politics

More than 1,5000 political prisoners in Venezuela have applied for amnesty under a new law that came into effect just a few days ago, according to the head of the country’s legislature.

“A total of 1,557 cases are being addressed immediately, and hundreds of people deprived of their freedom are already being released under the amnesty law”, National Assembly chief Jorge Rodriguez told a news conference on Saturday.

Rodriguez’s announcement comes two days after the country’s legislature unanimously adopted a landmark amnesty law.

Amnesty is not automatic under the law: petitioners must ask the court handling their cases.

On Friday, the lawmaker overseeing the amnesty process, Jorge Arreaza, announced that prosecutors had asked courts to free 379 prisoners. They include opposition members, activists, human rights defenders, journalists and many others detained for months or even years.

So far, 80 prisoners have been freed, Rodriguez told the AFP news agency on Saturday. All of those released had been detained in the capital, Caracas, he said, without offering further details.

Further releases could be granted within 15 days, said Arreaza.

Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, the sister of the top lawmaker, pushed for the United States-backed legislation after she rose to power following the US’s abduction of leftist leader Nicolas Maduro during a military raid on January 3.

The legislation’s approval marked a reversal for Venezuelan authorities, who have for decades denied holding political prisoners and say those jailed have committed crimes.

During its signing, Rodriguez said the law showed that the country’s political leaders were “letting go of a little intolerance and opening new avenues for politics in Venezuela”.

However, opposition figures have criticised the new legislation, which appears to include carve-outs for some offences previously used by authorities to target Maduro’s political opponents.

Human rights organisations are also calling for the law to be applied to all prisoners held for political reasons, even if they are not listed among the beneficiaries.

“It is discriminatory and unconstitutional to exclude imprisoned military personnel and persecuted political figures,” Alfredo Romero, president of rights group Foro Penal, said on X Saturday. Without this, “there can be no talk of national coexistence”.

The law explicitly does not apply to those prosecuted for “promoting” or “facilitating… armed or forceful actions” against Venezuela’s sovereignty by foreign actors.

Delcy Rodriguez has levelled such accusations against opposition leader and Nobel peace laureate Maria Corina Machado, who hopes, at some point, to return to Venezuela from the US.

Opposition politician Juan Pablo Guanipa, a close ally of Machado, had a house arrest order against him lifted, his brother, lawmaker Tomas Guanipa, told the Reuters news agency late on Thursday.

The law also excludes members of the security forces convicted of “terrorism”-related activities.

But the amnesty extends to 11,000 political prisoners who, over nearly three decades, were paroled or placed under house arrest.

“The law provides for those substitute measures to be lifted so that these people can enjoy full freedom”, Rodriguez told reporters.

Outside a national police facility in Caracas known as Zone 7, relatives – some of whom have been on site for weeks – waited patiently.

“Let’s hope it’s true,” Genesis Rojas told AFP.

A group of relatives who have been camped out for days chanted: “We want to go home!”

Hundreds have already been granted conditional release by Rodriguez’s government since the deadly US raid that resulted in Maduro’s capture.

Maduro and his wife are in US custody awaiting trial. He has pleaded not guilty to drug trafficking charges and declared that he was a “prisoner of war.”

WASHINGTON — For a few hours on Friday, congressional Republicans seemed to get some relief from one of the largest points of friction they have had with the Trump administration. It didn’t last.

The Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Trump’s global tariff regime, ruling that the power to impose taxes lies with Congress. Many Republicans greeted the Friday morning decision with measured statements, some even praising it, and GOP leaders said they would work with Trump on tariffs going forward.

But by the afternoon, the president made clear he had no intention of working with Congress and would continue to go it alone by imposing a new global import tax. He set the new tax at 10% in an executive order, announcing Saturday he planned to hike it to 15%.

Trump is enacting the new tariff under a law that restricts the import taxes to 150 days and has never been invoked this way before. Though that decision is likely to have major implications for the global economy, it might also ensure that Republicans will have to keep answering for Trump’s tariffs for months to come, especially as the midterm elections near. Opinion polls have shown most Americans oppose Trump’s tariff policy.

“I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs,” Trump said at a news conference Friday, contending that he doesn’t need Congress’ approval.

Tariffs have been one of the only areas where the Republican-controlled Congress has broken with Trump. Both the House and Senate at various points had passed resolutions intended to rein in the tariffs imposed on key trade partners such as Canada. It’s also one of the few issues about which Republican lawmakers, who came of age in a party that largely championed free trade, have voiced criticism of Trump’s economic policies.

“The empty merits of sweeping trade wars with America’s friends were evident long before today’s decision,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the former longtime Senate Republican leader, said in a statement Friday, noting that tariffs raise the prices of homes and disrupt other industries important to his home state.

Democrats’ approach

Democrats, looking to win back control of Congress, intend to make McConnell’s point their own. At a news conference Friday, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s new tariffs “will still raise people’s costs and they will hurt the American people as much as his old tariffs did.”

Schumer challenged Republicans to stop Trump from imposing the new global tariff. Democrats on Friday also called for refunds to be sent to U.S. consumers for the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court.

“The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media.

The remarks underscored one of the Democrats’ central messages for the midterm campaign: that Trump has failed to make the cost of living more affordable and has inflamed prices with tariffs.

Small and midsize U.S. businesses have had to absorb the import taxes by passing them along to customers in the form of higher prices, employing fewer workers or accepting lower profits, according to an analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute.

Will Congress act?

The Supreme Court decision Friday made it clear that a majority of justices believe that Congress alone is granted authority under the Constitution to levy tariffs. Yet Trump quickly signed an executive order citing the Trade Act of 1974, which grants the president the power to impose temporary import taxes when there are “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or other international payment problems.

The law limits the tax to 150 days without congressional approval to extend it. The authority has never been used and therefore never tested in court.

Republicans at times have warned Trump about the potential economic fallout of his tariff plans. Yet before his “Liberation Day” of global tariffs last April, GOP congressional leaders declined to directly defy the president.

Some GOP lawmakers cheered on the new tariff policy, highlighting a generational divide among Republicans, with a mostly younger group fiercely backing Trump’s strategy. Rather than heed traditional free trade doctrine, they argue for “America First” protectionism, which they argue will revive U.S. manufacturing.

Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio freshman, slammed the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday and called for GOP lawmakers to “codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on Earth!”

A few Republican opponents of the tariffs, meanwhile, openly cheered the Supreme Court’s decision. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a critic of the administration who is not seeking reelection, said on social media that “Congress must stand on its own two feet, take tough votes and defend its authorities.”

Bacon predicted there would be more Republican resistance coming. He and a few other GOP members were instrumental this month in forcing a House vote on Trump’s tariffs on Canada. As that measure passed, Trump vowed political retribution for any Republican who voted to oppose his tariff plans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matt Brown, Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

SAN FRANCISCO — Leaders of the California Democratic Party, along with liberal activists and loyal power brokers, are openly expressing fear that their crowded field of candidates running for governor may splinter the vote and open the door to a surprise Republican victory in November.

Because of those concerns, the Democrats lagging at the bottom of the pack are being urged to drop out of the race to ensure the party’s political dominance in statewide elections survives the 2026 election.

“California Democrats are prepared to do what’s required,” state party chairman Rusty Hicks told reporters at the California Democratic Party’s annual convention on Friday. “We are ready and willing and able to do what’s required … to ensure we have a strong candidate coming out of the primary to do what’s required in November.”

Nine prominent Democrats are running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, compared to two top GOP candidates, and could divide the Democratic electorate enough that the two Republicans could receive the most votes in the June primary and advance to the November election. Under California’s “jungle primary” system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Hicks was deferential to the Democratic candidates who have long-served in public office, and have compelling personal tales and the experience to take the helm of the state. But he said there is the harsh political reality that a viable candidate needs to raise an enormous amount of money to have a winning campaign in a state of 23.1 million registered voters and some of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

The party, its allies and the candidates themselves have a “collective commitment to ensuring we do not see a Republican elected [for governor],” Hicks said.

While Hicks and other party leaders did not publicly name the candidates who ought to leave the race, among the candidates lagging in the polls are state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.

Democratic voters vastly outnumber the number of registered Republicans in the state, and no Republican has been elected to statewide office since 2006.

But given the sprawling field of gubernatorial candidates, the lack of a clear front-runner and the state’s unique primary system, the race appears up for grabs. According to an average of the most recent opinion polls, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — both Republicans — are tied for first place, according to Real Clear Politics. Each received the support of 15.5% of voters. The top Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, Calif., was backed by 12.5%.

In 2012, Republicans finished in first and second place in the race for a San Bernardino County congressional district — despite Democrats having a solid edge in voter registration. The four Democrats running for the seat split the vote, opening the door for a victory by GOP Rep. Gary Miller. Pete Aguilar, one of the Democrats who lost in the primary, went on to win that seat in 2014 and has served in Congress ever since.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) on Friday pushed back at the fears that two Republicans will win the top two gubernatorial spots in June.

“That’s not going to happen,” she said in an interview after speaking at a young Democrats’ reception. “And everything that you should know about the Democrats this year is we are unified. As I say, our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power. And everybody knows that there’s too much at stake.”

However, the scenario has prompted a cross section of the typically fractious party to unite behind the belief the field must shrink, whether by candidates’ choice or through pressure.

Jodi Hicks, the leader of Planned Parenthood’s California operations, said that the organization is laser-focused on congressional races, but having two Republican gubernatorial candidates “would be nothing short of devastating.”

“We have not weighed in on the governor’s race but we are paying close attention to whether this comes to play, and whether or not we do decide to weigh in and make sure that doesn’t happen,” she said.

Newsom and legislative Democrats have tried to buffer the massive federal funding cuts to reproductive care. A November election with two Republicans on the gubernatorial ballot would eliminate a key partner in Sacramento, and could impact turnout in down-ballot congressional and legislative races.

“A top-two Republican [race] would certainly have dire consequences for the midterm battle and to the governor’s office,” Jodi Hicks said.

Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of California Federation of Labor Unions, noted that her organization’s endorsement process begins on Tuesday.

“I think we are going to have some pretty honest discussions with candidates about their individual paths and where they are,” she said. “They’re all great candidates, so many of them are really good folks. But it’s starting to get to be that time.”

She expects the field to begin to thin in the coming days and weeks.

The conversation went beyond party leaders, taking place among delegates such as Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside.

“My goal at the convention, it’s not necessarily that the party coalesces around one particular candidate, but more, this is a test to see what candidates have a level of support that they can mount a successful campaign,” said the 29-year-old, who said he hopes to see some candidates drop out after the weekend.

“Am I concerned long term that [a top-two Republican runoff] could be a thing? Yes and no,” he said “I’m not concerned that we’re not going to solve this problem before the primary, but I do think we need to start getting serious about, ‘We need to solve this problem soon.’”

Not everyone agreed.

Tim Paulson, a San Francisco Democrat who supports Yee, called efforts to push people out of the race “preemptive disqualification.”

“This is nothing but scare tactics to get people out of the race,” he said. “This is still a vibrant primary. Nobody knows who the front-runner is yet.”

Bob Galemmo, 71, countered that many people did not believe Donald Trump would be elected president in 2016 and fears two Republicans could advance to the general election.

“You should never say never,” he said. “If we could get down to like four or five [candidates], that would be helpful.”

The efforts had already began.

RL Miller, the chair of the state Democratic Party’s environmental caucus, said Yee ought to drop out.

Yee, “who is at the bottom of the polls, needs to be taking a good long look at whether she is serving the party or being selfish by staying in the race,” Miller said.

Yee, a former state party vice chair, pushed back forcefully, saying pressure to drop out of the race “would just be undemocratic.”

“First of all, I’ve served this party for a long time. I don’t do it out of selfishness, by any means,” she said at a Saturday gathering where she provided breakfast burritos to delegates. “But I’ll just say this — the race is wide open.”

Yee‘s campaign manager noted that 40% of voters are undecided, and the candidate said no one has asked her directly to exit the race, but that someone started a rumor a month or two ago that she was going to drop out and run for insurance commissioner instead.

“I’m not dropping out, and I don’t think any candidate should go out,” Yee said.

Calderon said Swalwell had urged him to get out of the race.

Calderon noted the largest group of voters is still undecided and defended staying in the race to try to reach those voters after speaking at a gubernatorial forum at the Commonwealth Club on Friday

“I stay very consistent in that 1 to 3% range,” he joked. “But my challenge is access to resources and visibility, which is something that could change within a day with the right backing and support.”

Swalwell and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

NEW ORLEANS — A U.S. appeals court has cleared the way for a Louisiana law requiring poster-sized displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms to take effect.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 12 to 6 to lift a block that a lower court first placed on the law in 2024. In the opinion released Friday, the court said it was too early to make a judgment call on the constitutionality of the law.

That’s partly because it’s not yet clear how prominently schools may display the religious text, whether teachers will refer to the Ten Commandments during classes or if other texts like the Mayflower Compact or the Declaration of Independence will also be displayed, the majority opinion said.

Without those sorts of details, the panel decided that it did not have enough information to weigh any 1st Amendment issues that might arise from the law. In other words, there aren’t enough facts available to “permit judicial judgment rather than speculation,” the majority wrote in the opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge James Ho, an appointee of President Trump, wrote that the law “is not just constitutional — it affirms our nation’s highest and most noble traditions.”

The six judges who voted against the decision wrote a series of dissents, with some arguing that the law exposes children to government-endorsed religion in a place they are required to be, presenting a clear constitutional burden.

Circuit Judge James L. Dennis, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that the law “is precisely the kind of establishment the Framers anticipated and sought to prevent.”

The ruling is the result of the court’s choice to rehear the case with all judges present after three of them ruled in June that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional. The reversal comes from one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, and one that’s known for propelling Republican policies to a similarly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling Friday, declaring, “Common sense is making a comeback!”

The ACLU of Louisiana, one of several groups representing plaintiffs, pledged to explore all legal pathways to continue fighting the law.

Arkansas has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court. And a Texas law took effect on Sept. 1, marking the widest reaching attempt in the nation to hang the Ten Commandments in public schools.

Some Texas school districts were barred from posting them after federal judges issued injunctions in two cases challenging the law, but they have already gone up in many classrooms across the state as districts paid to have the posters printed themselves or accepted donations.

The laws are among pushes by Republicans, including Trump, to incorporate religion into public school classrooms. Critics say doing so violates the separation of church and state, while backers say the Ten Commandments are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law.

Joseph Davis, an attorney representing Louisiana in the case, applauded the court for upholding the nation’s “time-honored tradition of recognizing faith in the public square.”

Families from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, have challenged the laws, as have clergy members and nonreligious families.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, another group involved in the challenge, called the ruling “extremely disappointing” and said the law will force families “into a game of constitutional whack-a-mole” where they will have to separately challenge each school district’s displays.

Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill said after the ruling that she had sent schools several correct examples of the required poster.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.

And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.

Schoenbaum and Boone write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Saturday that he was raising the global tariff he wants to impose to 15%, up from 10% he had announced a day earlier after the Supreme Court declared most of his tariffs to be illegal.

Trump said in a social media post that he was making the decision “Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday.”

After the court ruled he didn’t have the emergency power to impose many sweeping tariffs, Trump signed an executive order Friday night that would allow him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on imports from around the world. The catch is that those tariffs would be limited to 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend them.

Trump’s post, significantly ratcheting up a global tax on imports to the U.S. yet again, was the latest sign that despite the court’s check, the Republican president was intent on continuing to wield in an unpredictable manner his favorite tool for the economy and to apply global pressure. Trump’s shifting announcements over the last year that he was raising and sometimes lowering import taxes with little notice jolted markets and rattled nations.

Saturday’s announcement seemed to be a sign that Trump intends to use the temporary global tariffs to continue that pattern.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” Trump wrote in his post.

Under the order Trump signed Friday night, the 10% tariff was scheduled to take effect starting Feb. 24. The White House did not immediately respond to a message inquiring when the president would sign an updated order.

In addition to the temporary tariffs that Trump wants to set at 15%, the president said Friday that he was also pursuing tariffs through other sections of federal law that require investigation by the Commerce Department.

Trump leveled pointed personal attacks on the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him in a 6-3 vote, two of whom he appointed during his first term, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Trump, at a news conference Friday, said of the court majority: “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.”

He was still seething Friday night, complaining on social media about Gorsuch, Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion.

On Saturday morning, Trump issued another post declaring that his “new hero” was Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, whom he also appointed and who wrote a 63-page dissent. He also praised Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who joined Kavanaugh in the minority.

The president said of the three dissenting justices: “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Price writes for the Associated Press.

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

There was a brief discussion on the L.A. City Council floor, with hardly any disagreement, before a motion brought by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez passed on Tuesday.

Rodriguez wants to allow city officials to enter hillside properties in “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” even without an owner’s permission, to clear hazardous materials and homeless encampments. The goal is to stop encampment fires that could grow into wildfires.

Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martínez and Ysabel Jurado voted against the proposed change to the city’s municipal code, citing details they wanted addressed, but said they agreed with its spirit.

A third councilmember, Eunisses Hernandez, also voted against the measure, though she did not speak during the meeting.

The political implications of the seemingly routine vote could play out more bitterly over the next several months as Soto-Martínez and Hernandez, both members of the council’s four-person “progressive bloc,” run for reelection in their districts, which include fire-prone hillsides.

The proposal could become another wedge issue on homelessness for the two members, just as the city’s controversial anti-encampment law, Municipal Code section 41.18, was in the 2022 election.

That year, it was Soto-Martínez and Hernandez who were running against incumbents and took a progressive stance against 41.18, which allows council members to designate areas near schools, libraries, senior centers and other sensitive areas as no-camping zones. The two said they believed the law was ineffective at solving homelessness, merely shuffling people around without addressing the root issues.

Now, as the two council members defend their seats, Rodriguez’s proposal has already spurred similar attacks from would-be incumbent-busters.

Maria Lou Calanche, a nonprofit leader seeking to unseat Hernandez in District 1, lives in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” at the bottom of a hill by Debs Park. The area is full of dry brush, and Calanche said in an interview that parts of the park catch fire every summer.

“The council district has a lot of hillside property and open space. Debs Park has encampments in it that have not been cleared and that’s public property,” said Calanche, who formerly served on the city Police Commission. “I’m concerned that the current council member puts ideology over the safety of the citizens and residents.”

Calanche said she would consider highlighting Hernandez’s “no” vote on campaign mailers.

“This is such a simple way to make a difference,” Calanche said. “It just seems incredible they would not be supportive.”

Hernandez said she is open to supporting Rodriguez’s proposal but that it fails to define the type of hazard that would allow city officials to enter private property without permission.

“When you expand government authority without tight definitions and guardrails, you end up with inconsistent enforcement and expensive lawsuits,” she said in a statement.

She said she hopes to work with the city attorney’s office, Fire Department and others to make sure the policy is “precise, intentional, legally sound and actually focused on reducing fire risk.”

In District 13, Dylan Kendall, a nonprofit founder and entrepreneur who is running against Soto-Martínez, said she supports the “common-sense” proposal and that her opponent’s vote was “irresponsible.”

The district, which stretches from Hollywood to Atwater Village, includes high fire-risk areas like Elysian Heights and parts of Silver Lake.

“We know what [firefighters are] seeing on the ground: encampments on or adjacent to private property with exposed wiring, pressurized fuel canisters and dense vegetation, and a maze of legal questions about who controls the site when they respond to a call,” she said in a statement. “If a private owner cannot or will not remove combustible materials and encampments that clearly increase wildfire risk, the city should be able to step in, clear the danger.”

Before Tuesday’s vote, Soto-Martínez said he would have supported the proposal had it included a definition of what exactly a fire hazard is, making the same point that Hernandez later did.

Soto-Martínez had supported Rodriguez’s initial proposal at the council’s Public Safety Committee, which was to ask for a report on what municipal code changes would be needed.

But on Tuesday, Rodriguez amended her motion to go straight to the city attorney’s office to change the municipal code. She said she wanted to accelerate the change because of the importance of preventing encampment fires.

Soto-Martínez also expressed an underlying concern that echoed his earlier statements about 41.18, which he fiercely opposed.

“What I don’t want to see is this being used as a tool to push homeless folks from one side of the street to the other side of the street,” he said.

Notably, Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running for mayor against incumbent Karen Bass, voted in favor of Rodriguez’s motion.

“The problem that this motion is identifying — gaining permission to access private property in Very High Fire Severity Zones — is one that needs to be resolved to ensure that we are mitigating the risk for a serious fire to our fullest capacity,” Raman, who opposed 41.18 and is a member of the council’s progressive bloc along with Jurado, said in a statement.

Former Councilmember Mike Bonin, who runs the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State LA, said the hillside encampment issue is less clear-cut than 41.18 but could still prove to be divisive.

“This is the kind of thing political consultants salivate over,” he said. “It’s an example of taking an issue that even from the council debate seemed to appreciate the shades of gray and making it black and white.”

State of play

— KARATE KAREN: Bass said at a rally in Leimert Park on Sunday that she is ready to fight off a challenge from Raman, invoking her training in karate to remind Angelenos that she is not too nice to battle. “I was trained to fight physically,” she said, stooping into a bow. “But if you know the martial arts, you know to bow before you kill somebody. You know to smile to throw them off.”

The mayor said she was joking, adding, “But seriously, we know how to fight and we know how to organize.”

— SCHOOL LAYOFFS: The Los Angeles Unified School District board — confronted with deficit spending and a forecast of insolvency in three years — narrowly voted to send out 3,200 notices of possible layoffs. The move, which is ultimately expected to result in 657 job cuts, is strongly opposed by labor unions as unnecessary and harmful to students.

— UCLA AX: UCLA fired its chief financial officer, Stephen Agostini, saying he inaccurately described the school’s budget deficit. The termination comes after Agostini told the school newspaper, the Daily Bruin, that “financial management flaws and failures” predating his arrival led to a $425-million deficit. The school claimed his comments were inaccurate.

— PRESSURE ON WASSERMAN: Casey Wasserman faced more calls to step down as chair of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics over racy emails with convicted sex Ghislaine Maxwell from decades ago. Bass, along with some gubernatorial candidates, was among those joining the chorus.

“My opinion is that he should step down,” Bass said in a CNN interview.

— STRICTLY BUSINESS: A coalition of business and hotel industry leaders submitted more than 79,000 signatures in support of a measure to repeal the gross receipts tax on L.A. businesses. The measure, proposed for the November ballot, would punch an $800-million hole in the city budget if approved by voters.

— WRITE IT RIGHT: Angelenos hoping to write arguments for or against three city ballot measures — dealing with cannabis and hotel taxes — can apply by Friday with the office of Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson. The arguments will be published in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed out before the June 2 election.

— PUSHING FOR PARK: The union that represents rank-and-file police officers is putting $278,000 into efforts to reelect Councilmember Traci Park, according to a filing submitted to the city’s Ethics Commission. The money from the Los Angeles Police Protective League will go toward polling and canvassers in Park’s coastal district.

— SLAP ON THE WRIST: City Council candidate Jose Ugarte, who is running to replace his boss Curren Price in District 9, has agreed to pay $25,000 for committing a city ethics violation. Ugarte admitted that on his financial interest forms, he failed to disclose a consulting firm he owns and income he made. He has called it a “clerical reporting error.”

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program was in Skid Row in Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s district providing assistance to homeless people during the heavy rains this week.
• On the docket next week: The Charter Reform Commission will meet Thursday to address City Council expansion, ranked choice voting, mayoral powers and more.

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.

Indian Prime Minister Modi hailed the agreement on critical minerals and rare earths as a ‘major step towards building resilient supply chains’. 

Brazil and India have signed an agreement to boost cooperation on critical minerals and rare earths, as the Indian government seeks new suppliers to curb its dependence on China.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Saturday and discussed boosting trade and investment opportunities.

Modi said in a statement that the agreement on critical minerals and rare earths was a “major step towards building resilient supply chains”.

China dominates the mining and processing of the world’s rare-earth and critical minerals, and has increased its grip on exports in recent months as the United States attempts to break its hold on the growing industry.

Still, for Brazil, which follows China as the world’s second-largest holder of critical minerals, its resources are used across a range of fields, including electric vehicles, solar panels, smartphones, jet engines, and guided missiles.

In a statement, Lula said, “increasing investments and cooperation in matters of renewable energies and critical minerals is at the core of the pioneering agreement that we have signed today.”

While few details have emerged about the mineral deal so far, demand for iron ore, a material for which Brazil is the second-largest producer and exporter after Australia, in India has grown amid rapid infrastructure expansion and industrial growth.

Rishabh Jain, an expert with the New Delhi-based Council on Energy, Environment and Water think tank, told the AFP news agency that India’s growing cooperation with Brazil on critical minerals follows recent supply chain engagements with the US, France and the European Union.

“Global South alliances are critical for securing diversified, on-ground resource access and shaping emerging rules of global trade”, Jain told AFP.

Trade agreements

India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson announced that, along with the critical minerals and rare earths deal, nine other agreements were signed, including a memorandum of understanding that ranged from digital cooperation to health.

Moreover, Modi called Brazil India’s “largest trading partner in Latin America”.

“We are committed to taking our bilateral trade beyond $20bn in the coming five years,” he said.

“Our trade is not just a figure, but a reflection of trust,” Modi said, adding that “When India and Brazil work together, the voice of [the] Global South becomes stronger and more confident.”

India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar also said he was confident that Lula’s talks with Modi “will impart a new momentum to our ties”.

According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) in 2024, Indian exports to Brazil reached $7.23bn, with refined petroleum being the main export. On the other hand, Brazilian exports to India reached $5.38bn, with raw sugar being the main export.

WASHINGTON — Even while the Warren Commission was preparing its report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, there were disagreements over whether the same bullet had struck Kennedy and John B. Connally. Among the dissenters: President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Besides, Johnson asked Warren Commission member Sen. Richard Russell (D-Ga.), “what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?”

Arguments over the same-bullet theory continue more than 30 years after the attack in which Kennedy was killed and Connally, then the governor of Texas, was wounded.

Johnson’s conversation with Russell was included among tapes released Friday by the National Archives and the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library in Austin, Tex.

The tapes reviewed in Austin disclosed that Connally called Johnson on March 2, 1967, to discuss claims that Cuba was involved in the assassination. In other phone conversations, Johnson told aides to keep up with New Orleans prosecutor Jim Garrison’s investigation into the slaying.

Garrison’s theories and writings about the assassination formed the basis for Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie, “JFK.”

Johnson, however, said he did not believe the CIA-Cuba theory. In a Feb. 18, 1967, conversation with then-acting Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark, Johnson said the Cuban theory was as preposterous as if he were told that his wife, Lady Bird Johnson, “was taking dope.”

Johnson’s conversation with Russell, about the bullet that hit Connally, occurred on Sept. 18, 1964. They discussed progress in preparing the report on Kennedy’s slaying.

The senator noted some members of the commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren believed that “the same bullet that hit Kennedy first is the one that hit Connally.”

Responding to Johnson’s musing, Russell said, “Well, it don’t make much difference.” He added: “Well, I don’t believe it. . . .”

“I don’t either,” Johnson responded.

Russell said the differences among the commission members were to be noted in the report.

Connally, riding in the front seat of the presidential limousine, was wounded when Kennedy, in the back seat, was slain in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

Investigators agree that three shots were fired, but through the years conspiracy arguments have turned on whether the same bullet could have passed through Kennedy’s upper back and hit Connally.

The two were struck almost at the same instant. If the same bullet could not have wounded both men, there had to have been a second bullet–and therefore a second gunman, according to those who believe in a conspiracy.

When Connally died last summer, researchers asked to recover bullet fragments from his body to help resolve the issue, but the request was turned down.

At a luncheon this week for L.A. County politicos, Supervisor Kathryn Barger pitched what she framed as a commonsense reform.

Legislators in Sacramento, she argued, need to change a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for sex abuse lawsuits, opening the floodgates for decades-old claims that have cost the county nearly $5 billion and counting in payouts.

“I want them in Sacramento to fix it,” she said. “I have to believe that we are the tip of the iceberg.”

The controversial law, Assembly Bill 218, has led to thousands of claims over abuse that took place in schools, juvenile halls and foster homes. Supporters say it continues to give survivors a chance at justice, while Barger and other officials warn the cost of the litigation is driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy.

Rolling back AB 218, critics argue, is the single most obvious thing state lawmakers can do this legislative session.

The push has gained momentum amid concerns of fraud in the first of two payouts approved last year by L.A. County officials. At $4 billion, it was the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, with the money set aside for more than 11,000 victims.

The Times reported last fall on allegations of fabricated claims filed by plaintiffs within the settlement, which prompted L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman to open an investigation. Hochman told the supervisors this week that his office is reviewing “thousands of claims” for fraudulent submissions and predicted savings in the “hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.”

Speaking at the event Wednesday, Barger suggested capping attorneys fees — acknowledging that some high-powered attorneys in the room were involved in the county’s litigation.

Out of the $4-billion payout, she said, “about $1.5 billion will go to attorney fees — present company included.”

Barger referenced a former state Assembly speaker known for bare-knuckle tactics, which she said were needed now in the Capitol.

“If Willie Brown were up there, I’m sure he’d lock everyone in a room and slap some sense into them at this point,” she said.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has asked California legislators to consider changes to AB 218. Critics say sexual abuse lawsuits are driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy, while supporters say it is one of the few ways for victims of abuse to get justice. Rivas spoke in Ventura County on Nov. 18, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

This session, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has assigned a group of legislators to look at what changes might be made to the law.

A spokesman for Rivas, Nick Miller, said the goal is to provide “meaningful access to justice for all survivors” without forcing service cuts in schools and governments.

“There is a group of members discussing possible solutions that strike the right balance on this critical issue,” Miller said.

It’s a tightrope walk that no legislator has mastered.

Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who tried last year to increase the burden of proof for these cases, was branded a protector of predators.

Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) got further with a pared-down bill only to watch it blow up last session over concerns he was trampling on victims’ rights.

“I worked hard to strike the middle ground,” Laird said. “It just was too hard.”

Organized labor, a powerful voice in Sacramento, could sway the equation. County unions said they were told repeatedly at the bargaining table last year that they couldn’t get raises because of the massive sex abuse settlements, potentially setting them on a collision course with victim advocates.

Lorena Gonzalez, who wrote AB 218 in 2019 before leaving the Legislature to head up the California Federation of Labor Unions, said lobbying firms had been urging unions recently to take the lead on convincing the Assembly to change the law. The union leaders have yet to take a stance, she said.

“Although there’s some desire to especially fix what happened in L.A., there wasn’t an overwhelming desire to roll it back,” she said.

While serving in the state Legislature, Lorena Gonzalez authored AB 218, a state law that extended the statute of limitations for lawsuits over sexual abuse in government facilities. Gonzalez, now with the California Labor Federation, spoke at Balletto Vineyards in Santa Rosa, Calif., on April 26, 2024.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

A Times investigation last fall found nine clients of Downtown L.A. Law Group, a law firm that represents thousands of plaintiffs in the county’s largest settlement, who claimed that recruiters had paid them to sue. Some clients said they were told to make up stories of abuse that became the crux of their lawsuit.

The firm, also known as DTLA, has denied paying any client to sue. Andrew Morrow, the main attorney on the cases for DTLA, argued in a Feb. 13 court filing that the recent subpoena by the State Bar seeking their court records as part of an investigation into the firm amounted to an “ill-advised fishing expedition.” The firm argued that allowing the State Bar to review its filings violates clients’ privacy.

“No one disputes that these allegations are troubling and, if true, serious,” Morrow wrote. “However, untested allegations printed in a local newspaper — no matter how compelling — do not override the privacy rights” of victims.

Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), a longtime advocate for sex abuse survivors who vehemently opposed the last attempt at changing AB 218, said that “there’s all kinds of discussions about potential solutions” for fraud underway in the Legislature.

But limiting victims’ ability to sue, as some have called on lawmakers to do, is a clear no-go, she said.

“Silencing victims is not the way to get out fraud,” she said.

Like many legislators, she pinned some of the blame for the alleged fraud on poor vetting by lawyers for L.A. County. The county has said the cost of taking depositions for more than 11,000 cases would be “astronomical,” and that no records exist for many of the older cases, leaving them defenseless.

In a statement to The Times, a spokesperson for the L.A. County counsel’s office said the Legislature created AB 218 “without a single safeguard against fraud.”

“That is their failure to own,” the statement said. “This is the system the Legislature built, and they need to fix it.”

The county maintains it is not trying to squash victims’ rights, but rather keep vital services — pools, parks, health clinics — open.

“I am tired of whenever a government official stands up and says, ‘Hey, there needs to be some reform here,’ that we’re accused of victim blaming, pedophile protecting,” says Joseph Nicchitta, the county’s acting chief executive.

After agreeing to the $4-billion payout in April, county officials opted into a second $828-million settlement in October covering an additional 400 cases. Since then, more than 5,000 cases have been filed that are not part of either settlement and still need to be resolved.

“Let me tell you what will not work for L.A. County,” Nicchitta said. “The nibbles around the edges — ‘Make the procedure a little tighter, we’ll require a couple more documents.’”

He said he believes the Legislature needs to weigh the need to pay survivors against the obligation to keep the social safety net intact. One solution, Nicchitta said, could involve a victims compensation fund that would eliminate the need for someone to hire an attorney in order to submit a claim and receive money.

“Acknowledge the harm, provide real competition, [and] do it fast,” he said. “You don’t need a lawyer.”

John Manly, a lawyer who has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years, sits at his law office in Irvine on Dec. 29, 2023.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

After getting flooded with sex abuse claims related to juvenile facilities following a similar change in the statute of limitations, Maryland capped sex abuse cases against government entities last year at $400,000 and limited attorneys’ fees to 25% for cases resolved in court.

For many California trial attorneys, ideas such as these are nonstarters.

“The reason they’re proposing a victims’ fund is they continue to know that those people don’t have any political power,” said John Manly, a veteran sex abuse attorney who is part of the second L.A. County settlement. “The only power they have is to hire a lawyer and get justice.

“We’re going to fight,” he said.

SAN DIEGO — Light rain slicked the pavement in San Diego’s East Village neighborhood on a recent morning, forcing some homeless people to scatter while others huddled under tents or slept through the drizzle.

I was on foot with Dr. Aaron Meyer, a psychiatrist frustrated by California’s most visible crisis: The failure to provide help for many of the people who need it most, despite all the programs rolled out over the years, and all the billions of dollars spent.

We see them in parks, on sidewalks and in other public spaces in obvious distress, and we’ve heard the never-ending conversations and political promises of better days. The problem goes well beyond homelessness: Thousands of severely ill people live with exasperated family members who wear themselves out trying to get help for loved ones.

“We have a history of services that have ended up prioritizing less severe people rather than the most severe,” said Meyer, a UC San Diego associate clinical professor of psychiatry who was speaking on his own behalf, as a university rep.

In searching for answers, Meyer teamed with lawyer Ann Marie Council, a former San Diego deputy city attorney who once worked in drug court. She was struck by the number of clients spun through the system countless times without getting treatment for addiction or mental illness.

“I was really sick and tired of watching people go to jail when they weren’t getting the help they needed,” said Council, who retired from public service and started Quarter Turn Strategies, a nonprofit focused on practical solutions to fractured public services.

It turns out the doctor and the lawyer make a pretty good team. In their research, they came upon a tool that could address chronic severe mental illness and addiction, and it was hiding in plain sight: in a book of California statutes, namely Section 5200 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code.

The state law governing involuntary commitments and conservatorships for people with severe mental illness is known as the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, and it includes the commonly used Section 5150 for those deemed “gravely disabled.” The process begins with a 72-hour hold that can lead to a longer commitment, but often does not.

Section 5200 outlines a far more thorough evaluation and care plan than 5150. The 5200 process can be initiated by anybody concerned about someone who is gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or others (with misdemeanor penalties for abuse of the reporting privilege).

Dr. Susan Partovi, who has practiced street medicine in Los Angeles for many years, has a term for the 72-hour hold under 5150:

“We call it the 72-second hold,” she said.

I’ve written previously about Partovi’s moral outrage over the number of severely ill people who either are not deemed “gravely disabled” or who spin repeatedly through three-day holds and return to the same self-destructive routines. I’ve also heard her talk about who among her clients is likely to die next.

Partovi is a member of Grave Disability Workgroup of California, which has endorsed a research paper on 5200, “The Lost Legal Pathway to Mental Health Care,” co-written by Meyer and Council and released a few weeks ago by Quarter Turn. It detailed the frustrations of families, outreach workers and first responders and concluded that 5200 could help break down some of the bureaucratic barriers to life-changing mental health care.

In San Diego, as Meyer and I passed a woman trying to erect a tent in the rain and a person asleep on a littered patch of weeds, I asked him to explain the difference between 5150 and 5200.

Under a 5150 commitment, he said, a person is often brought to an emergency room for an assessment by someone who is not necessarily a behavioral health specialist. A decision is then made about whether the person meets the legal criteria for an involuntary hold.

“If they don’t, then they’re released, and there’s no requirement for any care coordination,” Meyer said. Under 5200, a full medical evaluation is required with a multidisciplinary team, “and it also requires a coordinated care plan on discharge,” raising “the hope of leading to something substantive.”

In their research, Meyer and Council found that 5200 is not known to be in use in any of the state’s 58 counties, with public officials either unaware of it or under the impression that it’s an unnecessary tool given other initiatives over the decades, and cost of implementation could be a problem.

Meyer argues that the state spends billions without addressing glaring needs, and 5200 could cost less than roller-coastering people through hospitals, courts, jails and prisons without putting them on a healthier track.

Meyer said he’s gotten pushback from civil libertarians and disability rights groups, both of which have long opposed coerced treatment and argued instead for a host of greater resources in housing and preventive healthcare, and for more outreach that can lead to voluntary treatment.

I understand the pitfalls of forced treatment, having been on a 20-year journey with someone who initially resisted help and objected to medication. It’s true that forced treatment doesn’t always get the desired outcome, and can backfire if it makes the person more resistant to treatment.

But some people can become too sick to make a decision in their own best interest, which is why we’ve seen so many of them at death’s door, living in squalor and desperation, tortured by psychosis or chewed up by killer drugs.

Care Courts, which were meant to help address this, have not yet had the anticipated impact, and some families have felt let down. Meyer and Council say that although those courts can implement 5200, that isn’t happening yet.

The fact that 5200 is little known and never used “is another example of systems failure,” said former state senator and Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg.

Steinberg said although 5200 isn’t a one-step answer to homelessness or untreated severe mental and addiction illness, it’s worth implementing given the existing “set of systems that are not responsive to people who are the sickest of the sick.”

Jon Sherin, former head of L.A. County’s mental health department, called 5200 “one of the most powerful tools” available and said he tried to implement it several years ago but faced some of the same resistance described by Meyer.

“If you used it thoughtfully and had capacity, you could actually have a massive impact,” said Sherin, who urged those running for governor to “bring 5200 into the limelight and guarantee resources to counties.”

The same can be said about the race for Los Angeles mayor. Despite some progress, homelessness is still a public catastrophe, and gravely ill people are a haunting representation of policy failures.

Supporters of 5200 include Bay Area resident Teresa Pasquini, a mental health reform advocate whose brother and son have both dealt with severe mental illness. Pasquini, whose causes include “Moms on a Mission” and “Housing that Heals,” told me her son, now in his 40s, has been through the 5150 turnstile 40 times.

Pasquini said people in her circumstances have been accused of wanting to shed their troubles by having their kids locked away. All she really wants, she said, is for him to be housed and safe and given proper care.

“We need all the tools we can get … and we need 5200,” Pasquini said. “I’ve watched my son walk out the front door in handcuffs over 40 times. Treatment is not a bad word.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Outside a hall where Southern California Edison was celebrating Black History Month on Friday, a group of Altadena residents stood on the sidewalk, waving signs and talking of the homes and family members they lost in last year’s Eaton fire.

“They’re in there celebrating Black history and they’ve destroyed a Black town,” said Nicole Vasquez of My Tribe Rise, which helped organize the protest.

The Jan. 7, 2025 fire destroyed thousands of homes, including the majority of homes in west Altadena, a historically Black community. All but one of the 19 people who died were in west Altadena.

“If Edison’s tower did not ignite the fire, Altadena would still be there,” said Trevor Howard Kelley, who lost his 83-year-old mother, Erliene, in the fire.

Kelley, his daughter and two granddaughters had been living with his mother before her home was destroyed, he said.

The Black Altadena residents are part of a larger coalition that is asking Edison to advance each family who lost their home $200,000 in emergency housing assistance. They say that more than a year after the blaze many wildfire survivors are running out of the funds they had received from insurers.

The group protesting Friday also called for transparency from Edison. The company has said it believes it is likely its equipment caused the fire but has continued to deny it did anything wrong.

“We just want the truth,” said Felicia Ford, who lost her house in the fire. “What’s wrong with saying, ‘We got this wrong.’”

Scott Johnson, an Edison spokesperson, said Friday that the company continued to believe its voluntary compensation program was the best way to help victims of the fire. Edison has promised to quickly review each victim’s claim and pay it swiftly if approved.

Families who lost their homes can receive hundreds of thousands of dollars under the program, while those with damaged homes receive lesser amounts.

But many survivors say they don’t believe the offered amounts fully compensate their losses. And to receive the money, victims must agree not to sue — which many are not willing to do.

“We recognize the incredible struggles the community has faced,” Johnson said. “The intent of the program is to reach final settlements to allow the community to rebuild and move on.”

The investigation into the cause of the fire has not yet been released. Edison has said a leading theory is that its century-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which had not carried electricity for 50 years, somehow became reenergized and sparked the fire.

Company executives said they did not remove the old line because they believed it would be used in the future.

Tru Williams said he just wants to get his parents back home.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

In December, state regulators ordered Edison to identify fire risks on its 355 miles of out-of service transmission lines located in areas of high fire risk and tell regulators how executives planned to use the lines in the future.

This week, Edison disclosed that the Los Angeles County district attorney was investigating whether Edison should be criminally prosecuted for its actions in the fire.

West Altadena became one of L.A.’s first middle-class Black neighborhoods in the 1960s, partly because discriminatory redlining practices for years kept Black homebuyers from settling east of Lake Avenue.

Heavenly Hughes, co-founder of My Tribe Rise, told the crowd she had lived in Altadena for 50 years.

“I was raised in a thriving working-class community and they have destroyed that community,” Hughes said, referring to Edison.

Added Ford, “The people making these decisions aren’t suffering at all. They’re still getting their paychecks, bonuses and stock options.”

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

The three-day trip, at Beijing’s invitation, comes more than eight years after Trump’s first visit to China during his first stint as president.

Donald Trump will travel to China from March 31 to April 2, the White House has said, in what will be the first official visit to Beijing by a United States president since Trump’s last trip there in 2017.

The dates, confirmed by a White House official on Friday, come as Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have respectively described “excellent” and “good communication” between the two countries in recent months.

“That’s going to be a wild one,” Trump said on Thursday of the planned trip.

“We have to put on the biggest display you’ve ever had in the history of China,” Trump said.

The announcement of Trump’s China visit came shortly before the US Supreme Court on Friday struck down the tariffs that Trump had imposed on countries around the world, in a tactic the US president has openly used to influence other countries to support his policies.

Tariffs will likely be on the agenda in Beijing, as will China’s response to the US’s trade threats, including no longer buying soybeans, previously the top US export to China.

Beijing has already hosted a number of other Western leaders in recent months, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who touted new trade deals and a lifting of Canada’s ban on buying Chinese-made electric cars during his visit.

China’s increasing global exports of electric vehicles come as Beijing has invested heavily in new technologies and renewable energy in recent years, potentially further setting it apart from the US, where Trump is doubling down on fossil fuels.

Washington also continues to provide weapons sales and other support to Taiwan, which Beijing has promised to unify with mainland China.

This will be Trump’s first trip to China since the COVID-19 pandemic, which the then-US president labelled as the “Chinese virus”. Trump then downplayed the virus’s potential consequences in the US, where more than one million people died during the pandemic.

Since reopening its borders in January 2023, following strict self-imposed isolation during the pandemic, China has seemingly increased its efforts to engage with the outside world in recent months.

In addition to hosting Western politicians, China has also opened its doors to popular US live streamers such as Hasan Piker and Darren Watkins Jr, also known as Speed, while also attracting US citizens to its social media apps.

Feb. 20 (UPI) — Most Americans disapprove of President Donald Trump‘s handling of deporting undocumented immigrants, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released Friday.

The poll of 2,600 people found that 58% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the issue, while 62% oppose the tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The poll was taken Feb. 12-17, after the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota.

Broken down by political party, 95% of Democrats disapprove of Trump handling of immigration, while 16% of Republicans agree. The latter figure is up from 13% in October. Independents feel he’s gone too far by 63%, which is up from 54% in October.

Trump’s approval rating on immigration has dropped steadily over the past year, and is down by 10%. He gets higher numbers on his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, 47%.

Half of Americans support efforts to deport all undocumented immigrants, the poll showed. In October, a poll showed that 45% were in support of expanded ICE operations and 46% were opposed. Today, Americans opposed the expanded operations by 53% to 40%.

A large number — 77% — believe that a warrant from a judge is necessary to enter a person’s home, while 20% believe an administrative warrant is enough.

And though the administration says it is targeting “the worst of the worst,” about 33% of Americans surveyed believe that.

The Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll was conducted Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults with a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

President Trump has long spread conspiracy theories about voting designed to explain away his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Now that he’s president again, Trump has stocked his administration with those who have promoted his falsehoods and in some cases helped him try to overturn his loss.

Those election conspiracists now holding official power range from the attorney general to lawyers filing lawsuits for the Justice Department. Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who unsuccessfully pushed the Justice Department in 2020 to back the president’s false claims, is now leading a sweeping probe of the vote from that election.

The most dramatic action from that mandate was the seizure in late January of ballots and 2020 election records from Fulton County in Georgia, a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. The county has long been a target of election conspiracy theorists aligned with Trump, and the affidavit for the search warrant shows the action was based on 2020 claims that in many cases had been thoroughly investigated.

Election officials across the country, especially those in states controlled politically by Democrats, are bracing for more turmoil during this year’s elections, when control of Congress is on the line.

“The election denial movement is now embedded across our federal government, which makes it more powerful than ever,” said Joanna Lydgate, chief executive of States United Democracy Center, which tracks those who promote election conspiracy theories. “Trump and his allies are trying to use all of the powers of the federal government to undermine elections, with an eye to the upcoming midterms.”

Trump has remade the federal government as an arm of his own personal will, and his attorney general, Pam Bondi — who helped try to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss — has declared that everyone working at the Justice Department needs to carry out the president’s demands. Even with all the issues facing him in his second term, from persistent concerns about the economy to his immigration crackdown, Trump continues to push the false claim that he won the 2020 presidential election.

Some of the people who populate his administration are, like Bondi, longtime supporters who continued to help Trump even as he sought to overturn an election. Some played minor roles in supporting the false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Still others have pushed conspiracy theories, often fantastical or debunked, that have helped persuade millions of Republicans that Trump had the 2020 election stolen from him.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

While President Trump is busy working through his checklist for sabotaging the midterm elections, Republicans are already concocting the political equivalent of a shady insurance policy — the kind someone takes out the day before the house catches fire.

I’ll save you some time and explain that the drubbing Republicans are about to endure won’t be the result of Trump or his policies. Instead, it will be because the midterm elections were rigged for the Democrats. Or at least these claims are the GOP spin that’s already in progress.

The predicate is being laid. “They want illegals to vote,” House Speaker Mike Johnson recently declared. “That’s why they opened the border wide for four years under Biden and Harris and allowed in all these dangerous people. It was a means to an end. The end is maintaining their own power,” Johnson continued.

To prevent this, Republicans have invented a MacGuffin: the SAVE America Act — a plot device Republicans have introduced primarily to drive the story forward.

That’s not to say the legislation would be meaningless. The SAVE America act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, eliminate mail-only registrations, mandate photo ID nationwide and force states to send voter lists to the Department of Homeland Security.

Some of these things (like requiring voter ID) are popular and even arguably salutary. But in light of recent events — say, Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results — any effort by Trump to nationalize or otherwise meddle in our election process should be met with immediate alarm.

Still, it is highly unlikely that any of these new tools would actually stem the tide of the rising blue wave that is poised to devour Republicans this November.

The notion that any substantial number of undocumented immigrants is voting is a farce. There are scant few examples of election fraud by anyone, and the examples that do surface often involve Republicans.

And to the degree there would be impediments to voter registration (there is worry that women who changed their names after getting married would be disenfranchised), the electoral results of making it harder to register to vote would largely affect future elections after this year — and these provisions wouldn’t solely hurt Democratic voters.

Regardless, this is all likely a moot point. Despite passing the House, it’s hard to imagine this bill can garner the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the Senate (and it doesn’t seem likely there’d be enough votes to nuke the filibuster).

This raises an interesting question: Why invest so much time and energy in a bill that seems destined to fail — and that, even if it did pass, would likely not alter even the closest of November’s midterm elections?

Because the bill isn’t really about passing policy. It’s about narrative control.

The SAVE America Act serves three strategic purposes for Republicans:

It’s a comforting but false diagnosis for the midterms. Let’s face it: Trump isn’t going to admit that his policies have backfired or that his approval ratings are in the tank, and Republicans aren’t about to lay that at his feet. As Trump declared in 2020 (before a single vote was cast), “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.” Trumpism cannot fail; it can only be failed.

Base mobilization through grievance. Just as caravans of migrants always seem to miraculously appear just before an election, threats of election rigging at least give Republicans something to scare Fox News voters about — a way to motivate via fear and outrage in an otherwise moribund midterm electorate.

Blame insurance. Despite being the establishment and controlling the entire federal government, Trump still gets to cast himself as the victim. And it won’t just be Democrats who get blamed for a midterm loss; there will also be a “stabbed in the back” excuse.

Scott Presler, a prominent right-wing activist championing this bill on Fox News, has already declared that unless the SAVE America Act passes, Republicans will lose both chambers of Congress. In a veiled threat to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), he recently asked, “Do you want to be remembered as the Senate Majority Leader that was responsible for ushering in the decline of the United States?”

They’re clearly playing a game, but is this game good for Republicans?

While it might seem shrewd to construct a boogeyman, Republicans risk eliminating the feedback loop on which healthy political parties rely.

When losses are blamed on cheating rather than voter sentiment, there’s no incentive to change your behavior, your policies or your candidates. So a party that voters have rejected will keep repeating the same dumb things, all while voters scratch their heads and wonder why they still haven’t gotten to the promised land.

Republicans might well reflect on Trump’s Republican Party as a party that had “learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”

And a party that cannot learn or adapt is a party that shouldn’t count on winning many elections in the future.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats passed a new congressional map through the Virginia legislature on Friday that aims to help their party win four more seats in the national redistricting battle. It’s a flex of state Democrats’ political power, however hurdles remain before they can benefit from friendlier U.S. House district boundaries in this year’s midterm elections.

A judge in Tazewell, a conservative area in Southwest Virginia, has effectively blocked a voter referendum on the redrawn maps from happening on April 21 by granting a temporary restraining order, issued Thursday.

Democrats are appealing that decision and another by the same judge, who ruled last month that Democrats illegally rushed the planned voter referendum on their constitutional amendment to allow the remapping. The state’s Supreme Court picked up the party’s appeal of the earlier ruling.

The judge’s order prohibits officials from preparing for the referendum through March 18. But early voting for it was slated to start March 6, meaning Democrats would have to get a favorable court ruling within two weeks to stick with that timeline.

If Democrats get to carry out a referendum, voters will choose whether to temporarily adopt new congressional districts and then return to Virginia’s standard process after the 2030 census. Democrats wanted to publish the new map ahead of the April vote.

President Trump launched an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle last year by pushing Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts to help his party win more seats. The goal was for the GOP to hold on to a narrow House majority in the face of political headwinds that typically favor the party out of power in midterms.

Instead, it created a burst of redistricting efforts nationwide. So far, Republicans believe they can win nine more House seats in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats think they can win six more seats in California and Utah, and are hoping to fully or partially make up the remaining three-seat margin in Virginia.

Democratic lawmakers in Virginia have sought to portray their redistricting push as a response to Trump’s overreach.

“The president of the United States, who apparently only one half of this chamber knows how to stand up to, basically directed states to grab power,” Virginia’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell said in February. “To basically maintain his power indefinitely — to rig the game, rig the system.”

Republicans have sounded aghast. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore described the remap as a way for liberals in northern Virginia’s Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties to commandeer the rest of the state.

“In southwest Virginia, we have this saying … They say, ‘Terry, you do a good job up there, but you know, Virginia stops at Roanoke,” Kilgore previously said, referring to how some people across Virginia’s Appalachian region feel unrepresented in state politics. “That’s not going to be the same saying anymore, because Virginia is now going to stop just a little bit west of Prince William County.”

Virginia is currently represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who ran in districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan legislative commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census.

Legislation that would put the Democrats’ more gerrymandered map into effect if voters approve the referendum now awaits the signature of Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who has indicated that she would support it.

“Virginia has the opportunity and responsibility to be responsive in the face of efforts across the country to change maps,” Spanberger said as she approved the referendum.

Democratic candidates are already lining up in anticipation. “Dopesick” author Beth Macy and former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello launched campaigns in red areas that would be moved into districts with more registered Democrats.

Virginia Del. Dan Helmer and former federal prosecutor J.P. Cooney, who helped investigate Trump and was fired by him, have launched campaigns in a formerly rural district that would now mostly include voters just outside the nation’s capital. And former Democratic congresswoman Elaine Luria is mounting a comeback against Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans, who ousted her in 2022, in a competitive district that the map has made slightly more favorable to Democrats.

Diaz writes for the Associated Press.

Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, has suggested that he would not object if Israel were to take most of the Middle East, stressing what he described as the Jewish people’s right to the land.

In an interview with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson that aired on Friday, Huckabee was pressed about the geographical borders of Israel, which he argues are rooted in the Bible.

Carlson told Huckabee that the biblical verse had promised the land to the descendants of Abraham, including the area between the Euphrates River in Iraq and the Nile River in Egypt.

Such a swath would encompass modern-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia.

“It would be fine if they took it all,” said Huckabee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump last year.

Carlson, who appeared taken aback by the statement, asked Huckabee if indeed he would approve of Israel expanding over the entire region.

“They don’t want to take it over. They’re not asking to take it over,” the ambassador replied.

The US envoy, an avowed Christian Zionist and staunch defender of Israel, later appeared to walk back his assertion, saying that it “was somewhat of a hyperbolic statement”.

Still, he left the door open for Israeli expansionism based on his religious interpretation.

“If they end up getting attacked by all these places, and they win that war, and they take that land, OK, that’s a whole other discussion,” Huckabee said.

The Department of State did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment on whether Secretary of State Marco Rubio shares Huckabee’s views on Israel’s right to expand.

The principle of territorial integrity and the prohibition against the acquisition of land by force have been a bedrock of international law since World War II.

In 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal and must cease immediately.

But Israeli law does not clearly demarcate the country’s borders. Israel also occupies the Golan Heights in Syria, which it illegally annexed in 1981.

The US is the only country that recognises Israel’s claimed sovereignty over the Syrian territory.

After the 2024 war with Hezbollah, Israel also set up military outposts in five points inside Lebanon.

Some Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly promoted the idea of a “Greater Israel” with expanded borders.

Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stirred international outrage in 2023 when he spoke at an event featuring a map that included the Palestinian territories and portions of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan as part of Israel, set against the colours of the Israeli flag.

In his interview with Carlson, Huckabee tried to argue that Israel’s right to exist is rooted in international law, but he also attacked the legal institutions that oversee international law for their opposition to Israeli abuses.

“One of the reasons I’m so grateful President Trump and Secretary Rubio are pushing hard, trying to get rid of the ICC [International Criminal Court] and the ICJ is because they have become rogue organisations that are no longer really about an equal application of law,” he said.

Beyond his professed religious devotion to Israel, Huckabee has faced criticism for failing to speak up for the rights of US citizens who have been killed and imprisoned by Israeli forces during his ambassadorship.

Last year, Huckabee even sparked anger from some conservatives in the US when he met with convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, who sold US intelligence secrets to the Israeli government, details of which later made it to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

Pollard, a former civilian analyst in the US Navy, served 30 years in jail and moved to Israel in 2020 after his release. He never expressed regret for his crimes, and in 2021, he called on Jewish employees in US security agencies to spy for Israel.

Huckabee said he does not agree with Pollard’s views, but he denied hosting him, arguing that he simply held a meeting with him at the US embassy in Jerusalem.

Asked if anyone can walk into the embassy to meet the envoy, Huckabee acknowledged that such a meeting requires a pre-approved appointment.

“He was able to come to the US embassy to have a meeting at his request. I did, and frankly, I don’t regret it,” Huckabee said.

“I met with a lot of people over the course of the time I’ve been here and will meet with a lot more.”

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared a triumph against California on Friday, touting an appellate court ruling that she said blocked a state ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officers wearing masks.

“The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California’s ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents,” Bondi posted on the social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 decision a “key victory.”

Bondi, however, appeared confused about which case the court was ruling on this week.

A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days earlier, on Feb. 9.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “constrained” to block the law because it included only local and federal officers, while exempting state law enforcement.

The state did not appeal that decision.

Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the problematic carve-out for state officers.

With the initial legal challenge already decided and the new bill still pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.

The ruling that Bondi appeared to reference involves a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to display identification while on duty.

Snyder had previously ruled the “No Vigilantes Act” could take effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court is set to review the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an injunction that pauses the state law from taking effect.

Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move, allowing judges to freeze things in the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and come to a decision.

Thursday’s order set a hearing in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating the case is far from over.

Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated with a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another key win for the Justice Department.” He too suggested the injunction somehow involved the mask case.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The law requiring officers to show ID is less controversial than the mask ban. But it may still face an uphill battle in the appellate court. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case, comprising two judges nominated to the bench by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously signaled skepticism over the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

At issue in the ID case is whether California’s law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Snyder ruled that the identification law was more akin to speed limits on the highway, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appellate court could reject.

A ruling is not expected before mid-March, and would not directly affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.

Recent polls show more than 60% of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and other federal agents unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.

In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask ban for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until one is enacted.

Legal experts have said the issue likely will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — The late Rev. Jesse Jackson will not lie in honor in the United States Capitol Rotunda after a request for the commemoration was denied by the House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office due to past precedent.

Johnson’s office said it received a request from the family to have Jackson’s remains lie in honor at the Capitol, but the request was denied, because of the precedent that the space is typically reserved for former presidents, the military and select officials.

The civil rights leader died this week at the age of 84. The family and some House Democrats had filed a request for Jackson to be honored at the U.S. Capitol.

Amid the country’s political divisions, there have been flare-ups over who is memorialized at the Capitol with a service to lie in state, or honor, in the Rotunda. During such events, the public is generally allowed to visit the Capitol and pay their respects.

Recent requests had similarly been made, and denied, to honor Charlie Kirk, the slain conservative activist, and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

There is no specific rule about who qualifies for the honor, a decision that is controlled by concurrence from both the House and Senate.

The Jackson family has announced scheduled dates for memorial services beginning next week that will honor the late reverend’s life in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and South Carolina. In a statement, the Jackson family said it had heard from leaders in South Carolina, Jackson’s native state, and Washington offering for Jackson to be celebrated in both locations. Talks are ongoing with lawmakers about where those proceedings will take place. His final memorial services will be held in Chicago on March 6 and 7.

Typically, the Capitol and its Rotunda have been reserved for the “most eminent citizens,” according to the Architect of the Capitol’s website. It said government and military officials lie in state, while private citizens in honor.

In 2020, Rep. John Lewis, another veteran of the civil rights movement, was the first Black lawmaker to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda after a ceremony honoring his legacy was held outside on the Capitol steps because of pandemic restrictions at the time.

Later that year, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) allowed services for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Capitol’s Statuary Hall after agreement could not be reached for services in the Capitol’s Rotunda.

It is rare for private citizens to be honored at the Capitol, but there is precedent — most notably civil rights icon Rosa Parks, in 2005, and the Rev. Billy Graham, in 2018.

A passionate civil rights leader and globally minded humanitarian, Jackson’s fiery speeches and dual 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns transformed American politics for generations. Jackson’s organization, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, became a hub for progressive organizers across the country.

His unapologetic calls for a progressive economic agenda and more inclusive policies for all racial groups, religions, genders and orientations laid the groundwork for the progressive movement within the Democratic Party.

Jackson also garnered a global reputation as a champion for human rights. He conducted the release of American hostages on multiple continents and argued for greater connections between civil rights movements around the world, most notably as a fierce critic of the policies of apartheid in South Africa.

Brown and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

The United States Supreme Court ruling against the administration of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has left a question unanswered on what is the refund process for the funds collected over the past several months through the tariffs that had been imposed on most US trading partners .

In a 6–3 decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling that found the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority.

The high court did not specify how the federal government would refund the estimated $175bn collected under the tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would present practical challenges and said it would be “a mess”.

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade to oversee the refund process.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a wave of new cases is expected. Legal experts say the administration will likely require importers to apply for refunds individually. That process could disproportionately burden smaller businesses affected by the tariffs.

“The government is probably not going to voluntarily pay back the money it unlawfully took. Rather, the government is going to make everyone request a refund through different procedures by filing formal protests. They’re going to delay things procedurally as long as they can. Hiring lawyers and going through these procedures costs money and time,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

“I imagine the largest companies, who have been prepared for this eventuality, will eventually get their money back. But smaller importers, it’s a cost-benefit analysis where they might shrug their shoulders and say it’s not worth going through the hassle to get the unlawfully imposed taxes paid back to them.”

Trump’s path forward

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump had invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminium, cars, copper, lumber, and other products, such as kitchen cabinets, worldwide.

On Friday, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days to replace some of his emergency duties that were struck down. The order would be made under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the duties would be over and above tariffs that are currently in place, Trump said.

The statute allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

The president also has other legal avenues available to continue taxing imports aggressively.

“Our trading partners were well aware of the risks the President faced in using IEEPA as the basis for reciprocal and other tariffs. Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced by Washington that other statutes would be utilised to keep the tariffs in place,” Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“With respect to China, USTR [United States trade representative] still has an active Section 301 investigation on China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement, which could be a major feature of the back-up plan for Beijing.”

The president is expected to travel to Beijing next month to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to discuss trade.

“The two main options include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the traditional mechanism for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. It requires an investigation and a report, but ultimately gives the president considerable discretion to impose tariffs. It has been used in the past and will likely be the most frequently used measure going forward,” Shaffer, the law professor, said.

He noted, however, that the administration’s tariff options could not be applied retroactively, meaning any new tariffs would apply only to future imports rather than covering duties already paid.

Raj Bhala, professor of law at The University of Kansas School of Law, argues there are remedies at the president’s disposal in addition to Section 122. Bhala said that Trump could use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Act). That allows the president to impose a 50 percent tariff to challenge discriminatory trade practices from other countries.

“Each option involves procedural hurdles,” Bhala said.

Congressional pressure

Roberts wrote that the president must “point to clear congressional authorization” to impose tariffs. The ruling has increased pressure on both Trump’s allies and critics in Congress to clarify the scope of executive trade authority.

“What a fantastic ruling for a feckless branch of government. While its current tendency is to abdicate, the court has told Congress to do its job,” a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget told Al Jazeera in response to the decision.

“Congress must either act with specific legislation, or declare war, which would grant the President the emergency powers to levy tariffs.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on the social media platform X.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, by contrast, welcomed the ruling, saying it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

But how that money will get paid back, and if it was already spent, will require Congress to step in.

“If it has been spent, the money will have to be reallocated by Congress. Congress will have to determine how much is owed to importers, pass a law to fund it, and create a mechanism for repayment. There’s also the question of who is entitled to it. Is it only the importer, or does it extend to the end consumer? Where does the line stop?” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“This is not something that will be fixed in 24 hours. It will most likely take years, possibly even a decade, to resolve all the issues this less-than-a-year-old law has imposed on Americans.”

Shortly before releasing an after-action report on the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department issued a confidential memo detailing plans to protect Mayor Karen Bass and others from “reputational harm” in connection with the city’s handling of the catastrophic blaze, records obtained by The Times show.

“It’s our goal to prepare and protect Mayor Bass, the City, and the LAFD from reputational harm associated with the upcoming public release of its AARR, through a comprehensive strategy that includes risk assessment, proactive and reactive communications, and crisis response,” the memo states, referring to the acronym for the LAFD’s report.

The 13-page document is on LAFD letterhead and includes email addresses for department officials, representatives of Bass’ office and public relations consultants hired to help shape messaging about the fire, although it is not known to whom it was eventually distributed. The Times obtained the memo, titled “LAFD AARR: Strategic Response Plan,” from the LAFD through the California Public Records Act.

Labeled “for internal use only,” the memo, which is unsigned, aims to shape news media coverage of the report’s findings, including through efforts to “minimize tough Q&A” by asking to hold closed-door briefings with the Fire Commission and City Council. The memo is undated but notes that “This plan has been updated with the latest timeline as of 10/7.” The after-action report was released to the public on Oct. 8.

The Times disclosed in December that the report had been altered to deflect criticism of the LAFD’s failure to pre-deploy engines and crews to the Palisades ahead of the Jan. 7, 2025 fire, among other shortcomings in the city’s preparations for and response to the deadly disaster.

Mayor Karen Bass joins L.A. City Council and community safety leaders at City Hall in downtown Los Angeles on February 17, 2026.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Bass has repeatedly denied that she was involved in any effort to water down the report, which was meant to spell out mistakes and suggest measures to avoid repeating them after a fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office have said that after receiving an early draft of the report, the mayor told then-Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva that it could expose the city to legal liabilities.

Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources told The Times early this month. The mayor has said that The Times’ story based on the sources’ accounts was “completely fabricated.”

Representatives of Bass’ office and the LAFD did not immediately comment this week on the 13-page “strategic response plan” memo.

The disclosure about the effort to protect the mayor’s reputation comes after other records revealed that she was leading damage control efforts around both the after-action report and an announcement by federal prosecutors that the Palisades fire was caused by a rekindling of a smaller blaze.

The LAFD was facing scrutiny over why it failed to put out the earlier blaze.

“Any additional interviews with the Fire Chief would likely depend on the Mayor’s guidance,” LAFD spokesperson Capt. Erik Scott wrote in an Oct. 9 email to a Bass aide, Villanueva and others. “Regarding a press conference, I would be cautious as it could invite a high volume of challenging questions, and this would also be contingent on the Mayor’s direction.”

Before releasing the after-action report, the LAFD formed an internal crisis management team and brought in the public relations consultants, Beverly Hills-based Lede Co., to help shape its messaging about the fire. In the 13-page strategy memo, Lede, whose fee was covered by the nonprofit Los Angeles Fire Department Foundation, is tasked with helping to manage and monitor news media coverage of the report.

The latest set of documents obtained by The Times includes a “Tough Q&A” with proposed answers to questions that news reporters might ask Bass and Villanueva. The questions for Bass centered around the budget and former Fire Chief Kristin Crowley’s claims that budget restrictions hampered the department’s ability to fight the Palisades fire, with the proposed answers emphasizing that the budget was not cut.

Ronnie Villanueva speaks during his appointment as interim LAFD Chief on Feb. 21, 2025.

(Drew A. Kelley / Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images)

Villanueva’s proposed answers focused on the “unstoppable” nature of the fire and improvements LAFD has since made to ensure adequate staffing on red flag days.

Other internal emails reviewed by The Times show that Bass met with Villanueva about the after-action report in mid-July.

The mayor’s role in altering the after-action report and managing its release has become an issue in her reelection campaign. Bass previously said through a spokesperson that her office merely encouraged the LAFD to fact-check references in the report about city finances and the forecast of high winds leading up to Jan. 7. The mayor later told The Times that the report was “technical,” saying, “I’m not a firefighter.”

The changes that ended up in the final report were significant, with some Palisades residents and former LAFD chiefs saying they amounted to a cover-up.

A week after the fire, The Times exposed LAFD officials’ decisions not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available engines and firefighters to the Palisades and other high-risk areas before the dangerous winds hit. Bass later removed Crowley, citing the failure to keep firefighters on duty for a second shift.

An initial draft of the after-action report said the pre-deployment decisions “did not align” with policy, but the final version said the number of companies pre-deployed “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

Fire fighters work to extinguish flames during the Eaton fire on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2025 in Altadena, CA.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

The author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse the final version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report, in his words, “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Even with the deletions and changes, the report delivered a harsh critique of the LAFD’s performance during the Palisades fire, pointing to a disorganized response, failures in communication and chiefs who didn’t understand their roles. The report found that top commanders lacked a fundamental knowledge of wildland firefighting tactics, including “basic suppression techniques.”

Fire Chief Jaime Moore, an LAFD veteran whom Bass named as chief in November, has said he is focused on the future and not interested in assigning blame for changes to the report. But he said he will not allow similar edits to future after-action reports.

The after-action report included just a brief reference to the Lachman fire, a small Jan. 1, 2025, blaze that rekindled six days later into the Palisades fire.

The Times found that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the Lachman burn area the day after the fire was supposedly extinguished, despite complaints by crew members that the ground still was smoldering.

After the Times report, Bass directed Moore to commission an independent investigation into the LAFD’s handling of the Lachman fire.

LAFD officials have said that most of the 42 recommendations in the after-action report have been implemented, including mandatory staffing protocols on red flag days and training on wind-driven fires, tactical operations and evacuations.

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.