or entertainment.

Lower- and middle-income households are likely to be hit particularly hard, because they receive smaller refunds and spend a greater proportion of their earnings on gas.

“The energy shock is to going to hit those who have the least cushion,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy at the left-leaning Groundwork Collaborative and a former economist in the Biden White House. “And it doesn’t look like those tax refunds are going to be here to save them.”

Neale Mahoney, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, calculates that gas prices could peak in May at $4.36 a gallon, based on oil price forecasts by Goldman Sachs, followed by slow declines for the rest of the year. The notion that gas prices decline much more slowly than they rise is so ingrained among economists that they refer to it as the “rocket and feathers” phenomenon — rising like a rocket before falling like a feather.

In that scenario, the average household would pay $740 more in gas this year, nearly equal to the $748 increase in refunds that the Tax Foundation has estimated the average household will receive.

Through March 6, refunds have risen by much less than that, according to Internal Revenue Service data: They have averaged $3,676, up $352 from $3,324 in 2025. Still, average refunds could rise as more complex returns are filed.

Other estimates show similar impacts. Economists at Oxford Economics, a consulting firm, estimate that if gas prices average $3.70 a gallon all year, it will cost consumers about $70 billion — more than the $60 billion in increased tax refunds.

The gas price spike comes with many consumers already in a precarious position, particularly compared with 2022, when gas prices also soared because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. At that time, many households still had fattened bank accounts from COVID-19 pandemic-era stimulus payments and companies were hiring rapidly and sharply lifting pay to attract workers.

Now, hiring is nearly at a standstill and Americans’ saving rate has steadily fallen in the last few years as many households borrow more to sustain their spending.

“When you start looking across the perspective from a consumer side, you’re seeing people who have maxed out their credit cards, are using ‘buy now, pay later’ to purchase their groceries,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation think tank. “They’re making it work for now, but that can fall apart quite quickly.”

The consequences are likely to worsen the “K-shaped” phenomenon in the U.S. economy, analysts said, in which higher-income households have fared better than lower-income households. The bottom 10% of earners spend nearly 4% of their incomes on gasoline, Pantheon Macroeconomics estimates, while the top 10% spend just 1.5%. The Trump tax breaks also benefited the wealthiest taxpayers most.

For now, most analysts still expect the U.S. economy to expand this year, even if more slowly, given the gas price shock. Higher gas prices will probably worsen inflation in the short run, and over time weaker spending will also slow growth.

American consumers and businesses have repeatedly shaken off shocks since the pandemic emergency — soaring inflation, rising interest rates, Trump’s tariffs — and continued to spend, defying concerns that the economy would tip into recession. Many economists note that the proportion of their incomes that Americans spend on gas and other energy has fallen significantly compared with a decade ago.

Data from the Bank of America Institute released Friday showed that spending on gas on the bank’s credit and debit cards shot 14.4% higher in the week ended March 14 compared with a year ago. Before the war, such spending was running 5% below the previous year, a benefit to consumers.

Spending on discretionary items — restaurants, electronics and travel — is still growing, the institute said, evidence of consumer resilience. But there is little sign it is accelerating, as many economists had hoped.

“The longer these gasoline prices persist, the more that will gradually sap consumer discretionary spending,” said David Tinsley, senior economist at the institute.

Other analysts expect growth will slow because of the war. Bernard Yaros and Michael Pearce, economists at Oxford Economics, forecast that the U.S. economy will grow just 1.9% this year, down from an earlier estimate of 2.5%.

“We had anticipated a lift in spending from a bumper tax refund season,” they wrote, “but the rise in gasoline prices, if sustained, would more than offset that boost.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

Nearly 600 immigrant children were held in a Texas family detention center in recent months without enough food, medical care or mental health services, as their time inside stretched beyond court-mandated limits, according to court documents.

Children and families held at the detention facility in Dilley, where 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father were sent this year, also faced virus outbreaks and lasting lockdowns in December and January, although the total number of children held there has fallen in recent weeks, according to the attorney reports and site visits.

The case of Liam, a preschooler who was wearing a blue bunny hat and Spider-Man backpack when he was picked up in Minnesota by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, stoked protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, including among detainees who gathered and held up signs in the yard behind the Dilley facility’s chain-link fences.

Last week about 85 children remained detained at the Dilley facility, but concerning conditions continued, said Mishan Wroe, directing attorney at the National Center for Youth Law, who visited in mid-March. In early February, a legal advocate for the children observed about 280 children.

The filings Friday cited numerous poignant cases, including that of a 13-year-old girl held at Dilley who tried to take her own life after staff withheld prescribed antidepressants and denied her request to join her mother, as reported by the Associated Press. The government reported there had been “no placements on suicide watch,” according to the filing. The AP obtained Dilley facility discharge documents that described a “suicide attempt by cutting of wrist” and “self-harm.”

The filings were submitted in a lawsuit launched in 1985 that led to the creation in 1997 of court-ordered supervision of standards and eventually established a 20-day limit in custody. The Trump administration seeks to end the Flores settlement, as it is known.

“For years, the Flores consent decree has been a tool of the left that is antithetical to the law and wastes valuable U.S. taxpayer funded resources,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. “Being in detention is a choice.”

Attorneys for detainees highlighted the government’s data showing longer custody times for immigrant children, and also cited worms in food and poor access to medical care or sufficient legal counsel as reported by families and monitors at federal facilities.

“Dilley remains a hellhole,” said Leecia Welch, the chief legal director at Children’s Rights, who visits the center regularly to ensure compliance. “Although the number of children has decreased, the suffering remains the same.”

The Homeland Security spokesperson said the Dilley facility is retrofitted for families, who receive basic necessities including adequate food and water while in detention, and the Trump administration is working to quickly deport detainees.

A report from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement showed that about 595 immigrant children were held in custody for more than the 20-day limit in December and January, with some stretching into months, per the court filings.

“Approximately 265 of these children were detained for more than 50 days and a shocking 55 children were detained more than 100 days,” the filings state.

That is up from a previous government disclosure late last year that showed that from August to September, 400 children had been held at the Dilley facility beyond the 20-day limit. Homeland Security did not respond to questions seeking comment on the data.

Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California is scheduled to hold a hearing on the case later this month.

Burke writes for the Associated Press.