protecting

BOOTHBAY HARBOR, Maine — Republican lawmakers are targeting one of the country’s longest-standing pieces of environmental legislation, credited with helping save rare whales from extinction.

GOP leaders believe they now have the political will to remove key pieces of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, enacted in 1972 to protect whales, seals, polar bears and other sea animals. The law also places restrictions on commercial fishermen, shippers and other marine industries.

A Republican-led bill in the works has support from fishermen in Maine who say the law makes lobster fishing more difficult, lobbyists for big-money species such as tuna in Hawaii and crab in Alaska, and marine manufacturers who see the law as antiquated.

Conservation groups adamantly oppose the changes and say weakening the law will erase years of hard-won gains for jeopardized species such as the vanishing North Atlantic right whale, which is vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear. There are fewer than 400 right whales remaining.

Here’s what to know about the protection act and the proposed changes.

Why the 1972 law still matters

“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is important because it’s one of our bedrock laws that help us to base conservation measures on the best available science,” said Kathleen Collins, senior marine campaign manager with International Fund for Animal Welfare. “Species on the brink of extinction have been brought back.”

It was enacted the year before the Endangered Species Act, at a time when the movement to save whales from extinction was growing. Scientist Roger Payne had discovered that whales could sing in the late 1960s, and their voices soon appeared on record albums and throughout popular culture.

The law protects all marine mammals and prohibits capturing or killing them in U.S. waters or by U.S. citizens on the high seas. It allowed for preventative measures to stop commercial fishing ships and other businesses from accidentally harming animals such as whales and seals. The animals can be harmed by entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships and other hazards at sea.

The law also prevents the hunting of marine mammals, including polar bears, with exceptions for Indigenous groups. Some of those animals can be legally hunted in other countries.

Changes to oil and gas operations

Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska, a state with a large fishing industry, submitted a draft this summer that would roll back aspects of the law. The bill says the act has “unduly and unnecessarily constrained government, tribes and the regulated community” since its inception.

The proposal states that it would make changes such as lowering population goals for marine mammals from “maximum productivity” to the level needed to “support continued survival.” It would also ease rules on what constitutes harm to marine mammals.

For example, the law prevents harassment of sea mammals such as whales and defines harassment as activities that have “the potential to injure a marine mammal.” The proposed changes would limit the definition to activities that actually injure the animals. That change could have major implications for industries such as oil and gas exploration where rare whales live.

That poses an existential threat to the Rice’s whale, which numbers only in the dozens and lives in the Gulf of Mexico, conservationists said. And the proposal takes specific aim at the North Atlantic right whale protections with a clause that would delay rules designed to protect that declining whale population until 2035.

Begich and his staff did not return calls for comment on the bill, and his staff declined to provide an update about where it stands in Congress. Begich has said he wants “a bill that protects marine mammals and also works for the people who live and work alongside them, especially in Alaska.”

Fishing groups want restrictions loosened

A coalition of fishing groups from both coasts has come out in support of the proposed changes. Some of the same groups lauded a previous effort by the Trump administration to reduce regulatory burdens on commercial fishing.

The groups said in a July letter to House members that they believe Begich’s changes reflect “a positive and necessary step” for American fisheries’ success.

Restrictions imposed on lobster fishermen of Maine are designed to protect the right whale, but they often provide little protection for the animals while limiting one of America’s signature fisheries, said Virginia Olsen, political director of the Maine Lobstering Union. The restrictions stipulate where lobstermen can fish and what kinds of gear they can use. The whales are vulnerable to lethal entanglement in heavy fishing rope.

Gathering more accurate data about right whales while revising the original law would help protect the animals, Olsen said.

“We do not want to see marine mammals harmed; we need a healthy, vibrant ocean and a plentiful marine habitat to continue Maine’s heritage fishery,” Olsen said.

Some members of other maritime industries have also called on Congress to update the law. The National Marine Manufacturers Assn. said in a statement that the rules have not kept pace with advancements in the marine industry, making innovation in the business difficult.

Environmentalists fight back

Numerous environmental groups have vowed to fight to save the protection act. They characterized the proposed changes as part of the Trump administration’s assault on environmental protections.

The act was instrumental in protecting the humpback whale, one of the species most beloved by whale watchers, said Gib Brogan, senior campaign director with Oceana. Along with other sea mammals, humpbacks would be in jeopardy without it, he said.

“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is flexible. It works. It’s effective. We don’t need to overhaul this law at this point,” Brogan said.

What does this mean for seafood imports

The original law makes it illegal to import marine mammal products without a permit and allows the U.S. to impose import prohibitions on seafood products from foreign fisheries that don’t meet U.S. standards.

The import embargoes are a major sticking point because they punish American businesses, said Gavin Gibbons, chief strategy officer of the National Fisheries Institute, a Virginia-based seafood industry trade group. It’s critical to source seafood globally to be able to meet American demand for seafood, he said.

The National Fisheries Institute and a coalition of industry groups sued the federal government Thursday over what they described as unlawful implementation of the protection act. Gibbons said the groups don’t oppose the act but want to see it responsibly implemented.

“Our fisheries are well regulated and appropriately fished to their maximum sustainable yield,” Gibbons said. “The men and women who work our waters are iconic and responsible. They can’t be expected to just fish more here to make up a deficit while jeopardizing the sustainability they’ve worked so hard to maintain.”

Some environmental groups said the Republican lawmakers’ proposed changes could weaken American seafood competitiveness by allowing imports from poorly regulated foreign fisheries.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 20 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is instituting two major changes to the H-1B visa process, including the introduction of a so-called “gold card,” the U.S. Department of Labor confirmed in a media release.

Trump signed a pair of executive orders, one of which will institute a $1 million fee for high-skilled workers who pay the amount themselves, with the amount doubling to $2 million if the rate is paid by the person’s employer.

The second order will see the creation of a $100,000 fee for successful H-1B visa applicants.

Both changes were dubbed Project Firewall by the administration, which says the moves are meant to “safeguard the rights, wages, and job opportunities of highly skilled American workers.”

“This program will raise more than $100 billion, which we’ll use for cutting taxes and paying down debt,” Trump said in the Oval Office after signing the executive orders.

“They’re going to spend a lot of money to come in. We need great workers. And this pretty much ensures that this is what’s going to happen.”

Typically, there are 85,000 of the H-1B visas issued each year with a large number going to people working for tech giants such as Amazon and Microsoft, government data shows.

Employers must certify that workers looking to secure one of the visas will be paid a salary similar to what a U.S. citizen would be and that the company is unable to find an American to fill the role.

Prior to the executive order, an employer could pay a $215 registration fee to enter a lottery to claim one of the 85,000 annually issued visas.

“The Trump Administration is standing by our commitment to end practices that leave Americans in the dust. As we reestablish economic dominance, we must protect our most valuable resource: the American worker. Launching Project Firewall will help us ensure no employers are abusing H-1B visas at the expense of our workforce,” U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement on the department’s website.

“By rooting out fraud and abuse, the Department of Labor and our federal partners will ensure that highly skilled jobs go to Americans first.”

SACRAMENTO — Hello and happy Monday.

Pigs are flying and Satan has on a puffer jacket. I know these things because the impossible is happening — I am writing about why Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert are right.

And why California’s Republican congressional representatives should be ashamed and shamed.

You may know these women as beacons of the far right, maybe even the fringe-right, in Congress. Hailing from Georgia, South Carolina and Colorado, respectively, they have dabbled in QAnon conspiracy theories, including about sex trafficking and powerful pedophiles, among other questionable actions.

But I’ll say this for the trio — they’ve stayed true to their beliefs, even under direct pressure from the White House. So a (limited) shout-out to Greene, Mace and Boebert.

What am I talking about? Jeffrey Edward Epstein, of course (I think he committed enough crimes to earn his middle name included, serial killer style).

Boebert, Mace and Greene are three of only four Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who have signed a discharge petition (a kind of work-around to bypass leadership) to release the full Epstein files, supposedly containing a trove of information on men who bought and sold sex with teenage girls.

“These are some of the richest, most powerful people in the world that could sue these women into poverty and homelessness,” Greene said at a recent news conference with some of the victims. “Yeah, it’s a scary thing to name names, but I will tell you, I’m not afraid to name names, and so if they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor, and I’ll say every damn name that abused these women. I can do that for them.”

And, to my immense shock at having something in common with Greene, I say — that is how it’s done, lady. You go.

Not a single Republican House member from California has backed releasing the Epstein files. Every California Democratic representative has signed. So let’s talk about that.

I am sick of Epstein. Why are you writing this?

Like most of you, I too am tired of hearing endless political chatter about Epstein.

For the blessedly uniformed among you, Epstein was an extremely rich dude. No one is quite sure where all that money came from, but he apparently used a great deal of it to buy influence with powerful men, and sex traffic underage girls — allegedly children as young as 11 .

He died by suicide while in jail in 2019 (lots of conspiracy theories on whether it was in fact suicide) but in 2021 his paramour-partner Ghislaine Noelle Maxwell was also convicted of child sex trafficking and other offenses.

Epstein and Maxwell have ties to Donald Trump, including a much-discussed “birthday book” that honestly I do not care about other than to say, “Ick.” That has made the whole thing an endless political brouhaha.

But many of the many victims of Epstein and Maxwell have called for their information to be released by the Justice Department, which holds more than 100,000 pages of the investigation. They, like survivors of sexual assault everywhere, want accountability, if justice remains elusive. They want names named. They want to stop being afraid, stop being stuck by their pain and their past, and allow the world to decide, if courts won’t, just how much truth they are telling.

These are brave women who were brutalized as children for the pleasure of men with money. They have a right to have their stories known if that’s what they choose.

This is not politics. This is decency.

The California problem

Like Greene, I’m willing to name some names. Here they are — California’s GOP representatives in the House:

Releasing the Epstein files requires only one of them to sign the discharge petition. Just one of these fine representatives from the Golden State could do the right thing, stand for a bipartisan value that Californians of both parties hold — sex trafficking is bad — and show what real leadership looks like.

Anyone? Anyone?

“If Epstein survivors want this information released, it should be released. These women have had the courage to speak out and it’s infuriating that Congress would block release of information — they’d rather help with a cover-up than stand with survivors,” state Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) told me.

She’s a former state Justice Department prosecutor who specialized in trafficking, and has worked on controversial bipartisan legislation at the Capitol with Republican Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield. That legislation earned her the ire of her own party, but on an issue this important, she did what she believed was right over what was easy.

“Protecting kids and standing up for survivors of human trafficking should not be a partisan issue and in California, we’ve shown it doesn’t have to be,” Krell said.

In fact, the discharge petition in the House is a bipartisan effort — introduced by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and our own Ro Khanna of California, a Democrat.

In particular, I’d like to call out Kiley for his hypocrisy. Recently, he introduced a bipartisan sex trafficking bill in Congress that’s a smart idea — the National Human Trafficking Database Act, which would create a database at the Department of Justice that tracks cases across the country. He did it with Reps. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga). Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are carrying the bill in the Senate.

“We must do everything we can to prevent human trafficking and having the necessary tools at our disposal will bring us closer to stopping this awful crime,” Kiley said in a press release.

Huh.

Seems like Kiley gets the issue. Seems like he’s saying the right things. And for a guy about to be gerrymandered out of his own district — with his own party not seeming to care — he doesn’t have much to lose by doing the right thing and signing the discharge petition. My email to his office on the topic remains unanswered.

Liz Stein, an Epstein and Maxwell survivor who spoke at the news conference, said (as reported by the 19th News) that her life has never been the same since the abuse started. Since then, it has “felt like someone shut off the lights to my soul.”

There. Is. No. Excuse.

“This is not a partisan issue, but an American issue,” New Mexico Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, said in a press release. “To my Republican colleagues, if these heartbreaking stories aren’t enough, sign the petition for your daughters and for all the women in your lives that you would want protected from pedophiles. Because it’s not just about Epstein, but about all the women and children who are trafficked, abused, sexually assaulted, and ignored in their pain. The survivors today told their stories to not only push for the Epstein files to be released, but for a better future where women and girls are believed and supported, and abusers are held accountable.”

I can’t say it any more directly. Hiding behind politics on this one is the act of a coward.

If you won’t stand up against the rape of children, what do you stand for?

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: L.A. fires burned their block. For each, the disaster was just beginning.
The what happened: Lawyers fear 1,000 children from Central America, dozens in California, are at risk of being deported
The L.A. Times special: What the writings on the bullet casings from Charlie Kirk’s killer might mean

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

Los Angeles police Metropolitan Division officers, meant to be working crime-suppression assignments in hard-hit areas of the city, are instead providing security for former Vice President Kamala Harris, sources told The Times.

The department is “assisting the California Highway Patrol in providing protective services for former Vice President Kamala Harris until an alternate plan is established,” said Jennifer Forkish, L.A. police communications director. “This temporary coordinated effort is in place to ensure that there is no lapse in security.”

A dozen or more officers have begun working a detail to protect Harris after President Trump revoked her Secret Service protection as of Monday. Sources not authorized to discuss the details of the plan said the city would fund the security but that the arrangement was expected to be brief, with Harris hiring her own security in the near future.

Trump ended an arrangement that had extended Harris’ security coverage beyond the six months that vice presidents are usually provided after leaving office. California officials then put into place a plan for the California Highway Patrol to provide dignitary protection for Harris. At some point, the LAPD was added to the plan, according to the sources, as California law enforcement scrambled to take over from the Secret Service on Monday.

A security detail was captured outside Harris’ Brentwood home by a FOX 11 helicopter as the station broke the story of the use of L.A. police.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file LAPD officers, criticized the move.

“Pulling police officers from protecting everyday Angelenos to protect a failed presidential candidate who also happens to be a multi-millionaire, with multiple homes and who can easily afford to pay for her own security, is nuts,” its board of directors said in a statement to The Times. Mayor Karen Bass “should tell Governor Newsom that if he wants to curry favor with Ms. Harris and her donor base, then he should open up his own wallet because LA taxpayers should not be footing the bill for this ridiculousness.”

Newsom, who would need to sign off on CHP protection, has not confirmed the arrangement to The Times. Izzy Gordon, a spokesperson for Newsom, simply said, “The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.”

Newsom’s office and Bass’ office had discussions last week on how best to address the situation, according to sources not authorized to talk about the details.

Bass, in a statement last week, commented on Trump scrapping the security detail for Harris, saying, “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances, and more. This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.”

Her office did not respond to comment on the LAPD deployment on Thursday.

Two law enforcement sources told The Times that the Metro officers had been slated to go to the San Fernando Valley for crime-suppression work before their assignment changed.

Deploying LAPD officers to protect Harris was a source of controversy within the department in years past.

During L.A. Police Chief Charlie Beck’s tenure, when Harris was a U.S. senator, plainclothes officers served as security and traveled with her from January 2017 to July 2018. It was an arrangement that then-Mayor Eric Garcetti said he was unaware of until Beck’s successor ended it. Beck said at the time through a spokesman that the protection was granted based on a threat assessment.

Beck’s successor, Michel Moore, ended the protection in July 2018 after he said a new evaluation determined it was no longer needed. The decision came as The Times filed a lawsuit seeking records from Garcetti detailing the costs of security related to his own extensive travel.

Trump signed a memorandum on Thursday ending Harris’ protection as of Monday, according to sources not authorized to discuss the security matter.

Former vice presidents usually get Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, while former presidents are given protection for life. But before his term ended, then-President Biden signed an order to extend Harris’ protection beyond six months, to July 2026. Aides to Harris had asked Biden for the extension. Without it, her security detail would have ended last month, according to sources.

The Secret Service, the CHP and Los Angeles police do not discuss details of dignitary protection in terms of deployment, numbers, or travel teams. CNN first reported the removal of Harris’ protection detail.

The curtailing of Secret Service protection comes as Harris is about to begin a book tour for her memoir, titled “107 Days.” The tour has 15 stops, which include visits to London and Toronto. The book title references the short length of her presidential campaign. The tour begins next month.

Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice president, was the subject of an elevated threat level — particularly when she became the Democratic presidential contender last year. The Associated Press reports, however, a recent threat intelligence assessment by the Secret Service conducted on those it protects, such as Harris, found no red flags or credible evidence of a threat to the former vice president.

Fifth in a series of stories profiling top high school football players by position. Today, Cooper Javorsky, San Juan Hills offensive lineman.

It wasn’t until last March when 17-year-old offensive tackle Cooper Javorsky of San Juan Hills High received his first football scholarship offer.

By May, there were 15 and counting. Any college recruiter who dropped by spring practice to see his size or view his game film from 2024 when he didn’t give up any sacks immediately knew what they were witnessing.

In the recruiting world, it’s called “blowing up.”

“He’s had a tremendous offseason,” coach Robert Frith said.

By early June, he had committed to UCLA with the outlook to one day play center.

He set a school record by bench pressing 405 pounds. He grew to 6 feet 4 1/2 and 295 pounds. He made it to the second day of CIF wrestling in the heavyweight division and competed in the shotput and discus during the track and field season.

“I’ve been lifting two to three times a day,” Javorsky said. “I’ve been trying to eat right. I haven’t had much time with friends, but at the end of the day, I’m working toward a goal, and I want that really bad. I’m working really hard to play in college and hopefully going to the league.’

He certainly has college sports success in his family. Older brother Jake, who was a standout linebacker for San Juan Hills, plays for Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. Two older sisters played softball and soccer for Northern Colorado and UC Irvine, respectively.

Cooper Javorsky of San Juan Hills has grown to 6 feet 4.5 and 295 pounds and become a college football line prospect.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

As the “baby” in the family, Cooper got lucky.

“I definitely got the size genetics,” he said.

He got to play with Jake when he was a sophomore and admires his determination as a linebacker.

“He’s nuts,” Javorsky said. “He’s knocked out kids before. It’s hard to beat him.”

Jake used to “whip him” if there were any family squabbles. “I’m only recently bigger,” Javorsky said. “He was always so strong.“

As San Juan Hills’ starting right tackle, Javorsky has the assignment of protecting the blind side of left-handed quarterback Timmy Herr. The responsibility came even though he’s only been playing tackle football since he was in eighth grade.

All those other sports he plays helps in football.

“With shotput, it’s a pure explosion sport,” he said. “In discus, you have to learn technique. It helps with footwork and the mental aspect. Wrestling is footwork and hand placement and overall knowledge of where your body is and where your feet are.”

Frith sees a player with a bright future in football.

“I’m really proud of him and his hard work,” he said. “He did a phenomenal job last season but wasn’t done physically. He’s still growing.”

As his college options increased, Javorsky planned to embrace any and all opportunities.

“I want to meet everyone,” he said.

Then he decided to end the recruitment on June 12 with his commitment to UCLA, the same school where former San Juan Hills and NFL lineman Sean Rhyan came from.

To see his hard work pay off and see college recruiters validating his growth as a player and person is what Javorsky is most grateful for.

“It was a dream and now has become reality,” he said. “I’m thankful for my dad, my brother, my coach. It’s a very humbling moment.”

Sunday: Sierra Canyon defensive lineman Mikhal Johnson.

Offensive linemen to watch

Elisha Faamatuainu, Murrieta Valley, 6-5, 300, Sr.: Cal commit proved himself last season with versatility

Kaden Franco, St. John Bosco, 6-4, 295, Jr.: He’s finally healthy, so beware next two seasons

Blake Graham, Leuzinger, 6-3, 280, Sr.: Cal Poly commit has the size and athleticism to dominate

Kodi Greene, Mater Dei, 6-6, 320, Sr.: Washington commit was top linemen in Trinity League last season

Josh Haney, JSerra, 6-4, 280, Sr.: Fresno St. commit fits well with JSerra’s tradition of producing top linemen

Cooper Javorsky, San Juan Hills, 6-4, 295, Sr.: UCLA commit keeps growing and improving

Lucas Rhoa, Orange Lutheran, 6-4, 280, Jr.: Making impressive strides to improve

Sam Utu, Orange Lutheran, 6-5, 295, Sr.: Alabama commit is nasty blocker

Elisha Mueller, Servite, 6-4, 300, So.: College coaches will be standing in line to recruit him

Malik White, Rancho Cucamonga, 6-5, 310, Sr.: San Diego State commit has great work ethic

McALLEN, Texas — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration’s request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody.

Gee called last week’s hearing “deja vu” after reminding the court of the federal government’s attempt to terminate the Flores settlement agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday’s order.

“There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants’ motion on that basis alone,” Gee wrote, referring to the government’s appeal to a law it argued kept the court from enforcing the agreement.

In the most recent attempt, the government argued it had made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement.

Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, “These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.”

Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump’s tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities.

Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. “But currently under the Flores settlement agreement, that’s essentially void,” he said last week.

The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of more than a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s.

The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children.

The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when Health and Human Services takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs.

In arguing against the Trump administration’s effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for more than a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held for 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April.

The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” where a lawsuit alleges detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated.

Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement’s terms.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Seven months into President Trump’s second term, California has filed 37 lawsuits against his administration and spent about $5 million doing it.

Before you go off on a government-spending rant, let me drop this figure on you: For each dollar the state has spent in litigation with Trump, it has recouped $33,600 in funds that the federal government has tried to take away from the Golden State, according to Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

That, as he put it during a Monday news conference, is “bringing the receipts.”

These aren’t dollars Californians were wishing for or begging for from the federal government — these are funds that have already been legally allotted to the state but which the Trump administration is attempting to stop for reasons petty, ideological or both. They pay for teacher training, immunizations, tracking infectious diseases, keeping roads safe, disaster recovery and on and on. And they are predominantly your tax dollars, being withheld from your state.

“What we’re demanding is that we get the funding that’s already been legally approved and appropriated,” Bonta said.

But as much as it’s about paying for the basics that keep California going, it’s also about protecting an inclusive and equitable way of living that defines the ethos of our state. Don’t tread on us! Californians get to spend our money how we see fit.

“When you add it all up, you see the totality of what’s at stake: the California dream,” Bonta said. “The idea that every Californian, no matter how they look, where they live or how much money they have, can send their kid to school, go to the doctor when they’re sick and put food on the table and a roof over their heads.”

Or as Gov. Gavin Newsom put it, it’s litigation not for the sake of suing, but to “defend, to stand tall, to hold the line in terms of our values, the things we hold dear.”

It’s serious times, folks. Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t stand for LGBTQ+ rights, for immigrants’ rights, for women’s rights, for due process or even public schools. But so far, the courts have held, for the most part, to their responsibility to be a check on this unbalanced administration.

Of course, lawyers win cases, sometimes regardless of facts. I want to give a shout out to our state Department of Justice. Bonta may be the state’s top lawyer, but there is a whole army of legal folks behind these lawsuits.

The $5 million spent so far has been entirely in-house, Bonta said. This cash isn’t going to expensive outside counsel, but, as my colleague Kevin Rector points out, money that is funding the smart, talented attorneys and staff who work for taxpayers.

More than a few of them were around during Trump’s first term, when the state was involved in more than 120 lawsuits against his administration. Many of those suits were about process — the haphazard, rules-be-damned way Trump seeks to implement his policies.

Our California lawyers learned then that courts do in fact uphold law, and simply pointing out that rules have to be followed was often enough to stop Trump. While we now have a seasoned legal team that understands the weaknesses in what Trump is doing, the sort-of-funny part is that he’s still doing it. Few lessons learned, which is good for California.

So far, these lawsuits by California have ensured that about $168 billion that Trump would have cut off instead continued to flow to California. Bonta said that in the 19 cases that have made it in front of a judge so far, he’s succeeded in 17, including winning 13 court orders directly blocking Trump’s “illegal actions.”

He’s also secured wins outside of court, including when the U.S. Department of Education recently backed down after freezing school funding weeks before school is set to start. That funding, under threat of a lawsuit, has been restored.

Bonta said that while the state is fighting every lawsuit with rigor, two are personal to him and “remain sort of the most important in terms of what they represent.”

They happen to be the first two suits the state filed, shortly after Trump took office. The first was about birthright citizenship, and Trump’s bid to end it. It’s a case Bonta says is “very meaningful” to him.

Bonta was born in the Philippines and immigrated to the United States when he was 2 months old, living in a trailer in the Central Valley town of La Paz, the home of the United Farm Workers. His parents left their country to avoid martial law as the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos gained power, and worked with civil rights leaders including Cesar Chavez once they settled here.

So it makes sense that an executive order that would leave about 24,500 babies born each year in California without U.S. citizenship hits hard with Bonta.

Bonta, along with attorneys general of several other states, filed that lawsuit the day after Trump took office, in response to an executive order he signed on Inauguration Day. So far, multiple courts have expressed deep skepticism of that order, and the idea that the Constitution and prior Supreme Court rulings should be ignored in favor of Trump’s position.

The second case that Bonta takes personally is a multistate pushback on Trump’s sweeping halt of federal funding. That case put at risk about $3 trillion nationwide, including that $168 billion in California, about a third of the state budget.

Coming up next is a challenge to the deployment of Marines and National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The Trump administration has been quietly removing those soldiers in recent days, perhaps in preparation for asking the court to drop that case, which seems like a loser for them. No troops, no case. We’ll see how it goes in a few days.

“The Marines and the National Guardspeople arrived to quiet streets in L.A.,” Bonta said. “The president has been incredibly, in my view, disrespectful to these patriots. He’s treated them as political pawns.”

The $5 million the state has spent so far on legal fights with Trump is part of $25 million the Legislature set aside earlier this year during a special session. Bonta said that even that will likely not be enough to keep the challenges flowing for the next three and a half years.

Newsom, for his part, is all in and promised that Bonta “will not be in need of resources to do his job.” (And yes, I know it raises his profile for a 2028 presidential run.)

As much as it seems ridiculous that we are setting aside this huge chunk of change for legal fees at a moment when we are facing a budget crisis, the cost of letting Trump run roughshod over our state is much higher. This is money well spent.

Because it’s not just our federal funding at stake, it’s the California dream.

The rapidly evolving nature of AI is a double-edged sword as far as cybersecurity goes. As user-friendly and beneficial as Generative AI (Gen AI) can be, it is also being misused ever more frequently in the form of trickery and manipulation, such as deepfaking the voice, face or name of a person or organisation to elicit payments. By 2027, for example, 17% of total cyberattacks will involve the use of Gen AI, according to Gartner¹. This figure is expected to rise quickly.

While high-profile incidents continue to underscore the scale and sophistication of AI-driven threats, the same technology also equips companies with powerful, proactive tools to defend their critical infrastructure and stay ahead of attackers. For example, detecting patterns to identify intrusions into networks, or spotting new malware and other threats can flag unusual and potentially harmful activity much quicker than any human could.

As a result, AI’s role in cybersecurity has evolved from a technical issue into a strategic business imperative. 

“Cybersecurity is one of the key concerns today, and companies are investing heavily to combat this”
Aaron Chiew, Head of Digital Channels for DBS’ Institutional Banking Group

AI’s dark side: New frontiers in cyber threats

AI AI brings powerful capabilities, but those same capabilities are amplifying cyber risks in three major ways:

• Accelerated processing times – AI can process vast datasets very quickly, enabling scammers and fraudsters to identify exploitable patterns and design new scam tactics with unprecedented efficiency.
• The prevalence and believability of deepfakes – a case in point was in Hong Kong, where deepfake technology was used to impersonate company executives on a video call, successfully convincing an accounts clerk to transfer $25 million to fraudsters.²
• Rapid creation of deceptive or manipulative information in the form of scam content – including automating scam calls, generating realistic looking fake ads, and creating websites that mimic legitimate businesses to trick people into providing sensitive information or making unauthorised payments.

Such threats have far-reaching repercussions, beyond the obvious financial losses. One of the most damaging is the erosion of trust, both within the organisation and with clients.

For example, Chiew noted employees may start to question the authenticity of the calls they receive, uncertain whether they’re truly speaking to the person they believe they are. This growing uncertainty could lead to more verification steps and processes to confirm the legitimacy of communications. “What might have been a quick transaction in the pre-AI world could now take much longer,” he said. “Whether businesses can maintain the same level of operational efficiency going forward is increasingly uncertain.”

The damage doesn’t stop at the office door. Rebuilding trust with customers can take a long time once a cybersecurity incident becomes public knowledge.

Stepping up defences against AI cyber threats

Companies are not standing still in this new era, with the threat from AI now top of mind. For example, 66% of organisations expect AI to have the most significant impact on cybersecurity in the year to come³.

In response, investment in cybersecurity protection measures has risen significantly across various industry sectors. For example, in August 2024, Gartner projected that global end-user spending on information security would grow by 15% this year to $212 billion⁴.

At the same time, companies are reviewing their processes and implementing stricter communication policies with regard to the role of AI tools as an advanced way to quickly spot and respond to dangers, said Chiew. “They are relooking at how they interact with each other in a digital space, to understand how they implement these cybersecurity protection measures safely so the current processes can run smoothly.”

This is triggering action such as more defined data protection policies in terms of collection and storage, along with stricter guidelines for using social media, plus regular penetration testing of systems and infrastructure.

Turning cyber risk into operational resilience

Companies are at different stages of their cybersecurity journey, but in all cases a clear and structured path to protection is essential.

According to Chiew, early-stage companies should start with the basics:

1. Verify all requests carefully

Always double-check the credibility of requests received by email – especially those involving sensitive financial changes. For instance, if an employee requests a payroll update or a supplier emails to change bank details, confirm the request by calling back using a verified number on record.

2. Audit your internal processes

Regularly review internal workflows to identify weak points that could be exploited through human error or fraud. Even small procedural gaps can open the door to cyber threats.

For mature-stage companies, the key is to strengthen and stress-test:

1. Invest in penetration testing

Engage cybersecurity professionals or specialist agencies to conduct penetration testing and simulate attacks. This helps uncover vulnerabilities in systems, processes, or infrastructure before attackers do.

2. Continuously monitor and upgrade systems

Periodically review your infrastructure and security protocols to stay ahead of evolving threats. As Chiew warns: “It only takes a single loophole or gap – and for scammers, finding and exploiting these gaps is a full-time job.”

Explore DBS’ resources for businesses to protect against scams: https://go.dbs.com/ProtectYourBusiness

Many Israelis are in shock after the country’s air defence system failed to intercept Iranian missiles, shattering their sense of security. But Palestinian citizens of Israel say they never felt safe to begin with.

Kenya’s role in global environmental diplomacy is becoming more important than ever. Now that climate change is having the harshest effect on vulnerable countries, Kenya has had its share of opportunity to make its environmental work a kind of soft power—both to safeguard its ecosystems and to improve its reputation abroad. Although Kenya may not be the most industrialized or the most economically developed country, it somehow has become a respected voice in global environmental talks. This isn’t by accident. It’s the fruit of decades of struggle for conservation, international partnership in promotion of conservation works, and recognition of the fact that environmental policy can also be utilized to fund foreign policies.

Kenya has a reputation for great natural beauty. From the savannah of the Maasai Mara to the Aberdare Forest, the country is a homeland to some of the world’s most iconic wildlife and ecosystems. Kenya isn’t just a safari destination, though; it’s also one of the countries that has genuinely done its best to protect the environment. This goes back decades. When the U.N. decided to build its global environmental headquarters, it settled on Nairobi. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) still lies there — an extraordinary tribute and a prestigious mark of Kenya’s old environmental credibility. What is so special about Kenya is not the biodiversity itself, but the fact that this state considers it to increase its influence and to earn international goodwill. Put differently, besides serving the conventional diplomacy purposes of Kenya, environmental diplomacy also plays a part in the promotion of public diplomacy, namely, as a device for demonstrating the country to other nations as responsible, peaceful, and willing to cooperate on a global scale. Through sustainable development, conservation, and climate justice, by so doing Kenya is not just making a policy statement; it is very deliberately forming views of itself held by other countries and the international institutions.

Over the recent years, this strategy has become more welcomed by the recently elected presidents of Kenya. For instance, President William Ruto has made it obvious that green growth and environmental protection are at the heart of Kenya’s future. He has attended climate conferences such as COP27 and put Kenya in pole position on renewable energy and adaptation to climate change. Already, the country produces more than three-quarters of the electricity from clean sources such as geothermal, wind, and hydropower—a feat very few rich countries can achieve. This clean energy record enables Kenya to talk the talk and walk the walk on its quest to have other countries act on climate. It is in doing this that Kenya will not only enlarge their voice in climate talks but also build confidence from other nations. This is at the heart of its public diplomacy: presenting to the world that it is behaving in good faith and assuming responsibility towards its future and towards the planet’s future. Environmental diplomacy becomes a space for dialogue and trust development and international recognition. It gives Kenya an opportunity to shape policy but still draw investment, tourists, and partnerships.

Simultaneously, Kenya is doing its best to save its environment from the worst consequences of climate change. The country records regular occurrences of drought, floods, and other extreme weather patterns affecting farming, driving people from their homes, and jeopardizing wildlife. In response, Kenya has launched efforts like national tree-planting campaigns, water conservation projects, and climate-smart farming. These actions not only create domestic resilience but also enhance Kenya’s credibility once talks on global standards begin. If a country talks the talk at home, it receives greater respect in the international arena.

One of the most visible examples of Kenya’s environmental diplomacy influencing others was the hosting of the Africa Climate Summit in 2023. Held in Nairobi, the summit gathered several African leaders to harmonize their climate policies and speak as one voice. The issued Nairobi declaration demanded immediate global reforms on climate finance and on the sharing of technologies. Kenya took advantage of this chance to not only determine continental climate action but also use the platform to present itself as a convening power and thought leader on climate policy. Other countries, such as Ethiopia, Rwanda, and South Africa, associated themselves with Kenya, thus showing that environmental diplomacy can lift a country’s regional floor.

Kenya has received massive green investment in the form of partnerships with countries such as Germany and members of the European Union. Among the major green investments is major renewable energy like the Lake Turkana Wind Power Plant. Germany has acknowledged Kenya’s initiative positively; it has provided the latter with technical and financial support to shift towards the use of cleaner energy. Kenya, at the same time, also succeeded in guiding Chinese investment to greener practices. For example, although there are concerns about the environment concerning the Standard Gauge Railway project, Kenya insists on environmental assessments and green standards so that China’s infrastructural deals are more climate aware. Kenya’s relationship with the United States has also been enhanced through cooperation in the environment. The U.S., via USAID and other bodies, has supported initiatives covering such areas as wildlife conservation, clean energy, and even climate-smart agriculture. This environmental partnership has enhanced Kenya’s image as a reliable friend in East Africa; they have opened more diplomatic and economic doors.

Kenya’s environmental credibility makes bridges for it both to the Western countries and also to the Global South. Through the active promotion of climate justice, particularly at times of significant climate confabulations such as COP27, Kenya has become a voice for the rest of the developing countries that suffer the effects of climate on them. This was evident in Kenya’s support for the establishment of a “Loss and Damage” fund that compensates the vulnerable countries—a call that was later adopted. Kenya is also diversifying its external cooperation from the traditional Western powers. It is collaborating with countries like India and Brazil and other emerging economies to jointly develop green economies. This spreads out Kenya’s alternatives, enhances its diplomatic clout, and argues for a more multipolar cooperation in climate leadership. Once more, this fits into its public diplomacy, as that makes Kenya a welcoming and collaborating nation ready to collaborate with many partners towards common environmental interests. Finally, Kenya’s environmental diplomacy is not only about savages from forests but also about wildlife and carbon emission cutting—it is all about the influence.

Kenya has managed to turn around its environmental activities into instruments of foreign policy and public diplomacy. Involving heavy nations such as Germany, China, the U.S., and Africa’s regional partners, Kenya is defining how other governments see climate justice, clean energy, and sustainable development. It is fighting for global reforms, setting the examples, organizing major summits, and appealing for justice on behalf of developing nations. Kenya’s green leadership is not only doing its environment good; it is a calculated policy to shape global discussions, draw other nations to its angle on climate, and gain respect, confidence, and collaboration in the world. In a nutshell, Kenya’s environmental diplomacy is about transforming the international agenda and (not by force but rather by the values, vision, and responsibility) demonstrating that even the midsized African nation can lead the world.

Tottenham midfielder Yves Bissouma has thanked manager Ange Postecoglou for protecting the squad amid their disappointing season, describing him like “a dad or uncle for us”.

Spurs are 17th in the Premier League table with one game remaining and have suffered 25 defeats across all competitions – their joint-highest since the 1991-92 season.

They have an opportunity to salvage their season with the Europa League final against Manchester United on Wednesday, and Mali midfielder Bissouma says the relationship between the players and the manager has remained strong throughout the season.

“It’s never changed, never changed. We have a good relationship,” Bissouma, 28, said of Postecoglou.

“He’s like a dad or uncle for us. He’s always trying to make us understand what he really wants.

“For us, he’s Ange, he’s him. He’s got his idea. He’s trying to help us every time. He’s always protecting us.”

Bissouma added that Postecoglou’s style was difficult to grasp at the beginning of his tenure in 2023, but he said the Australian has never put any blame on the players.

Injuries have plagued Tottenham’s season but they were boosted by the return of captain Son Heung-min in Friday’s defeat by Aston Villa.

They beat AZ Alkmaar, Eintracht Frankfurt and Bodo/Glimt to set up the European final against fellow Premier League strugglers United.

Bissouma was briefly suspended by Spurs at the beginning of the season after footage appeared to show the midfielder inhaling laughing gas, an incident which he said he did not want to talk about but is “still learning” from.

“Of course there’s more to come [from me]. We are always here for learning, I’m still learning,” he said.

“This season has been hard for me because I didn’t play much.

“The only thing I know is you have to work hard and never give up and be ready when your team needs you. That’s what I’m always trying to do.

“We know what we have to do. We have to win this cup because for us it’s really important.

“As a player, it’s not coming every season. For the club, for the fans, it’s something special.”