POLITICS

California joined several other states Friday in suing the Trump administration over its demand that public schools eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives or risk losing federal funding — expanding its defiance in a standoff with high stakes for students across the state.

The lawsuit from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general came one day after a Trump administration deadline for state officials to collect certifications from every school district in the nation confirming that all DEI efforts had been eliminated, on the argument that such DEI initiatives amount to illegal discrimination.

And it comes two weeks after the California Department of Education defended the legality of DEI efforts in a letter to school district superintendents.

Bonta similarly defended the legality of diversity initiatives in announcing the lawsuit Friday.

“The U.S. Department of Education is unapologetically abandoning its mission to ensure equal access to education with its latest threat to wholesale terminate congressionally mandated federal education funding,” Bonta said in a statement.

“Let me be clear: The federal Department of Education is not trying to ‘combat’ discrimination with this latest order. Instead it is using our nation’s foundational civil rights law as a pretext to coerce states into abandoning efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion through lawful programs and policies.”

Bonta, whose office has now sued the current Trump administration 15 times, said President Trump had “once again … exceeded his authority under the Constitution and violated the law.”

Joining California in the lawsuit were the attorneys general of Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York.

This article will be updated.

WASHINGTON — Why not tax the millionaires?

As Congress begins drafting a massive package for President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” with trillions of dollars in tax breaks and federal program cuts, it’s a question that won’t seem to go away.

Trump himself has mused he’d “love” to tax wealthier Americans a little bit more, but the Republican president has also repeatedly walked it back. This week, the president dismissed a tax hike as “disruptive” when asked about it at the White House.

But still it swirls.

And it’s setting up a potential showdown between the old guard of the Republican Party, which sees almost any tax hike as contrary to the GOP goal of slashing government, and its rising populist-nationalists, who view a millionaire’s tax as championing working-class voters who helped deliver the White House.

“Bring it, baby,” said former Trump strategist Stephen Bannon on his podcast.

Think of it as Bannon on the one side, versus Newt Gingrich, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and others on the other — a debate that once seemed unfathomable for Republicans who have spent generations working to lower taxes and reduce the scope of the federal government.

“I don’t think we’re raising taxes on anybody,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said this week on Fox News Channel.

Johnson said there have been lots of ideas thrown out but the Republicans are working against the idea of a tax on millionaires. “I’m not in favor of raising the tax rates because our party is the group that stands against that, traditionally,” he said.

This spring and summer, the Republican-led Congress is determined to make progress on the package, which is central to the party’s domestic policy agenda. It revolves around extending many of the GOP tax cuts that Congress approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term, but are expiring later this year.

As it stands, the top individual tax rate is now 37%, on annual incomes above $611,000 for single filers and $767,000 for married couples. If Congress fails to act, that rate is set to revert to what it was before the 2017 tax law, 39.6%, on top filers.

It seems impossible that Republicans in Congress will purposefully wade into the debate. They are striving to keep all the existing tax brackets in place, while adding new tax breaks the president campaigned on during the 2024 election — including no taxes on tips, Social Security income, overtime pay and others. It’s a potentially $5-trillion-plus package.

But the Bannon wing is working to force the issue, saying it’s time to raise that top rate on the wealthier households, at least $1 million and above.

Sounding at times more like progressive Democrats, Bannon’s flank sees a tax hike as a way not only to ensure wealthy Americans pay their fair share but to generate federal revenue. With federal debt at $36 trillion, they say it can help counter annual deficits that cannot be offset by budget cuts alone.

“The current system we have is not sustainable,” Bannon said at Semafor’s World Economy Summit on Wednesday in Washington. “You have to go to an alternative. I think the alternative is budget cuts. And … it has to be tax increases on the wealthy.”

That’s drawing fierce blowback from the traditional tax-cutters, who have gone into overdrive, warning of nothing short of a political shattering of GOP orthodoxy, and the party itself, if Republicans entertain the idea.

“Madness,” Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, told Fox News’ Larry Kudlow.

Gingrich warns of a George Bush-style political implosion similar to his “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge, which contributed to his failed 1992 presidential reelection bid.

“It would be a disaster,” Gingrich said.

Trump appears to be weighing the arguments, sending mixed messages about what he prefers.

“Newt is quite possibly right on this,” the president said in a note Gingrich said he received from the president and reposted Tuesday on social media.

“While I love the idea of a small increase,” Trump said in the note, “the Democrats would probably use it against us, and we would be, like Bush, helpless to do anything about it.”

Trump went on to counsel that if they can do without it, they’re probably better off. “We don’t need to be the ‘READ MY LIPS’ gang who lost an election,” he posted.

Asked about a tax hike on millionaires Wednesday in the Oval Office, Trump was more definitive.

“I think it would be very disruptive,” he said, suggesting wealthy Americans would simply leave the country, rather than pay the higher tax, and end up costing in lost revenues.

Yet in a Time magazine interview posted Friday, Trump said of a millionaires’ tax: “I actually love the concept, but I don’t want it to be used against me politically.”

As Republicans in Congress work behind the scenes crafting the tax bill — and at least $1.5 trillion in government spending cuts to help cover the lost revenues — it seems highly unlikely enough of them would agree to a tax hike.

Most of the congressional Republicans have signed a no-taxes pledge from Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform group, even as others signal some interest.

With Democrats prepared to oppose the package altogether because of its expected steep cuts to federal programs, the Republicans will need to keep all their lawmakers in line if they hope to pass the bill through the House and the Senate with their narrow majorities.

Yet, as Republicans are scrounging for ways to pay for their tax bill, they face potential resistance within their own ranks to reductions in Medicaid, food stamps or other federal programs.

Even an accounting measure preferred by the Senate Republicans, which would count the 2017 tax breaks as current policy rather than a new one requiring an offset, still comes up short for covering the full price tag of the new package, which could swell beyond $5 trillion over 10 years.

Setting the new top rate at about 40% for those earning $1 million or above would bring in some $300 billion in revenue over the decade, analysts have said.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — Disgraced former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who lied about his life story and defrauded donors, was sentenced Friday to over seven years in prison, sobbing as he heard his punishment.

“Where is your remorse? Where do I see it?” U.S. District Court Judge Joanna Seybert asked as she sentenced him to 87 months behind bars. She said the former politician appeared to feel that “it’s always someone else’s fault.“

The New York Republican, who served in Congress for barely a year before his House colleagues ousted him in 2023, pleaded guilty last summer to federal wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

He admitted to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of nearly a dozen people, including his family members, to fund his winning campaign. As part of a plea deal, Santos has agreed to pay roughly $580,000 in penalties in addition to prison time.

The 36-year-old didn’t respond to reporters’ shouted questions as he walked into a Long Island courthouse, but he told the Associated Press on Thursday that he’s resigned to his fate.

“I’m doing as well as any human being would be doing given the circumstances,” Santos wrote in a text message on Thursday, adding that he was “ready to face the music.”

Prosecutors sought seven years in federal prison for Santos, arguing in recent court filings that he “remains unrepentant” and has not shown genuine remorse, despite what he claims.

They cite recent comments Santos has made on social media in which he casts himself as a victim of prosecutorial overreach.

In a letter to the court this week, Santos stressed that he remains “profoundly sorry” for his crimes but said prosecutors’ proposed sentence is too harsh.

Santos’ lawyers called for a two-year prison stint, which is the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated identity theft.

They argued such a penalty is comparable to sentences handed to former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and other political figures convicted of similar financial crimes.

Santos was elected in 2022, flipping a wealthy district representing parts of Queens and Long Island for the GOP.

Soon after, it was revealed that the political unknown had fabricated much of his life story, painting himself as a successful business owner who worked at prestigious Wall Street firms and held a valuable real estate portfolio.

In reality, Santos was struggling financially and even faced eviction. The revelations led to congressional and criminal inquiries into how he had funded his campaign.

As his sentencing approached, Santos was reflective in social media posts, thanking his supporters and detractors alike.

“I learned that no matter left, right or, center we are all humans and for the most part Americans (LOL) and we have one super power that I cherish and that is compassion,” he wrote Thursday on the social platform X. “To the trolls… well you guys are an impactful part of how people shape themselves, and y’all made me much stronger and made my skin thicker!”

He also made one final plug for his Cameo account, where he records personalized video messages for $100.

“Think ahead and of any celebration or event coming up later this year. Book them today,” Santos wrote, ending the post with a series of heart emojis.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jake Offenhartz in New York contributed to this report.

KYIV, Ukraine — President Trump said in an interview published on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia,” the latest example of the U.S. leader pressuring Ukraine to make concessions to end the war while it remains under siege.

“Zelensky understands that,” Trump said, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, “and everybody understands that it’s been with them for a long time.”

The U.S. president made the comments in a Time magazine interview conducted Tuesday. Trump has been accusing Zelensky of prolonging the war by resisting negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Crimea is a strategic peninsula along the Black Sea in southern Ukraine. It was seized by Russia in 2014, while President Obama was in office, years before the full-scale invasion that began in 2022.

“They’ve had their submarines there for long before any period that we’re talking about, for many years. The people speak largely Russian in Crimea,” Trump said. “But this was given by Obama. This wasn’t given by Trump.”

Meanwhile, Russia has continued its bombardment. A drone struck an apartment building in a southeastern Ukraine city, killing three people and injuring 10 others, officials said Friday, a day after Trump rebuked Russia’s leader for a deadly missile and drone attack on Kyiv.

A child and a 76-year-old woman were among the civilians killed in the nighttime drone strike in Pavlohrad, in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region, the head of the regional administration, Serhii Lysak, wrote on Telegram.

Russian forces fired 103 Shahed and decoy drones at five Ukrainian regions overnight, Ukraine’s air force reported. Authorities in the northeastern Sumy and Kharkiv regions reported damage to civilian infrastructure but no casualties.

The war could be approaching a pivotal moment as the Trump administration weighs its options. Senior U.S. officials have warned that the administration could soon give up attempts to stop the war if the two sides do not come to an agreement. That could potentially mean a halt of crucial U.S. military aid for Ukraine.

Amid the peace efforts, Russia pounded Kyiv in an hours-long barrage Thursday, killing at least 12 people and injuring 87 in its deadliest assault on the Ukrainian capital since July.

The attack drew a rare rebuke of Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump, who has said that a push to end the war is coming to a head.

“I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying.” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!”

Trump’s frustration is growing as his effort to forge a deal between Ukraine and Russia has failed to achieve a breakthrough.

Trump envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin in Moscow on Friday, their second meeting this month and the fourth since February.

The Kremlin released a short video of Putin and Witkoff greeting each other. “How are you, Mr. President?” Witkoff could be heard saying. “Fine, just fine, thank you,” Putin responded in rare remarks in English, as the two shook hands.

Putin’s foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov and envoy for international cooperation Kirill Dmitriev joined the two at the table for the talks.

Trump accused Zelensky on Wednesday of prolonging the “killing field” by refusing to surrender the Russia-occupied Crimea peninsula as part of a possible deal. Russia illegally annexed that area in 2014. Zelensky has repeated many times during the war that recognizing occupied territory as Russian is a red line for his country.

Trump and Zelensky plan to arrive in Rome on Friday for the funeral of Pope Francis in the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square on Saturday. It wasn’t immediately clear if they would meet separately.

An explosion in Moscow targets a senior officer

Meanwhile, a senior Russian military officer was killed by a car bomb near Moscow on Friday, Russia’s top criminal investigation agency said.

The attack follows the killing of Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov on Dec. 17, 2024, when a bomb hidden on an electric scooter parked outside his apartment building exploded as he left for his office. Russian authorities blamed Ukraine for the killing of Kirillov.

Since Russia invaded, several prominent figures have been killed in targeted attacks believed to have been carried out by Ukraine.

Russian forces used Thursday’s attack on Kyiv as cover to launch almost 150 assaults on Ukrainian positions along the roughly 620-mile front line, Zelensky said late Thursday.

“When the maximum of our forces was focused on defense against missiles and drones, the Russians went on to significantly intensify their ground attacks,” he wrote on Telegram.

Western European leaders have accused Putin of dragging his feet in the negotiations and seeking to grab more Ukrainian land while his army has battlefield momentum.

Zelensky noted Thursday that Ukraine agreed to a U.S. ceasefire proposal 44 days ago, as a first step to a negotiated peace, but that Russian attacks continued.

During recent talks, Russia hit the city of Sumy, killing more than 30 civilians gathered to celebrate Palm Sunday, battered Odesa with drones and blasted Zaporizhzhia with powerful glide bombs.

Novikov writes for the Associated Press. Chris Megerian contributed to this report from Washington.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has pressed for quickly deporting hundreds of Venezuelan and Salvadoran men who are said to belong to a foreign crime gang.

Those deportations have been challenged as illegal — and last week, blocked by the Supreme Court — if the detained men are not given a hearing to argue they are not gang members.

But Trump’s deportations are unusual and may face a legal challenge for a different reason. Most of the deported men will not be sent back to their home country but instead to a maximum security prison in El Salvador where they can be held indefinitely.

Sending someone to prison “constitutes punishment,” says UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham. Before imprisoning people, including noncitizens, the government is required under the Constitution to charge the defendants with a crime and to prove their guilt in a jury trial, he said.

The unusual mix of civil deportation and criminal-style punishment has received relatively little attention, he said.

Last week, however, he filed an appeal on behalf of a Venezuelan man held in Texas, arguing that it would be unconstitutional for the government to send his client to a brutal prison.

“There should be no serious dispute that sending someone to the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, constitutes punishment,” he said in the case of Matos vs. Venegas. “CECOT is not a civil detention center, but instead a maximum security prison in El Salvador. The inhumane conditions there have been well-documented. Detainees share communal cells that can hold up to 100 men where they spend 23.5 hours per day; the cells contain no furniture beyond rows of stacked metal bunks without mattresses or pillows; the lights are always on; and detainees have no access to visits or phone calls with lawyers, family, or community. Indeed, the conditions are so harsh that El Salvador’s own justice minister has said the only way out is in a coffin.”

In defense of its deportations, Trump administration lawyers have pointed to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and said it gave the president wartime powers to quickly deport foreigners.

But administration officials also described the prison as imposing punishment on criminals. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said El Salvador had agreed to “accept for deportation any illegal alien in the United States who is a criminal from any nationality.”

Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele sounded the same theme, saying “we are willing to take in only convicted criminals (including convicted U.S. citizens) into our mega-prison in exchange for a fee.”

Lawyers and family members say many of the deported Venezuelan men had no criminal records but were taken into custody because of their tattoos. They are now in a foreign prison with no rights to appeal or plead their innocence.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager and has lived for 15 years in Maryland, where he has no criminal record. Administration officials allege he was a member of MS-13, a Salvadoran crime gang, which he denies.

Although being a member of foreign crime gang can be grounds for deportation, it is not a crime in itself that would authorize sending Abrego Garcia to state or federal prison in the United States. But because of an “administrative error” by Trump officials, he remains in prison in El Salvador.

In the past, the Supreme Court has made clear that during wartime the government can detain indefinitely people who were picked up on the battlefield. The George W. Bush administration relied on this authority to hold detainees at a U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

County jails also may hold persons who have been charged with a crime while they await a trial. But it is generally understood people cannot be punished and sent to a prison unless they have been convicted of a crime.

Writing in Lawfare this week, Benjamin Wittes also questioned the legal basis for the reliance on the Salvadoran prison.

“What law lets the Trump administration store Venezuelans in Salvadoran prisons?” asked Wittes, who is editor in chief of the Lawfare site. “By what authority can the U.S. government pay a foreign government to lock up for the long term people who were detained in the United States on the basis of no allegation of criminal misconduct?”

He said it is “only a matter of time before the courts confront the question of what being on one of those flights really means. … I would hope there are not five justices who will vote for the proposition that the United States government can knowingly and intentionally deport a person to face such lawless imprisonment.”

Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA Law School, said the judge may decide the Matos case without ruling on the constitutional challenge to sending deported men to a foreign prison. But he wrote about the case Tuesday on the Just Security site to draw attention to the significant constitutional issue.

“The three men I have represented in habeas litigation were all scared to return to Venezuela,” he wrote, “but they were absolutely terrified of being sent to CECOT. They firmly believed, for good reasons, that there would be no coming back from that place.”

WASHINGTON — As a couple of key court cases against President Trump’s executive actions intensify, questions of how and whether the White House will follow judges’ orders are mounting.

Already, some judges have issued orders reprimanding the Trump administration and demanding action. But who has the authority to enforce such orders?

Situated at the nexus of the face-off between the executive and judicial branches is a little-scrutinized arm of the federal government: the U.S. Marshals Service.

Who are U.S. marshals?

The U.S. Marshals Service is a federal law enforcement agency. It is tasked with a broad range of actions — hunting fugitives, transporting federal prisoners and managing goods seized from criminals. Oftentimes the Marshals Service will work with state and local law enforcement agencies on particularly difficult cases, such as hunting down a man who escaped a Pennsylvania prison last year.

“People ask us to do jobs they’re not willing to do,” said Barry Lane, a spokesperson for the U.S. Marshals Service.

Federal courts also rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to enforce federal orders. Sometimes that means keeping order in a courtroom, said Stephen Monier, a retired former U.S. marshal for the district of New Hampshire.

“The judge can say, get him out of here for being disruptive in the courtroom — which, then, we would be responsible for,” Monier said. “We would remove him from the courthouse.”

The Marshals Service reports to the Department of Justice, which is part of the sprawling federal executive structure. But it serves as the enforcer of federal court orders — occupying an unusual position between the executive and judicial branches.

“Like the director of the FBI, the director of Marshals Service reports to the attorney general of the United States,” Monier said, adding, “but because of our unique role with the court, we are the enforcement arm of the court.”

Another responsibility of the Marshals Service is protecting courthouses and judicial officers. U.S. Marshals have ramped up security efforts in response to an increasing number of threats against judges and court personnel — including creating the Judicial Threat Branch to monitor and respond to high-level incidents. One of the marshals’ responsibilities was providing protective service detail for U.S. District Judges Aileen Cannon and Tanya Chutkan, who ruled in criminal cases against Trump.

“These decisions generated threats directed at the judges that warranted protective service details,” the U.S. Marshals Service’s annual report notes.

Is Trump following court orders?

Trump has repeatedly said he will follow court orders, and White House officials have said they are following the letter of the law in the myriad cases brought against the administration since he took office. So far, the Supreme Court has issued limited rulings affecting the White House. Last weekend, the justices temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out deportations of Venezuelan men deemed foreign gang members.

“We are obviously complying with the court’s order,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. “However, it was a temporary pause. The Supreme Court basically said, sit tight and they will follow up with an order, and we’re confident that the Supreme Court will rule on the side of law and recognize the president absolutely has the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists from our nation’s interior under the Alien Enemies Act.”

But Trump has already lashed out at other federal court judges who’ve ruled against his administration over their efforts to deport immigrants — including U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who threatened to hold White House officials in contempt of court for not following his earlier orders to stop a plane carrying deportees to an El Salvador prison midflight.

Boasberg said last week that he found probable cause for putting administration officials in criminal contempt for not turning the planes around.

What does being held in contempt of court mean?

Being held in criminal contempt of court means defying a judge’s orders.

Boasberg said that Trump administration officials violated his orders by not stopping a plane carrying deportees to El Salvador. He warned that he could refer the matter for prosecution — where Department of Justice officials would have to decide whether to take up the case. If they decline to do so, Boasberg said, he would appoint a private attorney to prosecute the case against the administration and specific officials.

Holding a defendant — never mind a government official — in criminal contempt is rare.

“It would be very unusual in my experience,” Monier said.

In another case, the Supreme Court said the administration had a duty to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man the Trump administration said it had mistakenly deported to that country.

But Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador, and U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis condemned the government’s lawyers for defying the court’s order, saying their “objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply.”

Have U.S. marshals said they would enforce an order against the Trump administration?

No. The U.S. Marshals spokesperson declined to comment for this article and referred The Times to its annual report.

The U.S. Marshals Service is also without a permanent director, since Gadyaces Serralta, whom Trump appointed last month, has yet to be confirmed.

On the heels of the catastrophic January wildfires, L.A. County first responders are demanding raises and rebuking politicians for not moving faster to grant them.

Unions representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and lifeguards made a public pitch Thursday for more support in increasingly testy contract negotiations, releasing a half-hour documentary that highlighted their members’ harrowing tales from the first days of the fires.

Dave Gillotte, head of county firefighter union IAFF Local 1014, said he wants the footage to serve as a reminder to county politicians about his members’ heroism battling the worst wildfire of their careers.

“They’re a little bit bewildered seeing press conferences from the county saying what an amazing job you’ve done,” said Gillotte, whose union’s contract with the county expired a week before the fires. “That doesn’t reconcile with my members.”

The documentary captures a sheriff’s deputy reminiscing about her car slowing in the middle of an inferno as her tires melted. A lifeguard narrates footage from his body camera of driving through black smoke during a beach patrol and spotting the beam from a flashlight — a Hail Mary from a man whose house was about to be consumed by flames. Firefighters share stories of working double shifts without food or sleep.

“My members don’t whine. They don’t complain,” Gillotte said. “But they did a damn good job.”

The film’s release comes about a month after L.A. County Chief Executive Fesia Davenport told the unions they would get no raises in their new contracts because of unprecedented financial pressures. The county is saddled with a $4-billion sex abuse settlement, an estimated $2 billion in wildfire costs and signs from the White House that hundreds of millions’ worth of public health grants will soon be cut.

The chief executive office said in a statement that the county is trying to balance the need to pay employees fairly with keeping the county solvent.

“Los Angeles County appreciates the essential contributions of our workforce, and we are deeply grateful for the brave and important work by our firefighters and other first responders during the unprecedented January wildfires,” the statement read. “At the same time, the County is facing serious budgetary challenges on multiple fronts.”

Despite the punishing headwinds, the county balanced its $48-billion recommended budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which officials credit to cautious financial planning. They said the sex abuse settlement can be paid with bonds and the county’s plush rainy day fund, a seldom-touched pot worth nearly a billion dollars.

Unlike L.A. County, the city of Los Angeles recently gave its workers significant pay raises, which are now a major factor in a nearly $1-billion budget deficit, along with ballooning legal payouts and a weakening national economy.

Mayor Karen Bass’ proposed budget includes 1,650 layoffs, a quarter of them civilians at the Police Department. City labor negotiators have started to talk to union leaders about postponing this year’s raises, which are expected to cost about $250 million.

County unions insist there’s some room left over for raises. SEIU Local 721, which represents about 55,000 county employees, has accused the county of slow-rolling negotiations and plans to strike at the end of the month.

Unions representing first responders said the county’s refusal to grant raises landed with a particularly brutal thud among employees who expect to be rewarded for their work in the wildfires.

“I’m pissed off, bluntly,” said Richard Pippin, head of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, whose contract expired at the end of January. “Because the county fiscally is so much healthier than the city is — even with the settlement. We know that they have the budget.”

None of the five L.A. County supervisors responded to a request for comment.

Sheriff Robert Luna, who greenlighted the use of deputy footage in the documentary, said he has been advocating to Davenport and the supervisors to increase the pay of his deputies, warning they will otherwise leave for better-paying jurisdictions.

“They absolutely need to be fairly compensated,” Luna said. “We can’t move forward and continue to get zeroes.”

In L.A., the union that represents rank-and-file police officers has said it will back Bass for reelection after supporting her opponent, Rick Caruso, a billionaire developer, the last time.

Asked whether they were threatening political repercussions for the supervisors, county unions demurred.

“We just need the CEO to show up,” Gillotte said.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth finds himself under fire again — this time from political skeptics or foes across the political spectrum. But just as the case was during the recent presidential transition period, when Trump opponents resuscitated the discredited 2018 Brett M. Kavanaugh/Christine Blasey Ford playbook in an attempt to derail Hegseth’s nomination, the stakes now are much higher than Hegseth’s job security helming the Pentagon.

When he was up for the nomination, Democrats and many in the media went all-in in an attempt to destroy Hegseth. Like the anti-Kavanaugh campaign in September 2018, when the then-pending Supreme Court nominee was accused of everything from sexual assault to gang rape (and denied the claims), the recent anti-Hegseth operation accused the two-time Bronze Star-decorated veteran of recurring alcoholism, having a ruinous Bill Clinton-esque libido and, yes, sexual assault (he has also denied the claims). But the concerted effort to sink Hegseth’s nomination was not actually about Hegseth. It was an attempt to chum the waters, demonstrate Trumpian vulnerability and sabotage the incoming administration before it even took office. Thankfully, the cynical effort failed. And military recruitment, perhaps Hegseth’s single most important Day 1 priority, has already greatly benefited.

Fast-forward a bit. Hegseth was one of the main Trump administration officials caught in the crosshairs of last month’s “Signalgate” group chat controversy, which saw sensitive military information about the United States’ attack plans on the Yemen-based Houthi terrorists inexplicably delivered to the editor in chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. The contents of the leaked chat revealed a Trump administration that is internally divided on matters of foreign policy — in particular as it pertains to Iran and its regional proxies, such as the Houthis. Iran doves and anti-Israel provocateurs tendentiously seized the opportunity to attempt to excise a convenient “hawkish” scalp — whether that be Hegseth or national security advisor Michael Waltz. But both Hegseth and Waltz kept their jobs.

Since Signalgate, there have been two additional Hegseth-related developments. Last Sunday, the New York Times reported that Hegseth had shared sensitive information about the Houthi attack plans in a second group chat that included his wife and his brother, among others. Hegseth admitted to this second chat’s existence but claimed no harm was done. Around the same time, three high-ranking Department of Defense officials — Deputy Chief of Staff Darin Selnick, longtime Hegseth friend and confidante Dan Caldwell and the chief of staff to the deputy defense secretary, Colin Carroll — were first placed on leave, and then fired, amid an ongoing Pentagon leak investigation.

The cashiering of Caldwell is notable because of his relationship with Hegseth. The dismissal suggests that Hegseth is committed to leaving no stone unturned and is willing to go scorched-earth on onetime allies if need be, to regain operational control of his leak-addled Pentagon. But the reaction to the firings, and Caldwell’s immediate conduct afterward, are highly telling. What the Pentagon firings aftermath reveals, in short, is the same thing last month’s original leaked Signal chat revealed: a Trump administration deeply divided on issues of foreign policy, especially pertaining to Iran.

Caldwell, who has worked for various isolationist outfits, is an Iran dove. In the earliest days of the Biden administration, Caldwell even went so far as to praise Robert Malley — Biden’s execrable choice for special envoy to Iran, and previously the chief American negotiator for President Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Shortly after being fired from the Pentagon, Caldwell promptly went on the popular show of the nation’s best-known Iran dove, Tucker Carlson — a man who just referred to Iran hawks as “enemies” of the United States — to tell his side of the story. Caldwell’s narrative was pure victimhood: He argued that his Pentagon tenure threatened “established interests,” and he dismissed leak accusations. Given that his old ally Hegseth fired him and is now recommending he be prosecuted, Caldwell’s tale doesn’t pass the laugh test.

But the entire saga is illuminating.

One must wonder why many supposed allies of President Trump would decide to capitalize on the reporting from the New York Times and try to throw Hegseth under the bus at a vulnerable moment. Shouldn’t “allies” have followed the lead of Vice President JD Vance and Trump himself and defended Hegseth to the hilt? Curt Mills of the magazine the American Conservative said the quiet part out loud: “The reality is operational — Hegseth is just not up to this.”

In other words, the Hegseth smear campaign continues, but now it takes on a different hue: The target this time is all Iran hawks.

The backdrop for all this high drama, adding yet another twist to this elaborate puzzle, is the administration’s ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations, which are led by Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff. Those negotiations will resume this weekend in Oman. Witkoff is a billionaire real estate investor with no particular knowledge of the Middle East. In 2023, Witkoff sold his Park Lane Hotel in New York City to the Qatar Investment Authority for $623 million, and perhaps not coincidentally, in January 2025 he went on TV to praise Qatar for “doing God’s work.” In the Carlson interview, Caldwell referred to Witkoff as a “godsend,” and Carlson hailed him as an “instrument of peace.” Carlson, notably, recently hosted the prime minister of Qatar and praised him for seeking to stop military action against Qatar’s ally and trade partner, Iran.

One starts to see what is really going on here.

The good news is that Trump himself is clear-eyed on matters pertaining to Iran. So too, it seems, is his secretary of Defense. One must thus conclude that Hegseth’s detractors are expressing frustration that the president is not as Iran-curious as they are. That would explain why certain purported administration “allies” are yet again attempting to destroy Pete Hegseth.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

WASHINGTON — President Trump has signed an executive order intended to accelerate offshore mining and open new opportunities for extracting critical materials from the ocean floor despite the objections of environmentalists.

The measure directs the Commerce Department to speed up reviewing and issuing permits for exploration and commercial recovery under a 1980 law, according to senior White House officials who briefed reporters on the action Thursday.

While the permits could cover territory far beyond the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, the president is also setting in motion potential seabed mining within U.S. coastal waters. Under Trump’s order, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is charged with establishing a process for approving permits and granting licenses for seabed mining in U.S. waters, under the same law that has long governed oil drilling there.

The White House in a fact sheet cast the order as one of several steps Trump has taken “positioning the United States at the forefront of critical mineral production and innovation.”

The president is also ordering a raft of reports, including a study of using the U.S. National Defense Stockpile for minerals contained within sea deposits and an assessment of private-sector interest in the activity.

The order directs the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and the U.S. Export-Import Bank to study options for providing financing and other support for exploration, extraction, processing and environmental monitoring of seabed resources.

Trump’s directive comes amid increasing concern over new Chinese curbs on the export of rare-earth materials used in electric vehicle batteries, smartphones and other technology, a response to Trump’s tariffs. China’s moves have generated worries about obtaining alternate supplies for the metals given the country’s dominance in mining and refining them.

Deep-sea mining is seen by the administration as another avenue for extracting rare-earth elements such as manganese, cobalt, nickel and copper, helping wean the U.S. off foreign suppliers and opening new export opportunities. Over 10 years, a seabed mineral extraction industry could yield 100,000 jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic benefits, one of the White House officials said.

Mining advocates have warned that without action, the U.S. and allies risk forfeiting seabed mineral extraction to China. In a report earlier this month, Rand Corp. estimated that production from seabed mining would decrease metal prices and could produce enough nickel and cobalt to meet projected U.S. demand in 2040. The materials are essential ingredients in lithium-ion batteries.

Trump’s order is expected to benefit the Metals Company, which for years has sought to collect mineral-rich deposits that cover the sea floor in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, international waters in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico. The Vancouver-based company’s push has been complicated by a long-running debate over potential regulations from the United Nations-affiliated International Seabed Authority that governs the region.

The Metals Company said last month it was pursuing exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits from the Trump administration under the 45-year-old Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.

Any move to approve permits — with the U.S. effectively circumventing the International Seabed Authority — has been criticized as a violation of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea that established the body. It also threatens to disrupt more than a decade of negotiations to enact regulations that would allow mining to commence.

Environmentalists are seeking stiffer international regulation of deep-sea mining, warning that the activity could imperil key marine habitats and the organisms that live on the ocean bottom.

The Law of the Sea Treaty established the International Seabed Authority, but since the U.S. is not a signatory, conservatives have argued the U.S. government should not voluntarily submit to it. That treaty also reserved some mining areas in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone for the U.S. in case the country eventually acceded to the convention. The U.S. in turn enacted the deep sea mineral resources law, which spells out procedures for U.S. companies to gain access to materials there.

Dlouhy and Lai write for Bloomberg News.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — State and local election officials from around the country on Thursday questioned the leaders of a federal agency tasked by President Trump with implementing parts of his sweeping election overhaul executive order, with some expressing concerns about the consequences for voters and the people in charge of voting.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an independent and bipartisan federal agency, is at the center of Trump’s March 25 order that directs the commission to update the national voter registration form to include a proof-of-citizenship requirement and revise guidelines for voting systems. Trump also wants it to withhold federal money from any state that continues to accept ballots after election day, even if they are postmarked by then.

Whether the Republican president can order an independent agency to act and whether the commission has the authority to do what Trump wants will likely be settled in court.

A federal judge on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction blocking the proof-of-citizenship requirement from moving forward while the legal challenges over Trump’s executive order play out.

On Thursday, the commission’s Standards Board — a bipartisan advisory group of election officials from every state — held its annual meeting in North Carolina. It was among the first conversations held by those who oversee the nation’s voting on the implications of Trump’s executive order.

The meeting was largely an opportunity for election officials to ask the four EAC commissioners about Trump’s executive order and share their concerns about its effects on election administration and voting.

“I can see on your faces there’s a lot of concern in this room for this process and other aspects of it,” Commissioner Thomas Hicks said. “And I would highly encourage you to send comments to us on that.”

An election official from Utah raised concern about how Native American communities might be affected under a proof-of-citizenship requirement, while an election official from Florida asked how voting machine companies could be expected to comply when a voting system has yet to be certified to meet the latest guidelines, which were updated in 2021.

“And they’re going to what — ramp up production and provide voting equipment and all that for all 50 states and five territories?” asked Paul Lux, elections supervisor in Florida’s Okaloosa County.

Donald Palmer, chair of the Election Assistance Commission, sought to reassure election officials that the commission would weigh their concerns and encouraged them to continue sharing their thoughts.

“Wherever we end up in this process, my goal is to provide the least disruption to the states, to mitigate any impact on you and your voting systems,” Palmer told the group.

Voting rights groups, the Democratic Party and Democratic officials in 21 states have sued, arguing that the Republican president is exceeding his authority under the Constitution and interfering with states’ power to set election rules. They want to block the commission from taking action to implement the executive order.

The Constitution says it’s up to states to determine the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run, while Congress has the power to “make or alter” regulations for presidential and congressional elections. It does not grant the president any authority over how elections are administered.

The commission isn’t waiting for the court cases to play out. It sent a letter to state election officials seeking their thoughts on how they might implement a change to the national voter registration form to include a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

“It remains to be seen how this all plays out,” Commissioner Christy McCormick told the Associated Press during a break in the meeting. “I think we have to be ready, though. And I think that’s the position we’re in at the moment — trying to take what steps we can to be prepared.”

Both the process for updating the national voter registration form and making changes to the nation’s voluntary voting system guidelines are outlined in federal law. For the form, that involves getting feedback from state election officials and from the agency’s advisory boards. The process for the voting system guidelines also includes a period for public comment and a hearing.

Congress created the Election Assistance Commission after the 2000 presidential election, which included a contested outcome in Florida, to help states update their voting equipment.

Under the 2002 law, the commission was charged with distributing federal money for new voting equipment, creating voluntary guidelines for voting systems, establishing a federal testing and certification program for them, and overseeing the national voter registration form. It also has worked closely with the states to gather an array of data and share ideas on how to run elections more efficiently.

Trump, who continues to make false claims about the 2020 presidential election, instructed the commission to “take appropriate action” within 30 days to require documentary proof of citizenship on the national voter registration form. The order outlines acceptable documents as a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or official military ID that “indicates the applicant is a citizen,” or a government-issued photo ID accompanied by proof of citizenship.

The requirement has caused widespread concern that it will disenfranchise millions of voters who don’t have a passport or ready access to their birth certificate or other documents that will prove their citizenship. Similar laws at the state level have caused disruptions, including during town elections last month in New Hampshire and in Kansas, where a since overturned law ended up blocking the voter registrations of 31,000 people who were citizens and otherwise eligible to vote.

Trump’s order also directed the Election Assistance Commission to “take all appropriate action to cease” federal money for any state that fails to use the form that includes the proof-of-citizenship requirement, though a handful of states are exempt under federal law from using the national form.

Some states would have to halt their practice of counting late-arriving mail ballots that are postmarked by election day. If they don’t, Trump’s executive order directs the commission to withhold election-related funding. Oregon and Washington have filed a separate lawsuit against the executive order, saying it would upend their elections because they rely entirely on mail voting.

Cassidy writes for the Associated Press.

LANSING, Mich. — President Trump will mark his first 100 days in office next week with a rally in Michigan, his first since returning to the White House earlier this year.

Trump will visit Macomb County on Tuesday, the White House press secretary said. The region is just north of Detroit, known as an automotive hub.

“President Trump is excited to return to the great state of Michigan next Tuesday, where he will rally in Macomb County to celebrate the FIRST 100 DAYS!” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday on social media.

The rally will take place on Trump’s 100th day in office — a traditional early milestone in which a president’s progress is measured against campaign promises. Michigan was one of the key battleground states Trump flipped last year from Democrats on his path back to the White House.

Trump has not traveled much since taking office outside of personal weekend trips. The Republican president’s only other official trip in his second term was during the first week, when he visited disaster zones in North Carolina and California and held an event in Las Vegas to promote his plan to eliminate taxes on tips.

But later this week, Trump will travel to Pope Francis’ funeral in Rome, the first foreign trip in his second term.

Trump’s upcoming trip to Michigan follows a series of meetings and phone calls with the state’s high-profile Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. Once a sharp critic of Trump, Whitmer has said that she hopes to find common ground with the president in his second term.

A key area of potential cooperation that Whitmer has pointed to is Selfridge Air National Guard Base, long a concern for Whitmer and Michigan lawmakers amid uncertainty over its future as the A-10 aircraft stationed there are phased out. The base is in Macomb County, where he is set to appear Tuesday.

Trump mentioned Selfridge during an April 9 executive order signing in the Oval Office, an event that Whitmer was present for, saying he hoped to keep the base “open, strong, thriving.”

“I think we’re going to be successful, Governor. I think we’ll be very successful there,” Trump said about Selfridge.

Whitmer — whom Trump praised during his remarks — later said she was unexpectedly brought into the Oval Office during her visit. A photo captured her trying to shield her face from cameras with a folder.

Asked Wednesday if Whitmer would appear with the president in Michigan, a spokesperson for the governor said they “don’t have anything to share at this time.”

Whitmer and other Michigan officials have long advocated for a new fighter mission to replace the outgoing A-10 squadron at Selfridge.

In a 2023 letter sent during President Biden’s administration, Whitmer urged the secretary of the Air Force to act, writing, “I repeat and reiterate what I stated in November and many times before over the past year: a fighter mission at Selfridge to recapitalize the A10s is the right path forward for the State of Michigan, the Air Force, and the nation.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to allow enforcement of a ban on transgender people in the military, while legal challenges proceed.

Without an order from the nation’s highest court, the ban could not take effect for many months, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, “a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the nation’s interests.”

The high court filing follows a brief order from a federal appeals court that kept in place a court order blocking the policy nationwide.

At the least, Sauer wrote, the court should allow the ban to take effect nationwide, except for the seven service members and one aspiring member of the military who sued.

The court gave lawyers for the service members challenging the ban a week to respond.

Just after beginning his second term in January, Trump moved aggressively to roll back the rights of transgender people. Among the Republican president’s actions was an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies transgender people from military service.

But in March, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma, Wash., ruled for several long-serving transgender military members who say that the ban is insulting and discriminatory and that their firing would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations.

The Trump administration offered no explanation as to why transgender troops, who have been able to serve openly over the past four years with no evidence of problems, should suddenly be banned, Settle wrote. The judge is an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush and is a former captain in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps.

In 2016, during Barack Obama’s presidency, a Defense Department policy permitted transgender people to serve openly in the military. During Trump’s first term in the White House, the Republican issued a directive to ban transgender service members, with an exception for some of those who had already started transitioning under more lenient rules that were in effect during Obama’s Democratic administration.

The Supreme Court allowed that ban to take effect. President Biden, a Democrat, scrapped it when he took office.

The rules the Defense Department wants to enforce contain no exceptions.

Sauer said the policy during Trump’s first term and the one that has been blocked are “materially indistinguishable.”

Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.

The policy also has been blocked by a federal judge in the nation’s capital, but that ruling has been temporarily halted by a federal appeals court, which heard arguments on Tuesday. The three-judge panel, which includes two judges appointed by Trump during his first term, appeared to be in favor of the administration’s position.

In a more limited ruling, a judge in New Jersey also has barred the Air Force from removing two transgender men, saying they showed their separation would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations that no monetary settlement could repair.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday offered rare criticism of Vladimir Putin, urging the Russian leader to “STOP!” after a deadly barrage of attacks on Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.

“I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!”

Russia struck Kyiv with an hours-long barrage of missiles and drones. At least 12 people were killed and 90 were injured in the deadliest assault on the city since last July.

Trump’s frustration is growing as a U.S.-led effort to get a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia has not made progress.

Trump lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday and accused him of prolonging the “killing field” by refusing to surrender the Russia-occupied Crimea peninsula as part of a possible deal. Russia illegally annexed that area from Ukraine in 2014.

Zelensky has repeated many times during the war that began when Russia invaded in February 2022 that recognizing occupied territory as Russia’s is a red line for Ukraine. Zelensky noted Thursday that Ukraine had agreed to a U.S. ceasefire proposal 44 days ago as a first step to a negotiated peace, but that Moscow’s attacks had continued.

Trump’s criticism of Putin is notable because Trump has repeatedly said Russia, the aggressor in the conflict, is more willing than Ukraine to get a deal done.

“I thought it might be easier to deal with Zelensky,” Trump told reporters Wednesday. “So far it’s been harder, but that’s OK. It’s all right.”

In his dealings with Zelensky and Putin, Trump has focused on which leader has leverage. Putin has “the cards” and Zelensky does not, Trump has said repeatedly. At the same time, the new Republican administration has taken steps toward a more cooperative line with Putin, for whom Trump has long shown admiration.

Trump is set to meet later Thursday with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre to discuss the war in Ukraine, U.S. tariffs and other issues.

Norway, a member of NATO and strong supporter of Ukraine, shares a roughly 123-mile border with Russia.

Gahr Støre said in a social media post Thursday that he would underscore during the talks that “close contact between Norway and the USA is crucial.”

“We must contribute to a lasting and just peace in Ukraine,” he said.

Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron said Putin should “stop lying” when he claims to want “peace” while continuing to bomb Ukraine.

“There is only one answer we are waiting for: Does President Putin agree to an unconditional ceasefire?” said Macron during a visit to Madagascar. Macron added that “the Americans’ anger should focus on just one person: President Putin.”

The French Foreign Ministry also offered measured pushback on Trump’s criticism of Zelensky over the Ukrainian’s stance on Crimea.

During talks last week in Paris, U.S. officials presented a proposal that included allowing Russia to keep control of occupied Ukrainian territory as part of a deal, according to a European official familiar with the matter. The matter was discussed again Wednesday during talks with U.S., European and Ukrainian officials.

“The principle of Ukraine’s territorial integrity is not something that can be negotiated,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Christophe Lemoine said. “This was the position taken last week and reiterated yesterday in London in a meeting of a similar format.”

Asked whether France agreed with Trump’s comments that Ukraine’s position was to blame for prolonging the war, Lemoine said Ukrainians showed they are open to negotiations while Russia continues its strikes.

“We rather have the impression that it is the Russians who are slowing down the discussions,” he said.

The White House announced Tuesday that Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, would visit Moscow this week for a new round of talks with Putin about the war. It would be their fourth meeting since Trump took office in January.

Madhani and Petrequin write for the Associated Press. Petrequin reported from Paris.

Your addictive doomscrolling on X, TikTok or Instagram may also be the latest nexus for millions of dollars in secret political corruption.

Over the last month, the problem has come into sharp relief. Newly surfaced documents show that more than 500 social media creators were part of a covert electioneering effort by Democratic donors to shape the presidential election in favor of Kamala Harris. Payments went to party members with online followings but also to non-political influencers — people known for comedy posts, travel vlogs or cooking YouTubes — in exchange for “positive, specific pro-Kamala content” meant to create the appearance of a groundswell of support for the former vice president.

Meanwhile, a similar pay-to-post effort among conservative influencers publicly unraveled. The goal was to publish messages in opposition to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to remove sugary soda beverages from eligible SNAP food stamp benefits. Influencers were allegedly offered money to denounce soda restrictions as “an overreach that unfairly targets consumer choice” and encouraged to post pictures of President Trump enjoying Coca-Cola products. After right-leaning reporter Nick Sortor pointed out the near-identical messages on several prominent accounts, posts came down and at least one of the influencers apologized: “That was dumb of me. Massive egg on my face. In all seriousness, it won’t happen again.”

In both schemes, on the left and the right, those creating the content made little to no effort to disclose that payments could be involved. For ordinary users stumbling on the posts and videos, what they saw would have seemed entirely organic.

In the influencers’ defense, they didn’t break any rules — because none exist.

We used to demand minimal levels of transparency for paid endorsements. In the 1970s, the U.S. enacted a series of reforms requiring new disclosures for those seeking to shape elections. Television, radio and print ads for political campaigns must specify the sponsors, and billboards or pamphlets sent by mail also feature small-print reminders of the groups responsible.

Social media, however, is the Wild West of advocacy. Although influencers are generally required by the Federal Trade Commission to disclose paid endorsements for products, politics are a different matter. Most election-related communications fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission. But the FEC commissioners debated the issue without resolving the problem. A proposal floated in December 2023 to enact basic rules for influencers made no headway.

There was a momentary push in 2017 for stricter social media disclosures in the political realm. The discovery of foreign influence campaigns aimed at the 2016 presidential election set off alarm bells. As a result, the major tech platforms began working to track and close so-called sock puppet accounts operated by the Russian and Chinese government. Yet few reforms were institutionalized, and as more and more Americans get their news from social media, the problem remains largely unchecked.

That has left the entire social media landscape vulnerable to hidden manipulation, where money from interest groups or corporations or even rich individuals can silently shape what appears to be authentic discourse. This corrosion of reality undermines the very foundation of democratic deliberation.

Democracy requires a minimal level of shared facts and good-faith engagement. Secret payments in support of candidates or causes destroy both, corrupting the “marketplace of ideas,” where the best arguments are supposed to naturally rise to prominence through competition. If genuine public sentiment becomes indistinguishable from manufactured opinion, we lose our collective ability to recognize the truth and make informed decisions. Everything from local zoning decisions to soda bans to presidential elections can be skewed.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously noted that “sunlight is … the best disinfectant.” Transparency in political influencing requires regulatory action. The Federal Election Commission must act and establish clear disclosure requirements for paid political communications on social media. Congress should expand the definition of electioneering and political-payola disclosure to include influencer content. Platforms must implement more robust paid content and disclosure tools.

Most important, we as citizens must demand reform. We should support influencers who voluntarily disclose their financial relationships and conflicts of interests, and question those who don’t.

If we fail to address the growing influence of secret money in the digital public square, the risk is dire: We will surrender our collective decision-making ability and our democracy to whoever can afford to purchase the most compelling voices.

Lee Fang is an independent journalist. He publishes an investigative newsletter at leefang.com.

History may not perfectly repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Two protectionist episodes — the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the Trump-era tariffs of today — offer a striking example. Both emerged from economic nostalgia and fear of change. Both were politically attractive. And both were costly, backward-looking mistakes that undermined the economies they were meant to protect.

Smoot-Hawley was conceived in an America uneasy about economic transformation. In the 1920s, while the economy was otherwise booming, farmers were in crisis. After a postwar boom, crop prices had collapsed and rural debt soared. About one-quarter of the labor force still worked in agriculture, down from one-half a few decades before. Many Americans longed for an earlier era when agriculture was dominant and prosperous.

Foreign competition was the scapegoat. Politicians seized on this frustration. Promising protection from cheap imports was an easy way to win votes. The result was a tariff that raised duties on more than 20,000 goods by an average of about 20%.

Smoot-Hawley’s intent was to reduce imports and raise domestic prices, especially for farmers. But the plan backfired quickly. U.S. trading partners retaliated as Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Britain, France and others imposed their own tariffs. Exports plummeted, imports became more expensive, and global economic conditions deteriorated.

The timing couldn’t have been worse. The Great Depression had begun and the stock market, which had been slowly recovering from the 1929 crash, dropped again when the bill became law. Instead of stabilizing, the U.S. sank further into depression. Far from rescuing American farmers, the tariffs deepened their crisis. Between 1929 and 1934, global trade collapsed by 65%.

Today, Smoot-Hawley is widely regarded as a catastrophic error.

Now fast-forward to the new wave of protectionist nostalgia, this time aimed at restoring manufacturing. Trump’s 2016 campaign promised to revive the lost era of factory jobs and industrial strength. And like 1920s Republicans blaming foreign crops for the collapse of agriculture, Trump blamed imported manufactured goods.

Never mind that America had long since shifted to a service-based economy or that manufacturing accounted for just 10% of jobs by 2016. The emotional appeal of “Make America Great Again” rested on a nostalgia-drenched longing for the age of smokestacks and assembly lines — and a broad and homogeneous middle class — before globalization and automation transformed the economy.

When Trump took office again in January, he inherited a robust economy that had further improved after his election, based on investors’ anticipation of pro-growth policies. Instead, the administration turned toward economic nationalism and shot the economy in the foot.

The culmination came on April 2, when Trump announced sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs of 10% on all imports and additional steep, targeted tariffs against counterparts such as China, Japan, Vietnam and the European Union. He pitched it as a patriotic effort to restore sovereignty and rebuild industry.

As we know, the fallout was immediate. Markets tanked, and trade partners threatened retaliation, with some even taking action. Economists warned of rising costs, damaged supply chains and diplomatic tensions. Australia, among others, condemned the move as economically hostile. Small businesses sued the administration, arguing that the tariffs exceeded presidential authority and inflicted serious harm.

And just as Smoot-Hawley hurt the farmers it was meant to help, Trump’s tariffs are hurting manufacturers. Far from delivering industrial renewal, they’ve led to layoffs at manufacturing plants.

In the end, despite its populist packaging, Liberation Day marked a dramatic escalation of failed protectionist thinking. It also revived 1930s-style nationalist rhetoric.

The two blunders have one more thing in common: cronyism. According to economic historian Douglas A. Irwin, Smoot-Hawley was not primarily about ideology. It was about interest-group politics: an ad hoc scramble driven by constituent demands, sectoral lobbying and legislative bargaining.

In the same way, Trump’s tariffs have revived the lobbying for tariff exemptions we saw in his first term. Apple got an exemption for the iPhone and now, understandably, everyone else wants one. As the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome commented on X, “The cronyism buffet line is now open.” National Review’s Dominic Pino calculated that tariff lobbying spending is up by 277%.

The lesson is clear: Economic nostalgia is a poor guide to sound policy. Smoot-Hawley and Trump’s tariffs represent attempts to re-create a romanticized past — one of small farms or bustling factories — rather than to embrace the reality of a changing world. But economies are dynamic. Trying to freeze them in place with trade barriers doesn’t stop change; it just makes the transition harder, costlier and more painful.

History judged Smoot-Hawley harshly. The final verdict on Trump’s tariffs is not yet written, but the early signs are familiar. If we want prosperity, we must look forward, not backward. The future belongs to those who embrace change and creative destruction, not those who resist it.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

With the Trump administration slashing budgets and threatening to revoke tax-exempt status for nonprofits, some Southern California social justice organizations have gone into a defensive crouch, hoping to wait out the passing storm.

They are not openly fighting President Trump’s program cuts. Some have scrubbed their websites of terms such as “equity,” “inclusion” and “transgender.” Others have been told they should drop land acknowledgments — proclamations paying tribute to the Indigenous peoples who were this region’s first human inhabitants.

But other local nonprofits intend to fight. They have slammed Trump’s policies. They declined suggestions to alter their mission statements. They have gone to court. And one, giant St. John’s Community Health — which has provided care for the region’s working class and immigrants for 60 years — is launching a campaign to call out congressional Republicans it believes are enabling Trump budget cuts that they believe will cripple healthcare for the poor.

The venerable system of health clinics, based in South Los Angeles, on Thursday joined about 10 other nonprofits in launching a media campaign that will focus on half a dozen U.S. House districts where Republican lawmakers have supported the president’s initial budget plan.

The campaign by the newly created Health Justice Action Fund will promote the theme “Medicaid matters to me.” The organization plans to spend $2 million in the coming weeks to focus petitions, phone banks, social media and radio ads on six GOP lawmakers across the country, telling them that their constituents do not support cuts to the principal federal health program for the poor and disabled.

The Republican-controlled House and Senate have approved a Trump budget framework that calls for $880 billion in cuts over 10 years from operations overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Trump and other Republicans insist Medicaid won’t have to be cut. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office disagrees, saying the desired savings can be achieved only by slashing Medicaid.

The new campaign to head off those cuts has been organized by Los Angeles-based St. John’s Health and its president and chief executive, Jim Mangia.

“The Medicaid cuts being proposed by Republicans and President Trump would be devastating to the health of low-income families throughout the United States,” Mangia, who has led St. John’s for a quarter of a century, said in an interview. “There are tens of millions of people who depend on Medicaid and, in California, Medi-Cal, for their basic healthcare. To cut that to fund tax breaks for billionaires is a perversion of what this country is supposed to be about.”

Mangia and his board of directors said they understand that their sprawling healthcare organization, with more than 20 locations in Southern California, could be targeted for calling out the president and his budget.

“Our posture is to fight,” Mangia said. “A lot of community health centers have been scraping their websites and taking words like ‘trans’ and ‘African American’ off their websites. We’re not going to do that. We are not going to erase the people we serve.”

Leaders of nonprofits that serve the poor, immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community have been engaged in intense conversations for weeks about how to respond to Trump and his policies, which explicitly aim to curtail services to some of those populations.

GOP Rep. David Valadao represents a Central Valley district where nearly two-thirds of residents rely on Medicaid.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

When Trump said last week that he might begin trying to revoke the nonprofit status of some groups, anxiety among the agencies spiraled to a new high, said Geoff Green, chief executive of CalNonprofits, which represents thousands of organizations with tax-exempt status.

“There have been financial stresses and budget cuts before,” Green said. “But now it’s not only financial stress, it’s direct targeting of their very existence and challenges to the values that are at the core of a lot of their work.”

Leaders of smaller organizations, in particular, don’t feel they have the power or money to take the Trump administration to court. Others, representing immigrants, worry that their leaders or their clients could be targeted for deportation if they protest publicly.

“For some people in this community this is like a kind of code-switching,” said an executive at one social justice nonprofit, who declined to be named. “They might change some terms on their websites, but it’s not going to change their mission. They want to avoid conflict or attacks, so they can come out the other end of this and do the good work.”

In one instance, a nonprofit declined to receive an award sponsored by a member of the California Legislature, because the organization worried the award would bring unwanted attention to its service to immigrants.

“At the end of the day, it’s about protecting the most vulnerable of us,” said the social justice executive. “Some organizations have more privilege, they have more resources. They can afford to go to court. They can be more bold.”

Public Counsel is among the public interest law firms whose contracts the Trump administration has threatened with termination. The potential loss of $1.6 million puts in jeopardy the Los Angeles-based firm’s representation of hundreds of immigrant children, unaccompanied minors who often have no adult support.

Public Counsel Chief Executive Kathryn Eidmann said she believes her organization has a duty to call out what it sees as an injustice: leaving vulnerable children without legal representation.

“We have a responsibility to stand up for our mission and to stand up for our clients and the rule of law,” Eidmann said. Public Counsel is seeking to intervene in court on behalf of “sanctuary” cities such as Los Angeles, which have been threatened with a loss of federal funding, and the firm has come to the defense of law firms targeted for providing pro bono representation to groups out of favor with the Trump administration.

Public Counsel and other nonprofit law firms continue to wait to see whether the Trump administration will honor a judge’s temporary restraining order, requiring that funds continue to flow to those representing immigrant children. As of Wednesday, the funding had not been restored, a Public Counsel spokesperson said.

Another L.A.-area nonprofit threatened with the loss of federal funding under Trump’s anti-DEI push is the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust.

The group had won a $500,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to help ensure that redevelopment along the Los Angeles River in northeast L.A. protects housing, jobs and services for working-class families. But the money stopped flowing this year, without any explanation from the EPA, said Tori Kjer, executive director of the land trust.

“To them, this is probably a waste of money,” Kjer said. “To us, it’s about equitable development and building in a way that supports everyone.”

Kjer said a staffer for a liberal House member urged her group to take a low profile and to, for example, delete the Indigenous land acknowledgments that are in the signature line of all its emails. She declined to do that.

“We are not going to change our ways because of Trump,” Kjer said. “In California, as a state and in this region, we are still very progressive. If we can’t keep this kind of work going here, we are in real trouble. We feel we need to resist, if even in a small way.”

The campaign to protest potential Medicaid cuts will focus on six House districts where use of the federally funded health system is high and where Republicans hold, at best, a narrow electoral advantage.

The targeted districts include David Valadao’s in the Central Valley and Ken Calvert’s in the Coachella Valley. Nearly two-thirds of Valadao’s constituents use Medicaid, while about 30% in Calvert’s district do so.

Residents in those districts will hear how the Trump budget plan threatens to cut Medicaid for “everyday people,” and how substantial reductions could threaten to shutter rural hospitals that are already struggling to make ends meet.

The Health Justice Action Fund was created as a 501(c)(4) by St. John’s and about 10 other healthcare providers, who have chosen to remain anonymous. The regulations governing such funds allow them (unlike the nonprofits themselves) to engage in unlimited lobbying and some political activity.

St. John’s Community Health President and Chief Executive Jim Mangia, right, on a panel in 2022 with then-Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

The rules also allow contributors to remain anonymous, which Mangia said is necessary for some of his partners, who believe they will be targeted for retaliation if it becomes clear they tried to thwart Trump’s policies.

House Republicans who have been pressed about their position have contended, despite a contrary view from experts, that the Trump cuts can be executed without taking services from Medicaid recipients.

Valadao was among a dozen House Republicans who sent a letter to party leaders saying they would not support the White House’s plan if it will force cuts to Medicaid. Republican leaders have assured their wobbling colleagues that they intend to root out waste, fraud and abuse only, not cut Medicaid benefits.

Mangia said the campaign he and his allies are waging should make it extra clear to the House Republicans that Medicaid can’t be cut.

“There is a very scary environment right now,” Mangia said. “But someone had to step up and defend Medicaid and the basic healthcare it provides for so many people. We weren’t going to let this happen without a fight.”

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection raid at a Home Depot in Pomona has heightened concerns over the Trump administration’s targeting of immigrant workers and its potential to stymie rebuilding efforts after Los Angeles County’s devastating January firestorms.

Unmarked vehicles were the first to arrive outside the Home Depot on South Towne Avenue in Pomona around 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, where dozens of workers had gathered outside, according to witnesses and advocates.

An official with the Department of Homeland Security said 10 people were arrested in the enforcement action. Immigration advocates had previously estimated that as many as 25 were arrested.

Community members previously said the raid was carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but ICE officials said the agency did not participate in the activity and directed questions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A senior Department of Homeland Security official said in a statement to The Times that agents conducted an operation Tuesday targeting an individual with an active arrest warrant.

“During the operation, nine additional illegal aliens were encountered and taken into custody. Several of those apprehended had prior charges, including child abuse, assault with a deadly weapon, immigration violations, and DUI,” the official wrote.

Trump proposed a sweeping crackdown on immigrants in the nation illegally when he took office. Although various raids have occurred in cities across the country, there have been relatively few large ones reported in Southern California.

The raid comes three months after historic firestorms swept through areas of Los Angeles County, destroying more than 16,000 homes and setting up a historic rebuilding effort that will need extensive labor.

The National Assn. of Home Builders estimates that 41% of construction workers are immigrants. Experts told The Times in January that percentage is far higher in residential construction, in which wages are generally lower.

“Let’s say Trump can snap his fingers and wipe out every day laborer standing outside of Home Depot or Lowes, we’re not going to rebuild anytime soon,” said Tony Smith, a professor of political science and law at UC Irvine. “There are not enough skilled workers in the construction industry if you take out all the folks from across Latin America who are here doing it.”

The raid comes as Los Angeles is particularly reliant on the skills of day laborers in the wake of the Palisades and Eaton fires and targets a community of laborers who have felt safe congregating in Home Depot parking lots for decades. Immigration advocates immediately condemned the action, saying it targets law-abiding workers whose sole purpose is to earn wages to support themselves and their families.

When government-marked vehicles rolled onto the lot, some laborers suspected what was about to happen and ran, said Ron Gochez, a member of the Unión del Barrio, a political organization that started the Community Self-Defense Coalition.

The ICE spokesperson said in a statement that it “was not a part of the law enforcement activity in the city of Pomona, near a Home Depot. ICE does not conduct raids as part of its routine daily immigration law enforcement efforts. ICE’s enforcement resources are based on intelligence-driven leads and ICE officers do not target persons indiscriminately.”

More than 24 hours later, many of the workers’ family members still have no idea where their loved ones are being held.

“We have families who are now missing the main breadwinner for their home,” Gochez said. “These folks are not just working class, but really, really low income and so this puts their families in immediate danger of homelessness. It’s a clear example that demonstrates the Trump administration is lying when they talk about targeting criminals. They’re targeting people trying to look for work.”

On Wednesday morning, a group of abandoned cars belonging to the workers who were detained a day earlier sat in the Home Depot parking lot.

Some workers who were present during the raid but were not detained worked to contact their colleagues’ family members, but kept their eyes trained on cars entering the lot, concerned that immigration officials could return. The number of individuals who arrived outside the hardware store Wednesday in search of work was significantly fewer than usual, workers said.

Juan, who did not want to give his last name because of his immigration status, has been living in the United States for 23 years and has family back in El Salvador to support.

“We have to come out and work,” Juan said in Spanish. “If we are taken in, the family will be affected.”

Enrique Rios, who is from Mexico, said Tuesday’s action felt more selective than raids he’s heard about in which immigration officers arrive at a location and round up everyone they can.

“Immigration came and approached a specific group of people,” Rios said in Spanish. “They did not bother anyone else.”

L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis directed the Los Angeles County Office of Immigrant Affairs to connect with the Pomona Day Labor Center after the raid to “ensure those impacted receive the support and resources they need,” she said in a statement.

“While this remains a developing situation, I want to reaffirm my unwavering commitment to ensuring that all residents, regardless of their immigration status, are aware of and can exercise their constitutional rights,” she said.

The Pomona Police Department confirmed that an immigration action took place Tuesday, but said it had no prior knowledge of the raid and “did not collaborate with any federal agencies on their operation.”

Immigrant rights groups swiftly condemned the action.

Palmira Figueroa, a spokesperson for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said the actions of the federal government are not making the country any safer and aren’t aimed at removing criminals from the street. The raid shows they’re removing laborers who have families to feed, she said.

The president has vowed to carry out the largest deportation effort in U.S. history, going so far as declaring a national emergency at the southern border and deploying troops.

There are an estimated 11 million to 15 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., including more than 2 million in California, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“We know that the Trump administration has promised to go after immigrants and they have always made this promise to their allies,” Figueroa said. “We are trying to make the call out to American citizens to protect us. To those who hire immigrants workers, if they accept our labor they must also accept our humanity.”

Trump has issued executive orders limiting legal pathways for entering the U.S., bolstered efforts to seal off the U.S.-Mexico border, and promoted sweeps to round up and deport people who are not authorized to be in the United States.

Under the Trump administration, federal immigration officials have already conducted well-publicized operations in Chicago and New York.

Tuesday’s enforcement action was reminiscent of a longer operation this year in which U.S. Border Patrol agents conducted a three-day raid in rural parts of Kern County targeting day laborers and Latino farmworkers. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the agency in February, saying the action amounted to a “fishing expedition” that indiscriminately targeted people of color who appeared to be day laborers and farmworkers.

Smith, the UCI professor, said he’s skeptical that the administration will be able to accomplish its deportation goals.

“Primarily, the Trump administration seems to be doing things in sort of a performative way,” Smith said. “They want to make a big splash and say they did something, but they don’t really follow through frequently. There’s a big question whether they actually have the capacity or the competency, or both, to do what they want.”

Angelica Salas, executive director for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said undocumented immigrants are in the U.S. to seek a better life and do not pose any threat to their communities or the country.

“It’s shameful that the Trump Administration chooses to focus its enforcement activities on men and women looking for an honest day’s work,” Salas said in a statement. “We denounce these actions as they sow fear and confusion in the community and offer no solutions to our complex immigration system, which is in need of updates.”

Times staff writer Rachel Uranga contributed to this report.

KYIV, Ukraine — President Trump on Wednesday lashed out at Ukraine’s president, saying Volodymyr Zelensky is prolonging the “killing field” after pushing back on ceding Crimea to Russia as part of a potential peace plan.

Zelensky on Tuesday ruled out ceding territory to Russia in any deal before talks set for Wednesday in London among U.S., European and Ukrainian officials. “There is nothing to talk about. It is our land, the land of the Ukrainian people,” Zelensky said.

During similar talks last week in Paris, U.S. officials presented a proposal that included allowing Russia to keep control of occupied Ukrainian territory as part of a deal, according to a European official familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Trump called Zelenky’s pushback “very harmful” to talks.

“Nobody is asking Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian Territory but, if he wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?” he wrote on social media.

Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 after sending troops to overrun it. Weeks later, Moscow-backed separatists launched an uprising in eastern Ukraine, battling Kyiv’s forces.

Trump also asserted that they were close to a deal and that Ukraine’s leader can have peace or “he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country,” adding that Zelensky’s statement “will do nothing but prolong the ‘killing field,’ and nobody wants that!”

‘A very fair proposal’

Wednesday’s meeting was pared back at the last minute, while Vice President JD Vance said negotiations are reaching a moment of truth.

“We’ve issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it’s time for them to either say ‘yes’ or for the United States to walk away from this process,” Vance told reporters during a visit to India.

He said it was “a very fair proposal” that would “freeze the territorial lines at some level close to where they are today,” with both sides having to give up some territory they currently hold. He did not provide details.

A senior European official familiar with the ongoing talks involving the American team said that a proposal the United States calls “final” was initially presented last week in Paris, where it was described as “just ideas” — and that they could be changed.

When those “ideas” surfaced in media reports, Ukrainian officials were surprised to find that Washington portrayed them as final, according to the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Zelensky said Wednesday that Ukraine is ready for any format of negotiations that might bring a ceasefire and open the door to full peace negotiations, as he mourned nine civilians killed when a Russian drone struck a bus earlier in the day.

“We insist on an immediate, complete and unconditional ceasefire,” Zelensky wrote on social media, in accordance with a proposal he said the U.S. tabled six weeks ago.

Ukraine and some Western European governments have accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of dragging his feet on that proposal as his army tries to capture more Ukrainian land. Western analysts say Moscow is in no rush to conclude peace talks because it has battlefield momentum.

Doubts over negotiations

U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the talks in London to find an end to the more than three-year war would involve only lower-ranking officials, after the U.S. State Department said Tuesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was unable to attend because of a scheduling issue.

Rubio’s abrupt cancellation raised doubts about the direction of negotiations. He had indicated that Wednesday’s meeting could be decisive in determining whether the Trump administration remains engaged.

Commenting on those attending the talks, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that “as far as we understand, they so far have failed to bring their positions closer on some issues.” He said the Kremlin was still in consultations with American officials but wouldn’t publicly discuss details.

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to visit Moscow again this week, according to Russian officials.

Even achieving a limited, 30-day ceasefire has been beyond the reach of negotiators, as both sides continue to attack each other along the 620-mile front line and launch long-range strikes.

A Russian drone struck a bus carrying workers in Marhanets, in eastern Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region, on Wednesday morning, killing eight women and one man, regional leader Serhii Lysak wrote on social media. More than 40 people were injured, he said.

Lysak published photos of a bus with windows blown out and shards of glass mixed with blood spattered on its floor.

A Ukrainian delegation in London

Trump has pushed for an end to the war and said last week that negotiations were “coming to a head.” That comment came after Rubio suggested the U.S. might soon back away from negotiations if they don’t progress.

Those still attending Wednesday’s meeting include retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s envoy for Ukraine and Russia.

Andriy Yermak, the head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said on social media that a delegation including him, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha and Defense Minister Rustem Umerov had arrived in London for the talks despite the alterations.

“The path to peace is not easy, but Ukraine has been and remains committed to peaceful efforts,” Yermak said. Officials would “discuss ways to achieve a full and unconditional ceasefire as the first step toward a comprehensive settlement and the achievement of a just and lasting peace,” he said.

Several hours later, Yermak said that he, Sybiha and Umerov met with national security and foreign policy advisors from the countries “participating in the coalition of the willing” and “emphasized our commitment” to the U.S. president’s peace efforts.

He asserted on social media that “Russia continues to reject an unconditional ceasefire, dragging out the process and trying to manipulate negotiations.”

Trump frustrated with both sides

Trump said repeatedly during his election campaign last year that he would be able to end the war “in 24 hours” upon taking office. But he has expressed frustration with Zelensky and Putin. Russia has in effect rejected a U.S. proposal for an immediate and full 30-day halt in the fighting by imposing far-reaching conditions.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters later Thursday that Trump’s “frustration is growing and he needs to see this thing come to an end.”

“What he is asking is for people to come to the negotiating table, recognizing that this has been a brutal war for far too long,” Leavitt said. “And in order to make a good deal, both sides have to walk away a little bit unhappy, and unfortunately, President Zelensky has been trying to litigate this peace negotiation in the press, and that’s unacceptable to the president.”

Some European allies are wary of the American proposal for Ukraine to exchange land for peace. But an official said there’s also acknowledgment by some allies that Russia is firmly entrenched wholly or partially in five regions of Ukraine: Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

If the goal is to obtain a ceasefire immediately, “it should be based on the line of contact as it is,” said the senior French official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with French government policy.

Novikov, Madhani and Lawless write for the Associated Press. Novikov reported from Kyiv and Madhani from Washington. Hanna Arhirova in Kyiv and Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this report.

A bill to sharply reduce the energy credits given to homeowners with rooftop solar panels is pitting union electrical workers and the state’s big utilities against people who benefit from the solar credits — and one of the first skirmishes took place in the City of Industry on Wednesday.

Waving signs and blowing whistles, dozens of rooftop solar owners protested outside the office of Assemblymember Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), who proposed Assembly Bill 942 to slash the credits for people who installed the systems before April 15, 2023.

Jim Matthews, one of the rooftop solar owners at the protest, said he doubts he would have purchased the panels if he would have known the state would be reversing the incentives.

“Stuff like this tears my heart,” said Matthews, who lives in Hawthorne. “I think it’s scandalous.”

Calderon worked for Southern California Edison and its parent company, Edison International, for 25 years before she was elected in 2020. Her last position included managing the parent company’s political action committee.

Edison and the state’s two other big for-profit utilities have long tried to reduce the energy credits that incentivized Californians to invest in the solar panels. The rooftop systems have reduced the utilities’ sales of electricity.

“Calderon: For the People or for Edison?” said one sign waved by protesters outside Calderon’s office in the City of Industry. “Stop SCE’s Revolving Door in Sacramento,” said another.

Solar panel installers in Watts on June 18, 2021.

(Gary Coronado/Los Angeles Times)

Calderon told the Times she introduced the bill because she had learned that 97% of the people in her district were paying higher electric bills because of the solar credits going to the remaining 3% when they sent the unused electricity from their solar panels to the grid.

“From an equity standpoint, that’s not fair,” she said. “I would love for everyone to have solar, but we need to do it in a fair and equitable way.”

Calderon said Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric have all sent her letters supporting the bill.

AB 942 would limit the energy credits provided to those who purchased the systems to 10 years — half the 20-year period the state had told rooftop owners they would receive. It would also end the incentives if the house was sold.

Uniting in the effort to oppose the bill are dozens of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Working Group, which point out that the state has long said the solar contracts would last for 20 years.

Also attending the protest were representatives from the California Solar & Storage Assn., a trade group that represents companies selling the rooftop solar systems. The protest was organized by the Solar Rights Alliance, a statewide association of solar users.

Jeff Monford, a spokesperson for Edison, said the company sent Calderon a letter Wednesday backing the bill. He said the bill has “nothing to do with utility profits. It will result in savings for our customers.”

The company estimates that those customers who don’t have solar would save $500 million by 2030 if AB 942 passed, or about 3% of the average household electric bill.

The unions of electrical workers who install and repair equipment built by Edison and other electric companies are lobbying to get the bill passed.

In an email, a spokesperson for the California State Assn. of Electrical Workers said the group “strongly supports” the bill, which it said would “alleviate the financial burden on non-solar ratepayers.”

At a meeting in Sacramento in late March, leaders of the group, which represents 83,000 electrical workers in the state, said a top goal was to reform the rooftop solar incentives.

“It is unjust, unreasonable and unsustainable for Californians to continue shoveling billions of dollars every year to an industry when it is no longer justified nor fair to non-solar customers, particularly when the burden falls hardest on low-income customers,” Scott Wetch, a lobbyist for the electrical workers, wrote in a letter to the chair of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee.

Calderon and the electrical workers point to an analysis by the state Public Utilities Commission’s public advocates office that said the credits given to rooftop owners for the electricity they send to the grid is raising the electric bills of customers who don’t own the panels by $8.5 billion a year.

The rooftop solar industry and environmental groups disagree with that analysis, saying it was flawed.

In a recent letter to the Assembly committee, the environmental groups pointed to an analysis that economist Richard McCann performed for the rooftop solar industry that found that electric rates had risen as the utilities spent more on infrastructure. That equipment includes the transmission lines needed to connect industrial-scale solar farms to the grid.

Even though homeowners’ solar panels helped keep demand for electricity flat for 20 years, the three utilities’ spending on transmission and distribution infrastructure had risen by 300%, McCann found.

“To address rising rates, California must focus on what’s really wrong with our energy system: uncontrolled utility spending and record utility profits,” the environmental groups wrote.

In December 2022, the commission voted to cut incentives for anyone installing the panels after April 15, 2023, by 75% but left the incentives in place for legacy customers.

AB 942 would not apply to rooftop solar customers who live in territory served by the state’s municipal utilities, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

A hearing on the bill is scheduled for April 30.

The Trump administration’s new chief federal prosecutor in Los Angeles says his office intends to pursue immigration charges against a man awaiting release from state prison after serving time for a 2021 crash on the 405 Freeway that killed a young couple.

Bill Essayli, sworn in as U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California earlier this month, focused attention on the case amid reports that the driver, who pleaded guilty to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, could be freed after serving around three years of a 10-year sentence.

“If the State of California will not seek the full measure of justice against this individual, [the Justice Department] will,” Essayli said in a post on X.

Essayli noted that pending charges — initially filed by his predecessor under the Biden administration — could land Oscar Eduardo Ortega-Anguiano in federal prison for up to 20 years if he is convicted of illegally reentering the country after being deported twice previously.

Ortega-Anguiano, now 43, was under the influence of drugs and alcohol and doing nearly 95 mph in November 2021 when, according to court records, his Volkswagen smashed into 19-year-olds Anya Varfolomeev and Nikolay Osokin, who were both killed when their Honda burst into flames.

Fox News said it had reviewed a notice about Ortega-Anguiano sent by the state to Varfolomeev’s father, which reportedly said he could be released to Garden Grove.

State prison records show Ortega-Anguiano is eligible for parole in July and currently housed at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville.

A spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said Ortega-Anguiano “received 334 days of pre-sentence credits for time served locally while awaiting sentencing and is eligible for credit-earning opportunities while incarcerated.”

State prisoners often end up serving less time because of credit for rehabilitative programs and good behavior, but the suggestion that Ortega-Anguiano could walk free riled Trump administration officials.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi posted on X: “This is absolutely unconscionable. What about Justice for these teens? What about the rights of their parents?”

Border czar Tom Homan vowed to send federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to enforce an agreement known as a detainer, under which local officials hold individuals facing deportation.

“I will work with [Homeland Security] Secretary Noem on this case, and I guarantee you, if they don’t honor the detainer, we’ll have ICE agents outside that facility to take custody of this individual and deport him,” Homan said Wednesday on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office subsequently released a statement pledging to honor the detainer on Ortega-Anguiano, saying that state prison officials “will again coordinate with ICE — as they have w/ 10,000+ inmates — to transfer him before release.”

A spokesperson for ICE said a detainer was placed on June 9, 2022, while Ortega-Anguiano was housed at North Kern State Prison. According to ICE, his previous criminal convictions include burglary in 2005; vehicle theft in 2007; and battery on spouse with kidnapping in 2014.

“This tragedy was completely preventable. This criminal illegal alien should have never been in our country,” Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement. “We hope California law enforcement will work us to ensure this criminal alien is not released into American communities.”

Court records show a federal arraignment for Ortega-Anguiano on the immigration charge was not held as scheduled on March 10 because he was not transferred as requested from state prison. He has yet to enter a plea in the federal case.

The statement from Newsom’s office pointed out that a Republican district attorney was in charge in Orange County when Ortega-Anguiano entered the plea agreement that led to his current prison sentence. A harsher penalty under second-degree murder charges could have been sought, Newsom’s statement suggested.

Orange County D.A. Todd Spitzer countered with his own statement, which said Ortega-Anguiano “pled to the Court and was sentenced by a judge under California law, over the objection of Orange County prosecutors, who unsuccessfully argued for the maximum sentence.”