Supreme Court

A few months into President Trump’s second term, federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — a conservative appointee of President Reagan — issued a scathing opinion denouncing what he found to be the Trump administration’s unlawful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to his native El Salvador, despite a previous court order barring it.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done,” Wilkinson wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Two months later, U.S. District Judge William G. Young, also a Reagan appointee, ripped into the Trump administration from the bench for its unprecedented decision to terminate hundreds of National Institutes of Health grants based on their perceived nexus to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Young ruled the cuts were “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore illegal. But he also said there was a “darker aspect” to the case that he had an “unflinching obligation” to call out — that the administration’s actions amounted to “racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”

“I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young said, explaining a decision the Supreme Court later reversed. “Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”

In the year since an aggrieved and combative Trump returned to the White House, his administration has strained the American legal system by testing and rejecting laws and other long-standing policies and defending those actions by arguing the president has a broad scope of authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Administration officials and Justice Department attorneys have argued that the executive branch is essentially the president’s to bend to his will. They have argued its employees are his to fire, its funds his to spend and its enforcement powers — to retaliate against his enemies, blast alleged drug-runners out of international waters or detain anyone agents believe looks, sounds and labors like a foreigner — all but unrestrained.

The approach has repeatedly been met by frustrated federal judges issuing repudiations of the administration’s actions, but also grave warnings about a broader threat they see to American jurisprudence and democracy.

When questioning administration attorneys in court, in stern written rulings at the district and appellate levels and in blistering dissents at the Supreme Court — which has often backed the administration, particularly with temporary orders on its emergency docket — federal judges have used remarkably strong language to call out what they see as a startling disregard for the rule of law.

Legal critics, including more than a hundred former federal and state judges, have decried Trump’s attacks on individual judges and law firms, “deeply inappropriate” nominations to the bench, “unlawful” appointments of unconfirmed and inexperienced U.S. attorneys and targeting of his political opponents for prosecution based on weak allegations of years-old mortgage fraud.

In response, Trump and his supporters have articulated their own concerns with the legal system, accusing judges of siding with progressive groups to cement a liberal federal agenda despite the nation voting Trump back into office. Trump has labeled judges “lunatics” and called for at least one’s impeachment, which drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

After District Judge Brian E. Murphy temporarily blocked the administration from deporting eight men to South Sudan — a nation to which they had no connection, and which has a record of human rights abuses — Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, called the order “a lawless act of defiance” that ignored a recent Supreme Court ruling.

After District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison despite Boasberg having previously ordered the planes turned back to the U.S., government attorneys said it portended a “circus” that threatened the separation of powers.

While more measured than the nation’s coarse political rhetoric, the legal exchanges have nonetheless been stunning by judicial standards — a sign of boiling anger among judges, rising indignation among administration officials and a wide gulf between them as to the limits of their respective legal powers.

“These judges, these Democrat activist judges, are the ones who are 100% at fault,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Republican lawyer and Trump ally who advocates for sweeping executive authority. “They are taking the country to the cliff.”

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg began pursuing a criminal contempt investigation into the actions of senior administration officials who continued flights deporting Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison.

(Valerie Plesch / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The judges “see — and have articulated — an unprecedented threat to democracy,” said UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “They really are sounding the alarm.”

“What the American people should be deeply concerned about is the rampant increase in judicial activism from radical left-wing judges,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “If this trend continues it threatens to undermine the rule-of-law for all future presidencies.”

“Regardless of which side you’re on on these issues, the lasting impact is that people mistrust the courts and, quite frankly, do not understand the role that a strong, independent judiciary plays in the rule of law, in our democracy and in our economy,” said John A. Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. “That is very, very troubling to anybody who looks at this with a shred of objectivity.”

California in the fight

Last month, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office’s 50th lawsuit against the Trump administration — an average of about one lawsuit per week since Trump’s inauguration.

The litigation has challenged a range of Trump administration policies, including his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of many immigrants; his unilateral imposition of stiff tariffs around the world; the administration’s attempt to slash trillions of dollars in federal funding from states, and its deployment of National Guard troops to American cities.

The battles have produced some of the year’s most eye-popping legal exchanges.

In June, Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, after days of protest over immigration enforcement.

An attorney for the administration had argued that federal law gave Trump such authority in instances of domestic “rebellion” or when the president is unable to execute the nation’s laws with regular forces, and said the court had no authority to question Trump’s decisions.

But Breyer wasn’t buying it, ruling Trump’s authority was “of course limited.”

“I mean, that’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said from the bench. “This country was founded in response to a monarchy. And the Constitution is a document of limitations — frequent limitations — and enunciation of rights.”

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops to Los Angeles.

(Santiago Mejia / San Francisco Chronicle)

Francesca Gessner, Bonta’s acting chief deputy, said she took Breyer’s remarks as his way of telling Trump and his administration that “we don’t have kings in America” — which she said was “really remarkable to watch” in an American courtroom.

“I remember just sitting there thinking, wow, he’s right,” Gessner said.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently paused Breyer’s order, allowing the troops to remain in Trump’s control.

In early October, U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland, finding that the conditions on the ground didn’t warrant such militarization. The next day, both Oregon and California asked her to expand that ruling to include California National Guard troops, after the Trump administration sent them to Portland in lieu of Oregon’s troops.

Before issuing a second restraining order barring deployments of any National Guard troops in Oregon, a frustrated Immergut laid into the Justice Department attorney defending the administration. “You’re an officer of the court,” she said. “Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order, which relies on the conditions in Portland?”

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration in a similar case out of Chicago, finding the administration lacked any legal justification for Guard deployments there. Trump subsequently announced he was pulling troops out of Chicago, Los Angeles and other Democratic-led cities, with California and other states that had resisted claiming a major victory.

Bonta said he’s been pleased to see judges pushing back against the president’s power grabs, including by using sharp language that makes their alarm clear.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut, shown at her 2018 confirmation hearing, barred the deployment of Oregon National Guard troops to Portland.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

“Generally, courts and judges are tempered and restrained,” Bonta said. “The statements that you’re seeing from them are carefully chosen to be commensurate with the extreme nature of the moment — the actions of the Trump administration that are so unlawful.”

Jackson, the White House spokesperson, and other Trump administration officials defended their actions to The Times, including by citing wins before the Supreme Court.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said the Justice Department “has spent the past year righting the wrongs of the previous administration” and “working tirelessly to successfully advance President Trump’s agenda and keep Americans safe.”

Sauer said it has won rulings “on key priorities of this administration, including stopping nationwide injunctions from lower courts, defending ICE’s ability to carry out law enforcement duties, and removing dangerous illegal aliens from our country,” and that those decisions “respect the role” of the courts, Trump’s “constitutional authority” and the “rule of law.”

‘Imperial executive’ or ‘imperial judiciary’?

Just after taking office, Trump said he was ending birthright citizenship. California and others sued, and several lower court judges blocked the order with nationwide or “universal” injunctions — with one calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In response, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court challenging the ability of district court judges to issue such sweeping injunctions. In June, the high court largely sided with the administration, ruling 6 to 3 that many such injunctions likely exceed the lower courts’ authority.

Trump’s policy remains on hold based on other litigation. But the case laid bare a stark divide on the high court.

In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that universal injunctions were not used in early English and U.S. history, and that while the president has a “duty to follow the law,” the judiciary “does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett accused Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the president.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

In a dissent joined by fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that enforcement of Trump’s order against even a single U.S.-born child would be an “assault on our constitutional order,” and that Barrett’s opinion was “not just egregiously wrong, it is also a travesty of law.”

Jackson, in her own dissent, wrote that the majority opinion created “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

As a result, the president’s allies will fare well, the “wealthy and the well connected” will be able to hire lawyers and go to court to defend their rights, and the poor will have no such relief, Jackson wrote — creating a tiered system of justice “eerily echoing history’s horrors.”

In a footnote, she cited “The Dual State” by Jewish lawyer and writer Ernst Fraenkel, about Adolf Hitler creating a similar system in Germany.

Barrett accused Jackson of pursuing a “startling line of attack” that unconstitutionally aggrandized the powers of judges at the expense of the executive. “Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson questioned why the majority saw a “power grab” by the courts instead of by “a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.”

What’s ahead?

Legal observers across the political spectrum said they see danger in the tumult.

“I never have been so afraid, or imagined being so afraid, for the future of democracy as I am right now,” Chemerinsky said.

He said Trump is “continually violating the Constitution and laws” in unprecedented ways to increase his own power and diminish the power of the other branches of government, and neither Republicans in Congress nor Trump’s cabinet are doing anything to stop him.

While the Supreme Court has also showed great deference to Trump, Chemerinsky said he is hoping it will begin reaffirming legal boundaries for him.

“Is the court just going to be a rubber stamp for Trump, or, at least in some areas, is it going to be a check?” he said.

Davis said Trump has faced “unprecedented, unrelenting lawfare from his Democrat opponents” for years, but now has “a broad electoral mandate to lead” and must be allowed to exercise his powers under Article II of the Constitution.

“These Democrat activist judges need to get the hell out of his way, because if they don’t, the federal judiciary is gonna lose its legitimacy,” Davis said. “And once it loses its legitimacy, it loses everything.”

Bonta said the Constitution is being “stress tested,” but he thinks it’s been “a good year for the rule of law” overall, thanks to lower court judges standing up to the administration’s excesses. “They have courage. They are doing their job.”

Day, of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said Trump “believes he is putting the country on the right path” and wants judges to get out of his way, while many Democrats feel “we’re going entirely in the wrong direction and that the Supreme Court is against them and bowing to the wishes of the executive.”

His advice to both, he said, is to keep faith in the nation’s legal system — which “is not very efficient, but was designed to work in the long run.”

WASHINGTON — Five years after the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by President Trump’s supporters, the White House released a website this week attempting to revise history.

Reasserting Trump’s false claim that he had won the 2020 presidential election, the administration doubled down on his decision to issue blanket pardons for the rioters, blamed Capitol Police for escalating tensions that day, and denounced Trump’s vice president at the time, Mike Pence, for “refusing to act” in defiance of the Constitution to stop congressional certification of Trump’s loss.

It was a display of political audacity that has become the hallmark of Trump’s second act — challenging anyone to stop him from asserting raw executive authority, both at home and increasingly abroad.

Whether on foreign or domestic policy, lawmakers have struggled to respond to an administration that moves with unfettered restraint and exceptional speed. The U.S. Supreme Court has only facilitated Trump’s expansion of unitary executive power. And governments abroad accustomed to Trump’s lack of predictability now face a president whose entire philosophy toward foreign interventionism appears to have turned on a dime.

“There are political checks. They are checks, though, that have been degraded,” said William Howell, dean of the School of Government and Policy at Johns Hopkins University and author of “Trajectory of Power: The Rise of the Strongman Presidency.”

“They are checks that are looked upon not just with frustration, but an outward animosity by the president,” Howell added. “It’s a feature of his populist politics for him to say, ‘anything that stands in my way is illegitimate.’”

Unitary rule

Trump’s extraordinary use of executive authority has no comparison in recent times. The president has issued more than 220 executive actions in his first year back in office — more than the 220 orders he issued throughout his entire first term, and dwarfing the 276 actions that President Obama issued over eight years in office.

Directing the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies, and deploying his pardon power to shield his friends and allies, Trump risks fueling the very sort of politicized system of justice he campaigned against as a presidential candidate.

And his administration has shown derision for Congress, controlled by the president’s own party, approving historically few bills and neglecting those that have passed, such as the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Trump has attempted to unilaterally rename the Defense Department and the Kennedy Center, despite straightforward laws requiring acts of Congress to do so, and has impounded funds appropriated by Congress for child care and family assistance allocated to Democratic states.

“The nature of presidential power is that it is given as much as taken,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College and author of “The New Imperial Presidency.” “You can’t have an imperial presidency without an invisible Congress. And certainly, the current Congress is setting new records for intentional invisibility.”

After Trump bulldozed the East Wing of the White House, a reporter asked his press secretary what was stopping him from knocking down the entire building. Karoline Leavitt demurred. “That’s a legal opinion that’s been held for many years,” she said, suggesting he could, in fact, demolish the rest of it.

“The institutional constraints on the unilateral presidency are weak,” said Dino Christenson, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis and co-author of “The Myth of the Imperial Presidency.” “The conservative majority of the [Supreme] Court has also recently chosen to back executive power.

“Arguably,” he added, “international constraints are even weaker, at least for powerful nations like the U.S.”

‘Governed by force’

Trump’s order over the weekend to depose Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, seizing him and his wife from their bedroom in a stunning military raid, was the type of rare exercise in American power that has defined past presidencies. But Trump said he was just getting started.

Beaming from the operational success in Caracas, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he was considering military action against no fewer than five countries, allies and foes alike. His homeland security advisor, Stephen Miller, said that no one would even try to stop Trump from militarily taking over Greenland, an autonomous region of Denmark, a NATO ally and European Union member state.

“We live in a world,” Miller told CNN, “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”

At the State Department, veteran U.S. diplomats waited anxiously for guidance from the administration on how it would justify the operation based on international law on the global stage. It never came. “At least with Iraq, Libya, Syria, there was an effort to seek legal cover,” one diplomat said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “This is just grab-and-go.”

After the president vowed to run Venezuela going forward as a vassal state, Trump’s energy secretary said the United States would exert control over its oil production “indefinitely.”

And the Trump administration ordered the seizure of two foreign tankers on Wednesday in international waters that have violated its unilateral oil embargo against Caracas, risking precedent governing the laws of the seas that have for decades ensured international commercial flows.

It was a surprising turn for a president who had campaigned on a promise to focus on domestic policy, under a slogan of “America first.”

“So many of the claims that he was making — both in terms of his power and his politics — was about an inward turn, about standing up for America and attending to core problems that it had failed to face, whereas all these foreign entanglements were distractions to be avoided,” Howell said. “So it is striking that he has assumed this new posture of outward imperialism — land grabs, oil tankers, removing heads of state — all at once.”

Several Republican lawmakers expressed skepticism over Trump’s new posture, warning the president against entrenching the U.S. military in foreign conflicts. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, warned that U.S. military action against Denmark in Greenland “would not be appropriate” after the White House issued an explicit threat of force.

Scholars of the imperial presidency often say that public opinion — not the legislature or the courts — remains the strongest check on executive authority. Trump is ineligible for a third term in office, and has signaled in recent weeks that he recognizes that constitutional limit as unambiguous.

“I don’t think Trump is immune from the laws of political gravity,” Rudalevige said. “Despite his bluster, he is a lame duck. He has never had a Gallup approval rating above 50%, and that rating is in the 30s. His policy actions are even less popular.”

But he also said he believes the public supports him in his brash use of power, telling lawmakers there could be a “constitutional movement” to keep him in office.

“MAGA loves it,” Trump said in an interview with NBC News this week, defending his foreign policy approach. “MAGA loves what I’m doing. MAGA loves everything I do.”

“MAGA is me,” he added. “MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do, too.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Palisades fire report was sent to mayor’s office for ‘refinements,’ Fire Commission president says
The deep dive: Michael Reagan’s death reverberates among Californians of both parties
The L.A. Times Special: One year since my childhood home burned

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Jan. 7 (UPI) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis issued a proclamation on Wednesday calling on the state Legislature to hold a special session for the purpose of redistricting its U.S. House seats.

The special session is to occur in April and will last no more than 20 consecutive days, unless extended by a three-fifths vote in each chamber, the proclamation says.

“Every Florida resident deserves to be represented fairly and constitutionally,” DeSantis said in a news release.

“Today, I announced that I will be convening a special session of the Legislature focused on redistricting to ensure that Florida’s congressional maps accurately reflect the population of our state and to comply with an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling,” he said.

“This special session will take place after the regular legislative session, which will allow the Legislature to first focus on the pressing issues facing Floridians before devoting its full attention to congressional redistricting in April.”

He said the redistricting will better ensure that race is not a predominant factor in determining Florida’s federal congressional districts and cited a Supreme Court case challenging recent redistricting in Louisiana that created a congressional district comprising mostly of racial minority populations.

That case accuses Louisiana of violating the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by using race as a basis for creating congressional districts.

DeSantis’ proclamation says there is no law against the state redrawing its congressional district mid-decade, and a majority vote in both chambers of Florida’s bicameral Legislature is required to legally redraw the districts ahead of the 2026 mid-term elections.

Florida has 28 U.S. House seats after gaining one in 2022 as a result of the 2020 census, with Republicans holding 20 seats and Democrats eight.

Florida’s redistricting effort comes after several other states have announced their intent to do the same or already have, with Texas and California being the most-publicized efforts.

SACRAMENTO — Congratulations, you survived 2025. What will the new year bring? Joy and prosperity for all, hopefully, but it’s hard to say.

Few in California could have predicted some of the most life-changing events of 2025 — the deadly Los Angeles area wildfires, the Trump administration’s militant, often inhumane immigration crackdown and an obscure congressional redistricting fight that could alter the balance of power in Washington.

With that in mind, California can expect one of 2026’s most consequential stories to be the turmoil in Sacramento over the entrenched state budget deficit — which will be compounded by the massive federal healthcare cuts by the Trump administration.

The good news is that, after a rain-soaked Christmas holiday, California enters the new year with reservoirs brimming, even if its coffers are not. It also just got easier to delete Facebook, X and other social media accounts that consume too much of our lives. And let’s not forget that the Los Angeles Dodgers reign as World Series champions!

Happy New Year! This is Phil Willon, the California Politics editor for the Los Angeles Times, filling in for columnist George Skelton. Along with the state budget crisis, 2026 will bring a wide-open race for governor — and the person the candidates hope to replace, Gov. Gavin Newsom, is flirting with a run for president in 2028 and has just a year left in his final term to deliver on all his promises. So buckle up and visit latimes.com early and often.

An $18-billion problem

The California Legislature returns to work Monday for the 2026 session, and a major financial headache awaits.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state will have an $18 billion budget shortfall in the upcoming fiscal year – $5 billion higher than what the Newsom administration predicted in June.

As Times reporter Katie King reported earlier, state revenue has been improving, but a shortfall is still expected. That’s because mandatory spending requirements under Proposition 98, which sets minimum annual funding for public schools, and Proposition 2, which specifies reserve deposits and debt payments, almost entirely offset any gains, according to the legislative analysis.

And it gets worse. The LAO said that, starting in 2027-28, California’s structural deficits are expected to grow to about $35 billion annually “due to spending growth continuing to outstrip revenue growth.”

The solution? Cut spending and/or increase revenue, the LAO report says.

But cut what, and raise money how? That’s up to Newsom and the Legislature to decide, and their difficult task will begin later this week when the governor releases his proposed budget.

Poking the billionaire

One controversial idea — outside of the legislative process — already is being kicked around.

A November ballot measure proposed by a labor organization, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires that could raise $100 billion for healthcare programs. Opponents say it will drive wealthy, taxpaying, job-creating, economy-driving Californians out of the state.

The measure has yet to qualify for the November ballot but will receive ample attention regardless.

Supporters say the revenue is needed to backfill the massive federal funding cuts to healthcare that President Trump signed this summer under what’s known as the “Big Beautiful Bill,” according to a report by The Times’ Seema Mehta and Caroline Petrow-Cohen.

The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, more rural hospitals could close and other healthcare services would be slashed unless a new funding source is found.

Federal cuts to healthcare

If California does not backfill those federal cuts by raising taxes, or other creative means, costs for the state will still increase, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. That seems counterintuitive, since millions of Californians may lose coverage. But under the “Big Beautiful Bill,” cuts to federal cost sharing and a drop in health provider tax revenue will far outpace any potential cost savings for the state.

Newsom’s possible White House run will ensure that California’s budget shortfall and liberal policies it spends money on will whip up the nation’s caustic partisan divide. Near the top of the list will be California’s decision to extend state-sponsored healthcare coverage to low-income, undocumented immigrants. The expansion has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans and, last year, Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature reduced the expansion of state-sponsored healthcare to those immigrants due to the high cost.

On top of that, the monthly premiums for federally subsidized plans available on the Covered California exchange — often referred to as Obamacare — will soar by 97% on average for 2026. That’s due to decisions by the Republican-led Congress and Trump not to extend federal subsidies for that coverage. State officials estimate that roughly 400,000 Californians will drop their coverage under the program because of the higher cost. And California counties are ill prepared to step into the breach, as KFF Health News recently reported.

Needless to say, the healthcare situation will be extremely volatile in 2026, which will make the state’s upcoming high-stakes budget process even more unpredictable.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Billionaire tax proposal sparks soul-searching for Californians
CA vs. Trump: Trump pulls back National Guard from L.A. and other cities, Newsom claims win
The L.A. Times Special: California rolls out sweeping new laws for 2026, from cellphone limits in schools to a ban on cat declawing

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

Jan. 5 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Venezuela’s new president, Delcy Rodriguez, to “do what’s right,” or face a similar or worse fate than President Nicolas Maduro, who is in a U.S. prison after being seized by U.S. Special Forces over the weekend.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic, adding that regime change remained on the table, saying that it was preferable to the present state of affairs and the situation “can’t get any worse.”

Rodriguez, who was due to be sworn in as president in Caracas at 7 a.m. EST with the support of the country’s military and the supreme court, has said she is willing to cooperate with the United States after initially condemning the arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and demanding their release.

“We invite the U.S. government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation orientated towards shared development within the framework of international law,” she told her cabinet at her first meeting in charge on Sunday.

Trump said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Rodriguez and that she was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

Amid conflicting messaging, it was unclear if that was Trump’s meaning when he said in his news conference Saturday announcing the military operation that the United States was “going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

“We’re going to be running it with a group, and we’re going to make sure it’s run properly,” Trump said.

Rubio clarified Sunday that Trump was talking about exerting control from outside the country to bring about major policy shifts.

He said sanctions were one of the tools at the administration’s disposal to ensure the cooperation of the acting leadership, saying in an American broadcast TV interview that a blockade on Venezuela’s oil exports, being enforced by the U.S. military, would remain in place.

“We continue with that quarantine and we expect to see that there will be changes not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking, so that we no longer have these gang problems, so that they kick the [Columbian insurgent groups] FARC and the ELN out, and that they no longer cozy up to Hizballah and Iran in our own hemisphere,” Rubio said.

Meanwhile, Maduro was due to make his first appearance in Federal Court in New York later Monday, where he and Flores will be read a 25-page indictment accusing the pair of accumulating vast wealth from a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

They also face three related charges of cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

They are due to be transferred from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, which houses defendants accused of regular crimes, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in White Plains, N.Y., to appear at 12 p.m. EST.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.

In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.

Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.

The court is also poised to uphold the president’s power to fire officials who have been appointed for fixed terms at independent agencies.

Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”

That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.

“On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”

For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.

The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.

Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.

A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”

Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.

Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.

In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.

The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.

The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.

Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

But Trump’s early wins do not mean he will win on some of his most disputed policies.

In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.

In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.

Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.

Dec. 31 (UPI) — The National Guard will be leaving Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., but they likely will return, President Donald Trump said on Wednesday.

Trump announced the withdrawals after the Supreme Court ruled against a National Guard deployment in Chicago and amid legal challenges in California and Oregon.

The Supreme Court last week ruled the federal government cannot take control of respective state National Guard units to protect federal agents as they enforce immigration law, CNN reported.

We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, despite the fact that crime has been greatly reduced by having these great patriots in those cities, and only by that fact,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

Portland, Los Angeles and Chicago were gone if it weren’t for the federal government stepping in,” the president said.

He predicted the National Guard will return to those cities, though.

“We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again,” Trump said, adding: “Only a question of time!”

Similar National Guard deployments in New Orleans and Memphis would not be affected because the respective governors in those states have okayed the deployments.

The National Guard has been deployed in Memphis to help reduce violent crime there, and National Guard units began arriving in New Orleans ahead of New Year’s Eve, the annual Sugar Bowl and Mardi Gras.

Local, state and federal law enforcement and the Louisiana National Guard seek to prevent a repeat of last year’s lone-wolf attack by an ISIS supporter, WWLTV reported.

Shamsud-Din Jabbar, 42, was a U.S. citizen from Texas who drove to New Orleans and shot and killed 14 during the early morning hours on Jan. 1.

An ISIS flag was found in his truck, along with weapons and a potential improvised explosive device, but local police shot and killed him before he could cause more harm.

He had placed two IEDs on Bourbon Street, where he also opened fire with a rifle and killed 14 before being shot and killed to end the attack.

Federal investigators found bomb-making materials in a rental home that Jabbar briefly occupied and tried to set on fire to conceal his crimes.

Dec. 30 (UPI) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to reinstate temporary protected status against deportation for citizens of South Sudan.

U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Angel Kelley, in a four-page ruling, ordered an administrative stay of the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS for those from South Sudan as of Jan. 6.

“Because of the serious consequences at stake, both for the plaintiffs and the defendants, the court finds an administrative stay appropriate as it would ‘minimize harm’ while allowing the assigned district court judge the time this case deserves,” Kelley said.

The stay does not represent the merits of the case and instead gives the court time to weigh arguments and evidence before rendering a decision.

Kelley, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2021, gave plaintiffs through Jan. 9 to file their arguments and the Trump administration through Jan. 13.

She will rule on the matter after reviewing the respective arguments.

The federal lawsuit was filed on Dec. 22 by African Communities Together on behalf of four unnamed plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, which makes it a class action.

The defendants are the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the federal government.

African Communities Together says 232 South Sudanese nationals benefit from TPS, plus another 73 who have applied for TPS protection.

The Obama administration first provided TPS protection for those from South Sudan in 2011, and the status repeatedly was extended over the past 14 years.

South Sudan became an independent nation in 2011 in East Africa, but it has been subject to war and conflict since then.

Noem in November announced conditions in South Sudan have changed and no longer merit TPS status for its citizens in the United States.

TPS status enables recipients to stay in the United States and obtain work authorizations when their home countries are subject to armed conflict, environmental disasters and other “extraordinary conditions.”

While the plaintiffs oppose deportations of South Sudanese to their nation of citizenship, the Supreme Court recently approved the Trump administration’s deportation of eight others — seven of whom are citizens of other countries — to South Sudan.

SACRAMENTO — Lou Cannon was a good friend and a daunting competitor. And he was a national treasure.

The retired newspaper reporter and Ronald Reagan biographer died Dec. 19 at age 92 in hometown Santa Barbara from complications of a stroke.

I use the words “national treasure” hesitantly because they smack of trite hyperbole. But they truly fit.

That’s because it was Cannon who brought to light through several Reagan books innumerable broad details of the actor-turned-politician’s important and often controversial actions as America’s 40th president and California’s 33rd governor.

Bookshelves are crammed with Reagan tomes. But no author has been so thorough on a sweeping scale as Cannon. That’s because he put in the time and did the hard work of sifting through records and conducting hundreds of interviews, then painstakingly explaining it all in very readable nongovernmentese.

Cannon also covered Reagan up close as a reporter during the early years of his governorship and both his terms as president.

Reagan once asked Cannon why he was embarking on yet another book about him. “I’m going to do it until I get it right,” the writer replied, only half-jokingly, according to Cannon’s son, longtime journalist Carl Cannon.

In all, Lou Cannon authored five books on Reagan‘s tenures as governor and president.

That’s an invaluable contribution to historians and contemporary America’s sense of this oft-misunderstood and underestimated world leader.

But that’s not what mainly prompted me to write this column. I wanted to point out Cannon’s core strength. And that was his dedication to strict nonpartisanship in writing, whether it be straight news stories for the Washington Post, syndicated columns or his Reagan biographies.

I knew Cannon for 60 years, competed against him covering Reagan for at least 20 and we became friends very early based on professional respect. In none of my countless conversations with him did I ever learn whether he leaned right or left. He registered to vote as an “independent,” as do many of us political journalists.

Cannon was the type of journalist that millions of Americans — particularly conservative Republicans and MAGA loyalists — claim is rare today: An unbiased reporter who doesn’t slant stories toward one side or the other, especially left.

Actually, most straight news reporters follow that nonpartisan credo or they leave the business. Columnists? We’re supposed to be opinionated. But for some, their opinions are too often rooted more in predetermined bias than in objective facts. But that has always been true, even in the so-called “good ol’ days.”

Cannon’s sole goal was to report the news accurately with analysis and, if possible, beat his competitors to the punch. He beat us plenty, I hate to admit.

I vividly remember one such beating:

At the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit, Cannon scooped everyone for a full news cycle on Reagan selecting former campaign rival George Bush as his vice presidential running mate. Still pounding in my ears are the loud whoops and cheers by Cannon’s colleagues as he walked into the Post working area — next to the Los Angeles Times quarters — after Reagan formally announced Bush’s selection. It was deflating.

News sources readily opened up to Cannon, who was intense but always wore a slight smile.

I asked former Reagan speechwriter and Republican strategist Ken Khachigian what Cannon’s secret was.

“You’d get a fair shot from him,” Khachigian says. “He’d always be straight. He just wanted to get information mostly and find out what was going on.

“He had a way of talking to people that made them comfortable and he’d get a lot out of them. He wasn’t aggressive. He had a soft personality, one of his benefits. He’d put people at ease, a big advantage.”

His son, Carl Cannon, says: “If he’d been in politics, he’d have been a Democrat. But he didn’t go into politics. He went into journalism. He wasn’t partisan. He was a reporter who wanted to know what happened and why.”

Cannon began covering the state Capitol in 1965 for the San Jose Mercury News and became friends with Jud Clark, a young legislative staffer. Clark ultimately co-founded the monthly California Journal and persuaded Cannon to write for it on the side. Cannon did that for many years and when it folded, followed up by writing columns for a successor publication, the Capitol Weekly.

Cannon just loved to report and write and juggled it all in — reporting full time for the Washington Post, authoring books and writing for friends’ small publications in Sacramento.

“He would always want something new. In interviews, he didn’t want the standard stock story,” Clark says.

“Lou was curious about everything,” says Rich Ehisen, his longtime editor at Capitol Weekly. “He liked understanding what was going on and breaking things down. He told the straight story unvarnished. Never shortchanged on facts.”

Cannon was a workaholic, but he also knew how to carve out time for fun.

One summer while we covered Reagan vacationing at his beloved Santa Barbara hilltop ranch, Cannon decided he wanted to drive down to Los Angeles to see a Dodgers’ night game. But it’s risky to abandon your post while bird-dogging the president. Anything could happen. And you’d need to explain to your bosses why you weren’t there but your competitors were.

Cannon’s solution was to also get good seats for the two reporters he considered his main competitors– Steve Weisman of the New York Times and me at the L.A. Times. We’d provide each other some cover if any news broke out around the president, which it didn’t. Cannon even managed to wrangle us free dinners in a large suite overlooking the playing field.

He’ll be missed as a friend and a journalist — but not as an unrelenting competitor.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: How the Trump administration sold out public lands in 2025
The Golden State rules: After a year of insults, raids, arrests and exile, a celebration of the California immigrant
The L.A. Times Special: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a March presidential memorandum to revoke the security clearance of prominent Washington attorney Mark Zaid, ruling that the order — which also targeted 14 other individuals — could not be applied to him.

The decision marked the administration’s second legal setback on Tuesday, after the Supreme Court declined to allow Trump to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area, capping a first year in office in which President Trump’s efforts to impose a sweeping agenda and pursue retribution against political adversaries have been repeatedly slowed by the courts.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington granted Zaid’s request for a preliminary injunction, after he sued the Trump administration in May over the revocation of his security clearance. Zaid’s request called it an act of “improper political retribution” that jeopardized his ability to continue representing clients in sensitive national security cases.

The March presidential memorandum singled out Zaid and 14 other individuals who the White House asserted were unsuitable to retain their clearances because it was “no longer in the national interest.” The list included targets of Trump’s fury from both the political and legal spheres, including former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former President Joe Biden and members of his family.

The action was part of a much broader retribution campaign that Trump has waged since returning to the White House, including directing specific Justice Department investigations against perceived adversaries and issuing sweeping executive orders targeting law firms over legal work he does not like.

In August, the Trump administration said it was revoking the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials. Ordering the revocation of clearances has been a favored retributive tactic that Trump has wielded — or at least tried to — against high-profile political figures, lawyers and intelligence officials in his second term.

Zaid said in his lawsuit that he has represented clients across the political spectrum over nearly 35 years, including government officials, law enforcement and military officials and whistleblowers. In 2019, he represented an intelligence community whistleblower whose account of a conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy helped set the stage for the first of two impeachment cases against Trump in his first term.

“This court joins the several others in this district that have enjoined the government from using the summary revocation of security clearances to penalize lawyers for representing people adverse to it,” Ali wrote in his order.

Ali emphasized that his order does not prevent the government from revoking or suspending Zaid’s clearance for reasons independent of the presidential memorandum and through normal agency processes. The preliminary injunction does not go into effect until January 13.

Zaid said in a statement, “This is not just a victory for me, it’s an indictment of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate and silence the legal community, especially lawyers who represent people who dare to question or hold this government accountable.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy military forces in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if U.S. military forces were unable to quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” he told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

The Militia Act of 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers said that referred to police and federal agents. But after taking a closer look, the court concluded it referred to the regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell violence.

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the military.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use of the military rather than the standing military to quell domestic disturbances,” they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. soldiers were required to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the President invoked [U.S. law] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard — one in three of the Guard’s total active members — to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

That has proved to be “the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” they said. “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate.

“What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time,” they said.

SACRAMENTO — I’ve got a wish list for Santa and it’s topped by this urgent request: a remodeled president with at least an ounce of humanity and humility.

Maybe a Ronald Reagan type. I’m not referring here to ideology or policies. Just common decency, someone who acts presidential.

I know, forget it. That’s beyond Santa’s reach. It would require a miracle. And that’s not likely to happen with President Trump, who seems increasingly to be auditioning for the devil’s disciple.

But you’d think as we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, America could be led by a president who at minimum doesn’t publicly trash the newly deceased.

Someone who follows the basic rules of good behavior and respect for others that our mothers taught us.

For Trump, the Golden Rule seems to be only about cheapening the historic Oval Office with tasteless gilded garnishments, turning it into an extension of his Mar-a-Lago resort. That’s what you’d expect from someone who would pave over the lovely Rose Garden.

But I’ve gotten off the point: the despicable way our unhinged president treats people he deems the enemy because they’ve criticized him, as we’ve got a right and often a duty to do in a democratic America.

What our president said about Rob Reiner after the actor-director-producer and his wife Michele were brutally stabbed to death in their Brentwood home, allegedly by their son Nick, should not have shocked us coming from Trump.

After all, this is a guy who once said that the late Sen. John McCain, a Navy pilot shot down over North Vietnam, tortured, maimed and held captive for five years, was “not a war hero … I like people that weren’t captured.”

He also once mocked a disabled New York Times reporter at a campaign rally, saying: “The poor guy, you ought to see this guy.” Then Trump jerked his arms around imitating someone with palsy.

He frequently attacks female reporters for their looks.

Recently, he called all Somali immigrants “garbage. … We don’t want them in our country.” As for Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, a onetime Somalian refugee, “she’s garbage. Her friends are garbage.”

But even with Trump’s sordid history of insults and insensitivity, what he disrespectfully said about Reiner was stunning. He implied that the Hollywood legend was killed by someone angered by Reiner’s criticism of Trump. Again, everything’s all about him, in this egotistical president’s mind.

Trump said the Reiners died “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”

Then the next day, he doubled down, telling reporters that Reiner “was a deranged person. … I thought he was very bad for our country.”

Topping off the holiday season for Trump, he orchestrated the renaming of Washington’s classy John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts after himself. From now on, it’s to be called the Trump Kennedy Center.

What’s next? The Washington National Cathedral?

OK, next on my Santa’s wish list is a governor who spends his last year in office trying to improve California rather than his presidential prospects. Actually, he could do the latter by doing the former: making this state a better place to live and proving his ability to sensibly govern.

Too many of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s projects fall flat, collapse or are a waste of energy and dollars.

One recently announced Newsom venture particularly is questionable. He seems to be using state resources and tax money to expand his overdone war with Trump rather than helping Californians with their everyday lives.

The governor unveiled a new state-run website that tracks what his office calls Trump’s “criminal cronies.” It catalogs major criminal convictions that were followed by Trump pardons — from Jan. 6 rioters to former politicians and business tycoons.

Yeah, well, so what? I suppose some people may be interested in that. But at taxpayers’ expense? Will the information lower gas prices? Make it easier to buy a home? Pay for childcare?

Here’s just one example of a Newsom program that failed miserably:

Early in his administration the governor announced with great fanfare that he was increasing fees on telephone service to pay for upgrading California’s 911 emergency communication system. The state spent $450 million, couldn’t make the new stuff work and abandoned the project, the Sacramento Bee reported after a lengthy investigation. Now they’re apparently going to start all over.

A little hands-on supervision by the governor next time could help.

Also on my wish list: A Legislature that doesn’t hibernate through the winter and wait until late spring before starting to push bills.

They’d need to change legislative rules. But Democrats with their supermajorities could do practically anything they wanted — even work earnestly during the cold months.

Either that or just stay home.

Included in the gift package: Legislation focused more on quality and less on quantity. This year, the Legislature passed 917 bills. My guess is that 100 meaty measures would have sufficed.

There’s one more item on my Santa list that all of America needs: A new casual greeting to replace “How ya doing?”

Nobody really wants to hear how most people are doing and they probably don’t want to candidly say anyway — not in an elevator, on the sidewalk or in a restaurant.

“Bad stomach flu,” I might honestly answer. You really want to hear that while chomping on a hamburger.

So, what do we replace it with?

Maybe simply: “Good morning.” Or “Go Dodgers.”

Or “Go Trump” — far away out of earshot.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Ronald Reagan biographer, legendary California journalist Lou Cannon dies
The TK: Newsom taps former CDC leaders critical of Trump-era health policies for new initiative
The L.A. Times Special: In a divided America, Rob Reiner was a tenacious liberal who connected with conservatives

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

WASHINGTON — Today’s political consensus crosses all ages, demographics and party lines: Three out of four Americans think the economy is in a slump. It is not just in their heads. Economic growth this year has been practically stagnant, save for one exception, economists say.

A national California economy

Hundreds of billions of dollars invested by California-based tech giants in artificial intelligence infrastructure accounted for 92% of the nation’s GDP growth this year, according to a Harvard analysis, supported by other independent economic studies.

It is a remarkable boon for a handful of companies that could lay the groundwork for future U.S. economic leadership. But, so far, little evidence exists that their ventures are expanding opportunities for everyday Americans.

“You have to watch out for AI investments — they may continue to carry the economy or they may slow down or crash, bringing the rest of the economy together with them,” said Daron Acemoglu, an economics professor at MIT. “We are not seeing much broad-based productivity improvements from AI or other innovations in the economy, because if we were, we would see productivity growth and investment picking up the rest of the economy as well.”

Even in California itself, where four of the top five AI companies are based, the AI boom has yet to translate into tangible pocketbook benefits. On the contrary, California shed 158,734 jobs through October, reflecting rising unemployment throughout the country, with layoffs rippling through the tech and entertainment sectors. Consumer confidence in the state has reached a five-year low. And AI fueled a wave of cuts, cited in 48,000 job losses nationwide this year.

“It is evident that the U.S. economy would have been almost stagnant, absent the capital expenditures by the AI industry,” said Servaas Storm, an economist at the Institute for New Economic Thinking, whose own analysis found that half of U.S. economic growth from the second quarter of 2024 through the second quarter of 2025 was due to spending on AI data centers.

The scale of investments by AI companies, coupled with lagging productivity gains expected from AI tools, is spawning widespread fears of a new bubble on Wall Street, where Big Tech has driven index gains throughout the year.

The top 10 stocks listed in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, most of which are in the tech sector, were responsible for 60% of the yearlong rally, far outperforming the rest of the market. And the few who benefited from dividends fueled much of the rest of this year’s economic growth, with the vast majority of U.S. consumption spending attributed to the richest 10% to 20% of American households.

“There were ripple effects into high-end travel, luxury spending, high-end real estate and other sectors of the economy driven by the financial elite,” said Peter Atwater, an economics professor at William & Mary and president of Financial Insyghts, a consulting firm. “It tells the average consumer that while things are good at the top, they haven’t benefited.”

Stan Veuger, a senior fellow in economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a frequent visiting lecturer at Harvard, said that slowing growth and persistently high inflation were diminishing the effects of the AI boom.

“Obviously, that’s not a recipe for sustainable growth,” he said.

U.S. growth today is based on “the hope, optimism, belief or hype that the massive investments in AI will pay off — in terms of higher productivity, perhaps lower prices, more innovation,” Storm added. “It should tell everyday Americans that the economy is not in good shape and that the AI industry and government are betting the farm — and more — on a very risky and unproven strategy involving the scaling of AI.”

Trump’s AI bet

The Trump administration has fully embraced AI as a cornerstone of its economic policy, supporting more than $1 trillion in investments over the course of the year, including a $500-billion project to build out massive data centers with private partners.

Trump recently took executive action attempting to limit state regulations on AI designed to protect consumers. And House Republicans passed legislation this week that would significantly cut red tape for data center construction.

Administration officials say the United States has little choice but to invest aggressively in the technology, or else risk losing the race for AI superiority to China — a binary outcome that AI experts warn will result in irreversible, exponential growth for the winner.

But there is little expectation that their investments will bear fruit in the short term. Data centers under construction under the Stargate program, in partnership with OpenAI and Oracle, will begin coming online in 2026, with the largest centers expected to become operative in 2028.

“AI can only fulfill its promise if we build the compute to power it,” OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said at the launch of the Stargate project. “That compute is the key to ensuring everyone can benefit from AI and to unlocking future breakthroughs.”

In the meantime, the Americans expected to benefit are those who can join in the investment boom — for as long as it lasts.

“2025 has been a very good year for people who already have significant wealth, a mediocre year for everyone else,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a prominent economist and professor at Harvard. “While the stock market has exploded, wage growth has been barely above inflation.”

“Whether the rest of the economy will catch fire from AI investment remains to be seen, but near term it is likely that AI will take away far more good jobs than it will create,” Rogoff added. “The Trump team is nevertheless optimistic that this will all go their way, but the team is largely built to carry out the president’s vision rather than to question it.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: After the fires: A glance back at The Times’ coverage of the Eaton and Palisades wildfires
The deep dive: ‘Both sides botched it.’ Bass, in unguarded moment, rips responses to Palisades, Eaton fires
The L.A. Times Special: Hiltzik: Republicans don’t have a healthcare plan, just a plan to kill Obamacare

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Dec. 15 (Asia Today) — Democratic Party leader Jeong Cheong-rae, whose party holds the presidency, on Monday called for a second, wide-ranging special investigation into an alleged insurrection case, raising questions about Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae after courts rejected arrest warrants for several figures tied to the probe.

Jeong made the remarks at a party Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul, as the mandate of a special prosecutor was set to end. He said the special prosecutor made progress byre-arresting former President Yoon Suk-yeol and referring 24 people to trial, but argued the investigation was constrained by court decisions, including warrant denials.

Jeong said the rejection of warrants for figures such as Choo Kyung-ho was “difficult to accept,” and claimed it fueled suspicions that the judiciary was blocking steps that could lead to broader legal consequences for the People Power Party. He also said the circumstances raised questions about whether Chief Justice Cho may have been involved, citing a meeting on Dec. 3, the day martial law was declared.

Jeong said the Democratic Party would work with the government and presidential office to push for what he called a “second comprehensive special investigation,” and urged a tougher approach without leniency. He said a follow-up probe should also examine allegations involving first lady Kim Keon-hee and issues the current special prosecutor did not fully resolve.

He additionally questioned court case assignment procedures, citing media reports that the treason-related trial was assigned through unusual in-person discussions rather than random distribution. He said the party would pursue legislation to create a specialized court for sedition-related cases.

Jeong also criticized the People Power Party’s use of filibusters, including on bills he said were bipartisan or originally proposed by the party, and said the Democratic Party would seek revisions to parliamentary rules governing the tactic. He offered condolences to victims of a collapse at a construction site at the Gwangju Central Library and called fora thorough investigation.

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

SACRAMENTO — It turns out Proposition 50 smacked California Republicans with a double blow heading into the 2026 congressional elections.

First, there was the reshaping of House districts aimed at flipping five Republican-held seats to Democrats.

Now, we learn that the proposition itself juiced up Democratic voter enthusiasm for the elections.

Voter enthusiasm normally results in a higher casting of ballots.

It’s all about the national battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives — and Congress potentially exercising its constitutional duty to provide some checks and balance against the president. Democrats need a net pickup of only three seats in November’s elections to dethrone Republicans.

President Trump is desperate to keep his GOP toadies in power. So, he has coerced — bullied and threatened — some red-state governors and legislatures into rejiggering Democratic-held House seats to make them more Republican-friendly.

When Texas quickly obliged, Gov. Gavin Newsom retaliated with a California Democratic gerrymander aimed at neutralizing the Lone Star State’s partisan mid-decade redistricting.

California’s counterpunch became Proposition 50, which was approved by a whopping 64.4% of the state’s voters.

Not only did Proposition 50 redraw some GOP-held House seats to tinge them blue, it stirred up excitement about the 2026 elections among Democratic voters.

That’s the view of Mark Baldassare, polling director for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. And it makes sense. Umpteen millions of dollars were spent by Newsom and Proposition 50 backers advertising the evils of Trump and the need for Democrats to take over the House.

A PPIC poll released last week showed a significant “enthusiasm gap” between Democratic and Republican voters regarding the House contests.

“One of the outcomes of Proposition 50 is that it focused voters on the midterm elections and made them really excited about voting next year,” Baldassare says.

At least, Democrats are showing excitement. Republicans, not so much.

In the poll, likely voters were asked whether they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the congressional elections or less enthusiastic.

Overall, 56% were more enthusiastic and 41% less enthusiastic. But that’s not the real story.

The eye-opener is that among Democrats, an overwhelming 72% were more enthusiastic. And 60% of Republicans were less enthusiastic.

“For Democrats, that’s unusually high,” Baldassare says.

To put this in perspective, I looked back at responses to the same question asked in a PPIC poll exactly two years ago before the 2024 elections. At that time, Democrats were virtually evenly split over their enthusiasm or lack of it concerning the congressional races. In fact, Republicans expressed more enthusiasm.

Still, Democrats gained three congressional seats in California in 2024. So currently they outnumber Republicans in the state’s House delegation by a lopsided 43 to 9.

If Democrats could pick up three seats when their voters weren’t even lukewarm about the election, huge party gains seem likely in California next year. Democratic voters presumably will be buoyed by enthusiasm and the party’s candidates will be boosted by gerrymandering.

“Enthusiasm is contagious,” says Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley. “If the party’s concentric circle of committed activists is enthusiastic, that excitement tends to spread outward to other voters.”

Schnur adds: “Two years ago, Democrats were not motivated about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Now they’re definitely motivated about Donald Trump. And in order to win midterm elections, you need to have a motivated base.”

Democratic strategist David Townsend says that “enthusiasm is the whole ballgame. It’s the ultimate barometer of whether my message is working and the other side’s is not working.”

The veteran consultant recalls that Democrats “used to go door to door handing out potholders, potted plants, refrigerator magnets and doughnuts trying to motivate voters.

“But the best turnout motivator Democrats have ever had in California is Donald J. Trump.”

In the poll, 71% of voters disapproved of the way Trump is handling his job; just 29% approved. It was even worse for Congress, with 80% disapproving.

Among Democratic voters alone, disapproval of Trump was practically off the chart at 97%.

But 81% of Republicans approved of the president.

Among voters of all political persuasions who expressed higher than usual enthusiasm about the House elections, 77% said they‘d support the Democratic candidate. Also: 79% said Congress should be controlled by Democrats, 84% disapproved of how Congress is handling its job and 79% disapproved of Trump.

And those enthused about the congressional elections believe that, by far, the most important problem facing the nation is “political extremism [and] threats to democracy.” A Democratic shorthand for Trump.

The unseemly nationwide redistricting battle started by Trump is likely to continue well into the election year as some states wrestle with whether to oblige the power-hungry president and others debate retaliating against him.

Sane politicians on both sides should have negotiated a ceasefire immediately after combat erupted. But there wasn’t enough sanity to even begin talks.

Newsom was wise politically to wade into the brawl — wise for California Democrats and also for himself as a presidential hopeful trying to become a national hero to party activists.

“Eleven months before an election, nothing is guaranteed,” Schnur says. “But these poll numbers suggest that Democrats are going to start the year with a big motivational advantage.”

Trump is the Democrats’ proverbial Santa who keeps on giving.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Kristi Noem grilled over L.A. Purple Heart Army vet who self-deported
The TK: Newsom expresses unease about his new, candid autobiography: ‘It’s all out there’
The L.A. Times Special: A Times investigation finds fraud and theft are rife at California’s county fairs

Until next week,
George Skelton

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