president biden

Covered marquees. Downed statues. Painted-over murals. A canceled holiday.

California has effectively exorcised César Chávez from the public sphere just weeks after a New York Times investigation found two women who said the legendary labor leader sexually assaulted them when they were teenage girls in the 1970s. Just as explosive was the revelation by his longtime lieutenant, Dolores Huerta, that he raped her in the 1960s.

My prediction for the next place we’ll see a Chávez purge: books about him, which number into the dozens and span from academic treatises to children’s tales. But before critics relegate those texts to the banned section, folks should read some of them to see how writers helped establish the Chávez myth and propagated it for decades.

The books that created the Chávez legend

The tendency to elevate him above other activists was there from the start. In 1967, John Gregory Dunne published “Delano: The Story of the California Grape Strike,” which saw the author (and husband to Joan Didion) capture the essence of el movimiento in its earliest days through on-the-ground reporting and interviews with Chávez, whom Dunne described in the introduction as “the right man at the right place at what was, sadly, both the right and the wrong time.”

Famed writer Peter Matthiessen cemented Chávez’s image as a humble hero fighting a lone, brave battle against philistine farmers with a two-part New Yorker profile that became the basis for 1969s “Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution.” That narrative continued with Jacques Levy’s 1975 release “Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa.” Talk about getting too close to the subject: The author’s archived papers disclosed he served as Chávez’s literal notetaker during the 1970 negotiations that ended the grape strike and led to the UFW’s first union contracts.

Chávez came under strong scrutiny

Rose-tinted biographies tellingly stopped around the time Chávez created a commune in what’s now currently the César E. Chávez National Monument in Keene and began to target perceived enemies within the UFW. Critics instead appeared in the media — one of the first was a 1979 Reason article that alleged he was misusing federal funds and contained the prescient line, “Many people will be reluctant to believe anything that could cast a shadow over this man.”

Other critical dispatches included pieces in the L.A. Times, Village Voice and one in the Sacramento Bee so damning in its indictment of how Chávez had, on his own, sabotaged the movement so many associated with him that its author, Marcos Breton, recently wrote how Chávez was left “hostile and angry” by his simple questions.

In the wake of Chávez’s decline and eventual death in 1993, authors created a new genre: Saint César. Titles like “Cesar Chavez and the Common Sense of Nonviolence,” “Conquering Goliath: Cesar Chavez at the Beginning” (by his mentor, Fred Ross Sr., the most important California organizer you’ve never heard of) and “The Rhetorical Career of César Chávez” pushed forth the gospel of their subject as a plainspoken prophet out of the Good Book.

Chávez inspired millions — but those books will now forever read as hollow and sadly myopic.

Rethinking the Chávez myth

True reappraisals of Chávez and his work wouldn’t start until after former Times editor and reporter Miriam Pawel published a 2006 series for this paper that showed the ugly, domineering side of Chávez and the UFW’s decline. Six years later, longtime activist Frank Bardacke simultaneously praised and damned Chávez in his “Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers.” Though a good read, it pales in importance and poignant lyricism to two double whammies that dropped in 2014: “From the Jaws of Victory The Triumph and Tragedy of Cesar Chavez and the Farm Worker Movement” by Dartmouth College professor (and my distant cousin!) Matthew Garcia and Pawel’s own “The Crusades of Cesar Chavez: A Biography.”

Garcia and Pawel are now making media appearances and writing essays to opine on where they think Chávez went wrong. Expect updates to all of these books and so many others in the months and years to come — if they’re ever published again.

Today’s top stories

Red diamond rattlesnakes are among species in the Golden State. One reptile expert who relocates snakes says her phone has been “ringing off the hook.”

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Weird rattlesnake season

• Unseasonably warm March weather triggered an unusually active rattlesnake season in California, with experts fielding record calls about sightings statewide.
• Two fatal bites in Southern California in March and 77 Poison Control calls in three months far exceed typical annual patterns.

Life after California

• A new UC Berkeley study found that people who moved out of California dramatically improved their financial conditions.
• Those former Californians said the move saved them almost $700 in monthly housing costs, and they became 48% more likely to own a home in their new state.

Minimal snow in California mountains

More big stories

Commentary and opinions

This morning’s must read

Other great reads

For your downtime

(Stella Kalinina / For The Times; Bill Addison / Los Angeles Times; Stephanie Breijo / Los Angeles Times; Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Going out

Staying in

A question for you: How are you celebrating Easter this year?

Email us at essentialcalifornia@latimes.com, and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.

And finally … the photo of the day

Dodgers pitcher Shohei Ohtani delivers during the second inning of a 4-1 win over the Cleveland Guardians at Dodger Stadium on Tuesday night.

(Ronaldo Bolaños/Los Angeles Times)

Today’s great photo is from Times photographer Ronaldo Bolaños at Tuesday night’s Dodgers’ game. Shohei Ohtani battled through the rain to throw a one-hit gem in the Dodgers’ 4-1 win over the Cleveland Guardians.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew Campa, weekend reporter
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com.

This is the April 21, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.

Outgoing presidents often leave decisions for their successors to take on.

Over the last two decades, and four presidents, how to end America’s longest war — in Afghanistan — has been among the largest open questions. President Biden inherited it from President Trump, who inherited it from President Obama, who took it from President George W. Bush. Unpopular, seemingly unending and unwinnable, the war is a case study in how the choices of one administration echo into the next.

Last week, Biden formally announced a deadline of Sept. 11 — the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that provoked the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan — to end military involvement in the country.

“War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multigenerational undertaking,” he said.

The prospective exit also has been years in the works. Obama promised to scale back U.S. involvement, but first he sent a surge of troops. Trump vowed several times to withdraw all troops, making chaotic progress that stopped short of a full exit. Biden is now the third president to make a similar commitment.

Whether he will follow through remains to be seen. My colleagues David S. Cloud and Tracy Wilkinson have extensively covered the American involvement in Afghanistan, from Trump’s growing tensions with the Pentagon over withdrawal to the lives of Afghanistan’s youngest generation, which was born into U.S. occupation.

Taken together, their work over the last few years reveals the deep roots of Biden’s promise, and the complicated history that will color his path forward.

The long path to leaving

January 2017: A president who promised peace leaves office after eight years of war

During his first presidential campaign, Obama pledged to end the war in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. He ended his presidency as the first two-term president to see U.S. forces at war for all eight years.

Experts saw his legacy as mixed. He did reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, cutting their ranks to 8,400, and his administration reduced American deaths — if not Afghanis’ — by relying on diplomacy and on drones to launch airstrikes. Yet intelligence officials said the U.S. faced more threats in more places than the country had seen since the Cold War. “We’re now wrapped up in all these different conflicts, at a low level and with no end in sight,” one expert told The Times.

August 2017: Trump presides over a stalemate and negotiated settlement

Trump the candidate ran as a tough-on-the-Taliban leader, promising a hard-fought and fast victory to end U.S. engagement. But Trump the president softened when it came time to reveal formal plans, Cloud and Wilkinson wrote with former Times reporter W.J. Hennigan. Fighting continued — to show U.S. forces could not be pushed out — while Trump promised that the 16-year war might end “some day” in a negotiated settlement. It was an acknowledgment that victory would elude a president who loved to win and refused to concede defeat.

“This entire effort is intended to put pressure on the Taliban, to have the Taliban understand you will not win a battlefield victory,” then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said. “We may not win one, but neither will you. So at some point, we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring this to an end.”

By February 2018, the Trump administration proposed a defense budget that increased spending in Afghanistan by almost $2 billion, for a total of $48.9 billion in the next fiscal year.

December 2018: Trump presses for peace talks and announces a withdrawal of half of troops

That month, a series of announcements signaled Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with involvement in Afghanistan. Increased Taliban attacks had caused hundreds of Afghan civilian and military casualties a month, prompting Trump administration officials to press for a cease-fire agreement, but with dim prospects, Cloud wrote.

Less than two weeks later, administration officials announced a drastic plan: withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops serving in Afghanistan, potentially by summer. The backlash was swift from U.S. lawmakers, allies and even the Pentagon. Defense Secretary James N. Mattis was so furious that Trump would abandon allies in Syria and Afghanistan that he resigned in protest, as Cloud reported.

February-May 2020: A truce and a landmark agreement to withdraw

With 12,000 troops still in Afghanistan, the Trump administration brokered a temporary deal with the Taliban to reduce violence for a week in February, Wilkinson reported. The test was a success, and on Feb. 29, U.S. and Taliban officials signed an accord to end the war. The Taliban would prevent Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups from using Afghan territory to threaten the U.S., without renouncing its terrorist ties. In return, the U.S. would withdraw its troops within 14 months, setting a deadline of May 1, 2021.

The plan again drew backlash, from former Trump and Obama administration officials, who warned a complete withdrawal could backfire, Cloud, Wilkinson and Stefanie Glinksi reported. Even as conflict continued between the Taliban and the Afghan government into May, the Trump administration remained committed to removing troops.

November 2020: Hopes of exiting before the election dashed

Trump, hoping that a full exit in 2020 would boost his reelection prospects, made clear to advisors that he cared little about conditions in Afghanistan, Cloud and Wilkinson reported. He wanted out, period. By July, the number of troops on the ground had shrunk to 8,600.

But as the peace talks the U.S. hoped to broker struggled to get off the ground, administration officials said about 4,000 troops would have to remain into November. The Pentagon said too rapid a withdrawal would doom the talks, invite violence and cause American forces to have to abandon valuable equipment. Trump said he wanted a withdrawal by the end of his term in January, and in November — as he refused to concede his loss to Biden — he ordered troop levels reduced in Iraq and Afghanistan, to 2,500 in each country.

Trump’s relationship with Congress further deteriorated in December, in part over the bipartisan pushback to his withdrawal plans. It was among the reasons he cited in vetoing the annual National Defense Authorization Act, Cloud and Jennifer Haberkorn wrote.

April 2021: Biden says it’s “time to end the forever war.”

When Biden took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2,500 troops remained in Afghanistan. But the new president faced the decision of whether to honor Trump’s May 1 deadline for withdrawing them — the final exit from the war, Cloud wrote. Once again, Defense Department officials pressured the president to delay a full withdrawal as the deadline the Trump administration negotiated with the Taliban approached.

On April 14, Biden made his decision public: The drawdown would proceed, but not so quickly. The U.S. would fully exit by Sept. 11, Cloud and David Lauter wrote.

“I am now the fourth United States president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats,” Biden said. “I will not pass this responsibility onto a fifth.”

The top half of the front page of the Los Angeles Times on Oct. 9, 2001.

(Los Angeles Times)

Policing, policy and the Minneapolis verdict

— The conviction of former Police Officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd reenergized a push for sweeping criminal justice reform by President Biden and leading Democrats, who said Tuesday’s verdict was just the first step on the path to national healing, report Evan Halper, Eli Stokols and Sarah D. Wire.

— Anticipating an uproar, Facebook said it would crack down on violent content, hate speech and harassment ahead of the Chauvin verdict. But as Brian Contreras reports, critics are wondering why the platform doesn’t take those precautions all the time.

The latest on the environment

— China, Japan and South Korea are the world’s biggest funders of coal-fired power plants around the globe — and the Biden administration is looking to win their agreement to deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade, write Anna M. Phillips and Wilkinson.

— Biden will convene leaders from around the world on Thursday and Friday as he marks the United States’ return to the global fight against climate change, Chris Megerian writes. Three people with knowledge of the White House plans say Biden will pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at least in half by 2030.

— Solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars will go far in helping California and the Biden administration meet their aggressive climate goals — but not far enough. As time runs short, scientists and government officials say the moment to break out the giant vacuums has arrived, Halper writes.

More from Washington

— Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to North Carolina on Monday to talk about economic opportunities and electric school buses as part of the Biden administration’s efforts to promote its roughly $2-trillion infrastructure, clean energy and jobs plan, Noah Bierman writes.

— The Supreme Court is weighing whether immigrants granted temporary protected status can get green cards — and if the Biden administration will make that decision, David G. Savage reports.

— The Justice Department has brought charges against hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, but one of its most pivotal potential cases involves a man who never set foot inside the building, writes Del Quentin Wilber.

— After Jan. 6, many of the nation’s largest corporations pledged that they would suspend donations to elected officials who opposed the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, hindered the peaceful transfer of power or incited violence. The vast majority kept their word, report Seema Mehta, Maloy Moore and Matt Stiles.

— What is there left to say about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Plenty, it turns out. In a new biography, Pelosi dishes on chiding Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and using the nickname “Moscow Mitch,” writes Wire.

So much seems to cost too much nowadays.

The expensive nature of everything is a popular topic on Reddit and the subject of countless papers and think pieces.

Plus, every time you drive, you can see the escalating average cost for a gallon of gas throughout the state that ranges from $5.77 in Orange County, $5.78 in San Diego County, $5.80 in Los Angeles County and $5.86 in San Francisco County to the high of $6.57 in Mono County, according to AAA.

It can easily make anyone think having fun is unaffordable.

Fortunately, our Travel and Experiences team has put together a list of 75 fun things to do for under $20.

Here is a selection of those picks, while the entire list should be explored.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Paddle a swan boat in Echo Park Lake (Echo Park)

Cost: $13 per hour, $7.50 for those under age 18.

On warm days, it’s hard to beat a ride on the swan boats at Echo Park.

They’re powered by foot paddles, and the pedaling is easy because you’re in no hurry. Maybe you’ll want to do a circuit of the lake (really a man-made reservoir). Maybe you’ll sidle up to the towers of whitewater rising from the mid-lake fountain.

Maybe you’ll wait until after dark (because the swans light up).

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Experience L.A.’s esoteric history at the Philosophical Research Society (Los Feliz)

Cost: Free to visit, workshops and lectures from $10 and up.

Located at the intersection of Los Feliz and Griffith Park boulevards, the Philosophical Research Society has long been a place of mystery, intrigue and, for some, apprehension.

The Mayan Revival campus painted in Southwestern shades of clay, cream and sage was built in 1935 by the celebrated author and esoteric lecturer Manly P. Hall.

Today, it hosts a dizzying array of events each week including poetry readings, death cafes, sound baths, a weekly class on Buddhism, tarot and astrology salons and musical performances — some of which have a suggested donation of just $10.

If you visit, make sure to make time to browse the excellently curated metaphysical bookstore.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Find the perfect meditation spot at the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine (Pacific Palisades)

Cost: Free.

Whether or not you’re familiar with the work of Paramahansa Yogananda, who founded the Self-Realization Fellowship in 1920, if you live in Los Angeles you owe him a debt of gratitude for the smattering of lush, meditative gardens in Southern California that are still open to the public today.

Among those is Lake Shrine, a beautifully landscaped 10-acre property in the Pacific Palisades surrounding a spring-fed lake that is dotted with quiet meditation spots.

It is free to visit, but you will need to make a reservation online before you go. (Reservations open each Saturday at 10 a.m. for the week ahead, and they can fill up quickly.)

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Cozy up with a flick at the Paramount Drive-In Theater (Paramount)

Cost: $14 per adult, $7 per kid (ages 3-11).

For a night out that feels as cozy as a night in, head to the Paramount Drive-In Theater. In the comfort of your own car, you can spread out, munch popcorn and make all the commentary you want without getting looks from other moviegoers.

Tickets are purchased on arrival, and the parking lot is huge, so you’re bound to secure a good view of the big screen. There is a concession store on site with candy, chips and drinks, but you are free to bring all the snacks you want from home. Recline your seat all the way back, relax and enjoy the show.

Check out the entire list here.

The week’s biggest stories

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Heat wave and environmental news

Los Angeles mayor, city council news

Cesar Chavez fallout

California governor’s race

Crime, courts and policing

What else is going on

Must reads

Other meaty reads

For your downtime

(Illustrations by Lindsey Made This; photograph by Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Going out

Staying in

L.A. Affairs

Get wrapped up in tantalizing stories about dating, relationships and marriage.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

All the predictions, drama and pageantry of Hollywood’s biggest night will play out at the Dolby Theatre this afternoon as the 98th Academy Awards get underway.

How many awards will “Sinners,” directed by Ryan Coogler, win from its record-setting 16 nominations? And will Coogler win best director? Our critic says, “no.”

Tonight is also a big evening for our entertainment team, which has been producing features, previews, explainers, predictions and so much more.

Let’s jump into some of that work.

How and when to watch

My colleague Katie Simons provided some show basics, like it’s 4 p.m. Pacific start time.

The 2026 Oscars will air on ABC, and those with cable subscriptions can also watch by logging into the ABC app or abc.com.

The telecast will also stream live on Hulu, YouTubeTV, AT&T TV and FuboTV. Internationally, the ceremony will be broadcast in more than 200 territories. You can check your local listings here.

When the red carpet viewing gets underway

“Chicken Shop Date” host Amelia Dimoldenberg will return, for a third-straight year, as social media ambassador and correspondent for the official red carpet, which will kick off at 3:30 p.m. on ABC and Hulu.

For extended coverage, E! will begin its red carpet broadcast at 1 p.m. ABC’s coverage begins at 12:30 p.m., followed by “The Oscars Red Carpet Show,” hosted by Tamron Hall and Jesse Palmer.

“Sinners” is picking up steam heading into the show

My colleague Greg Braxton wrote about how award prognosticators believe Sinners gained positive press after its stars — Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan — were called a racial slur at the BAFTAs.

Jordan’s and Lindo’s handling of the BAFTA incident, along with warmly received victories for the “Sinners” cast at the Actor Awards on March 1, has given the Warner Bros. release unexpected momentum leading up to Sunday’s Oscars ceremony.

Although it received a record-breaking 16 nominations, the film has been largely overshadowed through much of awards season by Paul Thomas Anderson’s political thriller “One Battle After Another.”

And Timothée Chalamet of “Marty Supreme” had been considered for months as an almost-certain lock for lead actor. But the events in past weeks have seemingly positioned “Sinners” for upset wins in the picture race and lead actor for Jordan.

Who’s going to win?

Our critic Amy Nicholson and our expert Glenn Whipp believe they know the winners and the snubs.

Nicholson believes “Sinners” should win for best picture.

Nicholson wrote that the Jim Crow-era murder musical is the best kind of smart filmmaking, a barn-burner about religion and art and race that ditches the speeches for scenes of action and romance.

Every character — from Miles Caton’s rebellious guitarist and Jack O’Connell’s lilting vampire to Wunmi Mosaku’s soulful witch and Michael B. Jordan’s bootlegging twins Smoke and Stack — has been scarred by life in 1930s Mississippi.

She also said the film “Eddington” should’ve been a contender (perhaps a nod to “On the Waterfront”). Ari Aster’s merciless black comedy drags us back to May 2020 when tempers, temperatures and misinformation were heating up across America.

Dueling civic leaders Sheriff Joe (Joaquin Phoenix) and Mayor Ted (Pedro Pascal) agree that COVID has yet to arrive in their New Mexican hamlet.

Whipp wrote that “One Battle After Another” vs. “Sinners” is very much a 1A/1B situation, with Anderson’s epic having the slight edge.

But with the Oscars, quality is often secondary to an awards narrative. Both movies have cultural relevance.

Both won critical acclaim and, to a degree, commercial success. (Though “One Battle” wasn’t the blockbuster “Sinners” was, it still grossed more than any other movie in Anderson’s career.) “Sinners” scored 16 Oscar nominations, the most in history; “One Battle” was close behind with 13.

There’s much more to read in the above links. Enjoy them and the Oscars.

The week’s biggest stories

(Chris Putnam/FiledIMAGE – stock.adobe.com)

Election news

Oil and the Iran War

Crime, courts and policing

What else is going on

Must reads

Other meaty reads

For your downtime

(Illustrations by Lindsey Made This; photograph by Richard Shotwell / Invision / AP)

Going out

Staying in

L.A. Affairs

Get wrapped up in tantalizing stories about dating, relationships and marriage.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

When I think of the solidarity of musicians, I recall an iconic scene from the film “Titanic.”

It’s the one where a quartet plays “Nearer, My God, to Thee” as the great, “unsinkable” ship sinks into the North Atlantic Ocean.

They attempted to offer calm amid a sea of panic as passengers and crew feverishly boarded lifeboats. The events were based on a true story and historians note that the body of the Titanic band leader Wallace Hartley was found floating in the ocean “with his music case strapped to it.”

Even in tragedy, we seek music to bring us solace.

Much closer to home, musicians from Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other affected areas have been challenged to keep the music going after losing instruments, studio equipment and business along with their homes in the January 2025 fires that claimed the lives of 31 people.

One organization, Altadena Musicians, launched the app Instrumental Giving to connect donors who can spare an old piano or a gently used cello with those who lost similar instruments.

KC Mancebo, an Altadena Musicians advisor, spoke with The Times about the group’s mission and success.

The campaign’s genesis

It started with composers Brandon Jay and his wife, Gwendolyn Sanford, who saw their Altadena home, music studio and several instruments destroyed by the Eaton fire.

Shortly after the fire, Jay posted about the lost equipment and what each piece meant to his family.

He said the response from that post — hundreds of people offering their instruments and other types of aid — left him “overwhelmed and gobsmacked.”

He called friends and helpers from throughout the music industry, including Mancebo, chief executive of the event production and talent booking agency Clamorhouse, hoping to offer to others the same help he received.

Mancebo had been helping homeowners navigate fire insurance paperwork and processes.

“Brandon Jay asked, ‘Why don’t we start gathering instruments for our friends,” Mancebo said. “We had 25 friends in the Palisades and 15 friends in the Eaton fire that lost everything, so we and others got involved.”

How’s it going so far?

The organization has passed out around 3,500 instruments to 1,200 families since the first donations in late January 2025, Mancebo said.

The donations range from ukuleles to Steinway & Sons pianos.

“We’re providing instruments to anyone from children who lost their first instruments to people who lost their entire studio,” she said. “The need is great.”

The gifts have come from individual donors and corporate benefactors such as JBL, which has provided speakers and equipment, as well as guitar makers Fender and Gibson, among others.

Rebuilding from the ashes

Mancebo lost her Westside home eight years ago because of a defective dryer that caught fire, she said.

“I went through the whole process of insurance, permitting and rebuilding and we didn’t have FEMA or anyone to help,” she said. “I want to provide that help to those in a similar situation.”

Mancebo said it took eight years to recover and rebuild her home.

“No one is fine after the first year,” she said. “Everyone needs help.”

Brentwood resident Amy Engelhardt, a singer/songwriter, composer, lyricist and playwright, donated her Kawai Upright Piano to the Altadena Musicians organization on March 10, 2026.

(Courtesy of Amy Engelhardt)

One person’s goodbye is another’s hello

Brentwood resident Amy Engelhardt, a singer/songwriter, composer, lyricist and playwright, loved her Kawai upright piano she purchased through a PennySaver ad in 2000.

“It was a deal for the starving artist,” she said. “I paid so little and I always considered it a gift.”

Since then, Engelhardt said she has written all of her music on that piano. She didn’t, however, play it while recording her Grammy-nominated vocal group, the Bobs.

Still, she donated her piano this week to a woman who lost her home. The instrument would not be making the permanent move with Engelhardt back to New York, where her playwriting services are in demand.

“I did get emotional about it, but it’s OK,” Engelhardt said. “It’s comforting knowing that someone else will love it and create their own memories.”

Those interested in donating can check out https://altadenamusicians.org.

The week’s biggest stories

(Hiro Komae / Associated Press)

War with Iran

Oscars on Sunday

Television and entertainment news

Dangerous situations

What else is going on

Must reads

Other meaty reads

For your downtime

Going out

Staying in

L.A. Timeless

A selection of the very best reads from The Times’ 143-year archive.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jim Rainey, staff reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department last week outlined a concise set of military objectives in President Trump’s war against Iran, claiming its ultimate goal is to dismantle Tehran’s ability to project power beyond its borders. Yet it may be targets the Pentagon has largely left unacknowledged that offer the clearest insight yet into Trump’s true intentions.

U.S. military strikes have focused on Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and nuclear programs, as well as its naval assets, according to U.S. Central Command. But strikes have also increasingly targeted Iran’s internal security forces, used by the Islamic Republic to suppress public dissent, according to an analysis from the Institute for the Study of War and the Critical Threats Project shared with The Times.

The strikes have targeted at least 123 headquarters, barracks and local bases operated by Iran’s paramilitary organizations, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij militia. Regional police forces, primarily in the capital region around Tehran and in western Iran, near areas dominated by Kurdish groups hostile to the Iranian government, have also been targeted.

Some of those groups are being armed and supported by the U.S. intelligence community, a U.S. official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.

Nicholas Carl, with the Critical Threats Project, said the pattern indicates the campaign is already underway to set the conditions for a revolution.

“As we are going after these repressive institutions, we are degrading the ability of the regime to monitor its population, to repress its population,” Carl said. “And so it looks as though the strike campaign may be organized around trying to erode the ability of the regime to repress in those areas.”

Analysts said that strikes against internal forces could be greater than they have measured thus far, noting the difficulty of tracking targets in the war based on publicly available data due to an internet blackout strictly enforced by the Iranian government.

An explosion erupts after strikes near Azadi Tower close to Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran on Saturday.

(Atta Kenare / AFP / Getty Images)

The quieter side of the U.S. campaign suggests a political strategy by the Trump administration that goes beyond simply containing the Iranian government, and may instead aim to lay the groundwork for its overthrow.

Trump and his top aides have been inconsistent in their messaging on their goals for the war, vacillating between calls for regime change and far shorter ambitions, such as an Islamic Republic that remains in power under leadership more acquiescent to the United States.

Before the war began, Trump was presented with an intelligence assessment that large-scale military action was unlikely to topple the Iranian government, two sources familiar with the assessment said. The assessment led analysts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon all to advise the White House against proceeding with the operation. The intelligence analysis was first reported by the Washington Post.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Greasing the wheels for domestic unrest, for insurgency or revolution could serve other strategic purposes for the Trump administration beyond effecting regime change, adding new sources of pressure on an Islamic Republic that, if still intact by war’s end, would face renewed internal pressures at a moment of historic weakness.

Rob Malley, lead negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and special U.S. envoy for Iran under President Biden, said that a sustained U.S. campaign that cripples Iran’s ability to maintain domestic control could mean “the regime collapses, in the sense that it can no longer, genuinely and effectively, govern the entirety of the country.”

“Right now, what Trump is saying suggests an extremely ambitious, extremely long-term, extremely perilous campaign that will only end with Iran’s surrender, and it’s very hard to see Iran surrendering,” Malley said. But the campaign may already be working. “Their communications have certainly been penetrated — they cannot meet without being targeted by Israel or the United States,” he added.

A woman holds a portrait of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at a protest Saturday by medical professionals outside Gandhi Hospital in Tehran, which was damaged in an airstrike earlier this week.

(Majid Saeedi / Getty Images)

“Either the regime stays in place weakened, bloodied, finding it harder to govern a more fragmented, chaotic country,” Malley continued, “or the regime no longer can govern.”

An Israeli official did not deny that internal security forces were being targeted, although the official said that Israel was focused on assassinating Iran’s political and security leadership — “tiers one, two and three,” the official said. The vast majority of the strikes against internal security services thus far have been conducted by the United States.

“Our goal is to weaken the ayatollah regime, to a point where the Iranian people can choose their fate,” the official told The Times. “It’s still not at the point where they can do that, but there is work still to be done.”

By all accounts, the campaign against Iran’s military assets has achieved success. Iranian ballistic missile attacks against Israel and U.S. forces and allies in the region have decreased by 90% after just a week of combat, Defense officials said. Drone strikes have decreased by 83%. Over 30 Iranian vessels, including those used as launching pads for drones and aircraft, have been destroyed — a significant number for Iran’s aged and ill-funded naval fleet.

Trump could simply declare victory based on these results alone, said Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Iran in 2020.

“They will get weaker as they use up resources and we bomb more and more relevant sites. Already air traffic is starting up again,” Abrams said, noting that commercial flights in the region began resuming this weekend. “So I doubt that the president will need a protracted campaign.”

But that would leave the regime in place, leaving open the possibility of a revanchist Islamic Republic that could reconstitute its military and crack down further on democratic protesters — an outcome that could create political backlash for Trump, Abrams said, after losing U.S. service members in combat.

A woman jogs amid closed shops in south Tel Aviv on Saturday.

(Olympia de Maismont / AFP / Getty Images)

“The outcome remains entirely in doubt — regime collapse after a wave of protests, civil war, a deal that leaves the regime in place behind a new face,” Abrams added. “A real test for Trump would arise if there is a wave of protests as in January, and the regime again starts shooting. Can he do nothing? Unlikely.”

In his initial speech announcing the start of the campaign, Trump addressed the people of Iran, telling them to shelter in their homes until the U.S. bombing campaign concludes.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” the president said. “For many years, you have asked for America’s help. But you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond.”

But the president’s message grew muddled over the course of the last week, after he offered conflicting goals in a series of interviews with reporters.

He at once said he was expecting to hand-select the next ayatollah, after assassinating Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, in the opening salvo of the war. In other interviews, he said that the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign had killed many of the potential leaders that Washington could have worked with.

On Friday, Trump called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He did not specify whether he was referring to a surrender of Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile program, or on control over the country itself, and in a subsequent interview, said it could simply mean “when Iran no longer has the ability to fight.”

Over the last week, Kurdish leaders have shared accounts of Trump and his top aides reaching out to them and encouraging their involvement in the war, including a ground incursion in western Iran from Iraqi Kurdistan. But the president seems to have placed that effort on hold for the time being. “The war is complicated enough without having — getting the Kurds involved,” he told reporters Saturday aboard Air Force One.

At Central Command headquarters on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters that Trump maintains his promise to the Iranian people at the outset of the war, that a time will come for an uprising.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addresses the audience as President Trump listens during “The Shield of the Americas Summit“ on Saturday, a gathering with heads of state and government officials from 12 countries in the Americas at the Trump National Doral Golf Club in Doral, Fla.

(Roberto Schmidt / Getty Images)

“No one’s done more than President Trump to reopen the opportunity for those who want a free Iran to do so,” Hegseth said. “Ultimately, it’s common sense, as he said up front, don’t go out and protest while bombs are dropping inside Tehran and elsewhere. There will come a moment where he determines, or they determine, that it’s time to seize that advantage.”

Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution and an expert on Iran, said she expects the government to survive the U.S. assault, “still easily able to outgun and outmaneuver any challenges from the streets.”

But a concerted, prolonged campaign could change that assessment.

“Of course, months of full-scale war certainly could also break the system,” Maloney said, adding: “I don’t think the short-term result would be a stable transition to a more liberal system — but rather a collapse of the state itself, and at least for some period of time, a dangerous vacuum of power and order in the heart of the Middle East.”