solution

Seriously, one week, Democrats?

You couldn’t have kept our hope for a revived democracy alive a little longer? You couldn’t pretend to have a spine, or leadership, respect for voters, or even just a plan — for more than seven days?

On the first Tuesday after the blue tsunami supposedly restored the checks and balances of our government, barely 170 hours into this shift of power, a vote to stop Republicans from burying an effort to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was tanked by … Democrats. Eleven of them, to be precise, who didn’t show up to cast their vote in the House, thereby letting the impeachment effort be rolled into an early grave in the committee process.

New Mexico Rep. Melanie Stansbury, one of the Absent 11, had this to say about getting stuck in traffic on her way back from a Democratic cocktail party and missing the vote: “There is no one who is more disappointed in myself than me that I was not here that the moment that gavel dropped.”

Actually, Mel, there is.

In fact, there are millions of folks more disappointed in you than you are — in all Democrats, for that matter. Not only are they disappointed, they’re rightfully angry, which is a major, magical feat when seven days ago, America was embracing the Democratic Party in a way it hasn’t in more than a decade. It’s actually impressive Democrats could screw up so badly, so quickly.

So what really went wrong? Were Republicans just too organized? Democrats sloppy? Should the 11 be held responsible, or is it a larger Democrat mess?

Or did, as Stansbury explained, a slow-rolling bus really just destroy the Democrats’ comeback?

The California 3

Three of the Absent 11 were Californians, so let’s take a look at that. Santa Ana’s Lou Correa knew in advance he wouldn’t be at the vote for medical reasons. On Monday, he told media that he was having a surgery and couldn’t travel — but he didn’t think he would be missing much.

“Other than the [Pete] Hegseth impeachment, there’s nothing else,” Correa said in an interview, adding that he supported impeachment of the Defense secretary.

But it turned out he had a heart attack and Tuesday needed emergency open-heart surgery, so fair. Correa gets a pass.

Democratic standard-bearer Nancy Pelosi was also in California instead of Congress, having flown back that day. Surely, this lioness of the left must have a good reason?

“Speaker Emerita Pelosi returned to San Francisco to join and honor local veterans at Swords to Plowshares’ 30th Annual Veterans Day Celebration tonight, an important and longstanding district tradition she regularly attends and will mark for the last time as a Member of Congress by receiving the Lifetime Advocate for Veterans Award,” her spokesperson told SFGate.

“We could never do enough” to honor veterans, she said at that event.

Sure, great, OK. Like you know, protecting them from an amateurish “secretary of War” who has decimated the leadership ranks of the military and is being accused of perhaps ordering extrajudicial killings?

And what about Julia Brownley, the soon-to-retire Westlake Village congresswoman who was also absent?

She posted on Facebook that “Hegseth is one of the most incompetent, corrupt, and underqualified Secretaries of Defense in the history of our nation.”

But, as she “and many of my colleagues were rushing to the floor to support Hegseth’s impeachment, [Speaker] Mike Johnson closed the vote before we could.”

D’oh!

I sent multiple emails to her office asking why she was so late, but didn’t receive a response. Other outlets have indicated she was stuck in traffic too.

Regardless of gridlock, as another Californian — Los Angeles Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove — put it, it was “shameful” to miss the vote.

“We knew that this vote was coming, so people should have gotten their raggedy selves up these steps to vote,” she said. “There is no reason why we should have lost this vote because of attendance issues.”

But was it really the Absent 11’s fault?

Leadership vacuum

Multiple news outlets have reported that the postelection celebration that pulled so many party members away from Congress and into traffic was also attended by Democratic Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts. The whip, for those who don’t know, is the party member elected to herd the rest into voting.

The Wall Street Journal reported Clark left the party early because she heard about the logjam and didn’t want to miss the vote — but apparently didn’t tell her colleagues?

At a Wednesday morning meeting, Clark apparently expressed her disappointment that her fellow Congress members didn’t show up, which, again, is her responsibility to ensure that they do. One job, Madame Whip, one job.

But maybe it wasn’t Clark’s fault either?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who would very much like to become House speaker and probably will, had earlier declared himself a “hard yes” on impeaching Hegseth.

But critics, especially on the progressive left, are attacking him for failing to round up support on this vote — there was, apparently, no be-there-or-face-consequences message.

Jeffries has been criticized in the past for seemingly failing to understand just how anxious the Democratic base is for action, and failing to keep his party on track. He’s also been criticized as a less-than-dynamic communicator.

It’s more than possible that Democrats didn’t think this was the right time to impeach Hegseth, with the articles introduced by Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie. The impeachment effort was somewhat doomed in the House from the start, and the Senate, where an impeachment trial would be held, is for now still Republican dominated.

Maybe Jeffries is playing chess, opting for strategy over optics.

The real lesson

But it’s irrelevant whether this was strategy or screw-up — it’s a sour start. The Democrats just proved in short order that they do not understand this moment in American politics, and they are really, really bad at communicating.

Both of those are politically deadly. If Democrats, or the leadership under Jeffries, thought that this vote didn’t matter to the public or that it wasn’t the best way to go, they were wrong.

Whether this impeachment was going to be successful or just symbolic, it was the symbol voters wanted. It was an easy way for Democrats to show they heard the message from this election and were taking voters seriously.

If there was indeed a masterful backroom political strategy to not voting, Democrats needed to communicate that in advance. Before they put a knife in Massie’s back and ours, there needed to be solid, clear messaging about why the blade was for the greater good. Because, seriously, Hegseth is unqualified and dangerous.

This debacle does not bode well for what comes in the next session of Congress. Voters didn’t elect Democrats to play secretive games, to plot and plan in the dark for future moves, or worse — to continue the status quo of wandering around in disarray as Republicans stay in lockstep.

Seven days, Democrats. I’ve bought fish that lasted longer.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: She claimed to be a rich L.A. aerospace heiress. Now she’s hiding from police in Dubai, FBI says
The California angle: What Becerra’s historic win says about Latino political power in California
The L.A. Times Special: Xavier Becerra makes history as California’s first elected Latino governor

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

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

Press Forward, the nonprofit launched in 2023 to strengthen local news as outlets struggle with economic and technological changes, announced Tuesday that it has completed investing nearly $600 million in journalism organizations, about two years ahead of schedule.

However, Press Forward Executive Director Dale Anglin said the organization’s work is far from complete. Not only will the group continue raising and investing money, it will also expand its range of initiatives to support journalism.

“The industry is going through an incredible transformation,” Anglin told the Associated Press in an interview. “It took 20 years to get to this point — if not longer. It’s going to take us a while to get out of it.”

According to “ The State of Local News 2026 ” from Northwestern University, the number of news deserts – counties that have no locally based professional sources of news – grew by 12% this year to 238, as advertising and audiences continued to decline. Though there were dozens of newsrooms started this year, more than two newspapers closed for each outlet launched.

Anglin said she has had success convincing more funders to support Press Forward, which launched in 2023 through donations from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Democracy Fund and 19 other funders. The nonprofit now has 144 funders and has explained how longer-term support for journalism is necessary, similar to arts or education funding in a community.

Press Forward has established a $21-million impact investing fund to support outlets with small loans they would likely not get elsewhere. It already has 50 local Press Forward chapters that have invested $87 million to strengthen journalism in their communities, including $53 million in the past year.

“The challenges in local news were really kind of universal,” Anglin said. “But it turns out, as we have learned over the last three years, that a lot of the solutions are local.”

Press Forward Chicago sees promise in pooled funds

Tracy Baim, executive director of Press Forward Chicago, said her chapter believes it has developed part of the solution to journalism’s funding problems.

In addition to accepting traditional donations, Press Forward Chicago has established a pooled fund, which uses donations from multiple organizations to support specific initiatives.

“It is a way to tiptoe into journalism funding,” said Baim, adding that many foundations, especially smaller ones, saw supporting individual news outlets as too intimidating. She said the potential pitfalls of being associated with a controversial project or being accused of influencing coverage because of their donations kept some foundations from getting involved.

“A pooled fund mitigates those risks,” Baim said. Chicago’s fund further minimizes risk for donors by distributing the donations to multiple outlets.

Its first pooled fund was used last year to fund increased immigration reporting. Nearly $1 million was collected from 12 donors and distributed to 12 organizations, ranging from national outlets like ProPublica and major local outlets like Chicago Public Media and Block Club Chicago to smaller outlets serving Latino and Chinese communities. The donations allowed the outlets to add reporting, editing and presentation capacity right before the Department of Homeland Security launched the immigration operation “Midway Blitz” in Chicago.

A second pooled fund focused on education and allowed outlets to increase coverage of the Chicago Board of Education elections.

“We are making these outlets stronger,” Baim said. “We’re not just giving an organization a grant to cover stuff. We are amplifying their work so that they can get new subscribers and that’s a pipeline of potential donors.”

Knight Foundation looks to local funding

Supporting that sort of sustainable growth is the next phase of Press Forward’s work. And Knight Foundation President and Chief ExecutiveMaribel Perez Wadsworth said that is more significant than co-founding the organization.

“Announcing half a billion dollars in national funding toward journalism was important in terms of demonstrating the urgency and the importance of supporting local journalism,” Wadsworth said. “But the more important thing, ultimately, is to really catalyze and create deeper awareness at the local level about the essential nature of access to reliable news and information as a public good.”

There are signs that donors, both big and small, are making journalism a priority because it provides an information base that supports other initiatives. Last month, the Ford Foundation, one of the world’s largest grantmakers, said that supporting journalism would become one of its priorities as it overhauls its giving to focus on the building blocks of democracy. The much smaller nonprofit Public Media Co. has made providing trustworthy local information a cornerstone of its work to keep public radio stations operating following ongoing federal funding cuts.

Perez Wadsworth said that having local and regional funders work together to keep local news outlets open in their communities is a more sustainable solution to many journalism outlets’ budgetary problems.

“Philanthropy writ large is not a business model,” she said. “And it’s not sustainable to believe that philanthropy is just going to always support whatever the thing is, no matter how important.”

‘No silver bullet’ for economic woes

Press Forward’s Anglin said there is “no silver bullet” to solve journalism’s economic problems. But philanthropy can help strengthen news outlets until they figure out a new business model that will make them sustainable.

Press Forward plans to promote solutions through public policy changes, encouraging cooperation and resource-sharing between outlets and supplying infrastructure and capacity-building grants. Its chapters, which operate independently, have met a wide spectrum of needs — from helping defray some Minnesota outlets’ cost of covering the surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis earlier this year to training local residents in Kentucky to become reporters.

“You can’t nonprofit your way out of this problem,” Anglin said. “We understand that some things will still close. But we are building for the long term.”

Gamboa writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

Sinking ship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The knife-wielder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kissy, kissy

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

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

Here’s three of my top picks:

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

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

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

Well, we’ll see, Pete.

But what about the Dems?

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

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

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

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

What else you should be reading:

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

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Saddam Hussein?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump couldn’t stop himself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else you should be reading:

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

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop the knocks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergency relief

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

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

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

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

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

The court will rule on that next week.

Beyond Nov. 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else you should be reading:

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

Stay Golden,

Anita Chabria

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

The red dye ploy

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

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

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

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

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

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

Global supply

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

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

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

(Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

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

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

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

California’s fault

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

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

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

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

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What else you should be reading:

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

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

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

Anita Chabria

—

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