politics

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, giving you the latest on city and county government.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did something this week that would have been unthinkable three years ago — she took an unprompted swipe at her counterparts in L.A. County.

Bass, while weighing in on L.A.’s so-called “mansion tax,” dinged the county for creating what she called a “bureaucratic” homelessness agency, saying it threatened to undermine the city’s progress on the crisis.

County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath hit back hard, telling Bass on X that the county created the new agency because the existing one — which is partly overseen by Bass appointees — was incapable of tracking its spending.

“The County is fixing the problems you’ve ignored,” Horvath said.

Things have been bad between Bass and Horvath for more than a year, with the two Democrats taking veiled, and sometimes not-so-veiled, swipes at each other. But could they become adversaries in the truest sense of the word — as head-to-head rivals in this year’s mayoral election?

Horvath, who has spent months lining up endorsements for her own reelection campaign, has until Saturday to decide whether to enter the mayor’s race, challenging Bass’ bid for a second term. She told The Times she is seriously weighing a run — and “spending the weekend in deep reflection” with friends and family.

“From a young age, my faith has guided me through the most important moments of my life,” said Horvath, who is Catholic. “This is one of those moments.”

Bass, who is running in the June 2 primary for a second term, is already facing challenges from reality television star Spencer Pratt, former school superintendent Austin Beutner and community organizer Rae Huang, who has focused heavily on housing issues. Still, a Horvath bid would reshape the contest dramatically.

Beutner has not campaigned publicly since Jan. 5, one day before his 22-year-old daughter died of undetermined causes. Real estate developer Rick Caruso opted on Jan. 16 to stay out of the race, after sharply criticizing Bass for more than a year.

On paper, a Horvath mayoral bid looks somewhat risky. If she takes the plunge, she would no longer be permitted to seek reelection to her supervisorial seat, representing about 2 million people on the Westside and in the San Fernando Valley. Bass has been raising money for more than a year and has locked up key endorsements, including the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

If she runs, Horvath would face questions about the county’s difficulties, including a $4-billion legal payout over sexual abuse that has been marred by fraud allegations and a screwup surrounding Measure G, the 2024 ballot measure that will expand the number of county supervisors but also is on track to inadvertently repeal a criminal justice reform measure.

On top of that, there’s the secret $2-million payout to the county’s top executive.

Horvath said she’s seen recent polling that makes clear that “there’s an appetite for change” among Angelenos. Community leaders, residents of her supervisorial district and “those longing for a better Los Angeles” have been asking her to run, she said.

“I am listening carefully and seriously both to those who are urging me to enter this race, and to those who are eager to continue the work we have begun together at the County,” she said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the Bass campaign said he does not comment on prospective candidates. Pratt, for his part, said he’s rooting for Horvath to jump in so that “voters can see two career politicians calling each other out for the failed policies they both promoted.”

“Lindsey Horvath and Karen Bass are both responsible for the decline of our city, and the more they talk about each other, the more the public will see why we need a complete reset,” he said in a statement.

Even if Horvath doesn’t run, it looks like her relationship with the mayor will be rocky for the foreseeable future. The first-term supervisor has emerged as one of Bass’ most outspoken critics, highlighting an array of issues at City Hall.

Earlier this month, Horvath told The Times that she hears regularly from Angelenos who complain that they’re not getting basic services. She said that support within City Hall for Inside Safe, the mayor’s program to combat homelessness, is eroding.

Horvath has also taken aim at the city’s response to the Palisades fire, pointing out in a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom that the Fire Department’s after-action report was watered down and then disavowed by its author. A day later, she told CBS2 that Bass was not being truthful about the county’s new homelessness agency.

Bass also has her own bully pulpit. On Friday, she stood outside federal court and railed against the indictment of independent journalist Don Lemon, calling it an “assault on our democracy.” Prosecutors have accused Lemon of violating federal law while reporting on a protest inside a Minnesota church.

The strained relations between Bass and Horvath are noteworthy given the mayor’s heavy focus on collaboration early on in her administration, when she triumphantly declared she was “locking arms” with a wide array of elected officials — including county supervisors — in the fight against homelessness.

Bass has attempted to stay above the fray, mostly avoiding direct conflict with other politicians — at least in public. But the Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead, showed things weren’t always amiable behind the scenes.

Two weeks after the fires, Horvath and Bass were at odds over their joint public appearances, with Horvath complaining via text message that the mayor’s approach didn’t feel “very ‘locked arms.’”

Months later, Horvath and her colleagues on the Board of Supervisors voted to pull hundreds of millions of dollars from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, moving the money to the new county homelessness agency.

Horvath said the change was urgently needed in the wake of highly damaging reports about LAHSA’s financial oversight. Bass, in turn, warned the move would create a “monumental disruption” for the city’s effort to bring unhoused residents indoors.

Last month, Bass published an opinion piece in the Daily News criticizing the county, pointing out that its new homelessness agency was already proposing cuts to programs that have served the city’s unhoused population.

Bass echoed that criticism in a recent interview, saying the cuts were proposed a year after voters approved a half-cent sales tax to fund homeless services.

Those reductions, if enacted, would scale back the operations of A Pathway Home, the county’s counterpart to Inside Safe.

“We are going to do the best we can without a full partner in the county,” Bass said.

Horvath, for her part, said she wants to scale back A Pathway Home because it is too costly — and is not achieving the success that county officials want.

State of play

— BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD: City Councilmember Nithya Raman fell short in her attempt to send voters a ballot proposal rewriting Measure ULA, the tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up. Councilmembers said they did not even want to discuss the idea until it had been vetted by her committee.

— PIT BULL PAYOUT: The city paid more than $3 million last year to a woman who adopted a dog from the South L.A. animal shelter, only to have it attack her two days later. She later found out the dog had bitten a grandmother’s face. The case is raising questions about the way some shelter dogs are promoted on Instagram and other platforms.

— HEADING TO TRIAL: After a weeklong hearing, a judge ruled on Wednesday that the criminal case against Councilmember Curren Price can proceed to trial. Price, who has been charged with embezzlement, perjury and violations of conflict-of-interest laws, is slated to leave office in December. His lawyer said he did not act with “wrongful intent.”

— CLEARING CASES: Los Angeles police solved more than two thirds of homicides citywide in 2025, in a year that ended with the fewest number of slayings in six decades, according to figures released Thursday.

— GIVING TO GIBSON DUNN: The council signed off on a $1.8-million increase to its legal contract with Gibson Dunn, which is representing the city in the seemingly endless L.A. Alliance case. The increase, which passed on a 9-4 vote, brings the contract to nearly $7.5 million.

— PAYOUT PAUSE: Los Angeles County will halt some payments from its $4-billion sex-abuse settlement, as prosecutors ramp up their probe into allegations of fraud.

— LAPD VS. PROTESTER: A tense exchange between an LAPD captain and one of the Police Department’s most outspoken critics has gone viral.

— BATTLING TRUMP, PART 1: President Trump signed an executive order to allow victims of the Los Angeles wildfires to rebuild without obtaining “unnecessary, duplicative, or obstructive” permits. The order, which is likely to be challenged by the city and state, was immediately derided by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said Trump should provide FEMA relief.

— BATTLING TRUMP, PART 2: Trump also vowed to fight the construction of new low-income housing in the Pacific Palisades burn area. L.A. officials say no projects are planned.

Quick hits

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to fight homelessness went to the area around Gage Avenue at St. Andrews Place, located in the South L.A. district represented by Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson.
• On the docket next week: Bass delivers the first of her two State of the City speeches, which has been billed as a “unifying celebration of Los Angeles.”

Stay in touch

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

After the recent shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis, some police chiefs have joined the mounting criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration blitz.

One voice missing from the fray: LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell.

This week, the chief reiterated that the department has a close working relationship with federal law enforcement, and said he would not order his officers to enforce a new state law — currently being challenged as unconstitutional — that prohibits the use of face coverings by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents.

Top police brass nationwide rarely criticize their federal partners, relying on collaboration to investigate gangs, extremist groups and other major criminals — while also counting on millions in funding from Washington each year.

McDonnell and the LAPD have found themselves in an especially tough position, longtime department observers say. The city has been roiled by immigration raids and protests, and local leaders, including Mayor Karen Bass, have blasted the White House. But with the World Cup and Olympics coming soon — events that will require coordination with the feds — the chief has been choosing his words carefully.

Over the past year, McDonnell has fallen back on the message that the LAPD has a long-standing policy of not getting involved in civil immigration enforcement. Unlike his counterparts in Minneapolis, Portland and Philadelphia, he has largely avoided public comment on the tactics used by federal agents, saving his strongest criticism for protesters accused of vandalism or violence.

In a radio interview last spring, the chief said that “it’s critical that in a city as big, a city that’s as big a target for terrorism as Los Angeles, that we have a very close working relationship with federal, state and local partners.” He boasted that the LAPD had “best relationship in the nation in that regard.”

McDonnell stood beside FBI Director Kash Patel on an airport tarmac last week to announce the capture of a Canadian former Olympic snowboarder accused of trafficking tons of cocaine through Los Angeles. Then, at a news conference Thursday in which city officials touted historically low homicide totals, McDonnell said LAPD officials were as “disturbed” as everyone else by events in other parts of the country, alluding to Pretti’s shooting without mentioning him by name. He said the department would continue to work closely with federal agencies on non-immigration matters.

Explaining his stance on not enforcing the mask ban, McDonnell said he wouldn’t risk asking his officers to approach “another armed agency creating conflict for something that” amounted to a misdemeanor offense.

“It’s not a good policy decision and it wasn’t well thought out in my opinion,” he said.

Elsewhere, law enforcement leaders, civil rights advocates and other legal experts have decried how ICE agents and other federal officers have been flouting best practices when making street arrests, conducting crowd control and maintaining public safety amid mass protests.

After a shooting by agents of two people being sought for arrest in Portland, Ore., in mid-January, the city’s chief of police gave a tearful news conference saying he had sought to understand Latino residents “through your voices, your concern, your fear, your anger.”

Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal set off a social media firestorm after she referred to ICE agents as “made-up, fake, wannabe law enforcement.”

In Minneapolis, where the Trump administration has deployed 3,000 federal agents, police Chief Brian O’Hara reportedly warned his officers in private that they would lose their jobs if they failed to intervene when federal agents use force. And in a news conference this week, New Orleans’ police superintendent questioned ICE’s arrest of one of the agency’s recruits.

The second-guessing has also spread to smaller cities like Helena, Mont., whose city’s police chief pulled his officers out of a regional drug task force over its decision to collaborate with U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Over the weekend, the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, the nation’s largest and most influential police chief group, called on the White House to convene local, state and federal law enforcement partners for “policy-level discussions aimed at identifying a constructive path forward.”

McDonnell’s backers argue that the role of chief is apolitical, though many of his predecessors became national voices that shaped public safety policy. Speaking out, the chief’s supporters say, risks inviting backlash from the White House and could also affect the long pipeline of federal money the department relies on, for instance, to help fund de-escalation training for officers.

Assemblyman Mark González (D-Los Angeles) was among those who opposed McDonnell over his willingness to work with ICE while serving as Los Angeles County sheriff, but said he now considers him a “great partner” who has supported recent anti-crime legislation.

So he said was disappointed by McDonnell’s unwillingness to call out racial profiling and excessive force by federal agents in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

“We have to trust in a chief who is able to say ICE engaging and detaining 5-year-old kids and detaining flower vendors is not what this system was set up to do,” said González, the Assembly’s majority whip. “It would help when you’d have law enforcement back up a community that they serve.”

Inside the LAPD, top officials have supported McDonnell’s balancing act, suggesting that promises by officials in other cities to detain ICE agents rang hollow.

“Have you seen them arrest any? No,” said Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton.

LAPD officers serve on nearly three dozen task forces with federal officials, where they share information and resources to track down criminals, said Hamilton, the department’s chief of detectives. Cooperating with federal partners is essential to tasks including combating “human trafficking on Figueroa” and dismantling international theft rings, he said. As part of these investigations, both sides pool intelligence — arrangements that some privacy rights groups warn are now being exploited in the government’s immigration crackdown.

Hamilton said that “there’s nothing occurring right now that’s going to affect our relationship with the federal government across the board.”

Art Acevedo, a former chief in Houston and Miami, said that for any big-city chief, taking an official position on an issue as divisive as immigration can be complicated.

Being seen as coming out against President Trump comes with “some political risks,” he said.

But chiefs in immigrant-rich cities like Houston and L.A. must weigh that against the potentially irreparable damage to community trust from failing to condemn the recent raids, he said.

“When you don’t speak out, the old adage that silence is deafening is absolutely true. You end up losing the public and you end up putting your own people at risk,” he said. “The truth is that when you are police chief you have a bully pulpit, and what you say or fail to say is important.”

Those with experience on the federal side of the issue said it cuts both ways.

John Sandweg, the former director of ICE under President Obama, said that federal authorities need local cops and the public to feed them info and support operations, but the immigration agency’s “zero tolerance” approach was putting such cooperation “in jeopardy.”

“Ideally, in a perfect world, ICE is able to work within immigrant communities to identify the really bad actors,” he said. “But when you have this zero tolerance, when the quantity of arrests matters far more than the quality of arrests, you eliminate any ability to have that cooperation.”

Times staff writers Brittny Mejia, Ruben Vives and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

What’s the difference between Brett Ratner and Leni Riefenstahl? Riefenstahl, for all her many sins, was technically innovative; Ratner (unless you count an almost fetishistic fascination with first lady footwear), not so much.

But in the end, they are both political propagandists, collaborators if you will, with heads of state determined to create a narrative that is, at best, at odds with reality and, at worst, a targeted attempt to distort it.

Am I saying that “Melania” is as horrifically significant as “Triumph of the Will”? No, I am not. But it is motivated by the same base forces, and as fun as it might be to watch Jeff Bezos lose most of the $75 million Amazon paid for the purchase and then marketing of the film, it is important to remember that.

As Melania Trump said herself at the film’s premiere: “Some have called this a documentary. It is not. It is a creative experience that offers perspectives, insights and moments.”

A “creative experience” for which the first lady, who serves as narrator and executive producer, reportedly received about $28 million.

Money she very much does not earn.

Anyone who goes into “Melania” hoping to see even a glimpse of what it is like to be first lady, or indeed Melania Trump, will find instead a super-long version of “we followed [fill in the blank] as they got ready for the Oscars.”

Only in this case, it’s Donald Trump’s second inauguration, which Ratner (given his first big job since being accused by six women of sexual misconduct) frames as the Second Coming, from the lingering shots of the sleek lines of the motorcade to the use of “His truth is marching on” from “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as the first couple takes the stage at one of the inaugural balls.

(And in case you think that’s not obsequious enough, at the end of the inaugural festivities, Ratner, off camera, says, “sweet dreams, Mr. President,” which honestly could have been the title of this film.)

Most of the “action” involves the first lady making entrances: off private jets, out of big black cars and into well-appointed rooms. There, Trump and her designers wax rhapsodic over a gown designed to disguise any seams, admire an inaugural dinner menu that begins with caviar in a big golden egg and discuss the furnishings that will be moved in as soon as the Bidens move out.

These mind-numbing glories are interrupted just long enough for Tham Kannalikham, an interior designer in charge of the White House transition, to talk about how her family immigrated to America from Laos when she was 2 — the opportunity to work in the White House is, for her, the ultimate American dream. Beside her, Trump, also an immigrant, remains silent.

Other things happen. Trump has a video conference with French First Lady Brigitte Macron to discuss initiatives to end cyberbullying, meets with Queen Rania of Jordan to discuss helping foster children and comforts former Hamas hostage Aviva Siegel. Siegel, whose husband, at the time of filming, is still a hostage, provides the film’s one real emotional moment, despite having been clearly included as an opportunity for Trump to reveal a bit of personal kindness (and some political messaging).

We follow Trump as she and her husband attend Jimmy Carter’s funeral, during which her narration describes the pain of her mother’s death the year before, and as she “sneaks” the cameras into a room where her husband is rehearsing his inaugural speech.

There she suggests, with a completely straight face, that he add the word “unifier” to “peacemaker” in his description of what he hopes to be his legacy, a term he then uses in his speech the next day.

Throughout it all, the first lady remains relentlessly poised and personally inaccessible, lending new and literal meaning to the term “statuesque.”

Given the nature of the film’s subject, and the fact that she is the one literally calling the shots, no one with half a brain could expect to see any interesting or authentic “behind-the-scenes” moments (Melania wearing sweats or counting her breakfast almonds or, I don’t know, sneezing). A brief scene in which the remarkably tone-deaf Ratner attempts to get her to sing along to her favorite song, Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean,” elicits (finally!) a genuine laugh from her, and while his decision to repeatedly zoom in on her admittedly well-shod feet becomes increasingly creepy, it at least offers drinking-game potential.

Even so, “Melania” is as cynical a piece of filmmaking as exists since the art form began.

Listening to her describe the seriousness with which she takes her duties; her love, as an immigrant, for this great nation; and her dedication to making life better for all Americans — especially children and families — I was reminded of the climactic scene in “A Wrinkle in Time,” when young Charles Wallace has been ensnared by the soothing rhetoric of the evil brain-washing IT.

The superficial blandness of “Melania” isn’t boring; it’s calculated, infuriating and horrifying.

The first lady is describing an alternative universe of peace, love and unity while her husband has unleashed armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to terrorize and detain children and adults (many of whom are citizens or here in this country legally) and, in at least two cases, kill American citizens who protest their actions. She wants to help children and families while her husband slashes federal assistance programs and holds school funding hostage. She would have us believe she is battling cyberbullies while her husband, the president of these United States, regularly engages in lies, direct threats and character assassination on social media.

President Trump is many things but he is not a unifier — he believes, as he has assured us time and again, in winning, and, as he has also said and shown, he will choose retribution over reconciliation every time.

Melania Trump is, of course, not her husband. But this film is little more than a 90-minute campaign ad. Which, given the fact that Trump cannot legally run for president again, should be cause for much concern.

Many criticized the decision to release “Melania” mere days after federal agents killed Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, and excoriated those notables, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, who chose to attend an early celebratory screening that included “let them eat” cookies with “Melania” scrawled in the icing.

For the kind of person who makes, and buys and distributes, a film that purports to be a “documentary” and is really just old-fashioned, through-the-looking-glass propaganda, however, it’s actually the perfect time.

Why worry about the federal government killing its own citizens when we can all ooh and aah over the fact that the first lady’s inaugural gown is constructed so that none of the seams show? Especially if it makes her husband happy.

Leading Democrats have rolled out a new and unvarnished message — that the U.S. Department of Justice cannot be trusted.

“Let’s be really clear: We can’t trust anything the DOJ does. The DOJ is corrupt. They’re corrupt on every major issue in front of this country,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said Friday at a news conference in his district.

“We cannot trust the Department of Justice. They are an illegitimate organization right now under the leadership of [Atty. Gen.] Pam Bondi and the direction of Donald Trump,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said during his own news conference in Washington, D.C.

The remarks — which hold profound implications in a two-party democracy meant to be protected and served by a nonpartisan justice system, and which a White House spokesperson called “shameful” — followed a week of equally stunning actions by the Justice Department, where President Trump has installed staunch loyalists, including Bondi, to high-ranking positions.

In recent days, the Justice Department has resisted launching civil rights investigations into two fatal shootings of U.S. citizens in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents. It has since reversed course and launched such an investigation into the second of those incidents, in which 37-year-old Alex Pretti was shot while surrounded by agents, on the ground and disarmed, but has held firm in its decision not to investigate the earlier shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, who was shot while trying to drive away from a tense exchange with agents.

On Wednesday, the FBI raided and seized voter ballots and other information from the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga., long a target of Trump’s baseless and disproven claims that widespread voter fraud helped Democrats steal the 2020 election. Bondi was an early backer of those baseless claims, as were other Justice Department appointees.

On Friday, federal agents arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon and other journalists after their coverage of a protest at a conservative church in Minneapolis. Justice Department officials rejected the defense that Lemon and the other journalists were exercising their 1st Amendment rights as journalists, and accused them of violating the rights of churchgoers.

Also Friday, Justice Department officials released more documents from the Epstein files — a trove of records related to the sexual abuse of minors by the late, disgraced billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats argued that the release was still not complete, in violation of a law passed by Congress mandating that they be made public.

In a statement to The Times, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly dismissed Jeffries’ and Garcia’s remarks as “shameful comments by Democrats who cheered on Joe Biden’s weaponization of the Department of Justice against his political enemies, including President Trump,” and said Trump, Bondi and other administration officials “have quickly Made America Safe Again by taking violent criminals off the streets, cracking down on fraud, holding bad actors accountable, and more.”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment, but officials there have broadly defended the department’s actions as not only justified but necessary for ensuring the rule of law and holding alleged criminals to account.

Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, said both the actions of the Justice Department and the latest statements from Democrats ratcheted up the stakes in the nation’s already tense political standoff — as institutions such as the Justice Department “need to be trusted in the long term” for American democracy to be successful.

“Trust goes up and down in the people in institutions over history, but there’s been a baseline level of support for our Constitution, the way our government is built, and the seal on the building — even if people didn’t trust who was in that building,” Kousser said. “What we may be risking as a country is losing the trust in the building itself, if people think that the might of the federal government is being used to pursue a narrow agenda of one party or one leader.”

Jeffries’ assertion that the Justice Department can’t be trusted came as he denounced Lemon’s arrest. Jeffries said there was “zero basis to arrest” Lemon, and that the arrest was an attempt by the Trump administration to weaponize government against people they disagree with.

Jeffries added that distrust in the federal agency is one of the reasons why House Democrats are pushing for legislative action to require independent investigations by local and state law enforcement in cases when federal agents engage in violent incidents and are accused of wrongdoing — such as the shootings in Minneapolis.

Other leading Democrats have also slammed the Justice Department over the journalists’ arrests.

“The American people deserve answers as to why Trump’s lawless Justice Department is arresting journalists for simply doing their jobs,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

“The arrest of journalists for covering a protest is a grave attack on the 1st Amendment and freedom of the press,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “And proof the Trump administration is not de-escalating.”

Garcia’s comments came in a wide-ranging news conference at which he also discussed taking on a leading role in impeachment proceedings against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who has been overseeing the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts, including through the deployment of Immigration and Custom Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis, Los Angeles and other major cities.

Garcia denounced the Trump administration’s handling of the Good and Pretti shootings, arguing that independent investigations were needed — as he said were conducted after police shootings in Long Beach when he was mayor there.

“They should bring in either a special counsel [or] some type of special master to oversee an independent investigation,” he said.

He said that was especially necessary given the fact that Noem and other administration officials immediately bad-mouthed Good and Pretti as violent actors threatening agents before any of the facts were gathered — and in direct contradiction to video evidence from the scenes.

“What happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretti was murder by our own government, and our committee is working right now on a major report on both of those incidents so that those that are responsible are held accountable,” Garcia said.

He also called Lemon’s arrest “horrifying,” saying Lemon was “out there reporting” and is now being “essentially attacked” by the Justice Department. “The arrest of Don Lemon might be the single largest attack on the free press and the 1st Amendment in the modern era.”

Garcia noted that the Justice Department had first shopped Lemon’s arrest around to multiple judges, who denied issuing a warrant for his arrest. Administration officials said a federal grand jury handed down an indictment for the journalist, but Garcia suggested the indictment was fraudulently obtained based on the government putting forward information “we cannot trust.”

Decisions around the two Minneapolis shootings and the arrest of the journalists would have passed through the office of Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Dhillon did not respond to a request for comment Friday. However, she has broadly defended her office’s actions online. For days before Lemon’s arrest, she had slammed his actions, writing on X that she and Bondi “will not tolerate harassment of Americans at worship — especially from agitators posing as ‘journalists.’”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche — a former personal attorney to Trump — has broadly defended the department’s actions in Minneapolis, where he said a civil rights investigation into Good’s shooting was unwarranted, and on the Epstein files, which he said have been released in accordance with the law and Trump’s own demands for transparency.

The latter was also something Garcia took issue with Friday, slamming the Justice Department for continuing to withhold some of the files.

“Donald Trump and the Department of Justice just made it clear right now that they intend to withhold approximately 50% or half of the Epstein files while claiming to have fully complied with the law. This is outrageous and incredibly concerning,” Garcia said.

He said his committee subpoenaed all of the files over the summer, and Bondi has yet to comply with that subpoena in violation of the law.

Previously released Epstein records included allegations that Trump was involved in Epstein’s schemes to abuse young women and girls, which Trump — once a friend of Epstein’s — has strenuously denied.

The Justice Department has also taken the unusual step of defending the president in the matter directly, including by releasing a statement last month that the released documents “contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump.”

“To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already,” the department’s statement said.

Kousser, the politics professor, noted that this is not the first time that concerns about partisanship within the Justice Department have been voiced. He said similar concerns were raised by many Republicans when the Justice Department was prosecuting Trump during the Biden administration.

Such arguments raise serious alarms, he said, regardless of which way they are directed politically.

“If people feel like the Justice Department is only doing the bidding of whoever won the last election, that moves it from a law enforcement body to a political operation in the eyes of average Americans,” he said. “And that would be a huge loss for our democracy.”

Just a few hours after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a statement that said, without evidence, that the 37-year-old registered nurse “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem would later imply Pretti had been “asked to show up and to continue to resist” by Minnesota’s governor.

Multiple videos from the scene immediately undercut those claims, and there has been no indication in the days since that Pretti threatened or planned to hurt law enforcement.

Several high-profile use-of-force incidents and arrests involving federal immigration agents have involved a similar cycle: Strident statements by Trump administration officials, soon contradicted by video footage or other evidence. Some law enforcement experts believe the repeated falsehoods are harming federal authorities both in the public eye and in the courtroom.

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, has taken five defendants to trial on charges of assaulting officers — and his office has lost each case. Court records and a Times investigation show grand juries in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles have repeatedly rejected criminal filings from prosecutors in similar cases.

Despite the repeated judicial rebukes, administration officials have continued to push for criminal charges against people at protest scenes, including the controversial arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon on Friday.

“When top federal law enforcement leaders in the country push false narratives like this, it leads the public to question everything the government says going forward,” said Peter Carr, a former Justice Department spokesman in Washington who served in Democratic and Republican administrations. “You see that in how judges are reacting. You’re seeing that in how grand juries are reacting. You’re seeing that in how juries are reacting. That trust that has been built up over generations is gone.”

The credibility concerns played out in a downtown L.A. courtroom in September, when Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino served as the key witness in the assault trial of Brayan Ramos-Brito, who was accused of striking a Border Patrol agent during protests against immigration raids last summer. Video from the scene did not clearly capture the alleged attack, and Bovino was the only Border Patrol official who testified as an eyewitness.

Under questioning from federal public defender Cuauhtémoc Ortega, Bovino initially denied he had been disciplined by Border Patrol for calling undocumented immigrants “scum, filth and trash,” but later admitted he had received a reprimand. The jury came back with an acquittal after deliberating for about an hour. A juror who spoke to The Times outside court said Bovino’s testimony detailing his account of the alleged assault had “no impact” on their decision.

Last year, a Chicago judge ruled Bovino had “lied” in a deposition in a lawsuit over the way agents used force against protesters and journalists.

Spokespersons for Essayli and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.

Essayli’s prosecutors have seen four additional cases involving allegations of assault on a federal officer end in acquittals, a nearly unheard of losing streak. A Pew study found fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted throughout the U.S. in 2022.

“The credibility of the prosecutor’s office and the credibility of the law enforcement officers testifying is key,” said Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who is now a partner at Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg. “That is especially true when the only witness to an event is a law enforcement officer.”

Jon Fleischman, a veteran Republican strategist and former spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, said federal law enforcement officials have a responsibility to be the “mature, responsible player in the room” and remain as apolitical as possible. While he is a firm supporter of President Trump’s immigration agenda and said the Biden administration shares some blame for politicizing federal law enforcement, Noem’s handling of Pretti’s killing was problematic.

“What she said really doesn’t bear out in terms of what the facts that are available tell us,” Fleischman said. “I think it undermines the credibility of the justice system.”

Fleischman added that he feared some of the government’s recent missteps could dull approval of the platform that twice carried Trump to the White House.

“One of the main reasons I’ve been so enthusiastic about this president has been his stance on immigration issues,” he said. “When you see unforced errors by the home team that reduce public support for the president’s immigration agenda, it’s demoralizing.”

Another top Trump aide, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, also spoke out after the Minnesota shooting, calling Pretti an “assassin.”

Responding to a Times reporter on X, Miller said recent legal defeats in Los Angeles were the result of “mass judge and jury nullification, deep in blue territory, of slam-dunk assault cases.”

Accounts from inside L.A. courtrooms paint a different picture.

Carol Williams, a jury foreperson in the most recent assault trial which federal prosecutors lost in L.A., said the people she served with steered clear of conversations about the news or ICE raids.

“We didn’t talk about the protests in L.A. and we didn’t talk about the protests that were in Minnesota or anything,” Williams said. “People, I’m sure, probably keep up with the news, but in terms of bringing that into the jury room, we did not.”

Last year, Essayli and Tricia McLaughlin, the chief Homeland Security spokesperson, accused Carlitos Ricardo Parias of ramming immigration agents with his vehicle in South L.A., causing an agent to open fire. Video made public after the assault charges were dismissed last year, however, do not show the vehicle moving when the ICE agent opens fire, injuring Parias and a deputy U.S. marshal.

After being presented with the body-camera footage, McLaughlin reiterated the claim that Parias weaponized his vehicle and said officers “followed their training and fired defensive shots.”

McLaughlin also labeled Keith Porter Jr. — a Los Angeles man shot and killed by an off-duty ICE agent in Northridge on New Year’s Eve — an “active shooter” in initial media comments about the case, using a term that typically refers to a gunman attempting to kill multiple people.

Los Angeles police said nobody else was injured at the scene and have not used the “active shooter” wording in statements about the case.

Porter’s family and advocates have argued that force was not warranted. They said Porter was firing a gun in the air to celebrate the new year, behavior that is illegal and discouraged as dangerous by public officials.

A lawyer for the agent, Brian Palacios, has said there is evidence Porter shot at the agent.

Carr, the former Justice Department spokesman, said the Trump administration has broken with years of cautious norms around press statements that were designed to protect the credibility of federal law enforcement.

“That trust is eroded when they rush to push narratives before any real investigations take place,” he said.

In one case, the refusal of Homeland Security officials to back down may cause video footage that further undercuts their narrative to become public.

Last October, Marimar Martinez was shot five times by a Border Patrol agent in Chicago who alleged she was following him in a car and interfering with an operation. In a statement, McLaughlin accused Martinez of ramming a law enforcement vehicle while armed with a “semiautomatic weapon.”

Federal prosecutors in Chicago dropped the charges, but McLaughlin and others continued to describe Martinez as a “domestic terrorist.” As a result, Martinez filed a motion to revoke a protective order that has kept hidden video of the incident and other evidence.

“While the United States voluntarily dismissed its formal prosecution of her with prejudice … government officials continue to prosecute Ms. Martinez’s character in the court of public opinion,” the motion read.

Danish company will replace Hong Kong-based firm, CK Hutchison, after Trump claimed strategic waterway was controlled by China.

Danish firm Maersk will temporarily operate two ports on the Panama Canal after a court ruled that contracts given to a Hong Kong firm were unconstitutional.

The Panama Maritime Authority (AMP) announced the changes on Friday, a day after the Central American country’s Supreme Court invalidated port contracts held by Hong Kong-based firm CK Hutchison.

The court ruling followed repeated threats from United States President Donald Trump that his country would seek to take over the waterway he claimed was effectively being controlled by China.

According to the court ruling that annulled the deal, CK Hutchison’s contract to operate the ports had “disproportionate bias” towards the Hong Kong-based company.

On Friday, the AMP said port operator APM Terminals, part of the Maersk Group, would take over as the “temporary administrator” of the Balboa and Cristobal ports on either end of the canal.

Maersk takes over from the Panama Ports Company (PPC) – a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings – which has managed the ports since 1997 under a concession renewed in 2021 for 25 years.

The canal, an artificial waterway, handles about 40 percent of US container shipping traffic and 5 percent of world trade. It has been controlled by Panama since 1999, when the US, which funded the building of the canal between 1904 and 1914, ceded control.

Washington on Friday welcomed the decision, but China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said Beijing “will take all measures necessary to firmly protect the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies”.

For its part, PPC said the ruling “lacks legal basis and endangers … the welfare and stability of thousands of Panamanian families” who depend on its operations.

Tens of thousands of workers dug the 82km- (51-mile-) passageway that became the Panama Canal, allowing ships to pass from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic without having to travel around the northernmost or southernmost ends of the Americas.

Panama has always denied Chinese control of the canal, which is used mainly by the US and China.

Rodriguez calls for healing ‘wounds left by political confrontation’ while announcing notorious El Helicoide prison to shut down.

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez has announced an amnesty bill that could lead to the release of hundreds of prisoners, her latest major reform since the US military abducted the country’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife earlier this month.

“We have decided to push ahead with a general amnesty law that covers the whole period of political violence from 1999 to the present day,” Rodriguez said on Friday.

Speaking at a gathering of justices, magistrates, ministers, military officials and other government leaders, the acting president said the National Assembly would take up the amnesty bill with urgency.

“May this law serve to heal the wounds left by the political confrontation fuelled by violence and extremism,” Rodriguez said in the prerecorded televised event.

“May it serve to redirect justice in our country, and may it serve to redirect coexistence among Venezuelans,” she said.

Rodriguez also announced the shutdown of El Helicoide, a notorious secret service prison in Caracas, where torture and other human rights abuses have been documented by independent organisations.

El Helicoide, she said, will be transformed into a sports, social and cultural centre for the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Rodriguez made her announcement before officials whom former prisoners and human rights watchdogs have accused of overseeing El Helicoide and other detention facilities.

The Venezuelan-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal estimates that 711 people are in detention in facilities across Venezuela over their political activities. Of those, 183 have been sentenced, the group said.

Foro Penal President Alfredo Romero welcomed the planned amnesty but said it must apply to all prisoners “without discrimination”.

“A general amnesty is welcome as long as its elements and conditions include all of civil society, without discrimination, that it does not become a cloak of impunity, and that it contributes to dismantling the repressive apparatus of political persecution,” Romero wrote in a post on social media.

Foro Penal has calculated that some 302 prisoners have been released by Rodriguez’s government in the aftermath of the abduction of Maduro by the US.

The organisation later released a video clip on social media of what is said showed the moment that human rights worker Eduardo Torres was released from prison on Friday night, following his detention since May 2025.

Translation: Our colleague from @proveaong Eduardo Torres has been released from prison, human rights defender, former political prisoner.

Families and rights advocates have long demanded that charges and convictions against detainees who are considered political prisoners be dropped.

Government officials – who ⁠deny holding political prisoners and say those jailed have committed crimes – report that more than 600 people have been released from prison, but they have not been clear on the timeline and appear to be including prisoners released in previous years.

The ICE officers descended on Compton, targeting immigrants convicted of theft, child abuse and selling drugs.

There were no protesters. No whistles alerting targets to the officers’ presence. No face masks. In some cases, residents opened their doors to let the officers inside their homes. One man thanked them for not arresting him in front of his children.

The Los Angeles area operation ended with 162 arrests, including a Mexican national convicted of rape and a Salvadoran national convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said almost 90% of the people arrested had criminal convictions.

It was June 2018, more than a year into Donald Trump’s first term as president. More than seven years later, carrying out the same operation in L.A. or other U.S. cities feels almost impossible without drawing angry crowds and requiring multiple officers, at times across federal agencies, to detain a single target.

In the years since Trump’s first term, ICE and the government’s immigration enforcement apparatus expanded raids well beyond those against known criminals or suspected ones. Increasingly, immigrants with no criminal records and even legal residents and U.S. citizens found themselves stopped and sometimes arrested.

The uncertainty over who is being targeted has fueled a growing pattern of community protests and rapid response mobilizations, even when officials say they are targeting convicted felons, reflecting a widening gap between how enforcement is described and how it is experienced. That gap has become most visible on the ground.

In recent months, sightings of ICE or other federal agents have drawn crowds of protesters, legal observers and community organizers. In many cases, residents say they can’t distinguish between targeted enforcement actions — against child molesters, human smugglers and other serious criminals — and broader sweeps, responding instead to the mere presence of agents whose role and authority are no longer clearly understood.

Experts say the Trump administration’s hostile rhetoric against immigrants and often seemingly indiscriminate targeting of people in neighborhoods has hurt the reputation of its immigration enforcement agencies, including ICE and Border Patrol, like never before. And it has inspired a mass movement of resistance that has seen Americans shot by federal immigration officers. In the last month, two U.S. citizens — Renee Nicole Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti — were shot dead by ICE and Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis.

The fatal shootings forced Trump to recalibrate his immigration enforcement tactics, in part by sidelining Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino, who first launched the aggressive raids in California, and putting border policy advisor Tom Homan in charge.

“I’m not here because the federal government has carried out this mission perfectly,” Homan said during a Thursday news conference. “Nothing’s ever perfect, and anything can be improved on. And what we’ve been working on is making this operation safer, more efficient, by the book.”

He said street operations in Minnesota would “draw down” if the agents were given access to local jails and that agents would focus on specific targets.

“We will conduct targeted enforcement operations — targeted,” he added. “That has traditionally been the case and that’s what we’re going to continue to do and improve upon that with the priority on public safety threats.”

An internal memo reviewed by Reuters showed ICE officers operating in the state were directed to avoid engaging with “agitators” and only target “aliens with a criminal history.”

Even if the Trump administration were to pull back ICE and Border Patrol’s aggressive tactics to focus more on known criminals, experts question whether too much damage has been done to their reputations.

“The brand of the agency is becoming so toxic,” said John Sandweg, who headed ICE under President Obama. “It’s going to impact the agency for years to come. It’s going to take a long time for that trust to rebuild.”

Another former ICE official, who asked not to be named out of fear of retaliation, said the agency used to be able to say it was focused on criminals and wasn’t conducting random sweeps.

“For years we always said, ‘We don’t have the resources to go after everybody, so we’re going to focus on just the worst of the worst,’” he said. “They can’t say that now. They’re still trying to do that, but it’s getting overshadowed by Home Depot and car washes and all this other stuff and Border Patrol’s heavy-handed tactics. Now it’s leading to shootings and all these other things. It’s just horrible.”

In Willowbrook, an unincorporated neighborhood nestled in South L.A., just blocks from Compton city limits, federal agents found themselves locked between angry crowds recording them last week. Two people held a sign that read: “ICE / Soldiers off our streets.”

Federal agents clear the way for an authorized car to pass while investigating a shooting involving a federal agent in Willowbrook.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

The agents were there to arrest a man they say had been “involved in human trafficking” and had a final removal order. They alleged the man had two prior arrests for domestic violence. Homeland Security officials later said the man used his vehicle to ram federal agent vehicles in an attempt to evade arrest, prompting an agent to open fire.

But as news spread that the operation was targeting a suspected criminal living in the country illegally, most residents shrugged it off. They said federal officials had made false claims against other people they had arrested or shot at, including labeling Good and Pretti as domestic terrorists.

“They’ve shown us that they’re not trustworthy,” Rosa Enriquez, 39, said while holding a Mexican flag.

Similar scenes have played out across the country. This month, a journalist posted a video of agents — who she identified as working for ICE — calling out a driver for honking during an operation St. Paul, Minn.

“We’re here to arrest a child sex offender and you guys are out here honking,” the agent said. “That’s who you guys are protecting. Insane.”

“Just go. You’re lying!” a woman shouts.

Homeland Security has made it a point to tout the arrests of criminals across the country. The “worst of the worst arrests” in L.A. this month, according to the agency, included a man convicted of second-degree murder, another for voluntary manslaughter and one with multiple convictions for driving under the influence and disorderly conduct.

“We will not let rioters or agitators slow us down from removing murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists,” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.

But experts say the general public has clearly witnessed a shift in who is being targeted.

In May, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller reportedly directed top ICE officials to go beyond target lists and have agents make arrests at Home Depot or 7-Eleven convenience stores as they sought to crank up their daily arrest numbers to 3,000.

Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, center, marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

The following month, Border Patrol agents led by Bovino were on the ground in L.A., tackling car wash workers, arresting street vendors and chasing down day laborers.

“The pressure of those numbers on enforcement agencies and mobilizing the whole of government and other law enforcement agencies, well beyond the traditional ICE and CBP, has created pressures that have led to extensive overreach,” said Doris Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is the agency that includes ICE and Border Patrol.

At the peak of arrests in L.A in June, around 75% of people had no criminal conviction. A Times analysis found that in the administration’s first nine months, from Jan. 1 to Oct. 15, of the more than 10,000 Los Angeles residents who were arrested in immigration operations, about 45% had a criminal conviction and an additional 14% had pending charges.

In November the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, reported that, nationwide, 5% of detainees from Oct. 1 to Nov. 15 had been convicted of violent crimes. Most detainees with convictions were found guilty of vice, immigration or traffic infractions.

“They’ve painted to the American people that they were going after the worst of the worst, and that is nothing like what is happening,” said Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D-Carson), who represents the district where the recent shooting in L.A. unfolded. “We have seen all across America where they have harassed, they have murdered, assassinated not only citizens but also people who have not had any arrest, who have not fit the bill or the description of what they have painted to the American people.

“When you turn on the news right now, the trust is absolutely gone. We don’t trust the White House, we don’t trust ICE, and the people are afraid because the trust is gone.”

Santa Maria Councilmember Gloria Soto echoed that sentiment, in part because she has seen raids in her Central Coast town.

“That’s part of the frustration,” Soto said. “There’s no transparency. There’s no information being shared before or after these enforcements have taken place.”

“We know for a fact that there are individuals who are getting picked up who did not have a criminal record, whose only quote-unquote crime was, you know, either having an expired visa, or crossing without the required immigration documentation that is needed, so it makes it really difficult for us, for me as an elected official, to trust what this agency is doing because so far there is no communication,” she said.

The challenges ICE officers are facing appear to center on cities that have been targeted with surge operations — like in Minneapolis, Sandweg said. Across the country, he said, officers are conducting operations “but not with the same amount of controversy.”

People take part in a vigil at a memorial for Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

“In Minneapolis we’re at the point now when, if agents are going to go after someone with a very serious violent criminal history, they’re likely to pick up observers and a lot of attention,” he said. “The way in which they wanted to do these operations in such an overt, in-your-face kind of fashion, has created a dynamic that makes it really hard for the agents to execute their duties. … You have these protests following the agents everywhere they go.”

While there has always been consternation over immigration enforcement, Sandweg said that “the widespread tactics and the targeting of people with no criminal record just really galvanized people in a way they’ve never been galvanized before.”

“To where now it probably is starting to bleed into and impeding operations that most of those protesters are probably not opposed to — the idea of ICE getting someone with a violent criminal history off the streets,” he said. “I think it’s created an environment where it puts the officers and the public in harm’s way.”

This week, protesters came out in force when word spread that ICE officers were eating at a restaurant in Lynwood. A video shows the crowd jeering at the officers as they’re being escorted out of the area by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies.

Almost immediately, Lynwood City Councilmember Luis Gerardo Cuellar posted a video on Instagram to inform the public.

“This was not ICE, these were … TSA air marshals.”

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers will consider bolstering funding for Planned Parenthood and other providers of reproductive health with a one-time infusion of $90 million, leaders of the state Legislature announced Friday.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate President Monique Limón (D-Goleta) said the money would give grants to providers that were affected by recent federal cuts passed by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress that targeted abortion providers. The funding is included in a proposed bill being considered by state lawmakers.

“Trump and his Republican enablers have waged an all-out assault on women — attacking abortion access, family-planning and reproductive health,” Rivas said in a Friday statement. “Outrage alone won’t stop it. When Trump strips funding, California will continue to act.”

The Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed last year by Trump, prohibited federal Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood. California and a coalition of other Democrat-led states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration last year over the provision.

More than 80% of the nearly 1.3 million annual patient visits to Planned Parenthood in California were previously reimbursed by Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, which provides healthcare coverage to low-income Americans.

In his recent budget proposal, Gov. Gavin Newsom allotted $60 million for reproductive healthcare. His proposal serves as a starting point for state budget negotiations.

Planned Parenthood offers a range of services, including abortions, birth control, cancer screenings and testings for sexually transmitted diseases.

Los Angeles mayoral candidate Austin Beutner’s daughter was found by the side of a highway in Palmdale the night she died, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

A passerby alerted authorities to a woman in a “state of medical distress” shortly after midnight Jan. 6 near Sierra Highway and Technology Drive, said Lt. Michael Modica of the sheriff’s homicide bureau.

Sheriff’s deputies responded to the scene to assist paramedics, who treated Emily Beutner, 22, at the scene, Modica said. He could not say how long Beutner had been by the road, which is surrounded by empty fields.

She was transported to a local hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

Sheriff’s homicide detectives have assumed control of the death investigation. Modica said this is typical when a young person is found in such a situation and should not be taken as an indication of the cause of death, which will be determined by the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner.

Jeff Millman, a spokesperson for Austin Beutner, declined to comment.

Viridiana Aguilar, a spokesperson for the medical examiner, said earlier this month that her agency had not yet made a determination on the cause of death and had requested additional testing.

“Due to the ongoing death investigation, the County of Los Angeles Department of Medical Examiner cannot disclose what testing and/or studies were requested,” Aguilar said. “Deferred cases can take a few months before a cause of death is determined.”

The medical examiner’s website indicates that Emily Beutner died at a hospital and does not list a cause or manner of death.

Beutner, a student at Loyola Marymount University, was the youngest of four children and the only daughter.

Her father, a former Los Angeles Unified school superintendent, is among the challengers seeking to unseat Mayor Karen Bass in the June 2 primary. Others include TV star Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, and Rae Huang, a community organizer and housing advocate.

Austin Beutner has sharply criticized Bass’ handling of the fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead. His own home was seriously damaged in the fire, forcing him to live elsewhere for the past year, and his mother-in-law’s home was destroyed.

Over the course of his career, Beutner did a stint as former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s “jobs czar.” He also spent roughly a year as publisher and chief executive of The Times.

Beutner has not publicly campaigned since Jan. 5, the day before his daughter’s death.

“My family has experienced the unimaginable loss of our beloved daughter. We ask for privacy and your prayers at this time,” Beutner said earlier this month.

WASHINGTON — The House, with Rep. Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose) emotionally recalling his own experiences in a camp for Japanese-American internees during World War II, today gave final congressional approval to a bill expressing a national apology and providing a $20,000 tax-free payment to every surviving internee.

The bill, whose total price tag is $1.25 billion, passed by a vote of 257 to 156 and now goes to President Reagan, who has already promised to sign it and “close a sad chapter in American history.”

The bill provides for the tax-free payments to an estimated 62,000 former internees who are still living.

It acknowledges “the fundamental injustice of the evacuation, relocation, and internment” of the 120,000 men, women and children, mostly West Coast residents of Japanese ancestry, in the months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, propelling the United States into the war.

‘A Monumental Injustice’

Mineta was 10 years old when he and his family were taken in 1942 from their home in San Jose to a prison camp established at the Santa Anita race track. Today he presided as Speaker pro tem as the House took final action on the compensation bill.

“This legislation touches all of us because it goes to the very core of our nation,” Mineta said in a speech closing debate. “I am deeply honored to serve in this body as it takes the great step of admitting and redressing a monumental injustice.”

But the bill was opposed by a number of members who, although they agreed the evacuation order was wrong, said cash payments were not appropriate.

Rep. Norman D. Shumway (R-Stockton) said: “There was a serious wrong done to many good American citizens. . . . But I do not see the remedy, the payment of $20,000, as the right answer.”

Nothing for Families

The Senate approved the measure by voice vote last week. The bill authorizes $1.25 billion for the payments, but the money will be provided over time with no more than $500 million to be appropriated in any one year.

The measure does not provide compensation to families of internees now dead; only those living when the bill becomes law will be eligible for the $20,000 payments.

The Japanese-Americans were rounded up and sent to the internment camps in the Rocky Mountains and the South under a 1942 executive order signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Despite arguments that the order violated the constitutional rights of those sent to the camps without any charge or trial, the Supreme Court ruled in 1944 the action was within the President’s powers as commander in chief in wartime.

In 1980, a special commission was created to examine the issue. It recommended that compensation be paid, concluding that the evacuation order was based on war hysteria and racial prejudice. No similar action was taken against Americans of German or Italian ancestry, although the United States also was at war with those two countries.

Aleutian Islanders

The bill directs the Justice Department to identify and locate eligible individuals, who will be notified and then have 18 months to accept payment.

It also provides restitution payments of $12,000 to residents of the Aleutian Islands who were relocated by the government during the war. In addition, the bill provides $5-million compensation for the Aleuts for destruction of their villages and community property, plus $1.4 million for destroyed church property.

Another $15 million is provided to compensate the Aleuts for the loss of Attu Island, which was turned into a national wildlife refuge following the war.

Jan. 30 (UPI) — The federal government mostly will go unfunded at least through Monday after the Senate on Friday approved a bill package to fully fund all but the Department of Homeland Security.

Five budget bills would fund the majority of the federal government through the 2026 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, but Homeland Security only is funded through Feb. 13 in a sixth bill.

The two-week extension enables lawmakers to debate proposed changes regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection enforcement activities.

The six measures must be approved by the House of Representatives, which will take them up on Monday and send them to President Donald Trump for signing if House members concur with the changes made in the Senate.

The Senate voted 71-29 to approve House Resolution 7148 early Friday evening.

While the measure awaits approval in the House and eventual signing by the president, the federal government mostly will shut down at 12:01 a.m. EST on Saturday, but lawmakers expect that lull to be short and over by Tuesday.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Friday told media that he expects to fast-track the voting by suspending the House floor rules and immediately approve the budget measures, which only require a simple majority in the House versus at least 60 votes in the Senate.

The vote to suspend the rules, though, requires a two-thirds vote of House members.

The Homeland Security budget still would need to be debated and could lapse if it is not approved and signed into law by the end of the day on Feb. 13.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told media he does not expect Homeland Security to be funded by Feb. 13.

“I believe this is a horrible bill,” he said on Friday. “I can’t believe we’re not funding ICE.”

He said he doesn’t believe it will be funded in two weeks, either.

Congressional Democrats are demanding an end to sweeps through targeted cities, want ICE and CBP officers unmasked and wearing body cameras, and want judicial warrants instead of administrative warrants issued to target and arrest individuals.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was unhappy that the Senate removed a provision approved by the House that would have enabled him and others to sue the Department of Justice for seizing his phone records during the Biden administration’s Operation Arctic Frost.

Graham was among eight Republican senators whose phone records were accessed by the DOJ, which he called illegal.

“Every Senator should make sure this never happens again,” he told media on Thursday.

Congressional Democrats generally were happy that the Homeland Security funding was separated from a six-bill package to fund the entire government.

They also successfully rejected an effort to reduce the maximum Pell Grant amount by $1,000 and blocked the president’s proposal to lower rental assistance funding and reduce the National Institutes of Health budget.

Democrats were especially pleased that measures approved by the Senate give the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program $20 million more in funding, while the Child Care and Development Block Grant and Head Start each get another $85 million.

WASHINGTON — A budget impasse in Congress is poised to halt large swaths of federal operations early Saturday as lawmakers in Capitol Hill turn to the next flashpoint in negotiations to reopen the government: whether to impose new limits on federal immigration authorities carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Over the next two weeks, Democrats and Republicans will weigh competing demands on how the Department of Homeland Security should carry out arrests, detention and deportations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents this month in Minnesota.

Seeking to rein in the federal agency, Senate Democrats late on Thursday were able to strike a deal with the White House that would temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security but fund the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation agencies through Sept. 30.

The agreement is intended to give lawmakers more time to address Democratic demands to curb ICE tactics while averting a partial government shutdown.

The Senate finalized the deal Friday evening on a 71-29 vote, hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown. Passage of the deal was delayed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who objected to parts of the package.

The House expected to take up the legislation as early as Monday. The partial government shutdown will occur until the measure clears the House and Trump signs it into law.

The president supports the deal, which came after Senate Democrats said they would not vote to fund Homeland Security unless reforms for the agency were approved. Among the demands: banning federal agents from wearing masks, requiring use of body cameras and requiring use of judicial warrants prior to searching homes and making arrests.

Democrats have also demanded that local and state law enforcement officials be given the ability to conduct independent investigations in cases where federal agents are accused of wrongdoing.

The deal, however, does not include any of those reforms; it includes only the promise of more time to negotiate with no guarantee that the new restrictions will be agreed to.

Both of California’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, voted against the Senate deal. They both opposed giving more funding to Homeland Security without reforms in a vote Thursday.

Schiff voted no because he said he promised to not “give another dime for ICE until we saw real reforms — and not just promised reforms but statutory requirements.”

“I want to see those reforms before I am prepared to support any more funding for these agencies,” Schiff said in a video message posted on X, and added that he did not see the White House acting in “good faith. “I want it in writing and statute.”

After voting against the measure, Padilla said in a statement: “I’ve been clear from the beginning: No more money for ICE and CBP without real oversight and accountability.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday morning that Democrats will find out whether two weeks is enough time to reach a compromise.

“We will evaluate whether that is sufficient time,” Jeffries said. “But there is urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE as we have seen is out of control.”

Meanwhile, the absence of reforms in the Senate deal has already drawn concerns from some progressives, who argue the deal falls short of what is needed to rein in federal immigration enforcement.

“First of all, I’m actually disappointed that Senate leadership is not right now demanding more,” Rep. Robert Garcia, a top-ranking House Democrat from Long Beach, told reporters Friday. “This idea that we’re somehow going to continue to fund this agency and somehow just extend the pain, I think is absolutely wrong.”

Garcia said it was “outrageous” that the Senate deal would extend funding for Homeland Security for two weeks without any new requirements.

“This idea that we’re somehow not demanding immediately the removal of masks and body cameras and all the other reforms while eliminating this agency that’s causing harm, I think, is outrageous,” Garcia said.

Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of Pasadena said in a statement that she had not yet decided whether to support the Senate deal once it reaches the House floor.

But, Chu added: “I cannot support legislation that increases funding to this agency while delivering no accountability measures.”

Rep. Kevin Calvert (R-Corona) said in a statement that it is “critical” for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan spending package, in part because it included funding for the U.S. military.

“As Chairman of the [House] Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, I’m especially concerned about the negative impacts of a shutdown at a time when we have a buildup of American military assets in the Middle East,” Calvert said.

Calvert added that Homeland Security operations will continue even in the shutdown because lawmakers provided an influx of funding for the agency in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But he said he worried that any lapse in funding would affect other operations by the agency, including disaster funding and security assistance for major events, such as the upcoming World Cup.

“We need to get these priorities funded,” he said.

Other Republican lawmakers have already signaled the possible hurdles Democrats will face as they try to rein in ICE.

Graham held up consideration of the Senate deal, in part because he wanted the Senate to vote to criminalize local and state officials in sanctuary cities — a term that has no strict definition but that generally describes local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“You can convince me that ICE can be better, but I don’t think I will ever convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you’re wedded to it on the Democratic side,” Graham said.

Graham also delayed passage of the deal because it included a repeal of a law that would have allowed senators — including himself — to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phones without notifying them. The law required senators to be notified if that were to happen and sue for up to $50,000 in damages per incident.

“We’ll fix the $500,000 — count me in — but you took the notification out,” Graham said. “I am demanding a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Other Senate Republicans also expressed concern with Democrats’ demands, even as Trump seemed to try appease them.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the demand for federal agents to remove their masks during operations was a “clear and obvious attempt to intimidate and put our federal agents in harm’s way.”

“When enforcement becomes dangerous for enforcers, enforcement does not survive,” Schmitt said in a Senate floor speech. “What emerges is not reform, it is amnesty by default.”

Despite the GOP opposition, most Senate Republicans were poised to join Democrats on Friday and vote for the deal. But there is no certainty that they will join the minority party when negotiations resume in the coming weeks.

Recent history suggests that bipartisan support at the outset does not guarantee a lasting deal, particularly when unresolved policy disputes remain. The last government shutdown tied to a debate over healthcare exposed how quickly negotiations can collapse when no agreement is reached.

In November, a small group of Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with the promise of negotiating an extension to healthcare tax credits that were set to expire in the new year.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a former House speaker, reminded the public on Friday that Democrats were unable to get Republican support for extending the tax credits, resulting in increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

“House Democrats passed a bipartisan fix, yet Senate Republicans continue to block this critical relief for millions of Americans,” Pelosi wrote in a post on X.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

For years at CNN, Don Lemon had been a thorn in the side of President Trump, frequently taking him to task during his first term over his comments about immigrants and other matters.

On Friday, the former CNN anchor — now an independent journalist who hosts his own YouTube show — was in a Los Angeles federal courtroom and charged with conspiracy and interfering with the First Amendment rights of worshippers during the Jan. 18 protest at the Cities Church in St. Paul.

Lemon was arrested by federal agents in Los Angeles on Friday, along with a second journalist and two of the participants in the protest of the federal government’s immigration enforcement tactics in Minneapolis.

Lemon identified himself at the protest as a journalist. His attorney said in a statement Lemon’s work was “constitutionally protected.”

“I have spent my entire career covering the news,” Lemon told reporters after he was released on his own recognizance Friday afternoon. “I will not stop now. There is no more important time than right now, this very moment, for a free and independent media that shines a light on the truth and holds those in power accountable. Again, I will not stop now. I will not stop, ever.”

The scene of a reporter standing before a judge and facing federal charges for doing his job once seemed unimaginable in the U.S.

The arrest marked an extraordinary escalation in the Trump administration’s frayed relations with the news media and journalists.

Earlier this month, the FBI seized the devices of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson in a pre-dawn raid as part of an investigation into a contractor who has been charged with sharing classified information. Such a seizure is a very rare occurrence in the U.S.

Last spring, the Associated Press was banned from the White House. The AP sued White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and two other administration officials, demanding reinstatement.

Even the Committee to Protect Journalists, an organization that monitors and honors reporters imprisoned by authoritarian government regimes overseas, felt compelled to weigh in on Lemon’s arrest.

“As an international organization, we know that the treatment of journalists is a leading indicator of the condition of a country’s democracy,” CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said in a statement. “These arrests are just the latest in a string of egregious and escalating threats to the press in the United States — and an attack on people’s right to know.”

For Lemon, 59, it’s another chapter in a career that has undergone a major reinvention in the last 10 years, largely due to his harsh takes on Trump and the boundary-pushing moves of his administration. His journey has been fraught, occasionally making him the center of the stories he covers.

“He has a finely honed sense of what people are talking about and where the action is, and he heads straight for it in a good way,” said Jonathan Wald, a veteran TV producer who has worked with Lemon over the years.

A Louisiana native, Lemon began his career in local TV news, working at the Fox-owned station in New York and then NBC’s WMAQ in Chicago where he got into trouble with management. Robert Feder, a longtime media columnist in Chicago, recalled how Lemon was suspended by his station for refusing to cover a crime story which he felt was beneath him.

“A memorable headline from that era was ‘Lemon in Hot Water,’ ” Feder said.

But Lemon’s good looks and smooth delivery helped him move to CNN in 2006, where his work was not always well-received. He took over the prime time program “CNN Tonight” in 2014 and became part of the network’s almost obsessive coverage of the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. (Lemon was ridiculed for asking an aviation analyst if the plane might have been sucked into a black hole).

Like a number of other TV journalists, Lemon found his voice after Trump’s ascension to the White House. He injected more commentary into “CNN Tonight,” calling Trump a racist after the president made a remark in the Oval Office about immigrants coming from “shit hole countries” to the U.S.

After George Floyd was murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis in May 2020, Lemon’s status as the lone Black prime time anchor on cable news made his program a gathering place for the national discussion about race. His ratings surged, giving CNN its largest 10 p.m. audience in history with 2.4 million viewers that month.

Lemon’s candid talk about race relations and criticism of Trump made him a target of the president’s social media missives. In a 2020 interview, Lemon told the Times that he had to learn to live with threats on his life from Trump supporters.

“It’s garnered me a lot of enemies,” he said. “A lot of them in person as well. I have to watch my back over it.”

Lemon never let up, but CNN management had other ideas. After Warner Bros. Discovery took control of CNN in 2022, Chief Executive David Zaslav said the network had moved too far to the political left in its coverage and called for more representation of conservative voices.

Following the takeover, Lemon was moved out of prime time and onto a new morning program — a format where CNN has never been successful over its four decade-plus history.

Lemon’s “CNN Tonight” program was built around his scripted commentaries and like-minded guests. Delivering off-the-cuff banter in reaction to news of the moment — a requirement for morning TV news — was not his strong suit.

Lemon had a poor relationship with his co-anchors Poppy Harlow and Kaitlin Collins. The tensions came to a head in Feb. 2023 after an ill-advised remark he made about then Republican presidential contender Nikki Haley.

Lemon attempted to critique Haley’s statements that political leaders over the age of 75 should undergo competency testing.

“All the talk about age makes me uncomfortable — I think it’s a wrong road to go down,” Lemon began. “She says politicians, or something, are not in their prime. Nikki Haley isn’t in her prime — sorry — when a woman is considered to be in her prime in her 20s and 30s, maybe 40s.”

Harlow quickly interjected, repeatedly asking Lemon a couple of times, “Prime for what?” Lemon told his female co-anchors to “Google it.” It was one of several sexist remarks he made on the program.

Lemon was pulled from the air and forced to apologize to colleagues, some of whom had called for his dismissal. He was fired in April 2023 on the same day Fox News removed Tucker Carlson .

Lemon was paid out his lucrative CNN contract and went on to become one of the first traditional TV journalists to go independent and produce his own program for distribution on social media platforms.

“Others might have cowered or taken time to regroup and figure out what they should do,” said Wald. “He had little choice but to toil ahead.”

Lemon first signed with X in 2024 to distribute his program as the platform made a push into longer form video. The business relationship ended shortly after new X owner Elon Musk sat down for an interview with Lemon.

Musk agreed to the high-profile chat with no restrictions, but was unhappy with the line of questioning. “His approach was basically ‘CNN but on social media,’ which doesn’t work, as evidenced by the fact that CNN is dying,” Musk wrote.

An unfazed Lemon forged ahead and made his daily program available on YouTube, where it has 1.3 million subscribers, and other platforms. He has a small staff that handles production and online audience engagement. In addition to ad revenue from YouTube, the program has signed its own sponsors.

While legacy media outlets have become more conscious of running afoul of Trump, who has threatened the broadcast TV licenses of networks that make him unhappy with their coverage, independent journalists such as Lemon and his former CNN colleague Jim Acosta, have doubled down in their aggressive analysis of the administration.

Friends describe Lemon as relentless, channeling every attempt to hold him back into motivation to push harder. “You tell him ‘you can’t do it,’ he just wants to do it more,” said one close associate.

Wald said independent conservative journalists should be wary of Lemon’s arrest.

“If I’m a conservative blogger, influencer, or YouTube creator type, I would be worried that when the administration changes, they can be next,” Wald said. “So people should be careful what they wish for here.”

Iran’s foreign minister says missile programme not up for negotiation as Trump says he’s sending more ships to the region.

Iran’s foreign minister says the country is ready for “fair and equitable” talks with the United States amid soaring tensions, as US President Donald Trump refused to rule out taking military action against Tehran.

On a visit to Turkiye on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters that, “Iran has no problem with negotiations, but negotiations cannot take place under the shadow of threats”.

“I should also state unequivocally that Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities – and Iran’s missiles – will never be the subject of any negotiations,” Araghchi said during a news conference alongside his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan.

“The security of the Iranian people is no one else’s business, and we will preserve and expand our defensive capabilities to whatever extent is necessary to defend the country.”

Tensions have been rising for weeks between Tehran and Washington amid Trump’s repeated threats to attack Iran over a recent crackdown on antigovernment protests and his push to curtail the Iranian nuclear programme.

Earlier this week, the US president said a “massive armada” – led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier – was moving towards Iran and was ready to use “violence, if necessary” if Iranian leaders did not agree to negotiate a nuclear deal.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump said his administration was sending “a larger number of ships” to Iran.

“And hopefully we’ll make a deal,” he said. “If we do make a deal, that’s good. If we don’t make a deal, we’ll see what happens.”

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett noted that Trump said he gave Iran a deadline, but “only Iran knows what that deadline is”.

“So he’s left the world in waiting, trying to determine what the next steps will be,” Halkett said.

Trump, who in 2018 unilaterally withdrew from a previous deal that saw Iran agree to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions, has been pressuring Iran to halt all uranium enrichment.

Washington has accused Tehran of seeking a nuclear weapon – a claim Iranian leaders have repeatedly denied.

Amid the latest tensions, senior officials in Tehran have repeatedly said they are open to negotiations, but only once Trump ends his military threats against the country.

They also have stressed that Iran’s armed forces are ready to respond if attacked.

Meanwhile, regional allies including Turkiye, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have been engaging in diplomatic efforts to try to prevent a military confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan earlier on Friday told his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian in a call that Ankara was ready to play a “facilitator” role between the two sides.

Fidan, the Turkish foreign minister, also said he had long discussions on the issue with US special envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday and would keep lines open with Washington.

Speaking alongside Araghchi on Friday, Fidan said US-Iran nuclear negotiations must restart and would pave the way to lifting sanctions on Iran.

“We call the parties to the negotiating table” to address the issues “one by one”, he said.

The arrest of independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, in connection with an anti-ICE protest that interrupted a church service in Minnesota, is a test for the American people. Well, some of us. Many of us already didn’t like what we saw happening across the country. Many believed the un-American threats during the campaign and voted against this regime in 2024.

So this is a test for the Americans who — after seeing law enforcement seemingly use a 5-year-old as bait and shoot Renee Good and Alex Pretti to death — still said they’re on board with everything.

The voters who agreed with Donald Trump when he said “they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime” back in 2015, and were OK with him 10 years later, popping up in the Epstein files and pardoning criminals — including a corrupt former Latin American leader who took bribes to let 400 tons of cocaine be smuggled into the U.S.

This isn’t a test for the voters whose biggest concern was the price of groceries or border security. This is a test for the voters who used that rhetoric about groceries and the border as cover for their unsavory feelings about immigrants. The same feelings that greeted other groups — the Jews, the Italians, the Irish — when they first came to this land. The ethnicity may be different, the conspiracy theories may be new, but at the end of the day, it’s the same old predictable story.

So, if you’re the type to cast a ballot just to own the libs, the arrest of journalists is a test for you.

On Jan. 18, protesters — believing one of the pastors at Cities Church in St. Paul was also the acting field director of the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement office — entered the building and disrupted a service. The only reason anyone outside of St. Paul knew any of this is that we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Because people like Lemon and Fort had the courage to be there, knowing they had 250 years of American tradition backing up their right to do their jobs. That’s the point of the 1st Amendment.

Remember, if we don’t have journalists like Fort and my friend Lemon — people who are willing to do the work required to document history, or read legislation, or hold elected officials accountable — then you no longer have freedom of the press. You have state-controlled media by way of oligarchy. That may feel good to some factions now, but the problem with “now” is that it never lasts. The Constitution, though, has a real opportunity to stick around. But it needs constant protection.

In the old days, the ultra-rich used to buy local media companies to make money or for prestige in the community. Now it feels as if many owners’ goal is to control and curb journalism. Once the free press is in a cage, free speech has little room to fly. That is the byproduct of this wave of media consolidation, whether the billionaires who are engaged in these acquisitions planned to do that or not.

In addition, historically journalism has been under attack by governments not because it was a threat to society, but because it threatens those who want to control society. The reason most presidents spar with journalists is that they want to control the narrative.

But it appears the current president wants to control reality.

The impulse to rewrite reality is why Trump established Truth Social. It’s why the administration posts AI-generated images and doctored photos.

The sense that the president can create his own truth is why one day, the administration can defend the 2nd Amendment, and the next, suggest that legally carrying a weapon is a fatal mistake. After all, if he is free to trample the 1st Amendment, what’s the problem with kicking the 2nd around whenever he needs to?

Trampling the rights of the people: that is the test — for the rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who still stand behind Trump. He’s experimenting to see if enough of his supporters will accept having their rights taken away so long as the theft appears not to hurt them.

For the many Americans who have never voted for Trump, the arrests of Lemon and Fort are not a total shock. We have seen the “Trump 2028” hats and take this thinly veiled threat against the 22nd Amendment seriously.

But for the Americans who vehemently denounced President Obama for wearing a tan suit, where exactly is “arresting journalists for doing their job” on the threat-to-democracy scale? And why do you think Trump is doing this now?

Nearly a year ago, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said she had the Epstein client list on her desk for review. Then the administration waffled and refused to turn over its files. On Friday, it finally did release 3 million pages of documents.

And on Thursday night, knowing that release was imminent, the Justice Department just happened to arrest journalists.

That doesn’t feel like a coincidence.

It doesn’t even feel like politics. It all feels like a test democracy desperately needs America to pass.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrived in China this week with a large delegation of businesspeople and cultural figures.

He received a warm welcome from Chinese President Xi Jinping.

But the visit got a frosty reception from the White House, with United States President Donald Trump calling Starmer’s trip “dangerous”.

What prompted Trump’s remarks? And how important was the British prime minister’s visit?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Will Hutton – Political economist

Andy Mok – Senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization

Steve Tsang – Director of the China Institute at SOAS University of London

Luis Martinez was on his way to work on a frigid Minneapolis morning when federal agents suddenly boxed him in, forcing the SUV he was driving to a dead stop in the middle of the street.

Masked agents rapped on the window, demanding Martinez produce his ID. Then one held his cellphone inches from Martinez’s face and scanned his features, capturing the shape of his eyes, the curves of his lips, the exact quadrants of his cheeks.

All the while, the agent kept asking: Are you a U.S. citizen?

The encounter in a Minneapolis suburb this week captures the tactics on display in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota, which it describes as the largest of its kind and one that has drawn national scrutiny after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens this month.

Across Minnesota and other states where the Department of Homeland Security has surged personnel, officials say enforcement efforts are targeted and focused on serious offenders. But photographs, videos and internal documents paint a different picture, showing agents leaning heavily on biometric surveillance and vast, interconnected databases — highlighting how a sprawling digital surveillance apparatus has become central to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Civil liberties experts warn the expanding use of those systems risks sweeping up citizens and noncitizens alike, often with little transparency or meaningful oversight.

Over the past year, Homeland Security and other federal agencies have dramatically expanded their ability to collect, share and analyze people’s personal data, thanks to a web of agreements with local, state, federal and international agencies, plus contracts with technology companies and data brokers. The databases include immigration and travel records, facial images and information drawn from vehicle databases.

In Martinez’s case, the face scan didn’t find a match and it wasn’t until he produced his U.S. passport, which he said he carried for fear of such an encounter, that federal agents let him go.

“I had been telling people that here in Minnesota it’s like a paradise for everybody, all the cultures are free here,” he said. “But now people are running out of the state because of everything that is happening. It’s terrifying. It’s not safe anymore.”

Together with other government surveillance data and systems, federal authorities can now monitor American cities at a scale that would have been difficult to imagine just a few years ago, advocates say. Agents can identify people on the street through facial recognition, trace their movements through license-plate readers and, in some cases, use commercially available phone-location data to reconstruct daily routines and associations.

When asked by the Associated Press about its expanding use of surveillance tools, the Department of Homeland Security said it would not disclose law enforcement sensitive methods.

“Employing various forms of technology in support of investigations and law enforcement activities aids in the arrest of criminal gang members, child sex offenders, murderers, drug dealers, identity thieves and more, all while respecting civil liberties and privacy interests,” it said.

Dan Herman, a former Customs and Border Protection senior advisor in the Biden administration who now works at the Center for American Progress, said the government’s access to facial recognition, other personal data and surveillance systems poses a threat to people’s privacy rights and civil liberties without adequate checks.

“They have access to a tremendous amount of trade, travel, immigration and screening data. That’s a significant and valuable national security asset, but there’s a concern about the potential for abuse,” Herman said. “Everyone should be very concerned about the potential that this data could be weaponized for improper purposes.”

Facial recognition

On Wednesday, Homeland Security disclosed online that it has been using a facial recognition app, Mobile Fortify, that it said uses “trusted source photos” to compare scans of people’s faces that agents take to verify their identity. The app, which Customs and Border Protection said is made by the vendor NEC, uses facial comparison or fingerprint-matching systems.

The app was in operation for CBP and ICE before the immigration crackdown in the Los Angeles area in June, when website 404Media first reported its existence.

In interactions observed by reporters and videos posted online, federal agents are rarely seen asking for consent before holding their cellphones to people’s faces, and in some clips they continue scanning even after someone objects.

In two instances seen by an AP journalist near Columbia Heights, Minn., where immigration officials recently detained a 5-year-old boy and his father, masked agents held their phones a foot away from people’s faces to capture their biometric details.

The technology resembles facial recognition systems used at airports, but unlike airport screenings, where travelers are typically notified and can sometimes opt out, Martinez said he was given no choice.

According to a lawsuit filed against the department by the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago this month, Homeland Security has used Mobile Fortify in the field more than 100,000 times. The Department of Homeland Security told AP that Mobile Fortify supports “accurate identity and immigration-status verification during enforcement operations. It operates with a deliberately high-matching threshold,” and uses only some immigration data.

Without federal guidelines for the use of facial recognition tools, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights warned in a September 2024 report their deployment raises concerns about accuracy, oversight, transparency, discrimination and access to justice.

Body-camera footage

Last year, the Trump administration scaled back a program to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials body cameras, but administration officials said some agents tied to the fatal shooting of Minneapolis ICU nurse Alex Pretti were wearing them and that footage is now being reviewed.

Gregory Bovino, who was the administration’s top Border Patrol official charged with the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis until Monday, began wearing a bodycam in response to a judge’s order late last year.

Body-camera video could help clarify events surrounding federal agents’ killing of Pretti, who was filming immigration agents with his cellphone when they shot him in the back.

Administration officials shifted their tone after independent video footage emerged raising serious questions about some Trump officials’ accusations that Pretti intended to harm agents.

Emerging technologies

Homeland Security and affiliated agencies are piloting and deploying more than 100 artificial intelligence systems, including some used in law enforcement activities, according to the department’s disclosure Wednesday.

Congress last year authorized U.S. Customs and Border Protection to get more than $2.7 billion to build out border surveillance systems and add in AI and other emerging technologies.

In recent weeks, Homeland Security requested more information from private industry on how technology companies and data providers can support their investigations and help identify people.

Meanwhile, longtime government contractor Palantir was paid $30 million to extend a contract to build a system designed to locate people flagged for deportation. On Wednesday, the Trump administration disclosed it’s using Palantir’s AI models to sift through immigration enforcement tips submitted to its tip line.

Homeland Security has also been exploring partnerships with license-plate reader companies like Flock Safety to expand their tracking capabilities.

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, who directs the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, said more funding for government surveillance tools changes the landscape.

“We are developing these technologies for immigrant enforcement,” she said. “Are we also going to expand it or wield it against U.S. citizens who are engaging in entirely lawful or protest activity?”

Burke and Tau write for the Associated Press. AP freelance photojournalist Adam Gray contributed to this report from Minneapolis.

Israel says it will reopen the Rafah crossing on Sunday after nearly two years — but only for restricted, tightly controlled movement of people. Humanitarian aid remains barred. Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud reports from Rafah as Israel retains full security control.

Venezuelans are bracing for an uncertain future after the United States military abduction of President Nicolas Maduro. Reactions across the country have been sharply divided. Some are celebrating what they see as the end of an era while others have expressed fear and anger, accusing the US of trying to impose a government subordinate to Washington to secure access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:
Luis Ernesto Patino – activist and political commentator

Adelys Ferro – executive director, Venezuelan American Caucus

Marc Owen Jones – professor of media analytics, Northwestern University

MINNEAPOLIS — When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement flooded Minneapolis, Shane Mantz dug his Choctaw Nation citizenship card out of a box on his dresser and slid it into his wallet.

Some strangers mistake the pest-control company manager for Latino, he said, and he fears getting caught up in ICE raids.

Like Mantz, many Native Americans are carrying tribal documents proving their U.S. citizenship in case they are stopped or questioned by federal immigration agents. This is why dozens of the 575 federally recognized Native nations are making it easier to get tribal IDs. They’re waiving fees, lowering the age of eligibility — ranging from 5 to 18 nationwide — and printing the cards faster.

It’s the first time tribal IDs have been widely used as proof of U.S. citizenship and protection against federal law enforcement, said David Wilkins, an expert on Native politics and governance at the University of Richmond.

“I don’t think there’s anything historically comparable,” Wilkins said. “I find it terribly frustrating and disheartening.”

As Native Americans around the country rush to secure documents proving their right to live in the United States, many see a bitter irony.

“As the first people of this land, there’s no reason why Native Americans should have their citizenship questioned,” said Jaqueline De León, a senior staff attorney with the nonprofit Native American Rights Fund and member of Isleta Pueblo.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to more than four requests for comment over a week.

Native identity in a new age of fear

Since the mid- to late 1800s, the U.S. government has kept detailed genealogical records to estimate Native Americans’ fraction of “Indian blood” and determine their eligibility for healthcare, housing, education and other services owed under federal legal responsibilities. Those records were also used to aid federal assimilation efforts and chip away at tribal sovereignty, communal lands and identity.

Beginning in the late 1960s, many tribal nations began issuing their own forms of identification. In the last two decades, tribal photo ID cards have become commonplace and can be used to vote in tribal elections, to prove U.S. work eligibility and for domestic air travel.

About 70% of Native Americans today live in urban areas, including tens of thousands in the Twin Cities, one of the largest urban Native populations in the country.

There, in early January, a top ICE official announced the “largest immigration operation ever.”

Masked, heavily armed agents traveling in convoys of unmarked SUVs became commonplace in some neighborhoods. By this week, more than 3,400 people had been arrested, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. At least 2,000 ICE officers and 1,000 Border Patrol officers were on the ground.

Representatives from at least 10 tribes traveled hundreds of miles to Minneapolis — the birthplace of the American Indian Movement — to accept ID applications from members there. Among them were the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Ojibwe of Wisconsin, the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of South Dakota and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa of North Dakota.

Turtle Mountain citizen Faron Houle renewed his tribal ID card and got his young adult son’s and his daughter’s first ones.

“You just get nervous,” Houle said. “I think [ICE agents are] more or less racial profiling people, including me.”

Events in downtown coffee shops, hotel ballrooms, and at the Minneapolis American Indian Center helped urban tribal citizens connect and share resources, said Christine Yellow Bird, who directs the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation’s satellite office in Fargo, ND.

Yellow Bird made four trips to Minneapolis in recent weeks, putting nearly 2,000 miles on her 2017 Chevy Tahoe to help citizens in the Twin Cities who can’t make the long journey to their reservation.

Yellow Bird said she always keeps her tribal ID with her.

“I’m proud of who I am,” she said. “I never thought I would have to carry it for my own safety.”

Some Native Americans say ICE is harassing them

Last year, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said that several tribal citizens reported being stopped and detained by ICE officers in Arizona and New Mexico. He and other tribal leaders have advised citizens to carry tribal IDs with them at all times.

Last November, Elaine Miles, a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon and an actress known for her roles in “Northern Exposure” and “The Last of Us,” said she was stopped by ICE officers in Washington state who told her that her tribal ID looked fake.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe this week banned ICE from its reservation in southwestern South Dakota and northwestern Nebraska, one of the largest in the country.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota said a member was detained in Minnesota last weekend. And Peter Yazzie, who is Navajo, said he was arrested and held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Phoenix for several hours last week.

Yazzie, a construction worker from nearby Chinle, Ariz., said he was sitting in his car at a gas station preparing for a day of work when he saw ICE officers arrest some Latino men. The officers soon turned their attention to Yazzie, pushed him to the ground, and searched his vehicle, he said.

He said he told them where to find his driver’s license, birth certificate, and a federal Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood. Yazzie said the car he was in is registered to his mother. Officers said the names didn’t match, he said, and he was arrested, taken to a nearby detention center and held for about four hours.

“It’s an ugly feeling. It makes you feel less human. To know that people see your features and think so little of you,” he said.

Homeland Security did not respond to questions about the arrest.

Mantz, the Choctaw Nation citizen, said he runs pest-control operations in Minneapolis neighborhoods where ICE agents are active and he won’t leave home without his tribal identification documents.

Securing them for his children is now a priority.

“It gives me some peace of mind. But at the same time, why do we have to carry these documents?” Mantz said. “Who are you to ask us to prove who we are?”

Brewer, Peters and Huntington write for the Associated Press. Brewer reported from Oklahoma City and Peters from Edgewood, N.M.

Jan. 30 (UPI) — Two Democratic lawmakers are demanding answers about why National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard was at an FBI raid at a Georgia election facility.

Gabbard was photographed outside the Fulton County Election Hub and Operations Center, just outside of Atlanta, when the FBI executed a “a court authorized law enforcement action” on Wednesday. FBI spokesperson Jenna Sellitto told The Hill that boxes loaded on trucks contained ballots.

Agents sought 2020 election records, Fulton County spokesperson Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez said.

“We don’t know why they took them, and we don’t know where they’re taking them to,” county board of commissioners Chair Robb Pitts told The Hill.

“Director Gabbard has a pivotal role in election security and protecting the integrity of our elections against interference, including operations targeting voting systems, databases, and election infrastructure,” a senior administration official told NBC News.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., released a statement about Gabbard’s presence at the raid.

“There are only two explanations for why the Director of National Intelligence would show up at a federal raid tied to Donald Trump‘s obsession with losing the 2020 election,” he said. “Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus — in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of relevant national security concerns — or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy.”

He said it shows she is unfit for the job.

“Either is a serious breach of trust that further underscores why she is totally unqualified to hold a position that demands sound judgment, apolitical independence, and a singular focus on keeping Americans safe,” he said.

Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., who both serve on their chambers’ intelligence committees, penned a letter to Gabbard expressing concern about her appearance in Georgia and demanding that she “appear before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence immediately.”

The letter said it is “deeply concerning that you participated in this domestic law enforcement action. The Intelligence Community should be focused on foreign threats and, as you yourself have testified, when those intelligence authorities are turned inwards the results can be devastating for Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.”

They said they want her to address her reasoning and role in attending the FBI operation in Fulton County, under what legal authority she or any other IC employee were involved, and an update on any intelligence she has concerning foreign interference in U.S. elections, including the 2020 election.

“Given the politically fraught nature of elections for federal office, any federal efforts associated with combatting foreign election threats necessitate public transparency, prompt updating of Congressional intelligence committees, and clear commitment to non-partisan conduct,” the letter said.

“Your recent actions raise foundational questions about the current mission of your office, and it is critical that you brief the Committees immediately as part of your obligation to keep Congress fully and currently informed.”

Two unnamed senior officials with knowledge of the matter told NBC that Gabbard’s presence in Fulton County was not requested by the Justice Department. They said Gabbard was only observing, and her presence wasn’t illegal.

“It seems to be an attempt to make herself relevant,” one official told NBC. “It’s so strange.”

On Thursday, Trump responded to a reporter’s question about her presence in Georgia.

“She’s working very hard on trying to keep the elections safe, and she’s done a very good job,” Trump said at the Kennedy Center. “You got a signed judge’s order in Georgia, and you’re going to see some interesting things happening. They’ve been trying to get there for a long time.”

If she took part in the search, her involvement would be “wrong and potentially even illegal,” said Kevin Carrol, a former CIA officer and national security lawyer, to NBC.

“It is also inappropriate for a Cabinet-level official to take part in a law enforcement operation. Among other things, the director is now potentially a fact witness in any suppression hearing or trial related to the evidence seized by the bureau,” Carroll said.