Politics

A strange scene unfolded at the Adams/Vermont farmers market near USC last week.

The pomegranates, squash and apples were in season, pink guavas were so ripe you could smell their heady scent from a distance, and nutrient-packed yams were ready for the holidays.

But with federal funding in limbo for the 1.5 million people in Los Angeles County who depend on food aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP — the church parking lot hosting the market was largely devoid of customers.

Even though the market accepts payments through CalFresh, the state’s SNAP program, hardly anyone was lined up when gates opened. Vendors mostly idled alone at their produce stands.

A line of cars stretches more than a mile as people wait to receive a box of free food provided by the L.A. Food Bank in the City of Industry on Wednesday.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

As thousands across Southern California lined up at food banks to collect free food, and the fight over delivering the federal allotments sowing uncertainty, fewer people receiving aid seemed to be spending money at outdoor markets like this one.

“So far we’re doing 50% of what we’d normally do — or less,” said Michael Bach, who works with Hunger Action, a food-relief nonprofit that partners with farmers markets across the greater L.A. area, offering “Market Match” deals to customers paying with CalFresh debit cards.

The deal allows shoppers to buy up to $30 worth of fruit produce for only $15. Skimming a ledger on her table, Bach’s colleague Estrellita Echor noted that only a handful of shoppers had taken advantage of the offer.

All week at farmers markets where workers were stationed, the absence was just as glaring, she said. “I was at Pomona on Saturday — we only had six transactions the whole day,” she said. “Zero at La Mirada.”

CalFresh customers looking to double their money on purchases were largely missing at the downtown L.A. market the next day, Echor said.

A volunteer loads up a box of free food for a family at a drive-through food distribution site in the City of Industry.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

“This program usually pulls in lots of people, but they are either holding on to what little they have left or they just don’t have anything on their cards,” she said.

The disruption in aid comes as a result of the Trump administration’s decision to deliver only partial SNAP payments to states during the ongoing federal government shutdown, skirting court order to restart funds for November. On Friday night, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked the order pending a ruling on the matter by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But by then, CalFresh had already started loading 100% of November’s allotments onto users’ debit cards. Even with that reprieve for food-aid recipients in California, lack of access to food is a persistent problem in L.A., said Kayla de la Haye, director of the Institute for Food System Equity at USC.

A study published by her team last year found that 25% of residents in L.A. County — or about 832,000 people — experienced food insecurity, and that among low-income residents, the rate was even higher, 41%. The researchers also found that 29% of county residents experienced nutrition insecurity, meaning they lacked options for getting healthy, nutritious food.

Those figures marked a slight improvement compared to data from 2023, when the end of pandemic-era boosts to state, county and nonprofit aid programs — combined with rising inflation — caused hunger rates to spike just as they did at the start of the pandemic in 2020, de la Haye said.

“That was a big wake-up call — we had 1 in 3 folks in 2020 be food insecure,” de la Haye said. “We had huge lines at food pantries.”

But while the USC study shows the immediate delivery of food assistance through government programs and nonprofits quickly can cut food insecurity rates in an emergency, the researchers discovered many vulnerable Angelenos are not participating in food assistance programs.

Despite the county making strides to enroll more eligible families over the last decade, de la Haye said, only 29% of food insecure households in L.A. County were enrolled in CalFresh, and just 9% in WIC, the federal nutrition program for women, infants and children.

De la Haye said participants in her focus groups shared a mix of reasons why they didn’t enroll: Many didn’t know they qualified, while others said they felt too ashamed to apply for aid, were intimidated by the paperwork involved or feared disclosing their immigration status. Some said they didn’t apply because they earned slightly more than the cutoff amounts for eligibility.

Even many of those those receiving aid struggled: 39% of CalFresh recipients were found to lack an affordable source for food and 45% faced nutrition insecurity.

De la Haye said hunger and problems accessing healthy food have serious short- and long-term health effects — contributing to higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, as well greater levels of stress, anxiety and depression in adults and children. What’s more, she said, when people feel unsure about their finances, highly perishable items such as fresh, healthy food are often the first things sacrificed because they can be more expensive.

The USC study also revealed stark racial disparities: 31% of Black residents and 32% of Latinos experienced food insecurity, compared to 11% of white residents and 14% of Asians.

De la Haye said her team is analyzing data from this year they will publish in December. That analysis will look at investments L.A. County has made in food system over the last two years, including the allocation of $20 million of federal funding to 80 community organizations working on everything from urban farming to food pantries, and the recent creation of the county’s Office of Food Systems to address challenges to food availability and increase the consumption of healthy foods.

“These things that disrupt people’s ability to get food, including and especially cuts to this key program that is so essential to 1.5 million people in the county — we don’t weather those storms very well,” de la Haye said. “People are just living on the precipice.”

LONDON — The BBC reported Monday that President Trump sent a letter threatening legal action over the way a speech he made was edited in a documentary aired by the British broadcaster.

The BBC’s top executive and its head of news both quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing of a speech Trump delivered on Jan. 6, 2021, before a crowd of his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington.

Asked about a letter from Trump threatening legal action over the incident, the BBC said in a statement on Monday that “we will review the letter and respond directly in due course.” It did not provide further details.

Earlier, Trump welcomed the resignations of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness, saying the way his speech was edited was an attempt to “step on the scales of a Presidential Election.”

The hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was broadcast as part of the BBC’s “Panorama” series days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

In a resignation letter to staff, Davie said: “There have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

Turness said the controversy was damaging the BBC, and she quit “because the buck stops with me.”

Turness defended the organization’s journalists against allegations of bias.

“Our journalists are hardworking people who strive for impartiality, and I will stand by their journalism,” she said Monday. “There is no institutional bias. Mistakes are made, but there’s no institutional bias.”

BBC chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the broadcaster’s “error of judgment,” saying the broadcaster “accept[s] that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

Trump posted a link to a Daily Telegraph story about the speech-editing on his Truth Social network, thanking the newspaper “for exposing these Corrupt ‘Journalists.’ These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election.” He called that “a terrible thing for Democracy!”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted on X, posting a screen grab of an article headlined “Trump goes to war with ‘fake news’ BBC” beside another about Davie’s resignation, with the words “shot” and “chaser.”

Trump speech edited

Pressure on the broadcaster’s top executives has been growing since the right-leaning Daily Telegraph published parts of a dossier compiled by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines.

As well as the Trump edit, it criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

The “Panorama” episode showed an edited clip from the January 2021 speech in which Trump claimed the 2020 presidential election had been rigged. Trump is shown saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

According to video and a transcript from Trump’s comments that day, he said:  “I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump used the “fight like hell” phrase toward the end of the speech, but without referencing the Capitol.

“We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said.

In a letter to Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Shah said the purpose of editing Trump’s words had been “to convey the message of the speech” so that viewers could understand how it had been received by Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground.

He said the program had not attracted “significant audience feedback” when it first aired but had drawn more than 500 complaints since Prescott’s dossier was made public.

Shah acknowledged in a BBC interview that “it would have been better to have acted earlier. But we didn’t.”

A national institution

The 103-year-old BBC faces greater scrutiny than other broadcasters — and criticism from its commercial rivals — because of its status as a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by all households who watch live TV or any BBC content.

The broadcaster is bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, and critics are quick to point out when they think it has failed. It’s frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

It has also been criticized from all angles over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. In February, the BBC removed a documentary about Gaza from its streaming service after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of an official in the Hamas-led government.

Governments of both left and right have long been accused of meddling with the broadcaster, which is overseen by a board that includes both BBC nominees and government appointees.

Some defenders of the BBC allege that members of the board appointed under previous Conservative governments have been undermining the corporation from within.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman, Tom Wells, said the center-left Labor Party government supports “a strong, independent BBC” and doesn’t think the broadcaster is biased.

“But it is important that the BBC acts to maintain trust and corrects mistakes quickly when they occur,” he said.

Lawless writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed without comment a long-shot challenge to the constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.

The justices turned away an appeal petition from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who defied the court’s landmark decision in 2015 and repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

She appealed after one couple sued and won $100,000 in damages plus attorneys fees for her deliberate violation of their constitutional rights.

She argued the court should hear her case to decide whether the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment should have protected her from being sued.

Her appeal also posed a separate question she had not raised before in her long legal fight. She said the court should decide “whether Obergefell v. Hodges” which established the right to same-sex marriage “should be overturned.”

That belated question drew wide attention to her appeal, even though there was little or no chance it would be seriously considered by the high court.

Some LGBTQ+ advocates were concerned, however, because the conservative court had overturned Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion in the Dobbs case of 2022.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself alone, said then “we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring to cases on the rights to contraception, private sexual conduct and same-sex marriages.

But other conservative justices had disagreed and said abortion was unique. “Rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe … termed ‘potential life,’ ” Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote in his opinion for the court.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her new book “Listening to the Law” described the right to marry as a “fundamental right” that is protected by the Constitution.

“The complicated moral debate about abortion stands in dramatic contrast to widespread American support for liberties like the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception, and direct the upbringing of children,” she wrote.

In July, the Williams Institute at the UCLA Schooll of Law school estimated there are 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and nearly 300,000 children being raised by them.

Davis had suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts.

A federal judge in Kentucky and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected her claims based on the free exercise of religion.

Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis speaks to reporters in Kentucky in 2015. The Supreme Court rejected her appeal to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.

(Timothy D. Easley / Associated Press)

Those judges said government officials do not have free speech or religious right to refuse to carry out their public duties.

“That is not how the Constitution works. In their private lives, government officials are of course free to express their views and live according to their faith. But when an official wields state power against private citizens, her conscience must yield to the Constitution,” wrote Judge Helene White wrote for the 6th Circuit Court in March.

Ten years ago, shortly after the court’s ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges, Kentucky’s governor, the county’s attorney and a federal judge all told Davis that she was legally required to give a marriage license to same sex couples who applied for one.

She refused and said the county would issue no marriage licenses until she had been given a special exemption.

David Moore and David Ermold had been a couple for 19 years, and they filed suit after they were turned away from obtaining a marriage license on three occasions. Davis said she was acting “under God’s authority.”

A federal judge held her in contempt for refusing to comply with the law. While she was in jail, the couple finally obtained a marriage license from one of her deputies but their lawsuit continued.

The Kentucky legislature revised the law to say that county clerks need not put their name on the licenses issued by her office. Davis said that accommodation was sufficient, and she tried to have the lawsuit dismissed as moot.

The 6th Circuit refused because the claim for damages was still valid and pending. The Supreme Court turned away one of her appeals in 2019.

A federal judge later ruled she had violated the rights of Moore and Ermold, and a jury awarded each of them $50,000 in damages.

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel in Orlando which advocates for religious freedom, appealed on her behalf.

His petition to the Supreme Court said the court should hear her case to decide whether the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion should shield a public official from being sued “in her individual capacity.”

The 6th Circuit Court rejected that claim in a 3-0 ruling.

“The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” Judge White said.

“Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine the dire possibilities that might follow if Davis’s argument were accepted. A county clerk who finds interracial marriage sinful could refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples. An election official who believes women should not vote could refuse to count ballots cast by females. A zoning official personally opposed to Christianity could refuse to permit the construction of a church,” she said.

Judge Chad Readler, a Trump appointee, said even if public employees have some rights based on their religious views, “her conduct here exceeded the scope of any personal right. … Rather than attempting to invoke a religious exemption for herself, Davis instead exercised the full authority of the Rowan County Clerk’s office to enact an official policy of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, one every office employee had to follow.”

The California Supreme Court rejected a 1st Amendment challenge to a state law that protects the rights of gay and transgender people in nursing homes and forbids employees of those sites from using the wrong pronouns to address a resident or co-worker.

The ruling, handed down Friday, holds that violations of the LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights are not protected by the 1st Amendment because they relate to codes of conduct in what is in effect a workplace and a home.

“The pronouns provision constitutes a regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects speech,” the court ruled.

The opinion reversed an appeals court ruling that held provisions in the 2017 law relating to patient pronouns and names could impede an employee’s freedom of speech. Five justices signed on to the main opinion; two signed on to a concurrence. There were no dissents.

“All individuals deserve to live free from harmful, disrespectful rhetoric that attacks their sense of self, especially when receiving care necessary for their continued well-being,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a written statement commending the ruling. “State law prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. I am glad that the California Supreme Court agrees with us on the importance of these protections and has affirmed their constitutionality.”

The group challenging the law, Taking Offense, asserted in its lawsuit that the provision mandating that long-term care facilities use people’s chosen pronouns amounts to “criminalizing and compelling speech content.”

Taking Offense described itself in court documents as a group opposing efforts “to coerce society to accept transgender fiction that a person can be whatever sex/gender s/he thinks s/he is, or chooses to be.”

The court ruled that the LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights “will be violated when willful and repeated misgendering has occurred in the presence of a resident, the resident hears or sees the misgendering, and the resident is harmed because the resident perceives that conduct to be abusive.”

The LGBT Long-Term Care Residents’ Bill of Rights is enforced by a section of California’s Health and Safety Code. Penalties can range from civil fines to criminal misdemeanor prosecutions — the potential for criminal penalties was a major element of Taking Offense’s argument. The court’s decision noted that other protections for long-term care facility residents have long carried both civil and criminal penalties.

“It seems apparent that the Legislature does not intend for such criminal penalties to be imposed except as a last resort, in the most egregious circumstances,” wrote the decision’s author, California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.

The opinion made comparisons to other free-speech decisions with similar elements, such as the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston could not force St. Patrick’s Day parade organizers to include them.

“By contrast, the present case does not involve any analogous creative product or expressive association,” Guerrero wrote, concluding that the California law is instead regulating people’s conduct.

Duara writes for CalMatters.

Thailand says ‘hostility … has not decreased’ and deal on hold until Cambodia meets unspecified demands.

Thailand has suspended the implementation of a United States-brokered peace agreement with neighbouring Cambodia after a landmine blast near their border injured two of its soldiers.

Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said after Monday’s incident that all action set to be carried out under the truce will be halted until Thailand’s demands, which remain unspecified, are met.

“The hostility towards our national security has not decreased as we thought it would,” Anutin asserted. He did not elaborate on what Thailand’s demands were.

There was no immediate response from the Cambodian government.

Simmering

Thailand and Cambodia signed a ceasefire on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Malaysia last month after territorial disputes between the two Southeast Asian countries led to five days of border clashes in July.

Those hostilities killed at least 43 people and displaced more than 300,000 civilians living along the border.

The Thai army said in a statement that Monday’s mine explosion in Sisaket province injured two soldiers.

Thai Defence Minister Natthaphon Narkphanit said the army is still investigating whether the mine was newly laid.

Thailand has previously accused Cambodia of laying new mines in violation of the truce, a charge that the Cambodian government denies.

Similar landmine explosions have occurred both before and since the deal, and tension has simmered.

Under the terms of the ceasefire, Thailand should release 18 Cambodian soldiers, and both sides must begin removing heavy weapons and land mines from the border.

Natthaphon said Thailand will postpone the release of the Cambodian soldiers, initially scheduled for this week.

The two sides have reported some progress on arms removal, but Thailand has accused Cambodia of obstructing mine clearance.

Cambodia said it’s committed to all terms of the truce and urged Thailand to release its soldiers as soon as possible.

Complex issues

Thailand and Cambodia agreed to a truce mediated by Malaysia in July after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs.

The dispute is among eight conflicts that Trump has taken credit for resolving, although critics have noted that the peace deals he has helped to initiate often implant swift and simplistic ceasefires, leaving complex issues behind the conflicts unresolved and likely to reignite hostilities.

While the Thai-Cambodian truce has generally held since July 29, both countries have traded allegations of ceasefire breaches.

Analysts said a more comprehensive peace pact adjudicating the century-long territorial dispute at the core of the conflict is needed.

States administering a federal food aid program serving about 42 million Americans faced uncertainty Monday over whether they can — and should — provide full monthly benefits during an ongoing legal battle involving the U.S. government shutdown.

President Donald Trump’s administration over the weekend demanded that states “undo” full benefits that were paid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during a one-day window between when a federal judge ordered full funding and a Supreme Court justice put a temporary pause on that order.

A federal appeals court in Boston left the full benefits order in place on Sunday, though the Supreme Court order ensures the government won’t have to pay out for at least 48 hours. The Trump administration is also expected to ask the justices to step in again, and Congress is considering whether to fund SNAP as part of a proposal to end the government shutdown.

Some states are warning of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the Trump administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they already authorized. Meanwhile, other states are providing partial monthly SNAP benefits with federal money or using their own funds to load electronic benefit cards for SNAP recipients.

Millions receive aid while others wait

Trump’s administration initially said SNAP benefits would not be available in November because of the government shutdown. After some states and nonprofit groups sued, two judges each ruled the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely.

The administration then said it would use an emergency reserve fund to provide 65% of the maximum monthly benefit. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said that wasn’t good enough, and ordered full funding for SNAP benefits by Friday.

Some states acted quickly to direct their EBT vendors to disburse full monthly benefits to SNAP recipients. Millions of people in those states received funds to buy groceries before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put McConnell’s order on hold Friday night, pending further deliberation by an appeals court.

Millions more people still have not received SNAP payments for November, because their states were waiting on further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Trump’s administration has argued that the judicial order to provide full benefits violates the Constitution by infringing on the spending power of the legislative and executive branches.

States are fighting attempt to freeze SNAP benefits

On Sunday, the Trump administration said states had moved too quickly and erroneously released full SNAP benefits after last week’s rulings.

“States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. He warned that states could face penalties if they did not comply.

Wisconsin, which was among the first to load full benefits after McConnell’s order, had its federal reimbursement frozen. As a result, the state’s SNAP account could be depleted as soon Monday, leaving no money to reimburse stores that sell food to SNAP recipients, according to a court filing submitted by those that had sued.

Some Democratic governors vowed to challenge any federal attempt to claw back money.

In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said “those who received their benefits should not worry about losing them.”

“No, Connecticut does not need to take back SNAP benefits already sent to the 360,000 people who depend on them for food and who should have never been caught in the middle of this political fight,” Lamont said. “We have their back.”

Lieb and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

The Los Angeles Police Department took more than a year to begin fully disclosing domestic abuse allegations against officers after the state passed a law that mandates reporting and can trigger permanent bans from police work in California.

The revelation came out through testimony at an administrative hearing last month for a rookie LAPD officer who was fired after the department alleged she committed time card fraud and physically assaulted her former romantic partner, a fellow cop.

A sergeant from the LAPD’s serious misconduct unit testified in a proceeding against Tawny Ramirez, according to Ramirez’s attorney and evidence from the closed-door hearing reviewed by The Times. The sergeant said the department did not start reporting certain spousal abuse cases to the state until after Ramirez was terminated in early February 2024. That is more than a year after rules took effect requiring the LAPD and other police agencies to promptly report officers accused of “serious misconduct” to the state’s police accreditation body, which grants authorization to work in law enforcement.

Senate Bill 2, passed in 2021, made domestic violence one of the nine categories of “serious misconduct” — including excessive force, dishonesty, sexual assault and acts of bias on the basis of factors including race, sexual orientation and gender — that police agencies are obligated to report to the state’s Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training, or POST.

The LAPD sergeant testified that the reporting practices were based on guidance from POST’s former compliance director, who said at a training session that agencies did not have to “report first-time misdemeanor domestic violence,” according to Ramirez’s attorney Nicole Castronovo and the hearing evidence reviewed by The Times.

Ramirez appealed the basis for her firing and has maintained she did not commit any misconduct. She denied allegations she abused her former partner.

LAPD officials believed the partial POST reporting went “against best practices” and tried to get the directive in writing, the sergeant testified, but still went along with what the official advised, according to Castronovo and the hearing evidence.

When the department sought further clarification from the POST compliance director’s successor, officials were informed that nearly all domestic-related incidents must be reported, Castronovo said.

She said she tried to press the LAPD about how many of these cases may have gone unreported, but the department said it didn’t know.

When SB 2 took effect in January 2023, police agencies were supposed to start disclosing “serious misconduct” to POST within 10 days of learning of credible allegations.

The sergeant who testified declined comment and directed questions to the department’s press office, which in a statement said that at the time SB 2 was being rolled out the LAPD “consulted” with POST “to determine which misconduct types required reporting.”

“The Department was advised that first-time, non-aggravated domestic battery did not meet the reporting threshold,” the statement read. “The Department followed this guidance, reporting only those cases with aggravating factors. In 2024, the Department adopted a new standard of reporting all allegations of domestic battery, regardless of severity.”

Ramirez’s lawyer said the testimony raises questions about the LAPD’s compliance with the law — and whether it has gone back to report other officers’ past offenses.

“It’s very scary to think that that crime wouldn’t be reported,” Castronovo said.

The LAPD accused Ramirez of assaulting her ex, Jorge Alvarado, in May 2023 based on a texted photo he provided that showed yellowish bruising on his arm from where she had squeezed it, according to the hearing evidence. Ramirez maintains Alvarado was bruised during consensual sex and argued at her at an administrative hearing that the department was unwilling to consider emails, text messages and other evidence she tried to provide that cast doubt on her accuser’s account.

The couple started dating in 2022 while both were at the Police Academy, according to Ramirez. She claims she tried to end the relationship after a few months when Alvarado turned overbearing and possessive. A colleague from Topanga Division helped her fill out an application for a temporary restraining order, Ramirez said.

A judge denied the stay away order on the grounds that Ramirez wasn’t in imminent danger, and Alvarado did not face any charges.

Alvarado did not respond to a request for comment sent to his department email.

According to hearing evidence, Alvarado first disclosed the alleged abuse by Ramirez during an interview with LAPD Internal Affairs in January 2024. Ramirez was fired less than a month later — weeks shy of completing her 18-month probationary period — after the department alleged that she lied about her reason for taking time off from work.

Meagan Poulos, a spokesperson for POST, said she wasn’t familiar with Ramirez’s case but if anything, the state agency deals with police departments “over-reporting” misconduct. Poulos said data on serious misconduct reports from the LAPD were not immediately available for review.

She added that reporting is not mandatory for spousal abuse cases that are quickly deemed unfounded or that don’t prompt an Internal Affairs investigation, and suggested LAPD officials may have “misconstrued” that to mean they didn’t have to report any such cases.

“I don’t know if that’s the case in this particular case, but I can say that’s not something that POST would advise any agency to not do,” she said.

According to Poulos and data from the agency, in 2023 there were 250-plus law enforcement agencies — the vast majority of which have fewer than 50 officers — that didn’t report a single case of serious misconduct. She said the agency regularly sends out reminders about their obligations under SB 2.

Larger agencies like the LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have their own coordinators or standalone units charged with referring qualifying cases to state authorities for consideration. In a brief statement, the Sheriff’s Department said it has been its “practice since the inception of SB 2 to report all allegations of acts that violate the law.”

POST revoked 57 officers’ certification this year, compared to 84 last year. Another 43 officers voluntarily surrendered their certifications, while 77 had theirs at least temporarily suspended.

A POST notification doesn’t automatically result in an officer losing his or her policing certificate. Cases are reviewed by a disciplinary board comprised of civilians with a professional or personal background related to police accountability. That board convenes every few months to review POST’s investigation of misconduct allegations and recommend whether the commission should seek decertification.

Ramirez told The Times the LAPD initially said domestic violence had nothing to do with her firing. She says she was unfairly accused of violating department policy during a 2023 incident in Canoga Park in which she and another officer used force while trying to take a man into custody. It was only later that the photos of Alvarado’s bruises were used against her, Ramirez said, along with an allegation of time card fraud — which she also denies.

The LAPD said Ramirez lied and told her supervisor she needed time off to take care her of her ailing brother when she actually went to apply for a job at the Beverly Hills Police Department.

Ramirez said she was a caregiver for her brother — who has since died — and that she was applying to the Beverly Hills job in an attempt to get away from Alvarado.

Alvarado was placed on administrative leave after Ramirez reported him but has since completed his probationary period and been elevated to the rank of Police Officer II.

A decision from the LAPD disciplinary review process on whether Ramirez can be fired remains pending. She thinks it’s unfair her ex has been allowed to return to work while she’s stuck in limbo.

“Here I am still trying to get my job back and he’s a happy officer, enjoying his benefits, while I’m living this nightmare,” she said.

Times staff writer Connor Sheets and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump is pictured in this photo provided by the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office in Atlanta on August 24, 2023. Trump surrendered on a 13-count indictment for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. Photo courtesy of Fulton County Sheriff’s Office/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 10 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is pardoning Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and dozens of other allies who have been accused of trying to subvert the 2020 election, according to U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin.

The list of 77 people pardoned by Trump was published late Sunday on Martin’s personal X account.

“No MAGA left behind,” he said.

The proclamation signed by Trump was dated Friday.

“This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 presidential election and continues the process of national reconciliation,” the document states.

Those pardoned were tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including participation in what has become known as the fake electors scheme. The strategy involved the creation of false slates of pro-Trump electors in every battleground state that he lost to Biden, including Georgia.

Among those pardoned were four of Trump’s 17 co-defendants in a case concerning the effort in Georgia, including Kenneth Chesebro, the alleged architect of the scheme. Powell, Scott Hall and Jenna Ellis were the other three.

Trump, who was among those charged in Georgia, was specifically not granted a pardon.

“This pardon does not apply to the president of the United States,” the document states.

Others granted pardons include Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff during his first term, and former Trump adviser John Eastman.

On his first day of his second term in office in January, Trump issued pardons and commutations of sentences for more than 1,500 people convicted for their participation in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, including those who injured police officers.

He has also issued pardons to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, convicted on corruption charges, former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer and former Las Vegas City Council member Michele Fiore.

Nov. 9 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate on Sunday night voted to advance a proposal that, if passed by Congress, would fund the federal government through the end of January, marking an important step toward ending the nation’s longest shutdown.

The Senate advanced the continuing appropriations bill in a 60-40 vote, with eight Democrats joining their Republican colleagues, after the Democratic caucus had maintained a strong resistance to passing a bill to reopen the government during 14 previous votes.

The bill was advanced as the 40-day government shutdown strained the United States, with many airports facing significant delays and flight reductions due to worker shortages and the food supplies of low-income households threatened by a lack of federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, who was among those who voted in favor of the resolution, said in a statement Sunday that the bill is not the same as the one Democrats rejected 14 previous times.

“Republicans finally woke up and realized their Groundhog Day needed to end. This bill is not perfect, but it takes important steps to reduce their shutdown’s hurt,” he said on X.

“Not only would it fully fund SNAP for the year ahead, but it would reverse the mass firings the Trump administration ordered throughout the shutdown.”

Along with Durbin, the other Democrats who voted in favor of the bill are: Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine but who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted “yes” to the resolution.

Explaining his vote, King said the bill will “alleviate the crisis that is now occurring in SNAP, in food insecurity across the country.”

“Food pantries can’t do it by themselves,” he said in a video message published late Sunday to his X account.

The resolution still needs to be debated and passed by the Senate and House and then be signed by President Donald Trump for the government shutdown to end.

The resolution included a “minibus” package of legislation, which, if it is approved by the Senate, would then be amended to include a full year of government funding.

The deal also includes a vote on extending tax credits for people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act — agreement on which has been the linchpin in the 40-day federal government shutdown.

Durbin, in his statement, said it was now up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to schedule the promised vote on the ACA tax credits for next month.

“And we will see to it that he makes good on his word for the millions of Americans worried they won’t be able to afford healthcare in January,” he said.

The resolution was advanced after it was reported Sunday afternoon that the Republicans had secured enough Democratic votes to advance it.

Some lawmakers had expressed hope that they might be able to end the shutdown after Senators discussed three bills that would fund the government for a full year.

Programs for veterans affairs and agriculture subsidies were released early Sunday, and a more complete funding measure for the legislative branch was released later in the day.

The extended shutdown has put SNAP benefits on hold and snarled air traffic at the nation’s busiest airports amid the ongoing impasse, which has stretched well into its second month.

Staffing shortages and flight cancellations have caused travel disruptions and forced many air traffic controllers to work without pay.

Senate Democrats have been holding out for a one-year extension of Biden-era subsidies for health insurance premiums for people who buy coverage on the federal Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act.

The shutdown also prompted the Trump administration to cancel scheduled military flyovers at a handful of NFL games, including at the Washington, D.C., area stadium that hosts the Washington Commanders, where Trump attended the game Sunday between the Commanders and Detroit Lions.

Trump has expressed wishes to have the Commanders rename the stadium after him. ESPN reported that it would be discussed between the president and team ownership during the contest.

Yoon Suk Yeol ordered drone flights over North Korea to create pretext for martial law, prosecutors allege.

South Korea’s special prosecutor has indicted former President Yoon Suk Yeol on new charges related to his short-lived imposition of martial law last year, including aiding an enemy state.

Prosecutors opened a special investigation earlier this year to examine whether Yoon ordered drone flights over North Korea to provoke Pyongyang and strengthen his effort to declare martial law.

Prosecutor Park Ji-young told reporters on Monday that the special counsel team had charged Yoon with “benefitting the enemy in general” as well as abuse of power.

Yoon and others “conspired to create conditions that would allow the declaration of emergency martial law, thereby increasing the risk of inter-Korean armed confrontation and harming public military interests”, Park said.

Park added that compelling evidence had been found in a memo written by Yoon’s former counter-intelligence commander in October last year, which pushed to “create an unstable situation or seize an arising opportunity”.

The memo said the military should target places “that must make them [North Korea] lose face so that a response is inevitable, such as Pyongyang” or the major coastal city of Wonsan, Park said.

Yoon was removed from office by the Constitutional Court in April and is on trial for insurrection and other charges stemming from his failed martial law declaration.

If found guilty, he could be sentenced to death.

Yoon has said consistently he never intended to impose military rule but declared martial law to sound the alarm about wrongdoing by opposition parties and to protect democracy from “antistate” elements.

Seoul and Pyongyang have remained technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty.

WASHINGTON — A group of moderate Democrats has a tentative deal to reopen the government if Republicans promise to hold a vote on expiring healthcare subsidies by December, a potential breakthrough as lawmakers seek to end the shutdown.

The group of three former governors — New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan and Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine — has a deal to pass three annual spending bills and extend the rest of government funding until late January, according to three people familiar with the agreement who requested anonymity until the deal is made public.

The deal was far from assured, and final passage of the legislation could take several days. Republicans had not yet said whether they supported the deal, and it was unclear whether there would be enough Democrats to support it absent their central demand through the now 40-day shutdown — an extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits that expire Jan. 1.

After Democrats met for more than two hours to discuss the proposal, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer emerged to say he would vote “no.” Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, said as he walked into the meeting that it would be a “horrific mistake to cave in to Trump right now.”

Republicans have been working with the group of moderates as the shutdown continues to disrupt flights nationwide, threaten food assistance for millions of Americans and leave federal workers without pay. But many Democrats have warned their colleagues against giving in, arguing that they can’t end the fight without an agreement to extend the health subsidies.

Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said earlier in the day that a potential deal was “coming together.” But he has not yet publicly endorsed it.

“We’ll see where the votes are,” Thune said.

Returning to the White House on Sunday evening after attending a football game, Trump did not say whether he endorsed the deal. But he said, “it looks like we’re getting close to the shutdown ending.”

Democrats have now voted 14 times not to reopen the government as they have demanded the extension of tax credits that make coverage more affordable for health plans offered under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have refused to negotiate on the healthcare subsidies while the government is closed, but they have so far been supportive of the proposal from moderate Democrats as it emerged over the last several days.

The contours of a deal

The agreement would fund parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things — and extend funding for everything else until the end of January. It would take up Republicans on their longstanding offer to hold a future vote on the healthcare subsidies, with that vote occurring by the middle of December, the people said.

The deal would reinstate federal workers who received reduction-in-force, or layoff, notices and reimburses states that spent their own funds to keep federal programs running during the shutdown. It would also protect against future reductions in force through January, the people said, and guarantee all federal workers would be paid once the shutdown is over.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, home to millions of federal workers, said he would support the deal.

“I have long said that, to earn my vote, we need to be on a path toward fixing Republicans’ healthcare mess and to protect the federal workforce,” Kaine said.

Alongside the funding fix, Republicans released final legislative text of three full-year spending bills Sunday. That legislation keeps a ban on pay raises for lawmakers but boosts their security by $203.5 million in response to increased threats. There’s also a provision championed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to prevent the sale of some hemp-based products.

Democratic pushback expected

Republicans only need five votes from Democrats to reopen the government, so a handful of senators could end the shutdown with only the promise of a later vote on healthcare. Around 10 to 12 Democrats have been involved in the talks, and the three people familiar with the agreement said they had enough votes to join with Republicans and pass the deal.

Many of their Democratic colleagues are saying the emerging deal is not enough.

“I really wanted to get something on healthcare,” said Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin. “I’m going to hear about it right now, but it doesn’t look like it has something concrete.”

House Democrats were also chiming in against it. Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said a deal that didn’t reduce healthcare costs was a “betrayal” of millions of Americans who were counting on Democrats to fight.

“Accepting nothing but a pinky promise from Republicans isn’t a compromise — it’s capitulation,” Casar said in a post on X. “Millions of families would pay the price.”

Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota posted that “if people believe this is a ‘deal,’ I have a bridge to sell you.”

Even if the Senate were to move forward with funding legislation, getting to a final vote could take several days if Democrats who oppose the deal object and draw out the process. The first vote, which could come as soon as Sunday evening, would be to proceed to consideration of the legislation.

Republicans preview healthcare debate

There is no guarantee that the Affordable Care Act subsidies would be extended if Republicans agreed to a future vote on healthcare. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said he will not commit to a health vote.

Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19-era tax credits as premiums could skyrocket for millions of people, but they also want new limits on who can receive the subsidies and argue that the tax dollars for the plans should be routed through individuals.

Other Republicans, including Trump, have used the debate to renew their years-long criticism of the law and called for it to be scrapped or overhauled.

“THE WORST HEALTHCARE FOR THE HIGHEST PRICE,” Trump said of the Affordable Care Act in a post Sunday.

Shutdown effects worsen

Meanwhile, the consequences of the shutdown were compounding. U.S. airlines canceled more than 2,000 flights on Sunday for the first time since the shutdown began, and there were more than 7,000 flight delays, according to FlightAware, a website that tracks air travel disruptions.

Treasury Secretary Sean Duffy said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that air travel ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday would be “reduced to a trickle” if the government didn’t reopen.

At the same time, food aid was delayed for tens of millions of people as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits were caught up in legal battles related to the shutdown. More than two dozen states warned of “catastrophic operational disruptions” as Trump’s administration was demanding states “undo” benefits paid out under judges’ orders last week, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed those rulings.

And in Washington, home to millions of federal workers who have gone unpaid, the Capital Area Food Bank said it was providing 8 million more meals than it had prepared to in this budget year — a nearly 20% increase.

Jalonick and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Stephen Groves and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Nov. 9 (UPI) — The Senate was poised to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history Sunday night as Democrats and Republicans said the two sides have reached a tentative budget agreement.

Axios and The Hill reported on Sunday afternoon that 10 Senate Democrats are expected to vote in favor of the House bill to fund and reopen the government through January. Politico reported Sunday night that there are “more than enough” votes for passage.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who said that the Senate would remain in session until the impasse is resolved, said earlier Sunday that he expected a 15th vote on the bill Sunday night.

The vote would include a “minibus” package of legislation, which, if it is approved by the Senate, would then be amended to include a full year of government funding.

The deal also includes a vote, on a date established in the package, on extending tax credits for people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act — agreement on which has been the linchpin in the 40-day federal government shutdown.

Democrats are set for a caucus meeting tonight, CBS News reported.

Some lawmakers expressed hope that they may be able to end the shutdown after Senators discussed three bills that would fund the government for a full year.

Programs for veterans affairs and agriculture subsidies were released early Sunday, and a more complete funding measure for the legislative branch was released later in the day.

The extended shutdown has put SNAP benefits on hold and snarled air traffic at the nation’s busiest airports amid the ongoing impasse, which has stretched well into its second month.

Staffing shortages and flight cancellations have caused travel disruptions and forced many air traffic controllers to work without pay.

Senate Democrats have been holding out for a one year extension of Biden-era subsidies for health insurance premiums for people who buy coverage on the federal Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act. Thune promised Democrats a vote on extending the subsides in December as part of the agreement.

The shutdown also prompted the Trump administration to cancel scheduled military flyovers at a handful of NFL games, including at the Washington, D.C, area stadium that hosts the Washington Commanders, where President Donald Trump attended the game Sunday between the Commanders and Detroit Lions.

Trump has expressed wishes to have the Commanders name the stadium after him. ESPN reported that it would be discussed between the president and team ownership during the contest.

PALM DESERT — Joy Miedecke, who runs the largest Republican club in the Coachella Valley, handed out scores of “No on Prop. 50” lawn signs before election day.

But Tuesday morning, she knew the ballot measure would pass.

Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to challenge President Trump, easily prevailed last week. The ballot measure, created to level the playing field with Republican gerrymandering efforts in Texas and other GOP states, reconfigured California congressional districts to favor Democrats as they try to take back the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterms.

As a consequence, Coachella Valley’s Republicans could soon be represented by anti-Trump Democrats in Washington.

California Republicans, far outnumbered by those on the left, for years have felt ignored in a state where Democrats reign, and the passage of Proposition 50 only adds to the sense of political hopelessness.

“The Democrats get their way because we don’t have enough people,” said Miedecke, of her party’s struggles in California.

Bordered by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains, the desert basin has long been a magnet for conservative retirees and vacationers, including former Republican presidents.

A cluster of palm trees light the evening landscape on Frank Sinatra Drive in Rancho Mirage.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

The local hospital is named after President Eisenhower. President Ford enjoyed the many emerald golf courses in his later years and his wife, former first lady Betty Ford, founded her namesake addiction treatment center in the desert valley.

Voters in Indian Wells, parts of La Quinta and Cahuilla Hills backed Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Under Prop. 50, some or all of those areas will move to a congressional district led by Democrat Raul Ruiz, an emergency room physician raised in the Coachella Valley, or join with left-leaning San Diego County suburbs in a new meandering district specifically crafted to favor Democratic candidates.

Joy Miedecke of Indio is president of the East Valley Republican Women Patriots. She blames the California GOP for failing to adequately fund opposition to Proposition 50.

“The party is at the bottom,” said Miedecke, 80. “It’s at the very bottom. We have nowhere to go but up.”

Sitting in her club’s retail store on Wednesday, Miedecke blamed the California Republican Party and its allies, saying they failed to raise enough money to blunt Prop. 50’s anti-Trump message.

A life-sized cardboard cutout of California Republican gubernatorial candidate and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco stood near stacks of red MAGA hats and “Alligator Alcatraz” T-shirts. A President Reagan cardboard cutout also greeted visitors.

Volunteer Chris Mahr checks signatures on petitions at the East Valley Republican Women Patriots on Nov. 6 in Palm Desert. Republicans fear Proposition 50’s passage will weaken representation in the Coachella Valley.

Republican voters in the Coachella Valley spent the days after the Nov. 4 special election criticizing the Republican Party and California’s Democratic leadership. In Facebook chat groups, in bars and on neighborhood walks, locals weighed in on the new congressional district lines and the proxy battle between Trump and Newsom.

On Wednesday, gleaming Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades cruised down a main drag, past tidy green lawns before disappearing into residential communities hidden behind sand-colored gates.

Kay Hillery, 89, who lives in an Indian Wells neighborhood known for its architecturally significant Midcentury Modern homes, is bracing for more bad news.

She anticipates that GOP congressional candidates will have a harder time raising money because the new districts marginalize Republicans.

“I am ashamed of the Republicans for not getting out the vote,” said Hillery, who moved to the desert from Arcadia in 1989.

1

2

3

1. A ceramic figurine of Trump is on display at the East Valley Republican Women Patriots store in Palm Desert. 2. A Trump key chain dangles on top of a large God Bless America button which hangs next to a hair dryer and a Bible inside “Just Marylou” hair salon. 3. Inside the “Just Marylou” hair salon is decorated in Republican posters and slogans.

Voters who backed Prop. 50, however, were reenergized.

“It’s important to take a position when we need to, and we needed to take a position as a state,” said Linda Blank, president of the Indian Wells Preservation Foundation.

Indian Wells is best known for its premiere tennis tournament, top-level golf courses and palm tree-lined roadways. Eisenhower, who lived in Indian Wells part time, is memorialized with a statue outside City Hall.

The heavily Republican city for years hosted the state’s Republican Party convention and donor retreats organized by right-wing libertarians David and Charles Koch. (David Koch died in 2019.)

Following Tuesday’s election, Indian Wells will lose its Republican representative, Ken Calvert, and become part of the newly drawn district that reaches into San Diego County.

That area is represented by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), but Democrats are trying to oust him by extending his district into bluer neighborhoods.

Michael Ford, left, Sonny Bono, center, and John Gardner Ford, right of Bono, attend the third day of the 1976 Republican National Convention at Kemper Arena in Kansas City, Mo.

(Guy DeLort/Penske Media via Getty Images)

A major portion of the Riverside County desert region once was represented by Rep. Sonny Bono, the singer, who was a Republican. After he was killed in a ski accident in 1998, his wife, Mary Bono, also a Republican, ran for his seat and served in Congress until 2013.

The Coachella Valley is now a political patchwork, home also to the Democratic havens of Palm Springs and Cathedral City and divided towns of Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert.

Today, the region is split into congressional districts held by Calvert, a Republican who lives in far-off Corona, and Democrat Ruiz.

Calvert announced last week that he’ll run in a new district in Orange and Riverside counties. The good news for Calvert is that it’s a heavily Republican district. The bad news is Republican Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim Hills is also running in that district.

Calvert, in an emailed statement, blamed Newsom for disenfranchising Republicans throughout California — who account for 5.7 million of the 22.9 million voters in the state.

“Conservatives deserve to have their voices heard, not be drowned out by partisan moves to advance a one-sided political agenda,” said Calvert. His office didn’t respond when asked about the congressman’s views on Texas’ redistricting actions.

Indian Wells Mayor Bruce Whitman said Calvert was instrumental in directing millions of dollars to a wash project that will help development.

U.S. flags adorn El Paseo Shopping District on Nov. 6 in Palm Desert.

In nearby liberal Palm Springs, city leaders passed a resolution supporting immigrants and celebrated an all-LGBTQ+ city council in 2017.

Indian Wells’ political leadership remains apolitical, Whitman said.

“National issues like sanctuary city resolutions, or resolutions supporting Israel or Palestinians — it’s just not our thing,” he said.

At the Nest bar in Indian Wells, tourists from Canada and Oregon on Wednesday night mingled with silver-haired locals.

As Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” played, 60-something resident John — who declined to give his last name— predicted the redistricting wars would end as a “wash” between California and Texas.

“It’s just a game,” he said, sounding dismissive.

Sandra Schulz of Palm Desert, executive vice president of the East Valley Republican Women Patriots, stands in front of a wall covered with Trump photographs and paintings on Nov. 6 in Palm Desert.

Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC and UC Berkeley, sees another outcome. Taking away congressional representation from the party’s last remaining conservative bastions leaves the party even less relevant, he said.

The California Republican Party hasn’t done meaningful statewide work since then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left office, Schnur said.

“They decided many years ago that they just weren’t going to engage seriously in state politics anymore,” said Schnur. “If you’re a California Republican, you focus on national politics and you work on local races.”

Tourists look at the Republican items in the store window at the East Valley Republican Women Patriots store on Nov. 6 in Palm Desert.

In 2007, then-Gov. Schwarzenegger spoke at a GOP state party convention in Indian Wells and warned his fellow Republicans that they needed to pivot to the political center and attract more moderates.

Schwarzenegger drew a parallel to the film industry, telling the convention crowd: “We are dying at the box office. We are not filling the seats.”

The former governor opposed Prop. 50, but limited his involvement with Republicans in the campaign to defeat the measure.

Indian Wells resident Peter Rammer, 69, a retired tech executive, described himself as a Republican who didn’t always vote along party lines. He is increasingly frustrated with Democrats’ handling of homelessness in California.

He voted against Prop. 50, but predicted the Democratic wins in New Jersey and Virginia would force the Republican Party to pay more attention to regional issues.

“I’m just not happy with how everything is going on the country right now,” said Rammer, standing outside Indian Wells City Hall. “There’s just so much turmoil, it’s crazy. But Trump — the guy I voted for — causes a lot of it.”

American flags adorn El Paseo Shopping District in staunchly Republican Palm Desert.

Back in Palm Desert, Republican club president Miedecke was focused on the next campaign: Getting the word out about a ballot measure by Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego).

It would require voter ID and proof of citizenship in California elections — another polarizing issue.

Nov. 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Sunday rejoiced in the abrupt resignations of the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie and news head Deborah Turness after allegations that one of its program’s misleadingly edited a he made on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The top people in the BBC, including Tim Davie, the boss, are all quitting/fired, because they were caught ‘doctoring’ my very good (perfect!) speech of Jan. 6. Thank you to The Telegraph for exposing these corrupt ‘journalists,'” Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

Davie and Turness are reported to have resigned by the BBC and there has not been evidence to suggest that they were fired.

“These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a presidential election,” Trump said. “On top of everything else, they are from a foreign country, one that many consider our number one ally. What a terrible thing for democracy!”

BBC News published a statement from Davie after his resignation, in which he said he would be working with the public broadcaster’s board to “allow for an orderly transition” to a successor over the coming months.

“Like all public organizations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable. While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision,” Davie said in his statement.

“Overall, the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

Samir Shah, the chairman of the BBC, called the dual resignations a “sad day” for the broadcaster and thanked Davie and Turness for their “unwavering service and commitment.”

The controversy stems from a report by the British newspaper The Telegraph, which leaked an internal BBC memo in which a former external ethics adviser allegedly suggested that a BBC Panorama documentary cut together parts of Trump’s speech to make it appear as if he explicitly directed the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

SACRAMENTO — A November initiative could dramatically transform California politics, raising taxes to pay for publicly financed campaigns, strictly limiting private giving and taking particular aim at ballot measure spending.

If voters approve Proposition 89 and it withstands court challenges, California will become the first state to restrict spending on ballot measures, though the limits would not apply to two of the biggest players in state politics: trial lawyers and Indian tribes that own casinos.

The initiative’s restrictions apply to corporations. Many trial lawyer firms are limited liability partnerships; Indian tribes are governments.

An unlikely coalition has formed to beat the measure. Led by the California Chamber of Commerce, the foes include the California Republican Party, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and groups that in other instances are their fierce rivals: some of the state’s most influential unions, including the 300,000-member California Teachers Assn.

The initiative’s sponsor is itself a union, albeit a maverick, the California Nurses Assn. The measure’s backers include Treasurer Phil Angelides, Schwarzenegger’s Democratic challenger; Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.); and California Common Cause. Out of deference to Angelides, the Democratic Party is neutral, though Chairman Art Torres said the party might challenge one or more aspects of the initiative if it wins.

The 70,000-member nurses union contends that big-spending healthcare companies have stymied its goal of providing broader medical coverage. The union decided to press its proposal after drug companies spent more than $80 million last year to block a labor-backed initiative to curb prescription drug prices.

“When patients get diagnosed and can’t afford the prescriptions, there is something wrong,” said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the nurses union.

Dubbed the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006, Proposition 89 is a highly complex measure of more than 50 pages. It would raise corporate and banking taxes by $200 million a year to create public financing for candidates for state office.

It would cap donations to legislative candidates at $500 and to statewide candidates at $1,000; restrict fundraising by the Republican and Democratic parties; and limit single donors to spending no more than $15,000 a year on candidate-related campaigns.

Current law says donors can give $3,300 to a legislative candidate and $22,300 to a candidate for governor per election, but contributors have no overall cap on the money they can give.

All that might be a big enough bite for a single initiative. But the proposed statute goes further. In one of its most far-reaching provisions, Proposition 89 would rein in spending on ballot measures, a dramatic step that even its backers say could be unconstitutional. The backers hope to overturn past court rulings on such limits.

In any election year, propositions consume the most campaign money. Already, more than $100 million has been raised for and against two initiatives on the November ballot, one that would raise oil taxes and another that would raise tobacco taxes.

Proposition 89 would limit direct corporate donations to $10,000 per ballot measure. The limit would extend from public companies such as Chevron to family farms and large private developers such as the Irvine Co. Chevron has spent more than $16.5 million to defeat the oil tax initiative, Proposition 87, on the November ballot.

Union foes contend that labor groups also would be barred from giving more than $10,000 to a ballot measure campaign if they have side businesses, including printing shops and credit unions. The nurses association says unions would not be subject to the limit. Any affected group or business could give more by establishing political action committees and soliciting donations from executives, stockholders and others.

Individuals still could spend unlimited sums on ballot measures. This year, Hollywood producer Stephen L. Bing, scion of a real estate magnate, promoted the oil tax initiative with at least $39 million of his own money.

At least two other major sources of campaign cash — attorneys who represent plaintiffs and wealthy Indian tribes — could continue spending unlimited amounts for and against propositions.

“It amounts to unilateral disarmament,” said John Sullivan of the corporate-funded group Californians for Civil Justice Reform, which seeks to limit litigation against business and is a rival of the trial attorneys lobby.

Chamber President Allan Zaremberg denounced Proposition 89 as a “virtual ban on corporate participation in the political process.” Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who represents the California Teachers Assn., criticized it as “totally gratuitous.”

Insurance companies, which often clash with trial attorneys in Sacramento, account for more than half of the $1.3 million raised so far against Proposition 89. The nurses union is Proposition 89’s biggest financial supporter, having spent $1.4 million to qualify it for the November ballot and $822,000 on the campaign.

Executives in the nurses union say there was no intention to exempt attorneys or tribes. Rather, their attorneys went as far as they thought they could without clearly violating the Constitution, DeMoro said.

“We don’t have a hidden agenda,” she said.

Most trial lawyer firms are set up as limited liability partnerships, as are many accountancy and venture capital firms and at least one oil company that is siding with Chevron in opposing the oil tax initiative. Such partnerships would not be bound by restrictions on corporate giving to ballot measures, the initiative’s promoters say.

Trial law firms and their organization, the Consumer Attorneys of California, regularly donate more than $1 million a year to state campaigns. The group has not taken a stand on the initiative. But trial lawyers and the California Nurses Assn. have been allies in past campaigns.

In 2004, for example, the two groups fought Proposition 64, which limits lawsuits; it won voter approval. In the June primary, lawyers and nurses also formed an alliance to help fund an $870,000 independent campaign to support and oppose legislative candidates.

Also among the state’s biggest spenders on ballot measures are Indian tribes. They have shelled out more than $150 million on propositions since 1998. Like individuals, they could continue to spend unlimited sums on ballot measures, backers of the initiative say.

“Constitutionally, we cannot restrict tribes’ spending on ballot measures,” said Santa Monica attorney Fredric Woocher, who helped write the initiative.

The U.S. Supreme Court, he noted, has ruled that donors cannot be barred from giving “just because they spend a lot of money.”

Woocher’s firm has represented the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which owns two casinos in the Palm Springs area and has spent more than $27 million on state campaigns since 1998. However, Woocher said he wasn’t thinking of tribes when he was working on the measure.

Much of Proposition 89 is similar to “clean money” laws in Arizona and Maine. But no other state regulates contributions to ballot measures, in part because the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down past attempts to restrict ballot measure spending.

In addition to hiring Woocher, the nurses retained Richard L. Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor who last year wrote a law review article opining that the issue was “ripe for reexamination in light of the Supreme Court’s new-found deference to campaign finance regulation.”

“Just look at the amount of money. Corporations have an unlimited playground,” said Susan Lerner, executive director of the California Clean Money Campaign, a nonprofit group that is helping to promote Proposition 89.

As some foes see it, the corporate restrictions represent the flip side of initiatives defeated in 2005 and 1998 that attempted to limit union donations. Major unions and California business reached a truce last year, agreeing not to pursue restrictions. Nurses were not a party to that pact.

*

[email protected]

*

Begin text of infobox

Contribution limits

Proposition 89 would curb donations for state races and ballot issues. Some proposed changes:

Individual, group and corporate giving caps

Assembly:

Current — $3,300

Proposition 89 — $500

Senate:

Current — $3,300

Proposition 89 — $500

Statewide officials:

Current — $5,600

Proposition 89 — $1,000

Governor:

Current — $22,300

Proposition 89 — $1,000

It was going to make California count, make it a contender after decades spent watching all those other pipsqueak states decide who among the legions of presidential candidates got to move into the Oval Office.

When California legislators–and Gov. Pete Wilson–agreed two years ago to move the state’s 1996 presidential primary forward from June to March, you could almost hear the silent chortles: Take that, New Hampshire! Back to the farm, Iowa!

And now that the state’s early presidential primary is a mere six months away, the nation’s most delegate-rich state can witness the result:

Nothing.

Sure, the candidates still plumb the state for money, just as they did in the old days. But apart from President Clinton’s trips, there are precious few actual campaign visits and little attention given to the issues peculiar to California. Even Wilson spent more than twice as much time out of state last month than he did tending to matters in Sacramento.

Some candidates still believe that California could ultimately play a big role in selecting the Republican nominee, even given the current dearth of activity. The state, after all, controls about 16%–or 163 of the 991–delegates needed to win the Republican nomination.

Scenarios abound, with California either putting a runaway victor over the top or deciding between two strong candidates. Then again, it could also add to a muddle of results that would force the nomination to be decided weeks later.

“California is going to play a significant role,” said Mark Helmke, communications director for Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, who announced his candidacy in April. “It’s just that none of us could speculate on what that role is.”

Others in the perennially optimistic corps of campaign activists insist that California won’t matter because the front-runner (their candidate, of course) will have it all sewn up beforehand.

“The problem is that California is too late. This thing is going to end in the industrial Midwest,” said Mike Murphy, a senior aide in the campaign of former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander. Murphy was referring to a ring of primaries to be held the week before California’s.

This underwhelming outcome was utterly predictable, according to campaign seers. And there are both logical and logistic reasons.

California moved its primary up, but only to March 26, six weeks after the campaign-opening Iowa caucuses. Not eager to be left in the dust, a host of other states began to clamor.

New York, with the third-largest delegate pool, moved from early April to early March. Pennsylvania and Ohio moved from late spring to March 19, where they will join Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin in the massive Rust Belt regional primary.

The New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine similarly coalesced into a Yankee primary on March 5–three weeks before California’s primary.

All the movement left California in 32nd place in the 1996 campaign chronology, only slightly better positioned than if it had left the primary in June.

“We were dead last, along with New Jersey and a few other states,” said state Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), who lobbied for an early primary for 14 long years. “We’re better off than we were then. We’re just not significantly better off.”

Because the early primary is a one-year experiment, legislators will have to take up its fate after next year. Costa said that he may propose moving it up even further for the 2000 election.

The state senator initially wanted to set this year’s primary for March 5, which would have made California the first big state on the election calendar. But he compromised with others in the Legislature, who argued that the state is so big that it would swallow up all but the richest candidates. Give the poorer candidates a chance to make their mark in earlier, smaller states, the argument went, and then their momentum could offset their lack of funds in California.

The upshot is this: Candidates are still cozying up to Iowa, whose caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 12, and New Hampshire, whose first-in-the-nation primary will be held eight days later.

They are patting backs and kissing babies in South Carolina, whose primary will be held March 2, on the grounds that it will serve either as a fire wall to block a surging campaign or will redouble the momentum of an earlier winner.

They are courting voters elsewhere in the South, where the Super Tuesday primary will be held March 12 and where voters will decide the fates of at least two of their own, Texas’ Phil Gramm and Tennessee’s Alexander.

All of this makes compelling strategic sense.

“The first focus has to be the first caucus and primaries,” said Charles Robbins, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. “They come first and if you don’t perform, you’re out of the game.”

Put another way, it would be political malpractice for a candidate to hang out in California when his time is better spent in the earlier states. Compounding matters is California’s status as a winner-take-all primary. That means a candidate who put all his marbles into the state and pulled, say, 48% of the vote would walk away without a delegate. Many other states dispense their delegates proportionally.

“No candidate is going to make a serious commitment to resources in a March primary simply because there’s no guarantee you’re going to get that far,” said an adviser to one of the campaigns. “It’s a huge gamble to put up that money and risk walking away with nothing.”

Another hindrance to actively campaigning in California is the fact that the state is so far from Washington, where no less than six of the nine Republican candidates are based.

One recent Thursday, for example, Specter jetted from Washington to Boston, held two campaign events and was back in the Capitol for Senate business by lunchtime.

“You can’t do that to California,” said his aide Robbins. “Just because of the geography, all the way on the other side of the country, it’s a real project.”

While the Republican candidates have not spent much time in California, their campaigns are starting to lay the foundations of an effort here.

Wilson’s campaign is rebuilding his longstanding organization, despite prominent defections to other camps and surveys that show the governor losing the state to front-runner Bob Dole of Kansas.

Besides having the only full-fledged campaign office in the state, Wilson’s operation has staffers specifically working to buoy his standing here, said spokesman Dan Schnur.

“For all their talk, none of the other campaigns are putting any time or energy into California at all,” he said. “They file in and out for fund-raisers, but beyond that there’s no indication of any serious organizational effort on the part of any of them.”

Wilson does have a leg up, but his opponents argue that his campaign may have folded by late March or, even if he stays in the race, they may be able to build enthusiasm here from the momentum of earlier victories.

Gramm has made the biggest splash, garnering the support of Republican legislative leaders Curt Pringle and Rob Hurtt, both of Orange County, and a host of activists. U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox of Newport Beach, who is heading Gramm’s California campaign, said the effort so far is a “very well-organized, low dollar” effort.

It will remain entirely a volunteer effort through the end of the year, he said.

“When you’re running statewide in California, it’s important to have money when it counts, not lavishly throw it around months in advance,” Cox said.

Dole has been here infrequently, but has tried to make a big splash when he has come. He salted one Los Angeles fund-raising trip with a high-profile assault on the entertainment industry.

Overall, the Dole campaign said, it has raised $1.5 million in its visits to California.

“Some analysts are suggesting that it will all be over before California,” said Dole spokesman Nelson Warfield. “Our attitude is that we are contesting every state very vigorously. We’re proceeding on the assumption that it is up for grabs.”

Former television commentator Patrick J. Buchanan has made three multi-day fund-raising trips to California since March–the same time frame in which he has visited Iowa 11 times and New Hampshire eight times. His aides say they are putting together networks of volunteers who will fan out in support of Buchanan.

Lugar and Alexander have raised money in California, and Lugar aides said they had particular luck with a direct mail drive that touted his proposal to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace income taxes with a national sales tax. Like the latter two, Specter has had a low profile here.

At some point, the Republican nominee will begin fighting the general election war here–one that President Clinton is already waging. Mindful that he needs to win the state in order to be reelected, Clinton has visited California 19 times in less than three years, more than any other state.

Nov. 9 (UPI) — U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned Sunday that Thanksgiving air travel would slow considerably.

Amid the continued federal government shutdown and upcoming travel season, he also said that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth offered military reserves of air traffic controllers to help mitigate the shutdown-linked staffing shortage.

As of early Sunday morning, more than 1,100 flights had been canceled, which follows more than 1,500 that were cancelled and 6,4000 that were delayed, ABC reported.

The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered airlines to cut flights by 10% by Nov. 14 to mitigate air safety concerns amid the shortage of air traffic controllers.

Duffy said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday” that Hegseth texted him Saturday with the offer, but that he did not know if the air traffic controllers could be deployed.

“But he’ll step in and try to provide some relief in the skies,” Duffy said. “We’re trying to minimize the pain for the American people.”

Duffy said that he anticipated “very few” air traffic controllers showing up for work over the holiday, choosing to be with their families as they continue to work unpaid.

The federal government shutdown that began on Oct. 1 has entered its sixth week, becoming the longest in U.S. history, as lawmakers in Washington remain at an impasse over funding for the new fiscal year.

The stalemate is over expiring healthcare tax credits from the Affordable Care Act. Democrats want to extend these subsidies before reopening the government, while Republicans refuse to discuss policy until a funding bill passes.

The funding lapse has led to the furlough of hundreds of thousands of federal employees and is forcing many others, including military personnel and air traffic controllers, to work without pay. But many air traffic controllers have chosen not to appear for work.

Disruptions have deepened nationwide, including slowdowns at airports, closures of national parks and cultural institutions and growing uncertainty over food assistance programs for millions of Americans.

“I think we have to be honest about where this is going,” Duffy said. “It doesn’t get better, it gets worse until these air traffic controllers are going to be paid.”

LONDON — The head of the BBC resigned Sunday after criticism of the broadcaster’s editing of a speech by President Trump.

The BBC said that Director-General Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness both announced their resignations Sunday.

Britain’s public broadcaster had been criticized for its editing of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, before a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn his election defeat.

Critics said that the way the speech was edited for a BBC documentary was misleading in that it cut out a section in which Trump said that he expected his supporters would demonstrate peacefully.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump said in the speech, during which he also urged his supporters to “fight like hell.”

Trump was impeached and criminally indicted over his role in the ensuing Jan. 6 riot and insurrection. The felony charges were dropped after he won the 2024 election, as U.S. Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president may not be criminally prosecuted.

In a letter to staff, Davie said quitting the job after five years “is entirely my decision.”

“Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility,” Davie said.

He said that he was “working through exact timings with the Board to allow for an orderly transition to a successor over the coming months.”

Turness said that the controversy about the Trump documentary “has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC — an institution that I love. As the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me.”

Pressure on the broadcaster’s top executives has been growing since the Daily Telegraph newspaper published parts of a dossier complied by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines.

As well as the Trump edit, it criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of alleged anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

Nov. 9 (UPI) — The Trump administration has ordered states to stop distributing benefits to 42 million food insecure Americans, including critical nutrition and aid to the Women, Infants and Children program.

The move follows an order last week by two federal judges that ordered the administration to provide the benefits that hungry children rely on.

A memo from the U.S.D.A. Food and Nutrition Service directs states to “immediately undo any steps taken to issue” full payments to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

The Administration has called on states to issue partial payments, about 65% of a typical monthly SNAP benefit, to recipients.

The memo threatens states with total cuts in federal funding they need to pay SNAP administrative costs if they don’t heed the warning.

As of Sunday morning, officials in many states said they were unsure how the USDA order will affect their aid, the fate of which has been uncertain as courts and the Trump administration volley back and forth over the amount to be distributed, if any.

Washington funds SNAP, but the federal government and states share the administrative costs of distributing the benefits to recipients.

Friday night, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blocked a Rhode Island judge’s order that, earlier in the week, directed the Trump administration to issue full SNAP benefits for the month of November.

The Trump administration said Friday that it was working to distribute the aid, and it appealed to the Supreme Court to block the Rhode Island judge’s order.

The SNAP program provides aid to more than 42 million Americans, including elderly people, children and low-income families.

It has been at the center of the historically long government shutdown, as recipients have been unsure, often on a day-to-day basis, whether they are going to receive the funds they need to buy food they need to survive.

The Trump administration is demanding states “undo” full SNAP benefits paid out under judges’ orders last week, now that the Supreme Court has stayed those rulings, marking the latest swing in a seesawing legal battle over the anti-hunger program used by 42 million Americans.

The demand from the U.S. Department of Agriculture came as more than two dozen states warned of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they authorized before the Supreme Court’s stay.

Nonprofits and Democratic attorneys general sued to force the Trump administration to maintain the program this month. They won the favorable rulings last week, leading to the swift release of benefits to millions in several states.

But, even before it won a stay on those rulings through an appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday night, the Trump administration balked at reimbursing states for the initial round of SNAP payments. Wisconsin, for example, loaded benefits onto cards for 700,000 residents, but after the U.S. Treasury froze its reimbursements to the state, it anticipates running out of money by Monday, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration warned in a lengthy statement Sunday.

The lack of money could leave vendors unpaid and trigger escalating legal claims, the states warned. “States could face demands to return hundreds of millions of dollars in the aggregate,” the filing at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals says.

That situation “would risk catastrophic operational disruptions for the States, with a consequent cascade of harms for their residents,” the filing concludes.

That filing arrived as the Department of Agriculture on Saturday told states it would now consider any payments made last week to be “unauthorized.”

“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”

Evers issued a quick response to the Trump administration’s demand. “No,” the governor said in a statement.

“Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries,” Evers said. “After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available.’ They have failed to do so to date.”

Bauer and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.