state

DENVER — Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020. But for more than five years, he’s been trying to convince Americans the opposite is true by falsely saying the election was marred by widespread fraud.

Now that he’s president again, Trump is pushing the federal government to back up those bogus claims.

On Wednesday, the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta, seeking ballots from the 2020 election. That follows Trump’s comments earlier this month when he suggested during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that charges related to the election were imminent.

“The man has obsessions, as do a fair number of people, but he’s the only one who has the full power of the United States behind him,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.

Hasen and many others noted that Trump’s use of the FBI to pursue his obsession with the 2020 election is part of a pattern of the president transforming the federal government into his personal tool of vengeance.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, compared the search to the Minnesota immigration crackdown that has killed two U.S. citizen protesters, launched by Trump as his latest blow against the state’s governor, who ran against him as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024.

“From Minnesota to Georgia, on display to the whole world, is a President spiraling out of control, wielding federal law enforcement as an unaccountable instrument of personal power and revenge,” Ossoff said in a statement.

It also comes as election officials across the country are starting to rev up for the 2026 midterms, where Trump is struggling to help his party maintain its control of Congress. Noting that, in 2020, Trump contemplated using the military to seize voting machines after his loss, some worry he’s laying the groundwork for a similar maneuver in the fall.

“Georgia’s a blueprint,” said Kristin Nabers of the left-leaning group All Voting Is Local. “If they can get away with taking election materials here, what’s to stop them from taking election materials or machines from some other state after they lose?”

Georgia has been at the heart of Trump’s 2020 obsession. He infamously called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, asking that Raffensperger “find” 11,780 more votes for Trump so he could be declared the winner of the state. Raffensperger refused, noting that repeated reviews confirmed Democrat Joe Biden had narrowly won Georgia.

Those were part of a series of reviews in battleground states, often led by Republicans, that affirmed Biden’s win, including in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Trump also lost dozens of court cases challenging the election results and his own attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

His allies who repeated his lies have been successfully sued for defamation. That includes former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who settled with two Georgia election workers after a court ruled he owed them $148 million for defaming them after the 2020 election.

Voting machine companies also have brought defamation cases against some conservative-leaning news sites that aired unsubstantiated claims about their equipment being linked to fraud in 2020. Fox News settled one such case by agreeing to pay $787 million after the judge ruled it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations were true.

Trump’s campaign to move Georgia into his column also sparked an ill-fated attempt to prosecute him and some of his allies by Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis, a Democrat. The case collapsed after Willis was removed over conflict-of-interest concerns, and Trump has since sought damages from the office.

On his first day in office, Trump rewarded some of those who helped him try to overturn the 2020 election results by pardoning, commuting or vowing to dismiss the cases of about 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He later signed an executive order trying to set new rules for state election systems and voting procedures, although that has been repeatedly blocked by judges who have ruled that the Constitution gives states, and in some instances Congress, control of elections rather than the president.

As part of his campaign of retribution, Trump also has spoken about wanting to criminally charge lawmakers who sat on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, suggesting protective pardons of them from Biden are legally invalid. He’s targeted a former cybersecurity appointee who assured the public in 2020 that the election was secure.

During a year of presidential duties, from dealing with wars in Gaza and Ukraine to shepherding sweeping tax and spending legislation through Congress, Trump has reliably found time to turn the subject to 2020. He has falsely called the election rigged, said Democrats cheated and even installed a White House plaque claiming Biden took office after “the most corrupt election ever.”

David Becker, a former Department of Justice voting rights attorney and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he was skeptical the FBI search in Georgia would lead to any successful prosecutions. Trump has demanded charges against several enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Atty. Gen., Letitia James, that have stalled in court.

“So much this administration has done is to make claims in social media rather than go to court,” Becker said. “I suspect this is more about poisoning the well for 2026.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

San José Mayor Matt Mahan announced he is running for California governor Thursday, pitching himself as a pragmatic Democrat who would prioritize state residents’ quality of life over the principled progressivism that has become entrenched in California politics — including on crime, homelessness, housing and affordability.

“I’m jumping in this race because we need a governor who is both a fighter for our values and a fixer of our problems,” said Mahan, one of the state’s most outspoken Democratic critics of departing Gov. Gavin Newsom. “We can fix the biggest problems facing California, and I believe that because we’re making real progress on homelessness, public safety [and] housing supply in San José.”

Mahan claimed policies under his watch have reduced crime and the number of unsheltered residents, helped police solve every city homicide for nearly the last four years, and should be emulated statewide.

“I want to follow through on that work by holding state government accountable for partnering with cities and counties to deliver better outcomes,” he said.

Mahan, the father of two young children whose wife, Silvia, works in education, said last year that it wasn’t the right time for him to run for governor, despite calls for him to do so from moderate forces in state politics and business. But he said he changed his mind after failing to find a candidate among the already crowded Democratic field who he felt he could support — despite meeting with several of them to discuss their plans if elected.

“I have not heard the field embrace the kinds of solutions that I don’t think we need, I know we need, as the mayor of the largest city in Northern California,” Mahan said. In “the current field, it feels like many people are more interested in running either against Trump or in his image. I’m running for the future of California, and I believe that we can fight for our values on the national stage while being accountable for fixing our problems here at home.”

Mahan, a 43-year-old Harvard graduate and tech entrepreneur from Watsonville, was elected to the San José City Council in 2020 and then as mayor of the Bay Area city in a narrow upset in 2022. In 2024, he was reelected in a landslide.

More recently, he has been pushing a concise campaign message — “Back to Basics” — and launched a nonprofit policy organization by the same name to promote his ideas statewide. His former chief of staff, Jim Reed, recently left his office to lead the initiative.

Although he isn’t well-known across the state, influential Californians in politics said he’s nonetheless a candidate who should be taken seriously — including progressives who have not always seen eye to eye with him, such as Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont).

“Matt Mahan is a person of integrity who has made great progress on housing in San José, cost of living, and public safety. He is a terrific Mayor and would be a formidable candidate for Governor,” Khanna said in a statement to The Times.

While in office, Mahan has cut a decidedly moderate path while eschewing some progressive policies that other party leaders have championed in a state where Democratic voters far outnumber Republicans.

He has backed Newsom, a two-term governor and potential Democratic presidential candidate, on some of the governor’s signature initiatives — including Proposition 1, a plan to ramp up and in some instances require people on the street to undergo mental health treatment. He also joined Newsom in opposing a proposed wealth tax on California billionaires, saying it would “backfire” by driving business out of the state — including in Silicon Valley’s tech sector, where many of his constituents work.

However, Mahan has not been shy about criticizing Newsom, either — including for taking a brash, President Trump-like online demeanor in pushing back against Trump and other critics of California, including in the business world, and for not doing more to solve entrenched issues such as crime, drug addiction and homelessness.

He broke with Newsom and other Democratic leaders to back Proposition 36, the 2024 ballot measure that increased penalties for theft and crimes involving fentanyl. After the measure was passed overwhelmingly by voters, he accused Newsom of failing to properly fund its statewide implementation.

Mahan also pushed through a plan in San José to arrest people on the street who repeatedly decline offers of shelter, which some progressives lambasted as inhumane.

San José, California’s third-most populous city after Los Angeles and San Diego, has a growing reputation for being a safe big city — with a recent report by SmartAsset ranking it the safest large city in the U.S. based on several factors including crime rates, traffic fatalities, overdose deaths and median income.

Mahan said income inequality is “a very real issue” and “a threat to our democracy.” But he said the solution is not the proposal being floated to tax 5% of the assets of the state’s billionaires to raise funds for healthcare. He said the proposal would have the opposite effect and diminish state tax revenue by driving wealthy people out of the state, as similar policies have done in European countries that have implemented them, but he did not specify how he would backfill the impending federal healthcare funding cuts that will affect the state’s more vulnerable residents.

He said he has heard directly from business leaders and others in Silicon Valley who are worried about the impact of such a tax, which they believe “strikes right at the heart of Silicon Valley’s economy, which has been an engine of prosperity and economic opportunity for literally millions of people in our state.”

He said California should instead focus on “closing loopholes in the tax code that allow the wealthiest among us to never pay taxes on their capital gains,” and on finding ways to make government more efficient rather than “always going back to the voters and asking them to pay more.”

Mahan said San José has made “measurable progress” on the issues that voters raise with him at the grocery store: “crime, the high cost of living, unsheltered homelessness, untreated addiction.” But the city is limited in what it can do without “state leadership and real accountability in Sacramento and at the county level,” he said.

Mahan has already elicited early support among wealthy venture capitalists and tech industry leaders, who would be able to bankroll a formidable campaign.

In response to a post in early January in which Mahan said the wealth tax would “sink California’s innovation economy,” the angel investor Matt Brezina responded, “Is Matt running for governor yet? Silicon Valley and California, let’s embrace Matt Mahan and his sensible policies. Matt understands how wealth is created, opportunity is created and society is advanced.”

Brezina did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Newsom.

Others would prefer Mahan not run.

Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee Chair Bill James said Mahan “hasn’t engaged” with his group much, seems to consider “the more centrist and even the more conservative population in the area to be his base,” and frames his policy agenda as that of a “moderate Democrat” when “it’s a little Republican too.”

“Matt may run as a Democrat and feel like he is a Democrat, but his policy positions are more conservative than many Democrats we interact with here in Santa Clara County,” he said.

Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José), chair of the Legislative Progressive Caucus, said he also would prefer Mahan focus on San José, especially given the “very big year” ahead as the region hosts several major sporting events.

“Our mayor is right that there needs to be more focus on the city getting ‘back to basics,’ and I don’t know how running for governor and doing a big statewide race really brings the core governance needed for a city,” Lee said. “Everyone and their mom is running for governor right now, and I just think it’s better-suited for us to have his focus here.”

Lee said the Democratic Party is a “very big tent,” but voters should be aware that Mahan has aligned himself with the “most MAGA conservative” voices on certain issues, such as Proposition 36.

“He bucks the Democratic Party,” Lee said.

A year ago, Colorado firefighters Rick Balentine and Tim Cottrell were driving trucks carrying donations from Aspen to Los Angeles for victims of the Eaton and Palisades fires.

As they headed west, they planned to stop in Las Vegas and, while there, made a spontaneous decision to see the Eagles’ residency at the Sphere. Balentine and Cottrell bought resale tickets on StubHub for around $400 each. Cottrell used his credit card and received a confirmation email. But once they arrived to the venue, they weren’t allowed in. The seller failed to send the tickets.

All Cottrell could find was an email that said his tickets had been canceled, moments before the concert was to start. Other than getting their money back, there was no further explanation.

“We knew they were aftermarket tickets,” Balentine said, “but never in a million years did I think that tickets could get canceled.”

“I was very disappointed. There needs to be more protection out there, both for consumers and for artists, so people aren’t getting ripped off all the time.”

The rising demand for tickets has spurred a growing marketplace for all kinds of high-profile live events, including music tours and sports series like the upcoming World Cup. Whenever fans are unable to secure tickets on the primary market, through sellers like Ticketmaster or AXS, many will turn to the secondary market for resale tickets. Those tickets are typically sold through platforms like StubHub, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats. Customers who bought their passes directly from Ticketmaster can also resell them on that platform.

The majority of secondary-market transactions can be easy, leaving both the reseller and the customer satisfied. But with the rise of speculative or fake tickets, like the ones Balentine and Cottrell bought, securing valid tickets from the resale market has become more challenging.

What are speculative tickets?

Speculative tickets are offered by resellers who list concert passes they don’t yet have in their possession, with the intention that they will ultimately acquire the tickets and deliver them to the buyer. According to 2025 data from Live Nation, one in three Americans has fallen victim to a ticketing scam. But under California’s bill, AB 1349, selling speculative tickets could be banned on all resale platforms in the state. On Monday, the bill passed in an assembly vote and is headed to the state Senate for review.

Thousands of fans enjoy Shakira’s performance at SoFi Stadium in August.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Speculative tickets usually pop up as soon as a major artist announces a tour. Most recently, K-pop boy band BTS announced a world tour that includes four stops at SoFi Stadium. Before the general sale began Jan. 24, some sellers on Vivid Seats had already started listing tickets for over $6,000. Listings like these usually create a greater sense of scarcity, which can drive up ticket prices even more.

If enacted, the proposed legislation in California would require sellers to have event tickets in their possession before offering them for sale. The listing must include the location of the seat and specific refund rights. It prohibits a person from using software that automatically purchases more tickets than the specified limit, and it would raise the maximum civil penalty for each violation from $2,500 to $10,000.

The live music industry is a vital part of the state’s economy, contributing over $51 billion to California’s GDP and supporting over 460,000 jobs, according to the database 50 States of Music.

Ticketing fraud tends to affect more than just the consumer. Whenever an unknowing fan shows up to a venue with a fake ticket, it often falls on the venue and its staff to deal with the situation. Stephen Parker, the executive director of the National Independent Venue Association, said that if speculative tickets are banned in California, venues could save up to $50,000 in staffing expenses.

Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium, where many concerts and ticketed live events are held.

(Icon Sportswire/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)

“They have to deal with fans who are crying, who are angry, who are upset because they thought they were going to go see their favorite artists that night, and they paid [over the] ticket’s face value only to not get a ticket that works or to not get a ticket at all,” said Parker.

Fighting ticket fraud and reining in a ticketing giant

There are currently dozens of legislative bills throughout the U.S. focused on event ticketing issues. Some states like Maryland, Minnesota and Maine have already passed restrictions on speculative tickets.

The action comes after both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, in 2024 and 2025. The DOJ’s lawsuit suggests breaking up the company, which it accuses of engaging in monopolistic practices. The complaint also alleges the company forces venues into exclusive ticketing contracts and influences artists to use only its services.

Founded in 1976, Ticketmaster has been the industry’s largest ticket distributor since 1995, with around 80% of live concerts sold through the site. The company merged with Live Nation in 2010.

Ticketmaster has also acquired a growing share of the resale market, under the platform Ticketmaster Resale. The site allows consumers to list, sell or find tickets to live events. The business functions similarly to other resale sites, but Ticketmaster does not allow speculative ticket sales on its platform.

The Federal Trade Commission is currently suing the company on accusations that it engaged in illegal ticket vendor practices for its resale business, like misleading artists and consumers with so-called “bait-and-switch pricing,” where advertised prices are lower than the actual total. Following the FTC’s complaint, the ticket seller made changes to its policies.

Additionally, Ticketmaster is no longer allowing users to have multiple accounts, which made it easier to purchase more tickets than the specified limit, and it is shutting down Trade Desk, the controversial software that helps resellers track and price tickets across several marketplaces.

Hundreds enjoy a performance by Banda Los Lagos during Jalisco Fest at the 2025 Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

“The FTC case against us is very frustrating because we think they’re sort of blaming the victim here. We’re the ones that are dealing with millions and millions of bots attacking us every day,” said Dan Wall, Live Nation’s vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs. “We’re trying to convince the federal government and state governments to get on the same page of recognizing where the problem is, which is overwhelmingly in the resale industry, and trying to do something about it.”

“We’re a much more artist and consumer-focused company, and so we don’t engage in the different kinds of business practices that are sketchy and unfair to the fans. We try to be a much more honest, legitimate outlet for getting resale tickets,” said Wall.

Critics find that the surge of anti-speculative ticketing bills around the country is a way for Ticketmaster to divert attention from its own legal troubles and shift attention onto the resale market. Live Nation is a key supporter of the California bill. Diana Moss, the director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, called AB 1349 “overkill” when it comes to the provisions and restrictions it places on the secondary market.

Fans cheer Sexyy Red at the Rolling Loud concert at Hollywood Park in March.

(Michael Owen Baker/For The Times)

“A lot of these bills in the states are a vehicle to disable the resale markets and hinder how they operate. Resale markets are important to consumers,” said Moss. “If you disable the resale market, then fans have no place to go — but back to Ticketmaster. That’s the whole game, disable the resale markets with legislation and regulation, and then everybody has to go back and deal with Ticketmaster and pay their monopoly ticket fees.”

Provisions in AB 1349 deem a ticket a license. The question of whether a ticket is a right or a license is an ongoing controversy in the ticketing world. Opponents of the bill are fearful that this change would give more power to Live Nation, as they could impose restrictions on how the ticket can be used, such as whether you’re allowed to sell your ticket on other platforms or if you can transfer it at all. Meghan Callahan, from the Empower Fans Coalition, a group that opposes the bill, equates this licensing change to taking a lease out on the ticket.

“Ticketmaster’s goal is to create less competition. This bill imposes restrictions on everybody else but themselves,” said Callahan. “They are trying to use consumer-friendly concepts and sneak in these other provisions to embolden their monopoly.”

Wall at Ticketmaster said that nothing on the consumers’ end would change if this bill were to pass, adding that tickets are already licenses “from the venue for you to come on the property during the time of the show and sit in that seat.”

“Honesty doesn’t favor one person or another. That’s what this [bill] is about,” said Wall.