Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff and a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election as part of an investigation that he called a “fact-finding mission” to determine if they were fraudulently counted.
Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the state’s top law enforcement official, has sharply criticized the probe, which he called “unprecedented in both scope and scale.”
In a March 4 letter to the sheriff, Bonta said the seizure of the ballots “sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections.” He threatened to seek legal recourse if Bianco does not halt his investigation.
Bianco said Friday that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected.
Here is what we know.
Why were ballots taken?
According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 took about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.
Bianco said that it’s his “constitutional duty” to investigate a potential crime and that he is not trying to change the election results.
The investigation includes all of the ballots cast in the county, where Proposition 50 passed with 56% of the vote, a margin of more than 82,000 ballots. Statewide, it passed with 64% of the vote, a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots.
Bianco said he had been contacted by “a group of citizen volunteers” that said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast. He did not name the group, but the allegations match those made by a group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team.
In a February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed the group’s allegations and said they were based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.
The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes — a variance of 0.016%.
How did the sheriff get the ballots?
Bianco said his department served the registrar with a warrant “approved and signed by a judge” on Feb. 9.
According to Bonta’s office, an additional warrant was issued on Feb. 23. Bianco said the warrants are now sealed.
In the March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general said he had “serious concerns” about whether the sheriff had probable cause to seize the election materials.
Bonta questioned whether Bianco had concealed information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants, including details from the registrar’s analysis of the citizen group’s allegations.
An official from Bonta’s office told The Times that the attorney general “found out in the middle of the week that [Bianco] was going to execute the warrants on a Friday.” Bonta’s office asked the sheriff to slow down and share information about the investigation, but “instead of waiting, he actually moved it up” and seized the ballots sooner than planned, said the official, who would only speak on background.
Bianco said a Riverside County Superior Court judge ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count. His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said.
The ballots would have soon been destroyed
California law requires county officials to keep election materials — including ballots and voter identification envelopes — for 22 months for elections involving a federal office and for six months for all other contests.
The materials must be sealed and then destroyed at the end of the retention period.
The Proposition 50 election took place on Nov. 4, so the ballots are scheduled to be destroyed in May.
Why investigate now?
Political observers say that Bianco — a leading gubernatorial candidate — appears to be vying for attention from President Trump and his supporters.
Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said the investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.”
“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. “People who don’t know his background will know now. This is clear signaling.”
Trump has repeatedly called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections. He remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud.
In January, the FBI raided the elections office in Fulton County, Ga., seizing 2020 presidential election records. And this month, the Republican leader of Arizona’s state Senate said he had handed over 2020 election records to the FBI, complying with a federal grand jury subpoena for records related to a controversial audit of the election in Maricopa County.
Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.
The top two vote getters, regardless of party, will advance to the November election.
Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for Proposition 50 and had nothing to do with his campaign for governor.
Citing concerns about affordability, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is proposing revising the state’s 2019 climate law, asking to delay implementation by several years and to adopt a different greenhouse-gas accounting method.
The changes would effectively water down a law viewed as one of the most ambitious state climate policies in the U.S.
Hochul called the law’s current targets “costly and unattainable” in a statement released Friday. “This is solely out of necessity — to protect New Yorkers’ pocketbooks and economy,” she said.
The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act targets a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and an 85% cut by 2050. As of 2023, the state had lowered its emissions by about 14%.
Meeting the 2030 deadline would drastically drive up energy bills for New Yorkers, Hochul, a Democrat, has said. Regulations to implement the law are already delayed; Hochul wants to push them back to 2030 and create a new emissions target for 2040.
Energy bills have surged around the U.S., partly as a result of AI-driven demand. As of November, the average residential electricity price in New York was 26.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, ranking eighth highest in the country, according to Empire Center, a nonprofit think tank in Albany. The Iran war has sent oil and gas prices surging.
The proposed weakening of the law comes amid the Trump administration’s dismantling of federal climate regulations and clean energy incentives, which environmentalists have looked to Democrat-led states and cities to counter.
“Lots of people around the country — really around the world — have been looking to see how New York does in implementing this strong climate law,” said Michael Gerrard, a Columbia University law professor who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
“If a very blue state like New York moves backwards on climate change as well, that’s a negative sign for the country,” he said. “If you can’t do it here, can you do it anywhere?”
Hochul, who is running for reelection this year, is seeking to advance changes through the state’s budget, which is due April 1. The proposal is expected to meet resistance from some Democratic lawmakers.
“We will negotiate with the governor,” said State Sen. Pete Harckham, who chairs the body’s environmental conservation committee. “We’ll be able to get to, I think, a resolution of this.”
Policymakers including Harckham and State Sen. Liz Krueger, who chairs the finance committee, penned a letter to Hochul earlier this month urging her not to back a delay.
Given Washington’s war on climate policy, they wrote, “it is incumbent on states like New York to reject this new wave of climate denial and put forward bold policies that will save New Yorkers money, reduce pollution and protect a livable climate.”
Krueger said Friday the proposed changes would increase the likelihood that the climate law will never be fully enacted.
“This is a serious problem,” she said. “We need to be spending the money for the infrastructure to help meet the targets.”
Business groups and Republicans in Albany have argued that implementing the law as it stands would drive up costs and worsen the affordability crisis. State Sen. Tom O’Mara has urged changes. “It is time [to] amend the CLCPA to account for economic realities,” he said in a statement. The Business Council, representing New York companies, last month said the deadlines stipulated “are proving unachievable.”
Even some Democrats have advocated for amendments. State Assemblymembers Carrie Woerner and John T. McDonald said last week that “the reality is difficult to ignore: New York is not on track to meet the CLCPA’s targets on the timeline written into law.”
“The real question is whether New York can remain committed to deep decarbonization while adapting its strategy to today’s conditions,” they added. “The goal should not be abandoning ambition. It should be pursuing it intelligently.”
In 2025, environmental groups sued Hochul’s administration after the state failed to set up a regulatory program for the climate law.
“The main effect of these proposed changes is to allow the Hochul administration to do nothing for at least the next four years,” said Rachel Spector, deputy managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization that represents the groups. “These proposals will do nothing to benefit New Yorkers. The only beneficiaries would be Hochul along with gas utilities and corporate polluters.”
Hochul also wants to align New York’s emissions-counting standards with other U.S. states and the international community. That might mean switching from a 20-year emissions-counting methodology to a 100-year one. The shorter timeframe highlights the pollution impact of methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas and the main component of natural gas. The 100-year metric essentially balances out short- with longer-lived gases like carbon dioxide.
“It’s ultimately a way to cheat on a test,” said Liz Moran, New York policy advocate at Earthjustice.
In October, a judge ruled in favor of the environmental groups, putting pressure on Hochul to enact a so-called cap-and-invest program that would help generate revenue for the state to transition to renewable energy.
However, a memo released in February by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority concluded that implementing the policy would result in rocketing energy bills for New Yorkers.
It modeled a scenario in which the law were “implemented with regulations to meet the 2030 targets” and found that upstate New York households relying on oil and natural gas “would see costs in excess of $4,000 a year.”
Many Democrats and environmental advocates have pushed back on the narrative that climate policy is spiking costs. Harckham said the solution to improving affordability and lowering emissions is clear: “It’s renewable energy.”
“We set a law for ourselves,” he added. “We should be held accountable to it.”
WASHINGTON — Californians may be forced to put their ballots in the mail well before election day to be certain they will be counted.
That’s the likely outcome of a Republican challenge to mail ballots that came before the Supreme Court on Monday.
The court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires that ballots must be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal.
In the 19th century, Congress set a national day for federal elections on a Tuesday in early November, but it did not say how or when states would count their ballots. The Constitution leaves it to states to decide the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”
California and 13 other states count mail ballots that were cast before or on election day but arrive a few days late. And most states accept late ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.
By law, California counts mail ballots that arrive within seven days of election day. In 2024, more than 406,000 of these late-arriving ballots were counted in California, about 2.5% of the total.
Other Western states — Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska — also count late-arriving mail ballots.
But President Trump has repeatedly claimed that voting by mail leads to fraud, and the Republican National Committee has gone to court to challenge the state laws that allow for counting the legally cast ballots of citizens which are postmarked on time but arrive late.
GOP lawyers argued that the phrase “election day” has always meant ballots must be in the hands of election officials on that day. In their questions and comments, all six conservatives agreed.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. saw a real prospect of fraud. There could be “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late and “flip the outcome,” he said.
Democrats and election law experts say that the proposed new rule conflicts with more than a century of practice, because most states allowed for some people to vote by mail if they were traveling on election day. They argued that election day is like the federal tax day of April 15. While tax returns must be postmarked then, the tax returns are legal even if they arrive at the Internal Revenue Service a few days later.
The GOP filed its challenge in Mississippi, which accepts ballots that arrive up to five days after election day. A district judge rejected the claim, but a 5th Circuit Court panel with three Trump appointees ruled that ballots are illegal if they are not received by election day.
IMPERIAL — Whenever the weather changes suddenly, or the skyline becomes shrouded in a windy haze, Fernanda Camarillo braces herself for an asthma attack.
Her condition has become more manageable, but the 27-year-old said it’s still scary when her chest tightens and she starts to wheeze. It was one of her first thoughts when she heard about plans to develop a massive data center next to her home in Imperial County, a farming community near the border of Mexico that struggles with poor air quality.
“A lot of people in the county are asthmatic,” she said, explaining that she worries the new center would add more pollution. “I’ve been anxious — so many of us are voicing our concerns.”
Data centers have existed for decades but are rapidly changing and expanding due to the worldwide boom in artificial intelligence, or AI as it’s known. States and communities nationwide havestarted pushing back, citing concerns that the projects could strain power grids, increase utility bills and have negative health and environmental impacts.
In California, state legislators are debating how to protect residents and natural resources without creating so much red tape that developers go elsewhere, taking their jobs and taxable earnings with them.
No Data Center signs are posted in the front yard of a home that is right behind the proposed site.
“We can be supportive of innovation and a technology that is needed but also protect our communities and our health and our environment,” said state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego). “We can do both at the same time.”
The California Legislature is considering bills to prohibit the projects from being exempted from the state’s stringent environmental law and to impose new tariffs on new major energy users that strain power supplies. Lawmakers also have proposed restrictions on new data centers, requiring companies to provide verifiable estimates on expected water and energy usage before they can be granted a business permit.
Imperial resident Fernanda Camarillo, who is an asthmatic, holds some of her medications.
Members of Congress also expressed concerns. Rep. Ro Khanna, speaking at a town hall about AI last month at Stanford University, said legislators must ensure data centers serve the communities that power them.
“We live in a new gilded age,” said Khanna (D-Fremont). “What kind of future are we going to build?”
::
Eric Masanet, a professor at UC Santa Barbara specializing in sustainability science for emerging technologies, described the facilities as the “brains” of the internet. The sprawling centers are filled with banks of specialized computers that process online shopping orders, stream movies, host websites, encode Zoom and other videoconferencing apps, store data and serve as switching stations for the digital world that’s now woven into daily life.
Data centers, particularly those that power AI, use significant amounts of water and energy. The facilities accounted for about 4.4% of the nation’s total electricity consumption in 2023, up from 1.9% in 2018, according toa report provided to Congress from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The researchers projected that figure will reach 6.7% to 12% by 2028.
Many companies, including big tech giants like Meta, Google and Amazon, are making major investments in AI.
“We are building a lot more data centers faster than we ever did — and a new AI data center is 10 to 20, maybe 30 times, the size of the largest data centers we had before,” Masanet said.
The proposed site of the 950,00-square-foot data center is on a dusty parcel that is next to the Victoria Ranch housing community and adjacent to farmland in Imperial, Calif.
It’s unclear how many data centers are in the state. A California Energy Commission spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times it does not track this information. Data Center Map, a nongovernmental website that tracks data centers across the world, lists 289 facilities in California, with more than 4,000 nationwide.
The federal government has, so far, largely left it to states or localities to regulate data centers.
The facilities can generate significant revenue for local governments due to sales and property taxes.
But some new proposals are sparking a backlash. More than 200 community and environmental organizations, including a dozen from California, sent an open letter to Congress in December calling for a national moratorium on new data centers.
Robert Gould, a pathologist with San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, one of the organizations that signed the letter, explained data centers are causing a shift away from renewable energy and back toward fossil fuels because the facilities need a reliable and constant stream of power.
Cornell Universityresearchers last year estimated that AI growth could add 24 to 44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere annually by 2030, unless steps are taken to change course.
Gould said fossil fuel emissions are associated with various cancers, an increase in hospitalizations for older adults due to respiratory conditions, and asthma attacks or stunted lung growth in children. Particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions is also linked to cardiovascular events and negative effects on maternal fetal health.
Gould’s organization has noticed an alarming trend.
“These are generally placed in communities that are the least able to defend themselves,” he said.
Farmworkers toil in the noon heat to pick vegetables in Imperial. Agriculture is an important part of the Imperial Valley economy.
::
The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California where a proposed center faces fierce opposition from residents.
The county in 2025 granted the project an exemption for the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. The landmark 56-year-old state law has been credited with helping to preserve California’s natural beauty and protecting communities from hazardous impacts of construction projects — but also blamed for stymieing construction.
Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, a California-based limited liability company that started two years ago, plans to develop a 950,000-square-foot facility in the county that’s designed for advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning operations. The company says it will use reclaimed wastewater and EPA-certified natural gas generators, and create 2,500 to 3,500 construction jobs and 100 to 200 permanent positions.
“We are committed to Imperial County and to creating lasting economic opportunity,” the company website states. “The project will generate $28.75 million in annual property tax revenue for local schools, fire departments, libraries, and essential services.”
The Imperial County Board of Supervisors is moving toward finalizing the proposal.
Farmland spreads out in front of the Imperial Valley Fair near a proposed data center in Imperial.
Sebastian Rucci, an attorney and chief executive officer of Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, said he commissioned multiple studies assessing the proposed center’s potential effect on issues like traffic or the environment that found no or minimal harms. He threatened to pull his proposal if a CEQA review was required.
“CEQA leaves you in an unknown territory — some of the environmental groups have used it for extortion, they sue, they have no basis for the suit but they delay you, and then they can squeeze money out of you for settling the lawsuit,” said Rucci.
The exemption, however, has alarmed residents, who have spoken up at county board meetings and launched a community organization, Not in My Backyard Imperial, to protest the data center and demand a CEQA review.
“It feels like it’s us against the county,” said Camarillo, adding that many feel the board has dismissed their questions and concerns.
None of the Imperial County Board of Supervisors responded to requests for comment.
Resident Fernanda Camarillo’s home is right behind the proposed site of the data center in Imperial.
The center would be a neighbor to Camarillo’s house in Victoria Ranch, a family-friendly area with beige stucco homes topped with terracotta tile roofs. She worries about noise, pollution and spiking utility bills. Power companies that have to upgrade grids to meet data centers’ energy demands sometimes seek to recoup that cost by hiking up rates for all consumers.
Camarillo, a substitute teacher, is also scared for her students. The air quality in Imperial Valley is already so poor that schools use a system of color-coded flags to signal whether it’s safe for children to go outside during gym or recess, she said.
“I think they see [the valley] as easy pickings because we are a low-income community and we have such a large population of Latinos here,” Camarillo said.
A quick drive around the neighborhood shows others share her concerns. Signs protesting the data center pop up throughout the community, displayed on front lawns or nestled into rocky garden beds.
Victoria Ranch was quiet and peaceful on a sunny Sunday in late February. Francisco Leal, a resident and lead organizer for NIMBY Imperial, said that’s a major part of its appeal.
The colorful dusk sky hovers over a Little League baseball game at Freddie White Park in Imperial. The debate over data centers is heating up in the Imperial Valley, a rural desert region in southeastern California.
Leal wants answers about everything from potential health hazards and impacts on the local water supply to whether the fire department is equipped to handle a large-scale electrical blaze. But without a CEQA review, he says residents are left to trust assurances from the developer or privately hired consultants.
Leal plans to sell his property if the project goes forward, but the thought makes him emotional.
“It’s not just a house; it’s a home,” he said. “This is the only home my kids have ever known and all of our family memories are here.”
Gina Snow, another resident, isn’t necessarily against bringing a data center to the county. But she wants the proposal to undergo a CEQA review.
“Clearly we understand that there is economic development and the potential for that to be positive for the county, but at what cost?” she said.
Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, stands on the site of the proposed data center.
::
Daniela Flores, executive director of Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, a nonprofit that works for social and environmental equality, said the community has good reason to be wary. Various industries have come into the region over the years and made grand promises that never panned out.
“We became a sacrifice zone,” she said, adding industries use the area’s resources while ultimately doing little to permanently improve the lives of most residents.
Flores said the community continues to struggle with a range of problems, including poor air quality, high poverty rates, weak worker protections and crumbling infrastructure. She believes a data center could add new and potentially dangerous challenges.
The valley has long, brutal summers with temperatures that swell to 120 degrees. If the data center strains the grid and causes a lengthy blackout, or low-income residents have their power shut off because they can’t afford the rising bills, Flores fears the situation could quickly turn deadly.
The city of Imperial also has concerns. The city hasfiled a lawsuit calling on the county to halt the project, arguing it should not have received a CEQA exemption.
The controversy has drawn attention from Padilla, whose district includes Imperial Valley. Padilla has echoed residents’ calls for more transparency from the county and introduced Senate Bill 887, which would ban data centers from receiving exemptions from CEQA.
“I am not anti-data center or anti-artificial intelligence,” Padilla said. But, he added, we need to “find a way to do this right and make sure there is adequate review and understanding.”
A dusty haze settles over the city of Imperial at dusk near the site of a proposed data center.
Another measure from Padilla, Senate Bill 886, would direct the Public Utilities Commission to create an electrical corporation tariff to cover the cost of data center-related grid upgrades.
Other related legislation this year includes Assembly Bill 2619 from Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) that would require data center owners to provide an estimate about expected water usage and sources before applying for a business license, and Assembly Bill 1577, by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), which would require data center owners to submit monthly information to a state commission about water and fuel consumption and energy efficiency.
While lawmakers weigh new policies at the statehouse, Camarillo said she hopes the priority will be protecting communities.
“Innovation is important, but innovation for the sake of innovation has never really been something that hasn’t had negative impacts,” she said. “Think about human lives.”
Plus, every time you drive, you can see the escalating average cost for a gallon of gas throughout the state that ranges from $5.77 in Orange County, $5.78 in San Diego County, $5.80 in Los Angeles County and $5.86 in San Francisco County to the high of $6.57 in Mono County, according to AAA.
It can easily make anyone think having fun is unaffordable.
Fortunately, our Travel and Experiences team has put together a list of 75 fun things to do for under $20.
On warm days, it’s hard to beat a ride on the swan boats at Echo Park.
They’re powered by foot paddles, and the pedaling is easy because you’re in no hurry. Maybe you’ll want to do a circuit of the lake (really a man-made reservoir). Maybe you’ll sidle up to the towers of whitewater rising from the mid-lake fountain.
Maybe you’ll wait until after dark (because the swans light up).
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Experience L.A.’s esoteric history at the Philosophical Research Society (Los Feliz)
Cost: Free to visit, workshops and lectures from $10 and up.
Located at the intersection of Los Feliz and Griffith Park boulevards, the Philosophical Research Society has long been a place of mystery, intrigue and, for some, apprehension.
The Mayan Revival campus painted in Southwestern shades of clay, cream and sage was built in 1935 by the celebrated author and esoteric lecturer Manly P. Hall.
Today, it hosts a dizzying array of events each week including poetry readings, death cafes, sound baths, a weekly class on Buddhism, tarot and astrology salons and musical performances — some of which have a suggested donation of just $10.
If you visit, make sure to make time to browse the excellently curated metaphysical bookstore.
(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
Find the perfect meditation spot at the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine (Pacific Palisades)
Cost: Free.
Whether or not you’re familiar with the work of Paramahansa Yogananda, who founded the Self-Realization Fellowship in 1920, if you live in Los Angeles you owe him a debt of gratitude for the smattering of lush, meditative gardens in Southern California that are still open to the public today.
Among those is Lake Shrine, a beautifully landscaped 10-acre property in the Pacific Palisades surrounding a spring-fed lake that is dotted with quiet meditation spots.
It is free to visit, but you will need to make a reservation online before you go. (Reservations open each Saturday at 10 a.m. for the week ahead, and they can fill up quickly.)
(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)
Cozy up with a flick at the Paramount Drive-In Theater (Paramount)
Cost: $14 per adult, $7 per kid (ages 3-11).
For a night out that feels as cozy as a night in, head to the Paramount Drive-In Theater. In the comfort of your own car, you can spread out, munch popcorn and make all the commentary you want without getting looks from other moviegoers.
Tickets are purchased on arrival, and the parking lot is huge, so you’re bound to secure a good view of the big screen. There is a concession store on site with candy, chips and drinks, but you are free to bring all the snacks you want from home. Recline your seat all the way back, relax and enjoy the show.
You’re reading the Essential California newsletter
Sign up to start every day with California’s most important stories.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
The week’s biggest stories
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Heat wave and environmental news
Los Angeles mayor, city council news
Cesar Chavez fallout
California governor’s race
Crime, courts and policing
What else is going on
Must reads
Other meaty reads
For your downtime
(Illustrations by Lindsey Made This; photograph by Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
Going out
Staying in
L.A. Affairs
Get wrapped up in tantalizing stories about dating, relationships and marriage.
Have a great day, from the Essential California team
Jim Rainey, staff reporter Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer Karim Doumar, head of newsletters
When you’re already an All-American in high school and several new players show up perhaps as talented as you, the challenge is developing chemistry and seeing who’s going to remain humble and unselfish for the good of the team.
Maxi Adams, Sierra Canyon’s 6-foot-8 senior, was the big man on campus until another All-American, Brandon McCoy, showed up this season, along with Brannon Martinsen, a former Trinity League player of the year. Not only did Adams welcome them, he adjusted his game and changed his role.
“Anything for the win,” he said. “Trust the coach’s game plan.”
Maxi Adams of Sierra Canyon rises to deliver a dunk against Harvard-Westlake in Open Division championship game.
(Steve Galluzzo)
Adams continued to contribute as a scorer, rebounder and defender, and when the games got much more important in the playoffs, he asserted himself and delivered, such as a 26-point performance in the Southern Section Open Division final.
The North Carolina-bound Adams has been selected The Times’ boys basketball player of the year for the 2025-26 season.
Sierra Canyon went 30-1 and won the Southern Section Open Division championship and state Open Division title even though Adams was injured in the first quarter of the state final. He averaged 16 points and 7.2 rebounds with 10 double doubles.
“He’s a great player,” said Harvard-Westlake coach David Rebibo, whose team lost three times to Sierra Canyon.
Adams’ development of his skills and maturity over his four years of high school, first at Narbonne, then Gardena Serra and his final two seasons at Sierra Canyon, have been impressive. He went from being uncomfortable as a freshman to being versatile, confident and a leader as a senior.
His willingness to embrace the changes at Sierra Canyon this season were key.
“It wasn’t hard,” he said. “We played well together and spent a lot of time together. At the next level, you’re going to have to be able to play with great players. I just carry that forward.”
His older brother, Marcus, was a standout at Narbonne and played this past season at Arizona State after previously being at Cal State Northridge. For Maxi to handle things this season with his brother far away showed he’s ready to embark on his own journey in college basketball.
As for his mentality, Adams said, “We come to work every single time. We put in the time.”
Back in 2022 when the Adams brothers played together at Narbonne. Marcus and Maxi. They’ve become pretty good basketball players, Marcus at Arizona State, Maxi at Sierra Canyon then on to North Carolina. pic.twitter.com/l6NhXwKIPL
A look at the Los Angeles Times’ All-Star boys’ basketball team for the 2025-26 season:
Brandon McCoy, Sierra Canyon, 6-5, Sr.: The Mission League co-MVP averaged 19.2 points and 7.4 rebounds while helping his team go 30-1 and win Open Divison championships in the Southern Section and state.
Jason Crowe Jr., Inglewood, 6-3, Sr.: The Missouri commit is the state’s all-time scoring leader with 4,718 points and averaged 43.6 points this season to become the first four-time All-Star selection.
Drew Anderson, Santa Margarita, 6-10, Sr.: The Oregon State commit was co-MVP of the Trinity League while averaging 20 points and 10 rebounds.
Joe Sterling, Harvard-Westlake, 6-4, Sr.: The Texas commit has been one of the state’s best three-point shooters, averaging 21.4 points and 5.8 rebounds for the Open Division finalists.
Maxi Adams, Sierra Canyon, 6-8, Sr.: The North Carolina commit averaged 16 points and 7.2 rebounds per game, including 26 points against Harvard-Westlake in the Open Division regional final.
Christian Collins, St. John Bosco, 6-9, Sr.: The McDonald’s All-American and USC commit averaged 25 points, 12 assists and four assists per game.
SJ Madison, Redondo Union, 6-5, Sr.: The Nevada commit and Bay League MVP led the Sea Hawks to a 27-5 record, averaging 18 points and 6.1 rebounds.
Maxwell Scott, Corona del Mar, 6-2, Jr.: The Sunset League MVP averaged 21.7 points after leading his team to a 27-1 regular-season record and averaged 24.5 points in three Open Division games.
Will Conroy Jr., Village Christian, 6-0, Fr.: He burst onto the scene as the best first-year freshman player in the state, averaging 26.7 points.
NaVorro Bowman Jr., Sherman Oaks Notre Dame, 6-3, Jr.: He shared Mission League MVP honors, averaging 22.5 points as one of the top juniors in the state.
The White House Friday released a legislative framework for artificial intelligence. File Photo by Fazry Ismail/EPA
March 20 (UPI) — The White House released a new legislative framework for artificial intelligence creating a federal policy to prevent states from making their own laws about it.
“The Administration recognizes that some Americans feel uncertain about how this transformative technology will affect issues they care about, like their children’s wellbeing or their monthly electricity bill,” a White House press release said. “These issues, along with other emerging AI policy considerations, require strong federal leadership to ensure the public’s trust in how AI is developed and used in their daily lives.”
The framework lists six areas where legislation is needed: protecting children and empowering parents, “to give parents tools such as account controls to protect their children’s privacy and manage their device use”; safeguarding and strengthening American communities, “through economic growth and energy dominance”; respecting intellectual property rights and supporting creators, by “enabling AI to thrive while ensuring creativity continues propelling our country’s greatness”; preventing censorship and protecting free speech, “AI cannot become a vehicle for government to dictate right and wrong-think”; enabling innovation and ensuring American AI dominance, by “calling on Congress to take steps to remove outdated or unnecessary barriers to innovation”; and educating Americans and developing an AI-ready workforce, by “encouraging Congress to further workforce development and skills training programs.”
President Donald Trump‘s administration has embraced AI. But in December, he signed an executive order for a single national regulatory standard on the industry.
He posted on Truth Social in early December: “There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI. We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS.”
“THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY! I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week,” he wrote. “You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something. THAT WILL NEVER WORK!”
The press release said the administration wants to work with Congress to create a bill in the coming months that follows the framework.
Lawmakers in New York, California and other states have worked to enact their own state-level regulations, which AI industry leaders oppose.
They argue that a “patchwork” of laws would stifle innovation and give other competitors like China an advantage.
Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in a Friday press release, said, ″The White House’s national AI legislative framework will unleash American ingenuity to win the global AI race, delivering breakthroughs that create jobs, lower costs, and improve lives for Americans across the country.”
It does so while reining in challenges, he added.
“At the same time, it tackles real concerns head-on — protecting our children online, shielding families from higher energy costs, respecting creators’ rights, and supporting American workers — so every citizen can trust and benefit from this incredible technology,” Kratsios said.
President Donald Trump presents the Commander in Chief’s Trophy to the Navy Midshipmen football team during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Friday. The award is presented annually to the winner of the football competition between the Navy, Air Force and Army. Navy has won the trophy back to back years and 13 times over the last 23 years. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election and is investigating whether they were fraudulently counted.
“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a news conference Friday.
The unusual probe drew a sharp rebuke from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who said in a statement Friday that it is “unprecedented in both scope and scale” and appears “not to be based on facts or evidence.”
“There is no indication, anywhere in the United States, of widespread voter fraud,” Bonta said. “Counts, recounts, hand counts, audits, and court cases all support this.”
According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 seized about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.
The sheriff said his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have rejected.
President Trump, who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss, continues to amplify election conspiracy theories and has repeatedly called for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections to counter what he says is widespread fraud.
Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, both Democrats, have vowed to fight federal interference that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia.
Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter who said in an endorsement video in 2024 that, after 30 years of putting criminals in jail, he figured it was “time to put a felon in the White House — Trump 2024, baby” — referencing Trump’s conviction by a New York jury for falsifying business records while paying hush money to a porn actor.
Bianco’s investigation, which includes all the ballots cast in Riverside County in November, raises questions about how he would handle the election denialism movement if elected governor.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, in a left-leaning state.
Last fall, Proposition 50 passed in Riverside County with 56% of the vote — a margin of more than 82,000 ballots.
A citizens group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team has said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast.
In a lengthy February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed that figure, saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.
The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes, a variance of 0.016% that was far below what he said was the state’s preferred 2% margin of error for certifying results.
Bianco on Friday said that there “is no acceptable error, small or large, in our elections.”
The sheriff did not name the Riverside Election Integrity Team, but his description of the allegations brought to him by “a group of citizen volunteers” matched theirs.
Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for the Proposition 50 contest and was “just as much to prove the election is accurate as it is to show otherwise — we will not know until the count is complete.”
Bonta said his office has “attempted to work cooperatively” with the Sheriff’s Department to understand the basis for the probe. The sheriff, Bonta said, “has delayed, stonewalled, and otherwise refused to work with us in good faith” and failed to provide most of the requested documents.
“We’re concerned that there is not sufficient justification for seizing every ballot that was cast in this very largely populated county,” an official in Bonta’s office said in an interview Friday night.
In a March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general cited Bianco’s plan to use Sheriff’s Department staffers, “who are not trained and have no experience,” to count the ballots.
“Let me be clear: this is unacceptable,” Bonta wrote. “Your decision to seize ballots and begin counting them based on vague, unsubstantiated allegations about irregularities in the November special election results sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections. You are also flagrantly violating my directives.”
At his news conference Friday, Bianco fired back by calling Bonta “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”
A Riverside County Superior Court judge, Bianco said, has ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count.
In a statement Friday, Secretary of State Weber said “the Sheriff’s assertion that his deputies know how to count is admirable. The fact remains that he and his deputies are not elections officials and they do not have expertise in election administration.”
“State programs cannot simply substitute for the kind of global, federal and competitive tax incentives that are needed to bring production back to American soil and stop its offshoring,” U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said during a news conference Friday morning.
“We must act, and the urgency could not be greater,” he said. He revealed he is working on a bipartisan federal film incentive proposal that would be competitive with what other countries are offering for film productions.
He said the program isn’t about Hollywood’s stars; it’s about the jobs that productions create, including roles for set designers, carpenters and lighting crews.
“These are the people who make that magic happen. We want to keep those jobs here, and many of us are deeply concerned about what this potential merger will do to those jobs,” Schiff said.
Earlier this week, the California Film Commission revealed that 16 shows had recently received tax credits for filming in the state. The projects represent $871 million in qualified in-state spending and are expected to generate $1.3 billion in economic activity in California. Schiff said the state tax credit has generated more than $29.1 billion in motion picture production wages and supported more than 220,000 jobs.
Even as shows start to see gains in Southern California, Los Angeles film activity was still down 13.2% from July through September when compared with the same period in 2024. The downward trend extends the loss of 42,000 jobs in L.A. between 2022 and 2024, the continued suffering of local sound stages and the offshoring of productions internationally.
“Federal policymakers must act to level the playing field and make the U.S. film and television industry more competitive on the global stage,” said Matthew Loeb, the president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. “A globally competitive labor-based and tax incentive is. For us, production that supplements state incentives is essential to return and maintain film and television jobs in America.”
HBO Max’s medical drama “The Pitt” is filmed at one of Warner Bros. soundstages in Burbank and it’s one of the shows benefiting from California’s tax incentive.
Noah Wyle, the star and executive producer of the show, said during the news conference that “it’s really hard to shoot a TV show in Los Angeles, and it’s really expensive, prohibitively” — so adopting an economic model that allows productions to take full advantage of the California tax incentive was essential to “The Pitt” filming in L.A.
“As an Angeleno with generational roots to this city and as a seasoned member of its creative community, advocacy for Los Angeles-based production is something that is very close to my heart,” Wyle said.
“‘The Pitt’ has blessedly become proof of that speculative concept. I’m happy to report we’ll commence shooting season three this summer, and that a rising tide has indeed lifted all boats in season one under the 3.0 tax program,” he added.
The show received a 20% tax rebate on many above-the-line costs. The budget for one episode was approximately $6.6 million, so the show received a rebate of about $760,000 per episode. By the end of season one, the production was able to save over $11 million. Wyle estimated that the first season of “The Pitt” contributed around $125 million toward California’s gross domestic product.
Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who is working with Schiff on production tax incentives, said that because California is already seeing benefits from the current program, there’s no reason it wouldn’t work nationally. Friedman added that tax incentives are a common practice among many industries in the U.S.
“Hollywood is not asking for special treatment. Whether it is computer chips, the energy sector or pharmaceuticals, this is something that is standard in the United States,” said Friedman. “In terms of our nation, Hollywood and its ability to tell the story of America, it is something worth saving.”
SACRAMENTO — Californians have never been forced to choose between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, two homegrown political darlings, during any election.
Twenty-eight percent of the California Democrats who were surveyed selected the governor as their top choice in the 2028 presidential election. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) followed with 14% and former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg received 11%. Harris came in fourth, with only 9% of voters in her own state naming her as their preferred Democratic nominee.
“It’s quite a positive result for Newsom,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. “He’s separated himself from the rest of the pack, and especially when you compare him to the other major Californian in the considerations, he’s three times as much as Kamala. That’s quite impressive.”
The political careers of the governor and former vice president have orbited each other but never crossed since Newsom was sworn in as San Francisco’s mayor and Harris as the city’s district attorney on the same day in 2004. Now the two Bay Area natives are both flirting with the 2028 presidential contest as they travel the country promoting their life stories on respective book tours.
When Harris jumped into the 2020 and 2024 races for the White House, Newsom said he wouldn’t run against her. He’s discredited the idea that the two politicians have some kind of a sibling rivalry and noted that their trajectories ran adjacent and never collided.
Newsom was asked again last month whether he would vie against Harris in a presidential contest. The governor said he hasn’t “gotten in the way of her ambition ever,” and he doesn’t imagine that he would in the future. His answer changed when he was pressed to respond specifically to the potential for 2028.
“That’s fate. I don’t, I don’t know,” Newsom said to CNN’s Dana Bash, throwing up his hands. “You know, you can only control what you can control.”
Newsom and Harris had greater support from Black and Latino voters than white and Asian American Democrats in the new poll. She performed well among Democrats younger than 30 compared with other age groups, while Newsom fared better with older Democrats. More women selected Newsom as their first or second choice than they did Harris.
Neither California heavyweight performed particularly great among Democratic voters in the Bay Area, which DiCamillo called a curious finding for two politicians from the region. Support was higher for Harris and Newsom in almost every other region of the state.
DiCamillo believes the presence of Ocasio-Cortez on the list probably pulled some support from Harris. California voters in other recent polls were also sour on a third presidential run by Harris.
An Institute of Governmental Studies poll in August gauged interest in the potential candidacy of Newsom and Harris. About 45% of the state’s registered voters said they were enthusiastic about Newsom running, compared with 36% for Harris. Almost two-third of voters in that survey, and half of Democrats, said Harris should not run for president again.
Although Newsom clearly beat the field of candidates in the most recent poll, DiCamillo said receiving support from a little more than a quarter of those surveyed in his own backyard isn’t exactly wonderful. The governor’s approval rating is also down.
The poll found that 48% of California registered voters say they approve of the job Newsom is doing, with the same share disapproving of his performance. That marks a drop from 51% approval the last time DiCamillo asked in August. Disapproval also climbed, by 5 percentage points.
Voters held positive opinions about Newsom’s participation in international conferences, which was described in the poll as the governor “offering an alternative to the policies being promoted by President Trump on issues like climate change and the economy.” The poll found 59% of statewide registered voters approve and 37% disapprove.
“Though Californians may hold mixed views on his gubernatorial tenure, they overwhelmingly see him as the strongest counter to Trump and MAGA candidates,” Mora said. “Harris’s earlier presidential defeat, compounded by persistent voter biases against women and candidates of color, may also be shaping these early numbers.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
The Trump administration said Thursday that it has launched investigations into 13 states that require state-regulated health insurance plans to cover abortion.
The inquiries are the latest in a long-running dispute between the political parties on how to interpret a provision, known as the Weldon Amendment, that’s included in federal spending laws each year. It bars states from discriminating against health entities that don’t provide, cover or refer for abortion.
When Democrat Joe Biden was president, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office said the provision didn’t pertain to employers or other healthcare sponsors. The Trump administration said this year that it does.
The administration says that potentially puts states with abortion coverage requirements in violation of the law, because they may not allow employers or other healthcare issuers to opt out. It said it was sending out letters to gather more information from those states.
The Health and Human Services civil rights office launched the investigations “to address certain states’ alleged disregard of, or confusion about, compliance with the Weldon Amendment,” office Director Paula M. Stannard said in a statement.
“Under the Weldon Amendment, health care entities, such as health insurance issuers and health plans, are protected from state discrimination for not paying for, or providing coverage of, abortion contrary to conscience. Period,” Stannard said.
The states with the coverage requirements are California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. All except Vermont have Democratic governors.
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill said in a statement Thursday that she’ll defend her state’s policies.
“New Jersey requires health insurance plans to follow all applicable laws, including protecting women’s reproductive freedom. So Donald Trump’s latest ‘investigation’ is nothing but a fishing expedition wasting taxpayers’ money,” she said.
The Weldon Amendment is one of a series of provisions known as conscience laws, which provide legal protections for individuals and healthcare entities that choose to not provide abortions or other types of care because of religious or moral objections.
In the years since it was enacted in 2005, there’s been a “partisan swing” in how broadly or narrowly it is interpreted depending on which party is in office, according to Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC Davis.
Ziegler said the fact that employers and plan sponsors are not mentioned among healthcare entities in the text of the Weldon Amendment could give Democrats an edge with their interpretation, but the question has yet to be resolved in court.
Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said the Heritage Foundation’s massive policy proposal known as Project 2025 called for an incoming Trump administration to withhold Medicaid funding for states found to violate the Weldon Amendment.
“What we’re seeing here is the fulfillment of a promise to the religious right,” she said.
President Trump’s first administration in 2020 moved to withhold federal healthcare funding from California over what it interpreted as a Weldon Amendment violation, but the Biden administration entered office the next year and reversed the decision.
Mulvihill and Swenson write for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — In the escalating war in Iran, the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs would ordinarily be at the center of the geopolitical fray.
Typically led by a veteran diplomat, the bureau’s role would be to coordinate U.S. foreign policy across an 18-country region, much of which has become a chaotic battlefield scarred by drone and missile strikes as the U.S. and Israel remain locked in conflict with Iran.
The Trump administration for a time put Mora Namdar, a lawyer of Iranian descent with limited management experience, in charge before later moving her to a different post. One of her credentials was her contribution to Project 2025, a conservative think tank’s blueprint for the second Trump administration. Namdar’s last Senate-confirmed predecessor was a longtime Middle East expert who had been with the department since 1984 and had served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.
Now that bureau is also working with far fewer resources. The administration’s most recent budget proposed a 40% cut to the bureau, though Congress eventually enacted less dramatic cuts. The administration also eliminated the dedicated Iran office, merging it with the Iraq office.
Staff reductions and management choices hamper emergency response
These kinds of personnel and management choices — coupled with President Trump’s moves to shrink government and confine decision-making to a tight circle — are limiting the ability of the United States to handle a global emergency, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former U.S. officials, many of whom recently left government.
In divisions of the State Department that typically would handle the Iran response, numerous veteran diplomats with decades of collective experience were fired, retired or were reassigned — replaced by more junior officials or political appointees. The administration cut more than 80 staffers in Near Eastern Affairs, according to numbers compiled by a State Department employee who was terminated last year based on surveys of colleagues. (The department does not release official figures on Foreign Service officer staffing levels but did not dispute the number.)
The Trump administration has left the assistant secretary position in charge of Near Eastern Affairs vacant, along with key ambassadorships in the Middle East. Four of the five supervisors in the bureau have temporary titles.
The current and former officials, some of whom asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters during an active conflict, paint a portrait of an understaffed government workforce struggling to execute the president’s agenda. Those who remain tell colleagues that their analysis, recommendations and advice go unheeded.
The State Department vigorously disputed those assessments.
“As far as we can tell, AP’s entire ‘report’ on the evacuations does not include any conversations with people actually involved. Instead, it relies on ‘outside’ or ‘former official’ sources that have no idea what they are talking about. We walked AP through specific inaccuracy after specific inaccuracy — indeed how the whole premise was wrong,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.
More than 3,800 State Dept. employees departed since Trump took office
The State Department saw a departure of more than 3,800 employees since President Trump took office through a combination of reductions in force, staffers taking the Fork in the Road deferred resignation plan and ordinary retirements. According to estimates by the American Foreign Service Association, the labor union that represents foreign service officers, senior foreign service ranks were disproportionately represented in the layoffs compared to their share of the overall workforce.
“He’s making choices without the larger expertise of the United States government that would flag issues of consequence,” said Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that studies federal workforce issues. “Sometimes government is slow-moving because there are a lot of different factors that need to be balanced against each other.”
For instance, the administration appears to have been caught off guard by what would happen once the U.S. struck Iran — something Trump himself acknowledged this week when he expressed surprise that Tehran retaliated with strikes on American allies in the region. “Nobody expected that. We were shocked. They fought back,” Trump told reporters this week.
Pigott said staffing reductions “are not having any negative impact on our ability to respond to this operation, our ability to plan, and our ability to execute in service to Americans.” He added that the department “rejects the premise that key decisions were made without meaningful input from experienced professionals.”
But Iranian retaliation on U.S. allies was predictable, according to former officials, as well as previous war games and conflict models run by both the U.S. military and private organizations. The National Security Council, which Trump has pared, typically would have presented the president with analysis from experts within the bureaucracy.
Instead, decisions are made by a small group of officials close to the president without the planning or coordination of the larger machinery of government, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security adviser.
“In the Trump Administration, decisions are made by President Trump and senior administration officials and not by no-name bureaucrat leakers who whine to the press about not being consulted about highly classified operations,” White House spokesperson Dylan Johnson said.
Advice from career officials often went unheeded
“In the time that I was there, there was no policy process to speak of,” said Chris Backemeyer, who served in Near Eastern Affairs as a deputy assistant secretary of state before resigning last year. Backemeyer was a major proponent of the Iran deal that Trump abandoned. He recently left government to run for Congress as a Democrat in Nebraska.
“They did not want to hear any advice from career people,” said Backemeyer.
Namdar was later moved to be the head of Consular Affairs, the part of the department responsible for providing assistance to American citizens overseas and issuing visas to foreign visitors.
When the U.S. made the decision to strike Iran, Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee offered embassy staff in Jerusalem the opportunity to evacuate — a sign that he knew strikes were coming. But some other embassies in the region did not make similar arrangements — leaving nonessential personnel and their families stranded in a war zone.
The department said it has been issuing travel warnings since January and was fully staffed to handle the crisis the moment the strikes were launched.
Evacuation planning was chaotic
Still, little planning appears to have gone into how to evacuate the Americans who were living, working, visiting or studying in many of the countries that became engulfed in the conflict — in part because the White House seems to have underestimated the possibility of the strikes expanding into a prolonged multi-country war, as evidenced by Trump’s own remarks.
After Iranian attacks on allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the State Department began calling for Americans to leave the region. But numerous former Consular Affairs staffers say such planning should have begun long before U.S. strikes started.
In a statement posted to social media, Namdar only told Americans to evacuate several days into the conflict, when airspace was largely closed and many commercial flights were unavailable.
“The messaging that went out to American citizens — after the U.S. struck Iran — was woefully late and, initially, confusing,” said Yael Lempert, who served as U.S. ambassador to Jordan until 2025. Lempert is one of five former ambassadors expected to speak about the department’s failures at an event Thursday at the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington.
Other poorly executed evacuations, such the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, have drawn criticism.
But this time they’re compounded by the loss of experienced people, officials say. Consular Affairs has lost more than 150 jobs in the Trump administration due to a combination of reductions in force, dismissals of probationary employees and retirements, according to a U.S. official who asked for anonymity — though other parts of the department were hit much harder.
The department notes that it has offered assistance to nearly 50,000 Americans impacted by the conflict, with more than 60 flights evacuating citizens from the region. In total, the department says more than 70,000 Americans have been able to return home since the outbreak of hostilities on Feb. 28.
“The loss of experienced personnel through these RIFs has clearly undermined the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ ability to fulfill its most important mission, to protect Americans abroad,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.
Language skills at the department are also atrophying. Thirteen Arabic speakers and four Farsi speakers, all trained at taxpayer expense, were among employees let go, according to a draft letter being circulated by former foreign service officers.
It can cost $200,000 to train a foreign service officer in a language. The letter estimates that the total number of people fired by the State Department in the name of efficiency received more than $35 million in taxpayer-funded language training and more than $100 million in total training and other career development.
The State Department has set up two temporary task forces to deal with the crisis in the Middle East. One aims to bolster the capacities of Near East Affairs and another is aimed at helping Consular Affairs evacuate Americans.
A group of more than 250 Foreign Service officers were part of the administration’s reduction-in-force last year but still remain on the State Department’s payroll. Many have volunteered to return to the department to work on either a task force or do any other job that needs to be done with the outbreak of a global crisis.
“I haven’t been given any separation paperwork. I still have an active clearance. I could go back to the department tomorrow, either to backfill or staff a task force,” said one foreign service officer who asked for anonymity because they are still technically on the department’s payroll and are not authorized to speak to the press. “I will do the scutwork jobs.”
The department hasn’t responded to their offer but said in a statement that the task force is “fully staffed.”
A lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento says the proposed deal by eight state law enforcers, including California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, claims the proposed deal will give Nexstar too much control of local TV stations, ultimately hurting consumers by diminishing the diversity of news sources in their markets.
Bonta said in a statement that the deal will cause “irreparable harm to local news and consumers who rely on their reporting as a critical source of information.” The plaintiffs also include state attorneys general in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.
The Irving, Texas-based Nexstar is currently the largest station owner in the U.S., with 164 outlets including KTLA in Los Angeles. If the merger with Tegna succeeds, Nexstar would have 265 TV stations reaching 80% of the U.S. and multiple outlets in a number of markets.
The suit also claims that the merger would give Nexstar too much leverage in negotiating fees from pay-TV providers that carry their stations. Higher fees paid to Nexstar would be passed along to consumers in their cable and satellite bills, the lawsuit asserts.
Most of Nexstar’s stations are affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, all of which carry NFL football, the highest-rated programming on TV by a wide margin. Disputes over carriage fees between station owners and pay-TV providers often result in blackouts and service interruptions to consumers.
DirecTV, which serves around 11 million pay-TV subscribers in the U.S., filed a similar lawsuit in the same court on Thursday, claiming the Nexstar deal will “irreparably drive up consumer costs, reduce local competition, shutter local newsrooms, and increase both the frequency and duration of blackouts of key local teams and network programming.”
A Nexstar representative did not respond to a request to comment.
President Trump has said he favors Nexstar’s proposed deal. But every major TV station owner believes consolidation in the TV station business is necessary to thrive going forward as they battle to compete with streaming video platforms that have eaten away at their audience share.
The companies say they are at a disadvantage in competing with tech companies by being limited to owning stations in 39% of the U.S., a cap that was set in 2003.
Nexstar recently cut veteran anchors and on-air reporters from its stations in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. Further reductions in local TV newsrooms would occur if Nexstar succeeds in acquiring Tegna, which would likely mean consolidation of local newsrooms in which it owns more than one station.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court broke new ground this month when it ruled the Constitution forbids school policies in California that prevent parents from being told about their child’s gender transition at school.
But the reach of this new parental right remains unclear.
Does it mean all parents have a right to be informed if their child is using a new name and pronouns at school?
Or is the right limited to parents who inquire and object to being “shut out of participation in decisions involving their children’s mental health,” as the high court said in Mirabelli vs. Bonta.
Both sides in this legal battle accuse the other of creating confusion and uncertainty. And that dispute has not subsided.
UC Davis law professor Aaron Tang says understanding the Supreme Court’s order calls for a close reading of the statewide injunction handed down by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego.
That order prohibits school employees from “misleading” or “lying” to parents. It did not say school officials and teachers had a duty to contact parents whenever they saw that a student changed their appearance or used a new name, he said.
By clearing this order to take effect, the Supreme Court’s decision “means that schools must tell parents the truth about their child’s gender presentation at school if the parents request that information,” Tang said.
“But the initial burden is on the parents. This is not a rule that schools have an affirmative obligation to inform any and all parents if their child is presenting as a different gender,” he said.
The high court’s 6-3 order also indicated the reach of the judge’s injunction was limited.
It “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious injunctions.”
Religious conservatives who sued say they seek to end “secret transition” policies that encourage students to adopt a new gender identity without their parents knowing about the change.
The lawsuit challenging California’s “parental exclusion” policies was first filed by two teachers in Escondido.
Peter Breen, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, said many of the parents in Escondido “had no clue” their children were undergoing a gender transition at school.
“We need to activate parents,” he said.
Ruling for them, Benitez said the state’s “parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy around a school student who expresses gender incongruity.”
His injunction also said schools must notify their employees that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school child expresses gender incongruence.”
The Supreme Court’s order cited a dramatic example of nondisclosure.
Two parents who joined the suit had gone to parent-teacher meetings and learned only after their eighth-grade daughter attempted suicide that she had been presenting as a boy at school and suffered from gender dysphoria.
John Bursch, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the Supreme Court’s opinion goes further to empower parents.
“Fairly read, the Mirabelli opinion creates an affirmative obligation on school officials to disclose,” he said. “It’s consistent with the way [the court] describes the parental right: ‘the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.’ School officials’ silence (rather than lying) is not notice to and is shutting out parents.”
“All that said, the California attorney general is obviously not getting that message,” Bursch said.
He said the Supreme Court needs to go beyond an emergency order and fully decide a case that squarely presents the issue of parents rights.
“School officials should not be socially transitioning children without parental notice and consent. Period,” he said.
He filed an appeal petition with the Supreme Court in a case from Massachusetts that dissenting Justice Elena Kagan described as a “carbon copy” of the California dispute.
The case is set to be considered again on Friday in the court’s private conference.
Meanwhile, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta went back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a clarification to limit the potential sweep of Benitez’s order.
He objected to the part of the judge’s order that said schools must post a notice that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”
Bonta said that goes beyond what the Supreme Court approved.
This “could be understood to suggest that public school officials have an affirmative constitutional duty to inform parents whenever they observe a student’s expression of ‘gender incongruence,’ effectively imposing a mandatory ‘see something, say something’ obligation in all circumstances,” he said.
But the 9th Circuit said it would not act until he first presented this request to Benitez.
Meanwhile, transgender rights advocates say the voices and the views of students have been ignored.
“This case has been about states’ and parents’ rights but students have been left out of the conversation. Their voices have not been heard at all,” said Andrew Ortiz, an attorney for the Transgender Law Center. “School should be a place where young people can feel safe and confident they can confide in a teacher.”
“We’re hearing about fear and anxiety,” said Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization.
“There are students who are unable to speak with their parents. Teachers can encourage them to have a conversation with their parents. But this will weaken the trust they have in their teachers,” he said.
In the past, the court had been wary of reaching into the public schools to decide on education policies and the curriculum, but it took a significant step in that direction last year.
In a Maryland case, the court said religious parents had a right to “opt out” their young children from classes that read “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks.
The 1st Amendment protects the “free exercise of religion” and “government schools … may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious exercise,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito, the lone conservative who attended public schools.
The same 6-3 majority cited that precedent to block California school policies that protect the privacy of students and “conceal” information from inquiring parents if the student does not consent.
But the California case went beyond the religious-rights issue in the Maryland “opt out” case because it included a “subclass of parents” who objected without citing religion as the reason.
The justices ruled for them as a matter of parents’ rights.
“Parents — not the state — have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children,” the court said.
That simple assertion touches on a sensitive issue for both the conservative and liberal wings of the court. It rests on the 14th Amendment’s clause that says no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”
In the past, a liberal majority held that the protection for “liberty” included rights to contraceptives, abortion and same-sex marriages.
Conservatives fiercely objected to what was dubbed “substantive due process.”
In the California case, Kagan, speaking for the liberals in dissent, tweaked the conservatives for recognizing a new constitutional right without saying where it came from.
“Anyone remotely familiar with recent debates in constitutional law will understand why: Substantive due process has not been of late in the good graces of this Court — and especially of the Members of today’s majority,” she wrote.
She noted that when the court struck down the right to abortion in the Dobbs case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would go further and strike down all the rights that rest on “substantive due process.”
In response to Kagan, Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion that staked out a moderate conservative position.
Since 1997, the court has said it would stand behind rights that were “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” she wrote. That includes “a parent’s right to raise her child … and the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”
She said California’s “non-disclosure policy” is unconstitutional and violates the rights of parent because it applies “even if parents expressly ask for information about their child’s gender identification,” she wrote.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh signed on to her opinion.
While Kagan dissented on procedural grounds, she did not disagree with bottom-line outcome.
“California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line,” she said. “And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief.”
SACRAMENTO — A new poll shows California voters are sharply divided over two brewing statewide ballot measures stirring up the nation’s partisan and economic divides: a one-time tax on billionaires to pay for mostly healthcare and a voter ID mandate that includes citizenship verification.
Support for the voter ID measure was more evenly split, with 44% of voters in support, 45% opposed and the remainder undecided.
The pair of statewide proposals, which have yet to qualify for California’s November ballot, emanated from opposite sides of California’s political spectrum. Organized labor and progressives are pushing hard for a new wealth tax in response to Republican cuts to federal healthcare programs, and the GOP-led call for additional voter restrictions comes in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
Poll director Mark DiCamillo said he “was a little surprised” by the results given how much attention each measure has already received.
“Just from reading the press accounts of these initiatives, I thought they would both be well ahead. There’s been a lot of discussion about them and advocates seem to be very confident in their chances of passage, but the polls seem to indicate otherwise,” he said.
The divisions over each measure fell largely along partisan and ideological lines.
On the billionaire’s tax initiative, 72% of Democratic voters said they would support the measure if the election were held today — and the same percentage of Republicans oppose it. A slim majority — 51% — of voters who are unaffiliated or registered with another party support the wealth tax, while 30% said they oppose it, with the remainder undecided.
Republican voters overwhelmingly support the voter ID initiative, with 91% saying they would vote for it. More than two-thirds of Democratic voters, 68%, said they would oppose the measure. No party preference voters appeared evenly split.
Neither ballot measure has officially qualified for the November ballot thus far, though proponents of the voter ID measure said this month that they turned in 1.3 million voter signatures to elections officials, well above the 875,000 required to qualify. Proponents of the new tax on billionaires have until June 24 to submit signatures to elections officials.
The billionaire tax has generated national news coverage and widespread debate over whether it would benefit low-income Californians or end up hurting the state’s tax base as billionaires move out of the state to avoid paying it.
The proposal is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which represents 120,000 workers in California. Union leaders say that the tax would raise $100 billion to backfill steep cuts to federal healthcare programs under a sweeping tax and spending bill approved by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed in the summer by Trump.
The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California residents who are worth $1 billion or more, with options to pay it over multiple years.
According to SEIU-UHW, the new tax would apply to around 200 people in the state, though several wealthy tech leaders have made moves to change their residences and avoid paying the tax should it pass. In recent months, Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and others have bought up lavish beachfront estates and new commercial office spaces in South Florida.
Some of those billionaires are also ponying up to defeat the measure. Brin, who according to Forbes is the world’s third-richest person, has contributed $45 million to a new ballot measure committee called Building a Better California, which is pushing an alternative statewide ballot measure that could scrap the billionaire’s tax.
Brandon Castillo, a veteran ballot measure campaign strategist who is not working on either of the two measures, said even though it’s currently polling above 50%, the billionaire’s tax is starting out “in a really shaky position.”
“This is not a very strong place to start,” he said. “That’s not to say they can’t keep this thing over 50%, but when you’re starting just barely above 50% and you have a tsunami of money and a huge campaign against you, it’s really hard to keep yourself at that level.”
Though previous public opinion polls at the state and national levels have shown broad support for requiring proof of citizenship to vote in elections, even among Democrats, the new Berkeley poll showed liberal voters are skeptical of the measure.
Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof of citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID requirements threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.
Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.
The poll showed that slim majorities of predominantly Spanish-speaking voters, voters who were born in another country and first-generation immigrants support the voter ID measure. A plurality of Latino voters also favor it, with 44% in support and 41% opposed.
But DiCamillo cautioned against reading too much into those numbers, noting that awareness of the measure is still relatively low.
“I’ve always seen in my history of measuring Latino voters’ support that they are relatively late deciders on most ballot measures,” he said. “How they break will be critical. I would say we’ll have to look at how they feel when we do our final preelection poll.”
Voter ID laws are also a top priority of Trump, who has pressured the Senate into taking up the SAVE Act, which would impose nationwide requirements for proof of citizenship to vote and already has passed the House of Representatives.
Castillo said Trump’s support could sway Democratic and liberal-leaning independents to vote against the measure.
Both DiCamillo and Castillo noted that with the November election still seven months away, voters are not paying much attention and those on either side of each ballot measure have not launched major campaigns yet.
“I suspect by the time election day comes around, these awareness numbers on the billionaire’s tax certainly are going to be much higher,” Castillo said. “You’re going to see 80-90% of voters familiar with it, just because they’re going to be inundated with advertising and earned media between now and November.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 registered California voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
With trade between the two countries at a record high, Charles is using the two-day visit to highlight the pair’s deep cultural and commercial links.
Published On 18 Mar 202618 Mar 2026
The UK’s King Charles III has welcomed Nigerian President Bola Tinubu at Windsor Castle in the first state visit by the leader of Africa’s most populous nation in nearly four decades.
More than 1,000 soldiers were out in force on Wednesday for the diplomatic show of soft power by the royal family.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
With trade between the two countries at a record high, Charles is using the two-day visit to highlight the pair’s deep cultural and commercial links.
Tinubu has made less formal visits to the United Kingdom several times during his tenure, and the two countries remain major partners in trade, aid and defence. London is also home to a large Nigerian diaspora of about 300,000 people.
Nigeria’s presidency said the visit signalled a “renewed chapter” and reflected a shared commitment to “advancing trade and strengthening diplomatic ties”.
Calling the visit “historic”, London announced Nigerian companies, including banks, are expanding operations and creating hundreds of jobs in the UK, strengthening it as a global hub for African business.
Nigerian flags and Union Jacks
King Charles and Queen Camilla greeted the president and his wife in Windsor, west of London, as artillery fired salutes.
Both Nigerian flags and Union Jacks fluttered amid the procession.
The Nigerian president and his wife earlier chatted with heir-to-the-throne Prince William and his wife Catherine, at a hotel in the town.
The party then rode in carriages to the historic Windsor Castle.
Later, the king and queen showed the president and first lady items from the UK’s colonial rule of Nigeria, which existed until 1960.
Later on Wednesday evening, a lavish state banquet took place.
On Thursday, Tinubu is expected to meet British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as well as members of the Nigerian community abroad, according to the official schedule.
Missing from the official schedule is the traditional meeting between the visiting head of state and the British opposition.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who is of Nigerian descent, has repeatedly publicly criticised the country she was raised in over corruption and violence.
The last Nigerian state visit to the UK took place in 1989, although Tinubu was received by Charles in September 2024.
Before the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in 2022, Charles also visited Nigeria four times as prince of Wales.
Tinubu’s visit went ahead, despite a deadly bombing in northeastern Nigeria’s Borno State on Monday, which killed 23 people and injured more than 100, with the president condemning the attacks and insisting “Nigeria will not succumb to fear.”
For months, the senior U.S. senator from Montana pondered his political future.
Or so he said.
Wrapping up his second term and facing a glide path to a third, Steve Daines unexpectedly opted this month against seeking reelection, saying in an aw-shucksy video he planned to spend more time back home in Montana and enjoy more cherished moments with his seven grandkids.
Notably, after long “wrestling with this decision,” Daines announced his intent a scant two minutes after the deadline passed for candidates to put their names on the ballot. March 4 at 5:02 p.m local time, to be precise.
More notable still, Daines’ preferred successor, Republican former U.S. Atty. Kurt Alme, jumped into the race at 4:52 p.m. that very same day.
There are relay runners who might learn a thing or two from their timing and coordination.
As part of the seamless handoff, Alme was swiftly endorsed by President Trump, Montana’s Republican governor, Greg Gianforte, and its other Republican senator, Tim Sheehy, for all intents settling the GOP contest and, quite likely, choosing the state’s next member of the U.S. Senate.
Never mind what voters might have wished, or other prospective candidates might have had in mind.
“There are a lot of Republicans in the state, folks with political ambitions, who are extremely peeved right now,” said Kal Munis, a Montana native and political science professor at Auburn University, who closely tracks politics in his home state.
Moreover, Munis said, with enough notice a heavy-hitting Democrat might have entered the contest, instead of the lowly bunch now running hopeless campaigns.
Montana, which has a rich Democratic history, has become a solidly Republican state, though the makeover took some time to complete.
Still, while Daines’ seat hardly appeared at great risk for the GOP, a fight for the party’s nomination might have been a costly distraction, diverting money and attention that could go elsewhere as Republican prospects for the midterm election grow increasingly dim. (An unpopular war and shaky economy that’s been knee-capped by a sudden spike in oil prices will do that.)
Of all people, Daines certainly appreciates the bigger political picture, having led Republicans’ Senate campaign committee during the 2024 cycle. So he and his allies short-circuited the election process by laying hands on Alme, who stepped down as U.S. attorney to sidle into the Senate.
Seth Bodnar was among those who quite rightly criticized Daines for, as Bodnar put it, having “so little respect for Montana Republicans that he withdrew at the last minute to coronate his handpicked successor instead of giving them a voice at the ballot box.”
It just goes to show, Bodnar suggested, “the disgusting arrogance of Washington politicians and their party bosses who trade power back and forth like candy.”
Bodnar, the former president of the University of Montana, is running for Senate as an independent, conspicuously steering clear of the toxic Democratic brand. There is speculation the high-handed behavior of Daines, Trump and other Republicans might be enough to give Bodnar’s steep-odds candidacy a decent shot in November.
Munis, for one, is doubtful.
“There are a number of activist types who are deeply angered by this,” he said. “But when it comes to tallying votes in an election, that’s just a drop in the bucket.”
Unfortunately, Daines’ scheming, stick-it-to-the-voters approach isn’t just a Montana Republican thing.
Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois announced in the fall that he would not seek a fifth term this year. The last-second move — which came after Garcia had earlier filed paperwork to run for reelection — made it so his chief of staff and preferred successor, Patty Garcia (no relation), was the only major Democrat to appear on the ballot, virtually guaranteeing her election in November.
His actions were “beneath the dignity of his office and incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution,” said Gluesenkamp Perez, who was jeered and booed by fellow Democrats during the floor debate for having the temerity — heavens to Betsy! — to put principle above knee-jerk partisanship. The measure passed the House, 236 to 183, with only 22 Democrats joining Gluesenkamp Perez in support.
In California, the law prevents incumbents from pulling off the kind of underhanded stunt that Garcia and Daines managed. That’s because the filing deadline is automatically extended for an extra five days whenever a sitting lawmaker opts against seeking another term.
So, for instance, when Rep. Darrell Issa suddenly announced this month he would not run for reelection, he endorsed his favored replacement, San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, but couldn’t grease the process to see to it that Desmond takes his place.
Legislators in other states should pass a law like the one in California to prevent the undemocratic shenanigans that in effect neutered voters in Montana and the Chicago area.
That is, if they truly believe elections matter and voters should have a choice and not stand by powerless as their government representatives are anointed from on high.
Even as California’s soundstages suffer from a slowdown in local production, the local economy may get a boost from the state’s expanded film tax credits.
Medical drama “The Pitt,” a “Family Guy” spin-off and a kids’ science competition show from late-night host Jimmy Kimmel are among the 16 shows that received tax credits for filming in the state, the California Film Commission said Wednesday.
In total, the projects represent $871 million in qualified in-state spending and are expected to generate $1.3 billion in economic activity in California. More than 4,500 cast and crew members will be employed across the 16 shows, along with more than 50,000 background actors, the film commission said.
New to this round of awardees are animated shows and competitions, which were added to the film and television tax credit program during its revamp last year. Under the program, producers can receive up to 25% of qualified production expenses back in the form of credits that they can apply toward tax bills they have in the state.
“California’s creative economy isn’t just part of who we are — it helps power this state forward,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “From the folks on the soundstage to the people designing the sets, these are jobs that anchor communities.”
HBO Max’s “The Pitt” received a credit of $24.2 million, while “Stewie,” a spin-off of Seth MacFarlane’s irreverent adult cartoon “Family Guy,” was awarded $6.4 million. Kimmel’s “Schooled!” competition show, which pits young scientists and their experiments against one another, secured $6.9 million.
Since the state’s production incentive program was bolstered last year, more than 100 films and TV projects have received tax credits.
But it has taken a while for those shows to jump-start local production, which has seen a sustained slump since the pandemic, the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023 and spending cutbacks at the studios.
That lag has affected the business of local soundstages.
For the first half of 2025, the average occupancy rate at Los Angeles County soundstages was 62%, slightly lower than the 63% average recorded in 2024, according to new data from the nonprofit FilmLA, which tracks local production.
Those figures mark a significant decline from the average occupancy rate of 90% seen from 2016 to 2022, according to FilmLA data.
That’s been a problem for local soundstage operators, which had aggressively funded development of new properties or acquired them only to see production slow.
Despite a long, entrenched Democratic reign over California politics, a new poll shows two Republicans leading by slim margins in the state’s 2026 race for governor as the June primary election fast approaches.
The confounding results appear to be mostly due to the state’s left-leaning electorate feeling uninspired by any single candidate in the crowded field of eight top Democrats. Because of California’s top-two primary rule, that lethargy could lead to Democrats being shut out of a November election that will determine the next leader of the largest state in the union, though that is still considered unlikely.
Conservative commentator Steve Hilton had the support of 17% of likely voters and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco had the backing of 16%, according to a poll released Wednesday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.
Following closely behind were Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell of Northern California and former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, both of whom had support from 13% of the likely voters surveyed. Aside from billionaire hedge fund founder and environmental activist Tom Steyer, who registered at 10% support after plowing tens of millions of dollars into his campaign, no other Democrat had won support from more than 5% of likely voters, the poll showed.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll, said he was stunned by how fractured voters are and how little knowledge they have about the candidates less than 60 days before ballots start arriving in Californians’ mailboxes.
“This is historic for me, and especially given that none of the candidates have really a positive image rating with voters, also startling. I mean, perhaps one of the reasons why voters are disengaged, they’re just not enthusiastic about any of the candidates,” he said. “They’re kind of sleepwalking to this election.”
Swalwell and Porter both hew toward the progressive wing of the party and rose to national prominence as frequent guests on cable news shows and as combative, at times theatrical, committee members during congressional oversight hearings. That notoriety prompted attacks from Republicans and the far right and increased their popularity among the Democratic base — both pivotal for voters seeking a strong candidate to challenge President Trump.
Porter slightly rebounded after a dip in polling in the fall after videos emerged of her berating an aide and a reporter. She also has the highest favorable rating of any candidate in the field at 34%.
According to the survey, Steyer’s support from likely voters increased to 10% from just 1% in Berkeley’s October poll. The momentum comes after Steyer spent about $50 million airing television ads since December, according to an analysis by data expert Paul Mitchell for Capitol Weekly.
Among the other top Democrats in the race: former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra was backed by 5% of likely voters; former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan by 4%, and former state Controller Betty Yee and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond by 1%.
The poll found that 16% of likely voters were either undecided or backed other, lesser-known candidates.
The splintered support for the Democrats hoping to become the state’s next governor has surfaced in other ways as well. On Monday, the powerful California Federation of Labor voted to endorse four gubernatorial candidates — half the Democratic field.
DiCamillo said he believes the poll’s inclusion of the candidates’ titles that voters will see on their ballots is crucial in a low-information contest.
“That really matters in a race where voters don’t have much information, or they say they don’t know much about the candidates,” he said, adding that it could particularly help Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff. “His job title is kind of impressive, and that voters think, well, that’s credible, so let me consider him.”
The fear of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June 2 primary prompted California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks to urge low-polling candidates to consider their viability and drop out if they didn’t see a path forward earlier this month.
Some candidates bristled, arguing that party leaders were in effect telling every candidate of color to leave the race. Aside from one candidate, all of the top Democrats in the race responded by quickly filing their campaign documents with the secretary of state’s office, meaning that their names will appear on the ballot.
The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary are the only ones who advance to the November general election — regardless of their political party.
The odds that a Republican will become California’s next governor appear slim. No Republican has won a statewide election in California since 2006, the year Hollywood movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected to a second term as governor. Democratic registered voters in the state outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1.
Compared with prior gubernatorial races that had well-known Democratic front-runners, none of the candidates of either party are particularly well known by voters. Large numbers of voters have no opinion about any of the candidates — including roughly two-thirds of those asked about Mahan, Yee and Thurmond.
Voters were far more tuned in to the issues that they believe are most important for the state’s next governor to tackle.
Affordability was dominant among all voters, regardless of political ideology, the poll found. Four out of 10 voters said reducing the cost of living in California is among the top issues the next governor should prioritize, and smaller numbers also highlighted building affordable housing and lowering gas prices and utility rates.
Affordability “is the top issue for voters, both here in California and across the country. There’s no question,” DiCamillo said. “Perhaps it’s even of greater urgency here in California, just given our cost of living is higher than in most other places.”
Building new housing, paring back regulations to allow such construction quickly and to reduce the cost of buy a home, disincentivizing private firms from buying homes and reducing gas prices are among topics candidates frequently speak about on the campaign trail and in debates.
A notable split was evident among voters when asked about cutting waste, fraud and political corruption in state government, the poll found. Nearly 50% of Republicans said this was a top priority, compared with 10% of Democrats and a little over a quarter of voters who do not state a party preference.
DiCamillo said this sentiment aligns with President Trump’s messaging and what his administration has been pursuing in the federal government. Trump has repeatedly painted California as teeming with waste, fraud and abuse. On Monday, when he launched a task force to fight fraud that will be led by Vice President JD Vance, California was among the states he singled out as having insufficient oversight of federal funds.
GOP voters in California share similar sentiments, DiCamillo said.
In Washington, D.C., “they’re cutting back, trying to make government smaller, and … just cut the waste as well,” he said. California “Republicans, given the fact that Democrats have been controlling things for so long, they think … more of that is needed now here in California as well.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
Live Nation, the ticketing giant that reached a tentative settlement with the Department of Justice last week, remains under fire.
A coalition of more than 30 states that had joined the original lawsuit filed in 2024 is refusing to accept the $200-million settlement, causing the trial to resume this week in Manhattan’s Federal Court.
The settlement with the Justice Department requires Beverly Hills-based Live Nation to open Ticketmaster to rival ticket sellers, force the company to open select venues to competing promoters and cap service fees at 15%. California is one of the key states still involved in the trial.
But those steps fall short, critics say.
“It’s clear that Live Nation has manipulated the market and made itself untouchable by competitors, hurting artists, hurting fans, hurting venues, all the while, raking in the cash,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta at the Capitol Forum conference last week. “Not because it’s a better service or product, because it acted illegally and created a monopoly.”
U.S. senators have also chimed in. Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar recently introduced the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act to strengthen the review of antitrust settlements. Klobuchar said in a release that it’s “clear the American people got the raw end of the deal.”
And Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal released a report that provides new details into the inner workings of Ticketmaster and urges attorneys general across the nation to reject the settlement.
Blumenthal said that the Trump administration’s settlement with Live Nation will keep consumers vulnerable to Ticketmaster’s “anticompetitive practices” and ultimately push “concert tickets farther out of reach for fans.”
The senator’s report, entitled “So Casually Cruel: How Ticketmaster’s Monopoly Supercharges Prices and Fees,” examined over 100,000 documents and Ticketmaster’s revenue data. The report argues that the company leveraged its market control to make tickets available on the resale market before they were available to the general public in an effort to hike prices and boost profits.
“The ticketing market is broken,” Blumenthal said in a statement.
In its own statement, Ticketmaster said Blumenthal’s report “misrepresents how the live events industry works” and that the problem lies in the secondary ticketing industry.
“This is why we’ve long called for industry resale reform, including price caps, while also developing tools to empower artists and protect fans,” Ticketmaster said in a statement.
Sens. Blumenthal and Klobuchar are among many industry experts who say the settlement doesn’t adequately address anticompetitive practices and falls short of protecting consumers from high ticket prices.
Under Klobuchar’s new bill, courts could have 90 days to review public comments and government responses.
“When the government prosecutes antitrust violations, the goal should be to uphold the law, lower prices, and protect consumers and small businesses,” Klobuchar said in the statement.
Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the economic policy nonprofit Groundwork Collaborative, said the settlement will end up being “incredibly costly for concertgoers, performers, and independent venues.”
“California and 35 other states are standing up for Americans who are sick and tired of being ripped off and having to scrimp and save to enjoy a night out,” Owens said in a statement.
This ongoing trial is one of several major legal battles the ticketing giant is facing. The company is also being sued by the Federal Trade Commission and is dealing with a handful of class-action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.
Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — An advocacy group hoping to expand support for child and elder care is planning to spend $50 million to back Democrats in congressional races, tying the costs of caregiving to the nation’s affordability debate.
The Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy, created a decade ago, aims to make caregiver issues more salient in elections. The announcement comes as the cost of child care continues to rise and as waiting lists for federal child-care subsidies, which support working families in poverty, continue to grow.
Sondra Goldschein, executive director of the campaign and its political action committee, said child care and elder care are important to the affordability conversation, especially as child-care costs exceed what families pay for housing. Then there is the pressure on the “sandwich generation,” composed of middle-aged people who are caring simultaneously for their own children and parents.
“When child care can cost more than your rent or a mortgage, or you have to sacrifice a paycheck in order to be able to take care of a loved one,” that can motivate how people vote, said Goldschein. “Each election cycle, we see candidates recognizing that more and more.”
She hopes the message will resonate as families face a slew of rising costs, including climbing gas prices driven by a war in Iran that is unpopular with many voters.
The campaign plans to pour support for Democrats into Senate races in North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Maine and Ohio and into House races in Iowa and Pennsylvania. It is also slated to dispatch volunteers to talk with voters about caregiving.
The National Republican Congressional Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Republicans have begun to back child care as an issue crucial to growing the workforce, but their proposals tend to be less dramatic than those offered by Democrats. Last year, through President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans made an estimated 4 million more families eligible for a child-care tax credit. The law also increased child-care aid for military families and tax credits for employers who provide child care to their workers.
Before 2020, many candidates rarely spoke about child care. But the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the child-care industry’s precarity and necessity. Preschools and child-care centers were pressed to stay open so parents in front-line jobs — such as those in healthcare — could return to work.
Then-President Biden successfully persuaded Congress in 2021 to pass $39 billion in aid for child care, allowing states to offer support to more families and subsidizing wages for child-care workers. Later that year, Biden sought to create nationwide universal pre-kindergarten and to vastly expand child-care subsidies for families so that none would pay more than 7% of their household income for care. But the proposal narrowly failed in Congress. Since then, the pandemic aid has dried up and families are feeling the pinch of rising costs.
Now, several candidates have centered their campaigns around child-care affordability. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who won election after pledging to make the city more affordable for middle-class residents, ran on universal child care. Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia won elections after pledging to expand child-care subsidies.
Candidates this election cycle are running on universal child-care pledges. They include Democrats Janeese Lewis George, who is running for mayor in Washington, D.C., and Francesca Hong, a gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is up for reelection this year, has pledged to support Mamdani’s ambitions and eventually to expand universal child care statewide.
Neither the White House nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees federal child-care programs, responded to requests for comment. In his 2024 campaign, during an address to the Economic Club of New York, Trump said increasing foreign tariffs would “take care” of the expense of child care. That plan, thus far, has not materialized.
In Trump’s current term, the administration has largely focused on cracking down on fraud, after a viral video alleged Somali-run child-care centers in Minneapolis were billing the government for children they weren’t caring for.
While there have been prosecutions stemming from child-care subsidy fraud, the Minneapolis video’s central claims were disproven by state inspectors. Nonetheless, the Trump administration attempted to freeze child-care funding for Minnesota and five other Democratic-led states until a court ordered the funding to be released.
