theyre

WASHINGTON — Most Americans still think their taxes are too high, according to recent polls, even after last year’s tax law fulfilled several of President Trump’s tax-related campaign promises.

In fact, a new Fox News poll indicates people are more upset about taxes than they were last year. The findings from the survey, which was conducted in late March, are another sign that Americans are on edge about their personal finances as the U.S. experiences a spike in inflation and sluggish economic growth. Other polling finds that frustration goes beyond personal tax obligations, with many believing that wealthy people and corporations are not paying their fair share, while others worry about government waste.

The surveys come after Trump and Republicans passed a massive tax and spending cut bill last year. The legislation enacted a range of tax breaks, including a boosted child tax credit and new tax deductions for tips and overtime. Tax refunds are up this season, and many households are expected to see more income from the Republicans’ tax legislation, but the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will ultimately give the largest benefits to the richest Americans.

Republicans have touted the law as evidence that they are making life more affordable for working families. But polling shows that many Americans may not be feeling the benefits, especially as their tax refunds get eaten up by higher prices.

Most say taxes are too high

About 7 in 10 registered voters say the taxes they pay are “too high,” according to the Fox News poll. That’s up from about 6 in 10 last year. The poll shows heightened concern among very liberal voters and Democratic men, but there has also been a sizable increase among groups that Republicans want to court ahead of the midterm elections, such as moderates, rural voters and white voters without a college degree.

Discontent about taxes has been rising for the past few years. Recent polling from Gallup, conducted in March, found about 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the amount of federal income tax they have to pay is “too high,” a finding that’s been largely consistent in the annual poll since 2023. That’s approaching the level of unhappiness found in Gallup’s polling from the 1980s through the 1990s, before President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Now, about half of Democrats and about 6 in 10 Republicans say their federal income taxes are too high. Republicans tend to view their tax bill more negatively than Democrats, but Gallup’s polling shows that this gap often shrinks when a Republican is president.

Many believe the rich aren’t paying enough in taxes

Most Americans are troubled by the belief that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January. About 6 in 10 Americans said each of those notions bothers them “a lot,” a measure that is largely unchanged in recent years.

By contrast, only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in that poll said the amount they personally pay in taxes bothers them a lot.

About 8 in 10 Democrats are bothered “a lot” by the feeling that some corporations and rich people aren’t paying their fair share, the Pew survey found, compared to about 4 in 10 Republicans. Government spending is a bigger issue for Republicans, according to the Fox News poll, which found that 75% of registered voters — and a similar share of Republican voters — say “almost all” or “a great deal” of government funding is wasteful and inefficient.

That points to a perception problem for many Americans. Even if their own tax bill is manageable, the idea that the wealthy are underpaying — or that the government is wasting their dollars — bothers many. About half of Americans, 49%, in the Gallup poll say the income tax they will pay this year is “not fair,” which is in line with the record high from 2023.

Broad unhappiness with Trump’s tax approach

Americans’ tax frustration was rising before Trump re-entered the White House, but it’s still a problem for the president’s party — especially if Americans are not feeling the relief that he promised.

The Fox News poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters, 64%, say they disapprove of how Trump is handling taxes, up from 53% last April. Disapproval has risen most sharply among independents, but also among Democrats and Republicans.

This aligns with a broader feeling that Trump isn’t doing enough to address inflation. Most Americans said Trump had hurt the cost of living “a lot” or “a little” in his second term, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents said Trump has had a negative impact on the cost of living.

Less than half of Republicans, 43%, said Trump had helped the cost of living, while 33% said he hadn’t made a difference and only 23% said he’d helped.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press. The Fox News poll was conducted among 1,001 registered voters from March 20-23. The Gallup poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults from March 2-18. The Pew Research Center poll was conducted among 8,512 U.S. adults from Jan. 20-26. The AP-NORC Poll was conducted among 1,203 U.S. adults from Jan 8-11.

Remember when our president attacked a female journalist for asking uncomfortable questions with a casual, sincere, “Quiet, piggy”?

That was five months ago, a lifetime in the chaos of the Trump administration, but it was a telling moment about how not just our president but those crafting his policy view women and their place in society. Hint: It’s not at the top.

While I have not a bit of pity or dismay that Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem — the former U.S. attorney general and the former secretary of Homeland Security, respectively — were given the ax by President Trump in recent days, it shouldn’t be lost that this is another “quiet, piggy” week in an administration that is increasingly openly hostile to women in power.

“I see a theme,” Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett wrote on social media. “He will throw the incompetent women under the bus a lot faster than the incompetent men.”

When democracies decay, and especially when movements like Christian nationalism rise, an erosion of women’s equality almost always comes first. Bondi and Noem are part of a U.S. erosion that should alarm us all, whatever your gender identity.

First, the obvious. Good riddance. Noem seemed to relish cruelty, and treated her job like a costume party, constantly mugging for cameras with guns and faux toughness as if the dismantling of lives and imprisoning even children was a game. Never mind the grift.

Bondi, meanwhile, always seemed like the football team’s third-favorite cheerleader, desperately vying for the attention of the jock-gods around her, even if it meant groveling for approval, even if it meant selling out all women with her ultimate censoring of the Epstein files.

But while Bondi and Noem were obviously incompetent, incompetence has never been a fire-able offense for Trump. Just ask Pete Hegseth, whose Thor fantasies are currently playing out in an all-to-real war. Or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has dismantled American science while glorifying beef tallow and workouts in jeans. Don’t even get me started on Kash Patel.

It’s no accident that women at the top of Trump’s administration are being purged. They were useful in the first days of the regime, while power was still being consolidated and shimmers of diversity were helpful. But as the sexist and racist nature of the MAGA machine has gained mainstream acquiescence if not acceptance, the need to keep up the appearance of diversity is less and less.

Take, for example, the far-right attacks on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett after her pointed and skeptical questions recently on Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.

“A woman as a mother is a precious gift, but a woman as a civil magistrate is the death of the nation,” wrote far-right pastor and increasingly popular anti-equality influencer Joel Webbon on social media.

This is the same Texas gentleman who went viral recently for proclaiming, “Women, shut up! Of course. It is literally an offense to God” for women to have influence in the governing of society.

He’s also part of a group of far-right religious leaders — including a pastor associated with Hegseth — who support ending women’s right to vote and replacing it with a single “household” vote cast by, you guessed it, men.

Bondi and Noem may be the most high-profile examples of how this misogyny is playing out in MAGA reality, but they aren’t the only women forced out of power by Trump and his cronies this year. It’s a push that is far more systematic and insidious than we are giving them credit for. Hegseth has all but wiped women out of the top ranks of the military — just recently personally knocking two women off a promotions list.

RFK Jr. and others, meanwhile, are busy pushing women out of science. The Washington Post pointed out that last year at this time, the feds purged women and people of color from the boards that review the science and research happening at the National Institutes of Health— 38 out of 43 experts that were fired were women and minorities.

A report out last month also found that all those attacks on universities last year, with the cutting of grants even in areas such as cancer research — disproportionately affected female scientists. Many of these female scientists, especially younger ones, will never recover from those quashed research projects and lost jobs in a field that demands results and published work, meaning we are looking at a generational loss of female scientific talent.

And let’s not forget Renee Nicole Good, shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis who, with as much casualness as Trump’s “quiet, piggy,” said “f—ing b—” after shooting her and walking away.

Bondi and Noem aren’t just unqualified villains shown the door. They are villainesses.

The Trump administration knows the difference, and so should we.

SACRAMENTO — The team that can’t stop dancing won’t stop dancing.

The top-seeded UCLA women’s basketball team beat Duke 70-58 in the Elite Eight. It wasn’t balletic, but beautiful.

Sunday’s game at Golden 1 Center in Sacramento wasn’t a fun, free-flowing joy ride that so many of the Bruins’ wins have been this season.

It was a rattling, teeth-gritting, heart-thumping roller-coaster ride — weeeeee!

The Bruins weren’t having fun, exactly. They were having the time of their lives.

And in the end, they shoved their way to the front of the stage — and back to the Final Four.

Now the TikTok countdown is on before final exams in Phoenix, where redemption and legacy and a rematch await with either winner of the No. 1 Texas vs. No. 2 Michigan tussle in the Fort Worth Regional final.

And any questions — ahem, mine — about how the barely-battled-tested boogie-down Bruins respond to a significant stress test were answered.

The Bruins are built for this.

They’re not just talented. And they’re not just talented dancers (and postgame, Lauren Betts, Charlisse Leger-Walker and Gabriela Jaquez reprised the routine that went viral when they did it with the UCLA Dance Team during halftime of a men’s game this season).

They’re tough. And they’re locked in.

And unlike last season, when their program’s Final Four debut ended in a 85-51 national semifinal blowout loss to eventual champion Connecticut, they’re ready for what comes next.

They let us know in the second half Sunday.

Duke came floating in, still buzzing from Friday’s buzzer-beater in the Sweet 16. That slow-motion-in-real-time three-pointer by Ashlon Jackson that rolled around and around the rim as though the basketball gods needed just a little more time to determine UCLA’s opponent Sunday.

UCLA’s Lauren Betts, left, Gabriela Jaquez celebrate after the Bruins defeated Duke on Sunday to advance to the Final Four.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

It was to be Duke, who proved a dangerous No. 3 seed. The Bruins weren’t prepared for the Blue Devils to be so prepared for them, trailing at the break for just the second time this season. The first time was in November against Texas, when the Bruins — now a program-record 35-1 — suffered their only loss this season.

Still their only loss.

Even a fool could read the determination on the Bruins’ faces as they roared back from a 39-31 halftime deficit; they’d come so far together, but they so badly wanted to go further.

No one was ready to get off the ride, not least the six seniors who played the entirety of the second half, seizing momentum and the moment and hitting the Blue Devils (27-9) with a white-knuckled flurry of activity.

“Compliment them,” Duke coach Kara Lawson said, “for turning up their defensive intensity.”

There were 50-50 balls in name only, because UCLA seemed to be winning 100% of them.

UCLA players were ripping away passes. They were diving all over the floor and were all over the boards. They ratcheted up the intensity so much it spread into the stands, where the largely pro-Bruins crowd of 9,627 cheered deliriously.

Shots started falling. Turnovers stopped cascading. UCLA found its rhythm.

And UCLA’s 6-foot-7 star center Betts did what she does, with 15 points, eight rebounds and two blocks in the second half, of which she played all 20 minutes.

“I was just pretty mad,” she said. “You know, my senior season is on the line, so I kind of got to wake up a little bit.”

Angela Dugalic continued to be the matchup nightmare she has been all March; the 6-4 sixth woman scored 15 timely points to take some pressure off Betts.

UCLA coach Cori Close watches play during the Bruins’ win over Duke on Sunday.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

“I’m just so proud of her,” Betts said. “The confidence and her poise … you could get in your head in moments when we’re down … but she did all the right things and what we needed at the time.”

It was an entertaining Elite Eight clash that was brought to you by two coaches who staged, like up-and-coming chefs, under two of the greatest leaders the sports world has known.

UCLA coach Cori Close and Lawson committed to making sure we won’t lose John Wooden’s and Pat Summitt’s recipes — never mind all the seismic, disorienting shifts happening in college sports.

A former Tennessee star, Lawson brings Summitt’s brand crackling intensity to Duke, a mindset that she’s said calls for supreme confidence, chasing excellence and holding oneself to an all-around standard of success.

UCLA’s bench was uplifted all season by Close’s warm intentionality, learned from years of mentorship from Wooden. The main ingredients, she’ll tell you, requiring a dollop of growth, gratitude, of giving and not taking.

“[Our] team culture is not this nebulous thing or phrases on a wall,” Close said. “It’s a group of people that are willing to be committed to the hard, right behaviors over and over again. I cannot tell you how many times throughout that game we referred to our values, who we are, what our identity was, what we had to get back to.

“… I’m just really humbled and thankful to be a part of a team and staff that cares about things from the inside out. What you saw on the court is a reflection and a byproduct of what’s happened on the inside.”

This is the April 14, 2021, edition of the Essential Politics newsletter. Like what you’re reading? Sign up to get it in your inbox three times a week.

Former President Trump‘s banishment from Twitter has had a calming effect on the country that even some of his sharpest critics did not foresee.

Yet political discourse on social media has not fundamentally changed. It remains nasty and brutish at times.

Good morning and welcome to Essential Politics, Kamala Harris edition. This week, I’ll talk about my takeaways from reporting on the vice president’s biggest online cheerleaders, the KHive, a loose-knit network of supporters who say they are responding to the toxicity of social media by fighting back when it comes to Harris. Their critics say they are part of the problem.

KHive and the political questions it raises.

The story about the KHive, published online last week and in print on Sunday, told of the comradery, celebration and mutual sense of purpose its members find, mostly on Twitter, where they defend Harris against what they see as an unfair standard applied to political women of color. The Harris fans’ biggest fights, with fellow liberals, have gotten personal at times. Some members have had their accounts suspended by Twitter.

I hope you will read the story, because they are an interesting group of people. A few broader political points are worth considering as you do:

These kinds of online groups will be an important force in 2024 and beyond.

Ashley Bryant, a Democratic strategist who specializes in digital politics, told me she sees the early fights among the KHive, Bernie Bros (the nickname for Bernie Sanders’ progressive fans) and other groups as a precursor to the party’s next presidential nomination fight.

That could come in 2024 or 2028, depending on whether President Biden runs for reelection. Hard-core partisans are getting a head start.

Republicans have their social-media fights as well. But Trump’s still-dominant presence in the party, combined with his Twitter ban, has given the Republican version of this battle a different flavor.

Many in the NeverTrump faction seem to have given up on the Republican Party, while the post-Trump crowd of potential presidential aspirants and their followers is paralyzed by Trump’s hold on the party’s base. This week, for example, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley backtracked on her prior comments disavowing Trump, telling reporters she would support him if he chose to run in 2024.

But I thought Twitter isn’t real life!

This is an important point. The Biden team’s motto, both when he was a candidate and now that he’s president, is that Twitter is not real life. By that they mean that some of the strongest opinions shared by the partisans and pundits who dominate the platform do not often reflect the broad swath of voters who decide primaries and general elections.

That posture helped Team Biden avoid overreacting to criticism or praise shared on Twitter. And the contrast with Trump, who exhausted Americans with his constant provocative presence online and in the news, appears to be playing a big part in Biden’s relative popularity. Politico published a smart story on Biden’s lower-volume media strategy this week, summarizing his approach as “First, do no self-harm.”

One important caveat: Online debates may not be the driving force in public opinion, but they can stoke debate in Congress. For example, the fight over whether to abolish the filibuster in the Senate — which requires many bills to garner a supermajority of 60 votes to pass — has been much hotter online than it is with the general public, though a change in that relatively obscure practice could have significant policy implications for the country.

Notwithstanding Biden’s relatively low-key online persona, Harris has courted the in-your-face KHive. And it’s easy to see why. Its members provide a sense of passionate support, something she lacked in her 2020 presidential primary run. Some members I spoke with spend 20 hours or more online each week. Others said they are active offline in volunteering for her and the Democratic Party.

But such occasionally confrontational groups also pose risks for her, if she becomes too reactive to online debates or gets dragged into some of the more personal and provocative squabbles among partisans.

Democrats are content right now but still divided.

There is also risk for the Democratic Party. Online, Sanders and Harris boosters accuse each other of all manner of attacks, including a practice known as doxxing, in which a target’s personal information is posted online.

Among many, anger lingers from the 2016 nomination contest between Hillary Clinton and Sanders — when Clinton supporters blamed the other side for costing her the election by resisting her candidacy, and Sanders supporters accused Clinton proxies of controlling the party apparatus to stymie Sanders. Some of the Clinton supporters are now behind Harris.

If Democrats want to hold on to the White House and Congress, they need to hash out policy debates but stay unified.

“I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t know what 2024 could potentially look like,” Bryant said. “But you don’t want voters not even being willing to open their eyes to another candidate just because they’re aligned to one that may not get the nomination.”

The latest from the White House

— From David S. Cloud and Tracy Wilkinson: Biden is planning to withdraw all remaining troops from Afghanistan and will complete the pullout before Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that sparked the United States’ longest war, according to a senior U.S. official.

— Biden began to fill the top posts at the Homeland Security Department on Monday. Its ranks were hollowed out by his predecessor amid politicization and record vacancies. Almost all the appointees have California ties, reports Molly O’Toole.

— Lifting kids out of poverty could be Biden’s legacy. Yet the future of his policies remains uncertain as the administration’s ambitions run into spending limits, writes David Lauter.

— Biden spoke Tuesday morning with Russian President Vladimir Putin, warning him against aggressive moves toward Ukraine but also inviting him to a summit meeting, Lauter and Wilkinson write.

— Biden will address a joint session of Congress for the first time on April 28 after receiving an invitation from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The view from Washington

— Congress has a very short window to reverse regulatory actions approved by President Trump’s administration before he left office. Sarah D. Wire writes that at least two are expected to get Senate votes in the coming weeks. Also from Wire: Can Biden really cancel student debt? Here’s where the debate stands.

— The Supreme Court is set to decide soon whether conservative Christians can refuse to work with same-sex couples in a city-funded foster care program. David G. Savage writes that it’s the latest clash at the high court between religious liberty and marriage equality.

— Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are negotiating a modest bill designed to help law enforcement combat the rise in hate crimes targeting Asian Americans, a rare moment of potential bipartisan compromise on legislation, Jennifer Haberkorn reports.

The view from California

— In 2020, demonstrators began ditching traditional protest venues to instead chant, fulminate and sit-in outside the front doors of officials’ homes. Sacramento has begun to push back, with officials saying “no more,” reports James Rainey.

— There have been hundreds of attempts to break up California. Those forces are driving the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom, writes columnist Mark Z. Barabak.

— And speaking of the recall effort: a colorful cast of hopefuls who want to replace the Democratic leader has started to emerge, including former porn star Mary Carey and Los Angeles billboard icon Angelyne. Both ran in the 2003 recall election to replace then-Gov. Gray Davis, writes Faith E. Pinho.

— A far-reaching proposal to outlaw hydraulic fracturing and ban oil and gas wells from operating near homes, schools and healthcare facilities failed in the California Legislature on Tuesday, writes Phil Willon.

— From John Myers: California law enforcement officers could lose their certification based on the decisions of a panel that includes victims of police misconduct under legislation that moved forward Tuesday in the Legislature. Lawmakers also supported an expansive ban on policing techniques that obstruct a person’s breathing.

A woman in Indiana who put off dental surgery because she doesn’t know if she can afford the copay. A Florida couple with young children who are depleting their savings. A grandmother in Idaho who plans to sell her car to pay the rent.

They are among about 50,000 Transportation Security Administration officers expecting to receive another $0 paycheck this week. A dispute in Congress over funding the Department of Homeland Security has held up their salaries since mid-February. With monthly bills coming due, many of these federal employees, who screen passengers and luggage at airports across the U.S., are making difficult choices about how to make ends meet.

High absentee rates at some major airports have produced long lines and frustrated passengers at understaffed security checkpoints. Union leaders and federal officials say empty gas tanks, child care expenses and the threat of eviction keep more screeners from showing up the longer the shutdown continues. At last count, more than 455 had quit instead of weathering the ongoing uncertainty, according to DHS.

“Stop asking me about the long lines. Ask me if somebody’s gonna eat today,” Hydrick Thomas, president of the national American Federation of Government Employees union council that represents TSA employees, told reporters Tuesday.

Indiana TSA agent turns to food pantry for groceries

Before starting her shift at Indianapolis International Airport on Monday, Taylor Desert stopped at a food bank for meat, eggs, vegetables and dairy products.

“I never thought I would be in a position where, working for the federal government, I would need to go to a food bank to supplement my groceries,” she said as she loaded bags into her car.

Desert, who has been a TSA officer for seven years, said her last full paycheck came on Feb. 14, the day the shutdown started.

She had some savings to draw on despite a record 43-day shutdown last fall but put some personal plans on pause.

For example, Desert needs to get her wisdom teeth removed but says the TSA isn’t approving time off during the shutdown. She also worries about costs from the surgery not covered by insurance.

Wednesday was the 39th day of the DHS funding lapse. If it goes another 21 days, Desert said she would seek another job.

“I don’t want to have to spend my entire savings just to afford to keep living,” she said.

Florida TSA couple worry about their young children

Oksana Kelly, 38, and her husband, Deron, 37, both work as TSA agents at Orlando International Airport. They have two young children and don’t know how they will keep supporting their family without any income coming in.

Kelly said they’re dipping into savings for now, but it’s running dry. If the shutdown persists, they will ask relatives for help or take out a loan, which she worries would put them deeper in debt.

Her husband has worked as a DoorDash delivery driver in his spare time since the shutdown in October and November. He’s considered resigning from the TSA to put the couple on more stable financial footing.

“It’s very mentally exhausting,” said Kelly, who is an organizer for the labor union representing TSA workers across central and northern Florida. “How do we even decide between being able to feed our kids or come to work?”

Kelly said strangers might criticize the couple for “putting all eggs in one basket” since both choose to work for the TSA for the past decade.

“All we want is to pay our bills and get the pay we deserve,” she said.

A veteran officer in Idaho fears homelessness

Rebecca Wolf cries every day. She tries to hide it from her grandchildren, ages 11 and 6.

“They don’t understand why grandma’s crying,” Wolf said. “I try not to cry in front of them, but sometimes it’s just too much.”

The 53-year-old TSA officer and union leader in Boise, Idaho, joined the agency soon after its creation in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. She was homeless at the time but turned her situation around with steady work and the benefits of federal employment.

Now, Wolf can’t help but dwell on where she was 24 years ago. “I don’t want to be in that position again,” she said.

Her Feb. 28 paycheck amounted to $13.53, sending her “into a spiral right away.”

With no savings to fall back on, she is preparing to sell her car to cover her rent due in a week. She calls nonprofits daily seeking rental assistance, but hasn’t had any luck.

Supporting six family members — four children and two grandchildren — has always been challenging, but the repeated shutdowns have made it nearly unsustainable.

Wolf, who serves as president of AFGE TSA Local 1127, is hesitant to walk away from both the job that turned her life around and her role advocating for fellow officers.

“I worked hard to get to where I am now, and the thought I might lose it all scares me,” she said, her voice breaking as she tried to stifle the sound of weeping.

Massachusetts agent digs into savings to get by

Mike Gayzagian, a TSA officer at Boston’s Logan International Airport, says long stretches without pay have become enough of a “new normal” that he’s prepared for them.

The 56-year-old says he has a financial cushion of about six months to tap but that his situation is “an exception to the rule.”

“The majority live paycheck to paycheck and don’t have those kinds of reserves available,” said Gayzagian, who is president of his local TSA union chapter.

It shouldn’t be this way for federal workers, he said.

“The financial situation adds an additional burden to what is already a stressful job,” Gayzagian said. “I didn’t go into public service to make a lot of money. I went into public service because it has a certain stability and reliability and predictability that other jobs don’t have.”

A father in Utah leaves TSA

Robert Echeverria quit his job as a TSA agent at Utah’s Salt Lake City International Airport about two weeks into the current shutdown.

The 45-year-old, who has a wife and three children, counted five government shutdowns in the nine years he worked for the agency. The toughest was last year’s record shutdown that ended in mid-November around the start of the holiday season.

Echeverria said his family skipped Christmas and took months to recover financially. He began looking for a new job in February when it became clear Congress was headed for another budget battle.

“Emotionally I was already distraught,” Echeverria said last week. “We were barely recovering from the last shutdown.”

He now works for the department that manages the airports in Utah’s capital. Leaving federal service “was a hard decision for me,” Echeverria said.

“I really believed in the mission of the TSA,” he said. “We took an oath, and it was a way for me to give back to the country that gave me so much.”

He’s still based at Salt Lake City International, where his 20-year-old daughter works as a TSA agent, and says that seeing his former colleagues struggling is difficult.

“They all feel betrayed by their government because they’re showing up to work,” Echeverria said. “They’re there, but they feel that the government doesn’t care for them,” he said.

Marcelo, Lamy and Yamat write for the Associated Press. Marcelo reported from New York, Lamy reported from Indianapolis and Yamat reported from Las Vegas.

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.

SACRAMENTO — Murder is considered the worst crime out there, but for my money, it’s child rapists who are the worst of the worst — especially the serial ones who destroy one life after another.

That’s wholly subjective on my part, but I doubt I’m alone. Which is why I was far from surprised at the outrage that accompanied two recent, successful parole hearings for convicted serial child predators in Sacramento.

Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, and David Funston, 64, both attacked children and were granted parole through California’s elderly parole program — though both remain behind bars for now.

But the fury over the possibility of their freedom has put the state’s controversial elderly parole program under scrutiny — again — and led to a flurry of legislation to add new restrictions. Should sex offenders be excluded? Especially heinous murderers? Everyone under the age of 75?

It’s easy to answer “yes” to all of the above.

“Part of the problem we have is we shouldn’t be making policy decisions based on speculation and on scary rhetoric that’s disconnected from the facts,” Keith Wattley told me. He’s the founder and director of UnCommon Law, a nonprofit that provides legal services and parole advocacy.

“That’s how politicians make people afraid, but it shouldn’t be how we make law,” he said.

And he’s right, as grotesque as these headline-grabbing cases are. In 2024, there were 3,580 elderly parole hearings and 606 people were granted that relief. Most have remained law-abiding. In the 2019-20 year, the most recent recidivism statistics available from CDCR, 221 people were granted elderly parole. Within three years, only four had been convicted of new crimes, and only one of those was a felony for a crime against a person. That tracks with lots of data that shows men generally age out of violent crimes.

But Funston and Vogelsang are the worst of what we fear when we talk about parole, and their cases rightfully make us wonder what the heck the parole board is doing. Though Gov. Gavin Newsom sent both of these decisions back for review, it’s easy to imagine the attack ads should he run for president: Under Newsom’s watch, child rapists walked free.

“Elder parole has gone too far,” Thien Ho, the Sacramento district attorney whose office prosecuted both men, told me. “I support the opportunity of people to be rehabilitated. But I think that certain individuals, in my opinion, and in my experience, cannot be rehabilitated.”

Here’s where I’m going to make a lot of folks mad on both sides of this issue. I agree with Ho, but also, I agree with Wattley. I don’t think we can pass laws based on our grimmest view of humanity. Removing hope from the system turns our prisons into dungeons and does not ultimately serve public safety.

But then, neither does releasing child molesters into our communities.

Lost in all the wrath about these two cases is the difficult business of justice that led to the early release law in 2014, and any interest in the hard and nuanced conversation that we need to have around terrible crimes. It’s easy and popular to say no violent criminal should ever be released, but we can’t just lock up everyone with no possibility of ever getting out because the “R” in CDCR stands for “rehabilitation,” and also — we just can’t afford the forever scenario, morally or fiscally.

California tried the throw-away-the-key model in the 1980s and ‘90s and ended up with prisons so overcrowded that the federal courts stepped in. The original elderly parole effort came through a 2014 court decision on overcrowding that gave inmates 60 or older who had served at least 25 years a chance to go before the parole board. A chance — no guaranteed freedom, and usually it takes multiple hearings years apart before the board approves it.

Later, the Legislature expanded elderly parole to inmates 50 or older who had served 20 years, but excluded those sentenced under the “three strikes” law or those who had murdered peace officers.

The reality is California has a lot of old, aging and sick people behind bars — at great expense. As we grapple with the idea of universal healthcare, there’s one place in California where it already exists — our prisons and jails. We currently pay more than $41,000 in healthcare costs per inmate per year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

I’m not going to tell you it’s the best healthcare, but it’s taxpayer-funded, and includes even long-term dementia care. And yes, we do have incarcerated dementia patients.

“This is about reducing our prison population and our liability to cover housing and healthcare for an aging prison population, and we have to balance that with the safety of the community and the rights of victims,” state Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) told me. She’s sponsoring a bill that would create an additional layer of safety around sex crimes by referring these possible parolees to the civil system that evaluates sexually violent predators for confinement in mental facilities after their prison terms.

“Under some circumstances, it is worth considering paroling some of these defendants,” she said, with the kind of thoughtful rationality sure to offend many. “But the cases that you’re seeing right now are completely egregious, and those defendants should not be released.”

Vogelsang was convicted of almost 30 counts of kidnapping and sex crimes, against kids as young as 5. He’s served 27 years of a 355-year sentence.

David Allen Funston, a Sacramento County child predator convicted in 1999 of multiple counts of kidnapping and child molestation. Funston was granted parole suitability under California’s Elderly Parole Program after serving more than two decades in prison.

(Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office)

David Allen Funston was convicted in 1999 of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation for kids as young as toddlers. He was sentenced to three consecutive 25-to-life prison sentences. Newsom bounced his first successful parole bid back to the parole board for a review, and on Feb. 18, it affirmed its decision.

But Placer County prosecutors quickly charged him with an old crime that had never been filed due to the Sacramento case, and he remains incarcerated awaiting trial on those charges.

Vogelsang’s case particularly raised a red flag for me. He told the parole board he’s been working successfully for about five years to control his thoughts about children.

“I don’t want to become aroused, but I know it’s always going to be there,” he said during the hearing.

Newsom also sent Vogelsang’s case back for review, and he will go before the board again on March 18. Vogelsang’s testimony was concerning enough that if I had a vote in this, I’d probably ask him to come back again in a few years, but we’ll see what the board does.

I’ll admit my decision would be emotional, and these cases do make me wonder. But Wattley is right that condemning elderly parole based on the monstrous deeds of these child predators is shortsighted. There is likely little to no public safety benefit in raising the overall age for elderly parole, and certainly no fiscal benefit.

“When you’re paying for older, sicker people to be incarcerated, and they don’t pose a risk to public safety, what are we actually getting for that? We’re not getting anything that supports survivors. We’re not getting anything that prevents crime. We’re just spending taxpayer dollars on something that doesn’t correlate with the public safety risk,” Wattley pointed out.

As hard as it is to wrap our minds around, it’s best for public safety to allow even the worst of the worst their chance in front of the parole board. It may even make sense for some who have committed truly terrible crimes decades ago to be released, if there is strong evidence of change and a low risk to public safety. That’s the kind of fair and realistic justice that no one on either side of the issue wants to talk about.

I’m not convinced Vogelsang and Funston have met those bars. But that doesn’t mean we should throw out the bars.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: USC and ABC7 criticized for exclusion of all candidates of color in upcoming gubernatorial debate
Money, it’s a gas: Poison-pill effort to cancel proposed billionaire tax hits voters’ mailboxes
The L.A. Times Special: China-backed Big Pork wants to override 63% of California voters. Even conservatives are mad

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

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