right

LAFC’s signing of South Korean national team captain Son Heung-min appears to be one of those rare acquisitions that checks every box and helps everybody. Not only is it one of the most significant signings in MLS history, but it instantly makes LAFC better while boosting the World Cup hopes of the Korean national team and the profile of Korean soccer in the U.S.

But in few places will the influence of the signing, which is expected to be completed Tuesday, be felt more directly than in Southern California’s Korean community, the largest in the U.S.

“The Korean community has been buzzing ever since rumors of Son Heung-min’s potential move to LAFC began to spread,” said Kyeongjun Kim, a writer with the Korean Daily, the largest Korean-language media outlet in the U.S. “The fact that a player of his caliber is coming to L.A. is monumental event.

“Son’s move to the LAFC is as exciting — if not more so — than when Chan Ho Park and Hyun-Jin Ryu joined the Dodgers.”

Luring Son, 33, away from Tottenham of the English Premier League, where he spent the past 10 seasons, came at a high price. Although financial details of the signing were not announced, a league official with knowledge of the negotiations but not authorized to speak publicly said the transfer fee easily topped the MLS-record $22 million the Atlanta United paid to Middlesbrough in February for the rights to striker Emmanuel Latte Lath.

ESPN, citing unnamed sources, put the price at $26 million, more than LAFC’s total payroll of nearly $22.4 million, which is sixth highest in the league. Yet, strangely, that could still prove to be something of a bargain and represents another signing coup for general manager John Thorrington who, over the past four seasons, has signed Hugo Lloris and Olivier Giroud, players with the most appearances and goals for the French national team, respectively; Giorgio Chiellini and Gareth Bale, captains of the Italian and Welsh national teams, respectively; and Denis Bouanga, who led the MLS in goals in the past two full seasons.

Thorrington didn’t have to break the bank to do any of it.

LAFC earned $10 million from its participation in this summer’s Club World Cup, money it then invested in Son. And despite the massive transfer fee, the team could actually profit financially from the deal since it has long believed a Korean star playing in Los Angeles would more than pay for itself in marketing and sponsorship deals, much the same way the Dodgers have profited off Japan’s Shohei Ohtani.

Kim said that’s a very good bet.

“The passion and influence of Korean and Korean American soccer fans should never be underestimated,” he said, noting that major European clubs with Korean players have begun posting online content in Korean.

“Korean broadcasters,” he predicted, “may seek to acquire broadcasting rights and new business opportunities could emerge. Son’s arrival at LAFC will benefit not only the club but also the league as a whole.”

The influence won’t be limited to the Korean community, however. Son, who was one of the most popular players in the Premier League, speaks English well and has a positive and humble personality, which will make him easy to market across ethnic boundaries.

LAFC tried this once before, signing defender Kim Moon-hwan to much fanfare in 2021. But Kim, who had played his whole life in Korea, never really adapted to Los Angeles and returned home after 13 months, having played in just 28 games in MLS. Homesickness won’t be a problem for Son, who dropped out of high school to join an academy team in Hamburg, Germany, at 16.

Son will become the ninth Korean to play in MLS and the fourth to play this season. That’s a small number for a country that has played in 10 straight World Cups — something the U.S., Italy, the Netherlands and France haven’t done. If he is successful, it could open the way for more Koreans to play in MLS.

“Many in Korea believe Son raised the profile of Korean soccer through his efforts in Europe,” Kim said. “Son’s transfer presents a rare opportunity to boost the visibility of MLS, which has traditionally drawn less attention from Korean fans.”

Then there’s the on-field impact. Son scored more than 120 goals for Tottenham, reaching double digits in goals in eight of his past nine seasons at Tottenham and sharing the EPL Golden Boot with Liverpool’s Mo Salah four years ago. No Asian player had ever done that before, so his addition could go a long way toward reviving a slumbering LAFC offense that has scored more than one goal from the run of play just twice in its last 10 games in all competition heading into Tuesday’s Leagues Cup match with Tigres.

As for the South Korean national team and Son, its captain, the timing of the move to MLS couldn’t be better. The Koreans have already qualified for next summer’s World Cup, which is returning to North America for the first time since 1994, and playing in the U.S. will help Son, a three-time World Cup performer who is second in national team history in goals and third in appearances, adjust to the time, the weather and the travel, all things players complained about during the Club World Cup.

“When Son announced his departure from Tottenham, he mentioned that the 2026 World Cup might be his last,” Kim said. “As the captain, this is a pivotal time for him. I believe he will do everything he can to prepare thoroughly and being at LAFC will help him adapt to the local environment.”

It’s hard to imagine a signing with the potential to be so positive in so many ways. For LAFC and MLS, it looks to be well worth the price.

Walt Disney Co. is expected to announce that the NFL is taking an equity stake in the Burbank-based entertainment giant’s sports media property ESPN, according to people familiar with the plan who were not authorized to comment publicly.

Disney may reveal the deal during its earnings call Wednesday. Representatives at the NFL and ESPN declined comment Friday.

In return for the equity stake, ESPN is expected, at minimum, to take over the NFL’s cable properties including the NFL Network and Red Zone, the popular channel that continuously updates fans on the slate of Sunday contests. The NFL Network also has the rights to several regular season games late in the season.

In addition, the NFL owns the league’s production unit, NFL Films, and NFL+, the streaming service that enables subscribers to watch games and other related content on mobile devices.

ESPN has the broadcast rights to “Monday Night Football” and two Super Bowl games in the current NFL contract that runs through 2033 but is expected to be reopened in 2029. The impending deal with Disney means the NFL’s other partners — Fox, NBC, CBS, YouTube and Amazon — will be bidding against an entity that the league has a financial interest in next time the media rights come up.

Discussions between the NFL and Disney have been ongoing for more than 18 months as concerns heightened about the viability of ESPN when consumers continue to bypass or cancel pay TV subscriptions.

The NFL accounts for the vast majority of most-watched programming on U.S. television screens every year, according to Nielsen. But as the TV business has been fragmented and disrupted by streaming, there are even more competitors wanting their own package of pro football games.

In 2022, the NFL awarded the rights to its Sunday Ticket package to Google’s YouTube TV. The seven-year deal for the package, which gives viewers access to out-of-market network TV broadcasts of the league’s Sunday afternoon games, underscored the migration of younger viewers to streaming platforms for video viewing.

Netflix, the world’s largest subscriber-based online video service, has the rights to Christmas Day games, which last year drew tens of million of viewers to the streamer, which has been building up its live programming business.

ESPN has long been the most expensive part of the pay TV bundle, currently getting close to $9 per subscriber. It is now in around 73 million homes, down from 98.5 million in 2013.

Traditional television is losing ground to streaming. Earlier this year, Nielsen reported that TV consumption through streaming services had exceeded broadcast and cable viewing combined for the first time.

ESPN is adapting to the streaming landscape, launching its first stand-alone direct-to-consumer product that will give consumers access to all of its channels without a pay TV subscription. The service will cost $29.99 a month.

TV ratings for ESPN have improved and ad sales have remained strong as advertisers value audiences who watch live programming.

Disney’s stock price fell about 2% to $116.59 on Friday as the broader markets absorbed the pain of President Trump’s new tariffs and weak jobs data.

ESPN is run by Jimmy Pitaro, who has been considered a potential internal candidate to replace Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger when he retires at the end of next year. Disney’s share price has risen 5% so far this year.

There’s a lot of schadenfreude on the right, and even more lamentation on the left, about the cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.”

Donald Trump leads the schadenfreude caucus. “I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings,” Trump crowed on social media. “I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. Has even less talent than Colbert!” (It is remarkable that a president who campaigned with a vow to end “cancel culture” is so uninhibited in his celebration of cancel culture when it’s on his terms.)

The lamentations from the left are just as exuberant, from the other direction. They hail Colbert as a heroic martyr for free expression and speaking truth to power. “Not really an overstatement to say that the test of a free society is whether or not comedians can make fun of the country’s leader on TV without repercussions,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes declared.

In a sense, both sides essentially agree that Colbert was canceled because of his politics. The argument from the left is that this was unfair and even illegitimate. The illegitimate claim rests on the fact that CBS’s parent company Paramount has been trying to curry favor with the administration to gain approval for the sale of the network to Skydance Media. Shari Redstone, Paramount’s owner, approved a settlement of Trump’s dubious lawsuit against “60 Minutes” (which Colbert had criticized days earlier as a “big fat bribe”). Colbert’s scalp was a sweetener, critics claim.

I think that theory is plausible, given the timing of the decision and the way it was announced. If this was the plan all along, why not announce the decision at the 2025 upfronts and sell ads in tandem with the wind-down? That’s the way this sort of thing has been done in the past.

But Colbert’s critics on the right have an equally plausible point. Colbert made the show very political and partisan, indulging his Trump “resistance” schtick to the point where he basically cut the potential national audience in half. He leaned heavily on conventionally liberal politicians (tellingly, on the night he announced the news of his cancellation, his first guest was California Sen. Adam Schiff — a man who couldn’t get a laugh if you hit him in the face with a pie).

But both the left-wing and right-wing interpretations have some holes. The theory that this was purely a political move overlooks the fact that CBS didn’t merely fire Colbert, it’s terminating the iconic “Late Show” entirely and giving the airtime back to local affiliates. If they solely wanted to curry favor with Trump, they could have given the show to more Trump-friendly (funnier and popular with the young’ns) comedians such as Shane Gillis or Andrew Schulz. The show was reportedly losing some $40 million a year. Even if they hired someone for a quarter of Colbert’s $15- million salary, it would still be losing money.

On the right, many — Trump included — have pointed to the fact that Greg Gutfeld’s not-quite-late-night Fox show has better ratings than his competitors on the three legacy networks. That’s true, but it’s hardly as if Gutfeld is any less partisan than Colbert, Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon.

It’s also true that the titans of previous eras — Steve Allen, Jack Paar, Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien — tended to avoid strident partisanship. But the nostalgia-fueled idea that a more mainstream, apolitical host would garner similar audiences again gets the causality backward.

Those hosts were products of a different era, when huge numbers of Americans from across the political spectrum consumed the same cultural products. The hosts, much like news networks and newspapers, had a powerful business incentive to play it down the middle and avoid alienating large swaths of their audiences and advertisers. That era is over, forever.

Now media platforms look to garner small “sticky” audiences they can monetize by giving them exactly what they want. There’s an audience for Colbert, and for Gutfeld, but what makes the roughly 2 million to 3 million nightly viewers who love that stuff tune in makes the other 330 million potential viewers tune in to something else. The “Late Show” model — and budget — simply doesn’t work with those numbers.

Cable news, led by Fox, ushered in political polarization in news consumption, but cable itself fueled the balkanization of popular culture. Streaming and podcast platforms, led by YouTube, are turbocharging that trend to the point where media consumption is now a la carte (artificial intelligence may soon make it nigh upon bespoke).

The late-night model was built around a culture in which there was little else to watch. That culture is never coming back.

X:@JonahDispatch

LAS VEGAS — The Clippers’ NBA Summer League contest Friday against the Houston Rockets offered a chance for Kobe Brown to show he’s capable of being a rotational player for the Clippers this season.

But misfortune struck in the third quarter when Brown got tangled with a Rockets defender who fell on his right ankle. Brown sat on the Clippers’ bench for a few minutes before he limped to their locker room.

Brown didn’t return in the Clippers’ 95-92 win at Cox Pavilion on Friday night after sustaining what the team described as a right ankle contusion.

Brown is entering his third season with the Clippers and the team is eager for the 2023 30th overall draft pick to make an impact. He’ll make $2.65 million this season and will have a qualifying offer for next season at $4.7 million.

“He’s just got to continue to do what he did tonight,” said Clippers assistant coach Jerry Castleberry, the team’s Summer League coach. “Play great defense. Make the right reads. We’ve been talking about it all training camp. Get in the paint, draw two, make the right reads and if they put a small on him, he showed his ability to be able to score against a mismatch tonight and doing it the right way — quickly, getting downhill, not dancing, just getting straight to the point.

Brown scored 10 points in the first quarter, going four for five from the field, making both of his three-point attempts. On one of those threes, he ran the length of the court and took a pass for a lob dunk.

Brown finished with 14 points, four rebounds and four assists in 20 minutes.

“Ankle is good,” Castleberry said. “Ankle is fine. Just precautionary. He’ll be OK.”

The Clippers waived Jordan Miller before summer league started, but they still had a roster spot so he was added to the team.

He did not disappoint Friday, producing 23 points and 11 rebounds.

Miller has been given an opportunity to show the Clippers — and any other team — how the Summer League is useful for him.

“With this team it takes a lot of humility. Not thinking less of yourself but also thinking less of yourself,” Miller said. “Just finding a way to maximize whatever role it is. It’s not just for me, but it’s for all the guys. We got guys that can score. The only way we’re going to get on the floor is defending and making open threes. That’s just the reality of it. … But for the most part, just working game reps. Like, you’re not going to get a lot of ball-screens. You’re not going to get a lot of touches. So you just got to work on your off-ball shooting, movement shooting and being able to not mess up defensively.”

It was on defense where Clippers rookie Yanic Konan Niederhauser was at his best.

Niederhauser blocked four shots and had 10 rebounds. He used his seven-foot frame as a deterrent and displayed why the Clippers drafted him out of Penn State.

“He did everything he was supposed to do,” Castleberry said. “He was great with rim-protection, changing shots and I just thought he was good.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that parents have a right to opt their schoolchildren out of classes and lessons that offend their religious beliefs.

The 6-3 ruling will have an impact nationwide because it empowers parents who object to books or lessons at school.

“A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito, speaking for the conservative majority.

Parents in Montgomery County, Md., sued over new LGBTQ+ storybooks that were used in kindergarten and elementary school classes.

This clash between progressive educators and religiously conservative parents moved quickly to the Supreme Court after judges refused to intervene.

Alito said the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction that would require the schools to “notify them in advance” when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child’s class.

In ruling for the parents, the court did not say parents have a right to change the lessons and books that were used at school. They could, however, choose to have their children temporarily removed from those classes.

The court’s three liberals dissented.

“Today’s ruling ushers in … new reality, “ Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “Casting aside long-standing precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children. Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs. The result will be chaos for this Nation’s public schools.”

Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, called the decision “a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, Pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission.”

He appealed the case to the Supreme Court last fall.

“Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government —have the final say in how their children are raised,” he said.

Civil rights advocates condemned the ruling.

“All students deserve to feel safe and welcome in their classrooms. Educators should prepare them for the world we live in and promote curiosity, acceptance, and respect for all people. Yet today’s decision by six justices encourages open discrimination toward LGBTQ+ children and families and favors ignorance and censorship over inclusion,” said Liz King, director for education equity at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out their children from sex education classes.

But Montgomery County officials said this state rule applied to older students and to sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary school children.

When the new LGBTQ+ storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when “unsustainably high numbers” of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule.

In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children to be removed from class during the reading lessons.

A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to intervene.

Those judges said the “free exercise” of religion under the 1st Amendment protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs but it does not shield people from views they oppose.

Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed to the Supreme Court.

They said the school board had “mandated new ‘inclusive’ storybooks that celebrate gender transitions, explore Pride parades and introduce same-sex romance between young children.”

At first, parents had been promised they would be notified and could opt their children out when the storybooks were read, they said. But that promise was revoked.

“If parents did not like what was taught to their elementary school kids, their only choice was to send them to private school or to home school,” they said.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” now before the Senate takes the current preoccupation with making every governmental relationship transactional to an immoral extreme. It puts a $1,000 price tag on the right to seek asylum — the first time the United States would require someone to pay for this human right.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” U.S. law incorporates that right, stating that “any alien … irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” Neither makes this right contingent on being able to pay.

Bear in mind that asylum seekers in the United States do not have the right to court-appointed attorneys. That means the system already profoundly disadvantages indigent asylum seekers — they can’t afford a lawyer, often don’t speak English and have no road map for navigating arcane immigration law.

The new law would make asylum even more inaccessible for a poor person, in effect, creating two classes of those seeking refuge here. Those wealthy enough to pay $1,000 up front would have their protection claims heard; those unable to pay would be shunted back to face persecution and the problems that drove them from their home countries to begin with.

If this part of the bill isn’t modified before its final passage, Congress will have piled on to the obstacles the Trump administration has already put in place to block the right to seek asylum. On Inauguration Day, President Trump proclaimed an invasion of the United States by “millions of aliens” and “suspend[ed] the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border.” Until the president decides the “invasion” is over, the order explicitly denies the right of any person to seek asylum if it would permit their continued presence in the United States.

Since Jan. 20, asylum seekers trying to enter the United States at the southwestern border have been turned away and, in some cases, loaded onto military planes and flown to third countries — Panama, for example — without any opportunity to make asylum claims.

“I asked for asylum repeatedly. I really tried,” Artemis Ghasemzadeh, a 27-year-old Christian convert from Iran, told Human Rights Watch after being sent to Panama. “Nobody listened to me …. Then an immigration officer told me President Trump had ended asylum, so they were going to deport us.”

On top of the basic fee for asylum seekers, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would also require an asylum seeker to pay a fee of “not less than $550” every six months to be permitted to work in the U.S. while their claim is pending. The bill would also impose an additional $100 fee for every year an asylum application remains pending in the heavily backlogged system, punishing the person fleeing persecution for the government’s failure to provide sufficient immigration judges.

Children are not spared. For the privilege of sponsoring an unaccompanied migrant child, the bill would require the sponsor, often a relative who steps forward to care for the child, to pay a $3,500 fee. Congressional priorities for spending on unaccompanied children who arrive at our borders show a distinct lack of compassion: The bill directs that a $20-million appropriation for U.S. Customs and Border Protection “shall only be used to conduct an examination of such unaccompanied alien child for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings.”

Add to these barriers the complete shutdown of the U.S. refugee resettlement program, except for white South Africans; the termination of “humanitarian parole” for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans; the end of temporary protected status programs that have provided protection to people coming from countries of widespread conflict, and the travel ban that bars entry from some of the world’s top refugee-producing countries, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran and Sudan.

In the meantime, Trump hypes the idea of selling $5-million “gold cards” for super rich foreigners who want to buy U.S. permanent residence. When asked who might be interested, Trump replied, “I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.”

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes $45 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention capacity (by my calculations, that would more than triple capacity). It also specifies $14.4 billion for ICE transportation and removal operations, $46.5 billion for the border wall and $858 million to pay bonuses to ICE officials.

With all the money Congress is prepared to spend, it’s a wonder the bill didn’t add a few dollars for sanding down the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty and re-chiseling it to say, “Give me your rich and well-rested … yearning to breathe free.”

Bill Frelick is refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report “‘Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened’: The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama.”

RICHMOND, Calif. — An oil tanker sat docked at Chevron’s sprawling refinery in Richmond, Calif., on Thursday — a visible link between California’s appetite for Amazon crude and the remote rainforest territories where it’s extracted. Just offshore, bundled in puffy jackets against the Bay wind, Indigenous leaders from Ecuador’s Amazon paddled kayaks through choppy waters, calling attention to the oil expansion threatening their lands.

Their visit to California helped prompt the state Senate to introduce a landmark resolution urging officials to examine the state’s role in importing crude from the Amazon. The move comes as Ecuador’s government prepares to auction off 14 new oil blocks — covering more than 2 million hectares of rainforest, much of it Indigenous territory — in a 2026 bidding round known as “Sur Oriente.”

The Indigenous leaders say the move goes against the spirit of a national referendum in which Ecuadorians voted to leave crude oil permanently underground in Yasuni National Park.

The preservation push in Ecuador comes as another South American country that includes part of the Amazon rainforest, Brazil, is moving ahead with plans to further develop oil resources. On Tuesday, Brazil auctioned off several land and offshore potential oil sites near the Amazon River as it aims to expand production in untapped regions despite protests from environmental and Indigenous groups.

Indigenous voices

Juan Bay, president of the Waorani people of Ecuador, said that his delegation’s coming to California was “important so that our voices, our stance, and our struggle can be elevated” and urged Californians to reexamine the source of their crude from the Amazon — ”from Waorani Indigenous territory.”

On Thursday, the Indigenous delegation joined local Californians in Richmond for a kayaking trip near a Chevron refinery, sharing stories about the Amazon and perspectives on climate threats.

For Nadino Calapucha, a spokesperson for the Kichwa Pakkiru people, the visit to California’s Bay Area was deeply moving. Spotting seals in the water and a bird’s nest nearby felt “like a gesture of solidarity from nature itself,” he told the Associated Press on a kayak.

“It was as if the animals were welcoming us,” he said.

The connection between the Amazon and California — both facing environmental threats — was palpable, Calapucha said.

“Being here with our brothers and sisters, with the local communities also fighting — in the end, we feel that the struggle is the same,” he said.

California is the largest global consumer of Amazon oil, with much of it refined and used in the state as fuel. Ecuador is the region’s top producer of onshore crude.

Bay highlighted a March ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that Ecuador had violated the rights of the area’s Indigenous groups by allowing oil operations in and around a site known as Block 43.

The court ordered the government to halt extraction in protected areas and uphold the 2023 referendum banning drilling in Yasuni National Park, where the country’s largest crude reserve lies, estimated around 1.7 billion barrels.

Bay appealed to the California government to reconsider if it “should continue receiving crude from the Amazon” — or continue to be “complicit in the violation of rights” happening on Indigenous territory.

Defending Indigenous rights

State Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), who introduced the new resolution, praised the visiting leaders for defending their land and the global climate.

“Their communities are on the front lines asserting their rights and resisting oil extraction,” Becker said on the Senate floor on Monday. “They are defenders of a living rainforest that stores carbon, regulates the global climate, and sustains life.”

Long criticized by environmental justice advocates, the refinery has processed millions of barrels of Amazon crude, fueling concerns over pollution, public health, and the state’s role in rainforest destruction.

The delegation also helped launch a new report by Amazon Watch, an Oakland-based nonprofit dedicated to the protection of the Amazon Basin, which outlines the climate, legal and financial risks of operating in Indigenous territories without consent.

‘Addiction to Amazon crude’

Kevin Koenig, Amazon Watch’s director for climate, energy and extraction industry, said the effects of Amazon crude extend far beyond Ecuador. He joined the Ecuadorian delegation on the kayaking trip Thursday.

“The Golden State, if it wants to be a climate leader, needs to take action,” he told AP. “California has an addiction to Amazon crude.”

Californians need to “recognize their responsibility and their complicity in driving demand for Amazon crude and the impact that that is having on Indigenous people, on their rights, on the biodiversity and the climate,” he added.

California’s future is closely tied to the Amazon’s — the state relies on the rainforest’s role in climate regulation and rainfall, Koenig said, warning that continued Amazon crude imports contribute to the destruction increasing California’s vulnerability to drought and wildfires.

He said environmental and public health damage tied to oil drilling is not confined to South America.

“We’re seeing the same impacts from the oil well to the wheel here in California, where communities are suffering from contamination, health impacts, dirty water,” he said. “It’s time that California lead an energy transition.”

California, one of the world’s largest economies and a major importer of Amazon crude, must take stronger climate action, Koenig added, and called on the state to phase out its reliance on oil linked to deforestation, human rights abuses, pollution and climate damage.

The resolution commends the Indigenous communities of Ecuador for their struggle in defending the rainforest and Indigenous rights.

It also marks the first time California would examine how its energy consumption may contribute to the region’s deforestation and cultural loss. The resolution is expected to be up for a vote within a few weeks, according to Koenig.

Grattan and Vasquez write for the Associated Press.

In March, the Trump administration deported 238 Venezuelans to El Salvador, allegedly for membership in the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, these men were “terrorists” and “heinous monsters.” President Trump echoed her, calling them “monsters” on his social media platform, Truth Social. In May, ProPublica reported that the White House knew that most of the men had no criminal convictions in the U.S., and earlier reporting indicated that more than 50 of them had entered the U.S. legally and had not violated immigration law.

“Monster” conjures a threat distinct from “foreign,” “different,” “other” or even “alien.” Here it implies that the deportees are different from “normal” people (read “white, Anglo, native-born Americans”) in ways that go beyond merely committing a garden-variety crime. Their transgression of the social contract seemingly even exceeds the violent crimes of which they are accused, because U.S. citizens suspected of being “rapists, murders, kidnappers” — the administration’s allegations about these “monsters” — don’t get trafficked to gulags overseas.

Monstrifying these people was part of a strategy to justify deporting them by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 without proof of any crime or gang membership. By doing so the administration threatens to normalize not just the deportation of a handful of individuals but also depriving all residents (legal and undocumented) and U.S. citizens of the right to challenge the legality of their detention or imprisonment. Because one cannot prove legal residence or citizenship without due process, deporting people without legal proceedings is to deny rights that must be extended to all if they are to exist for anyone — a violation all the greater when individuals are sent to a prison from which, in the words of the Salvadoran president, “the only way out is in a coffin.”

Monstrifying individuals and groups is nothing new. The 11th-century chronicler Gerald of Wales, descended from Norman conquerers and Welsh nobility, dismissed the English as “the most worthless of all peoples under heaven … the most abject slaves” and Ireland as an island inhabited by werewolves, ox-humans and other human-animal hybrids. In 1625, an English Puritan travel editor published a claim (without having set foot in North America) that the Algonquians had “little of humanitie but shape … more brutish than the beasts they hunt.”

In 1558, the Scottish Protestant and firebrand preacher John Knox published a pamphlet against the rule of Mary I of England, arguing that a woman who ruled in her own right was “a monster of monsters,” her country a monstrous body politic, unlikely to survive for long. In the age of Atlantic slavery, legal instruments known as “black codes” invented Black Africans transported to the colonies as a new category: the chattel slave who served for life and had fewer rights than white Christian servants.

The current president’s history of monstrifying people extends to U.S. citizens. In August 2016, Trump called Hillary Clinton “a monster”: supposedly “weak,” “unhinged,” “unbalanced,” someone who would be “a disaster” as president and who allegedly threatened “the destruction of this country from within.” In October 2020, Trump twice called Kamala Harris “this monster.”

The distinctions drawn by people in power trying to divide a population are often unworkable. How do you tell a law-abiding person from a terrorist gang member? From their tattoos, according to this administration. Neither citizenship nor immigration status is visible on a person’s body or audible in their voice, yet people of color of every immigration and citizenship status have long faced racial profiling. Attempts to define visible signs of the monster are not new either; nor is the fact that monster-making sweeps up an immense number of people in its dragnet.

But monsters are never hermetically sealed from the group whose borders they were invented to define. This ham-fisted attempt at an evidence-based reason for trafficking people to El Salvador echoes earlier attempts to identify distinct groups in a population where human variety existed on a continuum. Notorious among these examples was the monstrification and mass slaughter, in Nazi Germany, of Jewish, Roma, Sinti, LGBTQ+, disabled and neurodiverse individuals as well as political dissidents.

In the U.S. today, to tolerate, permit or encourage the monstrification of any non-citizen and consequently deny them due process is to tolerate, permit and encourage this to happen to U.S. citizens.

The category of the human is shrinking as politicians, tech bros and right-wing pundits monstrify everyone who isn’t a cis-het white man. Today’s dehumanizing language extends beyond the Venezuelan deportees that this administration labeled as “monsters.” It extends to women, minorities and LGBTQ+ people by questioning their right to bodily autonomy, privacy and dignity. It extends to people who are unhoused, poor, disabled or elderly, as social services are cut.

These narratives hail back to a broader, centuries-long Western tradition of gazing at other people and framing them as monstrous: as beings who supposedly broke the category of “human” and could be legitimately denied of fundamental rights.

Monster-making campaigns always serve a purpose. For European colonizers, claiming that Indigenous people were less than human disguised European land grabs. Laws defining enslaved Black Africans as chattel property legalized their enslavement and broke the labor solidarity between white servants and enslaved Africans. And the Nazis claimed that Jews and other minorities had caused Germany to lose the First World War and were responsible for the nation’s economic collapse.

Again today, the goals of monstrification serve the myth of white supremacy, including the notion that the U.S. was meant to be a white ethnostate. Thus while the Trump administration terminated a program for refugees fleeing Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, it welcomed white Afrikaners from South Africa by calling them refugees.

Furthermore, by exploiting Jews’ proximity to whiteness, this administration is monstrifying Palestinians in order to justify the Israeli government’s human rights violations. By declaring that protesters, including those who are Jewish, calling for an end to the Gaza slaughter are antisemitic, and by withholding research funds from and interfering with universities by calling them hotbeds of antisemitism, the administration attempts to convince people that Palestinian civilians do not deserve food, homes, safety or even life — and that recognizing the humanity of Jews requires denying that Palestinians are human and have human rights. Yet the administration’s own antisemitism is clear: Trump has pardoned leaders of antisemitic and white supremacist organizations and hosted prominent antisemites as dinner guests.

This multi-pronged campaign of monstrification strengthens the personal loyalty of white supremacists and Christian nationalists towards Trump and sows discord and poisons solidarity among his targets and critics.

Monstrifying narratives have been undermining the possibility of a more inclusive body politic for millennia. But there’s an antidote to us-them messages of hate, fear and exclusion that claim that only a tiny minority of people are truly human. That antidote is to realize that by recognizing the humanity of others we don’t disavow our own humanity: We demonstrate it. It behooves us to demand that all people receive equal protection under the law, and to call out monstrifying narratives that, in the end, dehumanize us all.

Surekha Davies is a historian, speaker and monster consultant for TV, film and radio. She is the author of “Humans: A Monstrous History” and writes the newsletter “Strange and Wondrous: Notes From a Science Historian.”

Things were looking tense in Los Angeles on Thursday even before federal agents took down U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla.

We had the Marines, slightly trained in domestic crowd control, heading out to do crowd control. We had ICE raids, sweeping up a man from a church. Or maybe it was ICE — the armed and masked agents refused to say where they were from.

But then the situation went further south, which to be honest, I thought would take at least until Monday.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was in town to cosplay at being an ICE agent herself. You know she loves to dress up. Padilla, who was in the same building to meet with a general, went to a news conference she was hosting and tried to ask her a question.

Bad idea.

Federal agents manhandled him out of the room, shoved him down onto his knees and handcuffed him. The FBI has confirmed to my colleagues that he was not arrested, but that’s little comfort.

While officers may not have known Padilla was a U.S. senator when they started going after him, they certainly did by the time the cuffs were snapping.

Padilla was heard saying, “Hands off, hands off. I’m Sen. Alex Padilla,” as the officers pushed him back.

The hands remained on.

Shortly after the video of this frightening episode hit social media, Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on X, “If they can handcuff a U.S. Senator for asking a question, imagine what they will do to you.”

Indeed.

After the news conference, Noem offered a sorry-not-sorry.

“I wish that he would have reached out and identified himself and let us know who he was and that he wanted to talk,” she told reporters. “His approach, you know, was something that I don’t think was appropriate at all, but the conversation was great, and we’re going to continue to communicate.”

It was great! Send in the Marines!

When asked why she had ordered the removal of Padilla, Noem deferred to law enforcement.

“I’ll let the law enforcement speak to how this situation was handled, but I will say that it’s people need to identify themselves before they start lunging at these moments during press conference,” she said.

“Lunging.”

It is starting to feel like being brown in America is a crime. Brown man allegedly lunging is the new Black man driving — scary enough that any response is justified.

Sen. Adam Schiff, our other California senator, came to his colleague’s defense, demanding an investigation.

“Anyone who looks at it — anyone — anyone who looks at this, it will turn your stomach,” he said. “To look at this video and see what happened reeks — reeks — of totalitarianism. This is not what democracies do.”

Political pundit Mike Madrid pointed out how personal this issue of immigration is to Padilla.

Padilla is the son of Mexican immigrants, Santos and Lupe Padilla. He went into politics in 1995 because of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187, the California measure that knocked all undocumented people off of many public services, including schools. He’s been a champion of immigrant communities ever since.

“Hard to describe how angered and passionate Senator Alex Padilla is — I’ve known him for 25 years and never seen anything like this,” Madrid wrote online. “He’s a living example of how Latinos feel right now.”

And not just Latinos — all Americans who care about democracy.

We are about to have approximately 3,000 hours of debate on whether Padilla deserved what he got because he was not invited to the press conference.

The right wing is going to parse the video looking for that lunge and saying Padilla was aggressive. The left will say he has a right to ask questions, even a duty because he is an elected representative whose constituents are being detained and disappeared, even ones that are U.S. citizens.

I’ll say I genuinely do not care if you are pro-Trump or pro-Padilla.

If you care about our Constitution, about due process, about civil rights, watching a U.S. senator forced onto his knees for asking questions should be a terrifying wake up call.

It turns out that it’s true: after they come for the vulnerable, they do indeed come for the rest.

A number of Latinx musicians have expressed their solidarity and support for immigrant communities via social media in the wake of immigration raids that have resulted in the arrest of 330 people in Southern California and the Central Coast.

In a lengthy Instagram video posted Saturday, TV personality and two-time Grammy-nominated singer Chiquis held back tears as she addressed the raids and reminded her fans to “treat people like you want to be treated.”

“United we stand, divided we fall apart, you guys,” she said. “If all humans would to get together and be kinder and hold each other’s hands and push people a little bit more in a positive way, uplift people, we would be so powerful.”

Música Mexicana artist Ivan Cornejo shared in an Instagram post Tuesday that his father had been granted amnesty by the Reagan administration during the ‘80s. He punctuated his post by sharing the information for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and added that he’ll continue to raise funds for CHIRLA throughout his tour.

“Words cannot express the sorrow that I feel for my community,” the “Estas Dañada” singer, a native of Riverside, said. “I see my mom, my dad and myself in many of you. I am speechless at the inhumanity that is affecting our Mexican and Hispanic communities.”

“The people being attacked today are not ‘illegal aliens,’ they are human beings with RIGHTS,” pop star Becky G said Tuesday in an Instagram post that paid tribute to her immigrant grandparents. “We must understand that an attack on them is an attack on OUR DEMOCRACY and an attack on what this country was made to stand for.”

The “Otro Capitulo” singer also shared information about what to do if confronted by immigration agents, and listed several advocacy organizations to support.

Los Aptos, a first-generation música Mexicana act band from Indiana, posted a segment of their interview with YouTube podcaster Pepe Garza describing their origins, and called for “a system that is untouchable no matter what a— is in office.”

In the same post, Los Aptos provided information on what to do if ICE knocks on your door and an infographic with the rights a person has if they are arrested.

Fuerza Regida, one of the most streamed Latin music acts, offered their “love and strength” to the Latinx community in an Instagram post Tuesday.

“We’ve been deeply moved by the events of this past week,” the band wrote in the statement. “These are our people, our fans, the very communities that inspire our music.”

Fher Olvera, the lead singer of legendary rock en español band Maná, posted a video on the group’s official Instagram on Wednesday expressing his support for the immigrant community in L.A., and asked protesters to remain peaceful.

“That’s how you are going to win,” Olvera said in Spanish.

Eight-time platinum artist Junior H also chimed in Wednesday, sharing a photo captioned with “No one is illegal in stolen land.” The “Rockstar” singer also shared a post from his fashion brand, Sad Boyz Clothing, announcing that a portion of its sales would be donated to “help cover the legal fees for families impacted by ICE Raids.”

“It’s a small gesture, but one we believe matters— because when one of us hurts, we all do,” read the company’s statement.

The normally tight-lipped Texas band Grupo Frontera also chimed in, writing in an Instagram Story on Wednesday that they “send strength and resilience to our migrant community.”

“We stand with you. As immigrants, we understand the pain, uncertainty and fear that many are experiencing,” the group said. “It hurts to see our people go through this and that’s why we want to speak out. We support you and we will never stop fighting for our community.”

BOSTON — Ceddanne Rafaela curled a home run around the Pesky Pole in the bottom of the ninth inning on Wednesday and the Boston Red Sox rallied after trailing four different times to beat the Angels 11-9.

The Angels blew 4-0, 7-5, 8-7 and 9-8 leads, with Rafael Devers bouncing a chopper between the gloves of second baseman Chris Taylor and shortstop Zach Neto behind second base to tie it 9-9 in the eighth.

Each of the first three times the Red Sox scored, the Angels answered with runs of its own. But after walking Mike Trout to lead off the ninth, Cooper Criswell (1-0) got the next three batters out to give Boston a chance to walk it off.

In the bottom half, Abraham Toro singled with one out and Rafaela hit a 308-foot liner over the short wall that goes from the foul pole toward the bullpens in right.

Taylor Ward had four RBIs for the Angels, who were going for the three-game sweep.

Key moment

Before recording his first out, Red Sox starter Lucas Giolito allowed four runs on two doubles, two singles and a homer. Then Angels starter José Soriano gave up four singles and two walks to make it 4-3 before striking out Rafaela on his 25th pitch of the inning.

David Hamilton’s two-run double with one out gave Boston a 5-4 lead.

Key stat

Combined, the starting pitchers, allowed 14 runs in 5 1/3 innings.

Up next

The Angels are off Thursday, with RHP Kyle Hendricks (2-6, 5.34 ERA) slated to start the opener of a three-game series against Seattle on Friday night. The Red Sox are off Thursday before starting a three-game series in New York against the Yankees.

WASHINGTON — A closely divided Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the bans on semiautomatic rifles in Maryland, California and eight other blue states.

Gun rights advocates say these AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, and they argue the 2nd Amendment protects weapons that are “in common use by law-abiding citizens.”

But they fell one vote short of winning a hearing on the question before the Supreme Court.

Three conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — voted to hear the 2nd Amendment challenge.

But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh refused for now to cast the key fourth vote. He called the lower-court ruling upholding Maryland’s ban “questionable,” but agreed with the majority in turning down the appeal for now.

“In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,” Kavanaugh said.

The closely watched appeal had been pending since December, and the outcome suggests that the majority, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is not ready to strike down state laws that restrict semiautomatic guns.

Monday’s no-comment order lets stand laws in Maryland and Rhode Island that forbid the sale or possession of “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines.

California adopted the nation’s first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland’s law were ruled unconstitutional.

Lawmakers in California and nine other Democratic-led states say these rapid-fire weapons are especially dangerous and not needed for self-defense.

Maryland said its ban applies to “certain highly dangerous, military-style assault weapons of the sort used in a series of highly publicized mass shootings.”

The case tested the reach of the 2nd Amendment and its “right to keep and bear arms.”

For more than a decade, the justices have turned away gun-rights appeals that challenged local or state bans on assault weapons.

In 2008, the court ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to self-defense, but its constitutional rulings since then have been modest in their impact.

The justices struck down city ordinances in Washington and Chicago that prohibited private possession of handguns, and they ruled states may not deny law-abiding citizens a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

In opinion polls, most Americans are opposed to a ban on handgun possession but they support a ban on semiautomatic assault rifles.

Maryland passed its ban on “assault weapons” after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, where 20 children and six school employees were killed.

The law was upheld last year in an opinion written by a prominent conservative judge.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee who was a finalist for a Supreme Court nomination in 2005, said the AR-15, AK-47 and similar rapid-fire rifles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

“They are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” he wrote in a 9-5 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. “We decline to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation’s democratic processes.”

The dissenters said the 2nd Amendment protects the right to the “arms” that are in common use.

“Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation,” wrote Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee.

“As of 2021, there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles in circulation. For context, this means that there are more AR-style rifles in the civilian market than there are Ford F-Series pickup trucks on the road — the most popular truck in America.”

Three years ago, the court said in an opinion by Thomas that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted based on the nation’s history and tradition of gun regulations.

However, the two sides in the Maryland case differed on what to glean from that history.

Gun-rights advocates said there was no early history of laws banning common firearms.

But some judges and state lawyers said the history shows that when new dangers arose — including stored gunpowder, dynamite and machine guns — new restrictions were written into law. If so, that would support new laws adopted in response to the danger posed by rapid-fire weapons.

The justices denied review in the case of Snope vs. Brown.

It’s all (Taylor’s Version) now.

Taylor Swift announced Friday that she had reacquired the rights to her early recordings, six years after music executive Scooter Braun bought her old record label (and with it, control of Swift’s first six studio albums).

Braun’s 2019 purchase of the Nashville-based Big Machine company — whose Swift holdings he later sold for a reported $300 million — inspired Swift’s massively successful “(Taylor’s Version)” campaign, in which the 35-year-old pop megastar has been meticulously re-recording each of those LPs in an effort to replace the originals in the marketplace.

“All I’ve ever wanted was the opportunity to work hard enough to be able to one day purchase my music outright with no strings attached, no partnership, with full autonomy,” Swift wrote Friday on her website after posting a photo on social media of herself surrounded by those early albums.

“I will be forever grateful to everyone at Shamrock Capital for being the first people to ever offer this to me,” she continued. “The way they’ve handled every interaction has been honest, fair, and respectful. This was a business deal to them, but I really felt like they saw it for what it was to me: My memories and my sweat and my handwriting and my decades of dreams. I am endlessly thankful.”

Last week, the New York Post’s Page Six reported that Braun — who once managed Swift’s nemesis Kanye West and whom Swift has accused of bullying her — was “encouraging” the new deal between the singer and Shamrock Capital, the L.A.-based investment firm that bought the rights to Swift’s early music from Braun in 2020. Yet a source close to the contract negotiations, who requested anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic, rebutted that claim.

“All rightful credit for this opportunity should go to the partners at Shamrock Capital and Taylor’s Nashville-based management team only,” the source told The Times. “Taylor now owns all of her music, and this moment finally happened in spite of Scooter Braun, not because of him.”

Shamrock was founded in 1978 by the late Roy E. Disney, a nephew of Walt Disney; Swift has struck several deals with the Disney company in recent years, including her decision to make a 2023 concert movie available to stream on Disney+.

The New York Post reported that Swift paid Shamrock between $600 million and $1 billion for the rights to her albums, a price range The Times’ source described as “highly inaccurate.”

Through a representative, Braun said on Friday: “I am happy for her.”

The pop star also provided an update on “Reputation (Taylor’s Version)” in her Friday note.

“[I]t’s the one album in those first 6 that I thought couldn’t be improved upon by redoing it. Not the music, or the photos or videos. So I kept putting it off,” she said of the anticipated redo, which will follow earlier “(Taylor’s Version)” updates of her albums “Fearless,” “Red,” “Speak Now” and “1989.” “There will be a time (if you’re into the idea) for the unreleased Vault tracks from that album to hatch,” she added.

Swift said she had “already completely re-recorded” her self-titled debut album, which she released in 2006 at age 16, and “really love[s] how it sounds now.”

The original “Reputation” followed a public feud with West and his then-wife, Kim Kardashian, that reshaped Swift’s established image as the girl next door: “My reputation’s never been worse,” she told a new love interest in the song “Delicate,” “So you must like me for me.” The LP found the singer — who had described 2014’s “1989” as her first “official pop album” — dabbling in sounds and textures borrowed from hip-hop and R&B; the song “End Game” even featured a guest verse from the rapper Future.

“Reputation” earned a Grammy nomination for pop vocal album, though it famously missed a nod for album of the year after Swift had scored three earlier nominations in that category. In 2024, the singer became the first artist to win album of the year four times when “Midnights” took the prize; Swift’s latest project, “The Tortured Poets Department,” was nominated for album of the year at February’s ceremony, but Beyoncé’s “Cowboy Carter” won.

Friday’s announcement came around six months after the finale of Swift’s blockbuster Eras tour, which launched in March 2023 and ran for 149 shows across five continents. The tour is said to be the highest-grossing of all time, with ticket sales in the neighborhood of $2 billion.

And in case anyone was unclear about how much this deal with Shamrock Capital means to Swift, she laid it out pretty clearly in her note.

“My first tattoo,” she wrote, “might just be a huge shamrock in the middle of my forehead.”

Josh Klinghoffer, the former Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist, accepted a plea deal after facing a vehicular manslaughter charge.

Klinghoffer, 45, was charged in the death of Israel Sanchez in March after a collision last year in Alhambra. Klinghoffer was driving a black GMC Yukon at the corner of West Main Street and South Meridian Avenue when he turned left at the intersection while 47-year-old Sanchez was walking in a marked crosswalk. Klinghoffer then struck and killed Sanchez.

On Wednesday in court in Alhambra, Klinghoffer pleaded no contest to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence. He was sentenced to 60 days of community labor and one year of informal probation. He will also have to take a driver safety course and pay restitution.

During the hearing, the prosecutor told Klinghoffer, “If you continue to drive while distracted, and as a result of your driving someone is killed, you can be charged with murder.”

Sanchez’s family sued Klinghoffer for wrongful death after the incident, alleging that Klinghoffer was on his phone at the time of the collision. “Video of the incident shows that defendant Josh Adam Klinghoffer made no braking or slowing motion until after he fatally struck Israel Sanchez, indicating that Defendant was likely driving while distracted.”

“This horrible outcome was foreseeable and demonstrates a willful disregard for the rights and safety of others,” the suit continued.

Klinghoffer’s attorney in the civil suit, Andrew Brettler, said in a statement to The Times last year, “After Josh struck this pedestrian in the intersection, he immediately pulled over, stopped the car, called 911 and waited until police and the ambulance arrived. Obviously, he’s cooperating with the police throughout the traffic investigation. This was purely a tragic accident.”

Klinghoffer played guitar with the Red Hot Chili Peppers from 2009 to 2019, when longtime guitarist John Frusciante returned. Klinghoffer was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame with the band in 2012. He has since performed as a member of Jane’s Addiction and Pearl Jam.

The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether California, its interscholastic sports federation and the Jurupa Unified School District are violating the civil rights of cisgender girls by allowing transgender students to compete in school sports, federal officials announced Wednesday.

The Justice Department is also throwing its support behind a pending lawsuit alleging similar violations of girls’ rights in the Riverside Unified School District, said U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who oversees much of the Los Angeles region, and Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Transgender track athletes have come under intense scrutiny in recent months in both Jurupa Valley and Riverside, with anti-LGBTQ+ activists attacking them on social media and screaming opposition to their competing at school meets.

Essayli and Dhillon, both Californians appointed under President Trump, have long fought against transgender rights in the state. Their announcements came one day after Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from California for allowing transgender youth to participate in sports.

The legal actions are just the latest attempts by the Trump administration to scale back transgender rights nationwide, including by bringing the fight to California — which has the nation’s largest queer population and some of its most robust LGBTQ+ legal protections — and targeting individual student athletes in the state.

Both Trump in his threats Tuesday and Essayli and Dhillon in their announcement of the investigation Wednesday appeared to reference the recent success of a 16-year-old transgender track athlete at Jurupa Valley High School named AB Hernandez. Trump wrongly suggested that Hernandez had won “everything” at a recent meet — which Hernandez didn’t do.

In a comment to The Times on Wednesday, Hernandez’s mother, Nereyda Hernandez, said it was heartbreaking to see her child being attacked “simply for being who they are,” and despite following all California laws and policies for competing.

“My child is a transgender student-athlete, a hardworking, disciplined, and passionate young person who just wants to play sports, continue to build friendships, and grow into their fullest potential like any other child,” her mother said.

The mother of another transgender high school track athlete in Riverside County who is the subject of the pending lawsuit the Justice Department is now backing declined to comment Wednesday.

The Justice Department said it had sent letters of legal notice to California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the California Interscholastic Federation and Jurupa Unified.

The U.S. Department of Education had previously announced in February that it was investigating the CIF for allowing transgender athletes to compete. Dhillon said the two federal departments would coordinate their investigations.

Bonta has defended state laws protecting transgender youth, students and athletes, and advised school systems and other institutions in the state, such as hospitals, to adhere to state LGBTQ+ laws — even in the face of various Trump executive orders aimed at curtailing the rights of and healthcare for transgender youth. On Wednesday, his office said it remained “committed to defending and upholding California laws.”

Scott Roark, a spokesman for the California Department of Education, said his agency could not comment. Jacquie Paul, a spokesperson for Jurupa Unified, said the school system had yet to receive the letter Wednesday, and “without further information” could not comment. A spokesperson for the Riverside Unified School District also declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

The CIF, in a statement, said it “values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code.”

However, the sports federation also changed its rules for the upcoming 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships, saying a cisgender girl who is bumped from qualifying for event finals by a transgender athlete would still be allowed to compete and would also be awarded the medal for whichever place they would have claimed were the transgender athlete not competing.

The changes brought renewed criticism from advocates on both sides of the political issue, including Chino Valley Unified school board President Sonja Shaw. Shaw is a Trump supporter running for state schools superintendent who has challenged pro-LGBTQ+ laws statewide and supports the latest investigation. She said that, in making the changes, CIF was “admitting” that girls “are being pushed out of their own sports.”

Dhillon said her office’s “pattern or practice” investigation will consider whether California’s laws and the CIF policies violate Title IX, a 1972 federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.

Title IX has been used in the past to win rights for transgender people, but the Trump administration has taken a strikingly different view of the law — and cited it as a reason transgender rights must be rolled back.

Dhillon said the law “exists to protect women and girls in education,” that it is “perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies,” and that her division would “aggressively defend women’s hard-fought rights to equal educational opportunities.”

Essayli said in a statement that his office would “work tirelessly to protect girls’ sports and stop anyone — public officials included — from violating women’s civil rights.”

LGBTQ+ advocates, civic institutions in California and many Democratic lawmakers in the state have denounced the framing of transgender inclusion in sports as diminishing the rights of women and girls and accused Trump and other Republicans of attacking transgender people — about 1% of the U.S. population — simply because they make for an easy and vulnerable political target.

Kristi Hirst, co-founder of the public education advocacy group Our Schools USA, said the Justice Department’s actions amounted to “bullying minors and using taxpayer resources to do so,” and that a “better use of public dollars would be for the Justice Department to affirm that all kids possess civil rights, and protect the very students being targeted today.”

The “pattern or practice” investigation is the second such investigation that Dhillon’s office has launched in the L.A. region in as many months. It’s also investigating Los Angeles County over its process for issuing gun permits.

Essayli’s separate decision to back the Riverside lawsuit adds another wrinkle to an already complicated case.

The group Save Girls’ Sports is suing over the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a girls’ track meet in October, a decision they allege unfairly bumped a cisgender girl from competition, and over a decision by high school officials to block students from wearing shirts that read, “IT’S COMMON SENSE. XX [does not equal] XY,” a reference to the different chromosome pairings of biological females and males.

Julianne Fleischer, an attorney with Advocates for Faith & Freedom who is representing Save Girls’ Sports, said Wednesday that Essayli’s decision to weigh in on behalf of the group was welcome.

“This case has always been about common sense, fairness, and the plain meaning of the law,” Fleischer said in a statement. “Girls’ sports were never meant to be a social experiment. They exist so that girls can win, lead and thrive on a level playing field.”

It was unclear how the case would be affected by Essayli’s interest.

The state and school district are asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed. A hearing is scheduled next month.

Essayli, formerly a state Assembly member from Riverside County, made his name in politics in part by attacking what he has called the “woke” policies of California’s liberal majority in Sacramento. Shortly before he was appointed as U.S. attorney last month, other California lawmakers blocked a bill he introduced that would have banned transgender athletes from female sports.

Hernandez, the mother of the targeted Jurupa Valley athlete, said Trump and other officials were bullying children by “weaponizing misinformation and fear instead of embracing truth, compassion and respect,” and asked Trump to reconsider.

“I respectfully request you to open your heart and mind to learn about the LGBTQ+ community,” she said, “not from the voices of fear or division, but from the people living these lives with courage, love and dignity.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student’s claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are “only two genders.”

Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from “hate speech” or bullying.

After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative culture-war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case “presented an issue of great importance for our nation’s youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor.”

Liam Morrison, a seventh-grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school’s promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to “rise up to protect trans and gender-nonconforming students.”

Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said “There are only two genders.”

A teacher reported him to the principal, who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word “censored” taped over the words “two genders” and was sent home again.

The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful.

In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that prohibit licensed counselors from using “conversion therapy” with minors.

That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation.

On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children “opt out” of the classroom use of new “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks.

The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump’s executive order declaring the U.S. government will “recognize two sexes, male and female,” not “an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.”

Although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools.

In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld a move by school officials at Poway High School in San Diego to bar a student from wearing a T-shirt that said “Homosexuality is shameful.” The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make “derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.”

Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt.

In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy’s father said his son’s T-shirt message was not “directed at any particular person” but dealt with a “hot political topic.”

In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against bullying and a dress code that says “clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.”

Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom sued on the student’s behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt “invaded the rights of the other students … to a safe and secure educational environment.”

The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or “poison the atmosphere” at school.

The Supreme Court’s most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren court ruled for high school students who wore black armbands as a protest.

In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. … For school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.”

The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard.

“This case isn’t about T-shirts. It’s about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn’t allowed to express a view that differs from their own,” said David Cortman, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney in the case of L.M. vs. Town of Middleborough.

The beef is building between Bruce Springsteen and President Trump.

The Boss did not back down on his fiery rhetoric against Trump on the third night of his “Land of Hopes and Dreams” tour in Manchester, England, on Saturday — a day after Trump lashed out against the legendary singer on Truth Social, calling him an “obnoxious jerk,” a “dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker,” and writing that he should “keep his mouth shut.”

Springsteen didn’t oblige. In a resolute three-minute speech from the Co-op Live venue, Springsteen thanked his cheering audience for indulging him in a speech about the state of America: “Things are happening right now that are altering the very nature of our country’s democracy, and they’re too important to ignore.”

He then repeated many of the lines that he used during a previous Manchester show — the same words that upset Trump to begin with, including the administration defunding American universities, the rolling back of civil rights legislation and siding with dictators, “against those who are struggling for their freedoms.”

Trump’s Truth Social post contained what appeared to be a threat, writing of Springsteen, “We’ll see how it goes for him,” when he gets back to the country. This did not dissuade the “Born in the USA” singer.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

“In my home, they’re persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That’s happening now,” Springsteen said. “In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. That’s happening now. In my country, they’re taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers.”

In a steady voice, he listed the many concerns of those who oppose Trump, his enablers and his policies.

“They are removing residents off American streets without due process of law and deploying them to foreign detention centers as prisoners. That’s happening now. The majority of our elected representatives have utterly failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government,” Springsteen said as the crowd applauded and yelled its support. “They have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American.”

He finished on a positive note.

“The America I’ve sung to you about for 50 years is real, and regardless of its many faults, it’s a great country with a great people, and we will survive this moment. Well, I have hope, because I believe in the truth of what the great American writer James Baldwin said. He said, ‘In this world, there isn’t as much humanity as one would like, but there’s enough.’ ”

Springsteen has long been a vocal critic of Trump, and campaigned for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Trump is known for his angry diatribes against celebrities who criticize him, including Taylor Swift and Robert DeNiro.

WASHINGTON — The head of the U.S. Space Force is moving ahead with plans to pull talent from Air National Guard units to help build up the still new-military service — but several governors remain opposed and argue it tramples on their rights to retain control over their state units.

Overall, the plan would affect only 578 service members across six states and the Air National Guard headquarters and augment the Space Force without creating a separate Space Force National Guard — something the service has said would not be efficient because it would be so small.

“We are actively pursuing where do we want our part-time workforce? What type of work do they do?” the head of Space Force, Gen. Chance Saltzman, said Thursday at a Politico conference.

The transferred service members would be a part-time force like they are now, just serving under the Space Force instead of their state units.

But space missions are some of the most lucrative across the military and private sectors, and the states that lose space mission service member billets are potentially losing highly valuable part-time workforce members if they have to move away to transfer to the Space Force.

Last month, the National Governors Assn. said the transfers violate their right to retain control over their state units.

“We urge that any transfers cease immediately and that there be direct and open engagement with governors,” the association said in April. The group was not immediately available to comment on Space Force’s plan.

“There’s a lot of concern in the National Guard about these individuals who are highly skilled that want to be in the Guard being transferred out,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin said at an Air Force manpower hearing this week.

Congress directed the transfers in its 2025 defense bill. But the contention between the states and the Space Force has meant the service hasn’t so far been able to approach individual members about transferring in.

According to the legislation, each National Guard will get the option to either stay with their units — and get retrained in another specialty — or join the Space Force. Those who do transfer would be allowed to remain in their home state to perform their mission for at least the next 10 years, according to the 2025 legislation.

The affected personnel include 33 from Alaska, 126 from California, 119 from Colorado, 75 from Florida, 130 from Hawaii, 69 from Ohio and 26 from Air National Guard headquarters

Copp writes for the Associated Press.