politics

Millions of Ethiopians are heading to the polls for general elections on June 1.

The governing party of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who has consolidated power since he took office in 2018, says it is confident of victory.

Abiy’s government has faced years of turmoil and conflict. Despite that, it is portraying the vote as the next step on the path towards what it calls genuine democracy.

Critics and the opposition, however, argue that is unlikely because of Ethiopia’s ethnic and regional divisions. Some opposition parties have been excluded and violence is preventing voting in dozens of constituencies.

So, will the vote hold any significance?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Samuel Getachew – Journalist and commentator specialising in Ethiopian politics and security

Martin Plaut – Senior research fellow at King’s College London

Bizuneh Yimenu – Lecturer in comparative politics at Queen’s University Belfast who specialises in federalism.

RIVERSIDE — It would not have been an easy reelection bid in any case for freshman Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Riverside), who barely made it to Congress two years ago.

But now Calvert’s biggest reelection hurdle may be his own indiscretions, which also could pose a problem in surviving even his own party’s June primary.

The reason: After months of denying it, Calvert, 40, has admitted having sex in his car one night last November with a woman who police say is a known prostitute.

Initially, Calvert–a member of a prominent Riverside County family–said he was doing nothing wrong with the woman when police saw them together on a Corona street.

Corona police said simply that the congressman was spotted sitting in his car with a female, that there was no criminal activity and that after a few words the congressman drove off.

But the Riverside Press-Enterprise newspaper went to court to press Corona for release of confidential police reports that had been prepared by officers who were sensitive to the fact that they had a street-level encounter with their local congressman.

The city was ordered to release the report, which indicated that there had been evidence of a sex act under way, and an embarrassed Calvert responded with a prepared statement.

“My conduct that evening was inappropriate,” he said–not because it was illegal, but because “it violated the values of the person I strive to be.” He admitted that he was caught in “an extremely embarrassing situation.”

He said he did not pay for the sex. He said he “panicked and tried to drive away” when the officers confronted him, but “came to my senses” and cooperated with them.

Corona Police Capt. John Dalzell said Calvert was not detained or arrested because “while the officer saw certain things, he didn’t see everything necessary to support a finding that a crime was committed.” Dalzell said there was no witness to an exchange of money for services, and neither party claimed to be a victim.

Dalzell said Calvert did not try to exert influence to avoid arrest. He said the officer’s decision not to pursue the matter “wasn’t a close call. He didn’t even call for a supervisor.”

In his explanation for his conduct that night, Calvert said he had come back from a rough week in Washington and was reeling from his father’s suicide a year earlier, as well as his wife’s request for a divorce, which had been granted just a few weeks before.

“I was feeling intensely lonely,” he said. “I realize now that this, or a similar incident, was probably inevitable.”

Calvert, who worked in commercial real estate before his election to Congress in 1992, was expected to coast to his party’s nomination this year to represent western Riverside County in Washington. His opponent in the primary, conservative Joe Khoury, 47, a professor of finance at UC Riverside, ran second behind Calvert in the primary two years ago but thinks he can prevail this time.

“I thought he was vulnerable, even before this incident,” Khoury said. “Riverside is conservative, and voters’ reaction to this is not pleasant. It plays differently here than it would in, say, Los Angeles.”

Calvert’s campaign manager, Ed Slevin, agreed that Calvert will have his hands full winning the primary because of the Corona incident. “I assume he’s more vulnerable in June among conservative Republicans than he’ll be in November,” he said. “I think that, by then, it’ll be considered old news.”

If Calvert wins the primary, his Democratic challenger is expected to be Mark Takano, a high school history and English teacher and trustee of the Riverside Community College District. Takano lost to Calvert by a little more than 500 votes in 1992, and is expected to handily win his party’s nomination in June against a single challenger.

Takano scolded Calvert for not coming clean earlier about the Corona incident. “Mr. Calvert has only himself to blame for his becoming a bigger issue than putting people back to work, fighting crime and improving our schools,” Takano said.

Democratic Party strategists said that, even before Calvert’s encounter with the woman in Corona, the 43rd Congressional District seat had been targeted for turnover because of what they characterized as Calvert’s lackluster performance in Washington during his first stint there and his vulnerability back home.

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between the US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among Americans is increasingly fractured.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

The NDAA, which Congress passes annually to set military policy and authorise defence spending, will undergo further debate and amendments before becoming law. Some legislators have already signalled opposition, with Representative Thomas Massie saying he would seek to remove the provision if it reaches the House floor.

The measure remains at an early stage, but analysts say if passed, it would limit political oversight over the defence relationship.

Analysts added that it could mark a significant shift in the US-Israel relationship, moving beyond a model centred on American military aid towards deeper institutional integration between the two countries’ defence industries and militaries.

Critics argue that such a move would make support for Israel less a matter of political choice and more a structural feature of US national security policy, embedding the relationship within joint military and industrial programmes that would be difficult to unwind.

What does the proposal include?

Section 224 incorporates elements of the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act legislation introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. While the legislation did not advance as a standalone bill, key elements of it were instead folded into the NDAA.

The provision would require the US defence secretary to designate an official responsible for coordinating military cooperation between the two countries. According to the text, that official would be tasked with “synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The legislation envisages cooperation across a wide range of military technologies. It specifically identifies as priority areas; “counter-unmanned systems including aerial, maritime and ground platforms”, “anti-tunnelling and subterranean threats”, and “missile and air defence technologies”.

The proposal also seeks to deepen collaboration on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “directed energy and advanced sensing”, “cyber defence, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defence”.

The inclusion of “network integration” and “data fusion” has drawn particular attention because it suggests significantly closer integration of military information systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defence projects, including missile defence systems such as Iron Dome. However, analysts say that Section 224 would expand cooperation into nearly every major area of emerging military technology, and could create a “lock-in” between the two countries military infrastructure.

Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer, the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the proposal goes well beyond the traditional foundations of the US-Israel defence relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israel defence relationship has included US military aid and weapons transfers, joint missile defence programmes such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, and intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement increases cooperation to include a wider set of emerging technologies,” he said.

“So this all suggests a much tighter integration – less about provision and perhaps sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about jointly developing these.

“It would point to a more institutionalised relationship, and perhaps one that might survive changing administrations in the US, as some of the development cycles could be very long and would become entrenched,” he said.

Why is it controversial?

The proposal comes amid growing debate in the US over military support for Israel, particularly as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and concerns mount over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly raised concerns about Israeli military actions in Gaza, where despite a so-called ceasefire in place since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also advancing into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since the beginning of March.

These wars have led to increasing scepticism among Americans towards unconditional support for Israel, recent opinion polls suggest.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering military strikes against Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support continuing weapons transfers to Israel without additional restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop supplying weapons entirely, while 24 percent said military aid should be conditioned on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from parts of the Republican Party, which traditionally has always been aligned with Israel.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticised the proposal on social media, writing: “This is what complete capture to a foreign government looks like, and there hasn’t been a single shot fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, likewise pledged to introduce an amendment removing the provision from the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary elections last month, highlighting the financial and political influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US.

Influential conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson, has increasingly criticised US support for Israel, reflecting divisions within the broader MAGA movement. Criticism has also intensified among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.

What could it mean in practice?

Critics of the measures warn that the proposal could create a form of institutional “lock-in” that makes both countries simultaneously reliant on each other for military development and procurement.

Some analysts say such integration would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from highly visible aid votes or commercial contracting, and into the less transparent world of defence procurement and industrial partnerships at a state-to-state level.

Hilborne from the King’s College said the initiative could also have direct implications for Palestinians. “If joint R&D produces more effective technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various counter-drone or counter-missile technology would be improved, providing a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This enhanced integration would further embed US technology into Israeli forces. These would all be concerns from a Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where expanded co-production agreements could lead to new manufacturing facilities and defence jobs in the United States, creating a further reliance on Israel.

Hilborne also argued that deeper integration could reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel. “The deeper integration may also mean that the US loses some degree of leverage over Israel, as it would be less able to withhold certain capabilities from Israel,” he said.

“As a consequence, Israel might be emboldened in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond the US-Israel relationship, according to Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University. “The proposed US-Israeli defence integration can be seen as the next phase of the Abraham Accords: moving from normalisation toward a US-backed regional security regime centred on Israel as the dominant military and technological hub,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a framework would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, limit Turkiye’s independent regional influence and deepen security cooperation with Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it may translate into greater pressure to accommodate Israeli-led security arrangements as part of a broader emerging Middle Eastern order.”

Whether Section 224 survives the legislative process is uncertain.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many backed by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, are attempting to bind the two countries’ militaries closer together, creating long-term industrial links that future administrations may find difficult to reverse.

WASHINGTON — An upcoming celebration of the nation’s 250th anniversary, “The Great American State Fair,” recently had several musical guests back out, partly over the event’s ties to President Trump. Now, Trump himself is slated to headline the festivities.

“I understand Artists are getting ‘the yips’ having to do with their performance,” Trump posted on his social media platform Saturday. With a boastful and derisive flourish, he adding that he was thinking of bringing “the man who some say is the Greatest President in History (THE GOAT!), DONALD J. TRUMP, to take the place of these highly paid, Third Rate ‘Artists.’”

The group organizing the June fair on Washington’s National Mall, Freedom 250, confirmed the billing in a statement Saturday, writing, “We are excited to announce that President Trump will personally kick off this historic celebration on Wednesday, June 24.”

Danielle Alvarez, a spokesperson for Freedom 250, said the fair that is officially scheduled from June 25 through July 10 will feature exhibits, family friendly attractions, flyovers and musical performances — by those still remaining on the program.

Trump was dismissive of the acts that backed out, insulting them and suggesting in a follow-up post that the solution is to “Cancel it.”

“We should have a giant MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN RALLY, for 250, instead of having overpriced singers, who nobody wants to hear, whose music is boring, and yet who do nothing but complain,” he wrote.

Freedom 250 is billed as nonpartisan, but it was launched last year by Trump and is led by a former State Department appointee from the president’s first term. Several artists, including Bret Michaels, the Commodores and Martina McBride dropped out last week.

Michaels and other artists have said that they were misled about the theme of the shows or were otherwise wary of being caught up in a political fight. McBride, in a statement on Instagram, said she had been “presented with an opportunity to perform at a nonpartisan event but that turned out to be misleading.”

Other artists plan to attend, including Flo Rida, Fab Morvan of Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice. The latter’s representative previously said that the “Ice Ice Baby” rapper was “proud to help celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary!”

Bedayn and Binkley write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — David Johnston was a licensed attorney when he illegally entered the U.S. Capitol with a mob of President Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. More than five years later, the South Carolina man is offering to help fellow “J6ers” apply for payouts from the Trump administration’s nearly $1.8-billion fund for people claiming to be victims of a “weaponized” government.

He’ll do it for a 10% cut of any award, capped at $5,000 apiece.

“I think the narrative is changing” about how the history of that day is being told, Johnston said in a video he posted to social media. “I think good things are happening for us.”

Hundreds of Trump loyalists pleaded guilty to storming the Capitol, admitting under oath that they broke the law. Some were convicted of sedition, and many attacked police officers while trying to overturn Trump’s election loss. Now pardoned by Trump, many hope to capitalize on their crimes by tapping into the $1.776-billion settlement fund designed to compensate the president’s allies who claim they were politically prosecuted.

A bipartisan backlash to the fund and a legal roadblock have not dimmed the celebratory response from Jan. 6 rioters clamoring for a share of the taxpayer money. Some are staking claims even though the government has not established an application process and a judge has frozen the fund’s formation, at least temporarily.

Seeking payouts

The fund’s critics see it as another vehicle for Trump and his allies to whitewash the events of Jan. 6, retroactively justify the mob’s assault on a pillar of American democracy and reward some of Trump’s most loyal followers.

Jason Riddle, a military veteran from New Hampshire who was sentenced to 90 days behind bars after pleading guilty to riot charges, publicly rejected a pardon from Trump. Likewise, he said it would be “ridiculous” for him or any other Jan. 6 rioter to get government compensation.

“I’d love money, but I can’t accept that. That would bother me for the rest of my life,” he said. “We weren’t innocently persecuted just because of who we are or who we vote for. We were persecuted for committing criminal behavior in the Capitol of the United States.”

Plenty of other “J6ers” do not share Riddle’s reluctance.

A Florida man who posed for photos with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stolen lectern argued on social media that he deserves to be compensated for the cost of his infamy. A rioter from New Jersey described by prosecutors as a Nazi sympathizer hailed the fund as “good news not just for J6ers but all victims of weaponization.” A Texas man who received a seven-year prison sentence for storming the Capitol with a metal tomahawk celebrated the fund as “payback” for “victims of Biden’s tyranny,” referring to President Biden.

Oregon resident Pamela Hemphill, sentenced to 60 days in jail for her conviction, rejected a pardon from Trump but has drafted a written claim for compensation from the fund. Unlike scores of rioters who claim to be victims of a government weaponized by Democrats, Hemphill blames Trump for her legal troubles. Her claims letter says she is seeking $5 million in compensation.

“I wouldn’t have been through all of this if Trump hadn’t lied about the election being stolen,” she said during a telephone interview. “It’s a direct result of his lies that I was even there that day.”

Legal and political challenges

It is an open question whether anyone convicted of a Capitol riot-related crime could be eligible for payments from a fund created to resolve Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns.

Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche has not ruled out that possibility. Blanche said there are no limits on who can apply, but he noted that the fund’s five commissioners — all yet to be named — will decide who deserves to be compensated and why, based on factors such as “what the person did, his sentence, how much time he was in jail.”

“That’s up to the commissioners,” Blanche told the Associated Press on Thursday when asked about his position on whether violent Jan. 6 defendants should be eligible for payments.

“You have to define something and then stick to it. That’s something I’ve been hesitant to try to do, because it’s very fact-intensive,” Blanche said. ”Me sitting here and talking in hypotheticals is something that I don’t think is fair to the process.”

It is unclear whether Congress would block payments to Jan. 6 defendants. Senate Republicans who are angry about the settlement have said they want to place parameters on the fund as part of a Department of Homeland Security spending bill. They abruptly left town this month after a tense meeting with Blanche and will return Monday with the situation unresolved.

A federal judge in Virginia has frozen the fund’s establishment and temporarily blocked any processing or paying of claims. The judge issued that ruling Friday in one of at least three lawsuits challenging the fund.

Brendan Ballou, a former prosecutor who tried several Jan. 6 cases before leaving the Department of Justice last year, sued on behalf of two police officers who helped defend the Capitol from the mob. Ballou views the fund’s creation as part of a broader Trump campaign to undermine democratic institutions and rewrite the history of Jan. 6.

“And if the president is successful in that effort, if he’s able to get people to either forget or condone that day, he knows that he can get people to accept any attack on democracy,” Ballou said.

‘I want vengeance’

Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. More than 1,200 were convicted and sentenced before Trump issued mass pardons and ordered the dismissal of all pending Jan. 6 cases upon his return to the White House last year. Trump also freed far-right extremist group members who were imprisoned for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep Trump in office after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden.

The self-described “J6 community” isn’t the only pro-Trump constituency angling for cuts of the money after being charged with or convicted of crimes.

Meshawn Maddock, who was charged as being a fake elector for Trump in Michigan before a judge dismissed the case last year, said she and her husband, state Rep. Matt Maddock, “absolutely” plan on making a claim. She believes the fund’s use of taxpayer money is justified because it “paid for the prosecution and investigation of the years that I was being hunted down.”

“I want vengeance and I want retribution,” Maddock said.

Trump’s campaign to recast the violence of Jan. 6 as a peaceful protest seems to have emboldened many convicted rioters.

Johnston’s eagerness to help other Capitol rioters with claims contrasts with his remorse he expressed at his sentencing in 2022. He apologized for his “terrible lapse in judgment” before a judge sentenced him to three weeks in jail and three months of home detention. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespassing charge.

“It was a dumb, dumb thing to do,” Johnston told the judge. “I am 100% responsible for what I did that day.”

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jamie Stengle, Mary Claire Jalonick and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

In a typical midterm year, Donna Layne casts her ballot long before election day.

But this time around was different for the 75-year-old Democrat. Late-cycle controversies and fear of a “wasted vote” leading to a lockout for Democrats in the race for California governor meant she didn’t make her final decision until Friday.

California Democrats have been wringing their hands for weeks about who would emerge as front-runners in the crowded race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. The sudden departure of high-profile candidate Eric Swalwell amid sexual assault allegations and California’s jungle primary system, which sends the top two vote-getters to the November general election regardless of their party affiliation, added pressure for Democrats to coalesce around candidates who had the best chance of advancing.

“I was concerned,” Layne said as she slid her ballot into a drop box. “I wanted to make my ballot count and I was afraid that there might be two Republicans because they had been polling pretty high, so I wanted to be strategic about it.”

On Friday morning, voters — predominately Democrats like Layne — trickled into the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana to turn in their ballots. A few told The Times they frequently wait to vote until the days leading up to the election so they can watch all the debates and get the most up-to-date information about the candidates.

But most said they hung onto their ballots this year for far longer than usual.

As of Friday, 19% of California Republicans had already cast their ballot, compared with roughly 16% by the same time in the 2022 primary cycle, according to data from Political Data Inc.

An election worker separates ballots from vote by mail envelopes to be tallied at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Ballot Processing Center on Thursday in City of Industry.

(Gary Coronado/For The Times)

Meanwhile, only 14% of the state’s far-more-numerous registered Democrats have returned their ballots, down from 17% at this point in 2022. Only 29% of Democrats age 65 years and older — generally enthusiastic voters — had returned their ballots, down from 33% in 2022, data show.

But that doesn’t mean that Democrats will stay on the sidelines. Data show Democrats have started returning their ballots in earnest over the past several days, a trend that’s likely to continue through election day, said Paul Mitchell, the vice president of Political Data Inc.

“It’s the predominance of this fear that they’ve heard in the media — and that’s largely abated — that a Democrat won’t make it to the runoff,” Mitchell said. “In fact, there’s a growing sense that we could have two Democrats make the runoff, so that fear has — for the political class — gone away, but voters are still clinging to it.”

Democrat Xavier Becerra, the former Health and Human Services secretary, has risen steadily in recent polls, positioning him well to potentially advance to November. He was the leading candidate in a poll released Thursday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times, garnering support from 25% of likely California voters.

Former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, a front-runner in the race for governor, shares a light moment with supporters at the UFCW Local 1167 Union Hall in Bloomington, on Friday.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Slightly behind with support from 21% of likely state voters was Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator whom President Trump has endorsed. In third place with 19% support was another Democrat: Tom Steyer, a hedge fund founder and environmental activist.

With support increasing for Becerra, Hilton and Steyer since the last Berkeley IGS/Times poll in March, the survey provided the clearest indication yet that those candidates have separated themselves from the rest of the field.

Support for Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, the only other major Republican candidate in the race, dropped 5 percentage points from the March poll to last week’s, putting him in a distant fourth at 11%. Former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter saw her support drop by almost half to 7%. Other prominent Democrats — San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — were all in the low single digits, the poll found.

Republican candidate Steve Hilton speaks at a news conference outside the CIF State Track Championship in Clovis, where transgender athlete AB Hernandez will be was to compete Friday.

(Tomas Ovalle/For The Times)

Roughly a dozen registered Democrats interviewed by The Times said they cast their ballots last week for the person they thought would have the best chance of making it through the state’s jungle primary, even if it wasn’t their ideal candidate.

“I love Katie Porter,” said Connie Wadsley, 78. “I really do, but I just didn’t see her as being able to pull it off. I just don’t think society is ready for a woman governor as much as that pains me to say.”

In the end, Wadsley and her husband, Victor, cast their ballots for Steyer. Becerra, she said, is too much of a career politician for her liking, but Steyer impressed her with his promise not to take corporate money and his position on social justice issues.

“I think we need to shake things up in this state — in this nation,” she said. “Yeah, [Steyer] is a billionaire and I’m not really excited about that, but he truly seems to be spending his money on things that I feel are important.”

For some voters, the sheer volume of gubernatorial candidates — 61 in all — was off-putting. Some even organized gatherings with politically like-minded friends to discuss the best course of action.

“I think it was really overwhelming for a lot of people, especially when they got their ballot and saw all of those names,” said Linda Verraster, co-president of the Democratic Women of South Orange County. “There was this fear of making a mistake — air quotes — that would lead to two Republicans in the runoff.”

Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, left, and Gov. Gray Davis joke with each other as Davis shows Schwarzenegger the governor’s private office at the Capitol in Sacramento on Oct. 23, 2003.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press )

The race seems somewhat reminiscent of the 2003 recall election when 135 candidates vied to replace then-Gov. Gray Davis amid the state’s energy crisis. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, won decisively with roughly 48% of the vote.

But this race differs in a few key ways, experts say.

Mainly, while all of the top candidates have impressive resumes, there’s a lack of star power that could help propel someone to the forefront. Instead, Democrats “have an option of like moderate Dem to slightly less-moderate Dem,” said Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach.

“There’s a lot of people, but they occupy a very similar lane and I think that’s been a lot of the problem,” he said. “They’re loathe to really critique some of the foundational problems like a real ideological opponent would.”

Verraster put it even more simply: “There’s no unicorn.”

Still, she’ll be happy if either of the two Democratic front-runners — or both — make the ballot.

Ten years after Colombia’s landmark peace agreement, former president Juan Manuel Santos assesses its legacy. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate discusses renewed violence, political divisions and what Colombia’s experience can teach a world facing growing conflict.

In 1973, Tom Bradley became L.A.’s. first Black mayor by assembling Black, Jewish, white and Latino liberals into a coalition that ended decades of conservative white rule at City Hall.

Bradley’s election transformed Los Angeles politics and began what has been, for the most part, a 50-year reign of moderate Democrats. Year after year, the election map has changed, but liberal centrists have usually remained on top.

But as Mayor Karen Bass seeks reelection, she is struggling to unite her traditional base as she faces attacks from Democratic Socialists of America Councilwoman Nithya Raman on the left and Republican reality TV star Spencer Pratt on the right.

Some political experts in L.A. say mainstream Democrats are floundering as they try to patch together their coalitions in an era when poll after poll shows the city’s residents frustrated with the status quo.

“Overwhelmingly, Angelenos feel Los Angeles doesn’t work,” said Fernando Guerra, founding director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University. “You have this liberal regime that has dominated from ‘73 to ‘26 and it’s stagnant.”

Traditional voting patterns, political experts agree, are unraveling as L.A.’s mounting housing costs create new political fault lines in this city of 3.9 million. The devastating 2025 wildfires, along with enduring problems of homelessness, declining city infrastructure and traffic, have exacerbated discontent.

It’s still possible Bass can pull off reelection in the nonpartisan mayoral race and some coalition of centrist Democrats can survive. But the fact that she is unlikely to avoid a runoff when U.S. incumbents typically win at a 90% rate, Guerra said, shows that L.A.’s mainstream Democratic institutions are hollowing out.

“The problem is not Bass,” Guerra said, adding: “Any regime that lasts for that long begins to fall upon itself. … It stagnates and stops being innovative, and just becomes protective of the ingrained interests that have nurtured that coalition.”

Former L.A. Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa, Eric Garcetti and Richard Riordan.

(Los Angeles Times)

Republicans hope that Pratt’s social-media-fueled critique of L.A. leaders’ failures in emergency preparation and response after the fires and high spending on homeless programs can lead a new generation of conservative Angelenos to the polls.

Most political observers in L.A., however, are confident that the city’s future is not conservative.

The DSA, a decentralized anti-capitalist group, has made inroads in L.A. as it advocates for rental protections, defunding the police and a Green New Deal. Over the last six years, Angelenos have elected four DSA-backed City Council members and a DSA-recommended city controller.

“L.A. is clearly a city that is steadily moving to the left,” said Jim Newton, executive director of UCLA Blueprint magazine and a veteran political journalist who worked for the L.A. Times for 25 years.

“People are unhappy, but they’re not unhappy enough to vote for a Republican,” Guerra agreed. “They have been looking at the other alternatives: the Democratic Socialist party that is the challenge to the establishment.”

Some caution, however, that it is too early to map out Los Angeles’ political future.

Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Haynes Foundation and author of “Politics in Black and White: Race and Power in Los Angeles,” said sweeping generational changes are happening in L.A. politics.

“I think everything is up for grabs,” Sonenshein said, noting that he expected more competition for Latino and Asian voters, young voters and even older Democrats. “Certainly, younger voters are completely up for grabs. It’s just hard to know where they’re going to end up. … Small shifts in the primary can make a very big difference.”

L.A. rose as the Republican stronghold of California.

As a massive influx of white Midwesterners descended on L.A. after the 1885 opening of the Santa Fe railroad, conservative white civic leaders — including the owners of the L.A. Times — touted the city as the GOP counterpart to progressive, union-friendly San Francisco. Liberal Black and white Angelenos were shut out of citywide power.

The purpose of the Bradley coalition, Sonenshein said, was to “break open the stranglehold of a city establishment that was … unresponsive to the diversity of the community.”

Bradley, an even-keeled attorney and former police officer, was well positioned to bridge L.A.’s racial divides. As a police community relations officer, he had cultivated relationships with Jewish business owners. He was an early supporter of L.A.’s first Latino City Council member, Edward Roybal, and had already united Black and Jewish Angelenos in the 10th District as the city’s first Black City Council member.

L.A. City Councilman Tom Bradley and Mayor Sam Yorty in a TV studio just before the start of a debate during their 1973 campaign for mayor.

(Los Angeles Times)

After his 1973 win, as waves of new immigrants moved to L.A., Bradley brought more Latinos and Asian Americans into the fold. A conscious alliance of minority communities reelected Bradley, helping him become the longest-serving mayor in L.A. history.

But by the 1990s, frustration had swelled over L.A.’s crime, pollution and poverty. Bradley’s popularity plummeted after Black motorist Rodney King was brutally beaten by LAPD officers in 1991 and riots erupted across the city the next year when a largely white jury acquitted the officers. More than 60 people were killed.

As Bradley prepared to step down, Democrats struggled to find a successor who could unite liberal Black, white, Latino and Asian Angelenos.

Still, some were skeptical that Richard Riordan, a Republican venture capitalist, would win. Riordan was a moderate, easygoing philanthropist, Newton said, and Republicans at the time made up 30% of L.A.’s registered voters, double their number now. Even so, he noted, “there were people who thought this is just not what this city is, the city doesn’t need a multimillionaire white guy Republican.”

Voters thought differently. After securing the support of San Fernando Valley Republicans and Democratic centrists and making small inroads among Latinos, Riordan became the first Republican L.A. mayor elected in 36 years.

The Bradley coalition was “a spent force,” Sonenshein said. “But new players were emerging in prominent roles, working to forge new types of alliances and, at times, temporary coalitions.”

When California voters in 1994 passed the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, which barred undocumented immigrants from receiving many public services, Latino participation in L.A. politics surged. Asian Americans also began to rise.

But after Bradley, there was no single Democratic coalition in the city.

When Antonio Villaraigosa challenged James Hahn in 2001 and 2005, Sonenshein said, Hahn drew support from the Black community and the Valley, Villaraigosa from Latinos and liberals. When Eric Garcetti defeated Wendy Greuel in 2013, Greuel had strong support in Black South L.A., but Garcetti managed to win with the white and Latino vote.

“People have to piece it together, because the Democrats have such a larger edge in L.A. than they did in Bradley’s age,” he said. “It’s almost a kind of entrepreneurial thing: You’ve got to go out and build a majority each time, and those alliances shift.”

There were still challenges from the right. But in 2022, when billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso ran against Bass on a centrist law-and-order platform, he switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic. Some saw that as a recognition that a Republican could not win in L.A.

Bass defeated Caruso by nearly 10 percentage points.

Like Bradley, Bass is a pragmatic politician with a long record of forging relationships behind the scenes.

In the 1990s, she founded the grassroots Community Coalition to combat the public health crises that plagued South L.A. amid the crack-cocaine epidemic.

But as Bass presides over a City Hall that is almost entirely dominated by Democrats, discontent is spreading. Polls show a substantial portion of the electorate views her unfavorably because of her handling of the Palisades fire.

Guerra said the lack of affordable housing had created a unique moment: Even after the King riots, the Northridge earthquake and the O.J. Simpson trial, he said, Angelenos were still invested in living in the city.

“You could still buy a home. You could still see yourself nurturing L.A., but also L.A. nurturing you,” Guerra said.

For Guerra, centrist Democrats have been so successful at inclusion they have struggled to identify priorities.

“There are too many members of the coalition and there are too many of the members who have veto power, which then leads to paralysis,” Guerra said. “The paralysis is what’s led to the lack of innovation, the failure to pursue policies that make sense for the greater good.”

The dysfunction, he said, is particularly clear on housing.

“Every NIMBY in every neighborhood, in every council district, is like, ‘We want housing, but not here,’” Guerra said. “That, replicated everywhere, leads to paralysis and no housing.”

It has also led to renters becoming a rising political constituency — a big shift from the Bradley era, when homeowners were the city’s dominant voters.

But that doesn’t mean working-class Angelenos have a bigger voice now in L.A. politics. Instead, the middle class is splintering along generational lines.

“Middle-class young folks graduating from college, who have extraordinary amounts of debt, cannot buy homes,” said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. “The city still has issues with food insecurity and low-wage worker protections, but those are not the issues dominating anymore.”

While L.A. Democrats have long focused on assembling coalitions of Black, Latino, Asian American and other minority activists, Sadhwani said, what was often not spoken about was the role of the city’s “nonprofit industrial complex.”

“Nonprofits have a huge role,” she said, noting that Bass came of that world. “Their politics are shifting.” Before 2020, she said, progressives focused on racial justice, immigration reform, and creating an economy that respects the work of immigrants; now, the focus is largely on homelessness and policing.

“What it means to be a progressive today,” Sadhwani said, “is actually quite different from what it was to be a progressive even just five years ago.”

Even as L.A. is clearly still a Democratic stronghold, Republicans say there are signs that some Angelenos are not in lockstep with liberal activists.

Donald Trump’s share of the vote in L.A. in the last three presidential elections, they note, climbed from 16% in 2016 to 21% in 2020 and 27% in 2024. And there is evidence that voters, at least at the county level, are questioning some criminal justice reforms.

In 2024, L.A. County voters ousted progressive incumbent Dist. Atty. George Gascón, who eliminated cash bail for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies and championed rehabilitation over punitive sentencing. A majority of county voters also backed Proposition 36, allowing stiffer penalties for crimes of repeat theft and possession of hard drugs.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, pictured here on the cover of Newsweek, helped reshape the city’s Democratic coalition

(David McNew / Getty Images)

With Republicans making up about 15% of L.A.’s registered voters, Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist, said Pratt might win enough independent voters and disaffected Democrats to make it past the primary. But he would then struggle to get more than 50% in the runoff.

“The math just isn’t there, but in addition to that it’s the stink of Trump,” Stutzman said. “The tribal politics of today make a Republican victory in L.A. very difficult.”

Raman stunned L.A.’s political establishment in 2020 when she was elected L.A.’s first DSA-backed City Council member.

As she runs for mayor, the Los Angeles chapter of the DSA hopes to expand its power as it endorses a new slate of 2026 candidates for City Council, city attorney and L.A. school board.

Richard Riordan, the last elected Republican mayor of Los Angeles.

(Los Angeles Times)

Raman is clearly betting that a big, viable part of the electorate is to Bass’ left, Newton said.

The DSA, Newton said, had done a good job in recent years of identifying renters’ interests and advancing them to usher in a “newer, younger, probably more progressive edge to the city’s politics.”

But so far, Raman, who has aligned herself with the DSA on issues such as renter protections but deviated on police spending, is struggling to unite the organization.

The Harvard and MIT graduate caught the DSA and her fellow City Council members off guard when she entered the mayoral race just before the filing deadline.

In March, the L.A. chapter of the DSA announced it would recommend Raman for mayor, but not formally endorse her. This month, a trio of her fellow DSA-backed City Council members endorsed Bass.

After building momentum, the DSA’s failure to rally around a 2026 mayoral candidate could hurt the movement for several election cycles, Guerra said.

“This dissension is setting them back,“ Guerra said. “They really do have an opportunity to elect a DSA mayor.”

Bass has seized on Raman’s lack of support in City Hall to critique her coalition-building skills.

“If you want to be the mayor and you can’t get along with people who are your colleagues on council,” Bass said recently, “I don’t know how you’re supposed to govern at all.”

In the end, the outcome of L.A.’s mayoral race may not depend so much on Bass’ ability to inspire her traditional Democratic coalition. The question is whether a new generation can find a way to represent a mass of Angelenos with bold new visions and coalitions of their own.

Xavier Becerra has spent nearly four decades in elected office. To some that speaks of extensive experience and a deep grounding in policy. To others, it smacks of political careerism and a long-term investment in the failed status quo.

Wired or tired?

It all depends on your perspective.

Becerra, a California native, emerged from the hothouse of Latino politics on Los Angeles’ Eastside. He was elected to the state Assembly in 1990, served 12 terms in Congress, was California attorney general and then, for nearly four years, ran the Department of Health and Human Services under President Biden.

It’s that latter stint that’s become a particular focus in the final days of California’s long and winding gubernatorial primary.

As Becerra surged from inconsequence to front-runner, opponents — led by chief Democratic rival Tom Steyer — have hammered Becerra’s performance in the Biden administration, suggesting he was AWOL during the COVID-19 pandemic and inept in his handling of unaccompanied migrant children, 85,000 of whom were supposedly “lost” on Becerra’s watch.

Politics is about persuasion and emotion, not rocket telemetry, so it’s not hard to figure out what’s going on.

“You look at Xavier and he seems to be perceived as a thoughtful, credible, trustworthy choice. That’s what I hear when I talk to regular people who aren’t political insiders,” said Darry Sragow, a Democrat strategist who’s spent decades running California campaigns. “So you see the people who want to take him out going after one of the words I just used here, which is ‘trustworthy’ and, to some extent, ‘credible.’”

A recent Steyer mail piece — which, naturally, features a grim-faced portrait of Becerra — accuses him of “mismanagement,” “scandal” and “incompetence,” and cites a 2024 quote from Susan Rice, a former Biden domestic policy advisor, describing the ex-Cabinet member as an “idiot.” (Apparently “bitch-a—,” another Rice epithet from the same Axios news report, was deemed unsuitable.)

The mail piece also quotes Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokesperson in the Biden administration, saying Becerra “was not effective in government,” though several people who worked in the White House could not think of any occasion, or any reason, Hinojosa would have meaningfully interacted with Becerra.

Pretty weak sauce. But at least Hinojosa, who delivered her gibe on one of CNN’s talking-head shows, was willing to publicly attach herself to the criticism.

Six former Biden administration officials were quoted by Politico “reacting with a mix of incredulity, mockery and resignation” to Becerra’s sudden ascendance in the governor’s race. Critics also unloaded to NBC News and other outlets. All of them spoke anonymously.

Therefore, it’s impossible to discern their motivations. Jealousy? Ego? An attempt to stay politically relevant?

Or maybe Becerra was, indeed, a feckless, flailing and thoroughly awful Cabinet member, deserving of scorn and shame.

Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff during the first two years of his presidency, doesn’t believe so.

“I think he did an excellent job as HHS secretary and I think the record shows that,” Klain said, citing, among other accomplishments, Becerra’s work helping negotiate a drop in the price of prescription drugs and expanding healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

On COVID-19, Becerra “wasn’t confirmed until several months into the Biden administration. Dr. [Anthony] Fauci had been on the job and was quite a well-known figure to Americans. So, of course, he became more the face of the COVID response.”

“On immigration,” Klain went on. “Xavier’s part was small and discreet. He wasn’t the secretary of Homeland Security. He didn’t run the border. He oversaw an office called the Office of Refugee Resettlement” responsible for processing children who crossed the border alone. “I was in meetings where he was a passionate and forceful advocate for these minors,” Klain said.

Still, there are legitimate questions, notwithstanding Becerra’s deflections — Trump! MAGA! Trump! — about his handling of the migrant children, some of whom died, suffered horrible abuse or were catastrophically injured, according to revelatory reporting by the New York Times. It’s worth noting, however, that Becerra inherited a plan to deal with unaccompanied minors that was drafted and phased in by Rice and her Domestic Policy Council.

There is an unhappy history between the two; apparently Becerra was not alone in drawing Rice’s ire. In 2022, an article in the American Prospect accused her of creating an “abusive and dehumanizing workplace,” in which Rice routinely berated others, including the Health and Human Services secretary.

On social media, Rice has made no secret of her continued contempt for Becerra, a display that carries no small whiff of ax-grinding and score-settling. She highlighted the refusal of Biden’s Homeland Security chief, Alejandro Mayorkas, to endorse Becerra in the governor’s race, though it would be surprising if Mayorkas, Biden, Kamala Harris or any high-level Democrat picked a favorite in such a fiercely contested primary.

Becerra “had big things to do and he got them done,” said Neera Tanden, who succeeded Rice as head of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council and has vigorously defended Becerra against attacks on social media.

“I am not on or coordinating with the Becerra campaign,” Tanden said. “I just know these attacks are ridiculous.”

If Becerra makes it past Tuesday’s primary to the November runoff, his career merits careful scrutiny — and not just those years spent in the Biden Cabinet. Many voters are still getting to know Becerra, who is the likeliest candidate to be California’s next governor. Anonymous quotes, drive-by commentary and incendiary mailers may be standard campaign fare. But voters deserve better.

WASHINGTON — Democrats have spent nearly two years trying to move past the 2024 presidential election. Now, Jill Biden’s new memoir is forcing them to relive it.

Her new book, “View from the East Wing,” which comes out Tuesday, is already drawing sharp rebukes from top Democrats, some of whom say it is a poorly timed and misleading account of the events that led to the demise of her husband’s presidency.

“Unhelpful … Ripping open a healing scab is never helpful,” John Morgan, a Florida trial attorney who was a major fundraiser for Biden’s 2024 campaign, told The Times. “In my opinion, she was the main problem. She loved the life and didn’t want it to end.”

Those type of frustrations erupted last week as the former first lady began promoting her book, including in a sit-down interview with CBS News airing Sunday, in which she said she thought the sitting president was having a stroke as she watched the 2024 presidential debate.

“I was frightened, because I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since. Never,” Biden said. The moment “scared me to death,” she added.

For Democrats who had a similar reaction in real time, but who spent months being told by the Biden campaign that their concerns were overblown, her remarks landed like a gut punch. With the midterms around the corner, some bemoaned that Biden was relitigating a sore subject — particularly the question of who knew what about Biden’s aging and cognitive decline.

“What I care about is what happens going forward,” Dan Pfeiffer, a host of “Pod Save America,” a popular progressive podcast, said on the show Thursday. “What bothers me the most is not the timeline of events, but whether Democratic leaders now will ever reckon with the massive breach of trust that came because of how all of that was handled.”

Meghan Hays, a former White House aide to Joe Biden, said on C-SPAN’s “Ceasefire” that although she understands that Jill Biden is trying to sell books, her efforts are not helping the party ahead of the midterm elections.

“We have a lot of momentum in our favor … and when we get pulled back into conversations about age and the election in ‘24, it’s never gonna be a good place for Democrats,” Hays said. “I think it is a tough place to be.”

The Democratic Party found itself trapped in a similar dynamic earlier this month, when the Democratic National Committee released a long-awaited, 192-page report dissecting the 2024 loss. The committee’s chairman, Ken Martin, shared the postelection autopsy after coming under intense pressure from Democratic operatives, and apologized for how he handled its release.

The report faulted Kamala Harris and Democrats’ focus on “identity politics” but did not address Biden’s decision to seek reelection amid health concerns and the rushed selection of Harris to replace him on the ticket.

In her book, the former first lady writes that her goal is to be able to “set the record straight” about what happened during the debate and the months that followed that led to President Trump’s return to the White House, according to the Atlantic, which obtained a copy of the book ahead of its release.

At one point, she writes that she even suspected her husband may have been inadvertently impaired after taking cough syrup. In the CBS interview, Biden maintained that she never saw any signs of cognitive decline while he was the sitting president.

“He was the same, the essence of the same Joe Biden, but yeah, he was slowing down. He was getting older,” she said. “You know, it’s a very intense job. I think it ages you — quickly.”

Morgan, the former Biden fundraiser, said he does not believe the first lady is telling the truth in her memoir.

“If you like fiction it’s good,” Morgan said. He added that her claim that she had never witnessed her husband act in a similar way since the debate “defies the smell test.”

“His keys should have been taken long before that night,” Morgan said.

Michael LaRosa, a former press secretary for the first lady, called Democrats’ reaction to the new memoir “pretty grim.”

“There is a deep reservoir of frustration among ‘formers’ who believe she enables the culture around her and the President rather than challenging it,” LaRosa wrote. “So now they seem to be challenging her.”

Although many Democrats are publicly expressing their annoyance at the conversation Biden has resurfaced, others do not see the former first lady’s comments having an effect on the upcoming elections.

“This is not going to be part of a conversation in the election. It’s going to be part of a conversation in Washington because that is what Washington does, but this is not going to move the needle in New Hampshire or other states where it matters,” said Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist who ran a pro-Biden super PAC during the 2020 election cycle.

Schale was blunt: “She is selling books.”

Even if that is the case, Republicans are taking notice.

In a Truth Social post on Friday, President Trump appeared gleeful to note that Biden was “finally admitting” that she did not know what was wrong with her husband during “our spectacular, and highly rated, 2024 Presidential Debate.”

The president lamented that the former first lady did not compliment his performance.

“In other words, as many have asked, did my strong performance in that debate cause him to plain and simple ‘choke,’ leading to his ignominious defeat, or were other reasons the cause? Nobody else knows the answer to that, BUT I DO!!!” Trump wrote.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court heads into the final month of its yearly term facing decisions on birthright citizenship, gun rights, transgender athletes and President Trump’s power over independent agencies.

Unlike in years past, the term’s most significant rulings were not left for the last week in June.

The court dealt Trump a major defeat in February by striking down his sweeping worldwide tariffs. The president is likely to suffer a second defeat when the justices reject his plan to revise the citizenship laws via an executive order.

Republicans won when the court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that favored a Black Democrat.

That decision has already shifted several congressional districts toward the GOP, but its greatest impact will be seen in 2028 and 2030.

Republicans are likely to prevail in two other pending cases.

One would free party committees to raise and spend more money to support their candidates. A second would change state laws to bar counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day.

The justices have 26 cases waiting to be decided before they go on a summer recess. Here are the major cases due for decision:

Trump and birthright citizenship

Does the 14th Amendment of 1868 mean what it says about who is a citizen?

It declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

The Supreme Court upheld that understanding in 1898, ruling that Wong Kim Ark, who was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen at birth. Congress adopted birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1940 and 1952.

But on his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order to deny citizenship to the newborns of parents who in the country unlawfully or temporarily on a student, work or tourist visa.

Judges blocked the order from taking effect, and in April, the justices gave a skeptical hearing to Trump’s lawyers as the president sat in the gallery.

The best outcome for Trump would be a ruling that rejects his executive order based on U.S. immigration law alone. Although a defeat, that could in theory permit Congress to revise the law and deny citizenship to the newborns of so-called “birth tourists.” (Trump vs. Barbara)

Guns and drugs

Can the government make it a crime for “habitual users of unlawful drugs” to have a gun, or does that violate 2nd Amendment rights?

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Texas case struck down this provision as unconstitutional, except for someone who is “under an impairing influence” of drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Trump administration appealed and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law against “habitual users of unlawful drugs,” including regular users of marijuana. (U.S. vs. Hemani)

In a second gun rights case, the court will decide whether Hawaii, California and three other states led by Democrats may forbid licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm into stores or private businesses open to the public unless they have the “express authorization” of the owners. (Wolford vs. Lopez)

Transgender athletes and school sports

Can states maintain separate sports teams for boys and girls “based on biological sex determined at birth” or does excluding transgender girls violate the Title IX law or the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

The justices heard appeals from West Virginia and Idaho after lower courts ruled they had discriminated against transgender girls, and most of them sounded ready to rule for the states.

The only question was whether the court will rule narrowly to uphold laws in the red states or go further to decide how Title IX applies nationwide. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. and Little vs. Hecox)

Trump and independent agencies

Can the president fire the leaders of special agencies who were given a fixed term by Congress?

For most of American history, Congress created new boards or commissions with a specific mission, such as regulating railroad rates in the 1880s or nuclear power in the 1970s. By law, these agencies are led by a bipartisan board of experts who had a fixed term and could be fired only for cause.

But Trump and the court’s conservatives believe the president has the executive authority to control the government and to fire agency officials — but with one exception. The majority wants to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. (Trump vs. Slaughter)

Separately, the court will rule on whether Trump had the power to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause. He alleged she engaged in mortgage fraud and dismissed her in a social media post. The justices blocked her removal and sounded ready to rule she deserved due process of law and a full hearing to contest the allegations. (Trump vs. Cook)

Temporary Protected Status

Can the Trump administration cancel legal protection for more than 300,000 Haitians and Syrians who are living and working in this country?

In 1990, Congress created this protected status for foreign nationals who could not return home safely because of armed conflicts or natural disasters.

The Obama administration extended protection to Haitians and Syrians. Last year, Trump’s then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to terminate it, but judges blocked her orders because it was still dangerous and unsafe in those countries.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued the law forbids “judicial review” of these executive decisions. (Mullin vs. Doe)

Campaign funds and political parties

Do the 50-year-old limits on how much political party committees can raise and spend to directly support their candidates violate the 1st Amendment?

During the Watergate era, Congress adopted limits on money in political campaigns, but the court has struck down the spending limits on free speech grounds. Left standing were the limits on direct contributions to candidates, including from political parties.

Republicans led by then-Sen. JD Vance sued, arguing the party limits were outdated and unwise in an era when super PACs are free to spend huge sums on campaigns. (National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC)

The court also will rule on the GOP’s bid to strike down laws in California and most states that allow for counting mail ballots that were postmarked by election day but arrive a few days later. (Watson vs. Republican National Committee)

WASHINGTON — Mired in a persistent cost of living crisis and an unpopular war with Iran, President Trump reached a perilous milestone last week, registering an approval rating of 34% in a top-tier poll — a record low less than halfway through his second term.

The results mark one of the sharpest polling collapses of any modern president. The data, from the Economist and YouGov, brings Trump back down to his political nadir, matching a number he hasn’t seen since the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack five years ago.

It follows on several other surveys published in recent days showing the president entering precarious political territory roughly six months ahead of the midterm elections, raising alarm bells in Republican campaign offices across the country over the party’s prospects in the fall.

It has also led pollsters to question long-standing assumptions about the president’s floor of support, wondering whether it is at risk of giving way.

“It’s harder to get lower, but it’s possible depending on what he does,” said Christopher Wlezien, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. “To get that number down, you are going to have to eat into his core.”

Trump’s base of support remains strong, reinforcing a long-standing theory among pollsters that partisanship now serves as a direct proxy for presidential approval. But softening Republican support on specific policy matters — including top voter priorities, such as the economy — have begun raising questions among experts whether further erosion is possible.

A New York Times poll found his approval at 38%, and a Politico poll recorded a similar erosion, driven by a majority of Americans — including 18% of Trump supporters — stating they are financially worse off than they were before he resumed office.

Roughly 2 out of 3 Americans oppose the war Trump started with Iran. And the coalition that swept him back into office — including a surge in support from Latino, independent and young voters — has effectively disappeared.

While the downward trend looks like a story of a presidency in perpetual trouble, political scientists see a more complicated picture.

“Polarization has raised the floor and lowered the ceiling for approval ratings,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston. “Dramatic swings are less common because approval ratings are now fixed to partisanship.”

The comparison to George W. Bush, whose numbers famously soared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and cratered into the mid-20s after Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war, is instructive of how polarization has changed in the Trump era.

Bush governed in a country capable of moving together, in favor or against a president, in response to major events. Americans are no longer swayed in that way when it comes to their views of the president, Rottinghaus argues.

“Approval ratings today are increasingly a measure of who the president is rather than what the president does,” he said.

Trump, in his own way, has seemed to nod at this dynamic. When challenged on his standing with the public, or when a Republican lawmaker breaks with him over a policy issue, he has made the argument that he and the MAGA movement are inseparable. In other words, that opposition to any decision he makes is opposition to the movement itself.

“MAGA is me. MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do,” Trump said in a January interview with NBC News when asked if his base supports long-term military interventions abroad.

Rottinghaus compared the questions about presidential approval as the “same as asking whether you’re Republican or not.”

“So why ask it,” he said.

Gallup, the organization that had tracked presidential approval for eight decades, announced earlier this year that it would stop publishing approval ratings of individual political figures, a shift that underscores how the traditional measure of a politician’s popularity has evolved.

When asked about the change, a Gallup spokesperson told the Washington Post at the time that “the context around these measures has changed.”

“They are now widely produced, aggregated and interpreted, and no longer represent an area where Gallup can make its most distinctive contribution,” the spokesperson added.

May 30 (UPI) — Dueling groups of protesters gathered at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in New Jersey on Saturday morning over the agency’s treatment of people detained under the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

A group of detainees at the Delaney Hall facility have been on a hunger and labor strike since May 22 over inhumane conditions there.

Protests in support of the striking detainees have continued since last Friday, but after protestors and ICE officials got into scuffles in recent days protesters in support of the administration’s deportation efforts gathered at the facility as well, The Guardian and NBC News reported.

The protests were met with state police with riot shields blocking the entrance, as well as barricades that were set up to separate and protect protesters, who yelled at each other from the two protest zones.

New Jersey Gov. Mikkie Sherill moved to replace federal officers managing the situation with state law enforcement on Friday in order to establish the “protected speech zone.”

“This was absolutely necessary to protect public safety, and avoid escalation from ICE,” Sherill said Saturday.

“As Americans, we have a right to protest — and we will continue to ensure New Jersey residents can peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights,” she said.

The decision followed days of tension between federal officers and protesters who have decried the treatment of detainees, which since the hunger and labor strikes started has resulted in what the GEO group called “control measures to safely resolve the situation, including the limited use of chemical agents.

Mullin thanked Sherill for working with DHS to “restore law and order” in a statement on X.

“We support every Americans constitutional right to peacefully protest,” Mullin said. “No one has the right to RIOT and ASSAULT law enforcement. We hope to build on this partnership and work together to remove the worst of the worst from New Jersey communities.”

May 29 (UPI) — Louisiana’s Republican-led legislature on Friday voted to approve a new congressional map that eliminates one of two majority-Black districts in favor of Republican-leaning districts, pushing forward the national redistricting race.

The new map contains one majority-Black district — in a state with a population that is one-third black — that covers an arc running from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, covering a smaller section of the state, NBC News and The New York Times reported.

Louisiana is the latest state to enact rare mid-decade congressional redistricting efforts, which were kicked off when President Donald Trump last year started pushing Republican led states to do so, leading to Democratic-led states to join in a year-long tit-for-tat contest.

The new map follows a Supreme Court ruling in the Louisiana vs. Callais case earlier this month that invalidated a 2024 map because the state’s legislature was not justified in using race to construct the districts.

The map, based on voting records, is expected to send five Republicans and one Democrat to the House from Louisiana, compared to the old map’s four-to-two split.

“We focused on Democrat numbers, not the racial numbers, when drawing,” Republican state Rep. Beau Beaullieu said during debate over the map.

“We focused in this case on partisanship, which is what Callais said, and I mentioned in my intro, is clear permissible,” Beauillieu said.

Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry is expected to sign the new map into law.

Landry had pushed off the state’s May 16 congressional primaries, for which some mail-in votes had already been cast, and delayed it until Nov. 3 so that the legislature could produce a new map for use in this year’s federal elections.

During the debate on the Thrusday, Democratic state Rep. Kyle Green Jr. pointed out that the map reduced Black Louisianians’ “minority opportunity representation to a single seat out of six, from 33% of the population to 16% of the representation numbers.”

The map is expected to be challenged in court, but members of both parties in the state legislature said that the map is unlikely to change again before November’s elections.

NEWARK, N.J. — New Jersey state police set up designated protest zones and vehicle checkpoints outside an immigration detention center in Newark on Friday, replacing federal immigration enforcement agents who have been clashing with protesters for days.

Gov. Mikie Sherrill said she sent in state police to bring order outside Delaney Hall as the demonstrations have intensified, with violence and arrests increasing as night falls.

“It has grown unsafe, and that’s completely unacceptable,” the Democratic governor said at a news conference announcing the new measures. “We need to take this opportunity to lower the temperature.”

As police erected protest barriers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who had formed a line in front of protesters moved inside the building’s perimeter fence.

New Jersey State Police Lt. Col. David Sierotowicz said ICE officers agreed to stand down with state police assuming responsibility.

Demonstrators had mixed reactions. Some staged a sit-in and refused to move into one of the new protest areas police set up using metal barriers and concrete blocks.

Rachel Cohen worried that demonstrators exercising their 1st Amendment rights were being silenced.

“It is not helpful to quell protest for the sake of a false peace,” she said. “There is no peace while we are torturing our neighbors on [the] government dime inside this facility.”

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, on social media, called the measures a “win for law and order” and noted that Sherrill had resisted sending state police for days.

The protests began a week earlier after immigrant advocates said detainees inside launched a hunger strike over poor living conditions at the 1,000-bed facility, which opened last May.

Demonstrators have been attempting to block people and vehicles from entering and exiting, linking their arms in a human chain and using trash cans, umbrellas and other items as makeshift shields and barricades.

ICE officers wearing helmets and tactical vests have used pepper spray and batons to try to disperse the protesters and clear the roadway for vehicles.

At least six demonstrators were arrested and accused of assaulting law enforcement officers Wednesday night, and more have been arrested on other nights, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Acting U.S. Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche shared images online Friday of bloody wounds and bruises sustained by ICE officers.

“These riots are clearly not ‘peaceful protests’ as you can see from the photos of these horrific wounds,” he said. “Assault a federal officer, you’ll be held accountable.”

Another demonstrator, Lisa O’Dwyer, said she was fine with the designated protest areas.

“I like to get my point across and stay safe at the same time,” the Westfield resident said.

Eyesha Marable, pastor at Mt. Zion AME Church in Millburn, agreed, even while acknowledging that there were “different schools of thought” among protesters.

“There are people here who are angry. Their family members are inside. Their friends are inside. People have been taken off the streets, out of their communities,” she said.

“We have to keep the peace,” Marable said. “The goal is to get our people free, to get them liberated, and we cannot do that if we’re fighting out here.”

State Atty. Gen. Jennifer Davenport said it was important to “de-escalate” the situation as “violence, either against protesters or by protesters, is unacceptable.”

Sherrill said she did not want to give ICE a pretext to expand operations in the state, noting that federal immigration officers around the country have killed and injured protesters in recent months.

“We all need to do everything we can to cool things down now,” she said.

The governor and other Democratic officials tried to visit detainees Monday but were denied entry.

Democratic members of Congress from New York City, however, were able to tour Delaney Hall the day after that. They reported dire conditions, with detainees being fed small portions of often spoiled food and their varied medical needs going ignored.

Families and supporters of detainees also say their loved ones have also been subjected to pepper spray and physical force in retaliation for their hunger strike and the protests outside.

Marcelo and Shaffrey write for the Associated Press and reported from New York and Newark, respectively.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday gave his endorsement to a January study by the Department of Health and Human Services that calls for cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every American child.

An executive order from Trump directs federal agencies to align their policies behind the study, which recommended an overhaul long called for by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The study found that the United States recommends more childhood vaccines than many peer nations.

The Trump administration previously moved to narrow the number of recommended childhood vaccines in response to the report, but the move was blocked by a federal judge in Massachusetts. The administration is appealing the decision.

The study recommends vaccinating all children against 11 diseases. Several others would be recommended only for high-risk groups or when doctors recommend them in what’s called “shared decision-making.” That includes vaccines for flu, rotavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, some forms of meningitis and RSV.

Trump’s order adds weight behind the study at a time when the administration had appeared to be trying to shift focus away from Kennedy’s more contentious vaccine policies and toward topics with more widespread support among medical professionals, such as healthful eating.

The order directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to review the study and “take any appropriate steps” to update its vaccine recommendations. It says the CDC should “provide maximum flexibility to parents and doctors” and directs agencies to make sure all actions, regulations and funding are aligned with the study.

The order adds that any changes should ensure that Americans retain their current access to vaccines.

States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. While CDC requirements often influence those state regulations, some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration’s guidance on vaccines.

Trump directed the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out the study in December.

Kennedy is a longtime activist against vaccines and has sought ways to inject his skepticism about the shots into national guidance, running counter to the overwhelming consensus of medical experts. Last year, he announced the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, though public health experts said they saw no new data to justify the change.

Last June, he fired a 17-member CDC vaccine advisory committee and later installed several of his own replacements, including vaccine skeptics.

The January report found that vaccine recommendations for American children had increased in recent decades. It also highlighted countries where no vaccines are required to attend school.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — American businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.

The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge’s order to allow all companies that paid the illegal import taxes to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.

Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after American importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.

Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion — more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the illegal tariffs on imported goods — were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.

The administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge has scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn’t require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.

Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott’s deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify in court. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his own authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court’s ruling entitled “all importers of record’’ to refunds.

“For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court’s universal injunction,” the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move “as quickly as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed some 485 pending trade court complaints to assert their rights to refunds.

In a terse reply Friday, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February.

“This case involves $166 billion,” the judge wrote. “It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties.”

Some national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart’s $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.

Some smaller companies told the Associated Press that the partial refunds they’ve received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs, reducing debt or just keeping the lights on after more than a year of uncertainty and additional import costs.

Jay Foreman, chief executive of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days this month. He took the initial repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a “total slow roll.”

“It’s time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations,” Foreman said.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Sacramento — Paul Taybi is part of the 1.5%.

The 59-year-old retired founder of a data analysis company from El Cerrito is among that percentage of the wealthiest Californians paying the higher income tax rates that voters approved four years ago.

Now, with those rates set to expire, a coalition of teacher and service worker unions, medical groups and others are pushing Proposition 55, a ballot measure that would extend these higher taxes on the the highest earners through 2030.

Taybi isn’t happy about it. He said he plans to raise rents in the four Bay Area properties his family owns and ultimately move out of state in the coming years if the measure passes.

“I have no problem paying more taxes than a poor person does,” Taybi said. “But we’ve reached the point where my behavior has changed. It will change more. And a lot of people like me will say, ‘That’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.’”

If voters approve Proposition 55, the state will continue depending on Taybi and other wealthy Californians to fund a significant portion of schools, parks, road repairs, police, prisons and many other government services. Those paying the higher rates, which kick in for single and joint filers making more than $263,000 and $526,000 a year respectively, contributed almost $34 billion in income taxes in 2014, roughly a third of all state general fund revenue.

California’s reliance on the wealthiest taxpayers means the state is especially vulnerable to their bottom lines.

When presenting this year’s revised budget plan in May, Gov. Jerry Brown carried with him a chart titled, “Unpredictable Capital Gains,” noting how the state’s revenues were highly dependent on booms and busts in the economy. California’s finances, he said, are a “zig-zag reality.”

“In order to manage this budget,” Brown said, “it’s like riding a tiger.”

In the same presentation, Brown estimated that if Proposition 55 didn’t pass, the state would have a budget deficit in the next three years, which could lead to a new round of cuts in education, health and social services programs.

Updates from Sacramento »

Though much more muted than before, the basic message is the same as it was in 2012.

Back then, the state remained at the height of a prolonged budget crisis. Brown and other proponents warned of massive cuts unless voters passed Proposition 30. The measure primarily raised income tax rates by 1% to 3% for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Under Proposition 30, the current tax rate is 10.3% for single filers earning between $263,000 and $316,000 in annual taxable income, 11.3% for those between $316,000 and $526,000, 12.3% for those between $526,000 and $1 million and 13.3% for those earning $1 million or more. The final 1% at the highest tax rate goes toward a mental-health fund that’s been recently retooled to pay for a $2-billion bond to help house the homeless.

Brown and other supporters pitched Proposition 30 as a Band-aid to carry the state through the worst of its financial calamities. Those higher income tax rates are set to expire in 2018. If Proposition 55 passes, the higher rates would be in place for 18 years.

The governor hasn’t taken a formal position on Proposition 55 and maintains he could balance the budget with or without it.

“I said it was temporary when I started, when I got Prop. 30 passed — I helped to pass it — and I think I’ll leave it there,” Brown said at the May budget presentation.

Some high earners who voted for Proposition 30 now say they’re opposed to the new measure because they were promised that the tax hikes would expire.

“I’m just incensed because I feel like a sucker,” said Martin Schwartz, 63, an electronics repair store owner in Chatsworth, who has paid the higher rates.

But supporters of the measure argue that the state’s still shaky revenues justify continuing to tax those in the top income brackets at higher rates.

“Have we stopped bleeding since 2012? Yes, but the problem still exists,” said Shay Lohman, president of the teacher’s union in the Rowland Unified School District in Los Angeles County. “The wound is still there.”

Increased tax revenues have also brought significant benefits. Since Proposition 30 passed, Lohman’s district brought back an elementary school music program that had been cut during the recession and is planning to start a dual-language Mandarin-English program next year, he said.

“Money has allowed something like that to happen,” Lohman said.

Though the income tax provisions are the same, Proposition 55 has some differences from Proposition 30. The new initiative does not extend a quarter-cent sales tax hike set to expire at the end of the year. It directs more of the money to the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare program for low-income residents. The measure will raise $4 billion to $9 billion a year, depending on the economy and stock market, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The campaigns for Propositions 30 and 55 are different as well. Four years ago, business and taxpayer groups mounted a robust effort, spending millions, including running television advertisements, to oppose the tax and support a second, unrelated ballot measure.

This time, opponents have only raised $3,000, according to the state campaign finance reports, while supporters have collected almost $53 million, primarily from the California Assn. of Hospitals and California Teachers Assn.

In pro-Proposition 55 television advertisements, advocates including state Controller Betty Yee argue the measure will prevent education cuts without raising taxes.

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll last month found 57% of registered voters were in favor of the measure. The poll even found support from a majority of those making more than $100,000 a year.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Follow me at @dillonliam on Twitter

ALSO

Can Gov. Jerry Brown keep the promises he made with Proposition 30?

Gov. Jerry Brown sends lawmakers revised California budget with less money to spend on new programs

Voters will likely be asked for 12 more years of higher income taxes on the wealthy

May 30 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social Saturday that he may take the stage for a rally at the “Freedom 250” event series set for June 25 to July 10 at the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Trump posted at noon Saturday that “Artists are getting ‘the yips’ having to do with their performance[s]” so he may step in.

“I am thinking about bringing the Number One Attraction anywhere in the World, the man who gets much larger audiences than Elvis in his prime, and he does so without a guitar, the man who loves our Country more than anyone else, and the man who some say is the Greatest President in History (THE GOAT!), DONALD J. TRUMP, to take the place of these highly paid, Third Rate “Artists,” and give a major speech, rallying the Country forward like I have done ever since being President!”

He went on to say he would do an “America is Back” rally on “Wednesday,” though he didn’t clarify which day. It appears he means June 25, which is when Martina McBride was scheduled to perform, though she and Brett Michaels both backed out on Friday.

“Two years ago, the United States was DEAD. Now we have the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. I don’t want so-called ‘Artists’ that get paid far too much money, who aren’t happy. I only want to be surrounded by Happy People, Smart People, Successful People, and People that know how to WIN. So, by copy of this TRUTH, I am ordering my Representatives to look at the feasibility of doing an AMERICA IS BACK Rally on Wednesday, Washington, D.C., same time, same location. Only Great Patriots invited — It will be a Wild and Beautiful Celebration of America! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

The concerts were scheduled for each Thursday, Friday and Saturday night of the 16-day festival, also billed as “The Great American State Fair.”

As of now, only two artists appear to still be on the bill: Vanilla Ice and Flo Rida.

Along with McBride and Michaels, Young MC, Morris Day of Morris Day and The Time, and The Commodores were among the other artists to drop out of the event.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Noah Goldberg, Melissa Gomez and Sandra McDonald, giving you the latest on city and county government.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez has had some pretty tough words over the years for Mayor Karen Bass and her administration.

Rodriguez, who is running unopposed in Tuesday’s election, repeatedly criticized Bass’ Inside Safe program, which moves homeless people indoors, saying it lacked financial oversight. She voted against the mayor’s budget last year, saying too much was going to Inside Safe. She was especially harsh in the wake of the Palisades fire, saying that Bass’ team botched the first few months of the recovery.

That might make her an ideal person to endorse Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running to unseat Bass in Tuesday’s primary and has leveled similar critiques. Instead, Rodriguez has emerged as an unexpected ally of the incumbent.

During the campaign, Rodriguez has appeared with Bass at events in Eagle Rock, Pacoima and even Sherman Oaks, located in Raman’s district. She popped up in a campaign flier from Latinos Por Karen Bass. And she’s been dinging Raman over everything from economic development to policies around outdoor barbecues.

Rodriguez explained her decision to support Bass in an interview, saying she views the incumbent as being far more willing to entertain opposing views than Raman — and understands that “not everyone thinks the same way.” Bass also is more consistent on the issues, Rodriguez said.

Raman, by contrast, has shifted her positions on police spending, the tax hike known as Measure ULA and even who should be the next mayor, jumping into the race after she endorsed Bass, Rodriguez said.

“I don’t know what she stands for,” she said.

Raman’s campaign declined to comment on Rodriguez’s remarks. But former former Deputy Mayor Rick Cole, a Raman supporter, said he is surprised to see Rodriguez line up behind Bass, given how critical she has been over the years.

“Monica is a self-described maverick, so it’s ironic that she’s thrown in with the establishment on this. But sometimes personalities play a role,” he said.

Rodriguez had been talked up at one point as a possible opponent of Bass in this year’s election. If Bass wins a second and final term, the mayor’s race would be wide open in 2030.

Pratt accuses Bass of electioneering

It was a small yet upbeat event staged by Bass’ reelection campaign: The mayor, accompanied by supporters chanting “four more years,” walking up to an official drop box and putting in her ballot.

That miniature rally, staged last weekend near the city’s Memorial Branch Library, was captured on video and circulated by Bass’ campaign. But it has drawn a complaint from mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, who accused the mayor of violating a state law prohibiting electioneering near a polling place or voter drop box.

In a complaint filed with the city clerk, Pratt attorney Peter McNulty said Bass and her supporters improperly solicited votes, waved campaigns signs and “engaged in blatant electioneering” near a voting location.

“Such clear violations of electioneering restrictions show a reckless disregard for the rule of law and an apparent belief that she need not comply with relevant restrictions that apply to all other candidates,” he wrote.

The Bass campaign pushed back on those allegations, saying the video features footage from two locations near the drop box. The portion that featured the Bass campaign signs was filmed 200 feet away — twice the distance required by law, said Alex Stack, a Bass spokesperson.

“Spencer is just mad that his supporters are AI cartoons and we have real Angelenos,” he said. “We follow the rules.”

Pratt’s lawyer said in his letter that he wants the city to investigate. He also filed a complaint with the state, citing the state election law that prohibits the dissemination of “visible or audible electioneering information” near a polling place or drop box.

Feldstein Soto flames Airbnb

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has been getting hit from both directions over the last few weeks.

On one side, a committee with at least $450,000 in funding from the Consumer Attorneys of California has been pumping out campaign ads promoting her opponent, Deputy Atty. Gen. Marissa Roy. On the other, a campaign committee heavily bankrolled by Airbnb is running ads for Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney, another opponent in the race.

Feldstein Soto has countered with a television ad that highlights her office’s lawsuit against Airbnb, which accuses the company of engaging in price gouging after the Palisades fire. Staring into the camera, Feldstein Soto said Airbnb and other special interests “are spending millions to try and get rid of me.”

“They think L.A. belongs to them,” she says. “I know it belongs to you.”

Feldstein Soto had raised about $860,000 for her campaign through May 16, compared with about $680,000 for Roy and about $122,000 for McKinney. But those fundraising efforts, which face strict limits under the city’s ethics laws, have been overshadowed by the unlimited spending from Airbnb and the others.

Angelenos for Progress, a pro-McKinney committee sponsored by the Central City Assn., received at least $2.1 million from Airbnb over the last month, pouring that money into campaign videos and television ads.

Justin Wesson, senior public policy manager for Airbnb in California, said in a statement that McKinney’s campaign platform is “focused on keeping Los Angeles communities safe and vibrant, including for Angelenos who share their home and their guests that contribute to the local economy.”

In recent weeks, Airbnb has been pushing the city’s elected officials to loosen L.A.’s home-sharing regulations, by allowing owners of second homes to lease their properties on short-term rental platforms.

Airbnb has put big money into other committees, including those that support Tim Gaspar, who is running to replace Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, and Jose Ugarte, who is running to replace Councilmember Curren Price.

Team Raman woos Huang, without success

We mentioned a few weeks back that Raman supporters have been noisily demanding that mayoral candidate Rae Huang drop out of the race, saying she was siphoning left-of-center votes away Raman. Turns out Raman’s campaign was trying to persuade her to pull the plug as well.

Raman campaign strategist Jeff Millman reached out to Huang advisor Bill Przylucki earlier this month about getting the community organizer to drop her mayoral bid, according to Huang spokesperson Emel Shaikh.

The overture from the Raman camp, first reported by LA Material, took place after the May 6 NBC LA debate but before a Fox debate planned for the next week, Shaikh said.

“She never really entertained the idea,” Shaikh said.

Raman, speaking with reporters on Friday, said she knew that people from both campaigns were conferring.

“I’m sure [Huang] was aware of it as well,” she said. “And I think we were really talking about how to achieve a bold, progressive vision for Los Angeles. Both of us got into this race because we felt a deep sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo.”

Millman, a veteran of L.A. politics, worked for former Mayor Eric Garcetti and was a spokesperson for Austin Beutner’s mayoral bid before his campaign ended in January. After Beutner dropped out, he moved to the Raman campaign. Przylucki is the former executive director of the progressive nonprofit Ground Game LA.

Supporters of Raman contend that Huang doesn’t have a path to victory — and could deprive Raman of a chance to compete in the Nov. 3 runoff. Asked whether she feels the same way, Raman said she is focused on getting her voters to the polls.

At this point, Raman is neck and neck with Bass and slightly ahead of Pratt, according to a poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which was co-sponsored by The Times.

State of play

— A THREE-WAY RACE: Bass, Raman and Pratt are locked in a tight three-way contest, with the mayor holding a statistically insignificant lead in the run-up to Tuesday, the latest UC Berkeley-L.A. Times poll found. Bass had 26% support from likely voters, followed by Raman with 25% support and Pratt at 22%.

Bass, appearing at City Hall Thursday, said she’s not worried about failing to make the top two, telling an audience there are many polls that show different results. “I feel confident about Tuesday,” she said.

— AN EMBATTLED MAYOR: The Times took a look at Bass’ first term and the events that have put her political future in peril. Although some point to the city’s handling of the massively destructive Palisades fire, others say her troubles go much deeper.

— READING THE ROOM: While Bass has had difficulty managing the city, Raman faces a different issue: her struggle to forge working relationships with colleagues and allies. No one on the council, including those backed by the DSA, have endorsed her. Raman allies downplayed the issue, saying her strength is her independence.

— CUTTING CRIME: Even with L.A. experiencing fewer murders than at any point in 60 years, crime remains a potent issue in the mayor’s race. Pratt has been portraying the city as a lethal hellscape. Meanwhile, even some of Bass’ supporters have been shocked by how “aggressively pro-police she has been,” said former Councilmember Mike Bonin, who heads the Pat Brown Institute at Cal State, LA.

— DOWNTOWN IN THE DUMPS: Meanwhile, downtown business owners say they are struggling with crime, homelessness and aging infrastructure — all issues that have become central to the mayor’s race.

— LOVE, MOM: The mother of city controller candidate Zach Sokoloff has pumped at least $7.5 million into an independent expenditure campaign supporting him as he seeks to unseat City Controller Kenneth Mejia. The incumbent has accused the Sokoloff family of trying to buy the seat. Sheryl Sokoloff has declined to comment.

— SHERIFF SHOWDOWN: Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna is in a rematch against former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, while also facing six other opponents. (Villanueva was unseated by Luna in 2022.) The top two vote getters will head to the Nov. 3 runoff.

— WAITING FOR THE WAGE: The council finalized its plan to delay a series of minimum wage hikes for hotel and airport workers this week, ensuring that the wage won’t reach $30 until January 2030 instead of July 2028.

— D&D AND DSA: Democratic Socialists of America, whose L.A. chapter is campaigning for five candidates in the city election, took in $30,000 at a Dungeons & Dragons-themed fundraiser. The candidates took part in the action, playing fantasy characters who still keep one foot in the political world.

— CALLING THE COPS: Looking to prevent copper wire theft, the Department of Water and Power is seeking to create its own police force.

— OUT OF THE FRYING PAN: The council on Wednesday confirmed Gabrielle Amster as the latest general manager for the animal services department, which oversees the city’s network of animal shelters. Amster had been serving as vice president of shelter engagement for DocuPet, a national pet registration business, according to her resume.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? Bass’ signature initiative to tackle homelessness did not launch any new encampment operations this week.
• On the docket next week: The election, obviously! If you haven’t cast a ballot by mail, make sure you show up at a voting center!

Stay in touch

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

On Sunday, voters in the South American country of Colombia are facing a choice.

Four years ago, they elected the first left-wing president in the country’s modern history, Gustavo Petro. Now, they must decide whether to continue with Petro’s leftist push — or restore the political right to power.

Fourteen candidates will be on the ballot for the first round of voting in Colombia’s presidential election.  The packed field includes contenders from the left, right and centre, who are slated to face off over issues like security and the cost of living.

But Petro will not be among them: Presidents in Colombia are limited to a single four-year term.

The right wing is expected to have the advantage, particularly if the race proceeds to a second round. Petro is struggling with low poll numbers, and voters have expressed frustration with crime and violence, driven in part by the country’s six-decade-long internal conflict.

But leftist candidate Ivan Cepeda has surprised observers, consistently placing at the top of the polls ahead of the first round.

When is the election, who are the candidates, and which issues are top of mind for voters? We look at those questions and more in this brief explainer.

When is the election?

The first round of voting is set to take place on May 31, 2026.

Will there be a second round of voting?

A candidate would need to win more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round to avoid a run-off.

If no single candidate meets that threshold, a run-off will be held between the top two finishers on June 21.

Why is this election important?

In recent years, across Latin America, long-entrenched left-wing governments have met defeat at the ballot box.

Last year alone, right-wing candidates have been elected to replace left-wing presidents in Bolivia, Chile and Honduras.

But Colombia does not have a long history of left-wing presidents. Petro was the first. That makes this race one to watch, according to Gimena Sanchez, a Colombia expert at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a human rights nonprofit.

“This is the first election to be held after the first-ever leftist administration in Colombia’s 200-year history,” Sanchez explained.

Colombia now stands at a fork in the road. One of the dominant issues in the election is how to resolve the country’s internal conflict, which forced more than 235,619 individuals from their homes in 2025.

Another 87,069 people were caught up in mass displacement events due to the fighting, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Petro has embraced negotiation as a tool to end the conflict, which has seen government forces, criminal networks, left-wing rebels and right-wing paramilitaries all battling one another.

But the political right has advocated a return to the more militarised approach backed by the United States, according to Sanchez.

“The leading candidates fall into two camps: continuity with the leftist government of Petro and an approach to security that focuses on negotiations with armed groups, and right-wing candidates who very much want to go back to a hardline security model that Colombia had in the past,” Sanchez said.

“You have polar opposite visions for the country.”

Who is the main candidate on the left?

Senator Ivan Cepeda has emerged as the primary candidate of the political left, running as the head of the governing coalition, known as Historic Pact.

Cepeda has largely pledged continuity with Petro’s platform, including social and economic policies meant to reduce inequality.

He has also embraced Petro’s “Total Peace” approach, which aims to resolve the country’s internal fighting by negotiating with armed groups and criminal networks, as opposed to solely relying on military force.

Confronting state-backed violence has become a hallmark of Cepeda’s life and career.

His father, who was also a senator, is believed to have been assassinated by a government-backed paramilitary. For years, Cepeda was also embroiled in a legal battle for accusing former President Alvaro Uribe of connections to right-wing paramilitaries.

Who are the main candidates on the right?

While Cepeda has become the standard-bearer for the left, the political right has had to contend with a more fractured field of candidates.

Running on the far right is Abelardo de la Espriella, a lawyer for the Defenders of the Homeland Party who has generated comparisons with Salvadoran President Salvador Bukele and Argentina’s Javier Milei.

Like those leaders, de la Espriella has offered a hardline vision for his country’s security. If elected, he says he would end negotiations with armed groups, bomb rebel camps, and resume the aerial fumigation of coca ⁠crops, which produce the raw material for cocaine.

Senator Paloma Valencia, a candidate with the Democratic Centre Party, is running as a more moderate alternative to de la Espriella. She too has promised a stricter approach to crime. Her platform involves expanding the police and armed forces, while cutting taxes and promoting pro-business policies in the economic realm.

Their election-season competition has become a source of acrimony for Valencia and de la Espriella, who have accused each other of paving the way for a leftist election victory.

“There is a more familiar, establishment right, represented by Valencia, and a far right in the form of de la Espriella, who pitches himself as an outsider,” said Sanchez.

Valencia, for her part, has criticised de la Espriella as two-faced, defending criminals in his legal practice but advocating for tighter security on the campaign trail.

De la Espriella, meanwhile, has dismissed Valencia as a member of the country’s political establishment and chided her in a social media post, stating that the presidential election is “not for little games”.

What are the polls saying?

Polls generally show Cepeda ahead of his rivals, with de la Espriella in second place and Valencia in third.

A May 24 poll from the National Consulting Centre (CNC) and the publication Cambio suggested that Cepeda had drawn 33.4 percent of voter support, the most of any candidate.

But de la Espriella was on the upswing with 30.9 percent. Valencia, meanwhile, trailed with 12.6 percent.

The same surveys, however, suggest that Cepeda would struggle to win a run-off against either of the two right-wing candidates, with de la Espriella eking out about three points in a head-to-head contest, and Valencia coming within a percentage point of victory.

Undecided voters could play a key role in deciding the outcome, though. An analysis cited by the Spanish paper El Pais estimates that undecided voters could account for as much as 28 percent of the electorate.

Which issues are front and centre?

Concerns over crime, security and economic issues like unemployment and affordability have dominated the election.

In a poll from the firm Invamer, the highest proportion of voters — 37 percent — identified security as the top issue facing the country.

Basic needs and unemployment ranked second and third, with 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Eleven percent of voters, meanwhile, named corruption as a leading concern.

The threat of violence has lingered over the presidential campaign over the past year.

Two political staffers with de la Espriella’s campaign were killed by gunmen on motorbikes earlier this month. And in June 2025, presidential candidate Miguel Uribe Turbay was shot while leaving a campaign rally. The 39-year-old died two months later from his injuries.

Political violence is a serious concern in Colombia, and all of the frontrunners in the race travel with heavy security.

Venezuela is far from being the only country in the Americas where State institutions have been used to crack down on independent media and protect the interests of ruling elites. In Guatemala, the case of journalist José Rubén Zamora became one of the clearest examples of how prosecutors, courts and political power can converge to silence investigative journalism.

In early April 2025, I interviewed Ramón Zamora, son of Guatemalan journalist and elPeriódico founder José Rubén Zamora. His arrest following years of investigations into alleged government corruption led to the newspaper’s closure and the persecution of people close to him. During our conversation, Ramón Zamora described how Guatemala has developed a tacit network of complicity between State institutions and political authorities, a system that raises broader questions about this new form of power in Latin America and may also help explain how the chavista State in Venezuela operates.

After elPeriódico published two investigations on May 2 and May 3, 2021 into apparent cases of corruption in the government of former President Alejandro Giammattei, the media outlet was subjected to legal persecution that culminated in the arrest of Rubén Zamora, who had dedicated his work to investigating corruption in the Central American country. 

The persecution began with an investigation into alleged bribery by the newspaper to obtain information related to the publications. The judge who heard the case dismissed it. Later, in 2022, an investigation into money laundering related to the sale of works of art owned by Zamora to cover elPeriódico‘s costs was reopened, leading to his arrest.

The imprisonment of Zamora caught the attention of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. In their 2022 and 2023 annual reports, the IACHR requested information from Guatemala regarding the country’s human rights situation and recalled that Zamora has benefited from precautionary measures since 2003 due to risks linked to his journalistic work. Guatemala rejected parts of the assessment as lacking objectivity. Amnesty International described Zamora as a prisoner of conscience and condemned his detention. Zamora was granted house arrest for the second time on February 12, 2026.

Reducing chavismo to a simple narco-structure simplifies the scope that the organization can have, since apparent drug trafficking would not be the essence of the system but rather an activity within it.

During the arrest and initial detention of journalist José Rubén Zamora in 2022, Guatemala was governed by Alejandro Giammattei, a conservative president whose administration faced strong criticism from international organizations over corruption, institutional deterioration, and pressure against journalists and anti-corruption actors. Since January 14, 2024, Guatemala has been governed by Bernardo Arévalo, a progressive and anti-corruption reformist whose presidential term is scheduled to end in January 2028.

His son, Ramón Zamora, says that his father’s persecution is the result of an unwritten agreement between various powerful sectors within the State that aim to protect their interests.  “In Guatemala, there is something my father called the “Pact of the Corrupt.” The Pact of the Corrupts is a tacit agreement that forms a network of corruption spread across political parties and institutions, where those who reach positions of power must govern according to the pact.”

This explanation describes the composition of a de facto cross-cutting network, which has political parties, institutions, and security forces under its control, punishing dissent as a means of survival, subjecting its detractors to exile, imprisonment, and discredit.

“The judge presiding over the case ordered an investigation into my father’s defense attorneys and witnesses, causing his lawyer to go into exile just five days after his arrest. Currently, six of the twelve lawyers who have defended my father have been detained,” says Ramón, who is also outside Guatemala with his mother after the court issued an arrest warrant against both of them. 

“They also persecuted my family. My mother and I were outside Guatemala visiting the United States when the judge handling my father’s case issued an arrest warrant against us, so we decided not to return.”

But how can the Pact explain the nature of the chavista State?

Corruption as political capital

Chavismo is not exclusively a militarized organization or simply a drug trafficking operation. As in Guatemala with the Pact of the Corrupts, the institutions of the chavista State are co-opted and work in the tacit interest of their members, where one of the main means of maintaining the pact is loyalty based on impunity, while corruption operates as political capital.

Consequently, the exercise of power is not oriented toward citizens or the satisfaction of public demands, but rather toward preserving the internal balance of the Pact itself. Governing involves administering concessions, distributing power quotas, and avoiding any decision that could alter the network of interests that sustains the regime. Reforms, when they exist, do not constitute a project of institutional transformation but are carefully calibrated to avoid destabilizing the architecture of loyalties on which the system rests.

This model of governance, the pacted State, is complemented by a logic of repression, combining massive and indiscriminate terror against actors whose actions threaten the balance of the pact. Similar dynamics can be observed in regimes such as Russia, Belarus, Nicaragua, and several Central Asian States. Journalists, judges, political leaders, and internal and external dissidents are the main targets of a system of coercion designed not to mobilize the masses, but to send clear and disciplining signals to those who break the pact. The selectivity of repression does not mitigate its severity. On the contrary, it makes it more efficient and functional in sustaining the apparatus of power.

Reducing chavismo to a simple narco-structure simplifies the scope that the organization can have, since apparent drug trafficking would not be the essence of the system but rather an activity within it. The Venezuelan State has become a web of systematic corruption that makes crime a functional activity of power.

The stability of the system is due to a network of mostly informal agreements between civilian, military, and economic actors who share a common interest: preserving an order in which rupture is more costly than continuity.

In this context, ideology ceases to serve as the system’s organizing principle and takes on a strictly instrumental role. It is not the compass that guides the action of power, but rather an adaptable rhetorical resource used to justify decisions already made to sustain the pact. Chavismo does not act primarily to carry out an ideological project, but rather to preserve a balance of interests between civilian, military, and criminal elites, in which ideas can mutate without the system suffering. Ideology, thus, does not guide the organization: it accompanies it, decorates it, or excuses it, but does not determine it.

The thesis of a pacted State suggests that authoritarian stability rests not only on repression or ideology, but on a shared understanding among political, military, and economic elites that preserving the existing order is preferable to risking rupture. Such systems can appear remarkably resilient precisely because their survival depends less on ideological coherence than on the mutual guarantees exchanged within the ruling coalition.

The notion of a pacted State helps explain why chavismo has shown a capacity for survival that goes beyond personalistic or circumstantial explanations. The stability of the system is due to a network of mostly informal agreements between civilian, military, and economic actors who share a common interest: preserving an order in which rupture is more costly than continuity. As long as that calculation remains valid, the system does not collapse; it adapts, reconfigures itself, and absorbs pressures without altering its fundamental logic. Yet the resilience of pacted States is not immutable.

Such systems begin to weaken when influential actors within the ruling coalition conclude that the regime can no longer guarantee protection, resources, or political survival. Economic decline, succession disputes, international pressure, social unrest, or weakening coercive institutions can alter the cost-benefit calculations sustaining the pact. Similar dynamics were visible in Eastern Europe after November 1989, when regimes in the German Democratic Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria rapidly collapsed once the elite coalitions sustaining them began to fracture internally, a process that would also unfold in Albania.

History suggests that pacted States often project an image of permanence precisely until the internal understandings sustaining them begin, almost imperceptibly, to dissolve.