year

The Washington National Opera filed a lawsuit on Thursday that demands more than $17 million from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The opera company claims it is owed millions in donations that have been withheld.

The lawsuit claims that after the opera company and the Kennedy Center parted ways in January, center officials have not returned more than $17 million in gifts and donations that belong to the opera company. The lawsuit lists the federal government as a defendant because the Kennedy Center was established by Congress.

According to the suit, the opera company and the Kennedy Center had a longstanding contract in which WNO produced its operas at the Kennedy Center, which in return, provided a number of services and other support for the opera company including managing its donations.

In late 2025, after approximately 15 years of affiliation, the suit claims that the Kennedy Center stopped performing the obligations of their agreement, which included marketing, fundraising and administrative support, as well as timely reporting on the growth of the opera company’s funds. When the opera company requested the Kennedy Center remedy the issue, center officials asked to sever ties.

“Five months have now passed since the termination of the affiliation, and the Kennedy Center still has not returned the funds to WNO,” reads the suit. “To the contrary, according to the Kennedy Center’s Chief Financial Officer, the Kennedy Center has put a significant portion of WNO’s money at risk by using it to collateralize the Kennedy Center’s line of credit.”

In an emailed statement responding to the lawsuit, Roma Daravi, a spokeswoman for the Kennedy Center, told The Times that the contract between the opera house and the center financially burdened the center for more than a decade. The statement claimed that taking into account the company’s endowment, an external accounting firm calculated that the opera company had “accumulated a $72 million deficit to the center” between 2011 and 2026.

“The Center has acted transparently and in the best interests of the public throughout this process,” the statement reads. “This lawsuit is meritless, and we plan to pursue a countersuit to defend the institution.”

The legal action comes during a tumultuous time for the Kennedy Center. Last year, President Trump fired the board and appointed himself chairman of the Kennedy Center.

In December, President Trump’s name was installed on the exterior of the center the day after his handpicked board of trustees voted to change the institution’s name to the “Trump-Kennedy Center.” Last month, a federal judge ordered President Trump’s name to be removed from the exterior of the building within two weeks and a halt to the Trump administration’s planned two-year closure of the venue.

On Friday, the court-ordered deadline for removing his name sparked widespread interest and crowds gathered outside the center. A live cam was also placed near the structure.

The Times arts editor Jessica Gelt contributed to this report.

The stunning victory by the New York Knickerbockers over the San Antonio Spurs on Wednesday gave ABC the most-watched NBA Finals Game 4 since 1998, the year of Michael Jordan’s last championship with the Chicago Bulls.

Nielsen data showed an average of 20.9 million viewers watched the Knicks overcome a 29-point halftime deficit to top Victor Wembanyama and the Spurs 107-106 at Madison Square Garden, the greatest comeback in NBA Finals history. The Knicks have a 3-1 lead in the series and will play Game 5 on Saturday in San Antonio, attempting to win their first NBA championship in 53 years.

Through the first four games, the NBA Finals are averaging 19.6 million viewers, also the highest since the Bulls-Utah Jazz faced off on NBC in 1998. The series is on track to become the most-watched since the NBA Finals moved to ABC and ESPN in 2002.

“The match-up is ideal from a media business standpoint, featuring the nation’s largest media market with New York, teams with robust followings and multiple all-stars, especially Wemby, the compelling new face of the NBA,” said Lee Berke, president of LHB Sports Entertainment & Media, Inc.

The Knicks-Spurs series is up 116% over the first four games of last year’s match-up between the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Indiana Pacers. But the most encouraging numbers for ABC and ESPN is the growth among younger viewers, who have become harder to reach in the age of social media and streaming. Ratings among teens aged 12 to 17 are up 138% while the 18 to 24 age group is up 147%.

ABC is also seeing spikes in viewing among women, up 121%, and the Latino audience due to its large populations in the markets of New York and San Antonio, according to Flora Kelly, ESPN’s senior vice president for audience research.

Viewing in the New York market alone is accounting for 18% of the national audience.

Este Haim, Taylor Swift, and Mariska Hargitay react during the 2026 NBA Finals at Madison Square Garden on June 10, 2026.

(Al Bello / Getty Images)

In addition to delivering highly competitive games, the NBA Finals also had President Trump and pop superstar Taylor Swift in attendance at Madison Square Garden. Both are capable of turning a live TV event into a full-blown spectacle.

“What we’re seeing is that this Spurs-Knicks series is a tremendous cultural moment,” Kelly said.

Trump attended Game 3, making him the first sitting president to attend an NBA Finals. While Trump was a fixture at Knicks games before he entered the national political scene, some commentators, such as ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith, believed the president’s insistence on attending Monday’s contest became a distraction that disrupted the home team’s momentum. (The Knicks lost the game 115-111, ending the team’s streak of 13 consecutive wins).

Swift showed up for Game 4, joining “Law & Order: SVU” star Mariska Hargitay and the other celebrities that regularly show up court side at Madison Square Garden.

PARIS — Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney became a symbol of middle power resistance after a celebrated speech earlier this year, but he is expected to be more muted in his criticism of President Trump at an upcoming summit in Europe.

Carney’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, helped make him an international political star in January, when he declared the global rules-based order over and condemned coercion by great powers on smaller countries. The prime minister received widespread praise and attention for his remarks and upstaged Trump at the gathering.

But the G7 summit of industrialized democracies that begins Monday in France comes ahead of the scheduled July 1 review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, the latest iteration of the North American free-trade pact that has intertwined the economies of the United States, Mexico and Canada since the early 1990s. It is a crucial moment in trade talks, and Trump said this week that he may not renew the deal.

More than 70% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S., so preserving the accord is critical for Canada.

Canadian historian Robert Bothwell said Trump is more of a problem for Carney “than anybody else because we are more exposed to the United States than anybody else.”

Trump leaves for the G7 summit right after he hosts UFC fights at the White House on Sunday for his 80th birthday.

The summit will unfold as tensions are ramping up between Trump and Canada. One of the world’s most durable and amicable alliances — born of geography, heritage and centuries of common interests — is broken, as seen in several recent examples of tension between leaders.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, the leader of Canada’s most populous province, had a reception with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington canceled Monday at the last minute. Vic Fedeli, one of Ford’s ministers, said if Trump forced the chamber to cancel, “Ford should be wearing that as a badge of honor.”

Trump said again this week that the U.S. doesn’t need anything that Canada has. Carney has set a goal for Canada to double its non-U.S. exports in the next decade, saying Trump’s trade war is causing a chill in investment.

In other developments, the opening of a major Canadian bridge across the Detroit River that Trump previously threatened to block was delayed Thursday due to unresolved issues.

Trump’s actions, including launching a trade war and suggesting Canada become the 51st U.S. state, have infuriated Canadians and created the political environment for Carney to win the job of prime minister after promising to confront Trump.

Trump administration officials keep noting that only two countries, China and Canada, retaliated against America in the trade war. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says Canada’s retaliatory measures are a major issue in talks.

Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said Carney seems to have moderated his tone toward the Trump administration to avoid worsening relations.

“There is a clear tension between what Prime Minister Carney said in his Davos speech about middle powers standing up to hegemons and his attempt to nudge the U.S. administration ‘in the right direction’ with regard to the USMCA review and trade policy more generally,” Béland said.

Carney has downplayed Trump’s most recent comments about Canada becoming the 51st state.

Canada and Mexico want the USMCA to be renewed for another 16 years. Trump has mused about withdrawing from it. More likely it will be subject to annual reviews for the next 10 years.

Carney arrived in Paris on Friday morning and will meet with French President Emmanuel Macron in the evening, a few days before the summit in Évian-les-Bains, France.

The prime minister will also travel to Ireland this weekend to meet with the Irish prime minister in a bid to diversify trade away from the U.S.

This is Carney’s ninth trip to Europe in the 15 months since he became prime minister in March 2025.

The U.S. “will clearly remain Canada’s largest trading partner for the predictable future,” Béland said, calling it an inescapable reality that Carney “must keep front of mind even as he seeks to make Canada somewhat less dependent on trade with the U.S.”

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.

Dodgers and Rams head team physician Neal ElAttrache was questioned by Major League Baseball investigators Friday following a detailed report by the New York Times that the renowned surgeon and sports medicine expert supported the therapeutic use of performance-enhancing drugs by UFC star Conor McGregor.

MLB spoke with ElAttrache, according to a person familiar with the matter but not authorized to comment publicly. The league considered the interview informational, not an investigation. The NFL, Rams and Dodgers declined comment.

“I have spoken with MLB and I am very comfortable with the process that the league and I will complete to assure the public that I have followed every rule and regulation in my medical treatment of athletes without exception,” ElAttrache said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. “My record is completely clean, including in this case. I will leave it to MLB officials to provide any further comment as they see fit.“

ElAttrache performed surgery on McGregor in July 2021, inserting a rod, plates and screws into his left leg after the fighter broke his tibia and fibula during a bout against Dustin Poirier in Las Vegas.

McGregor’s recovery was lengthy and arduous. ElAttrache told the New York Times that while he did not prescribe steroids for McGregor, he referred him to a specialist who did. Furthermore, ElAttrache wrote a letter supporting McGregor’s request for a therapeutic use exemption from UFC drug policies.

“I felt it would be appropriate to consult other physicians with expertise in bone healing/bone metabolism,” ElAttrache told the paper via text. “I recommended the consultations but not the course of treatment.”

ElAttrache said he told McGregor to check with UFC drug testers about prescriptions the consultant gave him. “I purposely wasn’t involved with his evaluation by the consultant nor with prescribing medication,” ElAttrache said.

The exemption request was denied by USADA (the drug testing organization the UFC used then), triggering a split between the two organizations. McGregor withdrew from the UFC anti-doping program shortly thereafter and was no longer required to undergo testing for banned substances.

ElAttrache, operating primarily out of the Cedars-Sinai Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic in Los Angeles, has performed elbow or shoulder surgeries on prominent current and former Dodgers including Shohei Ohtani, Clayton Kershaw, Tony Gonsolin and Walker Buehler as well as former Rams stars Cooper Kupp and Cam Akers.

Among the hundreds of surgeries performed over three decades by ElAttrache, his patients included the four 2024 MLB Most Valuable Player and Cy Young Award winners — Ohtani, Aaron Judge, Chris Sale and Tarik Skubal. ElAttrache’s patients include 18 of 29 players who won the MVP or Cy Young awards over the last 10 years.

Other prominent athletes who became his patients include former Lakers legend Kobe Bryant and star NFL quarterbacks Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and Joe Burrow.

ElAttrache was a boxer long before he became a renowned surgeon and team physician. He attended Notre Dame, where organized boxing was first introduced by Knute Rockne as a conditioning program in the 1930s. An intramural tournament known as the Bengal Bouts was formed and decades later ElAttrache became a champion, winning the 185-pound division in 1978.

Before world lightweight boxing champion Vasiliy Lomachenko returned from shoulder surgery to defend his title in 2019, ElAttrache counseled him against using his left hook because he wasn’t mentally ready to do so.

“When that arm goes into that position, the brain remembers that was the position where that dislocation occurred,” ElAttrache told the Los Angeles Times at the time. “It takes time to overcome that apprehension.”

It has taken McGregor five years since his injury to return to the octagon. He is scheduled to do so July 11 in a welterweight bout against Max Holloway at UFC 329 in Las Vegas as the main event of International Fight Week.

His recovery and startling physical transformation hardly a year after his injury became a frequent topic on social media. Fellow UFC fighter Anthony Smith said on Michael Bisping’s “Believe You Me” podcast in November 2022 that the reason McGregor pulled out of the UFC drug testing pool was obvious.

“There’s only one reason you would do that,” Smith said. “He’s looking jacked as s—. You keep seeing videos of him flexing in front of mirrors and screaming and he’s huge. He healed really fast. Like, really fast.”

On his show in December 2022, podcast host Joe Rogan noted McGregor’s impressive physique and the USADA testing loophole.

ElAttrache told the New York Times that he stopped treating McGregor after steering the fighter to someone who could obtain banned substances.

“I purposely wasn’t involved with his evaluation by the consultant nor with prescribing medication,” ElAttrache told the Times. He said “expert opinions” could help McGregor and “optimize his chance of solid union and healing of his fractures.”

Seeking the exemption, however, was viewed by USADA and some UFC officials as McGregor trying to find a way to use banned drugs. McGregor re-entered the drug-testing pool on Oct. 8, 2023, the same day UFC notified USADA that it would end the partnership.

Because McGregor had long been suspected of taking banned substances to revive his career, the mixed martial arts community reacted to the New York Times investigation with a measure of closure.

“OK, it’s confirmed now,” co-host Conner Burks on the popular MMA podcast “The Boys in the Back” said. “None of this came as a massive shock to me.”

“It seemed like the worst kept secret in combat sports,” co-host Eric Jackman said.

In a written response to a question posed by the New York Times, McGregor’s manager, Audie Attar, did not say whether McGregor had used banned substances. He said that “even with surgery there was a real risk Conor might not walk again, a high likelihood he would face numerous lifelong side effects that would limit his mobility and serious doubts he would ever return to the octagon.”

Attar said McGregor withdrew from the UFC drug-testing pool “to focus fully on his recovery” under the care of “his team of world-renowned physicians.”

“They oversaw a combination of a gruesome surgery, intense physical therapy and appropriately prescribed medicines,” Attar said. “It is an unfathomable breach of health and privacy protections that my client’s purported personal medical records would be disclosed.”

McGregor attempted to return to fighting in June 2024, but a scheduled bout against Michael Chandler was canceled because McGregor broke a toe during training.

Combat Sports Anti-Doping officials were unable to locate McGregor for testing on the day the fight was canceled, and he missed tests on two subsequent occasions. Under the UFC Whereabouts Policy, the three failures constituted an anti-doping violation equivalent to a failed drug test.

The UFC suspended McGregor in October 2025 for 18 months because of testing violations. The suspension expired in June, clearing him to compete.

Times staff writers Bill Shaikin, Sam Farmer and Gary Klein contributed to this report.

Hi, and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell and my second favorite announcer is the great Harry Doyle.

Who is the best at ABS challenges?

A friend of mine, Tom Black, asked me the other day why Freddie Freeman never makes an ABS challenge. It made me wonder who makes a lot of challenges, who’s the best at it, etc., which led to this newsletter.

The majors instituted the Automated Ball-Strike challenge system this season, which allows a batter, pitcher or catcher to challenge an umpire’s ball or strike call.

First, some quick ABS rules:

1. Only the batter, pitcher or catcher can make a challenge. No one else.

2. Challenges must be made immediately after the umpire’s call, without assistance from the dugout or other players.

3. The player taps his cap or helmet to alert the umpire to his desire to challenge the call. Players are also encouraged to verbalize their challenge, to leave nothing to doubt, but the cap/helmet tap represents the official challenge.

4. A team gets two challenges per game. If a challenge is successful, they retain their challenge. Theoretically, you could challenge every pitch as long you were correct every time. Once you are wrong twice, you are out of challenges.

5. If a game goes into extra innings, any team that starts the extra inning out of challenges will get one challenge for the 10th inning. If they exhaust that challenge, they will then get another challenge for the 11th, and so on. If a team has challenges remaining at the start of the 10th inning, they will not get an additional challenge for that inning, though they will for any subsequent inning if they are out of challenges at the start of the inning.

There has been an average of 4.1 challenges per game.

From MLB.com:

How is the ABS strike zone measured?

Like the plate, it is 17 inches wide. The top end of the zone is at 53.5% of the player’s height, while the bottom is at 27% of the player’s height. The depth of the zone is 8.5 inches from both the front and back of the plate to its center.

All position players in Spring Training had their heights measured by a team of independent testers conducting manual measurements and by representatives from a research institute using biomechanical analysis to confirm the manual measurements and safeguard against potential manipulation. Players are measured standing straight up without cleats.

And now that the technical stuff is out of the way, let’s look at who is good and bad at challenges (all numbers through Tuesday and courtesy of baseball-reference.com):

Teams that are most successful at getting calls overturned:

1. Arizona, 60.2% (68 of 113)
2. Cincinnati, 59.9% (85 of 142)
3. Detroit, 59.5% (78 of 131)
4. Chicago Cubs, 59.4% (82 of 138)
5. Texas, 58.7% (64 of 109)
6. Dodgers, 58.4% (73 of 125)

The five worst:
1. Pittsburgh, 42.4% (53 of 125)
2. Cleveland, 44.7% (68 of 152)
3. Washington, 45.8%, (60 of 131)
4. Chicago White Sox, 47.2% (76 of 161)
5. San Francisco, 48.1% (65 of 135)

Minnesota has made the most challenges with 179, Boston the fewest with 105.

Best challenge overturned % by hitters (minimum seven challenges):

CJ Abrams, Washington, 100% (7 for 7)
Nick Kurtz, Athletics, 85.7% (6 for 7)
Xander Bogaerts, San Diego, 75% (9 for 12)
Davis Schneider, Toronto, 75% (9 for 12)
Aaron Judge, Yankees, 75% (6 for 8)
Teoscar Hernández, Dodgers, 70% (7 for 10)
Brent Rooker, Athletics, 70% (7 for 10)
Jose Altuve, Houston, 69.2% (9 for 13)

The worst
Trea Turner, Philadelphia, 12.5% (1 for 8)
Spencer Horwitz, Pittsburgh, 14.3% (1 for 7)
Andrés Giménez, Toronto, 14.3% (1 for 7)
James Wood, Washington, 20% (3 for 15)
Mauricio Dubón, Atlanta, 22.2% (2 for 9)

Most challenges by a batter
Sal Stewart, Cincinnati, 29 (65.5%, 19 for 29)
Gary Sánchez, Milwaukee, 19 (42.1%, 8 for 19)
Cam Smith, Houston, 17 (41.2%, 7 for 17)
José Caballero, Yankees, 16 (56.3%, 9 for 16)
Ronald Acuña Jr., Atlanta, 16 (43.8%, 7 for 16)

Best challenge overturned % by catchers, minimum 10 challenges
Carson Kelly, Chicago Cubs, 84.4% (27 for 32)
Mitch Garver, Seattle, 81.8% (18 for 22)
J.T. Realmuto, Philadelphia, 80.8% (21 for 26)
Travis d’Arnaud, Angels, 80% (8 for 10)
Sandy León, Atlanta, 77.8% (14 for 18)
Salvador Perez, Kansas City, 75% (33 for 44)

Worst challenge overturned % by catchers, minimum 10 challenges
Bo Naylor, Cleveland, 33.3% (4 for 12)
Jhonny Pereda, Seattle, 35% (7 for 20)
Samuel Basallo, Baltimore, 36.4% (8 for 22)
Drew Millas, Washington, 38.9% (14 for 36)
Elias Díaz, Texas, 40% (4 for 10)

Most challenges by a catcher
William Contreras, Milwaukee, 81 (60.5%, 49 for 81)
Edgar Quero, White Sox, 66 (48.5%, 32 for 66)
Nick Fortes, Tampa Bay, 58 (58.6%, 34 for 58)
Patrick Bailey, Cleveland, 55 (58.2%, 32 for 55)
Shea Langeliers, Athletics, 53 (58.5%, 31 for 53)

Pitchers don’t make very many challenges. The most is five by Freddy Peralta of the Mets.

How Dodgers batters have done:

Freddie Freeman, 100% (1 for 1)
Mookie Betts, 75% (3 for 4)
Teoscar Hernández, 70% (7 for 10)
Miguel Rojas, 62.5% (5 for 8)
Alex Call, 60% (3 for 5)
Alex Freeland, 50% (1 for 2)
Max Muncy, 50% (2 for 4)
Will Smith, 50% (1 for 2)
Kyle Tucker, 40% (2 for 5)
Andy Pages, 33.3% (3 for 9)
Shohei Ohtani, 33.3% (1 for 3)
Dalton Rushing, 33.3% (1 for 3)
Hyeseong Kim, 0% (0 for 1)

Dodgers catchers
Will Smith, 66% (31 for 47)
Dalton Rushing, 61.1% (11 for 18)

Dodgers pitchers
Tyler Glasnow, 100% (1 for 1)
Edwin Diaz, 0% (0 for 1)
Kyle Hurt, 0% (0 for 1)

Big milestone for Freeman

Freddie Freeman got his 2,500th hit during the rout of Pittsburgh on Tuesday.

“It means a lot,” Freeman told reporters after the game. “And then when your manager and teammates appreciate what you’ve done over the course of your career, it does mean a lot. Yeah, there’s always another goal to get to. But to step back and realize how long you have to play … to play at a high level over many, many years to get there, it does mean a lot.”

Freeman became only the 102nd player in history to get 2,500 hits. He is on pace to finish with 167 hits this season, which would give him 2,598 hits in his career, letting him pass the following players on the all-time hits list: Jimmy Ryan, Buddy Bell, Joe Morgan, Todd Helton, Heinie Manush, Garret Anderson, George Van Haltren, Steve Finley, Willie Davis, Manny Ramirez, Richie Ashburn, Ernie Banks, Reggie Jackson, Julio Franco, Vladimir Guerrero and Luis Gonzalez. He would be in 85th place, just one hit behind Steve Garvey.

Through Tuesday, Freeman had 796 of his hits with the Dodgers. Up next in his career is the magical 3,000-hit milestone.

“I would love to,” Freeman said. “I’m not going to deny that. But do I know if I’m going to get there? I don’t know.”

Will Smith to IL

The Dodgers put Will Smith on the injured list because of an inflamed disk in his neck and recalled catcher Chuckie Robinson from the minors. Smith will be eligible to come off the IL next Friday.

“Hopefully, the day I’m able to come off,” Smith told reporters, “I can come back and play, that’s the plan for now.”

Robinson had one at-bat with the Dodgers last season and in 52 games in the majors he is hitting .131.

Ohtani, Wrobleski hurt?

Thursday’s win over Pittsburgh could have proved costly. Shohei Ohtani left the game because of an inflamed left knee, and pitcher Justin Wrobleski left early after getting hit on the inside of his right leg by a liner. He left because of a sore hamstring.

The Dodgers were very optimistic that both would be fine, but we’ll see how they feel on Friday. Ohtani had surgery on that knee in 2019, but this is in a different part of the knee. Not sure if that’s a good thing or bad thing.

“[Friday], he’ll get there, do his routine, play catch, push off, land on it, see how it reacts,” Roberts said. “And then obviously take swings and see how it reacts too.”

Up next

Friday: Dodgers (Roki Sasaki, 3-3, 4.03 ERA) at Chicago White Sox (Sean Burke, 3-3, 3.88 ERA), 4:40 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020

Saturday: Dodgers (Yoshinobu Yamamoto, 6-4, 2.68 ERA) at Chicago White Sox (TBA), 1:10 p.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020

Sunday: Dodgers (Emmet Sheehan, 3-3, 4.70 ERA) at Chicago White Sox (Erick Fedde, 1-5, 4.69 ERA), 11:10 a.m., Sportsnet LA, AM 570, KTNQ 1020

All times Pacific

*-left-handed

In case you missed it

How the Dodgers plan to shuffle catchers with Will Smith on the injured list

Dodgers Debate: The pitching blues of the summer

And finally

Vin Scully discusses the history of Friday the 13th. Watch and listen here.

Until next time …

Have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

WASHINGTON — A year after the Trump administration kicked off its aggressive immigration enforcement tour with military-style raids across greater Los Angeles, federal officials have veered toward a less flashy but broader strategy: making immigrants’ lives harder so they will leave.

The changes range in scale and scope, from disqualifying immigrants from certain jobs to indefinitely pausing the processing of visa applications. They target those lawfully present as well as the undocumented.

Since President Trump’s second term began, the administration has used executive orders and federal regulations to chip away at services or benefits, such as work permits and small business loans, that immigrants could obtain in the past.

Now, immigrants are finding that freedoms — the ones that once made the U.S. a desirable place to start over — are disappearing. Many are retreating back into the shadows as they fear previously routine tasks, such as traveling across states, filing taxes and seeking medical care.

“The priority is to force people to leave the country or not come, regardless of legal status or really any other criteria,” said David Bier, immigration studies director at the Libertarian think tank the Cato Institute. “They’re taking a sledgehammer to the system.”

Trump won the White House in part on his promise to clamp down on illegal immigration, but recent polling shows support for his agenda has waned, especially after immigration agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Trump’s highest priority has always been the deportation of immigrants with criminal records. The Department of Homeland Security said Trump also prioritizes immigration that strengthens the country financially, socially and culturally.

President Trump displays the signed “Secure America Act” during a ceremony in the Oval Office on Wednesday. The act provides $70 billion for immigration enforcement and border-security agencies.

(Aaron Schwartz / CNP, Bloomberg)

The number of arrests by ICE agents has declined. On average, ICE arrested about 1,000 immigrants per day in early March, down from a peak average of just under 1,400 in mid-January, agency data show. And there are fewer detained immigrants — facilities across the country held about 60,000 detainees in April, compared to more than 70,000 in late January.

The downturns prompted some Trump loyalists to say the administration is failing to fulfill his signature promise, which is an assertion the administration rejects.

“ICE is NOT slowing down,” said Homeland Security spokesperson Lauren Bis. “Since Day One, DHS law enforcement has been delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American people to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens.”

At a border security conference last month, Tom Homan, who leads border policy for the White House, suggested immigration agents would return to more muscular enforcement tactics.

“You ain’t seen s— yet,” he told the audience.

But along with focusing on deportations, the administration is deploying other tactics to deter illegal — and legal —immigration.

ICE agents confront protesters on June 8 as they gather outside the federal immigration center at Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey, where ICE is housing detained immigrants.

(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

Curtailing visas

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security announced that “except in extraordinary circumstances,” immigrants seeking lawful permanent residency must leave the U.S. to complete the process. After a backlash, the administration defended the policy, saying it won’t prevent anyone who qualifies for a green card from getting one.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency in charge of processing immigration benefits, has upped security screening since Trump took office. The agency says that’s to root out fraud, but critics say all it does is unnecessarily slow down a system that already vets applicants vigorously.

The administration indefinitely banned people from 75 countries from receiving immigrant visas, which allow people to move permanently to the U.S.

In a similar move, the government halted the processing of immigration applications for people from 39 countries and who are already in the U.S. On June 5, a federal judge struck down the policy in a scathing ruling that said the administration “justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments.”

Children of Guatemalan origin, from left, Areimy, Mariela and Enrique, arrive at Miami International Airport on Dec. 4, 2025, as they prepare to leave the United States to reunite with their recently deported parents in Guatemala.

(Chandan Khanna / AFP via Getty Images)

The judge’s ruling may offer relief, but for many immigrants, the effects of the policy are devastating. Armin, a 42-year-old from Iran, said he has racked up more than $15,000 in debt since the pause took effect in December. Armin asked The Times not to fully identify for fear of jeopardizing his immigration case.

The nutritional scientist came to the U.S. in 2019 on a student visa and has a pending green card application under a provision that allows certain highly skilled immigrants to apply for permanent residency without needing an employer to sponsor them.

After receiving his PhD and completing a postdoctoral program, Armin was in between jobs when he received a research grant in November. But with the processing of his work authorization halted, the university that issued the grant said it couldn’t hire him as a research associate. In February, he was turned down for another job.

Armin said he is confused about why the administration won’t differentiate between legal immigrants and those who should be deported.

“I can’t believe it,” he said. “I’m doing research and my research has national interest benefits. You expect support from the government. Unfortunately they don’t differentiate. They don’t care about your resume.”

Bier said the visa policies affect half of all legal immigrants coming from abroad. He published a report in April about how Trump has cut legal immigration far more than illegal immigration, noting that the administration’s policies have led to big drops in visas for international students, high-skilled workers and refugees.

“The legal immigration system is being used as a means to carry out the mass deportation agenda,” he said.

Alessandro Negrete, who lived most of his life in the U.S. undocumented, crosses into Mexico after deciding to leave.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Encouraging self-deportation

More than 90,000 immigrants have been granted voluntary departure since the start of the Trump administration, according to federal immigration court data through April that was analyzed by TRAC, a data research organization. Voluntary departure avoids official deportation and can leave open the possibility of an immigrant returning to the U.S. legally.

Homan, who declined to be interviewed for this story, has said self-deportations were part of the administration’s immigration plan all along.

“We knew if we surged unlimited ICE resources in the interior, and we do these operations, that that will force those that are here illegally to leave on their own,” he recently told the Washington Examiner.

Halting work permits

In the past, asylum seekers and others with deportation protections have had the ability to seek permits to work legally in the U.S. But work is now an administration target.

One proposed regulation would prevent asylum seekers from working legally in the U.S. Another proposal, published Friday, would further restrict access to work permits for other immigrants.

Under a rule that took effect last month, asylum seekers pay an annual $102 fee within 30 days of receiving a notice from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If the deadline is missed, their applications will be rejected — with no opportunity to appeal — and they could be placed in deportation proceedings. Those who apply for asylum with the agency have entered the U.S. legally, such as on a visa, and are not undocumented.

Asylum seekers rest at a Tijuana migrant shelter a day after President Trump began his second term in the White House.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, said many asylum applicants have not received notice that the fee is due.

Cruz said she believes the Trump administration is using these changes as an excuse to dismiss people’s asylum claims. While the president has the power to decide whether to offer or rescind humanitarian programs, such as Temporary Protected Status, the right to seek asylum is enshrined in law.

“We’re worried this is a pretext for people to fall out of the asylum system and fall out of the workforce,” she said.

The processing of work permits has already been slowed, leaving many immigrants who still qualify for employment authorization unable to work.

During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing last week, Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to help him speed up the work permit renewals for two police officers who were recently fired by agencies in his district because their DACA status expired.

Mullin said he would help but that Congress ultimately must pass a permanent solution for DACA recipients.

“These are police officers on Main Street, sir,” Correa responded.

“Not all of them are,” Mullin said. “I’m not just going to wave a magic wand and fix them all.”

“You have that magic wand — that’s your job,” Correa said.

It wasn’t just Democrats complaining about slow processing. Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) similarly asked Mullin for help because many of his constituents — “farm workers, youth ministers, nurses, grocery store business managers” — who have lived and worked in the U.S. legally for decades are now having trouble renewing their visas.

Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, left, and President Trump, center, walk to the motorcade after exiting Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on May 20.

(Kent Nishimura / AFP via Getty Images)

Calls for mass deportations

Mullin, who took the reins in March after Trump fired his predecessor, Kristi Noem, rolled back some of Noem’s policies, including telling agents to stop entering homes without judicial warrants and canceling some contracts she had initiated.

But the changes and the downturn in arrests have drawn criticism from some fervent Trump supporters.

“Trump’s legacy is tied up in this,” said Mike Howell, a former DHS attorney who founded a group called the Mass Deportation Coalition. “It’s going to be hard to tell a younger voter to get excited to show up when one of their top issues is mass deportation and, a year and a half in, it doesn’t appear it’s going full-steam ahead.”

Howell said enforcement at work sites is critical to scaling up arrests and deportations. That more such operations haven’t happened, he said, is a political decision to appease wealthy donors and special interest groups who don’t want to see their workers deported.

The architect of Trump’s immigration agenda is Stephen Miller, a top White House aid who has called for a “moratorium on immigration from third-world countries,” demanded 3,000 arrests per day and said that immigrants and their descendants “recreate the conditions, and the terrors, of their broken homelands.”

Royce Bernstein Murray, a former Homeland Security official who worked on immigration policy under the Biden administration, said the winding down of flashy enforcement surges has given the administration more time to “focus on tearing down the legal immigration system.”

“This is Stephen Miller’s sweet spot,” she said. “He was never in enforcement — he’s a policy guy. This is really an opportunity for him to make good on all he has planned for years.”

While ICE has, in recent months, returned to its more conventional targeted enforcement tactics, Homan has sought to make clear that mass deportations are still a goal.

“For the people out there saying ‘President Trump’s getting weak on mass deportation,’ you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about,” Homan said at the border expo.

On Monday, Homan told Fox News that he had just reviewed plans for an ICE operation that would surge agents to New York City.

Friday marks one year since a deadly Air India Boeing crash, which killed 260 people in a densely populated suburb of the city of Ahmedabad in India’s western state of Gujarat.

Families of those killed gathered at the site on Friday to mark the anniversary of the disaster, but they are still waiting for answers about what caused the plane to come down shortly after takeoff from the nearby airport.

Indian authorities are expected to issue an interim report in the coming days, another source of frustration for the victims’ relatives, who had been hoping for a definitive finding and a final disclosure. Media reports, citing unnamed sources, suggest that Indian investigators will delay issuing a final report into the crash, citing the need to complete an analysis of the plane’s engines.

Under international aviation rules, a final report is due “if possible” within a year of an accident. If an investigation goes on for longer, an interim statement should be issued on each anniversary.

What happened to the Air India plane?

Flight AI171, an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane which had taken off only moments before, en route to London Gatwick, crashed into a medical college hostel in the residential area of Meghani Nagar, close to the international airport on the edge of India’s western city of Ahmedabad.

According to flight tracking website Flightradar24, the plane’s final signal was received seconds after takeoff at 1:38pm local time (08:08 GMT). It had reached an altitude of 625 feet (190 metres) before crashing back to the ground outside the airport.

The plane had issued a mayday alert to air traffic control just before all communications from the aircraft ceased.

How many people died in the crash?

Of the 242 people on board, all except one passenger were killed. These included 169 Indian nationals and 52 British nationals. A total of 260 people died, as 19 people on the ground close to the crash site were also killed. Another 67 people near the site were injured.

The sole survivor on board the plane, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, is a British national whose brother was killed in the crash.

On Thursday, Ramesh’s representative, Sanjiv Patel, told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that Air India had paid £21,500 ($28,800) in compensation to Ramesh to help support his wife and their five-year-old son. It is not clear whether similar payments have been made to other families.

Relatives of the victims are meeting on Friday at a conference organised by lawyers, along with aviation and air safety experts, in Ahmedabad. They are due to hold a candlelight vigil after sunset.

What have preliminary reports shown?

This was the world’s first airliner crash involving a 787 Dreamliner, a Boeing model that has been in service since 2011.

In accordance with international aviation law, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) published a preliminary report one month after the disaster.

That 15-page document said the fuel supply to the jet’s engines had been cut off moments before the crash, raising questions about possible pilot error.

It also published a conversation between the captain and his copilot about the fuel supply being cut off – two brief sentences that prompted theories of pilot suicide.

The report was met with strong criticism.

It did not state why the fuel switches were turned off – whether it was the fault of a pilot, or a result of a malfunction.

The preliminary report did not make any safety recommendations to Boeing or engine maker GE Aerospace, suggesting no technical issues had been discovered.

The crash also hit Air India at a sensitive stage of its post-privatisation turnaround, which has been slowed by supply-chain snags, an airspace ban imposed by Pakistan on Indian carriers and, more recently, the US-Israeli war on Iran.

What’s the latest on the investigation?

Under international rules, a final report is due “if possible” within a year of an accident, but sometimes investigations take longer. If it cannot be completed, therefore, an interim statement should be issued on each anniversary. With investigations continuing, the AAIB is expected to issue only an interim report at this stage.

The Federation of Indian Pilots union has been pushing for investigators to seek more technical data about the plane from Boeing and Air India to allow for a “rebuttal of the pilot suicide theory being explored by the AAIB”.

“It [an interim report only] will cause more speculation and more misunderstanding,” Charanvir Randhawa, the union’s president, told reporters at a packed news conference in Ahmedabad ahead of the anniversary of the crash.

“We have requested the Indian government and India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) not to come out with any interim report.”

A cockpit recording of dialogue between the two pilots of the Air India 787 before it crashed supported the view that the captain cut the flow of fuel to its engines, according to US officials’ early assessment reported by Reuters last year.

But the AAIB said at the time it was “too early to reach any definite conclusions”.

Investigators conducted engine testing in April and visited France last month as part of their analysis of the engine management unit, a source told Reuters on the condition of anonymity, as the information is not public.

On Thursday, Bloomberg also reported that the final report into the crash can be expected within three months, once studies of the engines, which had been sent to the US for examination, are concluded.

The captain’s father has asked India’s top court to order an independent investigation that examines possible causes other than deliberate pilot action – a cause that has been suspected in some other fatal crashes and was confirmed in the case of Germanwings Flight 9525, which crashed into the French Alps in 2015, killing all 150 people on board.

Embattled reality TV personalities Todd and Julie Chrisley are suing an Atlanta law firm and one of its attorneys, alleging that legal mistakes led to the couple’s conviction.

The lawsuit, filed June 5 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that Atlanta-based Balch & Bingham LLP and attorney Chris Anulewicz “put their own interests ahead of their clients’ lives” by taking on the couple’s case and appointing Anulewicz as the lead, which they say meant “money, publicity, and the kind of high-profile notoriety that brings in business.”

According to the Chrisleys, Anulewicz “had no meaningful criminal defense experience,” and “Balch knew this — or should have.” They also claim that while representing them, Anulewicz steered them into a $75,000 investment in his brother-in-law’s food truck business.

The lawsuit claims that the couple’s conviction and subsequent federal prison sentence were the result of an “unlawful, warrantless search of the Chrisleys’ warehouse” by the Georgia Department of Revenue, and that Anulewicz missed a deadline to suppress derivative evidence that was ultimately used as the foundation of the prosecution’s case.

“That illegal search launched the entire federal case,” reads the lawsuit. “The district court agreed the search was illegal and suppressed the physical documents. But Anulewicz — operating without supervision from Balch — never moved to suppress the derivative evidence: the emails, bank records, and financial documents that federal agents obtained because of what they learned from the illegal search.”

The couple is seeking $25 million in damages, claiming that because their team didn’t have the documents suppressed, they were convicted on every count.

“They served time in federal prison,” reads the suit. “They were separated from each other and from their children. They lost their television show and endorsement deals, costing them more than $25 million in income. Their reputations were destroyed. They have spent millions more in appeals and post-conviction proceedings, all of it an attempt to undo harm that a single timely motion would have prevented.”

In 2022, an Atlanta court found the “Chrisley Knows Best” couple guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax fraud. Julie Chrisley was also charged with wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

Todd Chrisley received a 12-year sentence, along with 16 months’ probation, while his wife was sentenced to seven years in prison and 16 months’ probation.

In 2024, the Chrisleys’ daughter, Savannah, appealed to President Trump to free her mom and dad. During the Republican National Convention, she gave a speech about the “rogue prosecutors” who locked up her parents.

Last year, Trump granted the reality stars a full pardon.

Jay V. Surgent, an attorney who represents Todd and Julie Chrisley, said in a statement to The Times that the reality stars “have correctly been pardoned by President Trump.” He alleged that Georgia officials violated the “Chrisley Knows Best” stars’ constitutional rights due to their notoriety and criticized local authorities’ “improper seizure of evidence.”

Times staff writer Alexandra Del Rosario contributed to this report.

On election night, Santa Ana City Council member Jessie Lopez found herself in third place, far behind fellow Democratic council colleague David Penaloza and Republican business owner Mayra Ruiz in the race to represent Orange County’s 68th Assembly District.

Tearful supporters at a California Working Families Party shindig at the Mission Control bar and arcade in downtown Santa Ana hugged Lopez, gifted her flowers and wished her well.

If the 37-year-old was sad, she didn’t show it. Lopez had seen this game play out before.

In 2023, the councilmember decisively beat back a recall attempt funded by Santa Ana’s police union and apartment owners who didn’t like her unabashedly progressive views in a city where centrist Democrats have dominated politics for decades and lefty ones were long ostracized.

I wrote a column shortly after, heralding Lopez’s overwhelming victory as a new era for Latino politics in Orange County, where Latinos make up a third of the population but still wield little power.

Lopez spent the next three years along with her fellow progressive Santa Ana council members shoring up the city’s rent control policies and its immigrant defense fund. Nevertheless, few gave Lopez a chance in her assembly race.

Penaloza — who declined to vote when the council deadlocked on whether to cancel Lopez’s recall election — had the backing of the Orange County and California Democratic Party establishment, from current 68th District Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (who’s running to represent the 34th Senate District) to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to Katie Porter, a former Orange County congresswoman who ran unsuccessfully for governor this year.

Penaloza’s campaign mailers and video ads were so ubiquitous these past few weeks that they filled up my mailbox and interrupted my binging of Hulu’s “Vanderpump Villa.”

So did anti-Lopez mailers and commercials, funded by nearly $2.7 million in independent expenditures. Yet Lopez once again beat back her well-funded opposition.

As of Wednesday evening, the latest Orange County Registrar of Voters election results had her in second place — less than 1,000 votes away from Penaloza.

“Voters proved that while money can influence politics, it can’t buy community support,” Lopez said this week as she unsuccessfully tried to enjoy tacos and guacamole at Lola Gaspar in downtown Santa Ana, where well-wishers kept calling her or congratulating the candidate in person. “This race is about the future of California — whether we answer to corporations and insiders or to the hard-working people we’re elected to serve.”

With Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento easily winning reelection and Unite Here Local 11 co-president Ada Briceño currently coming up short in her bid to represent the 67th Assembly District, which includes parts of Los Angeles County, Lopez may be the sole O.C. Latino progressive running in November for a seat beyond the local level.

Expect Lopez versus Penaloza to become a referendum on whether the leftward trend of Latino voters in Orange County continues — or whether its center holds.

“I’ve chosen my side,” Lopez told me. “I’m proud to stand with working people.”

Then she excused herself — someone else wanted to say what’s up.

Shrek’s abs are more defined than some might expect. Or is it that the shade of his green skin makes them appear more chiseled under bright lights? Maybe it’s just disorienting because no one anticipated gawking at his torso inside the historic downtown Los Angeles venue founded by Hollywood legends Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and D.W. Griffith.

These are thoughts that swirl in one’s head while attending this year’s Las Culturistas Culture Awards ceremony, held on a recent Saturday night at the United Theater. An offshoot of the popular podcast that actor-comedians Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang have hosted since 2016, the award show aims to celebrate the year’s biggest pop culture moments and plays like a fever dream more dazzling and deliciously random than a late-night scroll session on TikTok.

After launching in 2022 as a live event outdoors at Lincoln Center, the guerrilla awards show reached TV screens for the first time last year. This year’s ceremony, which will air June 17 on Bravo and stream on Peacock, coincides with the podcast’s 10th anniversary and features a kaleidoscopic array of attendees, including screen veterans like Lisa Kudrow and Will Ferrell, reality TV favorites like “Summer House’s” Ciara Miller and “The Real Housewives of Dubai’s” Chanel Ayan, and anthropomorphic icons like Miss Piggy and a certain green ogre. And the prizes? It’s the only place you can find categories like “Real Housewives Award for Best Way to Start a Confrontation,” “Pornhub Category We Would Never Click On” and “Hilary Duff Award for Millennial Excellence.”

Over lunch at the NBCUniversal lot in Universal City, Rogers and Yang discussed the show’s evolution. These are edited excerpts from the conversation.

Matt Rogers, left foreground, and Bowen Yang perform a musical number inspired by “Heated Rivalry” during this year’s Las Culturistas Culture Awards.

(Monty Brinton / Bravo)

I will probably regret starting our conversation this way, but we all have our blind spots and, to thoroughly prepare for this interview, I watched “Shrek” for the first time last night.

Yang: Oh great! The first one?

Rogers: How’d you feel?

I get it now.

Rogers: Get what, that he is attractive or …?

I’m not quite there yet. You guys reference the film a lot on your podcast and Shrek has also been a figure on the awards show, including this year. I was hoping you’d explain Shrek as a heartthrob to me as if we’re in a pop culture class. When did this idea really take shape?

Yang: Over at least a couple years, to my knowledge, there’s been this online meme culture around Shrek, where it’s like, “Oh my God, Shrek is like a sex king,” but now it’s even spilled over into like dating life. I don’t know if you’ve heard of this, but there’s a verb called Shreking in dating, where it has to do with women dating a guy that’s below their league because he will be nice to them; he will be a Shrek to their Fiona. That’s an interesting thing — you date someone slightly in another zone than you, so that you can be like, “Well, that’s my Shrek,” but meanwhile, there’s the tension between that and Shrek being someone that people are actually attracted to. This just speaks to the enduring power of Shrek as a pop culture icon.

Rogers: I think what it is, is he has an amazing accent. It’s a very powerful thing. He’s independent, he’s self-sufficient, he’s a movie star.

Yang: He said it at the awards. I mean, he’s a rich celebrity.

Rogers: We saw the real Shrek at the awards and he looks pretty f—ing good to me.

Yang: He looked good to me. I don’t know what these Gen Zers are talking about with this Shrek being below your league.

What are the calls with publicists like now to get their clients to participate?

Yang: Last year was a communication puzzle to solve. We were like, “OK, we have to really convey this the right way.” We thought, perhaps naively, now that we’ve done it, now that there’s a proof of concept, it’s going to be much clearer. I think it was clearer, but there was still that degree of, “oh, this is …” — not to like give ourselves too much credit, but this is a concentric circle outside of what is very established in the form of an award show. You’ve got publicists who are like, “Well, we would love for our client to win an award.” And you’re like, “No, that’s not really the point.”

Rogers: Presenting is just as good as winning, just as good as performing. But I think it’s weird that we have been so late to stumble on what the show really is, which is it’s a variety show. And, so, in wrapping your head around it that way, it’s actually pretty easy to get across. It just has the drag of an award show, and that’s our way in.

But I do understand the publicist hesitation because I will say, in a world where it’s your job to protect your client, you’re putting them in a situation that is like, “OK, they’re going to an award show — that’s something this town takes very seriously.” So, it’s an ask to be like, “Hey, can you come take the piss out of this concept that you’re then probably gonna spend eight months of the year trying to actually achieve?” I would be lying if I said that we didn’t want one day to win one of those awards. It’s an acknowledgment of your work, but in that, Bowen and I think the No. 1 thing that’s the funniest thing in the world is people who take themselves that seriously. It’s a healthy mix of appreciation for this thing that was actually a big element of the culture that made us say culture was for us, which was watching award shows when we were kids, and also the reality that we now know as people that are in the industry of what they really are, which is they’re just shows. We’re not condemning them, we’re having fun with it.

1

2

1. Scenes from the 2025 Las Culturistas Culture Awards: Jeff Goldblum, left, accepting the award for Most Amazing Impact in Film for his appearance in “Jurassic Park,” alongside presenter Patti Harrison. (Griffin Nagel / Bravo) 2. Allison Janney was a guest of honor, receiving the Lifetime of Culture award. (Jordan Strauss / Bravo)

Have you been asked to tweak the name of a category or punch it up even more?

Yang: Last week was the window when our producers could be very honest with us and say if something may not be working. Back to the Shrek [bit in this year’s show], actually, that ended up being much dirtier and bluer than it was on stage.

Really? I already knew I wouldn’t be able to include the award category because of Times standards. So the actual bit was raunchier?

Yang: It was even raunchier. It went for it.

Rogers: But it’s also a testament to how much freedom they give us to make our show. If they were concerned at all about us desecrating the image of Shrek, we certainly did not feel that way. I am really shocked and grateful that we get to do something that it feels like we’re getting away with something.

Take me back in time with young Bowen and young Matt. What do you remember about your enthusiasm for award shows growing up?

Yang: It was watching Billy Crystal at the Oscars do song and dance numbers, zing these things in for a laugh that we’re referencing the year, being in these video packages where he was in the movies. That it was live television and just this pageantry of people congratulating themselves, congratulating each other. I would tune in live every single year to all the award shows and I would follow the host changes. I remember Whoopi’s first year [hosting the Oscars]; I remember Ellen’s first year. I was really obsessive. It opened the door for all these things that I currently love, and that I’ve somehow had a fortunate experience in, which is live television, song and dance numbers — everything that Billy Crystal was doing. It keyed me in on how show business works, down to production elements and how filmmaking comes together.

Rogers: I just remember, I looked at the screen and I was like, “Oh, that’s where I belong. I belong with them. I don’t belong out here.” I was one of those Gold Derby kids — I would be on the forums; I still sometimes look at the odds and rankings and stuff. It was like gay sports, particularly with the best actress and best supporting actress races. And then obviously the Grammys, and all of that. One year I was watching, I think it was the People’s Choice Awards or the American Music Awards or something, and Shania Twain lost to LeAnn Rimes, and I cried for a day. I took it so seriously and my mother turned to me and said, “You need to stop.” But you couldn’t tell me it didn’t matter at the time. [Reporter’s note: Twain lost the favorite country new artist award to Rimes at the 1997 American Music Awards.]

As the profile of Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers’ variety-style award show has risen, getting stars on board is an interesting puzzle: “You’ve got publicists who are like, ‘Well, we would love for our client to win an award,’” Yang says. “And you’re like, ‘No, that’s not really the point.’”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

What do you remember about your first experience at a major awards show?

Rogers: He was nominated as writer for “SNL” and took me as his date. We were sitting there — the “Queer Eye” guys were sitting like three rows behind us.

Yang: We watched Phoebe Waller-Bridge sweep with “Fleabag.”

Rogers: We watched Michelle Williams win for “Fosse/Verdon.” It was funny because we had gone to the bar and were double-fisting drinks back to the seats and I said to Bowen, “Oh my God, I’m like the Busy Philipps to your Michelle Williams.”

Yang: And who shows up behind us?

Rogers: Busy Philipps taps on our shoulders and goes, “You guys are killing it with those drinks.” And I’m like, she doesn’t even know I’m her. Cut to minutes later, Michelle walking up and giving a banger of a speech.

Yang: That was like our first brush with it. Even now we go to these, and we’re like, this is really something; it’s incredible. We were at the Oscars last year, front row, witnessing all of it go down, witnessing the moment where upsets would happen, feeling the vibe in the room shift. The benefit of our show is that the vibe is pretty high throughout; it does not decline as soon as there are losers in the room.

Las Culturistas Culture Awards took place in late May and is being telecast roughly two weeks later. Do you see it ever going the live route?

Yang: We don’t know. That is my not so secret dream, is to do it live one day. There’s just something about doing it live — and it occurs to me now that I’ve been very lucky and fortunate to have have my reps in. There’s just something so wonderful about it being this event where everyone is tuning in, enjoying it the same time you are. That is really something special.

Rogers: If he’s down, I’m down.

I’m sure this changes each year, but who’s your dream person to snag for an appearance?

Rogers: I would say the people that make it very apparent that they have sketch comedy and impression skills, and maybe you wouldn’t necessarily know that they do until they show that.

Yang: Ariana Grande.

Rogers: Our dream was for Ariana to come do an original character. We actually floated to her the idea — there was going to be like a Banksy reveal of MsMojo, and it was going to be revealed that it was Ariana Grande was MsMojo. But she actually was in rehearsals for the Eternal Sunshine World Tour. Little did we know she also was recording “Petal.” She was a bit too busy to play MsMojo, I guess, this time.

Yang: These two are forever paired in my head, but it’s because she’s another sketch performer: Cher. And sometimes the dream guests are not big names, it’s the people that we came up with in comedy. And actually one of the consumer research reports that we got back before we started writing this year’s show was that the thing that people loved about the Culture Awards was this crossover of reality talent, A-listers and Oscar winners, and comedy people — that mix, those three [types of] people mingling together is what the viewers want.

Rogers: I’m just so proud in every single way of the diverse array of talent that we were able to bring together. I looked out in the audience and it was just a party of so many friends and people we’ve met in the business — people that I didn’t even get to meet that night, but I was just gagged they’re there, especially in the edit, which you’ll see. This is Bowen’s first year in the edit, he had to miss it last year, but that’s what’s so cool about going through the footage, is you’re like, “Oh my God, there’s someone I’ve loved my entire life next to my cousin.” We were saying to each other that it ended up being like a weird love letter to our younger selves, having Mandy Moore and singing “Only Hope” with her and doing the “Pokémon” theme song and getting to hang out with Pikachu.

Do you worry about it ever getting too big?

Rogers: If it ever gets to a point where it couldn’t be funny, that wouldn’t work. We want it to always stay true to what it is, which is it’s our comedy special together. As long as it doesn’t feel like it’s selling out — and I can understand people watching it and being like, “Oh, they obviously had to have Nintendo characters because it’s NBCUniversal or obviously they had to include “Summer House” — none of that is true.

Yang: There’s no mandate.

Rogers: This is genuinely what we would want the show to be, and so as long as it’s that, we’re good.

So what’s your “I don’t think so, honey” on awards shows?

Rogers: I don’t think so, honey — 10 nominees for best picture at the Oscars. Why?

Yang: Totally. Tea.

Rogers: I actually think it helps things that are weirder win because it’s too many. And the way that they ranked choices. I’m a popular-vote person anyway.

Yang: I need us to really get on the same page about play-off music. Sometimes people are encouraged to go on, sometimes we turn against that. Let’s stop innovating, let’s stop trying to break the mold on them. Let’s just respect that as much as we can, unless it’s egregious.

And it’s always a bit within the show.

Yang: This is what I was about to get to. The hosts now are always trying to bitify that; it’s more of a practical thing to keep the show moving. Don’t try to put a hat on top of a hat by making it a comedic moment too. We’ve never really played with that trope, even though we could, and maybe should. For now, my attitude towards play-off music is, these people might not ever be on this stage again.

How soon do you start planning the next one?

Rogers: Hopefully, they give us the green light.

Ana Gasteyer, left, Jamie Lee Curtis and Patti Harrison at the 2025 Las Culturistas Culture Awards.

(Jordan Strauss / Bravo)

How did you go about deciding which categories would return this year and which you invent along the way?

Yang: We did an audit this year of all the categories from the last few years of doing this.

Rogers: Less made it back last year.

Yang: I think maybe about 30 max previous categories [returned] — that’s a decent ratio, 70-30 is nice. From there, we just kind of molded the clay on the table a little bit. We have the benefit of making this a recursive reinvented show every year; the categories itself are the premise, it’s the micro-premise within the segment or the element. The jokes are the nominees. Why not create new opportunities at every turn.

“Las Culturistas” expanded into a video podcast last year. How do you feel about this evolution we’re seeing to the format?

Rogers: It’s not that when I’m on camera with Bowen doing the podcast, like, “Oh, I wish I could be more relaxed,” I just wish the whole industry hadn’t gone this way because I feel like when you’re on camera, you can’t help but be a little bit more self-conscious, and that is going to come through in the podcast product. If I had my druthers, none of them would be on film. I can understand that it helps a lot and I can note a marked difference in the amount of times I get recognized now that we are on social media. It absolutely “helped” our podcast get bigger. That being said, I don’t think it was a good thing for podcasting that they all became TV shows.

Yang: It changes the register and the tone by nature. You cannot help but be motivated by different things, by the appearance of it, by the presentation of it, beyond what it was, which is just radio, which is a really important American form.

As two people who grew up being connoisseurs of pop culture, what is it like to be on the other side of it, to feel the intensity of it — I’m talking about what happened with the Jasmine Crockett comments — to become part of the conversation? What lesson came from that?

Yang: We are experiencing something in an acute way that I think everyone is experiencing, which is we are seeing ourselves in the third person. Everyone is kind of modulating their behavior based on how they are appearing out of body. It’s the way we all move through the world now, which can be snapshot and projected very widely out into the world for whatever reason.

Rogers: When you’re talking candidly, you can never know what piece of what you’re saying is going to be the piece that gets scrutinized again and again and again and again by what feels like the entire internet. And if you did, you would, of course, be more specific, and you would be able to really clearly say why you are saying what you are saying. We have had learning experiences with that, and so what we can do going forward is be more clear about the things that we do believe and stand by. That is something that even 10 years in the game we are learning how to do.

Yang: And I think on a very large scale, what is going to happen is that we are all going to adjust for the fact that we have behaviorally changed because of this idea that we’re seeing ourselves in the third person constantly. For me, personally, I’ve had to wrestle with this idea after being on “SNL” for seven years and having to evaluate myself and having an audience evaluate me every week. I’ve changed behaviorally; I need to get over this fear of being seen. I need to get better about listening to my own voice.

Rogers: The internet is a very weird place and the thing is, it deliberately ignores nuance. It willfully tries to make something seem lowest common denominator, so that there can be a community based around that thing. And that is not good for the world. It’s not good for discourse. It’s not good for our politics. It’s really bad for our politics. Until we can all get on the same page about the ways in which we are willfully misunderstanding each other and calling it discourse, it won’t get better.

Yang: The misunderstandings are about people’s tones, and not necessarily about the things that people are pointing toward.

In less than a month, Riverside’s Mission Inn has gained a new owner, lost two prized pieces of art and sparked a heated debate over the line between private property and community history.

The stage for this controversy was set in early May, when hotel owner Kelly Roberts decided to sell the Mission Inn to the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, the tribe that owns the Yaamava’ Resort & Casino in Highland and the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas.

But it wasn’t the sale (for an undisclosed amount) that started arguments. It was Roberts’ removal of two beloved paintings from the hotel before the sale closed.

A painting at the Mission Inn in Riverside titled “Charge Up San Juan Hill” is taken down on March 20, shortly before the hotel’s change in ownership.

(James Ranger)

One is an alpine landscape called “California Alps” (1874) by William Keith, which measures roughly 6 feet by 8 feet and was displayed in the lobby near the front desk. The other painting, “Charge Up San Juan Hill” (about 1900) by Vasily Vereshchagin, was displayed on a wall of the steakhouse near the lobby. Both paintings had been a part of the hotel for more than a century.

“It was like a slow-motion version of the Louvre Museum heist, pulled off on a sunny day in Riverside in view of guests, staff and visitors,” wrote David Allen of the Riverside Press-Enterprise.

“There’s an outrage among members of this community,” said Mike Marlatt, a Riverside attorney and former board member of the Mission Inn Foundation.

The issue appears to be what agreements Roberts’ late husband made when he bought the building more than 30 years ago.

Former Riverside redevelopment official Ralph Megna, who facilitated the 1992 sale to Duane Roberts’ Historic Mission Inn Corp., wrote on Facebook that “What Kelly is apparently doing at this point is just pillaging the place in violation of those agreements.” But on a phone call, he was less absolute. He said the original pact included an agreement intended to protect about 180 movable pieces of art and artifacts from removal, but that “there’s shades of gray here.” Megna added, “We trusted people. Good faith turned out to be not so good.”

Duane and Kelly Roberts, photographed in 1998 at their home in Laguna Beach. Duane, who reopened the Mission Inn in the early 1990s, died in 2025.

(Glenn Koenig / Los Angeles Times)

Roberts’ family attorney Alan Jackson, however, said “Kelly is not pillaging anything.” He maintained that when Duane Roberts bought the hotel, “he bought every single item. Every single item was the Roberts family’s personal property.” When Kelly Roberts sold the hotel last month, Jackson said, she was free to keep or sell any of its contents.

In that deal, Jackson said, “the buyers would not close” until the paintings and a sculpture of Duane and Kelly Roberts were removed, because “they’re expensive.” Also, Jackson said that Duane Roberts, “before his passing, made it very clear to Kelly and the family that those are two of his favorite paintings ever.”

Jackson declined to say where the artworks are but said “they are in her possession” and “she has no intention of ever getting rid of those ever.”

The iconic spiral staircase in the rotunda of the historic Mission Inn.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

The hotel’s new owner, the San Manuel Investment Authority, declined to address questions about the sale agreement. But in a statement, it said it is “committed to collaborating with the Mission Inn Foundation and the City to respectfully steward and preserve this historic landmark, recognizing its deep history and significance to the Riverside community.”

Despite accolades from groups including Historic Hotels of America, tensions between the Roberts family and Riverside preservationists have risen in recent years. In late 2024, after more than 30 years renting space within the hotel, the nonprofit Mission Inn Foundation and Museum was unable to agree on a lease extension with hotel management and moved to a building on Main Street. Foundation leaders did not respond to messages seeking comment.

“The Mission Inn is so foundational to Riverside that any significant change brings real concern to me and makes me uneasy,” said City Council member Philip Falcone, 28, who has been leading tours of the inn since he was in high school.

The Keith painting is “quintessential California, a romanticized view of the Sierra Nevada range. William Keith, the painter, was friends with John Muir,” Falcone said. As for the San Juan Hill painting, it connects neatly with the history of Theodore Roosevelt, one of nine presidents who have visited the inn.

A guest takes in the view from the Spanish patio at the Mission Inn.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

The hotel is largely the creation of Frank Miller, who bought Glenwood Cottage, a modest boarding house, from his father in 1880. Then Miller enlisted investment help from his friend, railroad magnate Henry Huntington, transformed the boarding house into a hotel and renamed it. Over time, Miller built it into an architectural wonderland filled with art and antiques gathered in the U.S. and Europe. By 1931, the enterprise filled a city block.

“It’s a unique property,” said David Stolte, president of the Old Riverside Foundation. “It’s a National Historic Landmark. It kind of sits at the intersection of private commerce and public benefit. The original owner, Frank Miller, intended it as a public space, essentially a cultural museum, in addition to his business of running a hotel.”

After Miller’s death in 1935, the hotel’s reputation spread even further, attracting dignitaries of the day — and the future. It served as the site of Richard and Pat Nixon’s wedding in 1940 and Ronald and Nancy Reagan’s honeymoon in 1952. But by the 1960s, it was much diminished, and a later owner, Benjamin Swig, had sold close to 1,000 antiques and artworks to help pay bills.

By the mid-1980s, the hotel had passed through a period of city ownership and was closed. By 1992, more than $50 million had been spent in restoration and renovation, but the project was scuttled by a bankruptcy. That’s when Duane Roberts, who grew up in Riverside and made his fortune selling flash-frozen burritos, bought the property and reopened it.

Duane and Kelly Roberts, residents of Laguna Beach, also established the hotel’s annual Festival of Lights, an Inland Empire holiday tradition. The hotel today includes 238 guest rooms, four restaurants, two lounges, two chapels, a spa, pool and candy shop.

Besides their stewardship of the hotel, Duane and Kelly Roberts became known as major donors to the Republican party. In 2017, Politico reported that Kelly Roberts was in line to be named the Trump administration’s ambassador to Slovenia, but turned down the post.

After Duane Roberts died at 88 in November, Riverside buzzed with questions over the fate of the hotel, prompting another Roberts family lawyer to offer public assurances.

“Nobody’s buying this hotel. Mrs. Roberts is keeping this hotel,” attorney Patrick O’Brien told a TV news crew in late November. But on May 4, Kelly Roberts and the San Manuel Investment Authority announced the pending sale.

Festival of Lights, Mission Inn’s popular holiday tradition, was created by Kelly and Duane Roberts after they reopened the hotel.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Then on May 20, guests spotted workers removing the two paintings from the lobby area. Longtime hotel-watchers said other items had disappeared in recent years, including an 1876 Steinway piano; a statue of the goddess Pomona; William Wendt’s painting “Houses at Arch Beach”; Ilya Repin’s 1884 painting “Portrait of Madame K.”; and the hotel’s Taft Chair, a sturdy oak armchair commissioned by Frank Miller in 1909 to hold 335-pound President Taft. But the midday, presale removal of the Keith and Vereshchagin paintings prompted immediate outcry.

It was “traumatizing, seeing that stuff on display for so long and then seeing it come down,” said James Ranger, a veteran hotel tour guide and Mission Inn Foundation docent. After all the time and money the Roberts family invested in the property, “leaving on this note puts a sour taste out there,” he said.

The sale closed May 29. Though the Roberts family’s attorneys have insisted that the buyers and sellers are in accord, preservation advocates in Riverside have called for a review of documents associated with Roberts’ purchase of the property.

Meanwhile, the hotel’s new era as a tribal holding begins. Besides the two casino-hotels, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation owns several other hotels, including the Waldorf Astoria Monarch Beach Resort & Club in Dana Point. As for the Mission Inn, the tribe has signed on Boston-based Pyramid Global Hospitality to take over management, and several changes are already evident.

Notably, the Roberts’ names have been dropped from the signage. Kelly’s Spa has become simply the spa, Duane’s Steakhouse is now just the steakhouse, and Casey’s Cupcakes, a hotel shop founded by Kelly’s daughter Casey Beau Brown, has closed. The Festival of Lights will continue, a spokesperson said.

Stolte said the Old Riverside Foundation believes the tribe will be “great stewards” for the Mission Inn.

“I wish that their welcome to Riverside was a little smoother,” he said.

Staff writer Alex Wigglesworth also contributed to this story.

Anticipation. Rumors. Anxiously scanning the horizon, hoping that a brilliant force will leave the masses forever changed. Yes, a new Steven Spielberg movie about close encounters with extraterrestrials is landing — and misses the mark.

“Disclosure Day” is a story of truth and feared consequences. A personality-free cybersecurity expert, Daniel (Josh O’Connor), is on the run with evidence of little gray men arriving on our planet to a rude reception. The aliens are kind. Our species is barbaric. Wittily bruising us with that fact, Spielberg opens with a POV of a wrestler kicking the audience in the face. Welcome to Earth.

Elsewhere in America, a weathergirl named Margaret (Emily Blunt) breezes into her Kansas City studio, babbling up until the minute the news camera turns on, a bravura sequence that channels her restlessness, the station’s tempo and the film’s alarm that this ditz has just this morning been stricken with preternatural powers. (The cinematography and editing are by Janusz Kaminski and Sarah Broshar.) Locally, Margaret is known for announcing hailstorms with a sexy shimmy. Suddenly, she’s fluent in Russian, Korean and telepathy. Although she and her boyfriend, Jackson (Wyatt Russell), are a bad match, she’s giving everyone else life advice like an intergalactic Dear Abby.

When Margaret starts spouting alien-ese — spasms of gutteral clicks — on live TV, she and Jackson rush to the hospital for a brain scan followed by several suspicious men who claim to be with the FBI. Russell’s befuddled Jackson is as useless as a traffic cone but Blunt’s Margaret is a gas before the movie makes her go all glassy-eyed and solemn. Yet, the movie is less inspired by why she was chosen or how she feels about it than in dragging us back in time to the moment when it happened, which isn’t that interesting except for its resemblance to a Disney princess having a psychotic break. The CG animals and aliens look stiff, other than a nifty close-up of an eyeball. (Later, I did like how one alien appears to be wearing sportswear.)

Chasing both Daniel and Margaret around the Midwest is a deep-state company called Wardex that wants to steal back the proof in Daniel’s backpack, a heap of hard drives with footage of 70-plus years of extraterrestrial visitations. It’s a treat to see Spielberg enjoying staging this conspiratorial gossip in different film stocks, from the black-and-white noir of 1947 Roswell to the clinical security-camera look of today. Whatever Wardex does on a day-to-day basis is unclear (we just see video screens and lab equipment). But it acts all-powerful, seeming to know more about outer-space tech than its overseers at the Department of Defense.

The script is by David Koepp of the paranoid thriller “Black Bag” and Spielberg’s 2005 version of “War of the Worlds,” yet, this plot strand about private enterprise isn’t science fiction. Last year, in the unrelated UFO documentary “The Age of Disclosure,” current Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that companies have a stronger institutional memory of “exotic materials” than any presidential administration: “The people in government who know where it came from originally — they’re long gone and their successors have no idea that it was there at all.” To add nationalistic insult to injury, the head of Wardex isn’t even American. He’s a Brit played by Colin Firth.

If anything, “Disclosure Day” isn’t paranoid enough. Clutching a mysterious tool the shape of a mouse coffin, Firth’s villain tracks Daniel’s location by mentally transplanting himself into another person’s body, changing the color of their pupils to his own icy blue. His gadget also makes his targets super sweaty. This laborious alien tactic leads to a few fun scenes but frankly feels old-fashioned when the omnipresent surveillance that Spielberg himself warned about nearly 25 years ago in “Minority Report” is now here with recording devices constantly tracking our faces, voices and movements just so we don’t have to dial phones, fetch sandwiches or talk to human drivers. Although his movie urged us against this 24/7 spyware future, we have since embraced the convenience.

I bring this up because “Disclosure Day’s” driving question is how humanity will react to life-altering information. (Not that the plot has much momentum — too many scenes end with the belief that ducking 10 feet out of view makes you invisible, with an antagonist simply giving up.) Daniel insists on total honesty: “People have a right to know the truth,” he says. His girlfriend Jane (Eve Hewson) doubts 8 billion people can handle his alien revelations. A Catholic, she’s alarmed that extraterrestrial intelligence could replace the concept of God, naively claiming that “religion holds society together.” Since when?

There’s some wan comedy in an early scene where these new-ish lovers debate the ethics of secrecy while revealing the skeletons they’ve been hiding from each other. Both have pasts you wouldn’t put on a Tinder profile. The script is glancingly empathetic to Jane’s moral turmoil but like Daniel, the film has made up its mind before the movie started. Narratively and logistically, Daniel’s whistleblowing escape limps along with a lack of suspense. Wardex doesn’t even bother to preemptively discredit Daniel in the public’s eye, which, given the two sentences of backstory we know about his character, would be easy.

Nattering in the background are broadcasts about the impending threat of global war at the hands of the United States, Russia and North Korea. Given that scary possibility, the risk that Daniel’s reveal could tip over the world order doesn’t seem that bad. Honestly, I’m dubious of the film’s certainty that folks even have the bandwidth to care about such news, let alone agree on what they’re seeing. The serious journalism Margaret aspires to do is splintering under our distrust of who controls the megaphones. Last month’s infodump of an Armed Forces report listing 209 sightings of unidentified objects was announced with a presidential tweet that “the people can decide for themselves.” I didn’t bother to click. Did you?

Getting information about these space invaders out leaves no time for taking the marvel of their existence in. Decades after Spielberg unveiled his signature shot — a face amazed at wonders we can’t see — he seems wearied by his awareness that today’s moment of revelation would look like a person staring down at their phone. When lens flares continually beam right at the screen, the whole movie feels like enlightenment under duress.

Where are the aliens from and why are they here? Who knows. “Disclosure Day” speeds around frantically, talking constantly and explaining little. Back in 1977, Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” was a popcorn masterpiece of withheld information. Its quiet assurance that experts had a handle on flying saucers and a plan to meet them felt comforting. Here, Colman Domingo’s renegade intelligence operative also refuses to tell anyone anything, but all the unspoken beats just feel like plot holes. Mostly, his character builds what looks like a Hollywood set to reveal a truth he already suspects. That’s what Spielberg is doing too, but a film needs a sense of curiosity.

Instead, the wows come from good stagings of ordinary action: a car crash, a gripped crucifix, a hideout crowded with jostling, thrumming musical instruments. There’s a great train-track crossing sequence that’s also a vicious callback to Richard Dreyfuss’ epiphany in “Close Encounters.” Yet, I wanted to see more of the old Spielberg, the one who expressed awe in moments of silence rather than relentless motion.

That Spielberg has come full circle to his lifelong obsession with the sky had me convinced that this might be a secret sequel to “Close Encounters” beyond the droll joke that both Dreyfuss’ Roy and Blunt’s Margaret are shacked up with unsupportive blonds. They do share a universe; you’ll see a glimpse of what could pass for an outtake from Devils Tower, a.k.a. Mashed Potato Mountain, on one of Daniel’s hard drives. Still, I left underwhelmed. I didn’t need Dreyfuss to step off a spaceship gangplank and say, “I’m back.” I just needed “Disclosure Day” to have the same spark of intelligent life.

A model suing Kanye West is speaking out about the alleged assault that lawyers for the rapper argue was his 1st Amendment right.

Jennifer An, an actor and model who competed on the 13th season of “America’s Next Top Model” in 2009, detailed the alleged assault — that she says happened in 2010 — in a new interview with the BBC’s “Fame Under Fire” podcast that was released Wednesday. In 2024, An filed a lawsuit against the “Heartless” rapper alleging he choked her and used his fingers to simulate oral sex during a music video shoot for La Roux’s “In for the Kill.”

“He had me sit in the chair in front of the camera, and I didn’t know what was going to happen. I was given no direction,” An told the BBC. “I was just told to sit in this chair, and then playback started, and then all of a sudden he just reaches a hand out and starts choking me, and I’m just not sure what’s happening, and then he pulled his other hand out and starts choking me with both hands and then starts smearing my makeup all over my face and sticking his hands inside of my mouth, which simulated oral sex.

“I remember feeling so suffocated, unsure, scared,” she said. An said she was 24 years old at the time of the alleged incident, her first foray into the industry. She told the outlet that, as it was happening, she hoped someone on the production side would call a halt to it.

“I remember him looking at me, like really intensely, and licking his lips a lot, my face was like so close to his,” she continued. “He reached a point that — I assume — he was very happy with himself, and he yelled something like, ‘This is art! I’m Picasso.’”

La Roux said she insisted the alleged assault be left on the cutting room floor, and in a 2024 Instagram exchange with An, the artist said, “I could never forget that, it was horrific,” according to court documents.

During the podcast episode, the BBC correspondent Anoushka Mutanda Dougherty asks if she can see the direct-message exchange between An and La Roux. She then reads aloud a message in which La Roux said, “I was in the room behind the monitor, begging the directors and everyone else to do something, but everyone was scared of him and did nothing.”

La Roux told An that West whispered to her, “I bet you think I just put women back about 10 years.” She said that she responded, “You just put women back about 500 years.”

Representatives for La Roux did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

The case has not yet gone to trial. In a motion to dismiss the civil suit — which was filed under New York City’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act and remains pending — attorneys for West didn’t deny the incident took place but, rather, argued that it was an artistic performance and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.

Attorneys representing An in the case, Melissa Berouty and Christine Hintze, told The Times in an emailed statement: “While we respect the importance of artistic expression and the protections afforded by the First Amendment, dismissing this case on that basis would set a dangerous precedent. It would effectively grant immunity to perpetrators of unlawful abuse so long as their conduct occurred under the guise of artistic expression or within an artistic setting.”

They further said that An’s claims are supported by affidavits and written communications from multiple eyewitnesses, including La Roux.

When Kings’ new head coach Peter Laviolette took a tour around the Los Angeles area, he thought he was only going to get a one-bedroom home with a view of the water. His children, though, piped in: “Make sure you get a four-bedroom,” Laviolette remembered his three children saying.

During Laviolette’s time away from the sport, the 61-year-old traveled to Scotland and watched his son play in the East Coast Hockey League. The time away has given Laviolette time to rethink his coaching, and after 30 years of coaching, including 23 as a head coach in the NHL, he’s bringing a trident approach to reshape culture and win games. Centering a hockey family is one part.

“For me, there’s three real important pieces,” Laviolette said. “First, build a family inside the locker room, inside the organization. Secondly, to really work to try and build the culture to get players and organizations to think about the choices they make and how that can affect the culture. And then the third part is the actual game on the ice, just making sure that every day from the start of training camp we work at the game.”

Los Angeles hired Laviolette to a three-year contract after he spent a year away from the sport. Laviolette’s coaching experience stretches 1,594 games, the ninth-highest career total, with six teams: the Capitals, Flyers, Islanders, Hurricanes and Predators. Most recently, he was fired by the Rangers in 2025 after two years with the team.

His postseason success might be the biggest draw for the Kings, who have seen middling success in the years since their second Stanley Cup title in 2014. Los Angeles made the playoffs each year since the 2021-22 season, but the team did not advance past the first round.

Meanwhile, Laviolette is only the fourth coach in hockey to lead three teams to the Stanley Cup Final. He last won with Carolina in 2006, but he earned two President’s Trophies in 2017-18 and 2023-24 with the Predators and the Rangers.

Kings general manager Ken Holland, left, and Peter Laviolette pose for a photo during the new coach’s introductory news conference Wednesday at the team’s training facility in El Segundo.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Still, Laviolette, despite his track record of first-year turnarounds, is joining a team in flux. The Kings fired coach Jim Hiller after the Olympic break. Interim coach D.J Smith helped guide the team to an 11-6-6 finish, aided in part by a trade for Rangers winger Artemi Panarin, whom Laviolette has also coached.

“I had a really good relationship with Artemi in New York,” Laviolette said. “He’s one of the most talented players I’ve ever coached, and I’m really happy to get to work with him again. He’s an amazing talent.”

Using the winger to go on the prowl is one of the small changes Laviolette plans to bring. The Kings have historically prioritized defense in a league that has shifted to attacking. Los Angeles fell to 30th in goals per game last season (2.68), the first time the Kings averaged fewer than three goals since the 2021-22 season. The team was also 28th in power-play percentage at 17%. Laviolette acknowledged that Los Angeles needed to change, highlighting that an attack-forward mindset has been a keystone of his coaching.

“I don’t think it should be irresponsible to defense,” he said. “But through my experiences, and even just watching the playoffs right now, this is an attack-oriented game, and you have to be willing to move.”

Where does Panarin fit?

“He has the ability to be a game-breaker and a difference-maker,” Laviolette said. “He’s not just a goal scorer. He’s not just a playmaker. He’s elusive. He’s shifty.”

The goal for next season is to score 250 times, according to Kings’ vice president and general manager Ken Holland. The team scored 220 last season.

“We’ve got to get back to scoring more goals,” Holland said. “Part of that’s going to be personnel driven, part of that’s going to be probably style‑of‑play driven, mentality, and certainly the head coach has a lot to do with it.”

As Laviolette meets current staffers and decides whom to bring in, Holland is managing the phones to reach out to assistant coaches and players. Smith has definitively moved on. Phil Housley, whom Laviolette described as an “excellent coach,” could be another potential candidate. Housley worked with Laviolette as one of the Rangers’ assistant coaches between 2023 and 2025.

Still, it’s hard to say the Kings will be a Cup contender with Laviolette. His teams tend to dramatically decline two or three seasons after his hiring. He struggles to develop younger players, instead relying on veterans to carry the weight. Laviolette will have to amplify players like Quinton Byfield and Brandt Clarke, each a talented 23-year-old with high ceilings.

The Kings’ success will rest in how well Los Angeles adapts to Laviolette’s coaching trident. The veteran coach, to his credit, projected confidence.

“When you put those three things together,” he said. “You can really become an unstoppable force.”

AMC’s plan to launch a new interactive live concert series in theaters is on ice, for now. With a booming box office full of films like “Obsession,” “Backrooms” and “Scary Movie,” the theater chain has postponed the concert project until later this year.

In a statement, AMC said due to the “robust lineup of upcoming films and strong advance ticket sales in the weeks ahead,” it needed to make some programming adjustments. Some of the major upcoming releases for June include Disney’s “Toy Story 5” and Steven Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day.”

Acts like Bebe Rexha, Paris Hilton, Kim Petras and Marren Morris were lined up to test out the new format next week, as a part of the Girls Night Live concert series.

The chain is partnering with live entertainment company Arena One to bring new technology to theaters. This tech would allow artists on a remote stage to see, hear and respond to the theater audience, in effect turning your local cinema into a stadium, the companies said. Fans who already purchased tickets have received refunds.

The series was initially marketed as a new draw to get customers to the theaters, but given the strong box office numbers so far this year, it’s clear the demand for theaters is already growing

Focus Features’ “Obsession” is now nearing $230 million in global box office revenue, according to Box Office Mojo, and is the studio’s highest-grossing movie at the domestic box office.

Similarly, A24’s “Backrooms” is the indie studio’s highest-grossing movie at the domestic box office, with nearly $140 million. It pulled in $100 million at the box office only six days after its initial release.

Most recently, “Scary Movie” topped the box office last weekend with a $105.5-million worldwide debut, ranking among the top five biggest R-rated comedy openings of all time.

AMC said it would announce new dates and additional artists for the interactive concert series in the coming months.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed a bill into law on Wednesday that gives his immigration and deportation agenda a nearly $70 billion boost for the rest of his time in the White House.

The bill provides $38 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and $26 billion for the Border Patrol. An additional $5 billion would cover unforeseen costs, according to the White House.

Trump signed the legislation in the Oval Office a day after House Republicans pushed the measure through by a 214-212 vote over the objections of Democrats. His signature ended a nearly six-month fight over Department of Homeland Security funding that began with shooting deaths of deaths of two U.S. citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, in January during federal immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis.

Democrats began demanding changes to immigration enforcement after the shootings, creating an impasse — and resulting in the longest agency in history — that ultimately led Republicans to go it alone on the funding.

The agencies will be funded through the next three years. The new law front-loads routine annual funding, ensuring a virtually uninterrupted flow of money as the Trump administration seeks to deport some 1 million people per year.

The legislation had become sidetracked over $1 billion for White House security, including for Trump’s new ballroom, and a $1.8 billion fund to compensate his allies who claim to be victims of political prosecution. Both proposals became politically toxic and were scrapped.

The bill as passed focused exclusively on immigration enforcement, a topic that Republicans have treated as a defining issue between the two major political parties and one the GOP hopes will carry it to victory in November’s midterm elections.

Superville and Binkley write for the Associated Press.

Serena Williams is back.

And so is her blistering serve.

After almost four years away from the sport, the 44-year-old tennis legend made a triumphant return Tuesday at Queen’s Club in London. She teamed with Canadian teenager Victoria Mboko for a 7-6 (2), 6-2 victory against Nicole Melichar-Martinez of the United States and Erin Routliffe of New Zealand in an opening doubles match at the grass-court HSBC Championships.

Williams recorded service winners of up to 120 mph during her first professional match since the 2022 U.S. Open.

“It was so fun,” Williams said afterward in an on-court interview. “I had so much fun playing with Victoria. She really was able to hold up the team and really play big on the big points. I could really rely on her. We’ve never played together, but it just felt so natural playing with her.”

Williams has won 14 Grand Slam titles and three Olympic gold medals in doubles, all with sister Venus Williams as her playing partner.

Serena Williams and Victoria Mboko of Canada wave to the crowd after defeating Nicole Melichar-Martinez and Erin Routliffe on Tuesday at the Queen’s Club in London.

(Alberto Pezzali / Associated Press)

“I feel very honored to play with Serena,” Mboko said. “I had a lot of fun, if anything. We really did that out there. I’m so happy to be playing beside you. And we’re going for more.”

In September 2022, Williams had registered as retired with the International Tennis Integrity Agency.

Last December, however, Williams reentered the agency’s drug-testing pool, a move that led to speculation about a possible return for the 23-time Grand Slam singles champion. She announced her professional tennis return last week as a wild-card doubles entry at the Queen’s Club tournament.

Days later, Williams was added to the 16-team doubles field at Germany’s WTA 500 event.

“I had nothing better to do,” Williams said Tuesday. “I got tired of sitting at home. My kids are out of school for the summer, so why not?”

Supporters of a new Los Angeles County half-cent sales tax rallied Wednesday to celebrate what they framed as a historic win for the region’s cash-strapped healthcare system.

After a rocky election night that showed the tax lagging, supporters claimed victory Tuesday after the latest vote tally pushed Measure ER further over the 50% margin needed to pass. The measure would impose a new half-cent sales tax countywide, with the proceeds going toward local hospitals and clinics hit by federal funding cuts.

Jim Mangia, the chief executive of St. John’s Community Health who helped craft the measure, summed up the campaign as “grueling and expensive.”

“We had to ask an already overtaxed community — in the midst of runaway inflation and [an] affordability crisis — to tax themselves yet again,” he told a crowd of supporters Wednesday.

L.A. County already has a sales tax of 9.75%, and some cities add their own on top. Measure ER passing would raise the countywide sales tax to 10.25%, with some individual cities having a sales tax of more than 11%, according to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration.

Despite a recent winning streak for sales taxes in L.A. County, some political observers had forecast doom for the measure, which came at a time of skyrocketing gas prices and cost-weary voters.

The largely informal opposition had consisted mainly of local cities that warned another sales tax would disproportionately burden the poorest residents and force shoppers across the county border in hopes of finding lower costs. Some city leaders had also dinged the county for misusing homelessness money generated from a previous sales tax and argued this new pot of dollars would be handled no better.

But supporters were able to eke out a narrow victory, according to the latest election returns, by emphasizing looming hospital closures and the temporary nature of the tax, which is set to sunset in five years.

“It’s a lifesaver to carry us through the storm we’re all in,” said county Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who led the push within the Board of Supervisors to get the measure on the ballot.

County leaders in February voted 4-1 to put the tax on the ballot after federal legislation threatened to pull health insurance from the poorest residents, leaving the already cash-strapped county to foot the bill for their care. Officials say cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are expected to slash more than $2 billion from the county’s budget for health services over the next three years.

“It’s disgusting what’s going to happen to our residents,” said Supervisor Hilda Solis, who championed the measure alongside Mitchell.

The tax, which begins Oct. 1, comes at a time of budget-tightening for the county amid rising labor costs and a $4-billion sex abuse settlement that is set to be paid out over the next five years.

Officials estimate the tax will bring in about $1 billion per year, which will go to clinics, hospitals and Planned Parenthood services that supporters say are at risk of closure without a new source of cash.

A similar proposed healthcare sales tax in Contra Costa County, meant to generate $150 million a year, was soundly rejected with about 57% of voters opposing the measure, according to votes tallied as of Wednesday.

The looming impact of federal Medicaid cuts has reignited a long-simmering, costly battle between California’s medical industry and one of its largest health worker unions.

SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, with about 120,000 members, has put forward two ballot initiatives to cap the pay of medical executives and require community clinics to spend the bulk of their revenues on patient care.

The California Hospital Assn. has responded with its own ballot proposal that would make it tougher for unions to spend money on political initiatives in the future. It would require approval by a union’s rank-and-file membership for any spending of $1 million or more on statewide measures, or $100,000 or more on local ones.

The competing measures, which have drawn enough verified signatures to qualify for the November ballot, come at a time when the rising cost of healthcare is emerging as a top voter concern.

The Service Employees International Union affiliate has seized upon affordability angst to resurrect a proposal for a cap on healthcare executive compensation, which it has failed to achieve multiple times before. The proposed measure garnered more than 1 million petition signatures.

“This initiative reflects the serious crisis we face and that affordability is a real thing,” said Vikas Saini, president of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based healthcare think tank. “I think it also reflects grassroots anger and a desire to do something.”

Mikey Vaughn, a certified nursing assistant at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said the hospital often lacks supplies and staffing levels that he and his colleagues need in order to do their jobs effectively and without undue stress, despite its reputation as the go-to place for the rich and famous.

“The executive pay initiative would, I hope, be used to hire staff and to actually provide better resources for our patients,” he said. Vaughn is also a member of SEIU-UHW’s executive board and political committee.

Thomas Priselac, then-president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, made $8.8 million in fiscal year 2024, according to the organization’s most recent available federal tax filing. Kaiser Permanente’s CEO, Gregory Adams, made nearly $13 million in 2024. Warner Thomas, head of Sutter Health, made just under $12 million.

Cedars-Sinai spokesperson Duke Helfand said the hospital would be unable to recruit and retain physicians, nurses, and specialists if the measure passed, dramatically impairing its ability to provide healthcare.

“Such a scenario would be disastrous not only for Cedars-Sinai but for hospitals across Los Angeles and California,” Helfand said.

The union wants to cap compensation at $450,000 a year for senior hospital and medical group executives, as well as other administrative and managerial staff. However, the initiative does not stipulate how dollars diverted from payroll must be spent.

The union has dubbed the latest proposal the Health Care Executive Compensation Act of 2026. A coalition of medical industry heavyweights opposing it — hospitals, physicians, and clinics, among others — has rebranded it the Health Care Endangerment Act.

Carmela Coyle, CEO of the hospital association, called the measure a cynical political ploy.

“It’s bad policy and it’s going to have bad consequences across California,” she said.

Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California, said even if the initiative were fully implemented and pay cuts enacted, he doubts it would reduce the cost of healthcare for patients.

SEIU-UHW does not have an estimated total amount the initiative would claw back from pay packages that exceed the limit.

Opponents of the initiative note that it doesn’t just target executive pay; it would affect medical practitioners who are also managers. That could include chief medical officers and chief nursing officers, as well as heads of surgery, emergency rooms, oncology, obstetrics, cardiology and other specialties, they say.

It would be up to each hospital, health system and physician group to report which staff members exceed the cap and by how much.

Ultimately, who is subject to the pay cap “probably will have to be battled out in court,” Coyle said . “That’s why we are throwing everything we can at it.”

The second SEIU-UHW ballot initiative, on community clinics, is already in court. The California Primary Care Assn., which represents clinics, filed a federal lawsuit in April seeking to invalidate it before it reaches the November ballot.

The proposed measure would require federally designated community clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenues on activities directly related to their mission of providing care for low-income populations. If it were to pass, more than 90% of those clinic organizations would be on the hook for penalties totaling $1.7 billion in the first year alone and “would face similarly crippling penalties every year,” according to a report commissioned by the primary care association and conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, an international consulting company.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Assn. of Los Angeles County, said many pivotal services the clinics provide — such as translation and transportation — would likely not be counted toward the spending requirement.

“They are targeting a group of what they see as employers and we see as the safety net,” she said.

The lawsuit cites the harm to clinics and claims the proposed spending requirement would interfere with federal authority.

Renée Saldaña, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, characterized the lawsuit against the initiative as “a really desperate attempt by the clinic industry to try and avoid accountability.”

SEIU-UHW, proud of its political activism, is also behind a controversial billionaire tax proposal that would impose a one-time 5% levy on California residents with fortunes over $1 billion to backfill the funding gap created by federal cuts coming down the pike under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law, passed last July and signed by President Trump, is projected to squeeze nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid health coverage program for low-income people by 2034, including as much as $30 billion annually in California.

The hospital association, the community clinic group and the California Medical Assn., which represents physicians, are neutral on the wealth tax proposal thus far. But Saldaña said all three of the union’s ballot proposals tie into an overarching strategy to counter the widening healthcare disparities caused by the federal law.

“We believe the primary concern of healthcare providers, including executives, should be to serve the community, heal patients, and not be in healthcare just to enrich themselves,” she said on the proposed pay cap.

Over the years, the union has submitted dozens of local and statewide ballot initiatives, including ones to cap the pay of hospital executives, regulate dialysis clinics, and raise the minimum wage of healthcare workers.

The hospital association calculates that SEIU-UHW has spent nearly $125 million on local and statewide initiatives since 2012. But healthcare industry groups have spent far more opposing them. The hospital association data shows that the union spent nearly $36 million on three ballot proposals to regulate the dialysis industry, but dialysis companies poured in $302 million to defeat them, according to state campaign finance records.

The union’s ongoing political efforts “threaten patient access to quality health care,” according to the hospital association’s ballot initiative, which could limit how much unions spend on future ballot measures.

Saldaña hinted at a possible lawsuit should that measure pass, saying “we don’t see the legal viability” of it. The proposal, she said, is an attempt “to silence the front-line healthcare workers.”

Ultimately, a ballot initiative won’t cure the ills that plague healthcare in the United States, said the Lown Institute’s Saini. What’s needed, he said, is “an evaluation and reimagination of healthcare.”

Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Californians couldn’t escape billionaire Tom Steyer’s political ads — during newscasts, sitcoms, or sporting events; on streaming services, YouTube, influencers’ social media feeds, or their mailboxes. Even the Puppy Bowl.

Yet despite spending a record-shattering $216 million of his wealth on his run for governor, the Democrat failed to win enough votes in last week’s primary to advance to the November general election to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Money isn’t everything, even though it obviously helps,” said Andrea Godfrey Flynn, a marketing professor at the University of San Diego. “It boosted Steyer way up. … But there are so many other factors at play that it may not have been enough.”

Steyer, a hedge fund co-founder turned environmental warrior, polled at 1% shortly before he entered the governor’s race in November, according to a survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

He climbed in subsequent polls, hitting 19% in the same poll shortly before the June 2 primary, putting Steyer in contention for winning one of the top two spots in the contest that would allow him to advance to the November election. But then he hit a ceiling, and on Tuesday, it became official that he failed to advance.

Steyer emailed supporters Tuesday expressing gratitude for their efforts backing his campaign, endorsements and votes.

“Together, we fought for a California that belongs to the people who keep it running every day, and we insisted that they do not have to settle for a system that protects corporate profits at the expense of working people,” he wrote. “I’m proud of how we never compromised our values or lowered our sights for what California can and should be.”

He pointed with pride at major corporations such as Chevron and Meta spending heavily to oppose his bid, and said their tens of millions of dollars spent attacking him shows the flaws in the electoral system. And he acknowledged that may be part of the reason some voters were skeptical of voting for a billionaire.

“I’m proud of the enemies we made,” Steyer said. “This campaign proved that business-as-usual depends on politics-as-usual, and there is no going back. We must continue to fight for a system where democracy serves Californians, not corporations — and where you do not have to be a billionaire to run on single-payer, or on breaking up monopolies, or on calling out a corrupt system when you see it. Because people are fed up with a system rigged to benefit billionaires and leave them behind.”

As of Tuesday evening, Steyer had received more than 1.9 million votes of the more than 9 million cast, lagging behind the two candidates who will appear on the November ballot: Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, and Democrat Xavier Becerra, a longtime elected official who most recently served in President Biden’s cabinet. Steyer was trailing Hilton, the second-place finisher, by just over 200,000 votes.

Steyer immediately endorsed Becerra, whom he had relentlessly attacked in the closing weeks of the campaign as beholden to corporations with business in front of the governor.

California has a history of unsuccessful self-funders. Former Northwest Airlines co-chairman Al Checchi spent more than $40 million of his money on an unsuccessful gubernatorial primary campaign in 1998, which broke records at the time.

More than a decade later, former EBay chief Meg Whitman spent $144 million of her wealth on her bid to become California’s governor, setting a new national record for spending on a state election. She won the GOP nomination but lost in the general election.

This year’s gubernatorial contest is not the first time Steyer has spent an inordinate sum seeking office. In 2020, he spent $342 million on a brief, unsuccessful presidential campaign.

Sheri Sadler, a veteran Los Angeles-based Democratic media buyer, said Steyer’s 2026 gubernatorial deluge was notable.

“I literally saw his spots ad nauseam,” she said. “They left almost no stone unturned.”

Sadler worked for Steyer in the final weeks of his presidential bid and scheduled $50 million of billionaire Rick Caruso’s money on ads during his unsuccessful 2022 Los Angeles mayoral campaign.

She believes that Steyer hit a ceiling because voters who are bombarded by ads eventually feel that the candidate is trying to purchase their affection.

“It’s one thing to give me a message I can resonate with. If they’re just trying to buy my vote, that feels different to me,” she said, adding that Steyer’s wealth undermined his platform, which included support for raising taxes on billionaires. “That’s my gut. And I feel like that’s what happened to us on Caruso and possibly why he didn’t run” for governor this year.

Steyer, 68, made his fortune founding a hedge fund that included investments in fossil fuels, private prisons and other businesses that are controversial among Democrats. He told voters that he walked away from the firm 14 years ago, leaving an enormous amount of money on the table, because it did not align with his morals. Steyer adds that he and his wife have pledged to give away most of their wealth before they die.

And unlike many wealthy self-funders, Steyer did not leap into a campaign as a political neophyte who assumed their business skills would translate into being an effective elected official.

Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, are longtime donors to Democratic candidates, but for well over a decade, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on liberal causes such as fighting climate change, mobilizing young voters, urging the impeachment of President Trump, opposing an effort by oil companies to suspend California environmental standards, increasing the state cigarette tax and supporting last year’s redrawing of the state’s congressional districts to counter Trump.

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist who advised Checchi, said that Steyer’s focus on such causes had the potential to be meaningful to voters who are often skeptical about the sincerity and motives of rich candidates.

“Tom Steyer has done a good job in that respect, because if you’re going to overcome that skepticism, it’s very helpful for the candidate to show that he or she has actually been involved in the world of public policy and politics for an extended period,” and Steyer has, Sragow said.

Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who endorsed Steyer, argued that he promoted proposals that were against his personal interests, such as the proposed billionaire’s tax that is expected to appear on the November ballot.

“Interestingly enough, Tom Steyer is also the only candidate who’s talked about campaign finance reform and wanting to get money out of politics, including his money, to return power to the people and have publicly financed elections,” Bryan said after a Steyer rally near downtown L.A. on May 31.

Former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond also campaigned on limiting the influence of corporate PAC money in elections, or implementing publicly financed elections in California. Porter often criticized Steyer for running as a “change agent” while spending millions he earned from investments in oil and gas.

“You paid the lowest tax rate on this stage and yet you made the billions that you’re using to fund your campaign off fossil fuels,” she said to Steyer during an April 28 debate in Claremont.

Political experts argue that messages that seem contradictory to a candidate’s background, as well as drowning voters with incessant ads, can be jarring and off-putting to the electorate.

“It can be an overload to voters where they hit that tipping point where they’re no longer interested,” Flynn said.

Despite Steyer’s foundational argument that his wealth meant he was not beholden to anyone, she said voters may be unable to reconcile a billionaire’s ability to understand or empathize about an average Californian’s needs.

“The messaging still is a giant factor,” Flynn said. “I’m curious [about] how believable it came across to voters — can you trust a billionaire to really care about affordability, someone who made money working with business or in business not to care about special interests?”

While Steyer campaigned as a hard-left liberal, he failed to be the top pick for progressives. Steyer had the support of 35% of likely voters who identified as strongly liberal while Becerra was backed by 37%, according to Berkeley’s May poll.

After talking to college Democrats at UCLA on the eve of the primary, Steyer said regardless of what happens in the primary, he will remain politically involved, though he would not run for president in 2028.

“I’m going to keep working on these issues, because I’ve been working full-time on these issues for 14 years,” Steyer said. “There’s no question what I’m going to do. How I do it is a little bit up in the air.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, clinched one of the top spots in California’s gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, earning him the right to challenge veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra in the November election to determine the state’s next governor.

The contest offers voters two starkly different politicians. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump and has wooed his MAGA supporters, blaming Democratic policies for California’s homelessness crisis, high cost of living and other entrenched ills. Becerra campaigned as a battle-tested warrior against the Republican president and a champion of affordable healthcare. He could make history as the state’s first elected Latino governor.

Hilton’s victory was declared by the Associated Press on Tuesday, days after Becerra secured one of the top spots and a week after the June 2 election. Under California’s primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary advance to the November general election, regardless of their party affiliation. According to the latest vote count, which is ongoing, Becerra has a slight edge over Hilton.

California Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, center, flanked by lieutenant governor candidate Gloria Romero, left, and California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin, right, hold a press conference to discuss election and voting reforms at the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk headquarters on Tuesday in Norwalk.

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Democrat Tom Steyer finished in third place. The hedge fund founder and environmental activist spent $216 million of his own money on his campaign, and now joins the legion of other high-profile, self-funding candidates rejected by California voters.

Becerra heads into the Nov. 3 election with a distinct advantage — Democratic voters in California outnumber Republicans by an almost 2-to-1 margin, a telltale reason why no GOP candidate has won a statewide race since 2006.

The contrast between Becerra and Hilton, both on policy and political personas, couldn’t be more pronounced.

A British immigrant and former political advisor to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, Hilton, 56, embraces traditional conservative ideals that have echoed across the country since the days of President Reagan — cutting taxes, weeding out government fraud and waste and promising to unbridle entrepreneurs and homebuilders from stifling state regulation.

But he’s also ventured into MAGA territory, declining to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 presidential election and promising to extradite California doctors who provide abortion pills to other states for prosecution.

Becerra, 68, came up in Los Angeles politics in the 1980s and has long supported policies to expand protections and resources for immigrants with or without legal status. Married to Harvard-educated OB-GYN Carolina Reyes, Becerra has also staunchly opposed abortion restrictions throughout his career.

In Congress and other positions, Becerra earned a reputation as a cerebral, analytical politician who would fully commit to his positions after taking time to mull them through.

A straight-laced family man with a Catholic upbringing, Becerra was more reserved during the debates — a quiet confidence that drew some voters to support him. He also faced criticism from his rivals for failing to offer detailed housing and healthcare policies.

Hilton, who cuts an unmistakable image with his bald crown and clipped English accent, proved himself as a polished communicator during the debates, skills honed by his years as a Fox News analyst.

Television hosts must translate complex issues into easily digestible sound bites, said Republican strategist Matt Klink. “Most voters want a CliffsNotes version of the issues,” Klink said.

Republican strategist Kevin Spillane credits Hilton’s TV show, “The Next Revolution,” which ran for six years, with boosting his profile, calling Fox News the most important media vehicle within the conservative and Republican framework.

Hilton “understands how politics and how communications work,” Spillane said.

He often appeared relaxed during the gubernatorial debates, at points even complimenting or joking with his rivals as they parried on stage.

At a CBS debate earlier this year, Becerra referred to President Trump, who endorsed Hilton, as the Republican candidate’s “daddy.” Hilton responded with a quip that quickly deflated the attack.

“It would be rather amazing,” said Hilton, at the possibility of being Trump’s son. “My daddy was the goalie for the Hungarian national ice hockey team.”

In an interview last week, before the election, Hilton said he enjoyed the debates. “In a weird way, I was sad when we had the last one,” he said. “I’m looking forward to debating whoever it is.”

As a former political advisor to Britain’s Conservative Party, Hilton helped usher in a green, socially liberal strain of conservatism.

He also infuriated colleagues in the coalition government, the British press reported, proposing a stream of unconventional ideas: scrapping maternity leave, abolishing job centers, even buying cloud-bursting technology so Britain would have more sunshine. In 2012, he moved full time to the Bay Area.

Hilton, who founded a nonprofit on California policies, was known for his frequent visits in the last couple of years to the state Capitol for discussions with legislators.

Rival Republican candidate Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who was trailing Steyer in fourth place in the latest vote count, ultimately didn’t seek to appeal to those beyond his rural, MAGA base, Klink said.

By contrast, Hilton presented himself as the “more cosmopolitan” candidate who “can talk to the hedge fund manager or the small-business owner or the Sacramento lobbyist,” said Klink said.

“Hilton was more energized at the end, when it mattered,” said Spillane, contrasting the two Republicans.

Past Republican candidates, including businessman John Cox in 2018 and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in 2010, have self-financed their campaigns with their vast fortunes.

By contrast, Hilton spent just a few million dollars on media advertising, he said in an interview last week.

He said he ignored advice from consultants who told him to do a launch announcement and then unleash a wave of ads in the last month of the campaign.

“I just said, ‘I want to do it the old-fashioned way,’ and that’s what we’ve been doing,” said Hilton in the interview before the election. “We’ve been to nearly every single county…. stepped it up with our town halls.”

Nina Royal, 83, who lives in Los Angeles and is a community advocate for her Tujunga neighborhood, voted for Hilton, saying that he understands California’s problems.

“He’s a realist,” said Royal. “He has a clear view of what needs to be done.”

Times staff writer Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.

A month away from its closure, onetime gambling oasis Primm, Nev., located along the state border with Southern California, has a new lease on life.

The Primm family, owners of the land that includes three casino resorts and other businesses along the 15 Freeway, announced Tuesday a partnership intended to save the struggling state-line strip and hundreds of jobs.

The deal allows Las Vegas-based Terrible’s, owned by the Herbst family and perhaps most famous for a string of gas stations and convenience stores, to operate the properties.

“What we saw with them is the same energy that we had in rebuilding Primm,” said Cory Clemetson, describing the new deal with Terrible’s in an interview with The Times. Clemetson is president of Primm South Real Estate Co. and a grandson of Primm founder Ernie Primm, who made a name for himself in Southern California in the 1930s and ’40s with his Gardena card rooms.

In the summer of 2025, signage blocks an entrance at Primm Mall, a once-popular site along with the trio of casinos at the California-Nevada state line.

(Bridget Bennett / For The Times)

“Primm has long been one of Nevada’s most recognizable destinations,” said Tim Herbst, president of Terrible’s, in a statement. “This partnership reflects our commitment to preserving that legacy while creating new opportunities for growth, investment, and tourism for decades to come.”

Terrible’s takes over for Affinity Gaming, owned by private equity company Z Capital Partners, in the full-circle world of southern Nevada gaming. In 2010, Herbst Gaming declared bankruptcy and saw Primm taken over by Z Capital Partners.

An email to representatives for Affinity Gaming was not immediately returned.

The process for the return of Terrible’s to Primm kick-started May 5, when Affinity confirmed the closure of Primm Valley Casino Resorts.

Affinity’s subsidiary, Primadonna Co. LLC, sent termination notices to more than 300 employees effective July 4.

The closure was devastating, Clemetson said.

“It felt like a gut punch,” he said. “I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me that they would announce something like that for the Fourth of July. Laying off in excess of 300 Nevadans who are mostly paycheck to paycheck with nowhere to go didn’t sit well with my family.”

Primm Valley was the last of three resorts built between 1977 and 1994 at the site that remained in full operation.

Buffalo Bill’s, the largest of the three resorts, closed 24-7 operations in July 2025, after Whiskey Pete’s, the original casino, shuttered in December 2024.

Affinity Gaming declined multiple requests from The Times to speak about Primm’s struggles.

In a letter presented at a Clark County Board of Commissioners meeting, Erin Barnett, Affinity’s vice president and general counsel, wrote in October 2024 that “traffic at the state line has proved to be heavily weighted towards weekend activity and is insufficient to support three full-time casino properties.”

Scott Butera, Affinity’s chief executive and president, offered a few comments about the closure at the May 21 Nevada Gaming Commission meeting.

“As a tenant with a difficult lease and an expensive property and increased competition every day in California … it just became a very difficult thing,” he said, “and we’ve been losing money for years there.”

Clemetson said that Affinity asked for help over the years, such as potential rent reductions, but that the Primm family was unaware of Affinity’s finances.

As for the future, Clemetson said Terrible’s was in the process of reacquiring a gaming license for Primm, which he hoped would happen in the next three weeks.

He also said it was the goal of the Herbst and Primm families to try to keep all workers who received a termination notice employed.

Clemetson said he was excited about Primm’s future under Terrible’s and chalked up its bankruptcy in 2010 to the Great Recession.

“They suffered a similar fate of many big brands like MGM and Caesar’s,” Clemetson said.

“They’re very well thought of in Nevada and they’re a very successful family who’s done well,” he added.

Speaking of Primm’s chances of regaining its former glory, Clemetson reached back into his own past as a young sports agent for players on the L.A. Galaxy soccer team.

“I can’t tell you how many people told me I was dumb to get involved representing soccer players because soccer would never make it here,” he said. “Now, Major League Soccer has a few franchises over a billion dollars.”

As for Tim Herbst and his family, “we believe Primm’s best days are still ahead.”