problem

From the time I met a guy playing a violin near Pershing Square in 2005, and followed him to the Skid Row slab of pavement where he spent his nights, I’ve listened closely to what mayors promised to do about homelessness in Los Angeles.

All of them were going to fix the problem.

Antonio Villaraigosa.

Eric Garcetti.

Karen Bass.

None of them came close.

Each of those mayors invested vast sums of money and manpower and each of them made inroads. To be fair, they collectively helped thousands of people turn their lives around. But the problem is not finite, the waves keep coming, and more than 40,000 people are currently homeless in the city.

That’s one of the primary reasons Mayor-elect Nithya Raman will get a chance to do what her predecessors could not. In the most recent year of accounting, homelessness increased slightly in the city but declined significantly in Raman’s council district.

So Bass is out, and Raman is in after a contentious campaign in which Raman attacked the Bass strategy (which she helped implement) as too costly and ineffective.

“Here’s my promise,” Raman said in a video on her campaign website. “When I’m mayor, we’ll cut tents and encampments in half by the Olympics, and bring everyone in tents and encampments indoors by the end of my first term.”

Really?

Bear with me, because I’m about to explain why I have some hope that Raman might do a better job on homelessness than her predecessors. But I cringe when I hear such grandiose proclamations.

Why?

In 2006, I attended a Skid Row news conference where a gaggle of politicians including Villaraigosa touted a 10-year plan to end homelessness in L.A. County.

In 2013, Garcetti vowed to end chronic homeless, and in 2018, he said: “We can cut this problem in half in five years. And in 10 years … we can end life on the street.”

In 2023, Bass told a CNN audience that by the end of her term as mayor: “My goal would be, really, to end street homelessness. … There’ll still be people in shelters and interim housing, but to at least not have people dying on our streets.”

Have you noticed how these kinds of amped-up promises have played out?

I don’t mean to discourage lofty goals, but we’ve been let down time after time, feeding cynicism. We’re just looking for significant progress, not a miracle.

The hard truth is that homelessness is the result of a raft of problems beyond any mayor’s full control. It begins with an economy built for stark disparity, with the crippling cost of housing, and with untreated mental illness and drug addiction. A mayor can’t magically clear the decks without help from federal, state and county allies, and from strong partnerships on the City Council.

But none of that excuses the paltry returns on big investments. Mayor Bass’ Inside Safe program moved about 6,000 people into motels and other forms of interim housing as of this past spring at a cost of $300 million, and 41% of them had returned to homelessness by the end of May.

Raman wants to mothball that program and use short-term rental vouchers she claims will be far less expensive and more effective. She wants to open doors for City Controller Kenneth Mejia to audit every dollar spent on homelessness. She says she’ll demand a full accounting of county services, use Medi-Cal funds for more street medicine teams, invest in shared housing and case management.

“City Hall has put together a patchwork of programs, agencies, and dollars that were never required to prove they work together, or work at all,” Raman says on her homelessness strategy page. “No agency or program has been required to demonstrate results. No department or office has been put in charge of monitoring the spending.”

Putting a plan on paper is one thing. Pushing it through the teeth of the City Hall grinder without the wholesale shredding of good intentions is a tougher trick. And it remains to be seen whether Raman can wrangle the support of council members who shunned her and unanimously endorsed Bass.

But Raman has a few things going for her, including a penchant for defying expectations. She blitzed two incumbents, first to win a council seat and then to bounce Bass. Then there’s her urban planning education and her work as one of the co-founders of the SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition. That gave her a street-level study of the challenge as well as the disjointed government response, and she then led the City Council’s homelessness committee.

“I think that situational awareness” will serve her well, said Louis Abramson, a Hollywood resident and Rand researcher who serves as chair of the SELAH board. “She’ll be able to argue from a perspective of expertise.”

Abramson is also hoping Raman will be able to deliver more affordable housing.

“She’s … proven to be uniquely tolerant of the political risks of being a YIMBY, of making Los Angeles a place that can fit everybody who wants to live here,” Abramson said.

At SELAH, and in Raman’s council district, building meaningful relationships with clients has been a central mission. That’s not always fast or easy. Some people are ready to reach for a helping hand; others are severely damaged in multiple ways, and it takes time.

I learned long ago that recovery is not linear. Sometimes it’s one step forward and two steps back. And as one social worker suggested to me, we’re so preoccupied with getting people in the front door, we barely notice when they slip out the back door.

Reversing homelessness does not end with a temporary address. Long-term case management is critical, and so is a sense of purpose and belonging. The formerly homeless people I recently met at Chrysalis, all of them working now, and all of them housed, were a testament to this idea.

I’d love to see Raman find more ways to turn able-bodied homeless people into a workforce that can help address the city’s many needs. I’d love to see her encourage more people to contribute by volunteering for organizations like SELAH, or for faith-based groups and non-profits.

Nathaniel Ayers works on music in his nursing home quarters, inspired by fellow Cleveland native Halle Berry.

(Steve Lopez / Los Angeles Times)

In the case of my friend Nathaniel, the musician, it took me, his friends in the L.A. Phil and various outreach workers a year to convince him to move indoors 21 years ago. He is in a nursing home now, where he listens to music for hours every day and has kept a gallery of photos on his wall, including Beethoven, Bach, and another person with a “B” last name.

Actress Halle Berry.

“She’s beautiful,” Nathaniel said one day when we were going over a list of famous people from Cleveland, his hometown, and he decided that Berry deserved a prominent place on his wall of fame.

My relationship with Nathaniel, Abramson said, “is not an ancillary thing. It is THEE thing. I have come to believe that the human relationship is the necessary pre-condition to this working out.”

True enough, we are too predisposed to think of the ongoing human catastrophe in purely statistical terms. But there’s more truth in people’s stories than in their status, and more community buy-in when we recognize ourselves in each other.

For the 40,000 Nathaniels of Los Angeles, and nearly 4 million of their neighbors, here’s hoping the next mayor of Los Angeles can make a difference.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

In the wake of President Trump’s historic, humiliating, crushing midterm trouncing, his most loyal followers are doing what could reasonably be expected from such a fine, upstanding bunch — variously jumping ship, backstabbing and doubling down on sycophancy and lies.

With dizzying speed, the Trump era has been upended by this democratic Democratic revolt, and not even the staunchest of MAGA supporters seem to know what to do — not even the president himself.

The big man met his defeat with unusual equanimity on Wednesday, promising to work with Democrats, who most certainly have other ideas in mind. By Thursday, the president was complaining about daylight saving time, and bragging about home improvements, offering media a tour of the ballroom construction, a peek at the emperor’s new granite, if you will. For Trump, at least, it was as if the election never happened.

But with Democrats gearing up an avalanche of investigations, those in Trump’s orbit clearly know it’s going to be a dark winter.

Let’s check in with the jumpers, the stabbers and the bottom kissers to see what they’re up to.

Sinking ship

It’s not unusual for top government officials to skedaddle after a midterm election. The two-year mark offers a somewhat elegant exit for those who have suddenly decided to spend more time with family.

So it was little surprise when Trump’s legal lapdog Harmeet Dhillon announced Thursday that she was resigning from her job as the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Someone had to be first, and it doesn’t shock me it was one of the few women left in the administration.

Under her tenure, civil rights were dismantled, which is not historically what the office is for. The agency was hollowed out of the nonpartisan legal experts who made a career serving government — more than 75% of the staff left. Instead, she wielded her power to, as she proudly put it, destroy diversity, equity and inclusion — making observers such as myself wonder whether she actually understood what civil rights are.

“Harmeet Dhillon has been the most destructive, lawless, and hateful head of the Civil Rights Division in DOJ history,” said Stacey Young, founder of Justice Connection, a group that supports current and former civil servants driven to near-insanity by the lawlessness of the Trump era. Young served in the Civil Rights office herself, across the administrations of five presidents.

“After she upended the division’s mission-critical work, the civil servants who dedicated their careers to protecting vulnerable communities were instead told to target them — and more than three-quarters of the division’s lawyers left,” Young continued in a statement. “Dhillon wielded the enormous power of the Justice Department to threaten universities, state and local officials, and election workers in spurious cases that rarely won in court.”

Rarely won in court is the key part there, because for all her vitriol and energy, Dhillon mostly lost when an actual judge was involved. But CBS reported her near-perfect losing streak wasn’t what ultimately drew Trump’s ire — it was her performance on “60 Minutes.”

So we know the ship is sinking — did Dhillon jump or was she pushed? Either way, buh-bye.

The knife-wielder

Leave it to Vice President JD Vance to stab someone in the back the moment it seems convenient. In the run-up to the election, Vance doubled down on every hateful thing he could lay his hands on.

He came out in support of Vivek Ramaswamy’s smarmy ad that used his opponent’s childhood rape as ammunition. He supercharged his racist attacks on Black immigrants, claiming illegal Somali voters were going to “flood” the polls.

Then, when the blue tsunami washed all that garbage away, he posted a long missive on social media explaining how the loss had nothing to do with the economy, or gas prices, or out of control Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It was all about Iran.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote. “The president himself said so last night.”

That would be Pete Hegseth’s war, you know, the belligerent, pec-flexing Trump sycophant whose name has also been floated as a presidential contender, God help us all. In truth, a Hegseth run is the only possible thing that could make Vance look good at this point.

But snakes gonna slither, so Vance (who, to be fair, was never that into this war) is using the moment to subtly blame the Defense secretary, and the blow seems to have landed, with his party, and with his boss.

Asked about Vance’s take, Trump said he agreed the war caused the midterm loss, but he had “no choice.” Now, there are rumblings that Hegseth’s days are numbered.

Kissy, kissy

Hegseth, meanwhile, doubled down Thursday on his crazy he-man routine. I mean, honestly, it’s alarming that this guy is making decisions about lunch, much less war.

In a five-minute video filmed with some kind of Nixon-era filter, Hegseth rambled between sucking up to Trump, making it seem like the war is going great, personal grievance that he might be held accountable for the war, and just making weird, scary pronouncements.

Here’s three of my top picks:

“Narco-terrorists should die, not be caught and released,” he said, apparently promoting extrajudicial executions.

“This is not about me, but of course the other side, in case you’ve noticed, they’re obsessed,” he said shortly after, referring to his side, in fact, and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie’s (who has long been a thorn in Hegseth’s side) threat to impeach Hegseth if he didn’t resign.

“A disgruntled, defeated congressman, along with all his Democrat allies, has also dropped sham articles of impeachment against yours truly, just like they tried against President Trump twice,” Hegseth complained. “It’s all about the politics of personal destruction. Didn’t work against President Trump, and it won’t work with me.”

Well, we’ll see, Pete.

But what about the Dems?

Meanwhile, literally every Democrat ever was busy working on which investigations they will pursue once the new, blue Congress is sworn in.

Chief among those was California’s own Robert Garcia, the Long Beach congressman who will now be the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Garcia has been waiting for this moment for a long time, and he’s ready.

It’s “critical that we take on corruption at the White House, that we take on corruption at places like ICE and DHS,” Garcia told me, referring to the Department of Homeland Security.

And as the Democrats do that, there’s only going to be more scurrying in Trump’s top ranks.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: A ‘tidal wave’ of severe eye disease is looming. It starts with childhood nearsightedness
The California angle: Nithya Raman defeats Bass to become next L.A. mayor
The L.A. Times Special: Newsom wants to empty death row. Most politicians wouldn’t bother — or dare

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Robert Martinez, a retired IT guy, stepped out of the Eagle Rock Rec Center polling place Tuesday afternoon and said he had just filled in a ballot bubble not for L.A. Mayor Karen Bass but for challenger Nithya Raman.

“You know, I’m not really thrilled about her, either,” Martinez said, but he told me what a lot of people have been telling me.

He wanted a change.

“I saw what happened these last four years,” Martinez said, citing the continuing homelessness epidemic and the broken-down condition of the city, “and I’m hoping something different goes on this time.”

He and thousands of others were ready to roll the dice, and meanwhile, Raman began to catch fire with young progressives who were voting for her rather than against Bass.

Some votes are still being tallied, but it’s now clear that Raman will be the next mayor of Los Angeles.

And that will be remarkable, and fun to watch, for a number of reasons.

She will take over despite every single one of her City Council colleagues having endorsed Bass, which is like the least popular kid in class getting elected school president.

She will take over despite having flip-flopped on several major issues, including Bass’ signature homelessness strategy, which Raman willingly implemented until just recently.

She will take over despite having unexpectedly rescinded her endorsement of Bass and eliciting whispers in and out of City Hall that she couldn’t be trusted.

She will take over despite having lukewarm support from the very organization through which she began her rise, the Democratic Socialists of America.

Raman is either a political savant or someone with really good timing, or maybe a little of both.

Everybody in L.A. knew that Bass was mortally wounded, and ripe for a takedown, but it was Raman who had the killer instinct, a trait that could serve her and the public well, putting everyone in city government on notice.

The mayor, having spent her entire adult life in public service, had made the worst decision of her career by leaving town in January 2025 despite conditions that led to the incineration of Pacific Palisades.

And she had made homelessness her marquee issue with scant progress to show despite throwing billions at the problem.

The mayor’s unfavorability rating was so epic, “undecided” voters were neck in neck with supporters of either Raman or Bass, and even the knuckleheaded former TV reality star Spencer Pratt looked like a solid contender in the primary.

But winning the election may turn out to be much easier than fixing City Hall.

Roads and sidewalks are falling apart. The Palisades rebuild is a maddeningly long work in progress. The homeless count tops 40,000. New housing takes forever. The cost of living swallows paychecks. The budget for just about everything is tight, and more of it will go to parks with the passing of the measure to set aside more for greenery. And the ‘28 Olympics are coming our way.

“You have all of these wicked problems that are difficult to solve in a perfect scenario, and [even more] in a governmental system as tangled and confused as L.A.,” Cal State Northridge political science professor Tom Hogen-Esch told The Times’ Jennie Jarvie.

Tangled and confused is an understatement. Homelessness does not get solved without the help of the county, which generally oversees mental health services and drug intervention and rehab.

On the bright side, it’s possible that L.A. will be able to wrangle more federal assistance now that the bloated carcass of President Trump’s political career is floating in the reflecting pool on the National Mall.

And Raman will have two key allies in City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who monitors and critiques City Hall’s many inefficiencies, and in Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who is a potential candidate for the new position of county executive.

“You’re right. It is daunting,” Horvath said of the countless challenges. “But I don’t think it was a secret to Nithya when she got into the race.”

Raman’s campaign, Horvath said, was about building power by acknowledging the exasperation of voters rather than building traditional coalitions in what has been an unresponsive political establishment.

“Whether or not you like each other, or formally agree or disagree, when people are able to accomplish change that the public is longing for, everybody wants to be a part of that win,” Horvath said.

Among City Hall’s problems has been a mummified tolerance of arthritic leadership and the rusted machinery of basic services. Raman, for better or worse, might be inclined to push-start the old jalopy, oil the gears and throw department heads overboard if they don’t deliver.

Early on as a council member, Raman told me she was sorting out the fragmented response to homelessness, having identified overlapping services, a lack of accountability, and broken lines of communication and coordination. In her district, homelessness has declined, and she has called out Bass for the high cost, slow pace and low returns of the mayor’s efforts.

“I know this about Raman,” Horvath said. “She is not afraid of a tough conversation.”

She’s definitely going to have them. As a YIMBY who favors greater housing density, there will be pushback in some neighborhoods. And her opposition to bans on homelessness in certain public areas (she prioritizes solving problems rather than relocating them), will test patience. As reflected in the relatively tight election, nearly half of voters are a bit wary about whether Raman would move the city’s policy and philosophy orientation too far to the left.

In San Francisco, according to USC political science professor and pollster Christian Grose, Mayor Daniel Lurie’s popularity has dipped a bit since he took office in 2024 and tackled issues similar to those in L.A., but it remains high. Grose said Lurie won immediate support and high marks among both moderates and progressives by cleaning streets and moving people indoors while also working on longer-term problem-solving.

Raman could conceivably try that formula, Grose said, and take advantage of what figures to be a honeymoon period with voters who are hungry for change. The question will be whether the honeymoon turns into a longer romance.

In Pico-Union, retired airline attendant and interpreter Aurora Corona has seen some neighborhood improvements of late. But she has long been unhappy overall with the lack of progress on homelessness, trash and infrastructure issues like broken street lights.

“It’s not working,” Corona said, telling me she visits other cities that are in better shape and wonders why L.A. can’t sort through its bureaucratic sclerosis. She doesn’t put all of that on the mayor, though, and said that after considering Raman, she voted for Bass even though she wants to see a shakeup.

“Whoever it is, I’d like to see some changes for the better,” Corona said.

In Studio City, Jon Manzanares and neighbors spent five years reporting encampments and myriad problems at an abandoned property. They tried city departments and got no help, and they tried Raman’s office repeatedly, with the same result.

In September, a fire at the abandoned property spread to an adjacent house, and finally, Raman and Bass both showed up and blamed each other.

“Between Bass and Raman, I wasn’t happy with either,” Manzanares said.

He wants a mayor who does a better job of getting homeless people whatever help they need, who respects the frustrations of taxpayers, and who demands more accountability regarding all the money thrown at various entrenched problems.

“I ended up voting with Raman,” Manzanares said. “I feel like Bass had her shot and didn’t do much with it.”

And now it’s Raman’s turn.

Good luck to her, and to nearly 4 million Angelenos hungry for change.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The Dodgers lost four straight playoff games to the Milwaukee Brewers in a humiliating end to their season.

But this was worse.

Steve Hilton lost to Xavier Becerra in the race for governor before “Jeopardy” aired.

But this was worse.

President Trump lost early, late and often Tuesday night in the midterm elections.

In contests across the country — for governor, for Senate, for the House — he had told people to vote as if he was on the ballot.

They did, and Democrats ran the table, taking the House and then the Senate.

Trump lost big, inspected the wreckage, and claimed the problem was lousy candidates.

Has he lost a step? I would have expected him to say the election was stolen. All of the elections.

But maybe he realized that for all intents and purposes, his political career is over. Trump was trounced, the country triumphed, and the long national nightmare is over, but for the rest of his lame duck presidency.

I don’t think we were witnessing a national love affair with Democrats, nor do I think Tuesday night’s winning political party has all the answers on any of the day’s pressing matters. The Dems have their own problems, including an identity crisis and a shortage of bankable presidential prospects.

But the country’s voters signaled loud and clear that they’re tired of:

The lies.

The insults and name-calling.

The hatred.

The chaos.

The self-dealing.

The lack of civility.

The absence of humility.

Last week I turned on the news and saw Trump making fun of the name of newly elected Michigan Sen. Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim.

An awful thing to see a president do, but here’s what’s worse:

I wasn’t surprised.

Then I saw him say at a political rally that he had looked at a man’s rear end, “and I’ve never done that before…Off the record, women, yes, men no, OK?”

Again, no surprise.

He once mocked the physical appearance of a female presidential primary foe, as well as the wife of a male foe, and insisted for years that the first Black president was secretly from Africa.

Trump had always been able to get away with this sort of numbskullery. His true believers were willing to put up with it as long as he seemed true to his promise of working on their behalf. Until they could no longer deny that he was only working on his own behalf.

The cryptocurrency profiteering. The bloody ballroom. The gold-plating of the White House.

All of it while working people, including staunch supporters, struggled to understand the goofball tariffs and wondered when the promise of lower grocery prices would be delivered.

Trump and the Republicans might have prevailed Tuesday night if not for the war in Iran, which everyone is still paying for at the gas pump. The president who promised we’d stay out of international conflicts went all in, for no good reason, then said it was over, we won, except that it’s not over, and we didn’t win.

And there’s no exit plan.

But so what?

It’s not like Trump is paying for gas. His golf cart is probably electric.

In the beginning, as a Republican populist who tapped into justifiable voter disapproval of Democratic leadership, Trump was onto something when he first ran for president. The scapegoating of immigrants was odious even then, but in 2016, at a Trump campaign rally in Arizona, I caught a glimpse of his appeal to adoring fans who cheered the presidential candidate’s vow to build a border wall, strengthen the military and make America great again. A struggling low-wage worker told me Trump was the best hope for a new day.

“We’re going to come back and rebuild our country,” Trump told the approving crowd that day in Arizona. “You will never be disappointed with me. … You are going to be so proud of your president.”

The act worked for way longer than I would have predicted. But 10 years later, and halfway through a second presidency, the gig is up. Voters said yes, they are disappointed, and no, they’re not so proud.

We thought we were having a mid-term election.

It turned out to be a political wake.

But also an awakening.

Red states voted for blue candidates in a nearly total Trump rebuke.

As I watched the returns Tuesday night, I thought about my daughter–an earth science grad student–and her generation. She’s 23, which means that for almost half her life, Trump has been a political force. Imagine being that young and living in a country that twice elected one of the most divisive and scabrous figures in history.

A man who attacked judges, invaded American cities, insisted ad nauseum that a lost election was stolen, pardoned the Jan. 6 barbarians, exonerated political donors and allies, called climate change a con job, gutted environmental protections and upended America’s global in scientific research.

It’s easy to understand why younger generations have lost faith in elections, both primary parties and the political/corporate establishment.

But on Tuesday, voters of all ages turned out and said enough already, in states red and blue.

The man who so bitterly divided us might ultimately have united us, at least for an evening.

That doesn’t mean that there is consensus on much of anything. Surely calamity awaits, just beyond the shadows, and new species of political trolls are being spawned as we live and breathe. But there was hope, on election night, in the collective declaration that we deserve and demand better.

Trump once said he was so popular and powerful, he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York, shoot somebody, and not lose any voters.

It might have been true once.

But he’s lost them now.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

If you’ve watched anything from “Jesse Watters Primetime” to “The Daily Show” this week, you’re already up to date on the most important issue in America today: the decor of the Cheesecake Factory.

Earlier this week, former President Obama made a quip at a Cleveland rally that President Trump has renovated the White House to look like “Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory.”

Trump lost it. If we’ve learned anything about the president in recent years, it’s that he loves gold as much as he hates Obama. Roll them together in one moment, and the leader of the free world can’t help but freak out. He freaked out so badly, in fact, that he sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent — a guy worth at least $500 million — to eat a French dip cheeseburger at the chain just to prove how great it was.

Absolutely, positively by random chance, Fox News happened to be outside when Bessent emerged from his everyman munch, just to let us know that “I had a great meal, always have a great meal.” OK, Scott.

But if you think this is all a silly back and forth with an unserious administration, think again. Obama is masterful at political strategy, and this wasn’t just a joke. It was rage-bait, crafted for engagement.

Why Saddam Hussein?

The deeper point of Obama’s remarks seemed entirely buried by media coverage that focused on the Cheesecake part. But why Saddam Hussein?

Trump didn’t seem to take issue with being likened to the brutal dictator responsible for killing and disappearing thousands to maintain power. In fact, in all of the rebuttals from Trump and his minions, the Hussein reference hasn’t been mentioned once.

But don’t think Obama choose that reference carelessly, or just for humor.

Hussein ruled Iraq in no small measure though a cult of personality. Like Trump, he loved showy monuments to his power, including a “Victory Arch” in Baghdad (Trump also wants to build an arch); weird fantasy artwork of muscle-bound men and dragons (similar maybe to Trump’s love of AI-generated images of himself); and of course, gold! There were marble and granite and gilt and gold everywhere in Hussein’s homes, even the infamous gold-plated toilet accessories American and British soldiers found when they made it into his palaces.

That ostentatious excess wasn’t just bad taste. It was a show of power. At the same time that Hussein was amassing his wealth and consolidating that cult of personality, his people were broke. Now, I’m in no way saying that Americans in 2026 are suffering the way Iraqis were under Hussein. But there’s a Marie Antoinette-style similarity between Hussein’s narcissist tendencies and Trump’s obsession with all that glitters — from the water in the reflecting pool to the walls of the Oval Office — even as the economy crashes.

Obama clearly understands that: Maybe you don’t want to cut food stamps to millions while you’re slapping up a new ballroom. Obama, after all, could have said the White House looked like Liberace had opened a Cheesecake Factory, but he didn’t. Instead, he chose to insert Hussein, a man whose ego-driven rule came at the expense of his own people.

Which brings me to the absolute brilliance of the joke. Sure, it was funny. Yes, it was quickly picked up as a viral clip.

But more than anything, it got to Trump in a way that was entirely predictable with his unbridled ego, and a way in which Obama almost certainly knew it would. In a way that links him to a dictator who cared more about gilt than people, but in a way so clever Trump himself grabbed the bait and ran with it.

Trump couldn’t stop himself

Hearing his taste criticized, all his beautiful, shiny gold mocked — by Obama of all people — was rage-bait that Trump could not ignore. Trump could not stop himself from responding, and even more, he couldn’t stop himself from demanding others defend him and his gaudy aesthetics.

And the ever-willing members of his cult of personality across government and right-wing media quickly complied — with an attack that Obama surely knew would be the only possible pushback: That he was elitist for making fun of the decor of a wildly popular average-family spot (Obama quickly hit back that the Factory was “his jam” and he, like many parents of teens, myself included, had eaten there numerous times.)

Dozens and dozens of Trump minions parroted the same line for days — how dare Obama mock such a beloved American eatery? How out of touch. How tan-suit, Martha’s Vineyard of him. Trump brought it up at multiple rallies. The official White House social media account posted about it. It was all over the right-wing ecosphere for days.

Never mind the economy, or the war in Iran, or inflation that makes a meal at the Cheesecake Factory increasingly feel like a caviar-and-Champagne night.

Or even this insane comment from Trump about inviting supporters to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida club that makes the Las Vegas Strip look classy, to spend the money he’s promised to them if Republicans win elections: “You’ll be my guest at Mar-a-Lago,” he promised at an Ohio rally. “The problem is that for $5,000, the most you’ll be able to buy is a hamburger and maybe a small dessert. … I’m not even sure you could buy that. No, don’t go there. That’s not a good place if you’re price conscious.”

And Obama’s elitist? That’s bonkers-level disconnection from the audience, but back to my point.

Suddenly, in the middle of a pivotal election, all Republicans are hearing about is the Cheesecake Factory, and how wonderful it is their president is plastering gold all over everything while they are wondering if they’ll be able to pay the gas bill this month.

Granted, the Republicans don’t have a lot of bright spots to focus on as they give their final message to voters. But I am guessing that even the reddest of ballot-clutchers doesn’t want to hear about the Cheesecake Factory, or how much marble Trump has installed at the entrance to the White House. That seems tone-deaf.

Obama’s purposeful provocation completely derailed Republican messaging for multiple, critical news cycles, all because Trump couldn’t stand to have his taste criticized by a guy who has become a bogeyman in his own brain.

Trump had to defend his excess, he couldn’t resist — and in failing to check his own ego, again, he put into the bright spotlight the truth that his followers are increasingly unable to ignore: The only thing that matters to Trump is Trump. Not the economy. Not the war, and certainly not the concerns of voters in the final days of the election.

Obama’s one-liner wasn’t just a zinger. It was political gold, an artful bit of rage-bait trolling that casually took control of the narrative with a well-aimed poke.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: How Meta struck a deal to keep Mark Zuckerberg in California despite looming billionaire tax
The California angle: As companies leave California, is the state’s $4.25-trillion economy really in trouble?
The L.A. Times Special: In Trumpworld, dogs who commit voter fraud aren’t as bad as immigrants

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The U.S. government seems to be coming for California (again). Big surprise.

But scratch the surface of the recent Department of Justice voter fraud blitz and the ugly truth peeks through — this is an attack on immigrants of color, no different than accusing the Haitians of Ohio of eating cats and dogs or the aggressive escalation of detaining and deporting Black and brown people with no criminal record.

It’s meant to excite and appease the Christian nationalist contingent of MAGA voters — including Trump advisor Stephen Miller — who make no secret of their belief that even some naturalized citizens should be forced out of the country if they aren’t white.

Just a few days ago, the White House posted on social media that “If you import the third world, you become the third world.” Not be be outdone, the fine Americans at the Department of Homeland Security responded with what seems to be a problematic mission statement that may wind up in court documents: “Reject the third world. Export the third world.” So far in President Trump’s second term, only 20% of the nearly 1 million people deported had a criminal record, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

Speaking of court documents, wow, do we have a lot to go through. Turns out not a lot of judges are into voter suppression.

After First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the son of Lebanese immigrants and the first Muslim to serve in the California Legislature, announced charges against 28 Californians — all immigrants — who allegedly registered or voted illegally, the legal battles went into overdrive.

There’s the U.S. Justice Department case claiming California is somehow stopping the feds from enforcing federal voting laws, despite those 28 cases. There’s a ruling in a different case that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from going door-to-door in California and other places checking on immigration status and voter registration — a terrifying overreach of power meant to intimidate legal voters.

And there’s the ongoing lawsuit from the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in a Washington courtroom — a case that could take the lead in protecting the midterms.

Here’s what you need to know about all three, and what comes next.

Stop the knocks

Starting around August, Homeland Security began knocking on the doors of residents in California and eight other states in what it dubbed a “surge” in investigations on voter fraud.

These in-person checks were based on lists of folks the government thought might not be legally allowed to cast a ballot — and focused on naturalized citizens, according to court documents. They were also, according to the court, unreliable and included “instances where DHS simply did not have data to determine that the individual did not engage in voter fraud,” the California judge in the case wrote, meaning it was a giant fishing expedition.

In addition, Homeland Security was apparently investigating nonprofits and other organizations that help get out the vote, including interrogating the staff and covertly infiltrating their operations, according to court documents.

That’s McCarthyism-level scary. The California Nurses Assn. and its parent union, National Nurses United, filed a lawsuit to stop the Homeland Security surge, arguing in part that one of their core missions is political organizing and turning out voters, and that the operation directly harmed them by scaring their members away from that work.

They also have a lot of members who are naturalized citizens. Four union members told the court that they didn’t want to participate in the union’s election work because they were afraid of being targeted by the government, citizens or not.

The court found that fear “objectively reasonable” and ordered Homeland Security to stop the door-knocking until after the election. The judge then stayed that order until Friday to give the government time to appeal. So far, the government hasn’t filed that objection.

“So many people in the United States are suffering under Trump’s corrupt and cruel policies on behalf of the billionaire class that he knows cannot hold onto power in these upcoming elections without illegally suppressing our vote through outright harassment, intimidation, and even detention,” said Puneet Maharaj, executive director of the two nurses groups.

Emergency relief

At the same time, the Department of Justice this week filed a suit against California seeking an emergency order to force the state to segregate 20,000 ballots of folks it claims may not be citizens — an unprecedented ask in furtherance of the long-running conspiracy theory that immigrants who lack legal status are in a scheme with Democrats to vote en masse.

State Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has asked the court to throw out the case, in part because the federal government can’t prove it’s actually being harmed in any way by state law. The feds have already filed charges in those 28 cases claiming voter fraud, so it’s hard to argue that state law is preventing them from going after illegal voters.

But the feds are arguing that the state is aiding and abetting illegal voting by not segregating those ballots, even though there is no proof they are in the hands of noncitizens. A review by the Los Angeles County registrar’s office found that about 40% of those on the list were born in the United States.

Trump even threatened that election officials could be jailed for not bending to his will.

Attorneys general from other states filed a friend of the court brief siding with California, arguing that the Justice Department is basically trying to create a new law where “the executive branch can invent new election requirements, unmoored from any constitutional or statutory authority, and demand that States enforce them in the middle of an election.”

The court will rule on that next week.

Beyond Nov. 3

Our final case takes us to Washington, where the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, are asking for their own temporary restraining order — this one stopping the government from carrying out its ballot segregation scheme and from using its flawed, janky methods for supposedly identifying noncitizen voters.

I’ve written about this lawsuit before, and how the Voting Rights Project beat back Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s attempt to snatch ballots. The court will probably make a ruling in that one next week as well.

But election day is less than two weeks away, and many have already voted. So what does it all mean?

It means we’re in for a rough ride. The Trump administration is not dumb. Midterms might not go the way Republicans would like, potentially even giving control of both the House and Senate to Democrats. Some experts and legislators are concerned that all these ballot drama is posturing for that midterm loss — creating a reason to potentially question results or even refuse to seat newly elected Democrats when the time comes.

That would be unthinkable, unprecedented, a constitutional crisis. But impossible? Nope.

And almost certainly, no matter what voters decide, Trump will spin it back to that white nationalism — the idea that “true” Americans are being replaced through fraud, violence and vote stealing, a trio of conspiracies glued together by the sticky, tricky manipulations of a man who will do anything for power.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: How Meta struck a deal to keep Mark Zuckerberg in California despite looming billionaire tax
The California angle: As companies leave California, is the state’s $4.25-trillion economy really in trouble?
The L.A. Times Special: In Trumpworld, dogs who commit voter fraud aren’t as bad as immigrants

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Vicky Lagos, the City Section commissioner, was watching last week’s King/Drew-Crenshaw football game on the sideline when she noticed problems with the chain crew.

She proceeded to become part of it, holding the down marker and helping educate the inexperienced students.

It was another example of her versatility and ability to improvise and intervene when needed.

She became the City Section’s seventh commissioner in 2019 after being an assistant commissioner.

It’s a job that requires the ability to accept criticism, keep your cool and find solutions frequently on a daily basis.

Taking over on a chain crew to help is not on any commissioner’s to-do list.

“It was a teachable moment,” Lagos said.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

Amanda Owen had to deal with an issue at Ravenseat during the latest episode of Our Farm Next Door

Amanda Owen was left concerned after noticing a “problem” at Ravenseat.

The Yorkshire Shepherdess lives and works on Ravenseat Farm with her ex-husband, Clive, and their nine children. Their first documentary series, Our Yorkshire Farm, debuted on Channel 5 back in 2018, and has since become one of the broadcaster’s most popular programmes.

The family returned to screens this month for the fourth instalment of Channel 4 favourite, Our Farm Next Door: Amanda, Clive and Kids. The follow-up documentary series notably follows the family as they undertake the renovation of a 200-year-old farmhouse in the Yorkshire Dales.

During the instalment on Monday (October 19), the Owens’ eldest daughter, Raven, returned to the farm, where she helped with various jobs. Meanwhile, Amanda, Sid and Miles were on a mission to rescue a pregnant sheep, who was stuck at the bottom of a hill.

“We’ve got a problem this morning,” Amanda said. She explained that one of the children’s spotty sheep, Coco, had been seen at the bottom of a hill, and it didn’t appear like she was able to move.

Amanda acknowledged that they needed to get Coco home, as she had found shelter in one of the most inaccessible barns on the farm. “She can’t stay here,” she added. “She’s grinding her teeth a little bit, which is not good. I don’t like that, because that usually means that maybe they’re in a little bit of pain. [She’s] definitely not right, definitely needs to come home… Very odd.”

Amanda, Miles and Sid used a large bag as a makeshift stretcher to pull Coco up the hill in the windy conditions. Amanda suspected that one of the lambs inside was sitting on a nerve, possibly causing Coco’s pain.

“It happened, actually, with one of my kiddies. Literally, I couldn’t move one whole side of my body. I think, hope, that’s what’s wrong,” she said.

Amanda went to visit Coco later on in the episode, explaining: “It’s been quite intense looking after her, because we have to keep her moving. Once a sheep is down, once any animal is down, it’s very difficult to get it on the road to recovery.

“They don’t make very good patients, not at all. But time will tell. All we can do is keep nursing her, she’s having turnips and cake and glucose drinks to give her energy. And good hay and water, and we’ll just have to see.

“I mean, everything could be all fine. It could be that the lambs have moved and they’ve laid on a nerve. I think if she gets her lambs here, she’ll be okay. So, it’s an age-old job. Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.”

A positive update was later shared, after Coco safely delivered her lambs. “It’s good news regarding Coco. Obviously, she went down, she went off her legs just before she was due to lamb,” Amanda shared.

“She has recovered and she’s had two lovely, healthy lambs.” Annas and Clemmy soon took their older sister, Raven, to visit the lambs and share their lambing expertise.

Our Farm Next Door: Amanda, Clive and Kids airs Monday nights at 9pm on More4

With just over two weeks left until election day, Democrats can barely contain their glee.

Control of the House seems about to fall into their eager laps. Senate races in states that are normally cardinal red — Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Texas among them — have grown fiercely competitive.

And, for the first time since 2010, a Democrat may soon be sitting in the governor’s office in more than half the 50 states. As recently as 2017, just 16 of them had Democratic governors — the lowest number in nearly a century.

The party owes a big thank you to President Trump, whose political standing seems to be sinking, like a depth charge, lower by the day. The only question is how much damage he inflicts on fellow Republicans.

There are, however, exceptions to every political trend, outliers in every election, a contest that zigs when races just about everywhere else are zagging.

Oregon, that crunchy and damp citadel of Left Coast liberalism, hasn’t elected a Republican governor since President Reagan was midway through his first term. In 2024, Kamala Harris walloped Donald Trump by more than 14 percentage points, extending a decades-long Democratic presidential winning streak.

And yet the state’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, is on the defensive as she fights for a second term in November, burdened by a dismal approval rating and a sense that things have been pretty lousy in Oregon under her leadership.

The state “hasn’t thrived in the last decade, and certainly hasn’t thrived since COVID, the way other states have,” said John Horvick, one of Oregon’s leading independent pollsters.

Kotek, a former speaker of the state House — and a highly effective lawmaker in that role — made some very concrete promises.

“She was going to build 36,000 new homes. She was going to improve our educational outcomes and make improvements to behavioral health in the state,” Horvick said. “Voters give her poor marks on all those.”

Most notably, perhaps, the epidemic of homelessness — which has curdled Portland’s hipster image and agitated Oregonians more than just about any issue in recent years — hasn’t abated under Kotek, despite a promise to make the problem her top priority.

Gov. Tina Kotek speaks to opponents of data center development during a demonstration at the state Capitol in Salem, Ore., on Sept. 8, 2026.

(Alex Milan Tracy / Sipa USA / Associated Press)

The Democrat still remains the favorite to win reelection. Oregon’s gubernatorial races tend to be closer than presidential contests and voters have been shown a reluctance to heave their governor from office, even when they tell pollsters they’re not happy with the incumbent or the state of their state.

“We watch this movie every four years in Oregon, where it looks really, really close and then, in the end, the Democrat wins,” said Kari Chisholm, a political strategist in Portland.

That may happen again. But Kotek’s travails show the perils of incumbency this angry election season, even for a Democratic swimming with a blue tide.

Thirty-six states are electing governors in November. Most of the contests lean toward one party or the other, like in California, where Democrat Xavier Becerra appears a shoo-in to replace Gavin Newsom.

But a dozen races are at least somewhat competitive, including toss-ups in Georgia, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. All of the hardest-fought contests are in states that Trump carried in 2024 — several by double-digits — with Oregon being the lone exception.

Kotek, who’s been rated one of the least popular governors in America, is facing a rematch against Christine Drazan, a former GOP state House leader who now serves in the state Senate. In 2022, she lost narrowly lost to Kotek, 47% to 44%, in a three-way contest.

Unlike four years ago, Kotek has a gubernatorial record to defend and the case Drazan makes against her is succinct.

“Tina Kotek told Oregonians that she would solve the problems and challenges facing our state,” Drazan said in the candidates’ first debate this month. “She hasn’t.”

In a recent Fox News interview, Drazan elaborated.

“We have record high businesses that have gone out of business, bankruptcies, businesses that are leaving, family bankruptcies are at an all-time high,” Drazan said, exaggerating some. “Oregon is uniquely bad right now. It’s not a national issue, it’s here at home.”

Suggesting the state’s problems are indigenous is an obvious effort to lay responsibility on Kotek and absolve Trump, whose policies — ruinous tariffs, a reckless war, budget cuts — have slashed healthcare benefits, stoked inflation and driven fuel prices to all-time highs.

Further distancing herself from the Republican brand, Drazan has undergone a distinct makeover since winning the GOP primary in May. “Tough. Tested. Conservative,” is no longer the descriptive shorthand she uses on her campaign website. Now it’s “Mom. Public Servant. Champion for All.”

Drazan’s revised campaign biography also omits her opposition to various Democratic-backed policies, such as gun control, and her culture-warrior vow to “protect girls’ sports and keep men out of their locker rooms.” Instead, the Oregonian newspaper noted, her emphasis is now affordability and relatability.

Despite that, Kotek has continued wielding her sharpest-pronged political weapon, tying Drazan — an “out-of-touch MAGA extremist,” in her campaign’s parlance — to the unpopular president.

“I think we all know that there have been a lot of challenges facing our state and they’re still coming at us because of the confusion and disruption coming from Washington, D.C.,” Kotek said during the candidates’ third and final debate last week. “It’s just a fact. It’s upending who we are as a state and it is … making it harder for us to solve the problems that we have ahead of us.”

Passing the buck and pointing her finger is not exactly a message of triumph, uplift and achievement, but it may be enough to win Kotek a second term.

Grudgingly.

Gas prices are high. Diesel prices are higher — about $8 a gallon in California, $2 more than the national average.

For truckers, that’s a crisis. Their big rigs get about a paltry six miles to the gallon and filling their tanks in the Golden State now costs up to $2,500 a pop. For the guys who own a single truck or the small companies (which is the majority of trucking businesses), it can be hard to pass along those extra fuel costs to customers — which, as my colleague Nilesh Christoper wrote about, is causing a lot of pain in the industry.

Truckers everywhere are stomping mad, and it’s a problem for President Trump and Republicans heading into the midterms. Eventually, higher diesel prices are going to mean higher prices on the goods those trucks are transporting, and that’s an even bigger problem.

Trump has been throwing spaghetti at the wall trying out one limp solution after another to bring prices down — cutting taxes, brokering deals with Russia, telling us it’s just not a problem. But of course, it is.

Truck drivers fill they diesel tanks at United Oil in Long Beach on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

One Southern California energy expert has spent recent days in Washington, D.C., trying to convince the administration that the solution lies in California, in the vast oil reserves under our cities and farms that we largely leave untapped for environmental reasons. Environment aside, it’s a long-running and compelling (to some, anyway) argument that may have found its moment, meaning California might become Trump’s next solution — or at least scapegoat — to a costly problem.

More on that, but first, a recap of where we are.

The red dye ploy

Three thousand years ago in Trump time, but which I mean earlier this month, the president signed an executive order that allowed truckers to use red dye diesel as a way to lower costs.

Red dye diesel is, you guessed it, my genius readers, diesel that has been dyed red — to differentiate it from the stuff at truck stops. Farmers and other agricultural types are allowed to buy red dye diesel without certain taxes to use in tractors and other equipment that doesn’t run on our roads.

The Trump order allows truckers to buy red dye and defer paying the roughly 25-cent-per-gallon federal tax on it. So it’s not really saving them money, just delaying payment.

“It’s a small step, but nonetheless, it’s a positive step,” said Michael Mische, a professor at the USC Marshall School of Business whose conservative-leaning take on energy policy has often raised the ire of the Newsom administration.

President Trump signs an executive order to lower the cost of diesel fuel during a campaign rally on Oct. 5, 2026, in Grand Island, Neb.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

But there’s a problem with Trump’s red dye plan. States have their own laws about red dye diesel, and the feds can’t change them. So even if truckers could find a place to buy red dye diesel (again, not sold at regular gas stations), and even if the incentive of paying taxes later made the search seem worthwhile, they would often be breaking state laws.

Eric Sauer, chief executive of the California Trucking Assn., a trade group that advocates for the industry, said his group has been advising members not to use the crimson fuel until it’s clear that states are going to change their rules. Some, like Missouri, have. California has not.

Either way, Sauer said, allowing truckers to use diesel dyed red really doesn’t increase the overall supply, just shifts it around — which is unlikely to bring prices down.

“It’s still the same supply of diesel fuel out there,” Sauer said.

Global supply

The global supply of crude oil, has been, shall we say, negatively affected by our war with Iran. Despite Trump’s assurances that the conflict is winding down, two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked this week, highlighting that perhaps Iran is unaware the war is over. Fears of that conflict and others sent energy prices soaring even higher.

Faced with that unpleasant reality, Trump this week also announced he was lifting sanctions on diesel exports from Russia, a move that shocked his own party and most of the world.

The PCK petroleum refinery stands illuminated at twilight on April 28, 2026, in Schwedt, Germany. The refinery, which produces gasoline, diesel, kerosene and bitumen, receives 20% of its oil from Kazakhstan through the Russian Druzhba pipeline.

(Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

That deal could bring 36 million barrels of Russian diesel, at most, to American shores, which sounds like a lot until you realize we use about 4 million barrels of the stuff every day. So Trump essentially sold out Ukraine and demolished what was left of our European standing for nine days of diesel — an amount unlikely to lower prices.

In California, that’s especially true because, as UC Berkeley professor Aaron Smith points out, about 70% of our diesel “is actually not made from crude oil and coming from oil refineries. It’s made from vegetable oils and animal fats.”

Yes, the Golden State relies heavily on so-called renewable diesel that, Smith says, “introduces, I think, another wrinkle” when trying to lower costs.

California’s fault

But let’s get back to Mische, the USC professor. For years, he’s been arguing that California’s refusal to pump more oil should be viewed as a national security concern.

California actually imports the majority of its crude oil, more than 60% from other countries, and our refineries for a number of debated reasons have been closing. Our imports have been growing in recent years. We also have no pipelines connecting us to the rest of the U.S., unlike many other states. That means we can’t easily get oil except what’s shipped in through our ports.

At the same time, the West Coast with its many military installations is undeniably pivotal to national security. Mische argues that without adequate fuel reserves for a shortage — like during a war — our military readiness could be jeopardized. He wants to see California not only pump more, but for the federal government to store more of that California crude.

A train of tank cars enters the Chevron EL Segundo refinery, one of the largest petroleum processing facilities in California, on April 8, 2026. California imports approximately 75% of its crude oil, with nearly one-third of the crude supplied from the Middle East. Prices at the pump in the state are averaging $5.93 per gallon today amid the war in Iran.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

These arguments haven’t gained much traction in our heavily Democratic state, which has moved forcefully away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources in recent years and which has little interest in increasing drilling. But Mische and his colleagues may have found their moment.

Earlier this year, they wrote draft executive orders about California’s oil industry that he says the Trump administration is considering — one would attempt to force California to pump more oil using the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950.

Trump has used that wartime act several times in the last few months, and Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance announced it would be used to expand production at a Texas oil refinery.

Mische said he spent last week in conversations with the administration on the proposed orders and is “confident” Trump will “issue additional executive orders under the Defense Production Act for California” by the end of the year.

Beyond the national security argument, such orders could please Trump because they do two things. First, if California pumps its own oil, it could free up some imported oil for other states, which could lower prices — though it would certainly take time and require more refinery capacity.

Second, and likely of more interest to the White House, it makes California — and Newsom — the villain for this sticky Republican problem. California will sue, of course, which would just help the Trump political narrative.

Kevin de León, a California Senate president emeritus and author of SB 100, California’s landmark 100% clean energy law, said he can easily envision Trump claiming that “we have lots of cheap oil in the United States that can lower your gas prices — but crazy lefty California is blocking us.”

Actually, it’s hard to imagine Trump not grabbing the chance to blame gas prices on the Golden State — or Newsom.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: ‘Very few people out in the streets’: ICE surge rattles California’s Central Valley

The California angle: Justice Dept. demands California prove citizenship for lists of voters or withhold ballots

The L.A. Times Special: The U.S is in the death business. Newsom can change that, and win votes
Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Los Tigres Del Norte will perform this Saturday at Anaheim’s Honda Center. Ahead of rocking the Pond with its classic hits, the famed norteño band brought its signature sound and activism to NPR’s Tiny Desk Concert. The performance closed out the series’ Hispanic Heritage Month celebration, dubbed as “El Tiny.”

Composed of the Hernández brothers (Jorge, Hernán, Eduardo and Luis) and cousin Óscar Lara, Los Tigres Del Norte was founded in the late 1960s in the Sinaloan town of Rosa Morada and settled in San José. It has sold millions of records worldwide with songs about the drug trade, unrequited love and immigrant life in this country.

That theme of immigrant struggle within the U.S. was top of mind when the group performed at NPR’s Washington, D.C., offices.

The group was recently honored by the city of Minneapolis in September for defending the rights of immigrant communities for decades, and for standing in solidarity with the city following the large-scale immigration enforcement campaign that took place there earlier this year. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey proclaimed Sept. 9 Los Tigres del Norte Day.

“[Following the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids], they told the people of Minneapolis, the Latino American community that we are one, that we are united and that we’re going to do everything possible for the people that we love,” Frey said in a September news conference.

Los Tigres’ director and lead vocalist Jorge Hernández told The Times the honor came as a surprise to the group, who was in town for the 39th annual Hispanic Heritage Awards to present the people of Minnesota with the Humanitarian Award for their collective acts of solidarity with the immigrant community throughout the ICE raids.

The frontman said he was humbled by the action and was touched to spend time with members of the Minneapolis community who worked on the front lines during the ICE surge.

“There were Latinos present who set an example for how to support people in [a time of chaos],” Hernández said. “Those who were documented brought food to families who were undocumented so that they didn’t have to go outside to face the problems that were made possible due to [the Trump administration]. It’s because of action like those that we showed up for the city.”

Immediately after its time in Minnesota, the band flew out to film the Tiny Desk set.

The performance was a long time coming, according to Hernández.

“It was something beautiful and historic for us which should’ve happened 10 to 15 years ago,” he said, blaming conflicting schedules for the delay.

Though postponed, the 73-year-old musician knew the band’s messages would land with as much timeliness as ever.

In his introduction for Los Tigres Del Norte, NPR’s “Alt.Latino” host and “El Tiny” coordinator Felix Contreras spoke about why he wanted the band to perform as part of Tiny Desk’s month-long celebration of Latinidad.

“Our community is under attack and it’s not the first time … and it takes away our humanity,” Contreras said before Los Tigres kicked off the set with their hit “Somos mas Americanos.” “And for as long as I can remember, these gentlemen have been giving us back our humanity.”

Opening with the 2001 track was notable as the song flips jingoist U.S. narratives about who can call themselves American. The lyrics assert that Mexicans are more American than “gringos” and highlight how a large swath of the U.S. once belonged to Mexico.

Los Tigres let their songs do all the talking as they played straight through a series of tunes from across several decades, including 1995’s “Golpes en el Corazón,” 1997’s “Quiero Volar Contigo,” 1989’s “Ni Parientes Somos” and the 1986’s bittersweet single “La Puerta Negra.”

Hernández said the group wanted to use the platform to bring further awareness to the struggles immigrants continue to face in this country with an audience that notably skews more American than Los Tigres is accustomed to.

“We performed songs that talk about the problematic systems [in the U.S.] that have been around for years, but that are right now worse than ever before,” Hernández said. “The songs we sang [for Tiny Desk] have a lot to do with our society. I hope the wider public can listen to it and translate the songs to English so that they can connect to the lyrics.”

He said he hopes that the band can set an example for younger people that political messaging through music can empower artists, not hinder them.

“We’ve been singing songs since the ’70s about immigration and problems our community faces,” Hernández said. “As an artist, if you see a problem that affects your community, no matter how much you ignore it, you must realize that you are an active participant. You can’t stay quiet, your songs should talk about your problems so that through your work you can connect with and inform people.”

One thing that has continued to surprise and inspire Hernández over the last few years is seeing younger generations of fans celebrate his group’s music.

“They are the future and we sing our songs to them so that they can hear about the problems in our community that have existed and that persist,” he said. “At some point in life you will face big problems and it will be important that you know your history, what you stand for and how to defend yourself. We want to help people know their rights and be prepared to know how to act in difficult times like right now.”

A quick recap of tonight’s dances:

Lacey danced a samba and the judges thought it was a strong dance but she needed to be a bit more out there. She scored 26.

Will danced a waltz. the judges thought he’d improved. As such, he cracked the mid-20s and went away with 25 from the panel.

Shaun went next, with a brief cameo from dad Ian Wright in the training video. Shaun did a quickstep that Craig said was “everything a quickstep shouldn’t be”. He scored the lowest of the night with 15.

Cach briefly held the top of the leaderboard after his Couple’s Choice. The judges, who gave him 31, said it was a joy to watch.

Jaime was next with a Viennese waltz. The judges felt she could have been better, but was still dancing nicely. They gave her 28. No one was prouder than her dad Ray Winstone, who left a video message.

Melanie’s charleston featured a cameo from Neil Jones. The judges were impressed with her personality, but less so with the dancing. She got 17.

Sarah used the school run to feul her paso doble anger and the judges were split on whether they enjoyed it or not. They gave her 20.

Delta soared to the top of the leaderboard with a salsa that scored 33, as she earned the first 9 of the series.

Lawrence failed to impress with his rumba, which only got 20, but did get a 5 from Craig, which Jowita was happy with.

Dani’s tango showed improvement and the judges rewarded her with 27.

Graeme’s jive brought a tear to Craig’s eye, as he reminde the judge of the late Len Goodman. he earned a 25.

John’s first latin number was a cha cha cha and failed to reach the heights of his week one foxtrot. He walked away with 20.

Bethany was next up with an American Smooth that Shirley thought was “extremely impressive”. She got 27.

And Tabby was last with an Argentine tango that fans thought should have topped the leaderboard. But she came in joint second with 31.

I’ve been a Justin Herbert fan since his days in Oregon. I kept believing he was going to lead the Chargers to new heights, even after all the leadership changes he’s been through. He’s talented, tough and all-in. I gave him every benefit of the doubt. But now, I can conclude only that Justin Herbert is the problem. Inconsistent, often slow to react, but mostly he’s unable to finish. He’s lost more games in the fourth quarter than he’s won.

So far this season the Chargers have the greatest negative point differential in the fourth quarter in the NFL. The pattern is consistent regardless of the coach. Is it all on Herbert? No. But he is the common denominator through all of this.

Charlie Pankow
Moorpark

The fumbling, bumbling Chargers keep stumbling in their unprecedented 0-4 start in the Jim Harbaugh era.

First, the fumbling. Thank you, Derius Davis. Your inability to simply complete a fair catch led directly to a Seahawks touchdown. How many points did your team lose by?

Next, the bumbling. Call it a banged up offensive line, (AGAIN!), a moderately skilled and depleted receiving core, or a lost, interception prone Justin Herbert, the Charger offense remains sketchy, inconsistent, and self-destructive.

Finally, the stumbling continues … as they cannot beat teams they should or pull out potential victories over the more challenging ones.

Good luck turning this around!

Rick Solomon
Lake Balboa

I don’t care much about the Chargers. I rarely read stories about them and would be elated if they’d return to San Diego where they belong.

But, much like a car accident on the 405 that you instinctively know you shouldn’t stare, I just can’t seem to avert my eyes from the wreck the Chargers have become.

Ron Yukelson
San Luis Obispo

Here is a modest proposal: Lincoln Riley and Jim Harbaugh waive their buyout clauses and swap jobs. It might be the rare trade that improves both organizations. It is difficult to see how it could make things worse.

Paul Hunt
Sierra Madre