white house

SAN FRANCISCO — While united against a common political enemy in the White House, the California Democratic Party remains deeply divided over how to address the state’s affordability crisis and who is best suited to lead the state in this turbulent era of President Trump.

Those fractures revealed themselves during the party’s annual convention in California’s liberal epicenter, San Francisco, where a slate of Democrats running to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched very different visions for the state.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and wealthy financier Tom Steyer were among the top candidates who swung left, with Porter vowing to enact free childcare and tuition-free college and Steyer backing a proposed new tax on billionaires. Both candidates also support universal healthcare.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, the newest major candidate to enter the race, hewed toward partisan middle ground, chastising leaders in Sacramento for allowing the state budget to balloon without tangible improvements to housing affordability, homelessness and public schools.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), a vociferous critic and constant target of the Trump administration, emerged from the convention with the greatest momentum after receiving the most votes for the California Democratic Party’s endorsement, with 24% of delegates backing him.

“The next governor has two jobs: one, to keep Donald Trump and ICE out of our streets and out of our lives, and two, to lower your costs on healthcare, on housing, on utilities,” Swalwell said. “Californians need a fighter and protector, and for the last 10 years, I’ve gone on offense against the worst president ever.”

Still, none of the top Democrats running for governor received the 60% vote needed to capture the endorsement, indicating just how uncertain the race remains just months away from the June primary.

Betty Yee, a former state controller and party vice chair, placed second in the endorsement vote with 17%; former U.S. Health and Human Services Sec. Xavier Becerra had 14%; and Steyer had 13%. The remaining candidates had single-digit levels of support from among the more than 2,300 delegates who cast endorsement votes.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) takes a selfie with supporters during the California Democratic Party’s annual convention at the Moscone Center in San Francisco on Saturday.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Despite anxiety and infighting over the governor’s race, many in the party agreed that the most effective way to fight Trump is to win back control of the House in November’s midterm elections.

“We’re going to win the House. There’s absolutely no question we will win the House,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at a Young Dems event on Friday evening. “We’re going to protect the election, we’re going to win the election, and we’re going to tell people the difference that we will make.”

Thousands of delegates, party allies and guests attended the weekend California Democratic Party convention at Moscone Center in the South of Market neighborhood. The gathering included a tribute to Pelosi as she serves her final term.

Party leaders did coalesce behind one of the Democrats running to replace Pelosi, Scott Wiener, a liberal state senator who is vying be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

The convention comes as party members and leaders continue to soul search after Trump’s second election. California remains a stronghold of opposition to the president, but its next governor will also have to face a growing cost-of-living crisis in a state where utility costs keep climbing and the median single-family home price is more than double what it is nationally.

Under growing pressure, the candidates for governor went on the offensive at the party gathering. Candidates sniped at each other — though rarely by name — for being too rich, too beholden to special interests or for voting in the past in support of ICE and border wall funding.

While largely panned by delegates who tend to lean further left than the typical California Democratic voter, Mahan has jolted the race by quickly raising millions from tech industry leaders and targeting moderate voters with a message of getting the state “back to basics.”

“We are at risk of losing the trust of the people of California if we don’t hold ourselves accountable for delivering better results on public education, home building, public safety,” Mahan said. “We’re not getting the outcomes we need for the dollars we’re spending.”

Mahan has raised more than $7.3 million since entering the contest in late January, according to campaign finance disclosures of large contributions. Many of the donors are tied to the tech industry, such as Y Combinator, Doordash, Amazon and Thumbtack. Billionaire Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso has also contributed the maximum allowed to Mahan’s campaign.

Technology businessman Dennis Bress, from Newport Beach, wears a pin supporting Planned Parenthood and a Yes on Proposition 50 shirt at the California Democratic Party convention at the Moscone Center on Friday in San Francisco.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Other candidates have raised concerns about the cash infusion, particularly Steyer, who has already dropped more than $37 million into his self-funded campaign and is pitching himself as a “billionaire who will take on the billionaires.”

“Here’s the thing about big donors: If you take their money, you have to take their calls,” Steyer said during his floor speech.

Delegates and party leaders said California’s next governor will have to continue leading the state’s aggressive opposition to Trump while dealing with the issues at home.

“I think people want a fighter,” said Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who represents Porter’s former congressional district and has endorsed her in the governor’s race. “They want someone who’s going to stand up to Donald Trump but also fight to help average people who feel like they’re getting a raw deal in today’s America.”

Several of the candidates made the case that they could do both.

During her speech, Porter held up a whiteboard — her signature prop when grilling CEOs and Trump administration officials while she served in Congress — with “F— Trump” written on it.

“I’ll stand up to Trump and his cronies just like I did in Congress,” she said. “But this election for governor is about far more than defeating Trump.”

Porter, a law professor at UC Irvine, called on Democrats to “send a message about democracy by rejecting billionaires and corporate-backed candidates.” She also rolled out a long list of “true affordability measures” including free child care, free tuition at public universities, and single-payer healthcare, though she did not specify how she would pay for them.

Fighting back against Trump is “the floor,” said 29-year-old Gregory Hutchins, an academic labor researcher from Riverside. “We need to go higher than the floor — what can you do for the people of California? We all recognize that this is a beautiful and wonderful state, but it is very difficult to afford living here.”

Even some delegates — often the most politically active members of a party — have yet to make up their minds in the governor’s race. Nearly 9% opted not to endorse a particular candidate at the convention.

“You want that perfect candidate. You want that like, yes, this is the person,” said Sean Frame, a school labor organizer from Sacramento who is running for state Senate. “And I don’t feel like there is one candidate for me that fits all that.”

For all the focus on affordability, there were undertones of growing frustration from even reliable Democratic allies over a lack of tangible results in a state where the median home price is more than $823,000. SEIU California president David Huerta said workers have “been deferring our power to elected leadership” for too long.

“I think we need to be the ones who set the agenda and hold them accountable to that agenda,” Huerta said. “And they need to be leading from the direction of working people.”

It’s a constant battle with Democrats at state and local levels to get fair pay, said Mary Grace Barrios, who left a career in insurance to take care of her disabled adult daughter.

Barrios makes $19 an hour as an in-home caregiver to other clients in Los Angeles County. When Newsom signed a law to raise wages for most healthcare workers to $25 an hour by 2030, in-home support staff like Barrios were not included.

“It’s so important that we be given the respect and pay we need to live because we can’t live on that amount,” she said, adding that it feels like a “constant attack by people in our own party that we supported, that forgot us.”

“As citizens, you get what you vote for, right? So we have to do it. We have to make the change.”

Reporting from Washington — Sen. Elizabeth Warren took the first major step toward a White House run Monday, announcing a presidential exploratory committee as she attempts to redefine populism for the left in the age of Donald Trump.

“These aren’t cracks that families are falling into. They’re traps. America’s middle class is under attack,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in a 4½-minute video posted online. “Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie, and they enlisted politicians to cut ’em a fatter slice.”

Aside from a few images of Trump and polarizing figures in his administration, Warren’s largely biographical video steered clear of directly taking on the president. Instead, it echoed some of the complaints that brought him to power by asserting that “corruption is poisoning our democracy” and that government has “become a tool for the wealthy and well-connected.”

Warren is the biggest name to take a formal step into a race that is expected to feature a historically large primary field for a party that is eager to displace Trump in the White House.

A fundraising juggernaut who was among the first to tap into the anger of a resurgent left, Warren figures to be a major factor in the Democratic primary with a significant chance of winning the nomination.

Some detractors say Warren would have a hard time in a general election, however, both because some voters see her as too far to the left and because the former Harvard University law professor’s style can appear pedantic and lecturing to some ears. She has also been dogged by controversy over her thin claims of Native American ancestry.

But she has proved adept at capturing the frustrations and aspirations of many on the left. She’s skilled at putting core beliefs about the need for government regulation and income distribution into simple terms on videos that go viral. And she has successfully used her position on Senate committees to grill administration figures from both parties whom she has accused of going easy on big banks and other powerful players — attracting accusations of grandstanding from detractors.

“I’m in this fight all the way,” she said at a Monday afternoon news conference in Cambridge, Mass., using her favorite word, “fight,” multiple times.

The rhetoric puts her at the forefront of an intraparty debate over how best to take on the president. Warren believes in a combative approach based on a left-wing alternative to his right-wing populism.

She has long positioned herself as a fighter — years ago saying she had “thrown rocks” at those in the wrong. She relishes an image as a leader who will not back down, even in occasional battles against her own party.

“She was a pioneer of a lot of the populist themes that are coursing through the veins of Democratic primary voters, and she’s able to channel their frustration at the current administration,” said Colin Reed, a consultant who has run a campaign against Warren and later headed a Republican opposition research group.

Like Trump, Warren attempts to channel the anger in the middle class over the decline in employment in the nation’s industrial base and stagnant incomes for a large share of American workers.

Unlike Trump, she favors more government regulation and spending — including Medicare for all — to lift more people from poverty. She also opposes him on the long list of issues of cultural and ethnic diversity that have become litmus tests for both parties.

Warren, a policy wonk, is also far different from Trump in governing style and temperament.

Other potential candidates say a more uplifting message is needed to counter Trump’s grievance-filled politics. Warren, asked about her polarizing reputation on Monday, was unapologetic, saying those unhappy with her are the drug companies, big banks and others who benefit from the status quo.

In announcing on New Year’s Eve, Warren jumped ahead of several Senate colleagues who are expected to join the race soon, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas and former Vice President Joe Biden are also among the long list of Democrats considering the race.

Warren, who is completing her first term in the Senate, is 69, younger than Trump and other potential front-runners such as Biden and Sanders, but far from the generational change some in her party are urging.

Her early entry into the 2020 primary race, on the last day of 2018 calendar year, demonstrates the eagerness of potential candidates to stake a claim on party support, fundraising and public attention.

She is entering the primaries at a time when the Democratic Party is not only grappling with its economic message; it is also trying to come to grips with its increasing diversity. Hillary Clinton’s failure to energize enough voters of color was one of many reasons she could not defeat Trump, and many Democrats believe that they must make a stronger appeal to minority voters.

Warren, whose base of support in Massachusetts is largely white, signaled her intent to court minority voters in her launch video, which showed clips of her marching in an LGBTQ parade in a feather boa and attacking Trump’s divisiveness while pointing to the harsher effects that economic inequality has had on people of color.

Trump has gone after her repeatedly, mocking her claims to Native American heritage with the nickname “Pocahontas.”

In a Fox interview Monday, Trump continued to belittle her, saying he would “love to run against her” and attacking her mental fitness by saying “you’d have to ask her psychiatrist” whether she could win the election.

Warren’s attempts to put the Native American controversy to rest, including a DNA test this year that showed trace genetic links to Native American peoples, have largely fallen flat, drawing criticism not only from Republicans but prominent Native Americans as well.

Several reviews of her records, including an exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe, have found that her ethnicity claims played no role in her hiring at a series of law school jobs, including at Harvard.

“Her message is a resonant one, but in terms of the messenger there are questions that weren’t there a few months ago,” said Tracy Sefl, a Democratic consultant who has been involved in many presidential races.

Sefl called the imperative to defeat Trump in 2020 “almost beyond description” and said “Democrats will be less inclined to choose a messenger who’s been called into question.”

Warren has tried to counter another potential liability — her image as part of the coastal elite — by telling her life story, which she also highlighted in Monday’s launch video.

She grew up in Oklahoma to middle-class parents. Her mother took a job at Sears when her father was unable to work following a heart attack.

A champion high school debater, she was able to make it to college and then law school while also starting a family.

Those early struggles fit within her economic argument that middle- and working-class families are often left without a safety net in the face of healthcare emergencies and other setbacks.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the Senate, Warren can’t claim many legislative accomplishments, but has succeeded in commanding attention.

She has kept financial regulation at the center of her message, the issue that brought her to prominence as an academic and allowed her to first make her mark on national politics while serving as a special advisor in the Obama administration. In that role, she advocated for and helped establish a consumer protection agency as part of the financial services and banking overhaul passed in the aftermath of the financial collapse.

Warren, a longtime critic of Wall Street, was passed over by President Obama to lead the agency on a permanent basis after Republicans made it clear they would fight her nomination. She ran for the Senate instead, winning her first term in 2012.

Despite hostility toward her policies from the financial industry, which contributes heavily to many candidates in both parties, Warren has been an especially strong fundraiser since entering politics. In her first Senate race, she raised what were then record levels of donations in both small online contributions and larger sums from the party’s big players.

She is a large draw on the campaign trail, where she gestures emphatically as she talks about what she characterizes as the “rigged” system that favors the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of middle-class people.

Warren stayed out of the 2016 race, believing Clinton was unbeatable in the primary. Since then, other contenders for the White House, including Sanders, have captured much of the attention and energy that had been directed toward her.

Questions intensified about whether her moment had passed after signs of somewhat tepid support cropped up in her home state this year.

She easily won reelection against an unknown candidate, drawing 60% of the vote, but her vote total was lower than that of Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, and polls showed the majority of Massachusetts voters did not want her to make a presidential run. Many Democrats preferred former Gov. Deval Patrick, who recently bowed out.

The Boston Globe editorial board, one of the most liberal in the country, urged her to reconsider a bid, saying she had become a “divisive figure” on the national stage.

“There’s no shame in testing the waters and deciding to stay on the beach,” the board wrote.

Follow the latest news of the Trump administration on Essential Washington »

noah.bierman@latimes.com

Twitter: @noahbierman

ATLANTA — He is weighing military action against Iran, leading an aggressive immigration crackdown, and teasing a federal takeover of state elections.

But on Thursday, President Trump’s team insists he will focus on the economy when he visits battleground Georgia in a trip designed to help boost Republicans’ political standing heading into the high-stakes midterm elections.

“Georgia is obviously a very important state to the president and to the Republican Party,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on the eve of his visit. Trump’s remarks in Georgia, she said, will highlight “his efforts to make life affordable for working people.”

Trump’s destination in Georgia suggests he has something else on his mind too. He’s heading to a congressional district previously represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former supporter who resigned in January after feuding with Trump. There’s a special election to replace her on March 10.

The White House has long said Trump would focus more on the economy, and he frequently complains that he doesn’t get enough credit for it. But recent months have been dominated by other issues, including deadly clashes during deportation efforts in Minneapolis.

As a reminder of his divided attention, Trump is scheduled to begin Thursday with one of his passion projects. He’s gathering representatives from some of the more than two dozen countries that have joined his Board of Peace, a diplomatic initiative to supplant the United Nations.

False claims of voter fraud

The Georgia visit comes less than a month after federal agents seized voting records and ballots from Fulton County, home to the state’s largest collection of Democrats.

Trump has long seen Georgia as central to his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen by Democrats and President Biden, a fabrication that he reiterated Wednesday during a White House reception on Black History Month.

“We won by millions of votes but they cheated,” Trump said.

Audits, state officials, courts and Trump’s own former attorney general have all rejected the idea of widespread problems that could have altered the election.

Some Republicans are now pushing for Georgia’s State Election Board, which has a Trump-aligned majority, to take control of elections in Fulton County, a step enabled by a controversial state law passed in 2021. But it’s unclear if or when the board will act.

Leavitt, in the White House, said Wednesday that Trump was “exploring his options” when it comes to a potential executive order he teased on social media over the weekend designed to address voter fraud.

Trump described Democrats as “horrible, disingenuous CHEATERS” in the post, which is pinned to the top of his social media account. He also said that Republicans should feature such claims “at the top of every speech.”

Leavitt, meanwhile, insisted Trump would be focusing on affordability and the economy.

Greene has not gone quiet

Trump may be distracted by fresh attacks from Greene, once among the president’s most vocal allies in Congress and now one of his loudest conservative critics.

In a social media post ahead of Trump’s visit, Greene noted that the White House and Republican leaders met earlier in the week to develop an effective midterm message. She suggested they were “on the struggle bus” and blamed them for health insurance costs that ballooned this year.

“Approximately 75,000 households in my former district had their health insurance double or more on January 1st of this year because the ACA tax credits expired and Republicans have absolutely failed to fix our health insurance system that was destroyed by Obamacare,” she said. “And you can call me all the petty names you want, I don’t worship a man. I’m not in a cult.”

Early voting has already begun in the special election to replace Greene, and the leading Republican candidates have fully embraced Trump.

Trump recently endorsed Clay Fuller, a district attorney who prosecutes crimes in four counties. Fuller described Trump’s endorsement as “rocket fuel” for his candidacy in a weekend interview and vowed to maintain an America First agenda even if he remains in Congress after Trump is no longer president.

Other candidates include Republican former state Sen. Colton Moore, who made a name for himself with a vociferous attack on Trump’s prosecution in Georgia. Moore, the favorite of many far-right activists, said he’s been in communication with Trump even after Trump endorsed Fuller, calling the choice “unfortunate.”

“I think he’s the greatest president of our lifetimes,” Moore said.

The top Democrat in the race is Shawn Harris, who unsuccessfully ran against Greene in 2024. Democrats voice hope for an upset, but the district is rated as the most Republican district in Georgia by the Cook Political Report.

Amy and Peoples write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — In another era, the scene would have been unremarkable. But in President Trump’s Washington, it’s become increasingly rare.

Sitting side by side on stage were Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat. They traded jokes and compliments instead of insults and accusations, a brief interlude of cordiality in a cacophony of conflict.

Stitt and Moore are the leaders of the National Governors Association, one of a vanishing few bipartisan institutions left in American politics. But it may be hard for the organization, which is holding its annual conference this week, to maintain its reputation as a refuge from polarization.

Trump has broken with custom by declining to invite all governors to the traditional White House meeting and dinner. He has called Stitt, the NGA’s chair, a “RINO,” short for Republican in name only, and continued to feud with Moore, the group’s vice chair, by blaming him for a sewage spill involving a federally regulated pipeline.

The break with tradition reflects Trump’s broader approach to his second term. He has taken a confrontational stance toward some states, withholding federal funds or deploying troops over the objections of local officials.

With the Republican-controlled Congress unwilling to limit Trump’s ambitions, several governors have increasingly cast themselves as a counterweight to the White House.

“Presidents aren’t supposed to do this stuff,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said about the expansion of executive power in recent administrations. “Congress needs to get their act together. And stop performing for TikTok and actually start doing stuff. That’s the flaw we’re dealing with right now.”

Cox, a Republican, said “it is up to the states to hold the line.”

Moore echoed that sentiment in an interview with The Associated Press.

“People are paying attention to how governors are moving, because I think governors have a unique way to move in this moment that other people just don’t,” he said.

Still, governors struck an optimistic tone in panels and interviews Wednesday. Stitt said the conference is “bigger than one dinner at the White House.” Moore predicted “this is going to be a very productive three days for the governors.”

“Here’s a Republican and Democrat governor from different states that literally agree on probably 80% of the things. And the things we disagree on we can have honest conversations on,” Stitt said while sitting beside Moore.

Tensions over the guest list for White House events underscored the uncertainty surrounding the week. During the back-and-forth, Trump feuded with Stitt and said Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis were not invited because they “are not worthy of being there.”

Whether the bipartisan tone struck Wednesday evening can endure through the week — and beyond — remains an open question.

“We can have disagreements. In business, I always want people around me arguing with me and pushing me because that’s where the best ideas come from,” said Stitt. “We need to all have these exchange of ideas.”

Cappelletti and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

Two golfers in Washington, D.C., have sued the federal government to try to prevent the Trump administration from overhauling a more than 100-year-old public golf course, accusing the administration of violating environmental laws and polluting a park that is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The suit, which also claims the administration is violating a congressional act governing the property, is the latest in a series of legal battles challenging President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to put his mark on public spaces in the nation’s capital, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which he ordered closed for renovation.

At the end of last year, a group of preservationists filed a similar lawsuit seeking to prevent the administration from demolishing the East Wing of the White House in order to build a ballroom — a project estimated to cost $400 million.

Trump, an avid golfer, also plans to renovate a military golf course just outside Washington that has been used for decades by past presidents.

The complaint filed against the Department of the Interior on Friday says that the Trump administration’s reconstruction of East Potomac Park — which includes the East Potomac Golf Course — would violate the congressional act that created the park in 1897. The act established the park for the “recreation and the pleasure of the people.”

The golf course has been recognized on the National Register of Historic Places in part for its efforts to racially integrate in the 1940s. Municipal golf courses make up only 18% of courses in America.

“East Potomac Golf Links is a testament to what’s possible with public land and why public spaces matter,” said Washington resident and plaintiff Dave Roberts. “It deserves better than becoming a dumping ground for waste and yet another private playground for the privileged and powerful.”

The lawsuit came after the Trump administration in December ended a lease agreement the nonprofit National Links Trust held for East Potomac and two other golf courses in Washington. The Interior Department said it did so because the nonprofit hadn’t implemented required capital improvements and failed to meet the terms of the lease.

The Interior Department press office said in an email Friday that it doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but that it would “ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable and accessible for people visiting the greatest capital city in the world which is in line with President Trump’s agenda.”

The White House also didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment Friday evening.

Construction on the East Potomac course has already begun, according to the lawsuit. In October, the National Park Service began dumping debris from the demolition of the East Wing of the White House onto the golf course, the complaint said, raising concerns that the materials could contain contaminants that could pollute the air.

As a result, the plaintiffs argued, the administration also violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by failing to consider the harmful environmental impacts of the project.

The National Links Trust said in December it was “devastated” by the decision to terminate the lease and defended its management of the courses.

The trust said that $8.5 million had gone toward capital improvements at the courses and that rounds played and revenue had more than doubled in its tenure managing the courses. It also said the termination of the lease jeopardized hundreds of local jobs.

The nonprofit has agreed to keep managing the courses for the time being, but long-term renovations will stop.

The first 18 holes of the East Potomac Park Golf Course were built from 1918 to 1923.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu contributed to this report.

California and three other states sued the Trump administration Wednesday over its plans to slash $600 million from programs designed to prevent and track the spread of HIV, including in the LGBTQ+ community — arguing the move is based on “political animus and disagreements about unrelated topics such as federal immigration enforcement, political protest, and clean energy.”

“This action is lawless,” attorneys for California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota said in a complaint filed in federal court in Illinois against several Trump administration departments and officials, as well as President Trump himself.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding had been allocated to disease control programs in all four states, though California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said California faces “the largest share” of the cuts.

That includes $130 million due to California under a Public Health Infrastructure Block Grant, which the state and its local public health departments use to fund their public health workforce, monitor disease spread and respond to public health emergencies, Bonta’s office said.

“President Trump … is using federal funding to compel states and jurisdictions to follow his agenda. Those efforts have all previously failed, and we expect that to happen once again,” Bonta said in a statement.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the named defendants, has repeatedly turned his agency away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs in the last year, and the Trump administration has broadly attacked federal spending headed to blue states or allocated to initiatives geared toward the LGBTQ+ community.

The White House justified the latest cuts by claiming the programs “promote DEI and radical gender ideology,” but did not explain further. Health officials have said the cuts were to programs that did not reflect the CDC’s “priorities.”

Neither the White House nor Health and Human Services immediately responded to requests for comment on the lawsuit Wednesday.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health said the cuts would derail an estimated $64.5 million for 14 different county grant programs, resulting in “increased costs, more illness, and preventable deaths,” the department said.

Those programs focus on response to disasters, controlling outbreaks of diseases such as measles and flu, preventing the spread of diseases such as West Nile, dengue and hepatitis A, monitoring and treating HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, fighting chronic illnesses such as diabetes and obesity, and supporting community health, the department said.

Those cuts would also include about $1.1 million for the department’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, which is focused on detecting emerging HIV trends and preventing outbreaks.

Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department, said slashing the program was a “dangerous” and “shortsighted” move that would leave public health officials in the dark as to what’s happening with the disease on the ground.

Considerable cuts are also anticipated to the City of Long Beach, UCLA and nine community health providers who provide HIV prevention services, including $383,000 for the Los Angeles LGBT Center’s community HIV prevention programs, local officials said.

Leading California Democrats have railed against the cuts. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the move was an unlawful attempt by Trump to punish blue states that “won’t bend to his extremist agenda.”

“His message to the 1.2 million Americans living with HIV is clear: their lives are not a priority, political retribution is,” Padilla said in a statement.

The states argue in the lawsuit that the administration’s decision “singles out jurisdictions for disfavor based not on any rational purpose related to the goals of any program but rather based on partisan animus.”

The lawsuit asked the court to declare the cuts unlawful, and to bar the Trump administration from implementing them or “engaging in future retaliatory conduct regarding federal funding or other participation in federal programs” based on the states exercising their sovereign authority in unrelated matters.

WASHINGTON — Public health experts warned Tuesday that $600 million in cuts to federal public health funding announced by the Trump administration would endanger one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, leaving communities vulnerable to undetected disease spread.

The grant terminations affect funding for a number of disease control programs in California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, but the vast majority target California, according to congressional Democrats who received the full list of affected programs Monday. The move is the latest in the White House’s campaign against what it called “radical gender ideology” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “It’s dangerous, and it’s deliberate.”

Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC has increasingly turned away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs, claiming they “undermined core American values.”

The stoppage will derail $1.1 million slated for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, according to the president’s budget office.

The program is a “critical” tool used to detect emerging HIV trends, prevent outbreaks before they spread and reduce HIV incidence, said Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department.

“Without this program, we’re flying blind. The first step in addressing any public health threat is understanding what’s happening on the ground,” Simon said. “With HIV in particular, people often have no symptoms for years and can unknowingly spread the virus.”

The White House gave little explanation for the move but claimed the programs it targeted “promote DEI and radical gender ideology.”

Simon pushed back on the claim, calling the move “dangerous” and “shortsighted.”

“It’s particularly dangerous to put your head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem,” Simon said. “The success we’ve had over the past decades comes from finding cases early. … By treating people early, we can prevent transmission.”

Several local front-line service providers were targeted for cuts including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, which is set to lose $383,000 in investments for community HIV prevention programs.

The LGBT Center has not received official notice of the elimination but said the cuts would disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ communities and other underserved populations.

“These decisions are not guided by public health evidence, but by politics — and the consequences are real,” said LGBT Center spokesperson Brian De Los Santos. “Any reduction in funding directly affects our ability to provide care, prevention and lifesaving services to the people who rely on us.”

The Trump administration’s announced cuts are likely to face challenges from states and grant recipients.

The LGBT Center succeeded last year in blocking similar grant cancellations stemming from the president’s executive orders. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction ruling the administration could not use executive orders to “weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds” to bypass statutory funding obligations.

“We stand ready to bring more litigation against this administration if it is required in order to protect our community,” De Los Santos said.

The White House has repeatedly pushed to halt the flow of billions of dollars to California and other states led by Democrats, a strategy that has sharpened partisan tensions and expanded the scope of California’s legal fight against the administration.

In January, administration officials said they would freeze $10 billion in federal child care, welfare and social services funding for California and four other states, but a federal judge blocked the effort.

Trump later said he would begin blocking federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions such as California and Los Angeles, which have long opposed cooperation with federal immigration agencies.

Last year, the administration made broad cuts to federal funding for minority-serving institutions, leaving California colleges scrambling to figure out how to replace or do without the money. Federal officials argued that such programs were racially discriminatory.

In June, California congressional Democrats demanded the release of $19.8 million in frozen HIV prevention grants to the L.A. County Department of Public Health. That freeze forced the county to terminate contracts with 39 community health providers and nearly shut down HIV testing and other services at the Los Angeles LGBT Center.

The administration reversed course after sustained pressure from Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) and 22 fellow House Democrats.

“These grants save lives,” Friedman said of recent terminations. “They connect homeless people to care, they support front-line organizations fighting HIV, and they build the public health infrastructure that protects my constituents. Just like I did last time the Trump Administration came after our communities, I won’t stop fighting back.”

In a letter to Kennedy last year, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said that the Cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease.

Kennedy’s motivations are “grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,” Garcia wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called President Trump’s latest threats to public health funding “a familiar pattern,” and shed doubt on their long-term legal viability.

“The President publicly claims he will rip away public health funding from states that voted against him, while offering no details or formal notice,” Newsom said. “If or when the Trump administration takes action, we will respond appropriately. Until then, we will pass on participating in his attempt to chase headlines.”

WASHINGTON — Ever since a racist video was posted on President Trump’s social media account, the White House has offered shifting responses.

First it dismissed “fake outrage” by those denouncing it as racist, then it deleted the post and blamed a staff member.

Trump later told reporters Friday that “I didn’t make a mistake.” The Republican president claimed that before the video was posted, he did not see the part that depicted former President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes.

The chair of the Congressional Black Caucus was unsparing in her criticism when she spoke to the Associated Press.

“It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video,” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said.

The AP interviewed Clarke, who leads the group of more than 60 Black House and Senate members, hours after the video was deleted Friday.

Here is an interview transcript, edited for length and clarity.

What was your reaction when you saw that the post?

We’re dealing with a bigoted and racist regime. … Every week we are, as the American people, put in a position where we have to respond to something very cruel or something extremely off-putting that this administration does. It’s a part of their MO at this point.

Do you buy the White House explanation that this was an aide’s mistake?

They don’t tell the truth. If there wasn’t a climate, a toxic and racist climate within the White House, we wouldn’t see this type of behavior regardless of who it’s coming from…. Here we are, in the year 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of Black history, and this is what comes out of the White House on a Friday morning. It’s beneath all of us.

Has there been any contact between the White House and the Congressional Black Caucus on this? Could there be any good-faith exchange?

There has been no outreach from the White House. We certainly didn’t expect there to be. The outreach has to happen prior to these type of juvenile antics.

Republican criticism built more quickly Friday than it has during previous Trump controversies. What do you make of that?

It’s not lost on them, our communities that we represent, that elections are coming up. So it’s not lost on my colleagues, either. If they want to align themselves with this type of really profane imagery, this type of bigoted and racist attack on a former sitting president and his wife, they are throwing their lot in with an individual who has shown himself to be a disgrace.

It’s not common for President Trump to retract anything. What does that indicate to you that he did?

I think it’s more of a political expediency than it is any moral compass. … As my mother would say, “Too late. Mercy’s gone.”

What more do you hope to see from the White House about this?

My hope is that we can contain the harm that they’re doing. There are Black children who are listening to their president … seeing what he’s posting on Truth Social, [and] it will have an impact on how they view leadership of their own country. … I think that this administration has an opportunity to change course. They always do. We leave room for that. But, unfortunately, Donald Trump is hardwired this way.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

As a democracy, we have to stand up together against this type of racism, this type of bigotry, this kind of hatred that is coming from the president of the United States and those who surround him. … It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have stayed up for 12 hours.

Barrow and Zhang write for the Associated Press and reported from Atlanta and Washington, respectively.

I just read Bill Shaikin’s excellent column contrasting the Dodgers’ option to visit the White House with Jackie Robinson’s legendary civil rights stands throughout his life.

As a lifetime Dodger fan who has tried to stay as apolitical as possible, I would be absolutely ashamed of my Dodgers if they were to attend this photo op. I was ashamed last year, too. But nowhere near as much as this year.

Please don’t go.

Eric Monson
Temecula

Just to let Dave Roberts know, there is something bigger than baseball. On the wall in my den are my father’s medals: a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star from when the United States sent my father, Marcelo Villanueva, and others like him, to fight Adolf Hitler.

When our freedoms are being taken away, it’s not OK if you go to the White House and visit the man who is taking them away. Which means my father fought for nothing. You should be ashamed of yourself. You don’t deserve to wear the same uniform Jackie Robinson did.

Ed Villanueva
Chino Hills

I agree with Bill Shaikin that for the world champion Dodgers to visit the fascist friendly White House would be an implicit contradiction of Jackie Robinson’s legacy. Most of the players probably don’t care, but you wish a manager like Dave Roberts (in L.A.!) were as smart and sensible as Steve Kerr. Apparently he is not.

Sean Mitchell
Dallas

I couldn’t disagree more with Bill Shaikin and his stance that the Dodgers should decline the opportunity to visit the White House. In a world of increasing stresses and dangers, sports is, or should be, a reprieve from the news reported on the front pages. After 9/11, for example, we celebrated the return of baseball as a valued respite from the tragedies we were dealing with. Allow baseball to continue to be this respite, Bill, and stop trying to drag sports into the fray.

Steve Kaye
Oro Valley, Ariz.

Bad look, Dave. It doesn’t help to invoke Jackie Robinson, then in the next breath, “I am (just) a baseball manager.”

Can’t have it both ways. Shaikin is right. Decline.

Joel Soffer
Long Beach

If Roberts feels he needs to go, he should. But the rest of the team should not. Dodger management should support them. Roberts conveniently thinks that going is not a political statement. It is. Roberts’ going supports Trump. The man who raised him and served this country did not do so to see it under the thumb of a corrupt man who attacks all that it has stood for. Today we are all politically identified by the choices we make. There’s no avoiding it.

Eric Nelson
Encinitas

Bill Shaikin nailed it when he talked about and quoted Jackie Robinson and compared him to Dave Roberts’ spineless decision to take the Dodgers to the White House. It’s “only” sports? A team of this renown, in a city terrorized by ICE, in a state directly harmed by Trump? Thank you, Mr. Shaikin, for calling Roberts out.

Ellen Butler
Long Beach

Thank you, Dave Roberts, for making the decision to go to the White House and celebrate our Dodgers’ victory in the World Series. It’s a thing called respect for the office of the president no matter what political party is involved. I don’t care about the L.A. Times sports writers’ politics, so keep your political opinions out of the Sports pages.

Lance Oedekerk
Upland

WASHINGTON  — The White House’s TrumpRx website went live Thursday with a promise to instantly deliver prescription drugs at “the lowest price anywhere in the world.”

“This launch represents the largest reduction in prescription drug prices in history by many, many times, and it’s not even close,” President Trump said at a news conference announcing the launch of the platform.

Drug policy experts say the jury is still out on whether the platform will provide the significant savings Trump promises, though it will probably help people who need drugs not commonly covered by insurance.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, called the site a “vanity project” and questioned whether the program presents a possible conflict of interest involving the pharmaceutical industry and the Trump family.

What is TrumpRx, really?

The new platform, trumprx.gov, is designed to help uninsured Americans find discounted prices for high-cost, brand-name prescriptions, including fertility, obesity and diabetes treatments.

The site does not directly sell drugs. Instead, consumers browse a list of discounted medicines, and select one for purchase. From there, they either receive a coupon accepted at certain pharmacies or are routed directly to a drug manufacturer’s website to purchase the prescription.

The White House said the reduced prices are possible after the administration negotiated voluntary “most favored nation” agreements with 16 major drugmakers including Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

Under these deals, manufacturers have agreed to set certain U.S. drug prices no higher than those paid in other wealthy nations in exchange for three-year tariff exemptions. However, the full legal and financial details of the deals have not been made public, leaving lawmakers to speculate how TrumpRx’s pricing model works.

What does it accomplish?

Though the White House has framed TrumpRx as a historic reset for prescription drug costs, economists said the platform offers limited new savings.

But it does move the needle on the issue of drug pricing transparency, away from the hidden mechanisms behind how prescription drugs are priced, rebated and distributed, according to Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics.

“This has been a murky world, a terrible, obscure, opaque marketplace where drug prices have been inconsistently priced to different consumers,” Joyce said, “So this is a little step in the right direction, but it’s mostly performative from my perspective, which is kind of Trump in a nutshell.”

Still, for the uninsured or people seeking “lifestyle drugs” — like those for fertility or weight loss that insurers have historically declined to cover — TrumpRx could become a useful option, Joyce said.

“It’s kind of a win for Trump and a win for Pfizer,” Joyce said. “They get to say, ‘Look what we’re doing. We’re lowering prices. We’re keeping Trump happy, but it’s on our low-volume drugs, and drugs that we were discounting big time anyway.’”

Where does it fall short?

Early analyses by drug policy experts suggest many of the discounted medications listed on the TrumpRx site were already on offer through other drug databases before the platform launched.

For example, Pfizer’s Duavee menopause treatment is listed at $30.30 on TrumpRx, but it is also available for the same price at some pharmacies via GoodRx.

Weight management drug Wegovy starts at $199 on TrumpRx. Manufacturers were already selling the same discounted rates through its NovoCare Pharmacy program before the portal’s launch.

“[TrumpRx] uses data from GoodRx, an existing price-search database for prescription drugs,” said Darius N. Lakdawalla, a senior health policy researcher at USC. “It seems to provide prices that are essentially the same as the lowest price GoodRx reports on its website.”

Compared to GoodRx, TrumpRx covers a modest subset of drugs: 43 in all.

“Uninsured consumers, who do not use or know about GoodRx and need one of the specific drugs covered by the site, might benefit from TrumpRx. That seems like a very specific set of people,” Lakdawalla said.

Where do Democrats stand?

Democrats slammed the program this week, saying it would not provide substantial discounts for patients, and called for greater transparency around the administration’s dealings with drugmakers. To date, the administration has not disclosed the terms of the pricing agreements with manufacturers such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

In the lead-up to the TrumpRx launch, Democratic members of Congress questioned its usefulness and urged federal health regulators to delay its debut.

“This is just another Donald Trump pet project to rebrand something that already exists, take credit for it, and do nothing to actually lower healthcare prices,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Friday. “Democrats will continue fighting to lower healthcare costs and push Republicans to stop giving handouts to billionaires at the expense of working-class Americans.”

Three other Democratic senators — Dick Durbin, Elizabeth Warren and Peter Welch — raised another concern in a Jan. 29 letter to Thomas March Bell, inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The three senators pointed to potential conflicts of interest between TrumpRx and an online dispensing company, BlinkRx.

One of Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr., joined the BlinkRx Board of Directors in February 2025.

Months before, he became a partner at 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm that holds a significant stake in BlinkRx and led the startup’s $140-million funding round in 2024. After his appointment, BlinkRx launched a service to help pharmaceutical companies build direct-to-patient sales platforms quickly.

“The timing of the BlinkRx announcement so closely following the administration’s outreach to the largest drug companies, and the involvement of President Trump’s immediate family, raises questions about potential coordination, influence and self-dealing,” according to an October 2025 statement by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Both BlinkRx and Donald Trump Jr. have denied any coordination.

What’s next?

The rollout of TrumpRx fits into a suite of White House programs designed to address rising costs, an area of vulnerability for Republicans ahead of the November midterms.

The White House issued a statement Friday urging support for the president’s healthcare initiative, dubbed “the great healthcare plan,” which it said will further reduce drug prices and lower insurance premiums.

For the roughly 8% of Americans without health insurance, TrumpRx’s website promises that more high-cost, brand-name drugs will be discounted on the platform in the future.

“It’s possible the benefits will become broader in the future,” Lakdawalla said. “I would say that the jury remains out on its long-run structure and its long-run pricing effects.”

The president of the United States posted a racist video Thursday night depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. On Friday, the White House dismissed criticism — but the president deleted the post. Was this episode disappointing? Yes. Surprising? Not anymore.

Last spring, after Pope Francis had died, Donald Trump posted an AI image of himself as the pope just days before cardinals convened to elect a successor.

So, no — it is not surprising that the president would choose to post virulent anti-Black imagery during Black History Month.

But it is disappointing here in 2026 that an occupant of the Oval Office is still thinking like that.

Back in 1971, the president of the United States laughed when the governor of California referred to the African delegates at the United Nations as monkeys. Less than 10 years later, that governor became the president of the United States. And here we are, half a century later, and yet another president has amplified that racist trope.

Meaning white supremacy is still on the ballot.

That Nixon-Reagan-Trump throughline isn’t tightly wound around policy or principle, but simply that shared worldview. After all, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Reagan offered amnesty to immigrants — highly un-Trump-like moves. No, their commonality is best revealed in the delight each man took in an old racist attack against Black people.

For Americans who are 50 and older — roughly a third of the nation — this worldview has been the architect responsible for White House policy for most of our lives. And yet, when Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, the forensic investigation focused on grocery prices and her absence from Joe Rogan’s podcast. Some — in trying to explain why Harris lost — mischaracterized her role at the border or inflated her influence on the war in Gaza.

For some reason, race did not seem to receive the same level of scrutiny.

This factor was slighted despite decades of data, such as the wave of white nationalists endorsing Harris’ opponent and the birther movement questioning President Obama’s citizenship. The trio of presidents who are on the record as enjoying depictions of Black people as monkeys — Nixon, Reagan and Trump — all used racist dog whistles in their combined 10 presidential campaigns. Their administrations have tended to be more anti-civil-rights movement than post-civil-rights movement.

Our nation’s attempts at understanding ourselves are continuously undercut by the denial that for some single-issue voters, race is their single issue. Not the price of bacon or their religious convictions. Not Gaza. Just the promise of having a safe space for prejudice. And when the president of the United States entertains racist jokes as Nixon did in the 1970s or shares racist videos as Trump continues to do, undoubtedly there is a sense among the electorate that such prejudice has a home in the White House.

Before Trump used social media to push yesteryear’s ugliness, earlier in the week Harris relaunched her 2024 social media campaign account, calling it a place where Gen Z can “meet and revisit with some of our great courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders.” She exhorted: “Stay engaged. I’ll see you out there.”

Whether she plans to run again in 2028 is unclear. What we do know is she would not have posted an AI picture of herself as the new pope while Catholics were mourning Francis (or any other time). We know she would not have advocated for immigration officers to racially profile Black and brown Americans or disregard the 14th Amendment to detain children. We do not know how many of her policy proposals she would have been able to get across the finish line in Congress, but we do know her record of public service to the American people, in contrast with the current president who is suing the American people for $10 billion.

There is nothing wrong with revisiting Harris’ missteps on the campaign trail or debating her electability as she reemerges in the public spotlight. But now that Trump has resorted to posting monkey jokes about Black people, perhaps updated forensics will consider our well established history of racism among the factors in the 2024 election.

It is not a shock that a president of the United States thinks poorly of Black people. Not when you know that more than 25% of those who have held the office were themselves enslavers. But it is disappointing that 250 years into our nation’s story, some of us still deny the role that racism plays in shaping our politics and thus all of our lives.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

WASHINGTON — President Trump shared a short video clip on social media late Thursday depicting former President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes, drawing immediate public backlash that the White House characterized as “fake outrage.”

The image, which Trump posted on his official Truth Social account around midnight, was included toward the end of a one-minute video clip that promoted a conspiracy theory about voting irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. In it, the Obamas are portrayed as apes as “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” plays in the background.

The White House said the clip was taken from “an internet meme video,” in which Trump is depicted as a lion and several high-profile Democrats — including former President Biden, former Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — are rendered as giraffes, turtles, antelopes and other animals. The clip, which was shared by a social media account in October, is captioned: “President Trump: King of the Jungle.”

Only the image of the Obamas is included in the clip shared by Trump.

“Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement Friday.

The post, however, quickly drew fierce criticism from Democrats, some Republicans and civil rights organizations. The imagery was condemned for echoing long-standing racist tropes that have historically been used to demean Black Americans.

“Trump posting this video — especially during Black History Month — is a stark reminder of how Trump and his followers truly view people,” the NAACP wrote on X. “And we’ll remember that in November.”

Newsom, a Democrat, said it was “disgusting behavior by the president” to amplify such an image.

“Every single Republican must denounce this. Now,” Newsom wrote on X.

Sen. Tim Scott, a Black South Carolina Republican who is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the image was “the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House.”

“The President should remove it,” Scott wrote on X.

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minneapolis man was arrested Thursday on suspicion of cyberstalking and threatening to kill or assault Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers involved in the crackdown in Minnesota.

Federal prosecutors said in a statement that Kyle Wagner, 37, of Minneapolis, was charged by complaint, and that a decision to seek an indictment, which is necessary to take the case to trial, would be made soon.

Court records in Detroit, where the case was filed, did not list an attorney who could speak on Wagner’s behalf. The complaint was filed Tuesday and unsealed Thursday.

Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi alleged in a statement that Wagner doxed and threatened law enforcement officers, claimed an affiliation with antifa and “encouraged bloodshed in the streets.”

And at the White House on Thursday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt held up Weber’s photo at the daily briefing and said such conduct by “left-wing agitators” won’t go unpunished.

“And if people are illegally obstructing our federal law enforcement operations, if they are targeting, doxing, harassing and vilifying ICE agents, they are going to be held accountable like this individual here who, again, is a self-proclaimed member of antifa. He is a domestic terrorist, and he will be held accountable in the United States,” Leavitt told reporters.

President Trump announced in September that he would designate antifa a “major terrorist organization.” Antifa, short for “anti-fascists,” is an umbrella term for far-left-leaning militant groups and is not a singular entity. It consists of groups that resist fascists and neo-Nazis, especially at demonstrations.

When Trump administration border policy advisor Tom Homan announced Wednesday that about 700 federal officers deployed to Minnesota would be withdrawn immediately, he said a larger pullout would occur only after there’s more cooperation and protesters stop interfering with federal personnel.

According to prosecutors, Wagner repeatedly posted on Facebook and Instagram encouraging his followers to “forcibly confront, assault, impede, oppose, and resist federal officers” whom he referred to as the “gestapo” and “murderers.”

The complaint alleges Wagner posted a video last month that directly threatened ICE officers with an obscenity-laden rant. “I’ve already bled for this city, I’ve already fought for this city, this is nothing new, we’re ready this time,” he said, concluding that he was “coming for” ICE.

The complaint further alleges that Wagner advocated for physical confrontation in another post, stating: “Anywhere we have an opportunity to get our hands on them, we need to put our hands on them.”

It also details how Wagner used his Instagram account to dox a person identified only as a “pro-ICE individual” by publishing a phone number, birth month and year, and address in the Detroit suburb of Oak Park. The complaint says Wagner later admitted that he doxed the victim’s parents’ house.

Federal prosecutors didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on why the case was filed in Michigan instead of Minnesota. The alleged doxing was the only Michigan connection listed in the complaint.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota has been hit by the resignations of several prosecutors in recent weeks amid frustrations with the surge and its handling of the shooting deaths of two people by government officers. One lawyer, who told a judge that her job “sucks,” was removed from her post.

Trump’s chief federal prosecutor for Minnesota, Dan Rosen, told a federal appeals court in a recent filing that his office is facing a “flood of new litigation” and is struggling to keep up just with immigration cases, while his division that handles civil cases is down 50%.

Rosen wrote that his office has canceled other civil enforcement work “and is operating in a reactive mode.” He also said his attorneys are “appearing daily for hearings on contempt motions. The Court is setting deadlines within hours, including weekends and holidays. Paralegals are continuously working overtime. Lawyers are continuously working overtime.”

Karnowski writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Eric Tucker and Nathan Ellgren in Washington contributed to this report.

MEXICO CITY — Historians and observers accused the Trump administration of trying to rewrite American history to justify its own foreign policy decisions toward Latin America by posting a “historically inaccurate” version of the Mexican-American war.

The Monday statement from the White House commemorating the anniversary of the war described the conflict as a “legendary victory that secured the American Southwest, reasserted American sovereignty, and expanded the promise of American independence across our majestic continent.” The statement drew parallels between the period in U.S. history and its own increasingly aggressive policies toward Latin America, which it said would “ensure the Hemisphere remains safe.”

“Guided by our victory on the fields of Mexico 178 years ago, I have spared no effort in defending our southern border against invasion, upholding the rule of law, and protecting our homeland from forces of evil, violence, and destruction,” the statement said, though it was unsigned.

In the post, the White House makes no mention of the key role slavery played in the war and glorifies the wider “Manifest Destiny” period, which resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans from their land.

Sparking criticism

Alexander Aviña, Latin American history professor at Arizona State University, said the White House statement “underplays the massive amounts of violence that it took to expand” the U.S. to the Pacific shore at a time when the Trump administration has stuck its hand in Latin American affairs in a way not seen in decades, deposing Venezuela’s president, meddling in elections and threatening military action in Mexico and other countries.

“U.S. political leaders since then have seen this as an ugly aspect of U.S. history, this is a pretty clear instance of U.S. imperialism against its southern neighbor,” Aviña said. “The Trump administration is actually embracing this as a positive in U.S. history and framing it – inaccurately historically – as some sort of defensive measure to prevent the Mexico from invading them.”

On Tuesday, criticisms of the White House statement quickly rippled across social media.

Asked about the statement in her morning news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum guffawed, quipping and noting “we have to defend sovereignty.” Sheinbaum, who has walked a tight rope with the Trump administration, has responded to Trump with a balanced tone and occasionally with sarcasm, like when Trump changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Historical sticking point

The Mexican-American war (1846–1848) was triggered by long-running border disputes between the U.S. and Mexico and the United States’ annexation of Texas in 1845. For years leading up to the war, Americans had gradually moved into the then-Mexican territory. Mexico had banned slavery and U.S. abolitionists feared the U.S. land grab was in part an attempt to add slave states.

After fighting broke out and successive U.S. victories, Mexico ceded more than 525,000 square miles of territory — including what now comprises Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah — to the U.S.

The moment turned Texas into a key chess piece during the U.S. Civil War and led former President Ulysses S. Grant to write later that the conflict with Mexico was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.”

The Associated Press was formed when five New York City newspapers funded a pony express route through Alabama to bring news of the Mexican War — as it is sometimes known in the U.S. — north faster than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it.

The war continues to be a historical sticking point between the two countries, particularly as Sheinbaum repeatedly reminds Trump that her country is a sovereign nation whenever Trump openly weighs taking military action against Mexican cartels and pressures Mexico to bend to its will.

Rewriting history

The White House statement falls in line with wider actions taken by the Trump administration to mold the federal government’s language around its own creed, said Albert Camarillo, history professor at Stanford University, who described the statement as a “distorted, ahistorical, imperialist version” of the war.

Aviña said the statement serves “to assert rhetorically that the U.S. is justified in establishing its so-called ‘America First’ policy throughout the Americas,” regardless of the historical accuracy.

The Trump administration has ordered the rewriting of history on display at the Smithsonian Institution, saying it was “restoring truth and sanity to American history.”

The administration has scrubbed government websites of history, legal records and data it finds disagreeable. Trump also ordered the government to remove any signs that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” including those making reference to slavery, destruction of Native American cultures and climate change.

“This statement is consistent with so many others that attempt to whitewash and reframe U.S. history and erase generations of historical scholarship,” Camarillo said.

Janetsky writes for the Associated Press.

BOGOTA, Colombia — President Trump is scheduled to host one of his most vocal regional critics, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, at the White House in a high-stakes meeting analysts suggest could redefine the immediate future of bilateral relations.

Petro has called Trump an “accomplice to genocide” in the Gaza Strip, while the U.S. president called him a “drug lord,” an exchange of insults that escalated with U.S. sanctions against Petro, threats of reciprocal tariffs, the withdrawal of financial aid to Colombia and even the suggestion of a military attack.

Tensions eased in early January when Trump accepted a call from Petro, saying it was a “great honor to speak with the president of Colombia,” who called him to “explain the drug situation and other disagreements.”

The two leaders are expected to meet Tuesday to address strategies for curbing drug trafficking and boosting bilateral trade, while potentially discussing joint operations against Colombian rebel groups fueled by the cocaine trade.

“There’s a lot of space here for mutual cooperation and shared success,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, a Colombia expert at the International Crisis Group.

Combating drug trafficking

Decades of security cooperation once made Colombia the primary U.S. ally in the region, but that relationship has recently faced unprecedented strain.

The two countries have opposing views on how to address the problem of illicit drugs. While the U.S. remains anchored in aggressive eradication and supply-side control, Petro advocates for interdiction, demand reduction and providing economic alternatives for small-scale coca farmers.

In 2025, the U.S. signaled its dissatisfaction with Petro’s anti-drug policy by adding Colombia to a list of nations failing to cooperate in the drug war for the first time in three decades.

Since then, Petro has focused on highlighting the record seizures and claiming that his government has managed to halt the growth of coca leaf crops. However, Colombia’s coca crop has reached historic highs, as the government shifts away from eradication. According to United Nations research, potential cocaine production has surged by at least 65% during the Petro administration, to more than 3,000 tons per year.

The Venezuela factor

The sudden detente between Petro and Trump followed a period of extreme volatility.

Tensions peaked after the Jan. 3 U.S. raid in Caracas that captured then-President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Petro denounced the operation as an act of “aggression” and a “kidnapping,” blasting the U.S. for what he called an “abhorrent” violation of Latin American sovereignty and a “spectacle of death” comparable to Nazi Germany’s 1937 carpet bombing of Guernica, Spain.

Despite recently calling for Maduro’s return to face Venezuelan justice, Petro’s tone softened significantly during a subsequent hourlong call with Trump, paving the way for their upcoming summit.

Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli, director for the Andes region at the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank, believes that Trump accepted Petro’s call partly to quell questions about the operation in Venezuela and the growing concern over warnings issued to countries like Colombia.

She also said she considers it likely that both presidents will agree on actions against drug trafficking and a joint fight against the National Liberation Army guerrilla group, which is most active on the border with Venezuela.

‘A quiet, effective cooperation’

Signaling a thaw in relations just days before the White House summit, the Colombian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that repatriation flights for deportees from the U.S. have officially resumed.

Images released by the ministry showed citizens arriving at El Dorado airport — a stark contrast to the diplomatic crisis a year ago. At that time, Petro triggered a near trade war by refusing U.S. military deportation flights over “dignity” concerns, only relenting after Trump threatened 50% tariffs and visa cancellations.

“A good outcome [of the meeting] would be that the relationship is cordial, pragmatic, and that the two countries can get back to what they have been doing for years, which is a quiet, effective cooperation on shared security threats,” Dickinson said.

“The less noise there is around the relationship the better.”

Suárez and Rueda write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that he will move to close Washington’s Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for two years starting in July for construction, his latest proposal to upend the storied venue since returning to the White House.

Trump’s announcement on social media follows a wave of cancellations by leading performers, musicians and groups since the president ousted the previous leadership and added his name to the building. Trump made no mention in his post of the recent cancellations.

His proposal, announced days after the premiere of “Melania,” a documentary about the first lady, was shown at the center, is subject to approval by the board of the Kennedy Center, which has been stocked with his handpicked allies. Trump chairs the center’s board of trustees.

“This important decision, based on input from many Highly Respected Experts, will take a tired, broken, and dilapidated Center, one that has been in bad condition, both financially and structurally for many years, and turn it into a World Class Bastion of Arts, Music, and Entertainment,” Trump wrote in his post.

Neither Trump nor Kennedy Center President Ric Grenell, a Trump ally, have provided evidence to back up their claims about the building being in disrepair, and in October, Trump had pledged the center would remain open during renovations. In Sunday’s announcement, he said the center will close July 4, when he said the construction would begin.

“Our goal has always been to not only save and permanently preserve the Center, but to make it the finest Arts Institution in the world,” Grenell said in a post, citing funds Congress approved for repairs.

“This will be a brief closure,” Grenell said. “It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the Center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive. It also means we will be finished faster.”

The sudden decision to close and reconstruct the Kennedy Center is certain to spark blowback as Trump revamps the popular venue. The building began as a national cultural center and Congress renamed it as a “living memorial” to President Kennedy — a champion of the arts during his administration — in 1964, in the aftermath of his assassination.

Opened in 1971, it serves as a public showcase year-round for the arts, including the National Symphony Orchestra.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the Kennedy Center is one of many Washington landmarks that he has sought to overhaul in his second term. He demolished the East Wing of the White House and launched a massive $400-million ballroom project, is actively pursuing building a triumphal arch on the other side the Arlington Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial, and has plans for Washington Dulles International Airport.

Leading performing arts groups have pulled out of appearances at the Kennedy Center, most recently composer Philip Glass, who announced his decision to withdraw his Symphony No. 15 “Lincoln” because he said the values of the center today are in “direct conflict” with the message of the piece.

Last month, the Washington National Opera announced that it will move performances away from the Kennedy Center in another high-profile departure after Trump’s takeover of the U.S. capital’s leading performing arts venue.

The head of artistic programming for the center abruptly left his post last week, less than two weeks after being named to the job.

A spokesperson for the Kennedy Center could not immediately be reached and did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Late last year, as Trump announced his plan to rename the building — adding his name to the building’s main front ahead of that of Kennedy — he drew sharp opposition from members of Congress, and some Kennedy family members.

Kerry Kennedy, a niece of John F. Kennedy, said in a social post on X at the time that she will remove Trump’s name herself with a pickax when his term ends.

Another family member, Maria Shriver, said at the time that it is “beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy,” her uncle. “It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not.”

Late Sunday evening, Shriver posted a new comment mimicking Trump’s own voice and style, and suggesting the closure of the venue was meant to deflect from the cancellations.

She said that “entertainers are canceling left and right” and the president has determined that “since the name change no one wants to perform there any longer.”

Trump has decided, she said, it’s best “to close this center down and rebuild a new center” that will bear his name. She asked, “Right?”

One lawmaker, Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat and ex-officio trustee of the center’s board, sued in December, arguing that “only Congress has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center.”

Price and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Gavin Newsom was in his element, moving and shaking amid the rich and powerful in Davos.

He scolded European leaders for supposedly cowering before President Trump.

He drew disparaging notice during a presidential rant and captured headlines after being blocked from delivering a high-profile speech, allegedly at the behest of the White House.

All the while, another governor and Democratic presidential prospect was mixing and mingling in the rarefied Swiss air — though you probably wouldn’t know it.

Flying far below the heat-seeking radar, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear leaned into the role of economic ambassador, focusing on job creation and other nutsy, boltsy stuff that doesn’t grab much notice in today’s performative political environment.

Like Newsom, Beshear is running-but-not-exactly-running for president. He didn’t set out to offer a stark contrast to California’s governor, the putative 2028 Democratic front-runner. But he’s doing so just the same.

Want someone who’ll match Trump insult for insult, over-the-top meme for over-the-top meme and howl whenever the president commits some new outrage? Look to Sacramento, not Frankfort.

“I think by the time we reach 2028, our Democratic voters are gonna be worn out,” Beshear said during a conversation in his state’s snowy capital. “They’re gonna be worn out by Trump, and they’re gonna be worn out by Democrats who respond to Trump like Trump. And they’re gonna want some stability in their lives.”

Every candidate enters a contest with a backstory and a record, which is condensed to a summary that serves as calling card, strategic foundation and a rationale for their run.

Here’s Andy Beshear’s: He’s the popular two-term governor of a red state that three times voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

He is fluent in the language of faith, well-liked by the kind of rural voters who have abandoned Democrats in droves and, at age 48, offers a fresh face and relative youth in a party that many voters have come to see as old and ossified.

The fact he’s from the South, where Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton emerged the last time Democrats experienced this kind of existential freak-out, also doesn’t hurt.

Beshear’s not-yet-candidacy, still in the fledgling phase, offers a mix of aspiration and admonition.

Democrats, he said, need to talk more like regular people. Addiction, not substance use disorder. Hunger, not food assistance.

And, he suggested, they need to focus more on things regular people care about: jobs, healthcare, public safety, public education. Things that aren’t theoretical or abstract but materially affect their daily lives, like the costs of electricity, car insurance and groceries.

“I think the most important thing we should have learned from 2024 is [Democratic voters are] gonna be looking for somebody that can help them pay that next bill,” Beshear said.

He was seated in the Old Governor’s Mansion, now a historic site and Beshear’s temporary office while the nearby Capitol undergoes a years-long renovation.

The red-brick residence, built in the Federal style and completed in 1798, was Beshear’s home from age 6 to 10 when his father, Steve, lived there while serving as lieutenant governor. (Steve Beshear went on to serve two terms as the state’s chief executive, building a brand and a brand name that helped Andy win his first public office, attorney general, in 2015.)

It was 9 degrees outside. Icicles hung from the eaves and snowplows navigated Frankfort’s narrow, winding streets after an unusually cold winter blast.

Inside, Beshear was seated before an unlit fireplace, legs crossed, shirt collar unbuttoned, looking like the pleasantly unassuming Dad in a store-bought picture frame.

He bragged a bit, touting Kentucky’s economic success under his watch. He spoke of his religiosity — his grandfather and great-grandfather were Baptist preachers — and talked at length about the optimism, a political rarity these days, that undergirds his vision for the country.

“I think the American people feel like the pendulum swung too far in the Biden administration. Now they feel it’s swung way too far during the Trump administration,” Beshear said. “What they want is for it to stop swinging.”

He went on. “Most people when they wake up aren’t thinking about politics. They’re thinking about their job, their next doctor’s appointment, the roads and bridges they drive, the school they drop their kids off at, and whether they feel safe in their community.

“And I think they desperately want someone that can move the country, not right or left ideologically, but actually forward in those areas. And that’s how I think we heal.”

Beshear doesn’t shy from his Democratic pedigree, or stray from much of the party’s orthodoxy.

Seeking reelection in 2023, he seized on the abortion issue and the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs. Wade to batter and best his Republican opponent.

He’s walked the picket line with striking auto workers, signed an executive order making Juneteenth a state holiday and routinely vetoed anti-gay legislation, becoming the first Kentucky governor to attend an LGBTQ+ celebration in the Capitol Rotunda.

“Discrimination against our LGBTQ+ community is unacceptable,” he told an audience. “It holds us back and, in my Kentucky accent, it ain’t right.”

For all of that, Beshear doesn’t shrink from taking on Trump, which, essentially, has become a job requirement for any Democratic officeholder wishing to remain a Democratic officeholder.

After the president’s rambling Davos address, Beshear called Trump’s remarks “dangerous, disrespectful and unhinged.”

“From insulting our allies to telling struggling Americans that he’s fixed inflation and the economy is amazing, the President is hurting both our families’ financial security and our national security,” Beshear posted on social media. “Oh, and Greenland is so important he’s calling it Iceland.”

But Beshear hasn’t turned Trump-bashing into a 24/7 vocation, or a weight-lifting contest where the winner is the critic wielding the heaviest bludgeon.

“I stand up to him in the way that I think a Democratic governor of Kentucky should. When he’s doing things that hurt my state, I speak out,” Beshear said. “I filed 20 lawsuits, I think, and we’ve won almost all of them, bringing dollars they were trying to stop from flowing into Kentucky.

“But,” he added, “when he does something positive for Kentucky, I also say that too, because that’s what our people expect.”

Asked about the towel-snapping Newsom and his dedicated staff of Trump trollers, Beshear defended California’s governor — or, at least, passed on the chance to get in a dig.

“Gavin’s in a very different situation than I’m in. I mean, he has the president attacking him and his state just about every day,” Beshear said. “So I don’t want to be critical of an approach from somebody that’s in a very different spot.

“But the approach also has to be unique to you. For me, I bring people together. We’ve been able to do that in this state. That’s my approach. And in the end, I’ve gotta stay true to who I am.”

And when — or make that if — both Newsom and Beshear launch a formal bid for president, they’ll present Democratic voters a clear choice.

Not just between two differing personalities. Also two considerably different approaches to politics and winning back the White House.

After the recent shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis, some police chiefs have joined the mounting criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration blitz.

One voice missing from the fray: LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell.

This week, the chief reiterated that the department has a close working relationship with federal law enforcement, and said he would not order his officers to enforce a new state law — currently being challenged as unconstitutional — that prohibits the use of face coverings by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents.

Top police brass nationwide rarely criticize their federal partners, relying on collaboration to investigate gangs, extremist groups and other major criminals — while also counting on millions in funding from Washington each year.

McDonnell and the LAPD have found themselves in an especially tough position, longtime department observers say. The city has been roiled by immigration raids and protests, and local leaders, including Mayor Karen Bass, have blasted the White House. But with the World Cup and Olympics coming soon — events that will require coordination with the feds — the chief has been choosing his words carefully.

Over the past year, McDonnell has fallen back on the message that the LAPD has a long-standing policy of not getting involved in civil immigration enforcement. Unlike his counterparts in Minneapolis, Portland and Philadelphia, he has largely avoided public comment on the tactics used by federal agents, saving his strongest criticism for protesters accused of vandalism or violence.

In a radio interview last spring, the chief said that “it’s critical that in a city as big, a city that’s as big a target for terrorism as Los Angeles, that we have a very close working relationship with federal, state and local partners.” He boasted that the LAPD had “best relationship in the nation in that regard.”

McDonnell stood beside FBI Director Kash Patel on an airport tarmac last week to announce the capture of a Canadian former Olympic snowboarder accused of trafficking tons of cocaine through Los Angeles. Then, at a news conference Thursday in which city officials touted historically low homicide totals, McDonnell said LAPD officials were as “disturbed” as everyone else by events in other parts of the country, alluding to Pretti’s shooting without mentioning him by name. He said the department would continue to work closely with federal agencies on non-immigration matters.

Explaining his stance on not enforcing the mask ban, McDonnell said he wouldn’t risk asking his officers to approach “another armed agency creating conflict for something that” amounted to a misdemeanor offense.

“It’s not a good policy decision and it wasn’t well thought out in my opinion,” he said.

Elsewhere, law enforcement leaders, civil rights advocates and other legal experts have decried how ICE agents and other federal officers have been flouting best practices when making street arrests, conducting crowd control and maintaining public safety amid mass protests.

After a shooting by agents of two people being sought for arrest in Portland, Ore., in mid-January, the city’s chief of police gave a tearful news conference saying he had sought to understand Latino residents “through your voices, your concern, your fear, your anger.”

Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal set off a social media firestorm after she referred to ICE agents as “made-up, fake, wannabe law enforcement.”

In Minneapolis, where the Trump administration has deployed 3,000 federal agents, police Chief Brian O’Hara reportedly warned his officers in private that they would lose their jobs if they failed to intervene when federal agents use force. And in a news conference this week, New Orleans’ police superintendent questioned ICE’s arrest of one of the agency’s recruits.

The second-guessing has also spread to smaller cities like Helena, Mont., whose city’s police chief pulled his officers out of a regional drug task force over its decision to collaborate with U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Over the weekend, the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, the nation’s largest and most influential police chief group, called on the White House to convene local, state and federal law enforcement partners for “policy-level discussions aimed at identifying a constructive path forward.”

McDonnell’s backers argue that the role of chief is apolitical, though many of his predecessors became national voices that shaped public safety policy. Speaking out, the chief’s supporters say, risks inviting backlash from the White House and could also affect the long pipeline of federal money the department relies on, for instance, to help fund de-escalation training for officers.

Assemblyman Mark González (D-Los Angeles) was among those who opposed McDonnell over his willingness to work with ICE while serving as Los Angeles County sheriff, but said he now considers him a “great partner” who has supported recent anti-crime legislation.

So he said was disappointed by McDonnell’s unwillingness to call out racial profiling and excessive force by federal agents in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

“We have to trust in a chief who is able to say ICE engaging and detaining 5-year-old kids and detaining flower vendors is not what this system was set up to do,” said González, the Assembly’s majority whip. “It would help when you’d have law enforcement back up a community that they serve.”

Inside the LAPD, top officials have supported McDonnell’s balancing act, suggesting that promises by officials in other cities to detain ICE agents rang hollow.

“Have you seen them arrest any? No,” said Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton.

LAPD officers serve on nearly three dozen task forces with federal officials, where they share information and resources to track down criminals, said Hamilton, the department’s chief of detectives. Cooperating with federal partners is essential to tasks including combating “human trafficking on Figueroa” and dismantling international theft rings, he said. As part of these investigations, both sides pool intelligence — arrangements that some privacy rights groups warn are now being exploited in the government’s immigration crackdown.

Hamilton said that “there’s nothing occurring right now that’s going to affect our relationship with the federal government across the board.”

Art Acevedo, a former chief in Houston and Miami, said that for any big-city chief, taking an official position on an issue as divisive as immigration can be complicated.

Being seen as coming out against President Trump comes with “some political risks,” he said.

But chiefs in immigrant-rich cities like Houston and L.A. must weigh that against the potentially irreparable damage to community trust from failing to condemn the recent raids, he said.

“When you don’t speak out, the old adage that silence is deafening is absolutely true. You end up losing the public and you end up putting your own people at risk,” he said. “The truth is that when you are police chief you have a bully pulpit, and what you say or fail to say is important.”

Those with experience on the federal side of the issue said it cuts both ways.

John Sandweg, the former director of ICE under President Obama, said that federal authorities need local cops and the public to feed them info and support operations, but the immigration agency’s “zero tolerance” approach was putting such cooperation “in jeopardy.”

“Ideally, in a perfect world, ICE is able to work within immigrant communities to identify the really bad actors,” he said. “But when you have this zero tolerance, when the quantity of arrests matters far more than the quality of arrests, you eliminate any ability to have that cooperation.”

Times staff writers Brittny Mejia, Ruben Vives and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A budget impasse in Congress is poised to halt large swaths of federal operations early Saturday as lawmakers in Capitol Hill turn to the next flashpoint in negotiations to reopen the government: whether to impose new limits on federal immigration authorities carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Over the next two weeks, Democrats and Republicans will weigh competing demands on how the Department of Homeland Security should carry out arrests, detention and deportations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents this month in Minnesota.

Seeking to rein in the federal agency, Senate Democrats late on Thursday were able to strike a deal with the White House that would temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security but fund the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation agencies through Sept. 30.

The agreement is intended to give lawmakers more time to address Democratic demands to curb ICE tactics while averting a partial government shutdown.

The Senate finalized the deal Friday evening on a 71-29 vote, hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown. Passage of the deal was delayed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who objected to parts of the package.

The House expected to take up the legislation as early as Monday. The partial government shutdown will occur until the measure clears the House and Trump signs it into law.

The president supports the deal, which came after Senate Democrats said they would not vote to fund Homeland Security unless reforms for the agency were approved. Among the demands: banning federal agents from wearing masks, requiring use of body cameras and requiring use of judicial warrants prior to searching homes and making arrests.

Democrats have also demanded that local and state law enforcement officials be given the ability to conduct independent investigations in cases where federal agents are accused of wrongdoing.

The deal, however, does not include any of those reforms; it includes only the promise of more time to negotiate with no guarantee that the new restrictions will be agreed to.

Both of California’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, voted against the Senate deal. They both opposed giving more funding to Homeland Security without reforms in a vote Thursday.

Schiff voted no because he said he promised to not “give another dime for ICE until we saw real reforms — and not just promised reforms but statutory requirements.”

“I want to see those reforms before I am prepared to support any more funding for these agencies,” Schiff said in a video message posted on X, and added that he did not see the White House acting in “good faith. “I want it in writing and statute.”

After voting against the measure, Padilla said in a statement: “I’ve been clear from the beginning: No more money for ICE and CBP without real oversight and accountability.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday morning that Democrats will find out whether two weeks is enough time to reach a compromise.

“We will evaluate whether that is sufficient time,” Jeffries said. “But there is urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE as we have seen is out of control.”

Meanwhile, the absence of reforms in the Senate deal has already drawn concerns from some progressives, who argue the deal falls short of what is needed to rein in federal immigration enforcement.

“First of all, I’m actually disappointed that Senate leadership is not right now demanding more,” Rep. Robert Garcia, a top-ranking House Democrat from Long Beach, told reporters Friday. “This idea that we’re somehow going to continue to fund this agency and somehow just extend the pain, I think is absolutely wrong.”

Garcia said it was “outrageous” that the Senate deal would extend funding for Homeland Security for two weeks without any new requirements.

“This idea that we’re somehow not demanding immediately the removal of masks and body cameras and all the other reforms while eliminating this agency that’s causing harm, I think, is outrageous,” Garcia said.

Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of Pasadena said in a statement that she had not yet decided whether to support the Senate deal once it reaches the House floor.

But, Chu added: “I cannot support legislation that increases funding to this agency while delivering no accountability measures.”

Rep. Kevin Calvert (R-Corona) said in a statement that it is “critical” for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan spending package, in part because it included funding for the U.S. military.

“As Chairman of the [House] Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, I’m especially concerned about the negative impacts of a shutdown at a time when we have a buildup of American military assets in the Middle East,” Calvert said.

Calvert added that Homeland Security operations will continue even in the shutdown because lawmakers provided an influx of funding for the agency in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But he said he worried that any lapse in funding would affect other operations by the agency, including disaster funding and security assistance for major events, such as the upcoming World Cup.

“We need to get these priorities funded,” he said.

Other Republican lawmakers have already signaled the possible hurdles Democrats will face as they try to rein in ICE.

Graham held up consideration of the Senate deal, in part because he wanted the Senate to vote to criminalize local and state officials in sanctuary cities — a term that has no strict definition but that generally describes local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“You can convince me that ICE can be better, but I don’t think I will ever convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you’re wedded to it on the Democratic side,” Graham said.

Graham also delayed passage of the deal because it included a repeal of a law that would have allowed senators — including himself — to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phones without notifying them. The law required senators to be notified if that were to happen and sue for up to $50,000 in damages per incident.

“We’ll fix the $500,000 — count me in — but you took the notification out,” Graham said. “I am demanding a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Other Senate Republicans also expressed concern with Democrats’ demands, even as Trump seemed to try appease them.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the demand for federal agents to remove their masks during operations was a “clear and obvious attempt to intimidate and put our federal agents in harm’s way.”

“When enforcement becomes dangerous for enforcers, enforcement does not survive,” Schmitt said in a Senate floor speech. “What emerges is not reform, it is amnesty by default.”

Despite the GOP opposition, most Senate Republicans were poised to join Democrats on Friday and vote for the deal. But there is no certainty that they will join the minority party when negotiations resume in the coming weeks.

Recent history suggests that bipartisan support at the outset does not guarantee a lasting deal, particularly when unresolved policy disputes remain. The last government shutdown tied to a debate over healthcare exposed how quickly negotiations can collapse when no agreement is reached.

In November, a small group of Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with the promise of negotiating an extension to healthcare tax credits that were set to expire in the new year.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a former House speaker, reminded the public on Friday that Democrats were unable to get Republican support for extending the tax credits, resulting in increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

“House Democrats passed a bipartisan fix, yet Senate Republicans continue to block this critical relief for millions of Americans,” Pelosi wrote in a post on X.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

I was just getting settled in my seat for the first showing of “Melania” at the Grove cineplex when Melania Trump walked in.

OK, it wasn’t the Melania Trump, as in the first lady. But it was a reasonable facsimile.

The impersonator, followed by a man filming with his phone, strode in like a model, flinging her hair back and smiling as she addressed the six people — many of them critics from various press outlets — in the auditorium who were among the first in Los Angeles to see “Melania,” the controversial documentary that features the first lady as star and producer.

“Hi, everybody. I want to welcome you all to my movie,” the impersonator said in a Slovenian accent. She wore a stylish dark pantsuit and high heels, a frequent motif in the film which chronicles the real Melania Trump in the 20 days leading up to the second presidential inauguration of her husband, Donald Trump.

After a few more words of greeting, the impostor Melania flashed another smile as she exited.

I was stunned and extremely frustrated that I didn’t have time to capture the moment. It’s rare to find yourself in the presence of a first lady —even a fake one.

During the film, my fellow viewers were mostly silent, although there were a few murmurs of laughter as Melania Trump outlined the burdens of coordinating the correct outfit and decor for her re-entry to the White House.

“My creative vision is always clear, and it’s my responsibility to share my ideas with my team so they can bring it to life,” she says at one point.

Later in the film, when Donald Trump was formally introduced at the inauguration as the 47th president, one older woman sitting near the front of the theater applauded. And I could see her smiling as, onscreen, the first couple made their way through the White House following the ceremony.

“Being hand in hand with my husband at this moment is very emotional,” she says. “Nobody has endured what he has over the past few years. People tried to murder him, incarcerate him, slander him. But here he is. I’m so very proud.”

I hoped that Melania would be around in the lobby as we left the theater to ask us how we liked the film. But I was disappointed. Melania had left the building.

When Melania Trump showed up on movie screens in 2001, it was a joke.

The former fashion model and her spouse, Donald Trump, then only a real estate mogul, played themselves in the Ben Stiller comedy “Zoolander,” about a dimwitted male supermodel. She silently looked on as her husband gushed at an awards show red carpet: “Without Derek Zoolander, male modeling would not be where it is today.”

The cameo offers a glimpse of the couple, who in 2017 would enter the White House as president and first lady. As they move past the first anniversary of their second stint in Washington, D.C., Melania has largely stayed away from the spotlight.

But this week the first lady is preparing for her close-up. She is center stage as star and executive producer in the documentary “Melania” hitting theaters Friday. Positioned as a companion to her best-selling memoir, “Melania” has been shadowed by controversy since its announcement several months ago. The project marks a comeback attempt by Hollywood filmmaker Brett Ratner, the director of the documentary, who was exiled from Hollywood in 2017 following charges of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including actor Olivia Munn. He continues to deny the accusations.

Amazon MGM Studios paid $40 million to license the project, and sources said it is spending around $35 million for marketing and promotion. Melania is skipping the traditional TV talk show circuit, opting for an appearance on Fox News, which featured an exclusive interview with her on Tuesday — her first since returning to the White House. The following day, she rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange.

Trailers for the film have popped up on several networks including CNN, a frequent target of President Trump’s ire, and outdoor advertising has been installed in several major cities, including Los Angeles.

The project, which is slated to stream on Prime Video after a brief theatrical run, arrives as the president confronts sinking approval ratings and the most turbulent phase to date of his second term, which includes controversies over his handling of the economy, international relations, the demolition of the White House’s East Wing for a planned ballroom, and the long-delayed release of the Epstein files.

More pointedly, the lead-up to the official premiere, slated for Thursday at the Kennedy Center in Washington, has collided with an unexpected juggernaut: national outrage over the deadly shootings of two Minneapolis residents by federal officers carrying out his aggressive anti-immigration campaign.

The continuing protests over the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as the backlash after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller labeled them as domestic terrorists, has placed even more uncertainty over how “Melania” will fare with moviegoers.

Industry forecasters were divided on whether the film will be a hit or a bomb. Firms specializing in box office projections estimate the opening weekend will fall within the $5 million range.

“It’s very hard to predict whether people will show up, given the unique nature of the film and the marketplace,” said one veteran box office analyst who asked not to be identified.

On Wednesday, the film was pulled from theaters in South Africa, where it was slated to open on Friday, after the distributor announced it would no longer release the title, citing “recent developments,” according to a New York Times report.

Domestically, “Melania” is competing in a crowded movie weekend against the highly anticipated survival thriller “Send Help” from veteran filmmaker Sam Raimi (“Drag Me to Hell”), the horror film “Iron Lung” from popular YouTuber Markiplier (Mark Edward Fischbach), and “Shelter,” with action star Jason Statham.

President Trump kisses his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, during the presidential inauguration in 2025. The documentary will highlight the lead-up to the event.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

Adding to the uncertainty on the film’s performance, the analyst said, is whether fans of Ratner, whose resume features several blockbusters including the “Rush Hour” trilogy, will show up for a documentary about the first lady. According to press notes, “Melania” follows the first lady in the 20 days leading up to the 2025 presidential inauguration as she orchestrates plans for the event and the family’s move back to the White House. The film’s trailer, released last month, does not offer much more insight.

During both of Trump’s terms in the White House, his wife has been described as mysterious and sphinx-like. Some Washington watchers have praised her for what they call her independence and individualism, while others say her accomplishments fall short of previous first ladies such as Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan.

Anita B. McBride, director of the First Ladies Initiative at American University, said that the position of first lady has been defined in distinct ways by every woman who has served in that capacity.

She said in an interview that the current first lady has exhibited a confident persona “that has never been defined by expectations. She now has the benefit of experience after operating during her first term in a very hostile environment. She is sure-footed with a staff that supports her, and she has made it clear that she is in control.”

The White House on Saturday hosted a VIP black-tie preview of “Melania,” with a guest list that included Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, former boxer Mike Tyson and Apple CEO Tim Cook, who this week criticized the shootings of Good and Pretti, calling for de-escalation in Minneapolis.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York was among the politicians blasting the event, which took place hours after Pretti was killed.

“Today DHS assassinated a VA nurse in the street, [Atty. Gen.] Bondi is attempting to extort voter files, and half the country is bracing on the eve of a potentially crippling ice storm with FEMA gutted,” she wrote in a post on X. “So what is the President up to? Having a movie night at the White House. He’s unfit.”

In the interview on Fox News a few days later to promote the film, the first lady was asked about the controversy in Minneapolis.

“I’m against the violence, so please if you protest, protest in peace,” she said. “We need to unify in these times.”

WASHINGTON — Democratic senators are narrowing a list of demands for changes to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with a partial government shutdown looming by week’s end, hoping to pressure Republicans and the White House as the country reels from the deaths of two people at the hands of federal agents in Minneapolis.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has not yet outlined what his caucus will ask for before a crucial Thursday vote on whether to move forward with spending legislation that funds the Department of Homeland Security and a swath of other government agencies. Democrats were to meet Wednesday and discuss several possible demands, including forcing agents to have warrants and identify themselves before immigration arrests, and they have pledged to block the spending bill in response to the violence.

“This madness, this terror must stop,” Schumer said, calling for immediate changes to ICE and U.S. Border Patrol.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said he is waiting for Democrats to outline what they want and he suggested that they need to be talking to the White House.

It was unclear how seriously the White House was engaged and whether the two sides could agree on anything that would appease Democrats who are irate after federal agents fatally shot U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti this month.

With no evident negotiations underway, a partial shutdown appeared increasingly likely starting Saturday.

Democrats weigh their demands

As the Republican administration pursues its aggressive immigration enforcement surge nationwide, Democrats have discussed several potential demands in the Homeland Security bill.

Those includes requiring judicial warrants for immigration arrests, mandating that federal agents have to identify themselves, ending arrest quotas, sending agents back to the border and forcing DHS to cooperate with state and local authorities in investigations into any incidents such as the two shooting deaths in Minnesota.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Democrats are looking at changes that will “unite the caucus, and I think unite the country,” including ending the “roving patrols” that Democrats say are terrorizing Americans around the country.

“None of this is revolutionary,” said Murphy, the top Democrat on the subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security spending. “None of this requires a new comprehensive piece of legislation.”

Schumer and Murphy have said any fixes should be passed by Congress, not just promised by the administration.

“The public can’t trust the administration to do the right thing on its own,” Schumer said.

Republicans say any changes to the spending would need to be passed by the House to prevent a shutdown, and that is not likely to happen in time because the House is not in legislative session this week.

“We can have conversations about what additional oversight is required, what additional laws we should consider, but not at the expense of shutting down the government,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Many obstacles to a deal

Despite some conversations among Democrats, Republicans and the White House, it was unclear whether there could be a resolution in time to avoid a partial shutdown.

The House passed the six remaining funding bills last week and sent them to the Senate as a package, and that makes it difficult to strip out the Homeland Security portion as Democrats are demanding. Republicans could break the package apart with the consent of all 100 senators, which would be complicated, or through a series of votes that would extend past the Friday deadline.

It was unclear whether President Trump would weigh in.

Republican leaders had hoped to avoid another shutdown after last fall’s 43-day closure that revolved around Democrats’ insistence on extending federal subsidies that make health coverage more affordable for those enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Even if the Senate could resolve the issue, House Republicans have made clear they do not want any changes to the bill they have passed. In a letter to Trump on Tuesday, the conservative House Freedom Caucus wrote that its members stand with the president and ICE.

“The package will not come back through the House without funding for the Department of Homeland Security,” according to the letter.

Democrats say they won’t back down.

“It is truly a moral moment,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “I think we need to take a stand.”

Jalonick and Freking write for the Associated Press.