white house

WASHINGTON — After two weeks of war with Iran, the Trump administration is being forced to temper its expectations of a swift end to the conflict, with U.S. intelligence and defense officials expressing doubt it can achieve the overthrow of Iran’s government and the destruction of its nuclear program through military means.

It was an outcome forewarned by analysts at the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon, who together alerted the administration to the pitfalls full-scale war with Iran would bring before President Trump decided to proceed, two U.S. officials told The Times, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Certain military goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out at the start of the war are still seen as achievable at the Pentagon, with U.S. and Israeli strikes making steady progress degrading Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, its drone program and its navy.

But a prewar U.S. intelligence assessment, that an air assault was unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic, still holds, with the intelligence community now casting doubt the assault had any more political effect than to radicalize a government already devoted to the destruction of Israel and harming the United States.

A military procession in Tehran carries the casket of Ali Shamkhani, political advisor to Iran’s last Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was also killed in U.S.-Israeli attacks.

(Atta Kenare / AFP/Getty Images)

Concern has only grown that Iran’s new government will make the fateful strategic decision to build a bomb after the war, unless Trump decides to escalate the conflict with a perilous ground invasion. And the White House now contends with a new mission imperative, created by its decision to launch the war itself, of reopening the Strait of Hormuz to vital shipping traffic that carries 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquid natural gas supply.

The foreign policy strategy Trump publicly laid out as his playbook for the conflict — to come down hard on the government, decapitating its leadership, and hope the remnants would seek mercy — has not worked, with Tehran looking for new ways to expand the war and maximize pain for the U.S. administration.

Trump has minimized the conflict as an “excursion” that would end “very soon,” while also calling it a war, vowing to take the time he needs to “finish the job.” He says it will conclude whenever he decides to end it.

It remains possible that a declaration from Trump that the fighting is over results in a ceasefire, as it did in June of last year, when Trump demanded an end to 12 days of war between Iran and Israel. But the Iranians have a vote, too — and senior leadership in the Islamic Republic have made plain they plan to continue fighting this time whether Trump likes it or not.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that an additional expeditionary unit of 2,500 Marines was being deployed to the region to support the effort.

“Starting wars is an easy matter,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote on social media. “Ending them does not happen with a few tweets.

“We will not leave you until you admit your mistake and pay its price,” he added.

It is a sore lesson for a president whose decade in public life has been distinguished by an exceptional ability to warp reality to his liking.

“The White House has created a dilemma for America: If it declares victory and ends the war, it leaves in place a weakened Iranian government with the means and renewed motivation to pursue nuclear weapons,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“If it presses on with the war,” Pauly added, “it risks the kind of mission creep that may eventually find American boots on the ground.”

In a news release last week, the White House said that, “from the opening hours of this historic campaign, the objectives were clear: obliterate Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism will never acquire a nuclear weapon.”

Yet, at the start of the operation, Trump issued a promise to the people of Iran that, at the end of the U.S.-Israeli campaign, Iran’s military and paramilitary infrastructure would be so badly hobbled that a rare, generational opportunity would emerge for them to take their government back.

“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump said. “Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

Trump said in the days that followed he would need to have a say over the next ruler, after assassinating the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the Iranian system of clerics and militants defied the president, selecting in Khamenei’s son a man viewed as even more hostile to the West than his father was.

Israeli leadership, too, set out regime change as a goal of the war. Yet even their officials now say that a substantial leadership change in Tehran is an unlikely result.

Trump would go on to insist on the “unconditional surrender” from the Iranian government, a demand that he later said would be satisfied by the incapacitation of Iran’s military.

Repeating his conviction that the war will end soon, Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade in an interview Friday that he would order an end to the fighting “when I feel it. When I feel it in my bones.”

“The problem with the administration’s approach is that it has constantly shifted its goals. Some are achievable, such as degrading Iran’s conventional force. Others are not, such as picking the next leader of Iran,” said Ray Takeyh, a scholar on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The mixed messages have led to confusion at home,” Takeyh added, “and lack of planning for oil shortages and getting the Americans out of the region shows that process and personnel can actually matter.”

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign was always designed to unfold in three phases: degrading Iran’s ability to wage war, reducing Iran’s ability to repress democratic forces inside the country, and finally, encouraging the Iranian people to rise up.

“The president controls the strategy, but no president fully controls the endgame because the regime gets a vote,” Dubowitz said. “The endgame is not a scripted political transition directed from Washington. It is a regime under simultaneous military, economic, and internal pressure — to strip of its war-making and repression capabilities — and whether that produces succession, fracture, or collapse will ultimately be decided in Tehran.”

Whether the conflict will achieve the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is an equally grave question in Washington, where officials are debating over a list of stark options on how to physically destroy, bury or retrieve the fissile material that Tehran could use to build a nuclear weapon — a threat seen as only more grave under the stewardship of an angry and vengeful government.

“The war was publicly justified, to the extent it was justified at all, in terms of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. Very few strikes have been directed against nuclear-related targets, however — almost certainly because those that survived last June’s attacks are invulnerable to air attack,” said James Acton, co‑director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Unless the U.S. and Israel attempt high-risk special forces operations or a ground incursion,” he added, “Iran will end the war with its surviving nuclear infrastructure largely intact and greater incentives to build the bomb.”

Pauly agreed it is unrealistic to expect the United States and Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear program through air power alone. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran has roughly 440 kilograms — about 970 pounds — of 60% highly enriched uranium, possibly spread across multiple facilities.

“Securing this material will require either U.S. ground troops or, after some coercive bargain is reached, international inspectors,” Pauly said.

In an exchange with reporters last week at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had few details to offer on what U.S. options were to remove or eliminate an accessible uranium stockpile, enriched to near weapons grade, that had been buried in a U.S. operation last year intended on obliterating the nuclear threat.

Diplomacy, he suggested, might be required to secure the material.

“I will say we have a range of options, up to and including Iran deciding that they will give those up,” he told reporters, “which of course we would welcome.”

President Trump was uncommonly lucky in his first term, neither inheriting nor provoking a crisis of the sort that tests U.S. presidents, until COVID struck in his final 10 months. (He failed that test, contributing to his 2020 reelection defeat.) Trump 1.0 was bequeathed a growing economy from President Obama, and the incoming president assembled a roster of capable advisors who often acted to prevent him from doing nutty things at home and abroad.

Trump 2.0 made sure that no such human guardrails populated his second Cabinet, only genuflecting enablers. Unrestrained, he has presided over one crisis on top of another, all of his own making. Tariff mayhem and high prices. Armed agents and troops in American cities. Repeated violations of court orders. Demolition at federal agencies and the White House.

And now Trump has taken the nation to war against Iran in league with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. Depending on the moment and the audience, a contradictory Trump is either claiming the war is “very complete” or that much remains to be done to “decimate” Iran. On Wednesday he blithely told Axios, “Any time I want it to end, it will end,” even as U.S. officials planned further actions.

In any case, Trump’s war of choice and the killing of the supreme leader of Iran’s terroristic theocracy now has spawned another potential crisis, counterterrorism experts warn: the risks of retaliatory terrorist threats at home. And that is a threat, whether from homegrown extremists or sleeper cells of the sort that came alive for 9/11, that is likely greater because of the initial self-induced crisis of Trump’s second term: his whacking of the federal government.

Trump authorized Elon Musk’s destruction of the bureaucracy in the name of “government efficiency” and continues to exact retribution against any federal employee who had anything to do with investigating and prosecuting him during his interregnum. Longtime agents and operatives have been eliminated at the FBI, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, CIA and elsewhere. Especially at the FBI, counterterrorism experts with centuries of collective experience are gone and many who remain have been diverted to Trump’s top priority: mass deportations.

Consequently, the president who promised to “Make America Safe Again” has arguably made Americans less safe.

I raised this scary prospect just over a year ago as Trump’s teardown of the purported Deep State was underway. And now a Mideast war that Trump promised never to start has further incentivized Iran and its jihadi proxies to hit back, just as he’s diminished the nation’s early-warning systems.

Enough intelligence remains, however, that even in the days before Trump ordered the first strikes against Tehran, government analysts were picking up “worrisome signs” of Iranian plotting against U.S. targets, the New York Times reported. After the U.S.-Israel onslaught and death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28, the government intercepted a possible Iranian “operational trigger” to “sleeper assets” outside Iran, according to ABC News.

Counterterrorism expert Colin P. Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center, which focuses on global security and transnational terrorism, wrote this week in the Atlantic that U.S. agencies’ record of disrupting Iranian-backed plots in America was in jeopardy given the recent changes in funding, personnel and priorities. “Because of this,” he concluded, “the U.S. homeland is arguably more vulnerable than it has been in a long time.”

In a follow-up exchange of emails, Clarke told me, “Many of this administration’s moves have been myopic — shifting counterterrorism resources to immigration, firing FBI agents working counterintelligence, etc. A week before the U.S. went to war with Iran, the FBI Director Kash Patel was off gallivanting in Milan at the Olympics [where he struggled to chug a Michelob Ultra, a firing offense in its own right] when he should have been preparing for the potential for an Iranian response on U.S. soil.”

Patel’s preposterous partying with the U.S. men’s hockey team while war-planning was underway in Washington was widely, justifiably mocked. But it stands as a metaphor for the entire Trump administration’s cavalier attitude toward homeland security. Its abusive focus on both migrants and citizens protesting on the migrants’ behalf is a distraction from actual threats to the country.

Patel, like his boss at the Justice Department, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, has made plain in words and actions that the president’s political enemies are the real public enemies No. 1. One of Bondi’s first acts was creation of a “weaponization working group” to identify, fire or prosecute those in her department who’d investigated and prosecuted Trump, many of whom also had experience in domestic and transnational terrorism. The association representing FBI agents called her purges “dangerous distractions” from the work “to make America safe again.”

Days after starting the Iran war, when homeland security should have been on red alert, Trump fired his secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem. Her costly cosplaying as the homeland’s heroine on horseback in anti-migrant videos, along with her penchant for luxury jets allegedly to transport deportees, was too much even for him.

Yet all three “national security” officials — Noem, Bondi and Patel — simply reflect Trump’s own warped approach and blasé attitude toward the homefront.

When Time magazine last week asked the commander in chief whether Americans should be worried about potential terrorist strikes at home, he replied, “I guess.”

“We plan for it,” he added. “But yeah, you know, we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”

The administration is planning for it all right. An extraordinary number of senior Trump officials have taken up residence in houses on military bases, including Bondi, Noem, the secretaries of State and Defense, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, and White House consigliere Stephen Miller.

The rest of us just have to keep our fingers crossed. I guess.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that the United States would accept nothing short of Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” signaling that the possibility of regime change may be emerging as an objective as the expanding war in the Middle East entered its seventh day.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said negotiations with Iran were off the table and that he wants to have a say on who will be Iran’s next leader once they capitulate.

“After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before,” Trump wrote.

The comments mark one of the clearest indications yet that Trump is contemplating regime change inside Iran even as administration officials have said that is not a goal of the war.

Mojtaba Khamenei — the son of the former leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — has emerged as a leading candidate to succeed his father. But Trump has said he would be an “unacceptable” choice, and in an interview with Politico, the president said he expects his administration will “work with them to help them make the proper choice.”

The comments come as the war continued to escalate across the region, with Israeli forces carrying out attacks on targets in Tehran and in Beirut and Iranian forces launching missile and drone attacks against Israel and Gulf countries. The Israeli military also said it hit an area in Tehran where it said Iran had secretly moved some nuclear activities to underground bunkers.

As the fighting intensified, the White House paired its policy statement on the war with an unusual online messaging campaign that featured Hollywood movies and video games to promote Trump’s war efforts.

In a 31-second video posted on the official White House account on X, a series of clips featured Russell Crowe in “Gladiator,” Mel Gibson in “Braveheart” and Tom Cruise in “Top Gun” with the caption: “JUSTICE AMERICAN WAY” with an American flag and fire emojis.

Another video montage to market the administration’s efforts in Iran used clips from the video game “Grand Theft Auto” with one of its characters saying: “Oh s—, here we go again.”

The tone of the social media campaign highlights the administration’s effort to frame the conflict in dramatic and patriotic terms as questions grow about its potential human toll.

In an interview with Time, Trump once again acknowledged the possibility of U.S. casualties — not just abroad but at home.

Asked whether Americans should be worried about retaliatory attacks at home, Trump said “I guess.”

“You know, we expect some things,”Trump said. “Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.”

Trump’s response drew swift criticism from congressional Democrats, a majority of whom have tried to rein in Trump’s efforts through legislative action to no avail in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was offended by the president’s “I guess” retort to the question of domestic attacks.

“You’ve got to be kidding me. We have totally unserious, completely incompetent people taking us into mindless deadly war,” Murphy said.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is preparing for President Trump to declare a national emergency in order to seize control of this year’s midterm elections from the states, including by bracing his Senate colleagues for a vote in which they would be forced to either co-sign on the power grab or resist it.

In the wake of reporting last week that conservative activists with connections to the White House were circulating such an order, Padilla sent a letter to his Senate colleagues Friday stating that any such order would be “wildly illegal and unconstitutional,” and would no doubt face “extremely strict scrutiny” in the courts.

“Nevertheless, if the President does escalate his unprecedented assault on our democracy by declaring an election-related emergency, I will swiftly introduce a privileged resolution [and] force a vote in the Senate to terminate the fake emergency,” wrote Padilla, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

Padilla wrote that such an order — which could possibly “include banning mail-in voting, eliminating major voting registration methods, voter purges, and/or new document barriers for registering to vote and voting” — would clearly go beyond Trump’s authority.

“Put simply, no President has the power under the Constitution or any law to take over elections, and no declaration or order can create one out of thin air,” Padilla wrote.

The same day Padilla sent his letter, Trump was asked whether he was considering declaring a national emergency around the midterms. “Who told you that?” he asked — before saying he was not considering such an order.

The White House referred The Times to that exchange when asked Tuesday for comment on Padilla’s letter.

If Trump did declare such an emergency, a “privileged resolution,” as Padilla proposed, would require the full Senate to vote on the record on whether or not to terminate it — forcing any Senate allies of the president to own the policy politically, along with him.

Experts say there is no evidence that U.S. elections are significantly affected or swung by widespread fraud or foreign interference, despite robust efforts by Trump and his allies for years to find it.

Nonetheless, Trump has been emphatic that such fraud is occurring, particularly in blue states such as California that allow for mail-in ballots and do not have strict voter ID laws. He and others in his administration have asserted, again without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizen residents are casting votes and that others are “harvesting” ballots out of the mail and filling them out in bulk.

Soon after taking office, Trump issued an executive order purporting to require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship before registering and barring the counting of mail-in ballots received after election day, but it was largely blocked by the courts.

Trump’s loyalist Justice Department sued red and blue states across the country for their full voter rolls, but those efforts also have largely been blocked, including in California. The FBI also raided an elections office in Georgia that has been the focus of Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

Trump is also pushing for the passage of the Save America Act, a voter ID bill passed by the House, but it has stalled in the Senate.

In recent weeks, Trump has expressed frustration that his demands around voting security have not translated into changes in blue state policies ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, where his shrinking approval could translate into major gains for Democrats.

Last month, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, “I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!”

Then, last week, the Washington Post reported that a draft executive order being circulated by activists with ties to Trump suggests that unproven claims of Chinese interference in the 2020 election could be used as a pretext to declare an elections emergency granting Trump sweeping authority to unilaterally institute the changes he wants to see in state-run elections.

Election experts said the Constitution is clear that states control and run elections, not with the executive branch.

Democrats have widely denounced any federal takeover of elections by Trump. And some Republicans have expressed similar concerns, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who chairs the Senate rules committee.

In the Wall Street Journal last year, McConnell warned against Trump or any Republican president asserting sweeping authority to control elections, in part because Democrats would then be empowered to claim similar authority if and when they retake power.

McConnell’s office referred The Times to that Journal opinion piece when asked about the circulating emergency order and Padilla’s resolution.

Padilla’s office said his resolution would be introduced in response to an emergency declaration by Trump, but hoped it wouldn’t be necessary.

“Instead of trying to evade accountability at the ballot box,” Padilla wrote, “the President should focus on the needs of Americans struggling to pay for groceries, health care, housing and other everyday needs and put these illegal and unconstitutional election orders in the trash can where they belong.”

Fearing the prospect of a Republican winning California’s gubernatorial race, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks on Tuesday urged his party’s candidates who lack a viable path to victory to drop out.

“It is imperative that every candidate honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign,” Hicks wrote in an open letter to the politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. “I recognize my suggestions are hard for many to contemplate and may be even viewed as overly harsh by some.”

Hicks did not name the Democrats he wants out of the race.

But, even though the odds are relatively low, California cannot risk having a Republican elected as the next governor at a time when President Trump is in the White House, he said.

“[S]o much is at stake in our Nation and so many are counting on the leadership of California Democrats to stand up and speak out at this historic moment,” Hicks wrote. “California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor.”

Hicks urged Democrats languishing at the bottom of the field of candidates to drop out before the Friday deadline to officially file to run for governor — to ensure their names do not appear on the June primary ballot.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

With nine top Democrats running, the fear is that the candidates will splinter their party’s vote and allow the top two Republicans in the race to finish in first and second place. This is despite Democratic registered voters outnumbering Republicans in the state by almost 2 to 1, and no GOP candidate winning a statewide election since 2006.

Having two Republicans competing in the November election would be devastating to Democratic voter turnout and could hurt party candidates in pivotal down-ballot races.

“The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our Nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025,” Hicks said in his letter. “We simply can’t let that happen.”

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that five candidates lead the contest — former Rep. Katie Porter, Rep. Eric Swalwell and hedge fund founder Tom Steyer among Democrats and conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans. Hilton and Bianco have led all candidates in other polls over the last few months.

Discussions about the need for some Democrats to exit the race took place at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention as well as when the powerful California Federation of Labor Unions began its endorsement process last week.

But a politically thorny issue is that nearly all of the Democrats lagging in the polls are people of color, as former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra noted at a candidate forum Monday evening.

“By the way, there are people who are calling for candidates to get out of the race,” he said at a gathering hosted by Equality California and the Los Angeles LGBT Center at the Renberg Theatre in Hollywood. “Isn’t it interesting that the candidates they are asking get out of the race are the candidates of color? So don’t take me there.”

Hicks, asked about the effect on candidates of color, lauded the field’s accomplishments.

“We have a number of strong candidates. They have incredible stories, and they are reflective of the diversity of our party. That being said, there are some political realities of where we are at at this particular moment,” he said in an interview. “I’m not calling on any specific candidates to move in one direction or the other. I’m just calling on them to assess their campaign and determine if they have a viable [path] and if they don’t, to not file.”

During Monday evening’s gubernatorial forum, Porter said she is concerned about the prospect of two Republicans making the top two.

“I hear people say to me, it could never happen, but everybody said that about Trump too,” she said at the forum. “And I look at how much harm we’re suffering, and I think about all the political risks that people are facing every day, the risk of an immigrant to leave their home and walk on our streets, the risk of a kid who’s trans to try to play sports even in this state. And I just don’t think we can take any more political risks.”

Times staff writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday refused to box himself in on how long U.S. military operations will last in Iran, saying the conflict in the Middle East could stretch from a month to potentially “far longer” as he frames the mission as one that is necessary to eliminate a “colossal threat” to American interests.

“Whatever the time is, it’s OK. Whatever it takes,” Trump said at a White House event. “Right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have the capability to go far longer than that. We’ll do it.”

Hours earlier, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the duration of the military operation remains fluid, and that Trump has “all the latitude in the world” to determine how long the war in Iran will go on.

“Four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up. It could move back,” Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon news conference.

The Trump administration’s shifting time frames and open-ended objectives in Iran have deepened uncertainty around an expanding conflict in the Middle East, particularly as American troops have already been killed in action and officials warn of more U.S. casualties.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that additional U.S. military forces are already moving into the region, and warned that the conflict will not be a “single, overnight operation” and that he expects “additional losses.”

A fourth U.S. fatality

The development came as military officials confirmed a fourth American service member had been killed by Iranian counterattacks and that three American jets were mistakenly shot down in Kuwait in an “apparent friendly fire incident” — and as airstrikes continued to fall across the Middle East, where missile defense systems were unable to intercept every attack and deaths mounted into the hundreds.

As the U.S. and Israel continued to hammer Tehran and other targets across Iran and in Lebanon, retaliatory strikes by Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, were reported in Israel as well as at U.S. facilities and other targets inside Bahrain, Cyprus, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the United Arab Emirates, according to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, to Iran’s east, Pakistan and Afghanistan were engaged in their own battles, further destabilizing the region.

In addition to hundreds of people dead, including Iranian schoolchildren, other civilians and migrant workers in the Gulf, the fighting has impacted the world’s production of oil and natural gas — disrupting tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz at the southern end of the Persian Gulf and causing oil prices to shoot up.

Saudi Arabia said it intercepted Iranian drones attacking an oil refinery near Dammam, with the refinery shutting down as a precaution, the AP reported. Iran denied targeting the facility.

Air travel disrupted

The war also disrupted air traffic globally, as major airports in the Gulf, including in Dubai, halted or radically scaled back flights. The travel interruptions rippled around the world, and airline stocks tumbled.

Israel had implemented nationwide restrictions on activities as it fended off attacks from Iran and residents hid in bomb shelters. Iran reported strikes at multiple schools in the country had left young students dead.

As the conflict unfolds in real time, Trump and Hegseth have refused to rule out sending American troops into Iran, and the president has signaled that the “big wave” of military attacks is yet to come.

“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground. Like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” Trump told the New York Post on Monday. ”I say, ‘probably don’t need them,’ [or] ‘if they were necessary.’”

When asked by a reporter whether U.S. troops were currently on the ground, Hegseth told reporters they were not, but then bristled at further questions about potential future deployments.

“Why in the world would we tell you, the enemy or anybody, what we will do or will not do in pursuit of an objective?” Hegseth said.

The Trump administration’s objectives in the war have been equally hard to pinpoint. Trump said Saturday that the operation is aimed at razing Iran’s military and nuclear capability and dismantling Iran’s theocratic regime, but on Monday said the goal is to eliminate the threats posed by the “sick and sinister regime” but not the government itself.

Hegseth said the attacks in Iran are not part of a “so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it today.” The U.S. and Israel attack on Saturday killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

‘Second or third place is dead’

In an interview with ABC News on Sunday evening, Trump suggested his administration had considered some figures to replace Khamenei, but said those people are now dead.

“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump said. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”

The Trump administration’s messaging, meanwhile, was consistent in its vengeful rhetoric.

Hegseth and Trump both warned that any threat to Americans would be met with force.

“If you kill Americans, if you threaten Americans anywhere on Earth, we will hunt you down without apology and without hesitation, we will kill you,” Hegseth said.

Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute, said a long misconception in “the way the U.S. reads Iran” is the belief that Khamenei ruled the country alone, and that taking him out would create a massive leadership vacuum or a sharp shift in the nation’s policies.

But while Khamenei was certainly an “intransigent” force in Iran, killing him won’t “lead to a major shift inside the country,” Harris said.

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said whether the U.S. can get out of Iran on a relatively short timeline depends on whether those in power in Iran now are willing to negotiate terms that Khamenei and other leaders who have been killed rejected.

“If the remnants of the regime are ideologically committed to what they were under Khamenei,” Radd said he “can’t see Trump backing down” and would expect the war to rage on.

Other leaders in Iran are fundamentalist and aligned with Khamenei, but given the U.S. has shown a willingness and ability to capture and assassinate foreign leaders, they might back down out of self-preservation.

“In the short term, there should be a wait-and-see approach as to what this reconstituted regime looks like,” he said.

WASHINGTON — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani presented President Trump with a mock newspaper front page during a visit to the White House on Thursday to discuss massive new housing investments in the city.

It’s a tactic designed to appeal to Trump, who is keenly aware of his media coverage and, aside from being an avid viewer of cable news, is known to voraciously consume coverage in the local New York City publications. The Republican president and Democratic mayor have maintained a cordial relationship since their first meeting last fall.

Anna Bahr, Mamdani’s communications director, said the mayor’s team created a mock front page and headlines for Trump to look at and demonstrate what kind of reaction new federal housing investments could bring. The mock New York Daily News front page says “Trump to City: Let’s Build” — a riff on the famous 1975 cover that read “Ford to City: Drop Dead,” referring to Gerald Ford’s vow to veto financial assistance to the city.

The mayor posted the photo of their meeting, featuring the front pages, to his social media page.

Mamdani’s office declined to elaborate on the mayor’s housing proposal, but Bahr said Trump was “very enthusiastic” about it. When Trump and Mamdani last met in November, the president encouraged Mamdani to return to him with an idea to build big things together in New York City, Bahr said.

Though Trump repeatedly maligned Mamdani as a “communist” as he ran for New York City mayor, the president appeared charmed by him after their one-on-one meeting at the White House in November.

At the meeting on Thursday – which was previously unannounced and lasted for about an hour – Mamdani also brought up the detainment of Ellie Aghayeva, a Columbia University student from Azerbaijan who was arrested earlier Thursday by federal immigration agents.

The agents had accessed a campus residence by claiming they were searching for a “missing person,” according to Aghayeva’s attorneys and Columbia’s president. As he met with Trump, Mamdani urged Trump to consider releasing her.

In a phone call not long after their White House meeting, Trump told the mayor that Aghayeva would be released. Mamdani also gave White House chief of staff Susie Wiles a list of four other students targeted by federal authorities and asked for the administration’s help with them.

The four students are Mahmoud Khalil, Yunseo Chung, Mohsen Mahdawi and Leqaa Kordia, who were all detained for their roles in pro-Palestinian protests. Of the four, only Kordia remains in custody, although all cases are proceeding through the courts.

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

U.S. women’s hockey star Hilary Knight wasn’t a fan of a comment that President Trump made about her team days after it claimed Olympic gold at the Milan-Cortina Games.

“I thought it was sort of a distasteful joke, and unfortunately, that is overshadowing a lot of the success of just women at the Olympics carrying for Team USA and having amazing gold medal feats,” Knight said Wednesday during an appearance on ESPN’s “SportsCenter.”

On Feb. 19, the U.S. defeated Canada 2-1 in overtime for a third gold medal in women’s hockey; the team won gold in 1998 and 2018. Three days later, the U.S. men’s hockey team also won gold by defeating Canada 2-1 in overtime.

After the men’s game, Trump addressed the U.S. players by phone in the locker room, extending an invitation for them to attend his State of the Union address two days later and adding a seemingly dismissive comment about the women’s team.

“I must tell you, we’re gonna have to bring the women’s team, you do know that,” Trump said during the call. By not inviting the other American gold medal hockey team, the president said, “I do believe I’d probably be impeached.”

Trump’s comment was met with loud laughter in the locker room. But Knight said she and her teammates aren’t spending much time thinking about the remark.

“We’re just trying to focus on celebrating the women in our room, the extraordinary efforts and continue to celebrate three gold medals in program history, as well as the double gold for both men’s and women’s at the same time and really not detract from that with a distasteful joke,” Knight, who has won two gold medals and three silvers in five Olympics with the U.S. team, said.

“It was unfortunate, but yeah, I think really focusing on celebrating all great things that have come out of the Olympics and feeling the love and the support and getting back in our respective communities and sharing this journey with them, that’s what it’s all about and that’s what makes this moment super special.”

The majority of the men’s team met with Trump at the White House on Tuesday before being honored at the State of the Union address, where they received a bipartisan standing ovation lasting about two minutes. During his address, Trump announced that goalie Connor Hellebuyck will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

The women’s team confirmed in a statement Monday that it declined an invitation to attend the State of the Union address “due to the timing and previously scheduled academic and professional commitments following the Games.” Trump said during the address that the women’s team would be visiting the White House “very soon.”

Amid the controversy over Trump’s locker room comment, hip-hop legend Flavor Flav invited the women’s hockey team to a special event celebrating their achievement in Las Vegas. He later extended the invitation to “ALL Female US Olympians and Paralympian medalists” for the “She’s Got Game Weekend” from July 16-19.

“It was definitely super special, after everything that’s been going around online, to have someone step up like that and really go to bat for us,” forward Alex Carpenter said of Flav’s invitation during a Seattle Torrent news conference on Wednesday. “I think we’re fully gonna take advantage of that and go have some fun and celebrate like we deserve to.”

U.S.men’s team member Jeremy Swayman told reporters at Boston Bruins practice Wednesday that the laughter heard in the locker room following Trump’s comment does not reflect how the players feel about the women’s team and its accomplishments.

“Yeah, we should have reacted differently,” Swayman said. “We are so excited for the women’s team, we have so much respect for the women’s team, and to share that gold medal with them is something that we’re forever grateful for. And now that we’re home we get to share that together forever and see the incredible support we have from the USA and share in this incredible gold medal.”

Jack Hughes, who scored the winning goal for the U.S. men against Canada, said the men’s players were caught “in the moment” during the president’s call that came during the middle of their victory celebration.

“Obviously it is what it is now, but we have so much respect for the women’s team and they have so much respect for us,” Hughes told reporters after his New Jersey Devils’ 2-1 loss to the Buffalo Sabres on Wednesday night. “We’re all just proud Americans and we’re happy that we both swept the Olympics.”

Knight said she thinks there is “a genuine level of support and respect” between the U.S. men’s and women’s players and called the moment a “sort of a quick lapse” by the men’s players.

“I think the guys were in a tough spot,” Knight said. “So it’s a shame that this storyline and narrative is kind of blown up and overshadowing that connection and genuine interest in one another and cheering one another on.

“I think this is just a really good learning point to really focus on, you know, how we talk about women, not only in sport, but in industry.”

Discussion about the call wasn’t the only criticism of the White House from the world of Team USA hockey.

On Thursday, men’s player Brady Tkachuk said he was unhappy that the White House shared a video on TikTok that made it appear he disparaged Canadians while using profanity. The video, which also features hockey footage and part of an interview with Hughes, carries a note saying it “contains AI-generated media.”

“It’s clearly fake because it’s not my voice and not my lips moving. … I know that those words would never come out of my mouth,” Tkachuk told reporters.

He added: “I would never say that. That’s not who I am.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.

Tkachuk also denied being the voice heard shouting “close the northern border” during the team’s call with Trump.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice appears to have withheld from disclosure files on disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein related to a claim that President Trump sexually abused a minor, a top Democratic lawmaker said Tuesday.

“Oversight Democrats can confirm that the DOJ appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with this survivor who accused President Trump of heinous crimes.” U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach said in a statement. “Oversight Democrats will open a parallel investigation into this.”

Garcia is the top-ranking Democrat on the House committee probing Epstein and how federal law enforcement handled its investigation into sex trafficking accusations against the financier.

Trump has repeatedly said he cut ties with Epstein two decades ago and was not aware of the late financier’s activities. The president has also said he didn’t engage in wrongdoing. Last year, Trump strenuously opposed releasing the Epstein files but then signed legislation forcing their release after it was passed by Congress.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the file that listed all FBI interviews with the victim was temporarily removed in order to do redactions and put back online on Thursday. The spokeswoman said the department has not deleted any of the files and all documents responsive to the law have been produced unless they fall within a category that justifies being withheld.

The White House pointed to a Justice Department social media post saying “ALL responsive documents have been produced” unless there is a legitimate legal reason for withholding them. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee “should stop misleading the public while manufacturing outrage from their radical anti-Trump base,” the statement added.

A White House spokesperson previously cited the release of documents as evidence of its transparency and support for helping Epstein’s victims.

Sara Guerrero, a spokesperson for Garcia, said the department “has yet to respond as to why these documents are missing, despite the active subpoena from the Oversight Committee that does not allow for withholding these documents. They are not addressing the missing files about the survivor and her allegations.”

Legislation Congress passed last year to force disclosure of the Epstein files permits limited redactions for reasons such as to protect victims or classified information and to avoid jeopardizing ongoing criminal investigations.

“Under the Oversight Committee’s subpoena and the Epstein Files Transparency Act, these records must immediately be shared with Congress and the American public,” Garcia said. “Covering up direct evidence of a potential assault by the President of the United States is the most serious possible crime in this White House cover up.”

Tarabay and Strohm write for Bloomberg News. Steven T. Dennis and Hadriana Lowenkron of Bloomberg contributed to this report.

Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have long circled one another.

The two moved in the same political slipstream, wooed the same set of Democratic donors and, for a time, even shared the same group of campaign advisors.

Harris rose from San Francisco district attorney to elected positions in Sacramento and Washington before twice running unsuccessfully for president.

Newsom climbed from San Francisco mayor to lieutenant governor to California’s governorship, where he quietly stewed as Harris leapfrogged past him into the vice presidency. While she served in the White House, Newsom tried any number of ways to insinuate himself into the national spotlight.

Now both have at least one eye on the Oval Office, setting up a potential clash of egos and ambition that’s been decades in the making.

Newsom, whose term as governor expires in January, has been auditioning for president from practically the moment the polls closed in 2024 and horrified Democrats realized Harris had lost to Donald Trump.

Harris, who’s mostly focused on writing and promoting her campaign autobiography — while giving a political speech here and there — hasn’t publicly declared she’ll seek the White House a third time. But, notably, she has yet to rule out the possibility.

In a CNN interview aired Sunday, Newsom was asked about the prospect of facing his longtime frenemy in a fight for the Democratic nomination. (California’s gallivanting governor is embarked on his own national book tour, promoting both the “memoir of discovery” that was published Tuesday and his all-but-declared presidential bid.)

“Well, I’m San Francisco now, she’s L.A.,” Newsom joked, referring to Harris’ post-Washington residency in Brentwood. “So there’s a little distance between the two of us.”

He then turned zen-like, saying fate would determine if the two face off in the 2028 primary contest. “You can only control what you can control,” Newsom told CNN host Dana Bash.

A decade ago, Newsom and Harris swerved to keep their careers from colliding.

In 2015, Barbara Boxer said she would step down once she finished her fourth term in the U.S. Senate. The opening presented a rare opportunity for political advancement after years in which a clutch of aging incumbents held California’s top elected offices. Between Lt. Gov. Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Harris, there was no lack of pent-up ambition.

After a weekend of intensive deliberations, Newsom passed on the Senate race and Harris jumped in, establishing herself as the front-runner for Boxer’s seat, which she won in 2016. Newsom waited and was elected governor in 2018, succeeding Jerry Brown.

Once in their preferred roles, the two got along reasonably well. Each campaigned on the other’s behalf. But, privately, there has never been a great deal of mutual regard or affection.

Come 2028, there will doubtless be many Democrats seeking to replace President Trump. The party’s last wide-open contest, in 2020, drew more than two dozen major contestants. So it’s not as though Harris and Newsom would face each other in a one-on-one fight.

But dueling on the national stage, with the country’s top political prize at stake, is something that Hollywood might have scripted for Newsom and Harris as the way to settle, once and for all, their long-standing rivalry.

The two Californians would start out closely matched in good looks and charisma.

Those who know them well, having observed Newsom and Harris up close, cite other strengths and weaknesses.

Harris has thicker skin, they suggested, and is more disciplined. Her forte is set-piece events, like debates and big speeches.

Newsom is more of a policy wonk, a greater risk-taker and is more willing to venture into challenging and even hostile settings.

Newson is more fluent in the ecosphere of social media, podcasts and the like. Harris has the advantage of performing longer on the national stage and bears nothing like the personal scandals that have plagued Newsom.

But Harris’ problem, it was widely agreed, is that she has run twice before and, worse, lost the last time to Trump.

“To a lot of voters, she’s yesterday’s news,” said one campaign strategist.

“She had her shot,” said another, channeling the perceived way Democratic primary voters would react to another Harris run. “You didn’t make it, so why should we give you another shot?”

(Those half-dozen kibbitzers who agreed to candidly assess the prospects of Newsom and Harris asked not to be identified, so they could preserve their relationships with the two.)

Most of the handicappers gave the edge to Newsom in a prospective match-up; one political operative familiar with both would have placed their wager on Harris had she not run before.

“I think her demographic appeal to Black women and coming up the ranks as a Black woman working in criminal justice is a very strong card,” said the campaign strategist. “The white guy from California, the pretty boy, is not as much of a primary draw.”

That said, this strategist, too, suggested that “being tagged as someone who not only lost but lost in this situation that has set the world on fire … is too big a cross to bear.”

The consensus among these cognoscenti is that Harris will not run again and that Newsom — notwithstanding any demurrals — will.

Of course, the only two who know for sure are those principals, and it’s quite possible neither Harris nor Newsom have entirely made up their minds.

Those who enjoy their politics cut with a dash of soap opera will just have to wait.

President Trump on Tuesday awarded Team USA’s hockey goalie Connor Hellebuyck the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

The American team won the Olympic gold medal on Sunday, the first time in 46 years, on the anniversary of the team’s legendary triumph over the USSR, known as the “Miracle on Ice.” They won in a 2-1 overtime game against Canada, with Hellebuyck’s performance widely lauded throughout the tournament. He received credit for the second assist on the tournament-winning goal.

“I just want to say a … very big congratulations to Team USA,” Trump said in the opening moments of his speech, adding that he asked team members to vote on awarding the medal to Hellebuyck. “I just want to tell you that the members of this great hockey squad will be very happy to hear based on their vote and my vote — and in this case, my vote was more important — that I will soon be presenting Connor with our highest civilian honor.”

Hellebuyck, 32, plays for the National Hockey League’s Winnipeg Jets.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom has previously been awarded to politicians, religious leaders, artists, fashion designers and others who have made significant contributions to American society. Prior athletes who have received the honor include soccer legend Lionel Messi, former Los Angeles Laker Magic Johnson and Olympians Katie Ledecky, Simone Biles and Megan Rapinoe.

The men’s team visited the White House earlier Tuesday and several members attended the State of the Union address.

The team has been a source of controversy for the administration after FBI Director Kash Patel was seen chugging beer in their locker room after their victory in the midst of multiple law-enforcement emergencies, including Americans trapped in Mexico in the aftermath of the killing of Mexico’s most powerful cartel leader, Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes.

In video posted on social media, Patel appears to hold out a phone in the locker room as Trump invites the team to the White House and says he will also have to invite the U.S. women’s hockey team, which also won a gold medal, or “be impeached.”

During his State of the Union address, the president claimed that the women’s team would be visiting the White House “very soon.” The team earlier announced that it had turned down the White House’s invitation this week.

“We are sincerely grateful for the invitation extended to our gold medal-winning U.S. Women’s Hockey Team and deeply appreciate the recognition of their extraordinary achievement,” the team said in a statement. “Due to the timing and previously scheduled academic and professional commitments following the Games, the athletes are unable to participate. They were honored to be included and are grateful for the acknowledgment.”

Rapper-turned-Olympian patron Flavor Flav invited them to party with him and with other Olympic athletes in Las Vegas instead.

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.