For a historian who writes about war, Rick Atkinson is surprisingly optimistic. The Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former journalist — who recently released the second volume in a trilogy of books about the American Revolution — believes that the bedrock of American democracy is solid enough to withstand any assaults on its founding principles.
As the guest of honor at a Sunday night dinner sponsored by the Library Foundation of Los Angeles as part of its biennial Literary Feasts fundraiser, Atkinson was the most upbeat person at the event, which took place just before Election Day. Speaking to about 18 guests gathered around two circular tables carefully laid out on the back patio at the home of fellow writers and hosts Meenakshi and Liaquat Ahamed, Atkinson buoyed the flagging spirits of those certain that the country was currently dangling on the precipice of disaster at the hands of the Trump administration.
Book lovers attend a Literary Feast dinner featuring Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson at the home of writers Meenakshi and Liaquat Ahamed.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
“We’re the beneficiaries of an enlightened political heritage handed down to us from that founding generation, and it includes strictures on how to divide power and keep it from concentrating in the hands of authoritarians who think primarily of themselves,” Atkinson said with the cheery aplomb of a man who has spent the bulk of his time burrowing deep inside archives filled with harrowing stories of the darkest days the world has ever seen. “We can’t let that slip away. We can’t allow it to be taken away, and we can’t allow ourselves to forget the hundreds of thousands who’ve given their lives to affirm and sustain it over the past 250 years.”
The questions and conversation that followed Atkinson’s rousing speech about the history of the Revolution — including riveting details about key players like George Washington who Atkinson noted had “remarkably dead eyes” in order to not give away a scintilla of his inner life to curious onlookers — was what the evening’s book-loving guests had come for.
“We’re the beneficiaries of an enlightened political heritage handed down to us from that founding generation,” said Rick Atkinson.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
A total of 40 authors are hosted at salon-style events at 40 houses with more than 750 guests over the course of a single evening, raising more than $2 million for the Library Foundation, which is a separate entity from the public library. Founded in 1992 in the wake of the devastating 1986 fire at downtown’s Central Library, which destroyed more than 400,000 books, the foundation seeks to continue the community-driven mission of the library when funding runs short, including supporting adult education, early literacy programs for children, and services for immigrants and the unhoused.
“I often describe it as the dream-fueling work, the life-changing work,” said Stacy Lieberman, the Library Foundation’s president and chief executive. “Because it’s a lot of the one-on-one support that people will get.”
The Foundation typically raises about $7 million to $8 million a year, with an operating budget of nearly $11 million, so money raised through the Literary Feasts is a significant slice of the funding pie. The feasts began in 1997 and have continued apace every other year since then, featuring a who’s who of literary accomplishment across every genre. Writers past and present include Sue Grafton, Jane Fonda, Ann Patchett, Viet Thanh Nguyen, Abraham Verghese, Scott Turow and Michael Connelly.
Dinner hosts fund the events themselves — no small outlay considering the lavish offerings.
Guests were served steak with roasted carrots, turnips and potatoes.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
The Ahameds delighted guests with a tangy grapefruit and greens salad, followed by tender steak with roasted carrots, turnips and potatoes; a dessert of hot apple tart à la mode drizzled with caramel sauce; and plenty of crisp red and white wine. Both hosts are literary luminaries in their own right: Liaquat, a former investment manager, won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for history for his book “Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World” and Meenakshi recently published “Indian Genius: The Meteoric Rise of Indians in America.”
The couple travels in bookish circles and enjoys hosting salons at their home, including one earlier this year in support of New Yorker political columnist Susan Glasser and her husband, New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker. As friends of Atkinson, the Ahameds did their part to introduce him, and later tried their best to entice him to stop taking questions and eat his dinner.
The guest of honor could not be persuaded. There was too much to say. “The Fate of the Day,” which explores the bloody middle years of the Revolution from 1777 to 1780, was released in April, and Atkinson has spent the past eight months touring and speaking on panels with documentarian Ken Burns to promote Burns’ six-part documentary series “The American Revolution,” which premieres Nov. 16 on PBS.
Atkinson is a featured speaker in the series and has been involved with it for about four years.
The dinner featuring Rick Atkinson was one of 40 taking place across town that evening. The events raised $2 million for the Library Foundation of Los Angeles.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
The week before the Literary Feast, Atkinson and Burns spoke to members of Congress in Washington, D.C., and also screened a 40-minute clip at Mount Vernon where Atkinson discussed Washington’s unique talents as a general.
“I’ve seen the whole thing several times and it’s fantastic,” Atkinson said of the 12-hour film. “It’s as you would expect: beautifully filmed, wonderfully told, great narrative.”
The country is now more than four months into its semiquincentennial, which Atkinson joked “sounds like a medical procedure,” but is actually the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. It’s well known that Trump is planning a splashy party, with festivities and commemorations intensifying over the next eight months, culminating in a grand celebration in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2026.
Rick Atkinson’s book “The Fate of the Day,” which explores the bloody middle years of the Revolution from 1777 to 1780, was released in April.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
“My hope is that as a country, we use the opportunity to reflect on those basic questions of who we are, where we came from, what our forebears believed and what they were willing to die for,” said Atkinson. “I’m optimistic because I’m a historian, because I know our history. No matter how grim things seem in 2025, we have faced grimmer times in the past, existential threats of the first order, starting with the Revolution.”
The politically deflated might also consider World War II — the subject of Atkinson’s Liberation Trilogy — the second volume of which won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for history. The writer knows his stuff. Guests — and readers — take heart.
This November marks 108 years since the Balfour Declaration, a promise written in London by men who had never walked the soil of Palestine. Authored by Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary at the time and signed on 2 November 1917, it became the seed of a new state and the undoing of another people. For the Jewish world, it offered recognition after centuries of exile. For Palestinians, it marked the beginning of erasure.
To fully grasp its significance and the controversies surrounding it, it is essential to understand three key concepts that underpin the narrative: Zionism, antisemitism, and Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism. These terms not only illuminate the motivations behind the declaration but also help to elucidate the subsequent century of strife in the region.
Zionism: A Response to Antisemitism in the Quest for a Jewish Homeland
The Balfour Declaration did not emerge from nowhere. It came from fear, exile, and the slow death of faith in Europe’s conscience. In 1882, Leon Pinsker, a Jewish physician, wrote Auto-Emancipation after watching mobs tear through Jewish towns in Russia. Houses burned. Families fled. The pogroms of 1881 ended any illusion that Jews could ever belong in Europe. Pinsker saw what others refused to see: no law, no revolution, no education could protect a people the world had already decided to keep apart.
Safety would come only through self-determination, through land rather than tolerance. A generation later, Theodor Herzl carried that truth into politics through the Dreyfus Affair, when a Jewish French officer was condemned for a crime he did not commit, stripping away Europe’s mask of enlightenment. Even in Paris, the supposed capital of reason, antisemitism ruled the crowd. Watching from Vienna, Herzl understood what Pinsker had already warned: emancipation without equality is another form of captivity. Herzl built what Pinsker imagined. He turned despair into movement, organisation, and speech. Through the Zionist Congresses, he tried to make safety tangible. He pleaded with ministers and kings, searched for land across the globe that could hold both memory and survival. He even wrote to the Ottoman Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, for a homeland in Palestine. He refused.
Still, Herzl kept going. For him, it was not about conquest but about the right to live without permission. By 1917, when Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, Europe’s so-called “Jewish question”, a term used in European discourse to discuss the integration, segregation, or expulsion of Jews, had already revealed the sickness at its core. To Jews, it was a plea for existence. To the imperial powers, it was a strategy, another chance to extend control into the Ottoman world. One side sought a home. The other saw an opportunity. Between them, a promise was made that would change the fate of a land neither side fully understood.
Orientalism and Imperial Hubris
The Balfour Declaration was not only a promise; it was an act of power. Edward Said’s idea of Orientalism helps us see it for what it was, a colonial document disguised as moral duty. Britain spoke of creating a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, yet never paused to ask what that meant for those already living there. In its language, Palestine became an empty space waiting to be claimed, not a land of families, farmers, and memory.
The indigenous Arab population was reduced to a single phrase, “non-Jewish communities,” stripped of name, voice, and history. They were spoken about, not spoken to. It turned people into categories, presence into absence. That is the logic of Orientalism: to see the East not as a living world, but as material to be moulded by Western power and imagination. It is a way of thinking that empties lands of their people and people of their history.
British Strategic Interests and French Complicity
The arrogance that engineered the Balfour Declaration was rooted in Britain’s hunger for power. Behind its moral language lay a simple aim: control. The declaration was issued in the chaos of the First World War, when the British imperial power was fighting not only for victory but for territory. Palestine, with its trade routes and proximity to the Suez Canal, became part of a larger chessboard. The British saw the region not as a motherland for its people but as a prize to be managed.
Diplomacy and Dispossession
The Sykes-Picot treaty had already shown the pattern. Britain and France distributed the Arab world in secret, drawing borders that cut through language and kinship. These lines were not meant to unite but to divide and rule. The Balfour Declaration followed the same logic. It decided the fate of a land without asking its people. In London, it was called diplomacy. In Palestine, it became dispossession. For European Jews, it brought a fragile hope after generations of fear. They saw it as recognition, a long-awaited right to safety and belonging. For Palestinians, the same words felt like a sentence. Their land was discussed in foreign rooms, their future sealed in other people’s languages. What gave one people deliverance took away another’s birthplace. From that moment came a century of struggle. Two people, bound to the same soil, were caught in a story written by the colonial power.
Empire’s Shadow
The promise made to the Zionists through the Balfour Declaration exposed a truth that the imperial power could never admit. Western powers spoke of liberty while deciding who was human enough to deserve it. Their idea of freedom had borders. Beyond Europe, it turned into permission: granted, withdrawn, and traded according to interest. In that imagination, Palestine was stripped of its reality. It ceased to be a land of people and became a metaphor, a stage on which Europe could perform its moral ambitions. The men who wrote the declaration did not see villages, harvests, or prayer calls at dawn. They saw space, something to be promised, parcelled, and redeemed through the colonial idea of moral duty. The Balfour Declaration was more than policy. It was philosophy turned into power, the belief that history could be rewritten without the consent of those who lived it.
The Paradox of Liberation
The result was a century of grief, exile, and resistance that still shapes the region’s every breath. Theodor Herzl’s dream began in anguish. He wanted a shelter for Jews who had none, safety after centuries of persecution. His longing was human and urgent. But like many who lived under colonial rule, he saw the world through its gaze. In The Jewish State, Herzl wrote of building a homeland that would stand as a frontier of civilisation in what he saw as a backward East. This idea mirrored the Orientalist belief that the East was lesser, waiting to be corrected by the West. Herzl used that language to win Europe’s approval, presenting Zionism as a cause aligned with the imperial project. It revealed a deeper paradox: a movement born from the search for safety, adopting the very logic that had long denied it to others. The legacy of that choice lives on. Liberation cannot grow from someone else’s domination, and no people can find peace by inheriting the instruments of colonial power.
Revisiting Said’s Themes
Edward Said’s ideas on Orientalism help reveal what lay beneath the Balfour Declaration. He showed how the colonial system justified itself by turning the East into an object of control, stripping people of voice and history so that their land could be claimed in the name of development. The declaration was one such act. It spoke the language of promise but was written in the logic of empire. Palestine and its people disappeared behind the visions of those who believed they understood the region better than those who lived in it. Through that document, Britain set two peoples on a path of collision. What began as a political statement became a century of exile, fear, and mistrust. For Palestinians, the realisation of Balfour’s promise led to the Nakba of 1948, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes, their lives suspended between memory and survival. That wound never closed. Today’s war in Gaza is not separate from that history. It is its continuation.
Conclusion
The legacy of the Balfour Declaration shows how imperial power reshapes entire worlds. It reminds us how Western ambitions, guided by power and wrapped in Orientalist myths about “the East,” can alter the fate of nations for generations. To confront what followed, one must begin with understanding, not slogans. Real peace requires more than diplomacy; it needs a philosophical honesty about history itself. The prejudices that shaped a century of Western policy, the habit of deciding for others, of seeing one people’s freedom as another’s threat, must be broken
Peace will only come when we step out of Balfour’s shadow. Each home destroyed leaves its trace; each life taken leaves a silence that others now carry. The wound belongs to both. Peace is not a ceremony. It is a choice made in the smallest moments: to see, to stay, to listen. When that choice is shared, the land may grow still. Not with conquest, but with recognition.
Question Time host Fiona Bruce was forced to apologise after making a huge blunder about Andrew during Thursday’s live broadcast, following the ex royal’s title removal
23:32, 30 Oct 2025Updated 01:38, 31 Oct 2025
Fiona Bruce apologised after making a blunder about Prince Andrew
The error occurred while the panel discussed the King’s decision to officially strip his brother of his remaining Royal privileges, prompting immediate corrections from guests and chuckles from the studio audience. She said: “I should remind everyone that Prince Andrew has, of course, always protested his innocence and denied the allegations.”
Matthew Goodwin and other panellists quickly jumped in to correct her, emphasising “it’s just Andrew” before she raised her hands and admitted: “Of course, it’s Andrew. Forgive me, force of habit,” reports the Express.
She continued: “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has always denied the allegations against him and the King has said are deemed necessary notwithstanding the fact that he has continued to deny the allegations against him.”
The blunder came just hours after Buckingham Palace announced that King Charles had officially removed Andrew’s titles and honours, completing the final stage in his brother’s withdrawal from Royal duties.
In a statement, the Palace revealed a formal notice had been issued to Andrew requiring him to give up his lease at the Royal Lodge in Windsor, where he has resided for over two decades. The monarch’s decision comes after growing calls to remove the Duke from the property following continued public outrage over his connections to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and claims made by Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, which Andrew steadfastly refutes.
Officials confirmed the 64 year old will relocate to accommodation on the Sandringham Estate, with his future housing costs met privately by the King. The Palace stated that “Their Majesties’ thoughts and utmost sympathies remain with the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.
“Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.”
Meanwhile, Fiona was compelled to intervene and halt a heated clash between writer Matthew Goodwin and Labour’s Lisa Nandy.
The duo clashed during a heated debate about illegal immigration and crime, with Goodwin contending that increasing migration figures had led to “shocking cases” of violence nationwide and asserting the system was “broken and in urgent need of reform.”
Nandy immediately fired back, labelling his remarks “outrageous” and claiming he was “trying to create distrust, division and fear.” The row rapidly escalated, prompting Bruce to intervene with raised hands, calling out over the commotion: “Matt, wait one second – both of you wait one second! If you talk at the same time, no one can hear anything.”
This week voters across California received a suspicious text message saying they’d failed to turn in their ballots for the Nov. 4 statewide special election on redistricting.
The message may appear official. It includes the voter’s name and address and links to an official website providing information on early voting and vote-by-mall ballot drop-off locations.
But it’s not from the state, and officials urge caution.
The office of the California secretary of state received numerous reports from voters of “inaccurate text messages from Ballot Now,” according to a news release.
“This has caused voters to believe their returned ballots have not been received or processed by county elections officials,” Shirley Weber, secretary of state, stated in the release. “Let me be clear: Ballot Now is not in any way affiliated with the California Office of the Secretary of State.”
Weber’s office told The Times it doesn’t know the intent behind the Ballot Now text messages, and “we are trying to get to the bottom of it.”
Ballot Now did not respond to The Times’ request for comment.
Where voters can get trustworthy answers to their elections questions
Voters can find accurate information on elections and voting at the state secretary’s website or at their county election office. The secretary’s website includes the complete list of county election offices.
Questions that the secretary of state’s website can assist with include:
How do I check my voter status? By entering some personal information, you can see if you are registered to vote, where you’re registered, and check that your political party and language preference are correct at the website’s voter status page.
How do I track my ballot? You can sign up to track your ballot through the state’s online site Ballottrax.
By signing up on Ballottrax, voters receive automatic updates when their county elections office: mails their ballot to them, receives their ballot, counts their ballot, or when the office has any issues with the ballot.
Updates are available in 10 languages — including Spanish, Japanese and Tagalog — and you can choose to be texted, emailed or called with voice alert updates.
If you believe you’re the victim of election fraud or have witnessed a violation of the California Elections Code, you can submit a complaint form or call the secretary of state’s office.
Fill out an online form, download a PDF version of the form and mail it, or call the office — English speakers can call (916) 657-2166 or (800) 345-8683; Spanish speakers can call (800) 232-8682.
The physical form can be mailed to the California Secretary of State Elections Division at 1500 11th St., 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 or faxed to (916) 653-3214.
Los Angeles County residents are encouraged to call the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s call center with any questions or concerns they have, said Mike Sanchez, spokesperson for the office.
The registrar of voters can be reached at (800) 815-2666, and the number for voter center information is (800) 815-2666; choose option No. 1.
PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s elections in recent years have been relatively free of problems, and verified cases of voter fraud are exceedingly rare.
That’s not stopping Republicans from pushing for major changes in the way the state conducts its voting.
Maine is one of two states with election-related initiatives on the Nov. 4 ballot but is putting the most far-reaching measure before voters. In Texas, Republicans are asking voters to make clear in the state constitution that people who are not U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote.
Maine’s Question 1 centers on requiring voter ID, but is more sweeping in nature. The initiative, which has the backing of an influential conservative group in the state, also would limit the use of drop boxes to just one per municipality and create restrictions for absentee voting even as the practice has been growing in popularity.
Voters in both states will decide on the measures at a time when President Trump continues to lie about widespread fraud leading to his loss in the 2020 presidential election and make unsubstantiated claims about future election-rigging, a strategy that has become routine during election years. Republicans in Congress and state legislatures have been pushing for proof of citizenship requirements to register and vote, but with only limited success.
Maine’s initiative would impose voter ID, restrict absentee voting
The Maine proposal seeks to require voters to produce a voter ID before casting a ballot, a provision that has been adopted in several other states, mostly those controlled by Republicans. In April, Wisconsin voters enshrined that state’s existing voter ID law into the state’s constitution.
Question 1 also would eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, and limit the number of drop boxes, among other changes.
Absentee voting is popular in Maine, where Democrats control the Legislature and governor’s office and voters have elected a Republican and an independent as U.S. senators. Nearly half of voters there used absentee voting in the 2024 presidential election.
Gov. Janet Mills is one of many Democrats in the state speaking out against the proposed changes.
“Whether you vote in person or by absentee ballot, you can trust that your vote will be counted fairly,” Mills said. “But that fundamental right to vote is under attack from Question 1.”
Proponents of the voter ID push said it’s about shoring up election security.
“There’s been a lot of noise about what it would supposedly do, but here’s the simple truth: Question 1 is about securing Maine’s elections,” said Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, a proponent of the measure.
A key supporter of the ballot initiative is Dinner Table PAC, a conservative group in the state. Dinner Table launched Voter ID for ME, which has raised more than $600,000 to promote the initiative. The bulk of that money has come from the Republican State Leadership Committee, which advocates for Republican candidates and initiatives at the state level through the country. Save Maine Absentee Voting, a state group that opposes the initiative, has raised more than $1.6 million, with the National Education Assn. as its top donor.
The campaigning for and against the initiative is playing out as the state and FBI are investigating how dozens of unmarked ballots meant to be used in this year’s election arrived inside a woman’s Amazon order. The secretary of state’s office says the blank ballots, still bundled and wrapped in plastic, will not be used in the election.
Texas voters consider a citizenship requirement
In Texas, voters are deciding whether to add wording to the state constitution that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and other backers said would guarantee that noncitizens will not be able to vote in elections there. State and federal laws already make it illegal for noncitizens to vote.
Thirteen states have made similar changes to their constitutions since North Dakota first did in 2018. Proposed constitutional amendments are on the November 2026 ballot in Kansas and South Dakota.
The measures have so far proven popular, winning approval with an average of 72% of the vote.
“I think it needs to sweep the nation,” said Republican state Rep. A.J. Louderback, who represents a district southwest of Houston. “I think we need to clean this mess up.”
Voters already have to attest they are U.S. citizens when they register, and voting by noncitizens, which is rare, is punishable as a felony and can lead to deportation.
Louderback and other supporters of such amendments point to policies in at least 20 communities across the country that allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, though none are in Texas. They include Oakland and San Francisco, where noncitizens can cast ballots in school board races if they have children in the public schools, the District of Columbia, and several towns in Maryland and Vermont.
Other states, including Kansas, have wording in their constitutions putting a citizenship requirement in affirmative terms: Any U.S. citizen over 18 is eligible to vote. In some states, amendments have rewritten the language to make it more of a prohibition: Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.
The article on voting in the Texas Constitution currently begins with a list of three “classes of persons not allowed to vote”: people under 18, convicted felons and those “who have been determined mentally incompetent by a court.” The Nov. 4 amendment would add a fourth, “persons who are not citizens of the United States.”
Critics say the proposed changes are unnecessary
Critics say the Maine voter ID requirement and Texas noncitizen prohibition are solutions in search of a problem and promote a longstanding conservative GOP narrative that noncitizen voting is a significant problem, when in fact it’s exceedingly rare.
In Texas, the secretary of state’s office recently announced it had found the names of 2,700 “potential noncitizens” on its registration rolls out of the state’s nearly 18.5 million registered voters.
Veronikah Warms, staff attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said pushing the narrative encourages discrimination and stokes fear of state retaliation among naturalized citizens and people of color. Her group works to protect the rights of those groups and immigrants and opposes the proposed amendment.
“It just doesn’t serve any purpose besides furthering the lie that noncitizens are trying to subvert our democratic process,” she said. “This is just furthering a harmful narrative that will make it scarier for people to actually exercise their constitutional right.”
In Maine, approval of Question 1 would most likely make voting more difficult overall, said Mark Brewer, chair of the University of Maine political science department. He added that claims of widespread voter fraud are unsupported by evidence.
“The data show that the more hoops and restrictions you put on voting, the harder it is to vote and the fewer people will vote,” he said.
Whittle and Hanna write for the Associated Press. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan.
L.A. County is bringing on a retired judge to tackle a $4-billion question: How can officials ensure that real victims are compensated from the biggest sex abuse payout in U.S. history — and not people who made up their claims?
The county has tapped Daniel Buckley, a former presiding judge of the county’s Superior Court, to vet cases brought by Downtown LA Law Group after The Times found nine people represented by the firm who said they were paid to sue the county by recruiters. Four of the plaintiffs said they were told to fabricate the claims.
Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, has denied paying any of its roughly 2,700 clients, but agreed to cover the cost of Buckley to examine their cases in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement.
In a letter sent to clients Monday, Andrew Morrow, the lead attorney in the firm’s sex abuse cases, noted there are “additional safeguards” and “vetting protocols” underway following recent reports of paid clients, but did not specifically mention the new judge.
“While we categorically deny this ever occurred, we take these matters seriously and welcome the implementation of additional review procedures to ensure false claims do not move forward in the process,” wrote Morrow, the chairman of the firm’s mass torts department.
On Oct. 17, Dawyn Harrison, the top attorney for the county, requested an investigation from the State Bar based on The Times’ reporting, saying she believed some of the settlement would flow to “the pockets of the plaintiffs’ bar” rather than victims.
“The actions described in the article, if true, are despicable and run afoul of ethical duties of attorneys and criminal law in California,” Harrison wrote in a letter to Erika Doherty, the bar’s interim executive director. “I request the State Bar investigate all of the potential fraudulent and illegal activities described in this letter.”
DTLA declined to comment last week. The firm has previously said it works “hard to present only meritorious claims and have systems in place to help weed out false or exaggerated allegations.”
The bulk of the claims will be reviewed by retired Superior Court Judge Louis Meisinger, who will decide awards between $100,000 and $3 million.
The amount will depend on the severity of the abuse, the impact on the victim’s life and the amount of evidence provided, according to the allocation protocol. The money will be paid out over five years unless the victim opts to get a one-time check for $150,000.
If the judges find cases they believe are fraudulent, the county can either resolve them through a $50,000 payment or get them removed from the settlement. The county saves money in that case, but runs the risk of the plaintiff continuing to litigate and landing a larger payout from a jury trial.
It’s unusual — but not unheard of — for a neutral arbiter to be appointed to investigate cases from a specific firm in a massive settlement.
Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Barbara Houser, who is overseeing the $2.4-billion trust for victims of the Boy Scouts of Americas sex abuse cases, said last month that she had asked for an “independent third party” to vet the claims brought by Slater Slater Schulman after finding a pattern of “irregularities” and “procedural and factual problems” among its plaintiffs.
Slater Slater Schulman, headquartered in New York City, represents roughly 14,000 victims in the Boy Scouts case. It also represents roughly 3,700 people in the L.A. County settlement — the most of any firm, by far.
On Oct. 14, Lawrence Friedman, a former Department of Justice attorney who headed up the federal watchdog office for the bankruptcy system, spearheaded a blistering motion asking Houser to reduce Slater’s attorneys fees, which he estimated were at least $20 million. Friedman is seeking to push them out of the case, alleging the firm had “run amok” and “dangled the prospect of lottery sized payouts” in front of clients without vetting them.
“The SLATER law firm has little if any quality controls in place to validate the information in the 14,600 claims other than validating that they were real people who had filed the claim,” the motion stated. “…What SLATER has effectively created is simply a ‘Claims Machine’ designed to spit out huge wads of cash for itself!”
Clifford Robert, an outside attorney who is representing Slater Slater Schulman in its issues with the Boy Scouts cases, said the firm’s priority “has been and always will be securing justice on behalf of sexual abuse victims.”
Friedman, who has been outspoken about misconduct by mass tort attorneys in bankruptcy cases, said he now represents dozens of former Slater plaintiffs. The ex-clients alleged the firm waited more than a year before informing them their cases were undergoing additional vetting and their payments would be delayed. The firm told them this September about the outside investigation, which began in June 2024, according to an email attached to the Oct. 14 motion.
“We now agree that there are procedural and factual problems in some of our claim submissions to the Trust,” the three partners of Slater Slater Schulman wrote in a joint email to clients on Sept. 9. “Because of the problematic claims, we have agreed that all of our claim submissions to the Trust be vetted by an independent third party.”
Both judges who will vet the L.A. County sex abuse payouts work for Signature Resolution, a firm that specializes in resolving legal disputes outside the courtroom with a heavyweight roster of former judges and lawyers. Litigation management company BrownGreer will be the settlement administration arm, responsible for making sure the checks go out, liens are settled and the judges have the records they need from the 11,000 plaintiffs.
An additional 414 sex abuse claims that led to a separate $828-million settlement announced Oct. 17 will be reviewed by a different judge with the money distributed over the course of three years. That settlement, which involves claims from three firms that opted to litigate separately from the rest, is expected to receive final approval from the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
The county will give the first tranche of money to the fund administered by BrownGreer in January, though it’s unclear when that money will trickle down to victims. The additional fraud review could slow the process as the judges will need to decide what all 11,000 of the claims are worth before any of the money goes out.
“They should have had their duck in the rows at the beginning,” said Tammy Rogers, 56, who sued over sex abuse at a county-run shelter for children in 2022.
Rogers said she has seen her bank account depleted recently following a shoulder surgery and her daughter’s funeral. She said she’s grown skeptical the settlement money will come her way anytime soon after reading the recent coverage of plaintiffs who say they were paid to sue.
“They should have known people were going to come out of the woodwork and do stuff like this,” she said. “They should have taken this time in the beginning, not in the end.”
Tammy Rogers, one of the plaintiffs who sued L.A. County over alleged abuse at MacLaren Hall, says she’s worried the extra vetting may delay payments to victims.
(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)
The number of claims has fluctuated in recent months as some of the firms have dismissed cases from plaintiffs who died, lost interest in their lawsuit, or stopped responding. Since the Times initial investigation ran on Oct. 2, DTLA has asked for the dismissal of at least 14 plaintiffs, according to a Times analysis of court records.
On Oct. 17, the firm asked a judge to dismiss three people in a 63-plaintiff lawsuit filed April 29 who told The Times they’d been paid to sue the county for sex abuse.
Quantavia Smith, whose case DTLA asked to be dismissed without prejudice, previously told The Times a recruiter paid her to join the litigation, but said she had a legitimate sex abuse claim against the county. She said the recruiter drove her to the office of a downtown law firm and then gave her $200.
The firm also asked to dismiss the cases of Nevada Barker and Austin Beagle with prejudice, meaning the cases can’t be refilled. The Times reported this month that the Texan couple were told to make up allegations of abuse at a county-run juvenile hall and provided a script by someone inside the firm’s downtown office. Both said they left the firm with $100.
The Times could not reach the alleged recruiter for comment.
Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker say they were unwittingly ushered into a fraudulent lawsuit against L.A. County filed by Downtown LA Law Group.
(Joe Garcia/For The Times)
On the morning the story published Oct. 16, Beagle and Barker each received an automated email from Vinesign, a legal e-signature site, telling them Downtown LA Law was requesting their signature on a document.
“I wish to affirm my claim that I was sexually abused in a Los Angeles County juvenile facility, and I was never paid to bring this claim forward,” stated the DTLA declaration, which they were asked to sign under the penalty of perjury.
Both said they did not want to sign as it was not true — and the opposite of what had just been published that morning in The Times. Beagle said the firm called twice that morning to discuss.
“We told them just dismiss it,” said Beagle. “We ain’t talking about it.”
Times assistant data and graphics editor Sean Greene contributed to this report.
Three of the country’s most powerful judges met in Pasadena on Wednesday for a rare conclave that could rewrite the legal framework for President Trump’s expansive deployment of troops to cities across the United States.
The move to flood Los Angeles with thousands of federalized soldiers over the objection of state and local leaders shocked the country back in June. Five months later, such military interventions have become almost routine.
But whether the deployments can expand — and how long they can continue — relies on a novel reading of an obscure subsection of the U.S. code that determines the president’s ability to dispatch the National Guard and federal service members. That code has been under heated debate in courts across the country.
Virtually all of those cases have turned on the 9th Circuit’s decision in June. The judges found that the law in question requires “a great level of deference” to the president to decide when protest flashes into rebellion, and whether boots on the ground are warranted in response.
On Wednesday, the same three judge panel — Jennifer Sung of Portland, Eric D. Miller of Seattle and Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu — took the rare move of reviewing it, signaling a willingness to dramatically rewrite the terms of engagement that have underpinned Trump’s deployments.
“I guess the question is, why is a couple of hundred people engaging in disorderly conduct and throwing things at a building over the course of two days of comparable severity to a rebellion?” said Miller, who was appointed to the bench in Trump’s first term. “Violence is used to thwart the enforcement of federal law all the time. This happens every day.”
The question he posed has riven the judicial system, splitting district judges from appellate panels and the Pacific Coast from the Midwest. Some of Trump’s judicial appointees have broken sharply with their colleagues on the matter, including on the 9th Circuit. Miller and Bennett appear at odds with Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, who expanded on the court’s June ruling in a decision Monday that allowed federalized troops to deploy in Oregon.
Most agreethat the statute itself is esoteric, vague and untested. Unlike the Insurrection Act, which generations of presidents have used to quell spasms of violent domestic unrest, the law Trump invoked has almost no historical footprint, and little precedent to define it.
“It’s only been used once in the history of our country since it was enacted 122 years ago,” California Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt told the court Wednesday.
Attorneys from both sides have turned to legal dictionaries to define the word “rebellion” in their favor, because the statute itself offers no clues.
“Defendants have not put forward a credible understanding of the term ‘rebellion’ in this litigation,” Harbourt told the panel Wednesday. “We’re continuing to see defendants rely on this interpretation across the country and we’re concerned that the breadth of the definition the government has relied on … includes any form of resistance.”
The wiggle room has left courts to lock horns over the most basic facts before them — including whether what the president claims must be provably true.
In the Oregon case, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, called the president’s assertions about a rebellion there “untethered to the facts.”
But a separate 9th Circuit panel overruled her, finding the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to use soldiers domestically.
“The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts,” the court wrote in its Monday decision.
Nelson went further, calling the president’s decision “absolute.”
Upon further review, Sung signaled a shift to the opposite interpretation.
“The court says when the statute gives a discretionary power, that is based on certain facts,” she said. “I don’t see the court saying that the underlying decision of whether the factual basis exists is inherently discretionary.”
That sounded much more like the Midwest’s 7th Circuit decision in the Chicago case, which found that nothing in the statute “makes the President the sole judge of whether these preconditions exist.”
“Political opposition is not rebellion,” the 7th Circuit judges wrote. “A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows.”
The Trump administration’s appeal of that decision is currently before the Supreme Court on the emergency docket.
But experts said even a high court ruling in that case may not dictate what can happen in California — or in New York, for that matter. Even if the justices ruled against the administration, Trump could choose to invoke the Insurrection Act or another law to justify his next moves, an option that he and other officials have repeatedly floated in recent weeks.
The administration has signaled its desire to expand on the power it already enjoys, telling the court Wednesday there was no limit to where troops could be deployed or how long they could remain in the president’s service once he had taken control of them.
“Would it be your view that no matter how much conditions on the ground changed, there would be no ability of the district court or review — in a month, six months, a year, five years — to review whether the conditions still support [deployment]?” Bennett asked.
“Yes,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.
Bennett pressed the point, asking whether under the current law the militia George Washington federalized to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 could “stay called up forever” — a position the government again affirmed.
“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” McArthur said. “The president’s determination of whether the exigency has arisen, that decision is vested in his sole and exclusive discretion.”
BROOKLYN Beckham snubbed a question about his mum Victoria Beckham’s Netflix documentary, amid the family feud.
Her eldest child with husband David is believed to have “quit” the family after he renewed his wedding vows with Nicola Peltz without them.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Brooklyn Beckham snubbed a question about his mum Victoria Beckham’s Netflix documentary, amid the family feudCredit: EPAHer eldest child with husband David is believed to have “quit” the familyCredit: Getty
Brooklyn was notably missing from mum Victoria’s Paris Fashion Week event, where she was supported by her three other children.
He was asked by a Daily Mail reporter how his career as a chef was going, to which he replied: “Good. I’m building Cloud 23, I love it,” referring to his hot sauce brand.
He was then asked: “And what do you think of your mum’s documentary?” but Brooklyn was quick to turn away and walk off at that moment.
Brooklyn didn’t answer the question, and was instead ushered through the crowd at the cooking event.
The Beckham clan looked amazing last week, as they stepped out on the red carpet for Victoria’s new Netflix documentary.
It follows Victoria Beckham, 51, as she navigates her life, running her fashion and beauty empire in the global spotlight.
The global streamer promised exclusive access to her life, her family, and those closest to her.
Victoria dressed for the special occasion in a stunning white ensemble.
She was joined by husband David, sons Romeo and Cruz, daughter Harper and Cruz’s girlfriend Jackie Apostel.
However, Victoria’s eldest son Brooklyn was absent from the red carpet.
Despite this, the former Spice Girls singer reportedly put the family feud to one side to make sure Brooklyn, 26, appeared in the doc.
Sources close to the project revealed that Brooklyn featured in a scene where he helps clear the catwalk after the heavens opened and it poured with rain.
SACRAMENTO — Gubernatorial hopeful Katie Porter said Friday that she mishandled a recent television news interview that called her temperament into question, but explained she felt the reporter’s questioning implied she should cater to President Donald Trump’s supporters.
Porter, an outspoken Democrat and former U.S. House representative from Orange County, said that she was “pushing back on” the reporter’s implication that she needed to be more temperate politically.
“I think Trump is hurting Californians,” said Porter, speaking at the UC Student and Policy Center in Sacramento. “I am not going to sell out our values as a state for some short-term political gain to try and appease people who are still standing and still supporting what this president is doing as he is trampling on our Constitution.”
Porter came under fire last week for snapping at the CBS reporter and threatening to end the interview. A second video has since emerged of Porter cursing at a young staffer who walked behind her during a video conference in 2021.
Porter, who was speaking as part of the policy center’s California Leaders Speaker Series, said she apologized “in real time” to her staffer.
“It was inappropriate,” she said. “I could have done better in that situation and I know that. I really want my staff to understand that I value them.”
After the videos emerged, several of Porter’s rivals criticized her behavior, including former state Controller Betty Yee, who said she should drop out of the race.
Marisa Lagos, a correspondent with KQED radio who moderated Friday’s discussion, asked if Porter felt any of the blow back was unfair, especially given Trump’s mannerisms.
Trump has a long history of belittling or targeting journalists, continually accusing them of being the “enemy of the people” and, during his 2016 presidential campaign, mocking the appearance of a disabled reporter with a congenital joint condition.
“Let me just say, Donald Trump should not be anyone’s standard for anything,” Porter said. “From how to use self-tanner to how to deal with the press, that is not the benchmark.”
Porter said she would work to demonstrate throughout the rest of her campaign that she has the right judgment to serve as governor.
“I think we all know that those were short videos that were clipped, there is always a larger context, but the reality is every second of every minute I am responsible for thinking about how to lead California and do my best,” she said.
Throughout the discussion Friday Porter also shared her support for Proposition 50, a ballot measure that would change congressional district boundaries and likely shift five more seats to Democrats in the U.S House of Representatives. The measure, which will be on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot, was drafted to counteract a redistricting plan in Texas intended to give Republicans more seats.
Lagos asked Porter how she would respond to residents who fear they’re being disenfranchised, especially those from rural areas.
Porter said she grew up in a rural area and wanted rural Californians to feel heard. But she said California was approaching redistricting in a different way than Texas by giving residents the opportunity to vote on it.
“It’s a question being put to each Californian about what they want to do in this political moment,” she said. “Circumstances were one way, and we had one policy, but the world has changed — in light of that, what do you as a Californian want to do about that?”
During a question-and-answer round at Friday’s event, a student referenced legislation on antisemitism and asked for Porter’s thoughts on whether criticizing Israel counted as antisemitism.
Porter said it was a complex issue but that criticizing Israel was not automatically antisemitic.
“There are plenty of people in Israel who criticize Israeli policy,” she said. “There are plenty of people around the world who don’t like Donald Trump and criticize (the United States) all the time. There is a right to criticize policy.”
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter, under fire for recently emerged videos showing her scolding a reporter and swearing at an aide, expressed remorse for her behavior on Tuesday in her first public remarks since the incidents were publicized.
“I think I’m known as someone who’s able to handle tough questions, who’s willing to answer questions,” Porter told Nikki Laurenzo, host of Inside California Politics and anchor on Fox40 in Sacramento. “I want people to know that I really value the incredible work that my staff can do. I think people who know me know I can be tough. But I need to do a better job expressing appreciation for the amazing work my team does.”
Last week, a video emerged of Porter telling a separate television reporter that she doesn’t need the support of the millions of Californians who voted for President Trump, and brusquely threatening to end the interview because the reporter asked follow-up questions. The following day, a second video emerged of Porter telling a young staffer “Get out of my f—ing shot!” while videoconferencing with a member of then-President Biden’s cabinet in 2021.
Porter on Tuesday said that she had apologized to the staffer. She repeatedly sidestepped Laurenzo’s questions about whether other videos could emerge.
“What I can tell you … is that I am taking responsibility for the situation,” Porter said.
Porter’s behavior in the videos underscored long-standing questions about her temperament and high staff turnover while she served in Congress.
The most recent polls showed that Porter held a narrow lead in the competitive race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is serving his second and final term as governor. After the videos emerged last week, several of Porter’s rivals criticized her behavior, including former state Controller Betty Yee, who said she should drop out of the race.
On Tuesday, Yee argued that Porter’s temperament could imperil Democrats’ efforts to pass Proposition 50, the Nov. 4 ballot measure to redraw congressional districts in California to boost their party’s numbers in the House.
Yee, a former vice chair of the state Democratic party, warned that a Republican could potentially win the governor’s race and Democrats could lose the U.S. House of Representatives because of Porter’s “demeanor.”
“I don’t relish picking a fight, and it’s not even a fight,” Yee said during a virtual press conference. “I’m doing what’s best for this party.”
Porter is also expected to address the issue Tuesday night during a virtual forum with the California Working Families Party.
Prior to her statements on Tuesday, Porter had released one statement about the 2021 video, saying, “It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”
The UC Irvine law professor has not responded to multiple interview requests from the Times.
Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Smith reported from Sacramento.
The question caused Lakers coach JJ Redick to say he was “not being combative” with his answer.
Asked if the Lakers are missing opportunities to practice more and build on-court chemistry because of their busy six-game preseason slate, Redick was quick to wonder why reporters were so concerned about the situation.
“You guys are really harping on this,” Redick responded.
So, Redick was asked, is it a thing or is it not a thing?
“I’m not being combative right now,” Redick said. “I just want to acknowledge that you guys, like the last four days, like it’s becoming a little bit obsessive with all these questions about opportunities lost. So, I will answer it again. These are the cards that we were dealt. I sure would like everybody to be healthy.”
Making the most out of the situation, the Lakers held off the Golden State Warriors 126-116 Sunday night at Crypto.com Arena despite not playing with LeBron James (sciatica), Luka Doncic and Marcus Smart (Achilles tendinopathy).
Redick said the plan is for Smart to “get two games [in] this week.”
The Lakers have three remaining preseason games: Tuesday at Phoenix, Wednesday at Las Vegas against the Dallas Mavericks and Friday against the visiting Sacramento Kings — four games over a six-day span.
Redick was reminded that the Lakers as an organization have chosen to play six preseason games — the maximum allowed by the NBA.
“It’s something to be discussed I think going forward,” Redick said. “I think it’s awesome. I really do because we got to play in Palm Springs and I think it’s awesome that we get to play in Vegas and I recognize that there’s Lakers fans all over the world that maybe don’t get the chance to see us play.
“You hope that we can find some sort of balance in the future to get more practice time, less travel time. I’m sure at some point we’ll be one of the teams going overseas, so then that adds another scenario.”
Lakers guard Bronny James, front, and Golden State forward Trayce Jackson-Davis battle for a rebound in the first half Sunday of the Lakers’ 126-116 preseason win at Crypto.com Arena.
(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
Redick did say for training camp purposes, practice tends to be more helpful in team building than preseason games.
“I think more practices would be beneficial,” Redick said. “I do think the exposure to a game situation and playing against an opponent is very beneficial. You don’t have a lot of days anymore and to try to cram six games in there [and] four games in six nights, it’s significantly difficult.”
For Ayton, who was six for eight from the field and had a blocked shot, his joy came from the fans cheering him on. Sure, it was only a preseason game, but Ayton loved the vibe and the positive energy he felt.
It was Ayton’s first time playing at Crypto.com Arena since he signed a two-year, $16.6-million deal with the Lakers.
“It hit me in the whole arena today just hearing the fans and everybody cheering,” Ayton said. “It was kind of an unusual sound other than boos. … It was everybody showing love and welcoming me to L.A. I played so freely and I had a lot of fun.”
A MARRIED At First Sight honeymoon takes a disastrous turn tonight when a bride piles on the pressure days after her wedding.
Reiss and Leisha walked down the aisle on the E4 show last week.
6
Married At First Sight UK viewers will see Reiss and Leisha’s argument in full tonight
6
Reiss snapped after another question from his wife
6
Leisha has been trying to get answers out of Reiss
6
Reiss was left panicking after he met his new wifeCredit: Channel 4
But the painter and decorator, and dental industry marketeer failed to click.
They got off to a bad start at the reception when Leisha pummelled him with questions about his life.
In a preview clip for tonight’s show, Leisha and Reiss fail to see eye-to-eye again as they discuss what the future holds for them.
During a boat trip, Leisha asks her husband: “Do you visualise me in your future?”
But her need for reassurance doesn’t go down well.
An annoyed Reiss throws an epic strop and responds: “I can’t cope! You’re too much.
“I don’t need pressure yet, it’s so early.
“I don’t like it. I know you’re saying you want to see the real me you aint going to find that out over night.
“You know I’m a closed book. If you’re constantly pressuring me you’re just going to keep me closed.”
Leisha replied: “It’s just the lack of questions, it makes me feel you don’t really care about me.
“I know you fancy me. Do you want to know are we going to have a future together.”
He replied: “You want to know do I want a wife, to have kids, to settle down. Yes, yes, yes.”
He then dealt the hammer blow, adding: “I don’t know if that’s what I want with you after knowing you three days.”
Speaking to the camera away from his wife, he later vented: “I can’t believe Leisha just ask me that, is she joking?! F hell.”
AWKWARD RECEPTION
After the pair exchanged their wedding rings and said their vows, the registrar declared: “Leisha and Reiss, it’s my huge pleasure to proudly announce you husband and wife.”
The new couple awkwardly leaned in for two kisses on the cheek before stepping back from one another.
Their guests looked on with confused looks on their faces as they clapped for the pair.
Former Rep. Katie Porter’s gubernatorial prospects are uncertain in the aftermath of the emergence of two videos that underscore long-swirling rumors that the Irvine Democrat is thin-skinned and a short-tempered boss.
How Porter responds in coming days could determine her viability in next year’s race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to both Democratic and Republican political strategists.
“Everyone’s had a bad day. Everyone’s done something that they wouldn’t want broadcast, right? You don’t want your worst boss moment, your worst employment moment, your worst personal moment, captured on camera,” said Christine Pelosi, a prominent Democratic activist from the Bay Area and a daughter of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“I definitely think that it’s a question of what comes next,” said Pelosi, who had endorsed former Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis before she dropped out of the race.
Porter, the 2026 gubernatorial candidate who has a narrow edge in the polls, came under scrutiny this week when a recording emerged of her brusquely threatening to end a television interview after growing increasingly irritated by the reporter’s questions.
After CBS reporter Julie Watts asked Porter what she would say to the nearly 6.1 million Californians who voted for President Trump in 2024, the UC Irvine law professor responded that she didn’t need their support if she competed against a Republican in the November 2026 runoff election.
After Watts asked follow-up questions, Porter accused Watts of being “unnecessarily argumentative,” held up her hands towards the reporter’s face and later said, “I don’t want this all on camera.”
The following day, a 2021 video emerged of Porter berating a staffer who corrected her about electric vehicle information she was discussing with a member of the Biden administration. “Get out of my f— shot!” Porter said to the young woman after she came into view in the background of the video conference. Porter’s comments in the video were first reported by Politico.
Porter did not respond to multiple interview requests. She put out a statement about the 2021 video, saying: “It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”
Several Porter supporters voiced support for her after the videos went viral on social media and became the focus of national news coverage as well as programs such as “The View.”
“In this critical moment in our country, we don’t need to be polite, go along to get along, establishment politicians that keep getting run over by the opposition,” wrote Peter Finn and Chris Griswold, co-chairs of Teamsters California, which has endorsed Porter and represents 250,000 workers in the state. “We need strong leaders like Katie Porter that are willing to call it like it is and stand up and fight for everyday Californians.”
EMILYs List, which supports Democratic women who back abortion rights, and Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who won the congressional seat Porter left to unsuccessfully run for U.S. Senate last year, are among those who also released statements supporting the embattled Democratic candidate.
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the influential California Labor Federation, alluded to growing rumors in the state’s Capitol before the videos emerged that powerful Democratic and corporate interests dislike Porter and have been trying to coax another Democrat into the race.
“The only thing that is clear after the past few days is that Katie Porter’s willingness to take on powerful interests has the status quo very afraid and very motivated,” Gonzalez said in a statement.
There has been a concerted effort to urge Sen. Alex Padilla into the race. The San Fernando Valley Democrat has said he won’t make a decision until after voters decide Proposition 50, the redistricting proposal he and other state Democratic leaders are championing, on the November ballot.
A pivotal indicator of Porter’s plans is whether she takes part in two events that she is scheduled to participate in next week — a virtual forum Tuesday evening with the California Working Families Party and a live UC Student and Policy Center Q&A on Friday in Sacramento.
Democratic gubernatorial rivals in California’s 2026 race for governor seized on the videos. Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to drop out of the race, and wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attacked her in ads about the uproar.
Former Sen. Barbara Boxer said she saw the same traits Porter displayed in the videos — anger, a lack of respect, privilege — previously, notably in the 2024 Senate contest, which is why she decided to back then-Rep. Adam Schiff, who ultimately won the race. Boxer has endorsed Villaraigosa for governor.
“I had a bad taste in my mouth from that experience,” Boxer said, growing upset while describing her reaction to the video of Porter cursing at her staffer. “This video tells us everything we need to know about former Congresswoman Porter. She is unfit to serve. Period.”
Disagreements arose between Boxer and her staff during her more than four decades in elected office, she said.
But even when “we weren’t happy with each other, there was always respect, because I knew they deserved it, and I knew without them, I was nothing,” Boxer said, adding that men‘s and women’s behavior as elected officials must be viewed through the same lens. “We are equal; we are not better. She’s proof of that.”
Beth Miller, a veteran Sacramento-based GOP strategist who has worked with female politicians since the 1980s, said women are held to a different standard by voters, though it has eased in recent years.
“In some ways, this plays into that bias, but in other ways, it unfortunately sets women back because it underscores a concern that people have,” Miller said. “And that’s really disappointing and discouraging to a lot of female politicians who don’t ascribe to that type of behavior.”
Miller also pointed to the dichotomy of Porter’s terse reaction in the television interview to Porter championing herself in Congress as a fearless and aggressive inquisitor of CEOs and government leaders.
“You exhibit one kind of behavior on the one hand and another when it affects you,” Miller said. “And you know, governor of California is not a walk in the park, and so I don’t think she did herself any favors at all. And I think it really is a window into who she is.”
WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi struck a defiant tone Tuesday during a Senate hearing where she dodged a series of questions about brewing scandals that have dogged her agency.
In many instances, Bondi’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee devolved into personal attacks against Democrats, who expressed dismay at their inability to get her to answer their inquiries.
“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the cover-up of corruption about the prosecution of the president’s enemies,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said toward the end of the nearly five-hour hearing. “When will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions?”
It marked a continuation of what has become a hallmark of not just Bondi, but most of Trump’s top officials. When pressed on potential scandals that the president has taken great pains to publicly avoid, they almost universally turn to one tactic: ignore and attack the questioner.
That strategy was shown in an exchange between Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who wanted to know who decided to close an investigation into Trump border advisor Tom Homan. Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after indicating he could get them government contracts. Bondi declined to say and shifted the focus to Padilla.
“I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump,” Bondi said. “We’d be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently 35% higher than the national average.”
In between partisan attacks, the congressional hearing allowed Bondi to boast about her eight months in office. She said her focus has been on combating illegal immigration, violent crime and restoring public trust in the Justice Department, which she said Biden-era officials weaponized against Trump.
“They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said about the effort to indict Trump. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime.”
She defended the administration’s deployment of federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where she said troops had been sent on Tuesday. Bondi declined to say whether the White House consulted her on the deployment of troops to American cities but said the effort is meant to “protect” citizens from violent crime.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked about the legal justification for the military shooting vessels crossing the Carribbean Sea off Venezuela. The administration has said the boats are carrying drugs, but Coons told Bondi that “Congress has never authorized such a use of military force.”
“It’s unclear to me how the administration has concluded that the strikes are legal,” Coons said.
Bondi told Coons she would not discuss the legal advice her department has given to the president on the matter but said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “is a narcoterrorist,” and that “drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels.”
Coons said he was “gravely concerned” that she was not leading a department that is making decisions that are in “keeping with the core values of the Constitution.” As another example, he pointed to Trump urging her to prosecute his political adversaries, such as Comey.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the top Democrat on the committee, raised a similar concern at the beginning of the hearing, saying Bondi has “systematically weaponized our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies.”
“In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history,” Durbin said. “It will take decades to recover.”
Martin Jarmond is not a particularly popular figure these days.
Some fans frustrated by UCLA’s winless football team are expected to wear “Fire Jarmond” shirts in blue and gold to Saturday’s game at the Rose Bowl against Penn State. One group has organized an airplane banner to fly over the stadium before the game, with a similar message directed at the beleaguered Bruins athletic director.
The list of grievances is a lengthy one, leading a group of nearly a dozen high-level donors to reach out to The Times about what they allege is a pattern of rampant dysfunction inside the athletic department that goes well beyond the surprise hiring and speedy dismissal of football coach DeShaun Foster on Sept. 14 after only 15 games.
Among other things, the donors also questioned Jarmond’s name, image and likeness strategy, high spending despite years of running up massive athletic department deficits and failure to fire coach Chip Kelly amid subpar results.
“What’s happening now feels like watching a trainwreck in slow motion,” said Scott Tretsky, a donor and season ticket-holder for more than two decades. “What we’re seeing isn’t just a rough patch. It’s institutional apathy. And if the administration doesn’t care, why should fans and recruits?
“This isn’t a casual fan speaking. I rarely miss a game. I’ve invested time, money, and emotion for decades, and right now, it feels like the people running the show don’t share that same investment. This program could thrive. It has the history, the fan base, the resources. But it needs leadership with courage and a real plan. Right now, we have neither.”
One misstep made a donor question whether operations inside Jarmond’s athletic department were even worse than they appeared on a surface level.
Ten days before a group of donors departed for a trip to watch UCLA’s football team play Utah in 2023, an email outlining the itinerary was sent with an unexpected attachment — a database revealing personal information and spending habits of the athletic department’s biggest supporters.
Included in the spreadsheet sent to several dozen donors was the home address, email address and phone numbers of Bruins football legend Troy Aikman. Separate columns included the lifetime giving and annual Wooden Athletic Fund contributions of more than 200 top donors such as sports executive Casey Wasserman, ice cream magnate Justin Woolverton and philanthropist Wallis Annenberg, with each donor assigned a priority number based on their level of generosity.
UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond stands alongside UCLA football coach DeShaun Foster during his introductory news conference.
(Damian Dovarganes/AP)
The donor, who did not want to his name published because of the sensitivity of the data in the spreadsheet, told The Times he spoke with others who were equally incredulous about receiving such revealing information in the email from an associate athletic director for fundraising who is no longer employed by UCLA.
There was no apology or further communication besides a follow-up email from the associate athletic director sent 26 minutes after the first one, simply recalling the message. A UCLA athletic department spokesperson declined to comment about the incident other than to say the employee involved in the unauthorized distribution of information and his direct supervisor no longer worked for the university.
“I would assume with something like this where they knew what happened, they should just do something like say, ‘I’m so sorry, this was an internal working file, we’re doing everything we can’ to rectify it. Just something,” the donor who received the information said. “If I wanted to pitch something to Troy Aikman, I have the information to do it with.”
Soon after Jarmond and another athletic department staffer were informed that The Times was writing about Jarmond’s stewardship of the athletic department, five donors called to speak on Jarmond’s behalf. They cited financial constraints that prevented the athletic director from firing Kelly, Foster’s hiring as his attempt to make the best of a bad situation and a belief that Jarmond could help raise the resources needed to hire a far more successful replacement.
Other donors have already decided they are giving up on big giving.
As a result of his unhappiness with the way the athletic department is being run, one donor who was close to joining the 1919 Society that recognizes those who have given at least $1 million said he had abandoned that endeavor.
Part of his dissatisfaction is rooted in a dinner conversation with Jarmond at a Tucson steakhouse before UCLA played Arizona in October 2021. Asked to share his favorite UCLA sports moment, the donor said it was the football team’s having won three Rose Bowls and a Fiesta Bowl while he was a student in the early to mid-1980s.
According to the donor and two others at the table, Jarmond called the donor’s expectations unrealistic and said that historically, UCLA had won an average of seven to eight games a year, suggesting those should be the expectations going forward.
Asked about the exchange, Jarmond said that “without getting into specifics of my conversations with any one individual, my intended message whenever this subject arises is that dynasties in college football are increasingly rare. In today’s environment, with the implementation of revenue-sharing, NIL and the transfer portal, it’s harder than ever to sustain success at the highest level. But that doesn’t mean it’s not the goal. Competing for championships is and always has been core to our mission.”
Several donors questioned the commitment to NIL within Jarmond’s athletic department.
After one donor made a second large NIL contribution, he said, he was chided by one high-ranking athletics official who told him that his money would have been better spent going to the Wooden Athletic Fund that supports the entire department. Donors have criticized Jarmond for not getting Kelly to do more work to support the football team’s NIL efforts, leading to the team lagging far behind its conference counterparts, and was also slow to publicly recognize and support Men of Westwood, the collective spearheading UCLA’s NIL endeavors.
Several donors said UCLA has misunderstood NIL from the start, using small initiatives such as Westwood Exchange as a substitute for helping the Bruins stay more competitive with other schools that understood that pay-for-play was an accepted practice. Once revenue sharing started this summer, allowing the school to pay athletes directly, UCLA further de-emphasized the importance of having a robust NIL program even though it’s widely believed that the new model will eventually resemble the old one.
Jarmond pointed to UCLA’s partnering with NIL agency Article 41 to enhance athletes’ personal brands and social media presence as evidence of the school’s commitment to being on the forefront of the NIL space.
“We’re gonna provide whoever the next [football] coach is with the resources and a financial investment that we haven’t done before, quite frankly,” Jarmond said.
UCLA teams have won six NCAA championships under Jarmond’s watch and posted more conference titles last season than any other Big Ten team. The move to the Big Ten is also expected to provide additional revenue to help stabilize the athletic department’s finances, which required a university bailout and drew a sharp rebuke from the executive board of the school’s academic senate after running $219.55 million in the red over the last six fiscal years.
Jim Bendat, a men’s basketball season ticket-holder and longtime fan, said the athletic director faced some unique challenges that constrained his success with the football program.
“I have some sympathy for Jarmond,” Bendat said. “Money had to be an issue when he arguably should have fired Kelly immediately after the ‘23 season. Then the timing of Kelly’s departure put Jarmond in a nearly impossible situation. Basketball, baseball, softball and Olympic sports are doing fine. Is it fair to give credit for those successes only to the coaches and players, but blame only Jarmond for football failures? I don’t think that’s fair at all.
“Because football is the cash cow, that’s the big focus. I say give this AD another chance to get this right. It will be the biggest hire he will ever make, and he has to get it right this time.”
Criticisms of Jarmond, however, are growing louder and have been brewing for years.
Past concerns have involved a lack of communication when UCLA abruptly pulled out of the 2021 Holiday Bowl over COVID-19 concerns only a few hours before the scheduled kickoff. North Carolina State coach Dave Doeren blasted the Bruins for a lack of transparency about their roster situation that prevented the Wolfpack from having a backup plan, saying, “We felt lied to, to be honest.”
Jarmond said he was prioritizing the health and safety of the players and the Bruins had every intention of playing had they been able to do so responsibly.
Only a month later, Jarmond faced backlash for being slow to wade into a controversy involving a racial slur used by a member of the women’s gymnastics team. Jarmond met with the team only after Margzetta Frazier and Norah Flatley tweeted to request his help, and Frazier later described a statement that Jarmond released about the situation as “discouraging” based on the athletic department’s response to the scandal being “performative.”
Foster’s quick flameout after a little more than one season has led to a new opening inside the athletic department while leading a growing contingent of donors and fans to demand one more. A petition to have Jarmond resign or be removed has collected more than 1,400 signatures and a mobile billboard truck circulated Westwood last week with messages such as “UCLA Football Deserves Better Fire AD Martin Jarmond” and “$7 Million Buyout for UCLA’s AD? Failure Never Paid So Well.”
According to the terms of the contract extension he signed in May 2024 — at a time when UCLA was transitioning from outgoing chancellor Gene Block to successor Julio Frenk — Jarmond, 45, would be owed roughly $7.1 million, or the full amount of his remaining contract that runs through June 30, 2029, if he was terminated without cause.
“No single person has done more to damage the legacy and potential of UCLA football than Martin Jarmond,” said Ryan Bernard, one of the organizers of the mobile billboard truck. “From his inability to fire Chip Kelly to his unjustifiable, lazy hire of a recently departed running backs coach as head coach, Jarmond’s performance has been abysmal.”
WASHINGTON — Historically, the U.S. military has been an engine for cultural and social change in America. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s vision for the armed forces he leads runs counter to that.
In comments Tuesday to hundreds of military leaders and their chief enlisted advisers, Hegseth made clear he was not interested in a diverse or inclusive force. His address at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, verbalized what Hegseth has been doing as he takes on any program that can be labeled diversity, equity or inclusion, as well as targeting transgender personnel. Separately, the focus on immigration also is sweeping up veterans.
For too long, “the military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay, some of it obvious, some of it hidden,” Hegseth said. “Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore.”
Hegseth’s actions — and plans for more — are a reversal of the role the military has often played.
“The military has often been ahead of at least some broader social, cultural, political movements,” said Ronit Stahl, associate professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. ”The desegregation of the armed forces is perhaps the most classic example.”
President Harry S. Truman’s desegregation order in 1948 came six years before the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in the Brown vs. Board of Education case — and, Stahl said, “that obviously takes a long time to implement, if it ever fully is implemented.”
It has been a circuitous path
Truman’s order was not a short progression through American society. Although the military was one of the few places where there was organizational diversity, the races did not mix in their actual service. Units like the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers and the Buffalo Soldiers, formed in 1866, were segregated until the order opened the door to integrated units.
Women were given full status to serve in 1948 with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. There were restrictions on how many could serve and they were generally not allowed to command men or serve in combat. Before then, they had wartime roles and they did not serve in combat, although hundreds of nurses died and women were pilots, including Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs.
The WASPs and Tuskegee Airmen were among the first groups this year to be affected when Hegseth issued his DEI order. The Air Force removed training videos of the airmen along with ones showing the World War II contributions of the WASPs at the basic training base in San Antonio. The videos were restored after widespread bipartisan outcry over their removal.
Other issues over time have included “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that allowed gay and lesbian service members to serve as long as their sexual orientation was not public. That was repealed during the Obama administration. Women were allowed to serve on combat aircraft and combat ships in the early 1990s — then all combat positions after a ban was lifted in 2015.
“The military has always had to confront the question of social change and the question of who would serve, how they would serve and in what capacity they would serve. These are questions that have been long-standing back to the founding in some ways, but certainly in the 20th century,” said David Kieran, distinguished chair in Military History at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia. “These are not new questions.”
Generally the answer has come down to what “the military writ large” has concluded. “‘How do we achieve our mission best?’” Kieran said. “And a lot of these things have been really hotly debated.”
Part of a larger, longer debate
Kieran offered one example: changes the Army made in the 1960s when it was dealing with a climate of racism and racial tensions. Without that, he said, “the military can’t fight the war in Vietnam effectively.”
The same considerations were given to how to address the problem of sexual harassment. Part of the answer involved what was morally right, but “the larger issue is: If soldiers are being harassed, can the Army carry out its mission effectively?”
While “it is important to see these actions as part of a longer history and a larger debate,” Kieran said, “it’s certainly also true that the current administration is moving at a far more aggressive and faster pace than we’ve seen in earlier administrations.”
Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, questioned some of the actions that Trump’s Defense Department has taken, including replacing the chairman of the joint chiefs, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr.
“He was a fine Air Force officer,” O’Hanlon said. Even if he got the job in part because of his race, “it wouldn’t be disqualifying in my book, unless he was unqualified — and he wasn’t.”
Matthew Delmont, a professor of history at Dartmouth College, said the current attitudes he is seeing toward the military suggest a misunderstanding of the armed forces and why the changes have been made.
“The military, for more than seven decades now, has been more on the leading edge in terms of figuring out how to put together an organization that tries to take advantage of the talents and capacities of all Americans,” Delmont said. Since Truman signed his executive order, “the military has moved faster and farther than almost any other organization in thinking about issues of racial equality, and then later thinking about the issues related to gender and sexuality.”
Delmont said bias, prejudice and racism remain in the military, but the armed services have done more “than a lot of corporations, universities, other organizations to try to address those head-on.”
“I wouldn’t say it was because they were particularly interested in trying to advance the social agenda,” he said. “I think they did it because they recognized you can’t have a unified fighting force if the troops are fighting each other, or if you’re actively turning away people who desire to serve their country.”
Now Shedeur Sanders has come up with an equally inventive way of responding without responding to reporters’ questions: silence.
Sure, the Cleveland Browns rookie moved his mouth and gestured when he was asked Wednesday about remaining the team’s No. 3 quarterback after fellow first-year QB Dillon Gabriel was promoted to starter.
But no actual words came out of his mouth.
Essentially, Sanders hit the mute button on himself — which is what made the response so brilliant.
Sanders was a star college quarterback for Colorado, playing for his father and NFL legend Deion Sanders, and was considered by some to be a first-round pick going into the 2025 draft. Instead, he dropped to the Browns in the fifth round (No. 144 overall) after Cleveland had already selected Gabriel out of Oregon in the third round.
For the first four weeks of the 2025 season, Gabriel was the Browns’ No. 2 quarterback and Sanders was No. 3, both behind 18-year veteran Joe Flacco.
But Flacco has been ineffective in leading Cleveland to a 1-3 start, which prompted the Browns to announce Wednesday that Gabriel will be their Week 5 starter. Flacco dropped to No. 2 with Sanders remaining at No. 3.
Later Wednesday in the Browns locker room, Sanders was asked by a reporter for his thoughts on not moving up on the depth chart. He smiled broadly and proceeded to give a voiceless answer. Reporters tried at least four more times to get Sanders to answer similar questions, eliciting only a similar pantomimed response.
Sanders’ behavior may have been in response to critical remarks made Monday by former NFL coach and current analyst Rex Ryan.
Last week, during an interview with ESPNCleveland, Sanders was asked about his feelings on being a backup quarterback in the NFL. During the course of the conversation, he made some comments — including “if you see the quarterback play in the league right now, I’m capable of playing better than that” and “a lot of teams would be playing me, but that’s not in God’s plan right now” — that rubbed Ryan the wrong way.
“This kid talks and he runs his mouth,” Ryan said days later on ESPN’s “Get Up.” “Like he said, ‘I can be a starting quarterback’ with his arms crossed like this. Get your a— in the front row and study and do all that. If I know, the whole league knows. Quit being an embarrassment that way. You’ve got the talent to be the quarterback, you should be. You should be embarrassed that you’re not the quarterback now.”
Artificial intelligence and its invasiveness in our everyday lives might be endlessly discussed among academics, government officials and social media provocateurs, but Los Angeles Comic Con has injected a dose of gamma radiation and showmanship into that debate.
Stan Lee has entered the chat.
L.A. Comic Con is introducing its Stan Lee Experience, a 1,500-square-foot booth in Aisle 200 that features an AI-powered holographic image of the late comic book legend that interacts with attendees. Curious fans can ask questions of “Stan Lee” and probe dozens of years’ worth of comic book and comic book-related data that’s been fed into the AI, which has been drawn from footage, conversations and even Stan Lee’s Soapbox — where Lee would expand on happenings of the day or riff on comic book goings-on in the back pages of Marvel comics from 1967 through 1980.
Chris DeMoulin, chief executive and general manager of L.A. Comic Con parent Comikaze Entertainment Inc., says the Stan Lee AI project took months of planning and years of being connected to the parties involved.
“For me, personally, one of the most thrilling things of my entire life was getting to work with Stan Lee when this was Stan Lee’s Comic Con and Stan Lee’s Comikaze Expo before that. What was such a joy was watching him interact with fans. Old fans and then people that were bringing their 8-year-old kid who had just read their first Spider-Man comic book,” said DeMoulin, who has collected comics from an early age.
“This avatar, to us, is an entry point into the world of storytelling that he created. We wanted to create something which can be part of maintaining and expanding on that legacy so that Stan’s role in creating a lot of this is acknowledged.”
The hologram, at least the one on the show floor, is not really a hologram. With a box built by Proto Inc., the company that also launched an interactive mirror from “The Conjuring,” and Hyperreal, a company whose chief executive Remington Scott helped bring Gollum and Smeagol to life for Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” movies and creates realistic avatars, it is an interactive Stan Lee image that processes questions and formulates responses.
“Hologram is a technology that’s different than this. This is more of an avatar presence, or a telepresence, if you will. Unlike ChatGPT, this is not a web crawler. This is a large language model which has got guardrails on it,” says George Johnson, a member of the Hyperreal technical team.
“It’s specifically Stan’s words. Red carpet interviews, everything he wrote, like Stan’s Soapbox, but with guardrails. Meaning, if you ask him sports questions or politics questions, he’s not going to answer those. But the Stan Lee Universe is feeding us more and more stuff that we can add to the model.”
David Nussbaum, Proto Inc. founder and chairman, knows that Stan Lee is only the first step for this technology.
“Any Proto device can have any piece of content in it, and we also beam people in live. So if you’re interviewing someone in Japan, you could beam there and appear like you are physically among them,” Nussbaum said. “These are great for classrooms, museums, labs, retail.”
Proto technology is also HIPAA-compliant, he said, meaning doctors and patients can use it to have “in-person” consultations without being in a room together.
As it learns, it can — as AI does — go a bit off script. While folks behind the scenes said they didn’t want Stan Lee to be used as an advertising gimmick, its makers had asked it so many questions about Coca-Cola, it had changed its answer from a generic “I don’t deal with that kind of thing” to a thoughtful answer where, at the end, Lee says, “Who wouldn’t want to be in business with the company that been quenching thirsts for a hundred years?”
That was Stan — ever the showman.
The Stan Lee Experience costs $15 plus service fees with tickets available for purchase via the L.A. Comic Con website. The pop culture gathering runs through Sunday at the Los Angeles Convention Center.
A group of Walt Disney Co. shareholders is demanding the company release information related to the suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, according to a recent letter.
The letter, dated Wednesday and sent by the American Federation of Teachers union and press freedom group Reporters Without Borders, said the groups want transparency into Disney’s decision last week to indefinitely suspend the show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following comments he made in his monologue about the shooter who killed conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Disney reinstated Kimmel’s show Tuesday, saying in a statement that the initial decision was made to “avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country” and calling some of his comments “ill-timed and thus insensitive.”
The late-night host’s suspension set off a political firestorm and nationwide debate about free speech. Protesters demonstrated outside the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood as well as Disney’s Burbank headquarters. More than 400 celebrities signed an open letter decrying attempts at government censorship. Some called for consumers to cancel their Disney+ streaming subscriptions.
“Disney shareholders deserve the truth about exactly what went down inside the company after Brendan Carr’s threat to punish ABC unless action was taken against Jimmy Kimmel,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “The Disney board has a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of its shareholders — and we are seeking answers to discover if that bond was broken to kowtow to the Trump administration.”
Prior to the initial suspension decision, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr had called for Disney to take action against Kimmel during a podcast interview that aired last week. Carr said there could be consequences for the TV stations that carry his show. Shortly before Disney announced Kimmel’s initial suspension, TV station groups Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group each said they would preempt the show and have said they will not bring it back.
The letter calls for Disney to provide records, including any meeting minutes or written materials, related to the suspension or return of Kimmel’s show.
“There is a credible basis to suspect that the Board and executives may have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and good faith by placing improper political or affiliate considerations above the best interests of the Company and its stockholders,” the letter said.
Disney did not respond to a request for comment.
Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.
For the uninitiated, the Ryder Cup is not something from which you drink coffee in your rental truck. As a matter of fact, 15 years ago, this golfing classic was proclaimed by the locals to be the biggest sporting event ever in the country of Wales.
The newest edition of the Ryder Cup will find your TV screen Friday through Monday. It will be contested on Long Island on a torture-chamber called Bethpage Black. They played the U.S. Open there in 2009 and it rained so hard and so often that there were rumors Noah was getting another Ark ready. Lucas Glover didn’t win that one. He survived it.
To be clear, this will not be the biggest sporting event in the New York area. Thursday afternoon Mets’ games create more stomach aches and fist pumps.
But it should not be dismissed or greeted by yawns.
U.S. Ryder Cup golf team captain Keegan Bradley, left, and Team Europe captain Luke Donald, right, will face off this week.
(Heather Khalifa / Associated Press)
This every-other-year, alternating-home-course event that matches the best golfers in the United States against the best in Europe, creates as much emotion as you can find in a sport that preaches controlling that.
Recently, British golfer Matt Wallace shed tears on camera after falling just short of qualifying. “I will never give up on the Ryder Cup,” he sobbed.
Rory McIlroy of Northern Ireland, one of the best players ever in the sport, made the mistake years ago of calling the Ryder Cup “mostly an exhibition.” He has been apologizing for that ever since.
Spain’s Sergio Garcia, a former Masters champion and an emotional leader of many past European teams, pulled out of a European tournament immediately after he learned he would not be on this year’s Ryder Cup team. He said he needed to get away for a while.
Keegan Bradley was on U.S. teams that lost both the 2012 and 2014 Cups, and he has spoken of the still-unpacked and logoed Ryder Cup backpack that he brought back after 2012. He has vowed to never unpack it until he is part of a winning Ryder Cup team.
If you think that golf and its top players are the living definition of a sports metronome (tick-tock boring), it is not so with the Ryder Cup.
The event keeps sneaking up on people. McIlroy was right, just not up to date. By 2010, the U.S. had started to lose Ryder Cup matches, and that suddenly made them important. U.S. sports fans like a little agony and drama before celebrating winning moments. Losing is not acceptable. From 1959 through 1983, the U.S. had won every Ryder Cup. Then, in 1985, Europe won and held the cup for eight of the next 11 meetings.
Now, it was game on.
Europe’s Rory McIlroy celebrates after winning his singles match against American Sam Burns at the Ryder Cup played at the Marco Simone Golf Club in Guidonia Montecelio, Italy, on Oct. 1, 2023.
(Gregorio Borgia / Associated Press)
The U.S. won in 2008, but this time, for 2010, the Europeans were ready. They even had a special course built, clearly with one thing in mind. It was in Newport, Wales, the club was named Celtic Manor and the course was called the Twenty Ten.
They held a huge pre-celebration dinner and by the time it started, they had sold out the six-day package (three practice rounds and three competition rounds) to 45,000 people at $660 each. That $29.7 million paid nicely for the big party.
Big profits haven’t seemed to be the driving force yet in the Ryder Cup, but like everything else in sports, that is likely to change. This year’s Ryder Cup will be its most extensively televised one to date in the U.S.
Bradley, the guy with a 13-year-old unpacked suitcase, will be the U.S. captain. He has played on two Ryder Cup teams, both defeats, and lost the deciding match to Jamie Donaldson in 2014 in Scotland. The suitcase remains unpacked.
He is still one of the top players in golf, good enough to be a player on this year’s team, but chose not to choose himself and will be a traditional non-playing captain. He was also high enough in the rankings to be considered for a spot on the ’23 U.S. team that lost in Rome. He later said that, when ’23 U.S. captain Zack Johnson passed him over, “It broke my heart.”
Luke Donald of England, who played his golf at Northwestern, was good enough to be No. 1 on the PGA Tour for 56 weeks and was the first golfer to top season money-winning lists on the PGA and European tours in the same year, will be the European captain. He has played on four Ryder Cup teams, all European victories. He was also the captain in Rome.
Donald was a member of that 2010 team in Wales. The U.S. lost by a point and Donald won three of the Europeans 14½.
Celtic Manor was more than just a European win. It was a rub-your-face-in-it win, a remember-who-invented-this-game moment. It was more than winner-take-all. It was winner-celebrate-all-night and-be-smug-about-it-all-next-year.
The setting helps to understand all this.
American Phil Mickelson plays a shot from the rough during the 2010 Ryder Cup at the Celtic Manor Resort on Oct. 1, 2010, in Newport, Wales.
(Ross Kinnaird / Getty Images)
The Twenty Ten course was surprisingly not a classic European links course. Much was made of that in the run-up. Why give the Americans a golf course type that they were used to — soft, grassy fairways and smooth-rolling greens — when the links courses usually drove them nuts. Then it started to rain and seemed as if it would never stop. Twenty Ten became Twenty Thousand Puddles. It was so bad that the final day of concluding singles match-play was contested on a Monday, a first for a Ryder Cup. The U.S. team was ready, with nicely logoed rain suits. Except they leaked.
Amid one particularly drenching downpour, U.S. star Phil Mickelson spotted a reporter he knew walking the sidelines. He sauntered over, soaked and dripping, eyed the reporter’s rain gear and said, “Wanna trade?”
The next day, the U.S. team got replacement rain gear from the same gift shop that the reporter had purchased his.
Such nuances are the responsibility of team captains. The Europeans, whose rain suits stayed sealed, were led by longtime tour pro Colin Montgomerie, a great player who never won a major and who many feel was the model for the Pillsbury Dough Boy. The U.S. captain was Corey Pavin, who not only won a U.S. Open in 1995 with his famous four-wood to the green on No. 18, but also was a Gutty Little Bruin, a pride of UCLA golf.
U.S. Ryder Cup captain Corey Pavin holds a flag stick during a practice round prior in 2010 at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, Wales.
(Andy Lyons / Getty Images)
The match, eventually won by Europe, came down to the final singles pairing on Monday. Graeme McDowell of Northern Ireland, who had won that year’s U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, was matched by Montgomerie against Pavin’s Hunter Mahan, a Texan who had been the No. 2 Ryder Cup qualifier behind Mickelson.
McDowell took a two-up lead on No. 16, making a sliding, curling 15-foot downhill putt for birdie that left him two up with two holes to play. Then, on the par three 17th — Mahan had to win this hole and the next to keep the U.S. hopes alive — Mahan chunked his second shot, a chip, short of the green. The Euro fans went wild. Mahan walked to McDowell, whose ball rested in easy two-putt, par territory, and shook his hand in concession.
Europe had won, 14½-13½, and the champagne began to flow.
The Celtic Manor clubhouse was on a hill, with a long balcony overlooking the 18th green. Within minutes, the European players were up there, shaking huge bottles of champagne and spraying them all over each other and the thousands of fans below. It went on and on. It was a post-Super Bowl-in- Philadelphia celebration, minus the bent traffic lights; a post-Lakers-win-the-NBA-title-at Staples celebration, minus the burning police cars. It produced photos that dominated every major European newspaper and TV broadcast for the next several days.
Eventually, the U.S. team shuffled into an interview room. There was not a smile to be found. All were there, a unit to the end, sitting at a long table. Quickly, a question went to Mahan about his gagged chip shot. He looked like a man who had just watched his dog get hit by a car. Before he could conjure up much of an answer, two of the three main veterans on the team ran interference. Both Mickelson and Jim Furyk jumped in to answer, saying basically, that none of the people asking the questions could have any idea of the pressure involved in a Ryder Cup situation like that. Of course, none of the people asking the questions had ever aspired to that pressure.
Tiger Woods remained silent.
American Tiger Woods attends a tense news conference after Europe’s 14.5 to 13.5 victory over the U.S. at the 2010 Ryder Cup at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, Wales.
(Sam Greenwood / Getty Images)
At a press gathering before the event, he had fielded a question from a member of the British press. If there was a moment that set a tone of animosity for the event, it was right there.
Reporter: “You don’t win majors any more, you don’t win regular tournaments. Where is the Ryder Cup on your agenda, now that you are an ordinary golfer?”
Woods, the ordinary golfer: “I hope you are having a good week.”
The captains’ comparisons are fun, but probably not meaningful. Bradley has won a major, the 2011 PGA, and was ranked as high as No. 7 in the world. His Ryder Cup playing record is 4-3-0. Donald never won a major, but was World No. 1. His Ryder Cup record is 10-4-1. He was Ryder Cup captain in 2023 in Paris. He has never been on a losing Ryder Cup team, as a player or captain. Bradley’s Ryder team record is 0-2.
The only playing returnee from 2010 at Celtic Manor — Donald was also on the team — is McIlroy, who once called this whole thing an “exhibition.” That was before he stood on a balcony in Wales, 15 years ago, and looked below to a mass of idolizing golf fans, begging to be sprayed with champagne.
In that moment, the Ryder Cup became a huge deal for McIlroy. The rest of the sports world now follows.
