WASHINGTON — President Trump has privately discussed the possibility of firing Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and replacing her with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, three people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.
In those conversations, Trump has discussed his ongoing frustration with Bondi over her handing of the Jeffrey Epstein files and hurdles the Justice Department has encountered in investigations into Trump’s perceived enemies, the people said. The Republican president has mentioned other candidates but has raised Zeldin’s name as recently as this week, the people said.
The people were not authorized to publicly discuss the private conversations and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.
No decision has been announced, and Trump has been known to change his mind on personnel decisions.
“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Trump said in a statement produced by the White House.
Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, has been publicly and privately praised by Trump, who at an event in February described him as “our secret weapon.”
Bondi, a former state attorney general in Florida and a Trump loyalist who was part of his legal team during his first impeachment case, has been in her position for more than a year. She came into office pledging that she would not play politics with the Justice Department, but she quickly started investigations of Trump foes, sparking an outcry that the law enforcement agency was being wielded as a tool of revenge to advance the president’s political and personal agenda.
She has also endured months of scrutiny over the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files that made her the target of angry conservatives even with her close relationship with Trump.
Under Bondi’s leadership, the department opened investigations into a string of Trump foes, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.
The high-profile prosecutions of Comey and James were quickly thrown out by a judge who ruled that the prosecutor who brought the cases was illegally appointed. Other politically charged investigations have either been rejected by grand juries or failed to result in criminal charges.
Richer, Tucker, Balsamo and Price write for the Associated Press.
Despite a long, entrenched Democratic reign over California politics, a new poll shows two Republicans leading by slim margins in the state’s 2026 race for governor as the June primary election fast approaches.
The confounding results appear to be mostly due to the state’s left-leaning electorate feeling uninspired by any single candidate in the crowded field of eight top Democrats. Because of California’s top-two primary rule, that lethargy could lead to Democrats being shut out of a November election that will determine the next leader of the largest state in the union, though that is still considered unlikely.
Conservative commentator Steve Hilton had the support of 17% of likely voters and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco had the backing of 16%, according to a poll released Wednesday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.
Following closely behind were Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell of Northern California and former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, both of whom had support from 13% of the likely voters surveyed. Aside from billionaire hedge fund founder and environmental activist Tom Steyer, who registered at 10% support after plowing tens of millions of dollars into his campaign, no other Democrat had won support from more than 5% of likely voters, the poll showed.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll, said he was stunned by how fractured voters are and how little knowledge they have about the candidates less than 60 days before ballots start arriving in Californians’ mailboxes.
“This is historic for me, and especially given that none of the candidates have really a positive image rating with voters, also startling. I mean, perhaps one of the reasons why voters are disengaged, they’re just not enthusiastic about any of the candidates,” he said. “They’re kind of sleepwalking to this election.”
Swalwell and Porter both hew toward the progressive wing of the party and rose to national prominence as frequent guests on cable news shows and as combative, at times theatrical, committee members during congressional oversight hearings. That notoriety prompted attacks from Republicans and the far right and increased their popularity among the Democratic base — both pivotal for voters seeking a strong candidate to challenge President Trump.
Porter slightly rebounded after a dip in polling in the fall after videos emerged of her berating an aide and a reporter. She also has the highest favorable rating of any candidate in the field at 34%.
According to the survey, Steyer’s support from likely voters increased to 10% from just 1% in Berkeley’s October poll. The momentum comes after Steyer spent about $50 million airing television ads since December, according to an analysis by data expert Paul Mitchell for Capitol Weekly.
Among the other top Democrats in the race: former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra was backed by 5% of likely voters; former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan by 4%, and former state Controller Betty Yee and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond by 1%.
The poll found that 16% of likely voters were either undecided or backed other, lesser-known candidates.
The splintered support for the Democrats hoping to become the state’s next governor has surfaced in other ways as well. On Monday, the powerful California Federation of Labor voted to endorse four gubernatorial candidates — half the Democratic field.
DiCamillo said he believes the poll’s inclusion of the candidates’ titles that voters will see on their ballots is crucial in a low-information contest.
“That really matters in a race where voters don’t have much information, or they say they don’t know much about the candidates,” he said, adding that it could particularly help Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff. “His job title is kind of impressive, and that voters think, well, that’s credible, so let me consider him.”
The fear of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June 2 primary prompted California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks to urge low-polling candidates to consider their viability and drop out if they didn’t see a path forward earlier this month.
Some candidates bristled, arguing that party leaders were in effect telling every candidate of color to leave the race. Aside from one candidate, all of the top Democrats in the race responded by quickly filing their campaign documents with the secretary of state’s office, meaning that their names will appear on the ballot.
The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary are the only ones who advance to the November general election — regardless of their political party.
The odds that a Republican will become California’s next governor appear slim. No Republican has won a statewide election in California since 2006, the year Hollywood movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected to a second term as governor. Democratic registered voters in the state outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1.
Compared with prior gubernatorial races that had well-known Democratic front-runners, none of the candidates of either party are particularly well known by voters. Large numbers of voters have no opinion about any of the candidates — including roughly two-thirds of those asked about Mahan, Yee and Thurmond.
Voters were far more tuned in to the issues that they believe are most important for the state’s next governor to tackle.
Affordability was dominant among all voters, regardless of political ideology, the poll found. Four out of 10 voters said reducing the cost of living in California is among the top issues the next governor should prioritize, and smaller numbers also highlighted building affordable housing and lowering gas prices and utility rates.
Affordability “is the top issue for voters, both here in California and across the country. There’s no question,” DiCamillo said. “Perhaps it’s even of greater urgency here in California, just given our cost of living is higher than in most other places.”
Building new housing, paring back regulations to allow such construction quickly and to reduce the cost of buy a home, disincentivizing private firms from buying homes and reducing gas prices are among topics candidates frequently speak about on the campaign trail and in debates.
A notable split was evident among voters when asked about cutting waste, fraud and political corruption in state government, the poll found. Nearly 50% of Republicans said this was a top priority, compared with 10% of Democrats and a little over a quarter of voters who do not state a party preference.
DiCamillo said this sentiment aligns with President Trump’s messaging and what his administration has been pursuing in the federal government. Trump has repeatedly painted California as teeming with waste, fraud and abuse. On Monday, when he launched a task force to fight fraud that will be led by Vice President JD Vance, California was among the states he singled out as having insufficient oversight of federal funds.
GOP voters in California share similar sentiments, DiCamillo said.
In Washington, D.C., “they’re cutting back, trying to make government smaller, and … just cut the waste as well,” he said. California “Republicans, given the fact that Democrats have been controlling things for so long, they think … more of that is needed now here in California as well.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
ABC Newsfirst reported on the alert on March 11. The FBI had sent out the notice to members of a Joint Terrorism Task Force last month, ahead of the current conflict in the Middle East. The United States and Israel began launching strikes on Iran on February 28.
The main body of the alert, which the FBI has now released, reads:
“We recently acquired unverified information that as of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California, in the event the U.S. conducted strikes against Iran. We have no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators of this alleged attack.”
FBI
The alert is marked as unclassified, but also as “law enforcement sensitive.” It declares up front that “NOT FOR DISSEMINATION TO THE PUBLIC OR PRESS” and that “THIS MESSAGE CONTATINS [sic] RAW INFORMATON [sic] SUBJECT TO REVISION AND IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ONLY.”
Subsequent reporting from the Los Angeles Times, citing anonymous California law enforcement sources, said that the alert was based on intelligence the U.S. Coast Guard had received.
Additional context
Overall, much still remains unknown about the underlying intelligence behind the FBI’s drone attack alert. For unclear reasons, ABC‘s original report, which has since been updated, also did not note that the warning was the product of unverified intelligence or that it had been sent out as a precautionary measure.
For its part, the FBI had initially declined to comment in response to queries for more information from multiple outlets, including ABC and TWZ. We also reached out to U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the principal U.S. military command for defense of the homeland, which directed us to contact the FBI. We contacted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the White House, as well.
“No such threat from Iran to our homeland exists, and it never did,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote in a post on X on Wednesday, which also called for a full retraction of ABC‘s piece.
This post and story should be immediately retracted by ABC News for providing false information to intentionally alarm the American people.
They wrote this based on one email that was sent to local law enforcement in California about a single, unverified tip. The email even… https://t.co/jKey9ahsNk
“I am in constant coordination with security and intelligence officials, including at @Cal_OES [California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services], to monitor potential threats to California – including those tied to the conflict in the Middle East,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in his own post on X on March 11. “While we are not aware of any imminent threats at this time, we remain prepared for any emergency in our state.”
I am in constant coordination with security and intelligence officials, including at @Cal_OES, to monitor potential threats to California — including those tied to the conflict in the Middle East.
While we are not aware of any imminent threats at this time, we remain prepared…
“It’s all-around intelligence collecting, and it’s all about a posture of preparedness for the worst-case scenario,” Gov. Newsom said in response to ABC’s initial reporting, as well, according to TheSacramento Bee. “We have been gaming those out for some time as it relates to, again, what the FBI has been warning of. Again, it’s not a surprise, and it’s sort of a large part of the larger spectrum of considerations that we have as it relates to doing what we can to support our federal partners and local partners at the state level, in terms of what could happen next.”
“Law enforcement sources experienced in intelligence said such alerts are cautionary in nature,” the Los Angeles Times had also reported. “The source is experienced in counter-terrorism and said ‘that it’s not been deemed credible at this time.’ The sources stressed the warning was cautionary and there was no indication Iran was planning an attack or that it could successfully launch one.”
“This is not actionable,” a “California-based federal law enforcement official” separately told CBS News.
“All this means is we got this information and we want to get it out to law enforcement executives to make sure they’re up to speed on it,” a second law enforcement official from California also said, per that outlet. “There is absolutely nothing more to it.”
🚨Multiple US and state law enforcement and intel officials told @CBSNews there is no credible intelligence underpinning the bulletin distributed on the unverified possibility that Iran could retaliate for American attacks by launching drones at the West Coast. “This is not… https://t.co/gcdUBdgDX6
Generally speaking, there are long-standing concerns that Iran and/or other actors operating on its behalf could seek to launch asymmetric attacks on targets in the United States, as well as elsewhere outside of the Middle East, in retaliation for large-scale strikes. The risks of Iranians deciding to take such action have historically been seen as especially high in any scenario where they might be an existential threat to the regime in Tehran.
Earlier this week, ABC News also reported that U.S. federal authorities had issued another alert to law enforcement agencies after they “intercepted encrypted communications believed to have originated in Iran that may serve as ‘an operational trigger’ for ‘sleeper assets’ outside the country.”
“Although a large-scale physical attack is unlikely, Iran and its proxies probably pose a persistent threat of targeted attacks in the Homeland, and will almost certainly escalate retaliatory actions — or calls to action – if reports of the Ayatollah’s death are confirmed,” the DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis also warned in a threat assessment published on February 28 also said, according to a story last week from Reuters.
On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump had said “no, I’m not,” when asked about whether he was worried that Iran might attempt to attack targets in the United States in response to ongoing U.S.-Israeli operations, per Reuters.
Trump says he is not worried about Iran-backed attacks on US soil
“It’s being investigated, but you have a lot of things happening, and all we can do is take them as they come,” Trump also said later in the day.
“I have been,” the President added at the time when asked if he had been briefed about Iranian “sleeper cells” in the United States. “We know where most of them are. We’ve got our eye on all them, I think.”
Doocy: What have you heard about this bulletin about an Iran revenge plot in California — some kind of boat offshore launching drones?
DOOCY: If Iran tries to hit us back, have you been briefed about how many Iran sleeper cells there could be inside the US right now?
TRUMP: I have been, and a lot of people came in through Biden with his stupid open border. But we know where most of them are. pic.twitter.com/3mKVmq1uh9
Trump had previously downplayed concerns about attacks on the U.S. homeland in retaliation for the ongoing conflict against Iran in an interview with Time, which was published last week.
“I think they’re worried about that all the time. We think about it all the time. We plan for it,” he said. “But yeah, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”
Long-range one-way attack drones with endurance measured in many hundreds of miles, if not more than a thousand miles, are increasingly a staple in military arsenals globally, and have also been proliferating to larger non-state actors.
This graphic from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) showing the reach of certain kamikaze drones in the inventory of Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen gives a good sense of the immense reach of this threat. DIA
A Shahed-136 kamikaze drone. Photo by Anonymous / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP
In addition to being relatively low-cost, many of these kamikaze drones are very flexible in terms of where and how they can be launched. Iran and the U.S. military have notably demonstrated how Shahed-136-type and other kamikaze drone designs can be readily fired from ships, even smaller ones, and do not require significant deck space to be employed in this way. This also makes it easier to conceal the drones and their launchers before use. A warship with a purpose-built launch system is definitely not required. Even smaller commercial vessels could fire off multiple long-range one-way attack drones.
Iran Navy unveils its first drone division in the Indian Ocean
“Bravo Zulu. U.S. Navy forces in the Middle East are advancing warfighting capability in new ways, bringing more striking power from the sea and setting conditions for using innovation as a deterrent.” – Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM Commander https://t.co/TgQ4WLbph3pic.twitter.com/WUiAVojTht
Once launched, the drones fly relatively low and slow, under the long-range radar horizon, creating complications for defenders. They are also relatively small and can be difficult to spot on radar, as well as by their infrared and acoustic signatures, making them even harder to spot and track. These complexities would be further amplified by a surprise attack launched from anywhere in the massive swaths of ocean ranging out many hundreds of miles from America’s shores.
Cruise missile threats to the homeland from rogue states and actors were a major factor in the U.S. Air Force deciding to install new active electronically-scanned array radars on F-15C Eagles primarily belonging to the Air National Guard. Up until recently, Guard F-15C units were tasked with guarding America’s ocean borders. Today, F-35As share that responsibility. Over a decade later, F-16 Viper fighters charged with the homeland defense mission also began getting AESAs, in part due to the need to better defend against drones and cruise missiles. The F-16 radar upgrade effort has since expanded to hundreds of other jets. This was also the key driver behind the abortive Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) radar blimp program.
Now-retired US Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Loh, then Director of the Air National Guard, listens to details about the new AN/APG-83 radar installed on the F-16 at a ceremony to mark the completion of upgrades to 72 Vipers in 2017. Northrop Grumman
So, yes, for many years the military has been very concerned with surprise standoff attacks coming from far off its shores from non-traditional platforms, enough for that threat to drive critical procurement initiatives. And all this was before the long-range one-way attack munition became a primary threat.
“Our potential adversaries have created significant capacity to reach us asymmetrically. Our forward layers, our allies, our partners, our forward combatant commands and geographic commands, have largely kept those threats away from the United States,” U.S. Air Force Col. Kristopher Struve, then Vice Director of Operations for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), said during a virtual roundtable the Missile Defense Advocacy Association (MDAA) hosted back in 2021. “As we look into threats from cyber actors, space threats, as well as kinetic conventional cruise missiles, which have [seen] significant improvement on the part of China and Russia in recent years, those create avenues that can create havoc in the homeland while we are trying to project our power forward to potentially a regional conflict.”
Struve also said at that time that the U.S. homeland was “not a sanctuary any longer” and called for expanded defenses, including new surface-to-air missile batteries, to protect domestic critical infrastructure.
A Patriot PAC-3-series surface-to-air missile is seen being launched. US Military
TWZ has noted in the past that the line between traditional cruise missiles and long-range kamikaze drones, as well as decoys, is increasingly blurry. Long-range one-way attack drones are definitely more accessible, and often have greater reach, than most traditional cruise missiles.
“We’re behind. I’ll just be candid. I think we know we’re behind,” Lt. Gen. Charles Costanza, commander of the U.S. Army’s V Corps, said at a panel discussion at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual symposium last year. “We’ve been talking about counter-UAS [uncrewed aerial systems] and UAS capability for a better part of a decade, since, really, we watched the war in Armenia and Azerbaijan [in 2020] go on, and saw very much the beginning of the drone UAS capabilities.”
“We aren’t moving fast enough,” Costanza continued. “And it really took Russia’s invasion of Ukraine [in 2022], and the way they’re innovating, and Ukrainians are innovating, to realize, hey, we need to move fast.”
“Now, long-range one-way-attack drones, as well as increasingly capable cruise and ballistic missiles, continue to proliferate steadily, including to smaller nation-state armed forces and even non-state actors. An attack could even come from a small drone with a C4 charge launched from a fishing trawler 10 miles away from one of these critical radar installations. The threat of these kinds of near-field attacks has largely been overlooked for years, even as the low-end drone threat has exploded and ‘democratized’ precision-guided weaponry, as they did not fit the established aerial threat matrix and the countermeasures used to repel those threats.“
The potential for shorter-range drone attacks to come from vessels offshore, specifically, is also not simply an academic assessment of the available technology and its accessibility. U.S. authorities at least explored the possibility that a Hong Kong-flagged bulk carrier, the M/V Bass Strait, might have been tied to still mysterious drone swarms that harassed U.S. Navy ships off the coast of southern California back in 2019, which TWZ was first to report. Whether the Bass Strait or another nearby ship was the source of the harassment, or when it came from somewhere else, potentially further away, remains unknown, at least publicly.
A US Navy briefing slide discussing an interaction with the M/V Bass Strait on July 15, 2019. This says that at least at that time the bulk carrier was assessed to be “likely using UAVs to conduct surveillance on US Naval Forces while transiting to [a] scheduled port of call, [in] Long Beach, CA.” USN via FOIA
From what is known now, the FBI’s warning about a potential Iranian drone attack on California does not appear to have reflected an imminent cause for concern, and it remains unclear exactly what triggered it. Still, even if this specific threat has not turned out to be credible, the danger of such an attack is certainly well within the realm of possibility.
