time

It’s Broadway’s time to shine Sunday when the 79th Tony Awards take New York City.

Broadcast live from Radio City Music Hall, the night promises plenty of onstage drama and hopefully some real-life intrigue. The number of new Broadway productions this year — 30 — shrunk from last year’s 42, but there are still some standout shows and performances to watch out for, from flashy revivals like “Cats: The Jellicle Ball” to Laurie Metcalf’s stunning turns in both “Death of a Salesman” and “Little Bear Ridge Road.”

Grammy Award winner Pink is hosting for the first time, and though the pop star lacks direct Broadway roots, her songs have been featured in the jukebox musicals “Moulin Rouge!” and “& Juliet.”

Here’s everything else you should know about this year’s ceremony, including how to tune in.

How can I watch?

The three-hour awards ceremony will air live on CBS on Sunday at 5 p.m. Paramount+ premium-level subscribers can also stream it on the app, while those with other membership tiers can watch the show on-demand after it airs.

The annual pre-show, “The Tony Awards: Act One,” will stream live on free service Pluto TV at 3:35 p.m. that same day. It is hosted by Tony Award nominee Laura Benanti and actor Tituss Burgess and includes the first round of Tony Award presentations.

Who is performing?

This year’s opening number, a show-stopping Tonys tradition, will feature more than 170 Broadway performers. It’s choreographed by Sarah O’Gleby and written by Benj Pasek, Justin Paul and Mark Sonnenblick.

As always, casts from the productions nominated for best musical — “The Lost Boys,” “Schmigadoon!,” “Titaníque” and “Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York)” — and for best revival of a musical — “Cats: The Jellicle Ball,” “Ragtime” and Richard O’Brien’s “The Rocky Horror Show” — will perform during the ceremony.

Rachel Zegler will pay tribute to “A Chorus Line” and Tony Award winner Leslie Odom Jr. will perform “Without You” from “Rent” to honor the show’s 30th anniversary as well as those in the theater community who have died this year.

The “Chicago” revival will also celebrate its 30th anniversary on Broadway with a performance from stars including Queen Latifah, who was nominated for an Academy Award for her portrayal of Matron Mama Morton in the show’s 2002 film adaptation, and Tony Awards host Pink. The entire original cast of “The Book of Mormon,” including Tony Award nominees Josh Gad, Andrew Rannells and Rory O’Malley and Tony winner Nikki M. James, will also perform in celebration of the show’s 15th anniversary on Broadway.

Who is presenting?

Notable stars of stage, screen and music presenting awards include Grammy Award winner Megan Thee Stallion, who made her Broadway debut this year in “Moulin Rouge!”; Nicole Scherzinger, who won a Tony last year for her performance in the revival of “Sunset Boulevard”; and Academy Award winner Adrien Brody.

You can find the star-studded presenter lineup here.

What is nominated?

“Schmigadoon!” and “The Lost Boys,” both nominated for best musical, lead the pack with 12 nominations each going into Sunday’s awards ceremony. The “Ragtime” revival trails with 11 nominations, and lauded revivals “Death of a Salesman,” “Cats: The Jellicle Ball” and “The Rocky Horror Show” are each nominated for nine awards.

Find a full list of nominees here.

Glaciers aren’t stationary. Immense and imposing, formed through the downward trajectory of water from mountains as it collects and freezes, they have always moved. Now, however, they’re leaving. The demise of glaciers is a fact inherent in all the bad news about the effects of climate change on what once seemed permanent. But for Icelanders, whose connection to glaciers is ancient and mythic, our human epoch has become an extended hospice for the landscape of their lives.

Somehow, though, Sara Dosa’s documentary on this matter, “Time and Water,” avoids playing like a funeral in waiting. Built around Icelandic writer Andri Snær Magnason’s voiced lamentations on a vanishing frozen world, along with archival footage of his family, it’s no simple howl of grief, even when it takes us to a publicly held memorial in 2019 for Iceland’s Ok glacier, the first such “death” diagnosis in the country’s history. Rather, Dosa’s film is a meditation on change — both the kind that we accept with a heavy heart and something more general. “Time and Water” is a curiously vibrant elegy, teeming with appreciation for the intimate majesty that is all life, generational and geologic.

Dosa has finessed this emotional-meets-elemental space before in her Academy Award-nominated 2022 documentary “Fire of Love,” about married volcanologists Katia and Maurice Krafft. That was a wonderfully eccentric romance forged in molten lava. Here, she’s in a collaboration of sorts with her subjects, both human and elemental. Magnason’s opening narration over spectacular footage of glaciers — up close and from far away — gently informs us that we’re watching a time capsule, one where the bonds of family and environment are intertwined.

We learn how Iceland’s glaciers, essentially rivers of varying pace, begat their unique ecosystems, but also how they provided the breathtaking terrain upon which Magnason’s grandparents Hulda and Árni fell in love. (Grandma Hulda was the first woman to fly in Iceland, itself a very cool fact.) The onset of dementia in Árni spurs his grandson to consider what’s lost when the markers of memory depart. “Time and Water” touches on the epic verse called rimurs, passed down via chanted song by Icelandic women, their descriptive, sorrowful tales like dispatches from previous ages.

“Tone poem” is an overused term in cinema, but the humbling “Time and Water,” graced with a playful, atmospheric Dan Deacon score, earns that distinction. Naturally, it helps that you can never tire of all the air-crisped glacier imagery, captured digitally and in 16mm. Folded into the cozy slide-show vibe of Magnason’s home videos and the carefully chosen archival footage, the movie plays like a scrapbook portrait in which home just happens to boast the grandest of backyards.

How much longer will Icelanders enjoy it? The glaciers are predicted to be gone within 200 years. That’s an eternity or a drip, depending on whose survival we’re talking about. Still, “Time and Water” collapses the notion that we are somehow separate from these ancient, essential formations: an encouraging hello to the future from inside a sobering goodbye.

When Nick Antosca was a kid, he didn’t like having good dreams.

“With good dreams, I’d wake up and think, ‘Well, that didn’t happen’ and be disappointed,’” he recalled in a recent video interview. “But with a nightmare I’d wake up with my pulse racing and think, ‘I’m OK, I survived.’ I loved nightmares.”

Chasing that excitement and “healthy” catharsis in his daily life, Antosca has built a career on telling crime and horror stories: “Channel Zero,” “The Act,” “Brand New Cherry Flavor,” “Candy” and “A Friend of the Family.”

His newest project is a 10-episode remake of “Cape Fear” for Apple TV, starring Javier Bardem as Max Cady along with Amy Adams and Patrick Wilson as Anna and Tom Bowden.

“I think everything I’ve done is kind of a psychological horror story about the characters and their relationships,” he says, noting that this is true of the best horror tales like “Rosemary’s Baby,” “The Shining” and “Cape Fear.”

Antosca was a fan of both the original 1962 “Cape Fear” starring Robert Mitchum and Martin Scorsese’s 1991 remake starring Robert De Niro. But he felt it was time for a modern revision, a Southern Gothic fever dream that reflects the complexities of life today.

“The terror in ‘Cape Fear’ is about the destruction of the family,” he says. The story was originally about Cady, a rapist released from prison stalking Sam Bowden, who had interrupted his crime and testified against him. In Scorsese’s version, Bowden had been Cady’s defense attorney who, knowing Cady was guilty, had hidden evidence about the victim’s promiscuity to ensure a conviction and long sentence.

The original features “an all-American archetype of a virtuous family pitted against a monster,” while Scorsese depicted a “broken and dysfunctional family and the monster is even more extreme, he’s like a swamp creature.”

“The previous versions of ‘Cape Fear’ are pretty cut and dry,” Antosca says.

The Bowdens are portrayed by Amy Adams as Anna, Patrick Wilson as Tom and Lily Collias as daughter Natalie.

(Apple)

The new iteration features a sexting scandal, social media eruptions and drones — “there’s more ways to terrorize a family in 2026 and the world is scarier today than it was before” — but that’s not what makes it feel different.

“In our version the truth is more complicated, the past is more mysterious and both the family and the monster are more complicated,” he says. “The truth is murkier and that feels current.”

In this adaptation, Anna Bowden had been Cady’s defense attorney, and he’s no longer an illiterate rube but a successful restaurateur who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn son. After the trial, Anna scandalously married Cady’s prosecutor Tom; he became stepfather to her newborn daughter Natalie (Lily Collias) and they later had a son Zack (Joe Anders).

“The foundation of their happiness is Max’s suffering,” he says, adding that while the crime was local in the previous versions, Cady’s conviction had been a national sensation in this one.

On the surface, the Bowdens are a perfect family, but cracks are rippling with increasing intensity just beneath, a fragility that will soon be exploited by Cady.

“In the first episodes, the family is permeable and a threat could be coming from anywhere,” he says. “Even if in your gut you think it’s Max Cady, it feels like it’s seeping into the family from all different directions.”

When Cady is suddenly exonerated and set free, he shows up to insinuate himself in the Bowdens’ life. Anna, ironically, works for a nonprofit that seeks to exonerate the wrongly convicted.

“All the versions ask, ‘What would you do to protect your family?’ but this also asks, ‘If an injustice was done to somebody, then what are they justified doing in return,’” he says. “I don’t want the audience rooting for Max, necessarily, but I want to trick them into having sympathy for somebody they didn’t expect to have sympathy for.”

To pull that off, “Cape Fear” needed a star as charismatic as Mitchum and De Niro.

Antosca always dreamed of Bardem as Cady: “When I’d pitch networks before there was a script, I’d say, ‘Picture Javier Bardem in this role.’” But this time, his dream came to vivid life.

The two developed the character together, everything from the explanation for Cady’s Spanish background to his exposure to Santería and prison and his “mutated version of the real religion” to the tattoos adorning Cady’s body to an early scene with a panther and the idea of the “psychological jungle,” which inspired Bardem to incorporate a panther’s physicality into his movement and his eyes.

Antosca always dreamed of Javier Bardem as Max Cady: “When I’d pitch networks before there was a script, I’d say, ‘Picture Javier Bardem in this role.’”

(Apple)

“Javier also asked questions about Max’s emotional history that was useful in shaping his character,” he says. “We wanted to show a little more authentic vulnerability, which we see very much in the previous versions intentionally.”

To make this series, Antosca first approached Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, who had initially developed the 1991 version. “They were incredibly generous and quite involved,” Antosca says. “They encouraged us to forge our own path.”

The one place they urged some fidelity to the past versions was in the score. “They said the Bernard Herrmann score is part of the DNA and feels like a character in both movies,” says Antosca, noting that Elmer Bernstein adapted the original in Scorsese’s version and Jeff Russo used the same starting point this time around.

Scorsese discussed episodes over FaceTime and Zoom, spending time dissecting a vicious fight scene while Antosca was editing it; shot in color but shown in black-and-white, the blood splattering may make you think of “Raging Bull,” but Antosca says the visceral violence was meant to call up “Casino’s” vise scene.

It may be nearly too much to handle, but Antosca is from New Orleans and says he found it easy to exploit the Southern Gothic sensibilities. “Everything is heightened in the Deep South and we were going for that energy, where something is adjacent to the real world but more saturated, sweatier, more feverish,” he says, noting that while the first episode is “cinematically pretty grounded and traditional, when the family gets shocked out of their comfort zone, things get a little crazy.”

That meant handheld cameras, flares, saturated colors, distortions, negative imagery and odd angles to reflect the growing sense of terror. Antosca promises that in the back half of the series, the show will get even wilder and more destabilizing.

“It just feels like there’s violence in the humidity in the South,” he says.

Subconsciously hearkening back to his childhood sleep experiences, he adds, “I wanted this story to feel like a nightmare that just keeps getting worse and worse and worse and worse.”

The park’s emblematic 1914 Botanical Building is open again after major reconstruction that ended in late 2024. The Mingei International Museum, which focuses on global folk art, won Michelin praise in 2023 for its eclectic restaurant, Artifact at Mingei (which serves lunch Tuesday through Sunday, dinner Thursday and Friday).

The park’s museums and other institutions cover art (fine, folk, contemporary and photographic), natural history, anthropology, flight, model railroading and all the imagined worlds that come with Comic-Con (which opened its museum here in 2021).

The Old Globe theater complex includes three stages. The big lily pond between the promenade and the Botanical Building may be the most wholesome over-the-counter tranquilizer in town. The Centro Cultural de la Raza, housed in an enormous former water tank, covers Chicano, Latin and Indigenous culture. The park’s Japanese Friendship Garden & Museum fills 12 acres with greenery, koi ponds and bonsai displays.

If you’re planning to hit several museums over a couple of days, look into a park Explorer Pass, which might save you money.

About parking: In January, after years of free parking, the city imposed a fee system charging non-residents $10-$16 per day and residents slightly less. San Diegans rose in outrage, and in late May city officials announced a plan to end the parking fees by Jan. 1, 2027.

More than 20 years after Michael Jackson was acquitted on charges of child molestation — and two months since the global superstar’s record-breaking biopic skirted any mention of abuse allegations — a new Netflix docuseries brings his trial and the aftermath to the foreground.

“Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” a three-part documentary directed by Nick Green and released Wednesday, chronicles his 2005 trial in Santa Maria that began with a search raid of the pop star’s sprawling Neverland Ranch and ended with a jury finding him not guilty on 10 counts, including four counts of child molestation. At the center of the case was Gavin Arvizo, a then-15-year-old cancer survivor from Los Angeles.

Because recording was not allowed in the courtroom, the documentary relies heavily on archival footage from media surrounding the trial and firsthand accounts of key figures involved, including prosecutor Ron Zonen, Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, journalist Diane Dimond, two trial jurors, and friends and supporters on both sides of the case.

The episodes also delve into the 2003 documentary “Living With Michael Jackson,” in which the pop star is interviewed by British journalist Martin Bashir, that sparked questions about his behavior, leading to the charges against Jackson. Jackson’s historically questionable relationships with children, the media circus surrounding the trial and the effect it had on fans, the family at its center and Jackson himself are explored, too.

Here are six key takeaways from “The Verdict.”

Jackson allegedly had his personal assistant order child pornography

One of the docuseries’ most revealing interviews came from Vincent Amen, a former Jackson associate who worked at Neverland Ranch from 2002 to 2003. He said he was put in charge of taking care of the Arvizo family during their stay at the property following media backlash from Gavin Arvizo’s appearance in “Living With Michael Jackson.”

At that time, Amen said, he “wholeheartedly” believed in Jackson’s innocence, especially because Jackson’s friend Frank Tyson, also known as Frank Cascio, a member of the family who filed a lawsuit against Jackson’s estate in April detailing alleged sexual abuse, vouched so strongly for him. Cascio, who met Jackson when he was 5 years old and later became his personal assistant, told Amen, “Michael would never do this with a child.”

Amen’s conviction shifted, however, after he discovered a disturbing magazine that apparently belonged to Jackson in Cascio’s possession.

“Frank cleaned out his house of anything that came from the Neverland Ranch. And he hands me a Nike bag,” Amen said in the docuseries. “I took the bag and I’m driving home, and I felt, ‘Something’s a little suspicious.’ And I said, ‘Let me take a look in this bag.’ I start taking videos to document this. I open the bag. I start looking, and I see a magazine.”

The series shows shaky footage of Vincent apparently finding a nudist magazine called “Naturally.” He flips to a video ordering section with titles circled in black marker, including videos called “Nudist Youth Weekend” and “Euro-Nudist Family.”

“I confronted Frank, I said, ‘Frank, what is this magazine? Because, you know, there’s circles around videos with naked children,’” Amen recounted. “He said, ‘That’s just a phase that Michael and I went through. He circled the videos that he wanted, I ordered them, and it was a phase that we went through.’ They watched them together.”

The Arvizo children called Jackson ‘daddy’ and had their own bizarre nicknames

Along with footage of the nudist magazine, Amen held on to other evidence of his time with Jackson and the Arvizo family, including a set of Polaroid pictures featuring Gavin’s mom, Janet, and younger brother, Star.

In one, Star points directly into the lens. It’s captioned, “You my daddy Michael.” Another photo of a smiling Janet and Star includes a handwritten caption from Janet that says, “Dearest loving Michael, we appreciate you being our family. What God brings together, no man can undo. We love you.”

Under a photo of Star with a cross-eyed expression, he wrote, “I love you, my daddy Michael. Your son, Blowhole.”

“These are the nicknames that Michael would give these young boys,” Amen said.

Bashir documentary marked a pivotal shift in the perception of Jackson

Martin Bashir in “Michael Jackson: The Verdict.”

(Netflix)

Though the first allegations of child molestation against Michael Jackson emerged in 1993, it was footage from Bashir’s “Living With Michael Jackson” that ignited public concern about Jackson’s relationship with Gavin.

In a pivotal scene from the 2003 documentary, Jackson brings Gavin in as an example of a child with cancer that he helped. Gavin, 13 at the time, leans his head on Jackson’s shoulder and holds his hand. Jackson tells Bashir that the two often share a bed at the Neverland Ranch, though in another scene he stresses that it’s not sexual.

“I realized that we had something that was hugely significant, but I didn’t realize the extent of the bombshell until the broadcast,” Bashir recalled in “The Verdict.”

“You can see it. You can look at that moment in the Martin Bashir documentary and you can actually pin the end of his life to that very moment,” J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson’s childhood friend and biographer, said in the docuseries.

Given Jackson’s stardom, news and tabloid media swarmed the scene of the trial along with droves of dedicated fans (and a much smaller contingent of detractors). And the archival footage from “The Verdict” shows the extent to which fandom and media frenzy influenced the proceedings.

Jackson’s fans stationed themselves throughout the route he’d take to the Santa Maria courthouse with signs showing their support, sometimes standing and shouting and other times driving alongside him and honking. Jackson had his director of security, Kerry Anderson, film these drives while he waved and engaged with supporters.

As many as 1,000 fans showed up on the first day of the trial, and many would line up starting at 5 a.m. for raffle tickets that would allow them to enter the courtroom. One fan interviewed for the docuseries, Sheree Wilkins, said she quit her job as a preschool teacher to move to Santa Maria for the trial. When the “not guilty” verdicts were announced, she fainted and had to receive medical attention.

TV news stations from around the world, including Taiwan, Japan and Mexico, sent crews to cover the trial.

Even inside the courtroom, where cameras were not allowed, enthusiasm for Jackson’s music could not be contained. Attendees recalled everybody, from the jury to the judge and even the prosecution, “swaying in their seats” when songs played as part of an evidence display.

“I remember me moving in time to his music,” prosecutor Ron Zonen said. “At one point Tom [Sneddon, the District Attorney leading the prosecution] jabbed me and said, ‘Would you stop moving your foot?’ ”

Jackson’s mental and physical health deteriorated

Mark Geragos briefly served as Jackson’s defense attorney.

(Netflix)

According to numerous interviews in “The Verdict,” Jackson’s substance use was problematic before and during the trial.

Jackson was not at Neverland during the raid that predated his charges. According to journalist Dimond, her sources said he was in Las Vegas “having wild parties.”

“There were cigarette burns in the leather couches and chairs. There were empty liquor bottles on every table. And this is where Michael Jackson had been for several days, entertaining young teenage boys, who all spoke German,” she said.

Later, Jackson’s well-publicized physical pain became the catalyst for controversy when he was hospitalized overnight, where he was allegedly given enough pain medication “to tranquilize an elephant,” and failed to show up on time for court the next day. The judge threatened to issue a warrant for his arrest if he didn’t make it to the courthouse within the hour, leading Jackson’s team to speed there at 90 mph.

Throughout the trial, stress took an enormous toll on Jackson, defense attorney Mark Geragos said in the docuseries.

“I watched him just disintegrate, literally disintegrate. The ingestion of substances was just astronomical. There was a time when I actually saw him in the fetal position on the floor, and I thought, ‘What do we do?’ I mean, you don’t want his death to be on your hands because you took some inaction,” he said. “We had genuine concerns whether he could even withstand a trial — physically, mentally.”

The prosecution’s case fell apart at the hands of key witnesses

“The Verdict” lays out, step by step, how the trial ended in Jackson’s full acquittal. One major contributor, the docuseries seems to argue, is the downfall of the prosecution at the hands of its own witnesses.

Defense attorney Tom Mesereau was an expert at discrediting witnesses, subjects told the filmmakers, but certain key witnesses, like Janet Arvizo, struggled to connect with the jury on their own.

“I called her Janet from another planet,” admitted juror Melissa Herard. “Sorry, but that’s just how she acted.”

Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe was meant to take the stand as a smoking gun for the prosecution but instead revealed no new information and came to Jackson’s defense.

The prosecution also partially hinged its case on past allegations of child sexual abuse against Jackson, but conflicting testimony caused these efforts to backfire. A former Neverland employee claimed to witness Jackson molest Wade Robson when he was a child, but Robson took the stand and denied anything happened.

“It’s hard to convince a jury when the subject of the act itself said it didn’t happen,” Zonen said.

In 2013, Robson reversed his stance and filed a lawsuit against the Jackson estate alleging sexual abuse. His allegations, along with those of James Safechuck, were the subject of the 2019 documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

Well, that didn’t take long.

A day after California’s primary election, President Trump took to social media with baseless claims of election fraud — predictable, but also dangerous.

“Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the Vote,” Trump wrote in one post.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he wrote in another, apparently enamored of his latest juvenile slur.

Never mind that his candidate, Steve Hilton, is in the lead — for now anyway.

California has once again become the main dish on Trump’s buffet of bull-hockey as he continues to undermine democracy and consolidate authoritarian power, using this disingenuous and patently untrue narrative that American elections are rigged by shadowy Democratic forces working in collusion with illegal immigrants.

That last part is called the Great Replacement Theory, the idea that “elites” are replacing white people — and white voters — with Black and brown immigrants in a bid to destroy white culture. It’s at the heart of Trump’s voter fraud allegations.

The twist this time is that Hilton, the man who wants to represent all Californians, seems to be jumping on the election fraud conspiracy train with the president. I get it, there’s the MAGA base to feed, and it’s a base that feasts on outrage and fakery. Serving up resentment glazed with lies and propaganda has been the MAGA playbook for years under Trump, a strategy that no one can deny has been heartbreakingly effective.

But Hilton is a smart man and must certainly know that voter fraud is rare, to the point of being inconsequential to election outcomes. Hilton by his own admission understands voting patterns, and that in this cycle, Republicans have voted early and often by mail, despite Trump’s claims that all vote-by-mail should be suspect. So Hilton understands that early votes have skewed his way, and that later vote tallies will likely favor Democrats.

And Hilton is definitely intelligent enough to expect that in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly three to one, he will not keep the top spot in this primary, and a slim chance remains that he will not make it into the top two. That’s just simple math.

So if Hilton truly seeks to represent this state as its top elected executive, now is the time to renounce election fraud myths and stand up to Trump’s lies. If Hilton can’t say that he believes our recent election was free and fair, then he has no business being our governor.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the path he’s taking, even as it seems increasingly likely that he will advance to the general election.

This week, speaking with far-right podcaster and former Turning Point USA creative director Benny Johnson (who was allegedly duped into working for a Russian influence operation), Hilton said that while “so far we’re not seeing any signs” of cheating, “we’re going to be all over it. We’re not going to let them do that.”

Hilton was responding to a question from Johnson on whether Hilton will sue over “cheating.”

On a post-election appearance with Laura Ingraham, the conservative Fox News host who has repeatedly promoted the Great Replacement Theory, Hilton delved into more conspiracy.

“Just to really underline the point that you made about the corruption,” he told Ingraham an anecdote about supposed fraud in a previous election cycle when a “whistleblower” at the post office told him that they were instructed that a handwritten postmark was acceptable when sorting ballots to deliver to the county registrar.

“It’s just unbelievable, and of course, that’s why so many people don’t believe the results, but it just undermines confidence,” he told Ingraham, certainly knowing that the post office forwarding a ballot on to a county registrar in no way means it will be certified or counted. Would we really want the USPS deciding which ballots to deliver? Disingenuous on Hilton’s part at best.

“The whole thing is a joke,” Hilton went on to say of California elections, which of course, is absurd.

Thursday, when I asked Hilton’s team to speak with him about his views on voter fraud, they sent back a response that focused on the slowness of the California vote count; voter rolls Hilton has described as “wildly inaccurate,” which is a wildly inaccurate claim; and two instances of actual fraud with voter registration — not examples of votes that were counted.

To be sure, all those items are important. Any malfeasance should be punished, and the system should always strive to improve.

But how hard is it to simply be against fraud, while accurately acknowledging that it is rare and our current system provides accurate results?

I am against voter registration fraud. I am against vote fraud. I am absolutely pro-democracy, including policies such as mail-in voting that increase participation.

I do not believe that there is widespread fraud in the California primary, or in American elections in general, because the evidence does not support that conspiracy. I do not believe that Democrats are running a decades-long, nationwide conspiracy to replace white voters with votes from Black and brown undocumented immigrants, because that is both false and racist.

Pretty basic stuff, and statements in line with the values and common sense of the majority of Californians Hilton says he will represent.

If Hilton can’t come out and clearly say that Trump is wrong — about fraud and about the Great Replacement Theory — can he really be trusted to represent the values of the Golden State?

To the surprise of few, President Trump has once again claimed without evidence that Democrats are somehow cheating to win California’s primary elections — writing on social media late Wednesday that federal prosecutors in Los Angeles are investigating the matter.

“The Dumocrats are at it again! They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS,” Trump posted to his social media platform Truth Social.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California. Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles,” he wrote in a second post. “Why the vote counting DELAY???”

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles — run by Trump loyalist First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — declined to comment Thursday morning on Trump’s claims of an investigation.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office responded directly to Trump late Wednesday with its own social media post, writing, “Trump is lying about California again — time to take the phone away from grandpa and put him to sleep.”

On Thursday morning, Newsom’s office wrote that there “is a lot of misinformation floating around about California’s election — including from the President,” and recommended people watch a CNN video about California’s election process. It concluded that delays in vote counting in the state are essentially a result of state leaders deciding that providing voters with “last minute options” for casting ballots is more important than a quick count.

“And yes, for the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too,” Newsom’s office wrote — a nod to the fact that the issue isn’t new.

In an email, Brandon Richards, Newsom’s deputy director for rapid response, said Trump’s claims are part of “a tinfoil hat level conspiracy theory that has been debunked repeatedly.”

The president’s claims of cheating were predicted before the election by both elections experts and Democratic leaders in California, who dismissed them in advance as more baseless bluster from a president beset by low approval ratings.

A worker puts ballots in a counting machine at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on Wednesdayin City of Industry.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Those same experts and Democratic leaders acknowledge that California’s system for counting votes takes a long time and should be quickened, but stress that is not because of anything nefarious. Rather, it is because California allows voters to cast ballots by mail up until election day — and then has to count those ballots, which can number in the millions and are subject to manual signature verification.

Trump has long dismissed such explanations. An election denier since he first entered politics more than a decade ago, Trump has pushed skepticism about elections he and his party lose time and again since — most notably when he claimed, again without evidence, that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen.

Trump even challenged Biden’s victory in court, but his claims were rejected completely because neither he nor his attorneys could produce any evidence substantiating them.

He has combined his tactic of targeting undocumented immigrants for political gain with his skepticism of election integrity by claiming, again without evidence, that such immigrants somehow vote in large numbers, particularly in big blue states such as California, despite experts saying there is no evidence of that.

He has alleged that mail ballots — such as those used by the majority of California voters — are a particularly rich source of voter fraud, despite again having no basis for the claim and it being disputed by experts.

A consistent feature of his election fraud claims is that they arise and target races only when Republicans lose or lose ground.

And, he has tried to use the power of his administration to make sweeping changes to election laws to bar mail ballots and require strict voter ID and proof of citizenship measures, despite the control of elections and their rules being constitutionally given to the states.

Those efforts have prompted a wave of litigation between the Trump administration and California and other blue states, with multiple cases pending in the courts over voter ID, proof of citizenship, mail balloting and the role that the U.S. Postal Service may be allowed to play in processing such ballots.

Trump’s latest remarks came as additional vote counting on Wednesday narrowed the advantage of Republican Steve Hilton over his Democratic challengers in the California governor’s race and closed the gap in the L.A. mayoral race between the MAGA-aligned candidate Spencer Pratt, currently running second, and City Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running third.

The trend was anticipated. Elections experts warned before vote counting began of the potential for a “red mirage,” wherein earlier voting among Republicans and late voting among Democrats — many of whom were unsure of whom to vote for in the two high-profile races — would create an early illusion of Republican victories despite large volumes of liberal votes from major population centers still to be counted.

It is a trend that has played out repeatedly in past elections, and one that does not come as a surprise to careful elections watchers.

Elections officials in California knew such claims were going to be made, as they’ve been made in the past. Some local elections officials made a point of preparing their staffs for baseless claims of election fraud in advance of this year’s primaries. State officials made repeated efforts to explain the reasons why California elections take time, precisely to undercut claims amid counting that the delays were the result of fraud.

But those claims have come regardless, and not just from Trump.

Above an X post Wednesday suggesting Pratt was losing ground to Raman as more counts came in, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote, “California keeps dumping votes. Odds are shifting because the vote dumps always seem to go one way. Count until you get the result you want?”

Above another X post Wednesday noting that the California count would take time, Katie Miller, a former Trump administration official and conservative podcaster married to Trump’s top advisor Stephen Miller, wrote, “The Democrats are about to steal the LA mayoral race once again using mail-in voting.”

Both of the posts that DeSantis and Miller were responding to were from Polymarket, a prediction market where people can bet on the outcomes of political races, pop culture events and a slew of other subjects.

Such emerging financial markets, which process billions of dollars in bets, are causing rising concerns about political meddling for profit — including by campaign staffers and other individuals with insider knowledge of polling and other campaign information, or by politicians and their operatives, whose public remarks about politics can swing those markets.

KATIE Price has revealed what husband Lee Andrews told her on the phone from prison as she admitted “time is running out”.

The Sun revealed yesterday that self-proclaimed businessman Lee must pay a fine of more than £100,000 to be released from jail.

The ex-glamour model, 48, is thought to have believed her hubby could walk free in Dubai this week if he could stump up a four-figure fine.

But after she spoke to him, it emerged he “needs a six-figure sum” instead.

And now Katie has shared her fears for Lee, saying she was worried he would not be released anytime soon.

Revealing details of her last phone conversation with Lee, Katie said: “I’m absolutely knackered, it’s the second morning because I spoke to Lee yesterday and he wants me to go to the Al Awir prison because he’s given me permission to get all his phones, his belongings.

PRICE OF FREEDOM

Katie Price’s hubby must pay £100k for release as she visits him in jail

TO THE RESCUE

Katie Price breaks silence from Dubai as she reveals bid to free Lee Andrews

“So I’m going there now.

“I still need to hear back from his lawyer if I can get a visit to see him.

“It’s Wednesday and I go on Friday… time is running out.”

Katie admitted she was now able to reach her husband because she had a Dubai number for him in prison.

“I’m feeling knackered today, I’m excited, but excited for what? Because I don’t know if I’m seeing Lee but at least I now know he can ring me, I’ve got the Dubai number so at least I know he can ring me,” she added.

“So let’s go to the prison again.”

The previous day, Katie posted a clip while at a hair salon in Dubai as she told fans she was “all glam, just to go to bed and chill”.

She said: “The time is half five, I’m going to go back to the hotel, get in bed and watch telly all night until tomorrow morning.

“That’s so bad, coming to Dubai and I’m going to bed at half six in the evening, that’s shocking.

“I could go and party, have a drink, but I’m happy to go back to the hotel for a cup of tea in bed.”

Former I’m A Celebrity star Katie flew out on Monday and has visited the notorious Al Awir Central Prison several times, though her only contact with her hubby is via phone.

A source told The Sun yesterday: “Katie is desperately trying to get Lee out of prison.

“Despite everything that’s gone on, Lee is her husband and Katie wants to get him out and get the answers she so badly needs.

“She has been to the prison a number of times now, including going there today, to try to get the paperwork sorted to secure his release.

“To be released, Lee will have to pay over £100,000.

“He is confident he can get the cash and has assured Katie she won’t need to pay anything.”

Lee, who mysteriously disappeared last month, is said to be in jail over a civil matter.

Mum of five Katie last night confirmed she was trying to get him out, and admitted it was exhausting.

She said in a social media video: “I have got to go to courts, prison and the police ­station.

“Not visiting him in prison but ‘the’ prison.

“Who knows what today will bring.

“I am so tired.”

Katie married Nottingham-born Andrews, 42, in Dubai in January, just days after meeting him.

Prior to his disappearance, he told her he was flying to the UK to go on Good Morning Britain for their first joint interview.

However, the UAE government had banned him from leaving the country for allegedly forging a signature on a six-figure loan.

Katie then feared he had been kidnapped after he disappeared.

Subsequently, she said Andrews called her to say he was in jail, apparently for spying.

Officials later confirmed to The Sun his incarceration was linked to a “private civil matter”.

Any potential release may not be straightforward, according to a source last night.

Acclaimed German director Wim Wenders announced he was withdrawing his 1975 film, “Wrong Move,” from distribution due to a scene featuring then-13-year-old actor Nastassja Kinski topless.

Kinski played Mignon, a mute acrobat and street performer, in the film. In the controversial scene, she is featured lying on the bed topless as she tries to seduce her 30-something co-star Rüdiger Vogler, who plays Wilhelm.

Wilhelm enters the room, removes most of his clothing and gets into bed with her, slaps her, pushes her away and then caresses her face and cradles her.

Kinski, who also starred in Roman Polanski’s “Tess” and Wenders’ “Paris, Texas,” has voiced her discomfort with the scene for decades and recently told a German news outlet that, although she “didn’t know much at the age of 13,” she could tell that it wasn’t right.

In a 1997 USA TV interview, she was candid about wishing some of her work could be scrubbed from the screen permanently, saying, “I’ve done quite a lot of movies, a lot of movies that I want to just go and burn someplace. You always calculate ‘how much would that cost? How would I do that?’ and just know it’ll exist forever. It won’t be showing all that much, but just the fact that it’s there and it’ll exist.”

She told W Magazine the same year, “If I had had somebody to protect me or if I had felt more secure about myself, I would not have accepted certain things. Nudity things,” Kinski said. “And inside it was just tearing me apart.”

Per the Hollywood Reporter, Wenders received a lifetime achievement award at the German Film Awards last week and addressed the “Wrong Move” issue in his speech, saying that he would not shoot the scene today. He also said that he knew that keeping it in the film had continued to cause Kinski pain.

“I can’t blame the 29-year-old young man I was then, 50 years ago, who made a film of his time; wanting, in a way, to capture the zeitgeist,” he added before calling on the members of the German Film Academy to debate the issue and aid him in finding a resolution.

On Wednesday, the “Perfect Days” director issued a statement that was posted on social media saying that he would withdraw the film from all current forms of distribution.

“As the only person responsible at the time for Wrong Move who is still here, I recognize that Nastassja Kinski should have been better protected back then. For that, I apologize to you, Nastassja, unreservedly, no ifs and buts.”

Wender said that “the many reactions, comments, and conversations of recent days” had a played role in shifting his perception of the issue but that society must find appropriate ways of dealing with controversial film works from the 20th century.

“Only after that process has taken place — even if it takes considerable time — and once we have been able to present a mutually agreed solution, which will include Nastassja Kinski, will we make the film available again.”

Kinski commented on Wenders’ statement on Wednesday. The following has been translated from German:

“Wim, after all that, all those years, only because the public has now commented in so many newspapers, as well as colleagues, and now because thousands — even though I asked for so long — only now because of the public, do I read THESE words from you, W. Wenders: ‘Nastassja, back then 13 in the first film, Wrong Move.’ ”

Nothing could possibly generate a headline Tuesday night when the worst American League team — the Angels — played host to the perhaps the worst National League team — the Colorado Rockies.

Except. . .

This.

A fly ball conked Angels right fielder Jo Adell on the head and bounced over the fence for a home run, reminding fans of José Canseco’s similar gaffe 33 years ago.

Adell chased TJ Rumfield’s fourth-inning drive onto the Angel Stadium warning track and reached up to catch it. The ball grazed his glove before bouncing squarely on his noggin and over the wall.

The ball caromed back into the outfield and Rumfield momentarily stopped at second base. But the umpires confirmed the home run, coupling Adell with Canseco in numerous social media posts.

Canseco, the steroids-fueled, defensively challenged left fielder of the Texas Rangers, made a similar blunder on May 26, 1993, when a ball hit by Cleveland’s Carlos Martínez bounced off his head and over the wall.

Mike Trout presumably has witnessed every possible blooper, blunder and boo-boo in 16 seasons with the woeful Angels. The center fielder stood only a few feet from Adell when this one occurred and did not make himself available for comment afterward.

To his credit, Adell faced reporters.

“It looks like I’ve never played in the field before, which is disappointing, because it’s beyond the truth,” he said. “I’m the only one that really knows what happened. I was out there, and it happened to me, so it is what it is.

“It was kind of the icing on the cake, because I was [expletive] all the way around the whole day today.”

Adell was hitless in four at-bats, striking out twice, in the 8-2 loss that dropped the Angels to 23-39, the worst record in the AL.

The play was emblematic of Adell’s seven-year career with the Angels, who made him a first-round draft pick in 2017. At first blush, his lifetime Wins Above Replacement of 0.3 would indicate that he’s little better than the fictional minor league “replacement player” to which MLB players are compared in calculating the statistic.

Yet Adell’s physical tools and occasional highlights scream stardom. He shouldn’t be an ordinary Jo. The antithesis of the embarrassing episode Tuesday night came less than two months ago when he robbed the Seattle Mariners of three home runs in one game.

“It was the Jo Show,” Angels manager Kurt Suzuki said at the time. “This guy works as hard as anybody I’ve ever been around. His work ethic, attention to detail, his desire to improve every single day. To see him do that, I don’t believe you’ll see that again.”

Suzuki, who was Adell’s teammate in 2021 and 2022, likely never thought he would see a fly ball bounce off the outfielder’s head and into the stands, the Jo Show shifting to Oh, No!

“I saw the play, but for me, Jo’s made great strides defensively from when I played with him,” Suzuki said Tuesday. “And obviously, he had the night he robbed three home runs. It was a tough play tonight, but at the same time, the strides that he’s made defensively have been great.”

Adell was considered a defensive liability early in his career and was saddled with a four-base error in 2020 when a fly ball hit his glove and went over the fence. But he steadily improved and became a Gold Glove Award finalist in 2024.

That didn’t stop the “Tarps Off” throng of shirtless fans at Angel Stadium from chanting Adell’s name after the gaffe against the Rockies. For his sake, they likely will revert to imploring Angels owner Arte Moreno to “sell the team” soon enough.

Adell might have to stay away from social media forever, but he would like to forget the ball bouncing off his head as soon as possible.

“That’s what we have to do,” he said. “I mean, there’s really no other way around it. Let it fester and tumble over, but these are plays I’ve made hundreds and thousands of times. I’ve got to just keep going, and as a team, we’ve got to keep going.”

According to Abs Mechial, there is a specific minute every day in which holidays can be booked for cheaper on average – but you may need to set your alarm to take advantage of it

If you are yet to book a getaway this year and are wondering when the ideal moment might be to do so, a financial expert has identified precisely when you should – and shouldn’t – make your move. Abs Mechial turned to TikTok to reveal that not only are certain days preferable for booking, but specific times of day matter too.

“When is the worst time to book a holiday and when is it actually cheapest? he asked his followers in a video. Surprisingly, according to research, Abs claimed there is a one-hour window in each day when holidays can cost you significantly more money to book.” he asked his followers.

“According to the data, the most expensive time to book is between 9am and 10am,” he explained. “Bookings in that window came in around 30 per cent more than the cheapest time of the day – so no more booking holidays as soon as you log in for the day.”

As for the most economical time of day, Abs warned that you might need to set your alarm. “Early… and I mean really early,” he said. “Between 4am and 5am – and the logic does make sense.”

Abs highlighted that overnight, demand “drops off” and consequently prices “reset” to their baseline.

He elaborated: “Then as the day goes on, the more searches and more clicks result in prices starting to creep back up again.”

For those reluctant to wake up before sunrise, however, Abs provided guidance for anyone wanting to book during “more realistic hours”.

“Late evening, around 8pm to 10pm tends to be noticeably cheaper than the morning rush,” he enthused. “But if you want to go even further and want the exact moment – not just the hour, but the minute – according to the data, the single cheapest minute to book a holiday is 2:48am.”

Surprisingly, bookings made at that precise time worked out up to 60 per cent cheaper on average, according to Abs.

He concluded with a word of caution, however: “Now, definitely take that with a pinch of salt – booking at 2:48am isn’t going to make every holiday 60 per cent cheaper, but the pattern is clear – if you want to save money, avoid peak booking hours because timing, just like everything else with money, makes a massive difference.”

Responding in the comments, one TikTok user offered their own unverified tip: “Best to search in private browser so prices do not increase if you are searching for same destinations. Prices increase with demand so private searching will prevent this.”

A second person added: “I usually book mine within 72 hours of departure… like 50% cheaper! I find the hotels I want and then I wait for them to deal them off.”

A third exclaimed: “Wow that’s crazy how the time of day can cost you!”

While a fourth TikTok user pointed out: “Doesn’t change if you want a certain resort at a certain time of year.”

Nonfiction films and series are among some of the most-watched (and most-discussed) programming on TV. As Emmy season heats up, the directors of six notable contenders share thoughts about their projects.

‘The Yogurt Shop Murders’ (HBO)

“It’s just a famous, famous story in Texas, but particularly Austin,” director Margaret Brown says of the bewilderingly complex case of four teenage girls slain at a yogurt shop in the state’s capital in 1991. “You heard about it all the time at parties. My best friend was like, ‘That story is rabbit hole upon rabbit hole upon rabbit hole — no one knows what really happened. It’s impossible to figure out.’ I liked the idea of something that was impossible to figure out. But when I started doing the interviews, I was like, ‘This is dark, this is deep trauma.’ I’d never watched or done true crime before. I didn’t realize what it would be like to sit with people who hadn’t known what happened to their siblings and children for over 30 years. I remember [thinking], ‘I’ve got to get this right. I can’t mess this up. There’s just too much pain here.’”

‘The American Revolution’ (PBS)

“Leading up to it, I said I just don’t want us drowning in fife-and-drum treacle,” director Ken Burns says of his expansive treatment of America’s origin story, which draws out the experiences of Native Americans and enslaved people as well as the era’s atmosphere of civic discord. “Clearly it’s not, because we’re so existentially challenged by the moment. But the revolution gives us a sense of perspective. Times were more challenging then. More division. More division in the Civil War. More division in Reconstruction. Yes, the threats are unprecedented, but they’re not totally unfamiliar. Mark Twain is supposed to have said history doesn’t repeat itself, but he’s [also] supposed to have said it rhymes. I love that. So like Odysseus, I tie myself to the mast and resist the temptation to put a little neon sign in the film saying, ‘Isn’t this so much like today?’”

‘Sean Combs: The Reckoning’ (Netflix)

“There was so much noise,” says director Alexandria Stapleton, who tracks hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs’ rise and shocking fall in this series, executive produced by 50 Cent. “I’m scared for my safety, I’m scared for my career. Then there was every journalist, every giant corporation, trying to chase the same story. Because there was a feeding frenzy, there were a lot of people that were not truthful. It was making sure that we were going after the right people to speak with, and then … making sure that they felt safe emotionally. No one knew who I was interviewing while I was making it. In making a project about a man who’s very connected in media and very good at whatever he wants his narrative to be, there was a very deliberate decision to not drop this project until we literally were a week out.”

‘Ocean With David Attenborough’ (National Geographic)

(Keith Scholey / Silverback Films and Open Planet / National Geographic)

“It’s been weird, because I’ve got older, and he sort of stayed the same, like the Dorian Gray picture,” says Keith Scholey, one of the film’s directors, of the 100-year-old broadcasting legend and naturalist. “He’s still got that huge power and presence and commitment. It comes from the heart. He’s got a huge depth to him, in terms of knowledge, experience, personality … but he’s also very self-effacing. The most boring thing in the world for David Attenborough is David Attenborough. He’s interested in every aspect of the truth, and he loves uncovering that and passing that on to the world. He knows how to present in a way that it’s a performance, but it’s not a performance.”

‘Neighbors’ (HBO)

“Neighbor disputes are a great leveler,” says Harrison Fishman, who co-directs this gonzo excursion into neighborhood feuds with Dylan Redford. “If you think about class and race and politics, all that stuff gets thrown out the window when people are dealing with such small, concrete problems. You quickly start learning why people care so much about the things that they’re fighting for. It becomes a bit like a Trojan horse into learning about aspects of America and things about people that have nothing to do with the dispute. Those tangents are so valuable to us, because it gives context to the dispute. But it also helps people understand who everybody is in our country.”

‘Mr. Scorsese’ (Apple TV)

“We would get together and have these very long conversations,” says director Rebecca Miller, who interviewed American cinema’s great poet of tortured masculinity over five years. “But then in terms of the other voices, I thought, ‘Who knows him best?’ There was this wonderful movie called ‘Crumb,’ by Terry Zwigoff. He interviewed [cartoonist R. Crumb’s] ex-girlfriend at a certain point, and I felt like I got a view into the person, not in a gossipy way, but … trying to get a rounded view. If you only get the front-facing part, you’re not going to get a full sense of who they are. It was very important to me that we hear from the daughters or his wife, that there’s a sense of a person in there.”

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles is reportedly under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over sexual misconduct allegations.

The investigation came after the New York Post reported in April that the 51-year-old, five-term congressman had been spotted kissing a much younger congressional staffer from a different office in 2023.

According to CNN, which on Tuesday first reported news of the investigation, the congressional committee learned of other allegations of sexual misconduct as it investigated the report of Gomez’s 2023 conduct with the staffer.

Gomez was friends with former California Rep. Eric Swalwell, who earlier this year resigned from Congress and suspended his California gubernatorial campaign after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. Gomez had been a co-chair of Swalwell’s campaign.

The 2023 incident with Gomez and a younger staffer reportedly occurred at a party hosted by Swalwell, according to the New York Post. Gomez’s office denied the report at the time.

Another lawmaker, Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales, also resigned from Congress in April in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct with a former staffer who later committed suicide.

Both Swalwell and Gonzales were under investigation by the ethics committee before they resigned, but those investigations ended when they left office as the committee only has jurisdiction to investigate sitting members.

Gomez’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment, but, in a statement to CNN, Gomez said he would cooperate with the ethics investigation. While he acknowledged making “personal mistakes” outside his marriage and apologized to his family, he said his actions didn’t violate House ethics rules.

“Years ago, I made personal mistakes outside my marriage that have caused real pain to my wife and family. Although my actions were consensual in nature and haven’t violated the law or House ethics rules, that doesn’t diminish the impact that these mistakes have made on those I care about the most,” Gomez said.

The House Ethics Committee declined to comment on the reported investigation.

Gomez is married to Mary Hodge, a past top aide to former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. The couple have a son whom Gomez wore in a baby carrier during the lengthy House speaker election in 2023. That same year, Gomez founded the Congressional Dads Caucus, which has advocated for expanded child tax credits and other parent-friendly legislation.

The disclosure of the congressional investigation comes as Gomez faces a campaign challenge from Angela Gonzales-Torres, a Pasadena City College counselor with the backing of the progressive Justice Democrats.

Gonzales-Torres has criticized Gomez for receiving the backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, though Gomez has at times taken political stances at odds with the group.

After news of the ethics investigation broke, Gonzales-Torres wrote on the social media platform X, “I take political corruption seriously … I also take very seriously what appears to be a culture in Congress in which men abuse women.

“If @RepJimmyGomez has nothing to hide, he should have no concern. But if there was any criminal behavior that he witnessed, participated in, or helped conceal, we will find out and we will help ensure accountability and justice.”

Gomez was first elected to Congress in a 2017 special election to succeed Xavier Becerra, who is now running for governor and has seen the biggest boost in support following Swalwell’s departure from the race in April.

Gomez previously served in the state assembly from 2012 to 2017 and was political director for the United Nurses Assn. of California before that.

Mindy Kaling was in her early 30s when the first TV series she created, “The Mindy Project,” made its debut and set in motion her attempt at forging an identity as a prolific multi-hyphenate after “The Office,” where she was a writer and cast member for eight seasons. But if you ask her to reflect on that time of her life, she says, it’s a bit of a blur.

As she explained recently, “I remember it, but not all that distinctly. It was such a grind — waking up at 6 a.m. to be on camera, wrapping late. And I did that for 117 episodes.”

But ask her about her 20s, when she was living in New York City and trying to figure out how she could break into the industry as a comedy writer? “I remember incredibly vividly,” she says. “I’m like, did I feel things more intensely back then? I’m not sure. But that period of time … there was just so many highs and lows. And it felt cinematic to me.”

So she made a TV show about it.

Premiering Tuesday with three episodes, “Not Suitable for Work” follows five ambitious 20-somethings living in Manhattan who are navigating the early stages of their careers while trying to have a semblance of a life and the heightened emotions they experience during this period. Kaling calls it the third chapter in her semi-autobiographical TV trilogy, which includes “Never Have I Ever,” about a first-generation Indian American teenager coping with her father’s death while trying to be popular (or at least not super uncool), and “The Sex Lives of College Girls,” about four young women who dorm together and boldly maneuver their new, uninhibited lives on campus.

In the new Hulu series, viewers are introduced to AJ Pascarelli (Ella Hunt), a hard-working and disciplined young woman who moves to town to start a high-pressure finance job, and her roommate Abhinaya “Abby” Chilukuri (Avantika), a savvy and fashion-obsessed assistant to a celebrity stylist. They live across the hall from Josh Teitelbaum (Jack Martin), an idealistic nepo baby of a media titan — he’ll lean into his privilege when it suits him while also trying to distance himself from it — with ambitions of making it in journalism. His two roommates are Kel Washington (Nicholas Duvernay), an insecure but earnest med student who would rather be acting, and Davis Beau Bradley Barrett III (Will Angus), a high-energy, bumbling financial analyst who works at the same corporate firm as AJ and is an undercover hopeless romantic. As one might expect, there are some messy entanglements within and outside the group.

1

2

1. Abby (Avantika), left, and AJ (Ella Hunt) move in together. 2. Across the hall live Davis (Will Angus), left, Josh (Jack Martin) and Kel (Nicholas Duvernay). (Gwen Capistran / Disney)

“I hope that young people will respond to the show, “ Kaling says. “We did so much research in it because at a certain point it is funny — I’m in my 40s, and I am often like, ‘I wonder if young people are suspicious about why I’m so obsessed with writing shows about young people.’”

So, why is she?

“Because I find it almost impossible to reflect on the current time I’m in,” she says. “It would be too painful to be too introspective about the time that I’m in. I need a real sense of distance to look back on it, especially since having kids. Once you have kids, it triggers these memories of your own childhood.”

Over video call from New York City, Kaling reflected on the series and her early years of trying to make it. These are edited excerpts from the conversation.

How did you land on the professions that your characters would be pursuing and what did you want to say about ambition at this stage of life?

I love people who have big wants, and sometimes the audience is like, “Maybe you want the wrong thing” and they [the characters] don’t quite know that yet. I love writing about the underdog. And with their particular professions, they’re all things that I had some interest in researching. I’ve always been fascinated by investment bankers. I went to Dartmouth, so I have a lot of friends who went into that, and I swear I’ve had my friends explain their job so many times to me, and I still didn’t totally understand it. We were lucky; a very famous investment bank very generously offered to let me come for a day and meet with young bankers. I also … write about the children of immigrants. I’m very, very interested in that story, and so we got to research what it’s like being the child of Nigerian immigrants. But every single character has a journey, or there’s an aspect of them that I feel like I really relate to, and that is in almost all my shows.

What was it like observing young people in the investment banking world?

They were wary — because they’re smart — of someone from Hollywood coming in to document what they were doing and asking questions. It helped that a lot of the guys liked “The Office” and a lot of the women liked “The Mindy Project” and “Sex Lives of College Girls” because they’re all kind of young. I think that made them trust me a little bit more. For the AJ and Davis characters, so much of what I researched when I was there fed into their plot line … almost all the characters have a boss they fear and idolize, and the way that first-year bankers feel about their managing directors is not dissimilar to the way I felt about Greg Daniels when I started at “The Office.” And the hours are actually not dissimilar.

There’s a moment early on where Jay Ellis’ character, Bill, who is a managing director at this fictional investment banking firm, is asked about work-life balance. I’m curious how you thought about that at the start of your career versus now.

I didn’t care at all about anything except my job for 16 years. It was my entire personality and purpose. When I was in my 20s, the only thing that mattered was being a good comedy writer and succeeding, and one day maybe being able to create my own shows. There was no balance. I didn’t want balance. I wanted to live and breathe comedy writing for my entire life. I hated the weekends, actually. And who wouldn’t? I was a friendless transplant in Los Angeles and I just wanted to get back to working at “The Office.” Every year I was there, I got more ambitious and I wanted to go off and create my own show and have a bigger part as an actor and everything.

It wasn’t until after I did that on “The Mindy Project” … that I just felt like, “OK, I get this. I want to now try being a mom.” Once I had my daughter, Katherine [at 37], it wasn’t that the balance changed, it was my first real, legitimate interest outside of work — that I cared about more than work.

“When I was in my 20s, the only thing that mattered was being a good comedy writer and succeeding, and one day maybe being able to create my own shows,” Kaling says. “There was no balance. I didn’t want balance.”

(Ebru Yildiz / For The Times)

After college, you moved to Brooklyn with two Dartmouth friends to pursue a career in comedy. You eventually got a full-time job as a production assistant on “Crossing Over with John Edward,” a program where people would receive psychic readings. Tell me about that time in your life.

I remember feeling like I had no access and that I didn’t have any place to put my ambition. It was so far away from anything I wanted to do — scripted comedy and reality television could not be further apart. It was a fascinating time because there were such highs and lows. There was the excitement of new crushes and having fun in a new city with two friends, but there was also the crushing disappointment of feeling like I was never gonna make it. I didn’t even have a path forward to making it, but I was lucky, because I lived with my two best friends. We would go to open mic nights, and we would go to restaurant week and see how the rich people in Manhattan were living. We would take the subway uptown to Central Park and walk along Fifth Avenue and like look at these amazing homes and just dream what it was like to be like a wealthy New Yorker who could buy everything that they read about on DailyCandy — now I’m really dating myself here, back when DailyCandy was a thing. But that’s what it was like, I just I felt a lot of extreme emotions.

How did you approach that job?

My boss was a producer and would approach the families and get their information, and then we would have to do research on them, but it was mostly because they would do a little clip package on the different families. I had to get them to sign releases to be on the show and get photographs of their deceased [loved ones] and them. I actually thought it was pretty interesting work. It just had nothing to do with comedy writing, and that job was not clearly going to lead anywhere toward comedy writing, and I came to New York because of “Saturday Night Live.” When I was working there is when my friend Brenda [Withers] … and I started writing this play “Matt & Ben” [a satirical play that imagines the story of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck before “Good Will Hunting” made them famous] in the time we had off. We started writing it, then I got that job as a PA, then the show went up at the Fringe Festival, and then it was going to go off off Broadway, and when it went off-off-Broadway, and I had a steady income, that’s when I quit my job there. I was only at “Crossing Over” for three or so months.

Greg Daniels attended a performance of “Matt & Ben” and it’s what led to you getting on “The Office” at 24. What was that first meeting like?

Back then, because the internet was so different, when I looked up Greg, besides his credits, you couldn’t find a lot of biographical information about him, or even a photo. I don’t think I even knew what he looked like. When I met him, I don’t think I had seen the British “Office” yet; I wasn’t cool. At that time, I had put so much pressure on this job. I only had two interviews — it was this and there was a show that ended up getting canceled while I was waiting to meet the showrunner. It was a pilot called “Nevermind Nirvana,” about an Indian man who married a white woman, and Ajay Sahgal was the writer. I was like, “Oh my God, if anyone is going to get hired to work on the show, it has to be me.” I was pretty excited about that meeting, but when I was sitting in the waiting room at the production offices to meet with Ajay, they told them they weren’t going to pick up the pilot, so I never even got to meet him, and they just told me I could leave.

I’d only had that interview, and then I met with Greg. This is my memory: it was a high-rise building in Century City, in the offices of “King of the Hill,” so there was a lot of like “King of the Hill” cutouts and stuff there. And he’s just a very thoughtful, quiet guy who doesn’t push conversation … I’m someone who’s pathologically chatty, and so talking to Greg, who is completely fine with there being pauses in conversation, and is just a confident grown-up, it was incredibly intimidating. I was very stressed out in our meeting, but I also was blown away by him.

That first season, you were also the only female writer on staff and the youngest —

B.J.[Novak] is a month younger than me. I want to correct that because he’ll read this and go, “Hey … !”

How did that play into how you felt in the room?

I haven’t really ever had imposter syndrome. And this is my probably my personality defect — I felt that even if I hadn’t seen anyone like me in these roles, that I was just going to be the first one, and I was going to work really hard and prove it to them. The staff was super competitive, but they were smart feminist guys. It was hierarchical and stressful, but it was not because of my fellow writers, except that I wanted to impress them. I felt nervous because I wanted to be contributing, but I don’t know why — I just loved the pilot so much that Greg had made, and I loved these characters, and this world — I was like, I can’t possibly lose my job, I love it too much. Which is probably really stupid, I didn’t ever think there’s a possibility that I could get fired here.

Phyllis (Phyllis Smith), Kelly (Mindy Kaling), Dwight (Rainn Wilson) and Michael (Steve Carell) in a scene from Season 2 of “The Office.”

(Paul Drinkwater / NBCUniversal via Getty Images)

We see how AJ wants to impress the boss and takes on more than she can chew and screws up some data before a big presentation. What was that first big mistake or misstep that you made in those early years that you still think about?

I remember Season 2 — because I just wanted to prove to Greg and to the cast and to the director, the cinematographer, and everyone that I was super invested — we were shooting “The Dundies” [episode]. I was an actor on the show as well, but I wasn’t acting in this scene, but it was my episode [that I wrote], and in between takes, John [Krasinski, who played Jim Halpert] and Jenna [Fischer, who played Pam Beesly] were just on set, and I remember going up to them and being like, “Guys, that take was so great!” And I walked away. Greg came up to me and was like, “You know, we really should let just the director talk to the cast between takes.” Greg, he’s my mentor, but he definitely, over the course of the eight years I lived there, had corrected me many times, as he should have, but that was one of the first times. I remember I was so embarrassed, but I didn’t understand it’s not the role of a story editor to be giving feedback to the cast between takes on a show.

The bosses on the show all have different styles and expectations that may seem demanding or annoying on the surface. How do they reflect where you’re at now?

No one trains you on how to be a good boss. And bad bosses are so prevalent. The entire premise of “The Office” hinges on this funny concept that terrible bosses exist. It wasn’t until I was on “The Mindy Project” that I was the employer for the first time. Every single year of that show, it was a battle getting a new season. One of the challenges of being a good boss is being able to put aside those personal, professional battles you’re fighting … but then also realizing that you’re a mentor to other people, and you have to start thinking about things that you never thought you needed to — overtime, maternity leave, respect in the workplace, the things that make the workplace enjoyable for everyone else who’s there working for you. And it’s not like that comes naturally.

The double blessing of having a good boss, which I did in Greg Daniels and Howard Klein [an executive producer on “The Office”], is that they modeled that for me. Even though I could not be more different than Greg. Even to this day, I’m realizing I have all the unique challenges of being a single mom, being the creator of these shows with crews and casts, but then also being able to be empathetic for all the people that work for me and making sure I make time to listen to them when they want to talk to me about an issue that they’re having; it’s a continual challenge that I’m hoping I’m getting better and better at [managing].

When Bill is asked about work-life balance, he’s also asked if he has inspirational words to impart. It’s very much about overworking and being productive. How do you tackle the question today?

I used to say “you have to write your own part.” And everyone would get annoyed because they’re like, “I’m not a writer.” I’ve had to really think about the question so I could be helpful. We all want a linear path to success. And if my career has taught me anything, it’s that the linear path just was not how I got my job. You know when you go on Google Maps and it shows you all the different paths — the fastest, one path with the toll road and one path that’s going to take seven minutes longer. I’ve only ever taken the one that’s seven minutes longer, or the toll; it’s never been the easy way. The sooner I got used to that, the better.

Before I let you go, in the show, one of the celebrity clients Abby is dealing with is Austin Blanchett, Cate Blanchett’s fictional nephew. Was it always going to be Cate? What other celebs were in the running?

It was Cate Blanchett’s nephew before we had Harry Richardson. When I worked on “Ocean’s Eight,” one of the biggest surprises on it was that Cate Blanchett was incredibly funny and did not take herself seriously at all. I suspect if anyone was going to think it was funny that in this fictional world of the show she had this useless nepo nephew that she had to help get jobs, it would be Cate. I hope she doesn’t sue me. I think she would think it was funny.

As primary voters head to the polls Tuesday to determine which candidates will face off in November to become California’s governor and Los Angeles’ mayor, both races are wide open, with a new crop of candidates challenging the Democratic status quo.

For Democrats, little clear consensus has emerged so far on who should lead the city and state into the future.

In California’s crowded gubernatorial race, Democrats have struggled in recent months to settle on a candidate to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom.

After former Rep. Eric Swalwell suspended his campaign in April amid allegations of sexual misconduct, Xavier Becerra, a former Biden cabinet member, inched ahead by positioning himself as the safe, experienced Democratic candidate. Another Democrat, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, and Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, trail close behind.

In L.A., experience seems to be as much a liability as an advantage.

Mayor Karen Bass finds herself in the extraordinary position, as an incumbent, of fighting to make the runoff as she is assailed from the left and the right. The latest UC Berkeley-L.A. Times poll shows Bass leading with just 26% of the vote, one point ahead of City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a wonkish Democratic socialist, and four points ahead of Republican Spencer Pratt, a former reality TV star.

“There’s a clear sense of frustration with the Democratic Party,” said Sara Sadhwani, a professor of politics at Pomona College. The reason a wave of conservative outsiders like Pratt and Hilton are doing so well in such a solidly liberal city and state, Sadhwani said, is that they’re more willing to spell out the challenges that L.A. and California face.

“Democrats tend to be very concerned about not upsetting one coalition or another, so it’s politics as usual with many of the Democratic candidates,” Sadhwani said. “Spencer Pratt has blown a hole in that by just naming the problems that everyday residents and voters are seeing and feeling on the ground.”

On homelessness, many Angelenos are frustrated Bass hasn’t significantly moved the needle.

“We can point to facts and figures that might suggest that things have changed,” Sadhwani said. “But when you walk down the streets of Los Angeles, it doesn’t feel like it, so she hasn’t passed the field test. That’s the problem.”

A growing segment of Angelenos also chafe at the city’s high cost of living. And many are angry about the Bass administration’s lack of preparation and response to the 2025 Palisades fire.

“The Democrats have to account for those challenges,” Sadhwani said. “They have been in power for all of this time.”

California, of course, remains a Democratic stronghold, and polls show state voters are overwhelmingly opposed to President Trump. His second-term agenda — including a sweeping immigration crackdown, tariffs and the war in Iran — only seems to have cemented California’s status as a resistance state.

But after so many years of Democratic dominance, in Sacramento and at Los Angeles City Hall, leaders have to answer for voter frustrations.

The top two vote-getters in California’s nonpartisan primaries will advance to theNovember runoff, unless one candidate manages to pick up more than 50% of the vote.

Republicans have turned out at higher rates than Democrats in early voting. Paul Mitchell, vice president of the Sacramento-based bipartisan firm Political Data Inc., said that older Democrats who reliably turn in their ballots were slower to vote this year, likely because two Republicans were on the gubernatorial ballot and the Democratic field was fractured.

“That has caused them to dive into a lot more strategic voting,” Mitchell said, noting many seemed to be waiting to cast their ballots for the Democrat who looks to have the best chance of moving on to November.

For the GOP, getting a candidate on the November ballot for governor means more than just demonstrating Republicans are players in California. A GOP candidate would bring out more Republicans to vote in the general election, raising the party’s prospects of winning down-ballot races and passing a GOP-led ballot initiative on voter ID.

For Democrats, the midterm races offer the party its first major chance to chart a new path for the future.

As polls show Trump cratering in popularity, Democrats in California and beyond are struggling a year and a half after Kamala Harris’ bruising 2024 defeat to agree on what went wrong.

The Democratic National Committee’s long-awaited autopsy of that election — which said Harris “wrote off rural America,” wrongly assumed identity politics would win over voters of color and failed to develop “defined or consistent” strategy against Trump — has only generated more hand-wringing.

“There is not a clear vision, there is not a clear policy agenda, and the Donald Trump presidency upended the policy world as we knew it,” Sadhwani said. “It’s unclear how any Democrat, including any of the individuals in these two races, is going to navigate the waters into the future. One thing is for certain: We aren’t going back. So, which of these candidates is going to lead us into an uncertain future?”

Referendum on Bass

In L.A., the election is a referendum on Bass, who pledged in 2022 to solve homelessness, cut crime and make the city more affordable.

“How has L.A. changed in four years?” said Christian Grose, a professor of political science and public policy at USC. “The Bass campaign is saying it has changed for the better and she still needs more time. All the other candidates, from very different perspectives, are saying that it’s much worse than it was four years ago, and it’s time for new leadership.”

Bass told The Times she plans to win in November by demonstrating her administration’s progress in clearing homeless encampments and accelerating the building of affordable housing. She has also noted that data shows homicides in the city are at their lowest since 1966.

Challenging Bass from the left is Raman, who was elected in 2020 as the first DSA-backed L.A. City Council member. Pitching herself as the viable progressive in the race, Raman has accused Bass of not doing enough to make the city affordable and critiqued Bass’ spending on Inside Safe, her program to move unhoused people into stable housing. Although Raman presents herself as an outsider, she is a former Bass ally who has chaired the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee for more than three years.

“She’s absolutely a part of the establishment,” Sadhwani said. “She’s been in City Hall longer than Karen Bass.”

As Raman tacked to the center during the campaign to appeal to more moderates and distanced herself from past calls to defund the police, she alienated some DSA members who complained they didn’t know what she stood for. Her three fellow DSA City Council members endorsed Bass.

Pratt is challenging Bass and the entire Democratic status quo.

A former star of “The Hills” who lost his home in the Palisades fire, he has surprised many political observers with his success assailing the city’s handling of the 2025 firestorms. He has called unhoused people drug-addled “zombies” and argued that L.A.’s housing crisis requires heavy-handed policing.

Pratt has raised vastly more campaign contributions than Bass and Raman. He has also generated national online buzz by waging an aggressive social media campaign and inspiring supporters to post a stream of viral AI election campaign ads.

Still, most political experts agree that Bass has the most viable path to victory, starting with a solid base of Black voters and a large share of Latino voters, plus support from powerful unions.

“Under normal circumstances, or at least under historic circumstances, that would be plenty to get her over the finish line,“ said Jim Newton, executive director of UCLA Blueprint magazine and a former political journalist for The Times. “What’s problematic for her is that there are people who are angry with her.”

A reset in California

Newsom has emerged in recent years as the national face of Democratic resistance to Trump, bolstering California’s status through a barrage of lawsuits and all-caps trolling against Trump.

Whatever candidate replaces Newsom, things are going to be different.

The emerging front-runner, Becerra, is a safe-bet career politician who has served as California attorney general and U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services. Asked recently why he had climbed in the polls, Bercerra said he thought voters wanted experience, not “glitz and sizzle.”

He has pledged to issue executive orders declaring California’s housing shortage a state of emergency and directing state agencies to maintain coverage for every Californian affected by federal or Medi-Cal cuts. He also touts his record, as the state’s attorney general, of suing Trump 122 times.

Steyer, a hedge-fund billionaire, calls himself “the most progressive candidate on the ballot.” He has pledged to build one million affordable homes, make the wealthy pay more taxes, and defend the environment — stances that are certain to unsettle Sacramento lobbyists and test the limits of California’s progressivism. But his past investments in coal plants and ICE prisons raise questions for some voters.

“His wealth is in one way his Achilles heel in the election,” Grose said. “Voters think of him as a billionaire more than progressive.”

Republicans seem to have rallied around Hilton — a British immigrant and former top strategist forconservative prime minister David Cameron — who has secured Trump’s backing and is campaigning on the message that California is a failed state in need of radical reform.

Hilton has pledged to cut government spending, make housing more affordable and bring gas prices down. But to achieve some of his goals he would scale back public services and environmental regulations and ramp up domestic production of oil and natural gas — strategies that many Californians might hesitate to get behind.

Whichever candidates make it to the runoff, the California Democratic Party will face questions about its strategy and vision. Less than two months ago, the party chair had urged Becerra to drop out of the race to make way for Swalwell.

“Clearly, the party itself has lost its way in California,” Sadhwani said. “I would not be surprised if the California Democratic Party looks for new leadership after this election.”

Can a Republican win?

Because the top two spots in each contest are up for grabs, elections experts warn that the vote results may not be known for days.

If Republicans make it to the runoff, they face steep odds of being elected in November in a state where Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by more than 20 percentage points.

Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist, said neither Hilton nor Pratt was likely to win. But if they made the runoff they could have a huge impact on the political environment by advancing “grievance issues that really put up a spotlight on what I call the blue state incompetence.”

Of all the candidates, Mitchell said, Pratt as an outsider adept at Instagram and TikTok has the greatest opportunity to create a new surge electorate. But he’s also going after the hardest voters to get to turn out: disaffected voters who are upset at the system.

Pratt had more retweets and viral videos than any other candidate, Mitchell said. “But that doesn’t buy him the vote of the disaffected DoorDash driver who believes that the system is broken, and who hasn’t voted in the last five elections.”

If Republicans don’t make it past the primary, Mitchell said, Democrats would likely hit the reset button.

“Pratt running has kind of obfuscated the differences between Raman and Bass,” Mitchell said. “It’s like a WWE match versus a chess match. I think Raman versus Bass would be more of a strategic and nuanced election than Spencer Pratt trying to hit Karen Bass over the head with a chair.”

Welcome back to The Times’ Lakers newsletter, where we’re calling in reinforcements for the home stretch of the NBA season.

The Finals begin Wednesday. All but the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs are left to reckon with their rosters from the sidelines. Some of the recently eliminated teams have major decisions that could affect the market for the Lakers, who, I’m sure you know, are facing some huge roster questions. To break down the offseason, I sent the bat signal out to some of my favorite co-workers for their thoughts.

What say you?

Joining me at our virtual roundtable are Los Angeles Times reporters Broderick Turner and columnists Bill Plaschke and Mirjam Swanson. With an assist from our assistant editor Dan Loumena, we examine the upcoming offseason.

The biggest question facing the Lakers: Re-sign LeBron James, let him walk as a free agent or hope he retires?

Nguyen: LeBron deciding to retire would definitely make things simpler for the Lakers, but nothing about this franchise can be simple. With how the season ended and the way he played, it feels unlikely that he would walk away at this point. It’ll come down to the money. This free agency class is not very strong. A soon-to-be 42-year-old could be the best of the bunch. But if the Lakers are on the hook for something close to what James made last year, building out the rest of the roster seems untenable. At the right price, he still feels like a player who could help the Lakers.

Plaschke: There is no “right price” for the Lakers and LeBron. He’s still one of the best players in the game, and he’ll demand to be paid like it, but the Lakers aren’t going to want to pony up. Not for a third option. Not for a 42-year-old consistent injury threat. And not for a guy who, if they give him what he wants, they’ll have no chance to begin building what they want, which is a championship. Bring back LeBron James? Pass.

Swanson: There absolutely is a right price — for the Lakers. Will that be the right price for LeBron? What if a low-low price of $20 million-ish would do it? Higher than the mid-level but far less than he’s used to? I think there’s a world where the Lakers can make a $20-million to 30-million pay cut make sense for LeBron — and I think he’s waiting to see if they can do it.

LeBron is such a Rorschach test because everyone hears what he says and so many of us perceive it differently. What I heard when he spoke about his future on the recent “Mind the Game” podcast was A) not someone who’s lost his love for the game, B) someone who really enjoyed last season’s Lakers team, C) someone who’s L.A.-lifestyle-loving family is going to have a lot of sway in this latest Decision and D) someone who was letting it be known that he isn’t making the call until “late-June into August,” by which time the music will have all but stopped on the NBA’s annual musical chairs number.

I take that to mean that LeBron is going to sit back and see what the Lakers do with the money they’re going to be reallocating to other players and whether it brings them closer to contention. If they do that, I think he comes back for another hurrah for substantially less — and they should want him! He’s not only one of (if not the) best players of all time. He was still a massively productive player at 40 and 41. He led the Lakers to a playoff series victory against Houston and was their most dependable player on the court for much of the Oklahoma City series in which they were otherwise completely overmatched.

Turner: Let’s be clear first: LeBron is one of the best free agents in a market that is not strong this offseason. That, alone, puts the Lakers in a precarious situation, because they know it’s a weak market and so do James and his representatives. James’ asking price and what the Lakers are willing to pay him will be the test for both sides. It’s called negotiations and James and his people already are letting the media machine suggest James wants the same $52.3 million he earned last season again. Or if not, James, rightfully, wants to know how the Lakers will build their team if he does take a pay cut. He proved his worth again in the playoffs, leading the Lakers past the Houston Rockets with Doncic out and Reaves playing in just two of those games. The Lakers will have to pay The Man.

Austin Reaves is expected to opt out of his contract to enter unrestricted free agency. The Lakers can bring him back for up to five years and $241 million. Other teams can sign him for up to four years and $178 million. What should the Lakers do?

Austin Reaves controls the ball during the first half of Game 6 against Houston.

(Ashley Landis / AP)

Plaschke: Bring back AR. He got batted around a bit in the playoffs, but he was trying to return too soon from his oblique injury. Judge him by his entire body of work, which meshes perfectly with Luka’s body of work. Give AR what he wants. Bring him back.

Swanson: Unless the Brooklyn Nets or Atlanta Hawks or Memphis Grizzlies want to massively overpay, Austin is coming back. He loves L.A. and L.A. loves him back. But I don’t think anyone thinks Austin is going to get $240 million from the Lakers, it’s more likely going to be a five-year, $200-million deal — that extra year the Lakers can offer being the sweetener in any potential bidding war.

And the Lakers shouldn’t overpay him, because they need to make sure he’s on a tradeable contract — in case they can’t figure out how to overcome Austin’s and Luka’s redundancies as defensively suspect shot-makers. Or if his toughness doesn’t override his unfortunate susceptibility to injury. Or if uneven playoff performances in the future put a lid on the Lakers’ postseason potential. You know, just in case.

Turner: He wants to return and the Lakers want him back. At what price is the question. Reaves earned $13.9 million last season and has a player option for next season at $14.8 million. He’s going to bet on himself and decline that option for a bigger payday. At the very least, Reaves will earn $40 million or more per season. The Lakers know a few teams have their eyes on Reaves. Reaves and his representatives know they can get up to five years and $241 million from the Lakers, and that’s what they want.

If the Lakers and LeBron do not come to an agreement, what other options do they have via trade or trying to sign a star?

Nguyen: The Lakers are trying to remodel the roster to fit around Luka Doncic, which means they need shooting, defense and a perfect pick-and-roll partner. Despite lingering hamstring injuries, Denver’s Peyton Watson, who is a restricted free agent, was an intriguing name, especially with a potential homecoming for the former UCLA Bruin. Detroit’s Jalen Duren is a restricted free agent and coming off an underwhelming postseason run, which could complicate negotiations for the third-team All-NBA player. If Cleveland is willing to part with one of their big men after getting swept out of the Eastern Conference finals, maybe the Lakers could lurk around for a big trade. Come draft night, the Lakers have three first-round picks available to trade: 2026, 2031 and 2033.

Swanson: The Lakers need to target stars in their roles. Most of those guys Thuc Nhi mentioned would be good — though Duren’s playoff nosedive would make me not want him at his going price. For the Lakers, it’s: Shooters wanted, defenders wanted, ATHLETES wanted. Think the New Orleans Pelicans’ Trey Murphy or maybe Herb Jones. And bring back Rui Hachimura, a big-bodied shooter who we trust in the clutch. Build Luka a suitable army, as much as possible, with the cap space and draft picks they’ve been saving for this offseason.

Turner: Here’s the thing: The Lakers can re-sign LeBron and AR and still use the mid-level exception that will be about $15 million to sign a free agent. Denver’s Peyton Watson is a name that has been attached to the Lakers. The problem is he is a restricted free agent and the Nuggets can match any offer he receives. Also, if the Lakers make him an offer, the Nuggets have 48 hours to make a decision. During that waiting period, the Lakers would have cap space tied up and could lose out on other free agents. But word around the NBA is that the Nuggets will shed some salaries so they can pay Watson because they need young, athletic wings.

Then there’s the Deandre Ayton situation. Can the Lakers upgrade at center?

Deandre Ayton defends against Oklahoma City Thunder guard Luguentz Dort during the playoffs.

(Kyle Phillips / Associated Press)

Nguyen: It feels likely that Deandre Ayton will be back on his player option. It’ll be hard for him to get anything better on the open market. But the Lakers definitely need more out of that position. If he comes back with Luka and Austin, “run it back” is starting to give “running in circles” while Oklahoma City and San Antonio run circles around everyone else in the West.

Plaschke: DA is going to take the Lakers’ money, so this feels like a moot point. A better question is, how can they get rid of him once he’s back? His motor doesn’t run at 100% all the time, and at this level, that is inexcusable.

Swanson: Yeah, DA proved he is who we all thought he was: A great talent with wavering focus. But remember, he’s not taking very much of the Lakers’ money; dude is on an $8-million contract. Together he and [Jaxson] Hayes make close to $13 million. Considered the price tag, the Lakers actually got a lot of bang for their buck.

Now, can either of those guys stop Wemby? Of course not. Can anyone on the planet, though? Uh, no. So, sure, the Lakers could spend big to upgrade at center, but it wouldn’t make much of a difference. They’d be better served to save money in the post — and potentially on LeBron — and spend it on wing defenders and shooters, which is where they can hope to counteract the top teams.

Turner: DA underperformed most of the season and was even less impressive in the playoffs against OKC. Teams are not lining up to get him, so he’ll probably pick up his player option of $8.1 million next season. Portland center Robert Williams is an unrestricted free agent that, when healthy, is an upgrade if the Lakers look his way. He earned $13.3 million last season and the Lakers could use the mid-level exception to entice him. He’s a really good defender and the sort of lob threat that Doncic loves to have on his team.

Favorite thing I ate this week

A Vietnamese bar spread: Salt and pepper chicken (top left), salt and pepper tofu (bottom left), baby clams with shrimp chips and sesame crackers (center), Vietnamese BBQ pork skewers (top right) and mango salad (bottom right).

(Thuc Nhi Nguyen / Los Angeles Times)

When I was growing up, my parents had an open door policy. Family members dropped by basically unannounced on random weekdays after work or weekend afternoons to sit around our table, share a few drinks and snack on some bites. In Vietnamese, we call it “nhậu.”

It means “to go drinking,” but just as important as the cold beer is the spread of snacks that kept my uncles and aunts drinking, laughing and hanging out for hours together.

You don’t need a reason to nhậu. You just need friends, food and beer. While my friends helped stock the fridge with drinks this week, I shared some of my Vietnamese favorites. We grazed on salt and pepper chicken, salt and pepper tofu, baby clams with shrimp chips and sesame crackers, BBQ pork skewers and mango salad. It was just like Vietnam except without the oppressive humidity.

In case you missed it

Luka Doncic invests in purchase of Italian basketball team with eye on NBA Europe

Shaikin: For Dodgers, getting to playoffs is not good enough for Mark Walter. For Lakers?

Lakers layoffs part of sweeping changes to business operations

Swanson: NBA’s anti-tanking draft reform might be great for Lakers but is bad for basketball

Lakers hire former Pelicans executive Rohan Ramadas amid front office expansion

Firing Jason Kidd removes the last reminder of the Luka Doncic trade from Dallas

A new board game mocks Shai Gilgeous-Alexander for ‘foul baiting.’ He wants it destroyed

‘Bonkers’ bribery case raises questions about why NBA star Terry Rozier would allegedly risk millions by participating

Until next time…

As always, pass along your thoughts to me at thucnhi.nguyen@latimes.com, and please consider subscribing if you like our work!

Sit at a table with a bunch of actors and it inevitably becomes an impromptu acting class, one in which even the Michelle Pfeiffer is leaning over to observe. At least that’s what happened on a recent afternoon when The Envelope gathered six actors from some of this season’s most talked about television series for its 2026 Emmy Drama Roundtable.

It all began when Pfeiffer (“The Madison”) shared that, while studying acting, she couldn’t grasp the technique created by Sanford Meisner, which trains actors to stop overthinking and encourages them to listen and respond actively to their scene partners. The revelation immediately activated Katherine LaNasa (“The Pitt”), who beckoned Tom Pelphrey (“Task”) to join her in a spontaneous application. (Both had studied the method.)

“I like your jacket,” LaNasa said, locking eyes with Pelphrey.

“You like my jacket?” he replied playfully.

“I do like your jacket … You’re smiling at me.”

The exchange, which had a flirtatious energy, continued for a minute, before Pelphrey and LaNasa emphasized that it’s essentially looking at and listening to what the other person is doing.

“Somehow I was doing it wrong and I didn’t understand why I was doing it wrong,” Pfeiffer said.

This openness and encouragement carried the entire conversation, which brought together Pfeiffer, who plays Stacy Clyburn, a wealthy New York City matriarch whose life is upended by the tragic death of her husband, which compels her to move to Montana; LaNasa, who brings depth to the burnout plaguing steadfast, straight-talking charge nurse Dana Evans; Pelphrey, in his turn as Robbie Prendergast, a sanitation worker who robs drug houses at night to provide for his family; Zahn McClarnon, who stars as Det. Joe Leaphorn, a stoic man battling his past and the loss of his son in “Dark Winds”; Billy Magnussen, who portrays Duncan Park, the eccentric and profit-hungry CEO of a tech company in “The Audacity”; and Karolina Wydra, who plays Zosia, the eternally cheerful liaison to a utopian, hive-minded collective in “Pluribus.” Read on for excerpts from our discussion.

I know all your characters are going through some personal things, but if you were to transform into them for 24 hours, what would you do with that day?

Magnussen: I live with Duncan daily because I think your job as an actor is to check the morality of the character you’re playing. And at the same time, you have to question your own morality, see where you stand, to then deal with that character. Duncan’s a really messed-up guy, and doing it for five months … I was on set 16 hours a day every day. I was with him nonstop. And his temperament and pace was just out of this world. It’s exhausting. So what would I do? I would try to go to a spa, personally, because it’s exhausting.

Wydra: Do you find that it gets blurry after a little while?

Magnussen: I still know who Billy is.

McClarnon: But there’s times where you can’t see that line between [fiction and] reality, just moments. I’ve found myself in those moments where I know the difference, obviously, but I’m so emotionally attached to Deanna Allison, who plays my wife on the show, where I can’t separate them anymore. It’s not like 24 hours, but just moments where I’m like, “Wait a second, where am I? Am I in the show? Is this Joe Leaphorn or is this Zahn?” Usually in the middle of the season, it starts to get a little blurry for me.

Magnussen: Do you think it’s the job, though, to keep it separated? Or do you guys believe in Method acting?

Wydra: Rhea Seehorn, who is on “Pluribus,” who’s incredible, who’s my partner in crime, she gave me a book about Method [acting] — the Method and what really Method was. And it’s not what we think it is. We all do Method acting, but it’s not staying in the character and living in the character forever. … And that’s what people think Method is, is that you never break the character, you take the character home, but it’s not. It’s building a world. Building it, personalizing it.

Pfeiffer: Isn’t that what we all do? Some actors will go live on the ranch. They won’t take a bath for six months. They really take it to another level, which I’m not willing to do … From the minute I commit to something, it’s right there [in my head], I’m thinking about it. It can be a year away, and it’s right here torturing me, which is I think why I’m a bit of a commitment-phobe. My agents always call me “Dr. No” because I know no matter what, even if I’m not consciously aware of it, it’s there just badgering me.

LaNasa: I have found that people want Dana, want my character, in real life. And it’s cool because she’s very comforting to people. But I had an experience recently in New York where this table of girls, they were having some party, and someone said, “Oh, you mean a lot to us.” And I said, “Oh, are they nurses?” Well, some of them are. And then they asked at the end of their dinner would I take a picture. And then one girl told the other people to leave and then she told me her illness journey. And I had breast cancer. She was going through breast cancer. And it was really interesting. And it was the most meaningful that I’d ever felt about taking a character home where it’s like … I think I spoke about my wellness journey because I was playing the role. It ended up coming up through the press. … And for some reason, because I was Dana in someone’s mind, it meant something. And I thought, “Well, this was actually useful. This breaking of that wall between character and person was actually useful.”

Tom, you get the call that you’re cast as Robbie in “Task.” What’s the first thing you do to figure him out?

Pelphrey: When I read the first two episodes, I felt like I understood Robbie’s soul perfectly, but I knew that I would have to break my ass to get that accent right. So that was where I focused most of my conscious energy and discipline and time, was just [on the] technical, just on the accent. The fun part was, because he would be my age, thinking about growing up in Philly at that time and who his heroes would be, having ideas for tattoos, stuff like that. We had more time than you get sometimes before we had to start filming because we knew and then the writers’ strike happened. I had a lot of months to sit with him and emotionally and spiritually. And I’d just become a father. Obviously [with] Robbie, everything he does is for his kids.

Pfeiffer: It changes everything. It opens your heart.

Pelphrey: I was a new person. And I understood him in that regard perfectly and I couldn’t have before. I could have imagined it and now I knew for sure.

For “The Audacity,” Billy, you spoke with some tech folks. What did you come to understand about what they’re after as innovators versus what you’re after as a creative?

Magnussen: Listen, no one’s a villain in their own story. I believe that from Day 1, these people probably came to the Valley with genuine ideas. The genesis of their idea was to connect and really bring something powerful and important to society and people. And, “Oh wait, we’re making a lot of f— money.” And through that lens, you start being blinded by this humanity that’s around you or caring for people around you rather than a bottom line. When you’re in an incestuous pool or in a small bubble, culture is created. And like Facebook, their slogan was “Move fast and break things.” Being a bull in a china shop is not a good idea anywhere, but for some reason that was the culture. People just started doing that more and more and breaking things and breaking things and breaking things. I don’t think they started off that way, but the culture just bred them to become this way. I personally relate that to, I don’t want to say Hollywood or the entertainment world, but we’ve seen the toxicity. And we’ve been slowly trying to filter that out, I think, of Hollywood. But when you have a microclimate kind of culture feeding in toxic behavior and rewarding toxic behavior over and over again, it breeds it. So you start to have to scrape away that cancer. But again, the genesis of all these ideas were pure. We were 6 years old just dreaming to be something or being like, “I could do this.”

Pfeiffer: Pretending to be something else, other than what we were.

Magnussen: I empathize with that. I don’t think people are bad. I just think they’re lost sometimes.

Karolina, your character in “Pluribus,” Zosia, is carrying the weight of almost every person in the world. What do you remember about those discussions with [creator] Vince Gilligan and how he helped you unpack this character and the relationship with Carol, Rhea [Seehorn]’s character?

Wydra: I took a break for five years from acting before Zosia came into my life. I walked away at 39 to have kids and my agent and my manager dropped me and it was really terrifying to also be a woman and turning 40, to have children at that time. When Lou [her second son] was maybe a year-and-a-half [old], I got the itch of like, “God, I miss acting so much. How am I ever going to come back? How am I going to get an opportunity?” And I was 43 at the time and out of nowhere I got an email being like, “Hey, there’s this thing …” from a commercial agent that I was on their roster, but I did not work with them. And they said, “There’s this audition.” And I go, “OK.” I read it and I said, “Who wrote it?” And she said, “Vince Gilligan for Apple TV.” I went, “What? OK.” And I didn’t know anything about the project and it was always my dream to work with Vince from when I saw “Breaking Bad.”

Long story short, I’m here and the whole journey has been so wild, so insane. When I first would talk to him about Zosia, I was like, “God, how am I going to tackle the world and someone that has the highest emotional intelligence, someone that does all these different things? And how do you see the Others? How do you want them to move about the world and the complexities of who they are?” Vince is such a beautiful human being. He’s like, “They’re just happy and content.” You go, “OK, yeah, but … what else?” For me, Zosia is extremely spiritual. Meditation was my key, my go-to to get into that zone of connection to humanity, not in the physical but very spiritual way where, [if] you meditate enough, the ego gets lifted and you truly feel connected, and you feel one with everyone. And the wild thing, I think the greatest gift, was becoming a mother; I understood what it means, unconditional love. Because my heart lives outside my body all the time. And so becoming a mother was a gift to play Zosia, because I unconditionally love Carol. And now, no matter what she throws at me, I just love her, and take care of her, and I want to nurture her.

Michelle, you get the call from Taylor Sheridan, who also created “Landman” and “Yellowstone.” He says he wants to meet with you and he wants to do it on his turf in Texas, not yours. There’s no script. What does someone like Taylor Sheridan say to someone like Michelle Pfeiffer that will get her to agree to the show?

Pfeiffer: Well, he gave me a lot of tequila.

LaNasa: Writing this down: Tequila, check.

Pfeiffer: I got a call that he wanted to meet with me, that he had an idea for something, “But you have to come to Texas.” And I said, “Is there anything? Is there an outline? Is there a paragraph?” “No, no. He wants to explain it to you in person.” I had to stay the night in Fort Worth and then met with him and he gave me tequila, and then after a while I had to stop drinking. He gave me a very rough outline of the show, of the character … She’s been with the love of her life for 50 years. It’s the marriage that we all dream of having. And he dies suddenly, tragically, and … all of a sudden the rug is really just emotionally and psychologically pulled out from underneath them. And it’s how do you rebuild a life and it’s the study of grief. He said that I had committed that night, which I did not. I’d had a few cocktails. We went back and forth a little bit about [the fact] that I really would like to read something. And he said, “Well, I would really like to cast this before I write anything.” Then I realized I wasn’t going to win this battle and I reached out to Helen Mirren [who starred in Sheridan’s “1923”], who I don’t know, but I figured she doesn’t suffer fools and she would give me the truth about what it’s like to do this. She couldn’t have spoken [more] highly of everything. She said the scripts are wonderful. The production is wonderful. And loves Montana. And so I took a leap of faith. I never do that.

What stands out to you about his process versus then working with your husband, David E. Kelley, also a prolific writer, who adapted “Margo’s Got Money Troubles”?

Pfeiffer: I couldn’t be luckier working for two of the most talented and prolific writers in the history of television. [They’re] not that much different. I purposefully didn’t want to bug David because it’s not like we had any hard-and-fast rules about not working together, but we weren’t really actively seeking it out because that can get a little dicey, just looking at it from afar. I really cherish my marriage, and our family, and I just didn’t want to mess it up. I really mostly went to the director and every now and then I might throw a little something his way. And [with] Taylor … I would go through Christina [Alexandra Voros], our director, because he’s just not honestly that accessible because he’s got a bit going on. I personally don’t like to spend my time trying to rewrite things. It’s more interesting to me to try to make something work and then I end up finding something I never would’ve decided. It just takes you to a new place and it’s so much more interesting than anything I would have conjured up.

Zahn, you’re not only the lead in “Dark Winds,” but also an executive producer and directing episodes. I know there was a moment where your character was supposed to shoot someone in the face early on. And you felt strongly, “My character’s not someone that would do this.” Talk to me about leaning into speaking your mind.

McClarnon: There’s not a lot of Native characters on television. The foundation of that character obviously comes from Tony Hillerman’s books. So the foundation was set for that character. And when I got to a point in the season where I’m supposed to kill a man, shoot him in the head in the middle of the desert — first off, I didn’t see that in the books. And I know it’s television and we want drama and all that stuff, but also, to be honest with you, I want Native kids — see, I’m going to cry now — to have something to look up to. We grew up with these stereotypes and we grew up with these tropes of Native Americans. The only one I can really remember that I really looked up to was Will Sampson in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” because he was playing a trope, but he becomes the hero at the end of the story. It’s one of my favorite films. So when it came to that point where the writer said, “He’s going to kill this rich white man in the desert and shoot him in the head,” morally, I think Joe Leaphorn is more than that.

And it was simple. I sat down with the showrunner [John Wirth] and we talked about it, and we went back and forth for about a week. And I’m so glad that I have access to somebody like that. I have access where they’re not telling me, “No, this is the way it’s written. This is what you’re going to do.” So yeah, we decided not to shoot the guy in the head, where I’d just leave him out in the desert to fend for himself.

Katherine, you’ve talked to nurses and medical professionals in the making of “The Pitt,” but you were also a patient during your breast cancer journey, interacting with them a lot from the other side. What is something that they’ve told you or even something you observed in that time that really spoke to you about what they’re going through on the day to day in these jobs?

LaNasa: It’s funny, I’d always wanted to work with John Wells. I go through this period of all this unemployment, and then I get this job for John Wells. I had had cancer a year before and then had complications up to like six months before. It wasn’t until I got to the emergency room set that I was like, “Oh, this whole period … ” — the spirituality of that. I really believe that we need to be grateful for our life while we’re living it, no matter what’s going on. Because I still have my children, and I have nature, and I have my husband, and cooking, and my dog, and so many wonderful things. And I was really trying to hold onto that. It’s always this idea that maybe something is for a reason or whatever — now I’m going to cry. The fact that that was so purposeful, that I understood so deeply what it was to be a patient, what it was to be terrified going into the emergency department. I also understood how much it mattered when a nurse took a little extra time and was a little bit kind.

Pfeiffer: You’re going to make me cry.

LaNasa: And there was one particular nurse — I had my cancer, went through my radiation and then [went] back and forth, back and forth [to the ER]. And there was a week, the second trip to the ER [they thought I might have multiple sclerosis]. “Now do I have MS on top of having had cancer?” And I had a breakdown in the ER. And she’s like, “Listen, first six months after cancer are really bumpy, and it’s not going to stay like this. Do you need an Ativan?”

Magnussen: Did not see that turn.

LaNasa: It was that human touch. Or when they would come and give you a warm blanket or something. There’s a nurse, Kathy Garvin at County, who told me she wouldn’t do the job that she does being the [emergency department] charge nurse if it wasn’t in a county hospital. She wants to do that hard work for people that really need her. For the most underprivileged, for the unhoused. And I try to honor that in the story and to just bring that to life — their generosity and their humility.

The Envelope’s 2026 Emmy Drama Roundtable: From left, Zahn McClarnon, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tom Pelphrey, Katherine LaNasa, Billy Magnussen and Karolina Wydra.

There’s a lot of discussion in the industry right now about runaway production and can L.A. rebuild and what’s lost. I’m curious how you feel about this topic.

Magnussen: I live in Georgia and … one of our biggest exports as Americans is our culture. And if we just keep it isolated to Hollywood, I think we lose out at expressing everything we are as Americans.

McClarnon: We shoot on the Tesuque Pueblo. There’s 19 pueblos in New Mexico. We have taken over their old casino and we’ve converted it into a soundstage. We use their back lot. We obviously help out the tribe with renting the place out. And so I like shooting in New Mexico and supporting the local community, especially local Natives.

Pfeiffer: I think there’s room for all of it. We shot [a movie] in London that took place in Los Angeles. And it’s ridiculous that our entire industry has left. Los Angeles is really hurting. And a lot of people are hurting. All those jobs, all of those restaurants where people used to eat, people used to shop. And I think to not give the same sort of tax incentives that other states are doing — look, if it takes place in Georgia, you should go to Georgia. But I think Los Angeles was really built on the movie [industry].

LaNasa: I have a 34-year-old and a 12-year-old. I remember with my 34-year-old, even just being a young, starting-out mother, I would be like, “Well, I’m not going out of town. I have a child.” I would never go do a TV show out of town. I had a kid and the kid was in school and I needed to provide consistency for that child. And then with my second one, that was impossible. We would just not have been able to work. But it’s really hard on families. We are actors and we’ve come here to pursue the industry. We’ve moved here and we’ve risked something … L.A., for all of its problems, is a city of dreamers. It’s a city of people that came to pursue their art. And I am one of those people. And so in a way, I wasn’t really a citizen like the other citizens of Atlanta. I was outside. I didn’t have my community.

Magnussen: I know, but that’s the thing I have an issue with is this idea that, “It’s only there.”

Pelphrey: I’ll say this. Love that we get to film all over our beautiful country. Would love to keep the jobs in this country. That would be the nice part. Because when everybody’s like, “Oh great, we can go to Belarus or London.” Guess what? All of us get to go. Our crew doesn’t get to go — the people that we know that we need, that we work with, that we make these things with. We get to go wherever the f— we want, actors, directors, but the crew doesn’t.

COLLEGE STATION, Texas — As Augie Lopez trotted around the bases late Monday night, the small contingent of USC fans could finally be heard at Blue Bell Park. With one towering blast to right field, the Trojans’ designated hitter silenced Texas A&M’s rowdy 12th Man.

Lopez’s three-run home run helped push the Trojans over Texas A&M 7-1 to reach the NCAA super regional for the first time in 21 years.

Lopez silenced most of the sellout crowd of 7,042, making it easy to hear USC fans serenading him during the College Station Regional Final.

“Augie! Augie! Augie!” USC fans chanted after Lopez returned to the dugout. After the win, he was named the regional’s most outstanding player.

It took a while, but the offense showed up to propel USC (47-16) to the Chapel Hill Super Regional against North Carolina.

Until Lopez’s blast, Texas A&M right-hander Clayton Freshcorn had slowed down a USC offense that had scored 48 runs combined while winning three consecutive games out of the losers’ bracket, including 14 on Sunday night against Texas A&M (41-16), to force the winner-take-all final.

USC right-hander Grant Govel, who had thrown 89 pitches over 5⅔ innings on Friday, retired the first seven Aggies before Bear Harrison hit a solo home run to left-center field in the third.

The Aggies ran out a threat in the fourth. Chris Hacopian drew a leadoff walk. Ben Royo kept the inning alive with a two-out single to left. Jorian Wilson followed with a single to shallow right-center field. Second baseman Abbrie Covarrubias was positioned perfectly to field the ball in the outfield, but his throw to first wasn’t in time.

Fortunately for the Trojans, Adrian Lopez alertly threw home to easily nail Hacopian by several feet to end the inning.

Covarrubias tied the score 1-1 with an RBI single to left-center in the fifth. One out later, Covarrubias stole second. Augie Lopez broke the tie with a single to right-center.

Two innings later, Lopez crushed his three-run blast.

COLLEGE STATION, Texas — Two days after failing to capitalize off numerous scoring opportunities against Texas State, USC battered the Bobcats early and often to remain alive in the College Station Regional.

Third baseman Kevin Takeuchi set the tone with a grand slam in the first inning as USC beat Texas State 15-4 Sunday afternoon before a crowd of 6,885 at Blue Bell Park

With the victory, the Trojans (45-16) advance to the regional final against Texas A&M on Sunday night. The Trojans must beat the Aggies to force a winner-take-all game Monday at a time to be determined.

The Trojans avenged the 5-4 loss they suffered against Texas State on Friday night in the regional opener. In that loss, USC stranded 13 runners, struck out 12 times and left men in scoring position in each of the first seven innings.

The Trojans have been on a tear ever since. They crushed Lamar 19-6 on Saturday and then battered Texas State. The Trojans wasted no time jumping on the Bobcats in the rematch.

Abbrie Covarrubias led off with a single. Texas State sophomore right-hander Cade Smith then hit Adrian Lopez with a pitch and walked Augie Lopez to load the bases. Takeuchi followed with his grand slam to center.

“It just helped me pitch with freedom,” USC freshman starter Diego Velazquez said of the grand slam. “A pitcher always feels good when you’re in the lead, especially with a grand slam. It just keeps everyone positive, so it definitely helped very much.”

Velazquez gave up two runs on three hits and three walks with three strikeouts in 3 1/3 innings. He was relieved by fellow freshman right-hander Gavin Lauridsen, who failed to retire a batter while giving up two runs on two hits and two walks. Freshman left-hander Sax Matson then pitched 3 ⅔ scoreless innings of relief to earn the victory.

Isaac Cadena made it 6-0 in the third with a two-run home run to right field. With one on and two outs in the fourth, Augie Lopez hit an RBI single in the fourth to give the Trojans a 7-0 lead. Reliever Alec Beversdorf then walked Takeuchi and hit Cadena to load the bases. Jack Basseer drew a walk to plate another run to give USC an 8-0 lead, prompting Texas State to make another call to the bullpen.

Texas State countered with four runs in the bottom of the fourth, highlighted by Coy DeFury’s two-run home run.

Lauridsen relieved Velazquez with one out in the fourth, but he couldn’t retire a batter. Brady Boles greeted Lauridsen with a single up the middle. After Jackson Cotton walked, Manny Salas cut USC’s lead to 8-3 with an RBI single through the right side.

Clayton Namken followed with a walk, prompting USC coach Andy Stankiewicz to call on Matson, who took over with the bases loaded.

“I felt good about Diego on the mound here being able to compete and give us quality innings, and he did that,” Stankiewicz said. “I think he’d probably say he wanted to give us a little bit more, but he gave us three quality innings.

“And then Sax Matson came in and did a fantastic job. He came in and made some big, big-time pitches to get us out. It could have been a little dicey there.”

Both teams were retired in order in the fifth, but USC’s offense got back on track with a run in the sixth, two in the seventh and four more in the eighth.

“I think it just shows the type of bond we have all together,” Velazquez said. “We’re all pulling the rope for each other. I think it just shows how strong we are and how we’re able to pull off miracles and stuff.”

R&B singer Peabo Bryson, well known for his duets from beloved Disney classics “Aladdin” and “Beauty and the Beast,” suffered a stroke over the weekend.

A representative for the artist told The Times that the singer is undergoing treatment but provided no details about his condition.

“Two-time Grammy Award-winning singer, songwriter and balladeer, Peabo Bryson — the voice behind the Oscar-winning Disney songs ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘A Whole New World’ — has suffered a stroke and is currently under medical care,” the representative said in an emailed statement. “At this time, the family requests privacy as they navigate this deeply personal moment together. The thoughts, prayers and love of friends and fans are welcomed and deeply appreciated.”

Bryson recently performed a concert with Jeffrey Osborne at Trilith Live in Fayetteville, Ga., in early May. The event was a standalone performance, apart from the crooner’s Golden Touch tour, which he announced last year, amid his celebration of 50 years in the music industry. In April, the Grammy winner turned 75 and posted photos on Instagram from a birthday bash showing him surrounded by friends and family. In early May, he posted a video of his son, Kitt, performing a Michael Jackson dance routine, writing “Super proud Dad moment from last nights Gig in Atlanta.”

Soul and funk band Maze, which was fronted by the late Frankie Beverly, shared some love for Bryson on social media.

“The entire Maze The Music Forever family sends our heartfelt prayers, love, and support to Peabo Bryson during this time of healing,” read the post. “Peabo’s extraordinary voice, timeless artistry, and unwavering contributions to music have touched millions around the world. We pray for God’s healing hand, renewed strength, comfort, and a full recovery.”

Serena Williams is returning to competitive tennis after all.

Months after insisting on social media, “Omg yall I’m NOT coming back,” the 23-time Grand Slam singles champion announced Monday that she’ll play professionally for the first time in almost four years at the HSBC Championships at the Queen’s Club in London.

Williams, 44, has been given a wild-card entry into the doubles draw of the WTA 500 event, which begins June 8.

“Queen’s Club feels like the perfect place to begin this next chapter,” Williams said in a statement released by the tournament. “Grass has given me some of the most meaningful moments of my career, and I’m excited to be back competing on one of the sport’s most iconic stages.”

Williams teased the announcement earlier Monday by posting a video on social media that featured her phone‘s notifications going off constantly while she seemingly was practicing on the court.

“Good news travels fast,” Williams wrote on the post.

Tournament director Laura Robson said during TNT Sports UK’s coverage of the French Open on Monday that Williams’ playing partner will be Canadian teenager Victoria Mboko, who is ranked No. 9 in WTA singles. Williams has won 14 Grand Slam titles and three Olympic gold medals in doubles with her sister Venus Williams as her partner.

It is not clear whether Williams will participate in any other events. Wimbledon, a Grand Slam event Williams won seven times in singles, begins June 29 in London.

Williams’ last professional match was a loss to Australian Ajla Tomljanovic in the third round of the U.S. Open on Sept. 2, 2002. She registered as retired with the International Tennis Integrity Agency the next day.

Last December, however, Williams reentered the agency’s drug-testing pool. According to the ITIA website, retired players “may not return to sanctioned events unless they have made themselves available for out-of-competition testing for at least six months prior to the event in question.”

The move led to much speculation about a possible Williams return, leading to her social media post denying any such intentions.

Martina Navratilova, the 18-time Grand Slam champion who is the oldest woman to win a tour-level singles match — she was 47 when she won a Wimbledon match in 2004 — expressed excitement for Williams’ return.

“Serena brought the game to another level and it is incredible for the sport that she’s pushing the boundaries and coming back,” Navratilova said in a statement released by the WTA. “To many of the younger players, they never had the opportunity to play her; some may have never watched her on television, so this will be a new and exciting experience.”

Jason Bateman could snag limited series Emmy nominations for his lead role as a deep-in-debt barman on Netflix’s “Black Rabbit” and supporting role as a sexually adventurous weatherman on HBO’s “DTF St. Louis.” Drawing more than one nomination in a year has been the norm for Bateman.

14

Bateman’s previous Emmy nominations encompass acting, directing and producing.

1

His lone Emmy win came in 2019, for directing an episode of his Netflix crime drama “Ozark.”

21

The former child actor’s first nomination, as lead of the Fox (later Netflix) comedy “Arrested Development,” came in 2005. Bateman’s adult “comeback” has lasted 21 years and counting.

4

Times he has received multiple nominations in a year, most often for acting in, directing and producing “Ozark.”

2

“Black Rabbit” and “DTF St. Louis” would mark his second time receiving acting nominations for different shows in the same year.

2020

Bateman competed for drama lead for “Ozark” and guest actor for HBO’s “The Outsider.”

0-for-7

Bateman is overdue for an acting Emmy. His brilliant straight-man work in “Arrested Development” lost out to Emmy juggernauts Tony Shalhoub (“Monk”) in 2005 and Jim Parsons (“The Big Bang Theory”) in 2013.

3-for-13

The Actor Awards have been kinder: Bateman won three lead actor statuettes for “Ozark.”

2026

The guilds already have spoken on “Black Rabbit,” with Bateman receiving Actor, DGA and PGA nominations.

5

Also a producer on “DTF St. Louis,” Bateman has a shot at five Emmy nominations this year.