POLITICS

To hear our national leaders tell it, Los Angeles is in chaos and our governor and mayor are out to lunch with the police, blissfully ignoring reality as the city burns.

“These Radical Left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will NOT BE TOLERATED,” President Trump wrote on social media, shortly after ordering the National Guard onto our streets.

“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” he wrote in a memo Saturday, authorizing 2,000 National Guard troops to be deployed in L.A. for at least 60 days.

Put down your matcha lattes and trade in your Birkenstocks for boots, folks. We are the revolution, apparently, so dangerous only a seasoned military can stop us. The only problem, of course, is that Los Angeles is not in chaos on this particular sunny Sunday and the vast majority of Angelenos are just trying to enjoy the weekend without becoming a federal prisoner.

Trump’s memo will go into the history books as a moment when presidential power expanded to put under his control a military force aimed at U.S. civilians. Although not unprecedented, the dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, Erwin Chemerinsky, said it was “stunning.”

All the more so because the deployment is based on a lie. Yes, there has been some violence in the last few days as federal immigration authorities round up criminals and regular folks alike in deportation sweeps. If you keep the camera angle tight on those protests, as many media outlets have done, it does look dire.

Rocks being thrown, even Molotov cocktails. Masked protesters hammering at concrete pillars outside a downtown federal building. Cars on fire.

All of this is terrible and those responsible should be arrested — by our local police and sheriffs, who are more than up to the job of handling a few hundred protesters.

But 99% of this city is business as usual, with brunches and beach walks and church and yoga classes. And even in those few pockets where the protests are happening, such as a march downtown Sunday, this is Los Angeles — I’ve seen more chaos after a Lakers game.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, told my colleague Seema Mehta that although it’s extremely unusual for a president to take federal control of troops, it’s not unprecedented and maybe not illegal. It happened in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King verdict.

“One of the exceptions is when there is violence and the inability of the federal government to enforce federal laws,” Levinson said. “And that is exactly what the president is arguing is happening.”

My intrepid colleagues at this paper have been on the ground since the first protests began, and, as their reporting shows, the majority of what is happening is peaceful and isolated.

Even the cops agree. And seriously, when the cops are agreeing there’s no riot — there is no riot.

“Demonstrations across the City of Los Angeles remained peaceful and we commend all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly,” the LAPD wrote in a statement Saturday night.

Still, by Sunday morning, those troops, in full military gear with guns in hand (presumably with less lethal ammo, I hope), were arriving. The U.S. Northern Command tweeted that the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team has some members on the ground in Los Angeles, with more to come.

“These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California’s feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, further explained before they arrived.

Also, as you plan your week, there is now a dress code — at least for civilians, not the authorities intent on hiding their identities.

“(F)rom now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why???” Trump wrote.

All this, Gov. Gavin Newsom said, is “not to meet an unmet need, but to manufacture a crisis.”

He’s right — Los Angeles has landed a starring role in Trump’s war on brown people. It makes sense. We are a city of immigrants, of all colors, and a Democratic — and democratic — one at that. What’s not to hate?

Mayor Karen Bass told my colleague Rachel Uranga that her office had tried to talk to the White House to tell them “there was absolutely no need to have troops on the ground,” but got nowhere.

“This is posturing,” Bass said.

“They want violence,” Newsom added in a Sunday email. “Don’t give them the spectacle they want.”

I’m not sure that’s possible. There will always be the bad actors, the violent ones, at any protest. And again — they should be arrested.

But Trump is going to laser-focus on those few to make an example of this city, and to increase his own power.

Because although this “insurrection” is a fantasy, his dream of more power seems all too real.

WASHINGTON — After the raucous rainbow-hued festivities of Saturday’s parade, the final day of World Pride 2025 in the nation’s capital kicked off on a more downbeat note.

More than 1,000 people gathered under gray skies Sunday morning at the Lincoln Memorial for a rally that will lead into a protest march, as the community gathers its strength for a looming fight under President Trump’s second administration.

“This is not just a party,” Ashley Smith, board president of Capital Pride Alliance. “This is a rally for our lives.”

Smith acknowledged that international attendance numbers for the biannual World Pride were measurably down, with many potential attendees avoiding travel to the U.S. because of either fear of harassment or in protest of Trump’s policies.

“That should disturb us and mobilize us,” Smith said.

More than 1,000 people cheered on LGBTQ+ activists taking the stage while waving traditional Pride flags and flags representing transgender, bisexual, intersex and other communities. Many had rainbow glitter and rhinestones adorning their faces. They held signs declaring, “Fight back,” “Gay is good,” “Ban bombs not bathrooms” and “We will not be erased.”

Trump’s campaign against transgender protections and oft-stated antipathy for drag shows have set the community on edge, with some hoping to see a renewed wave of street politics in response.

“Trans people just want to be loved. Everybody wants to live their own lives and I don’t understand the problem with it all,” said Tyler Cargill, who came wearing an elaborate costume with a hat topped by a replica of the U.S. Capitol building.

Wes Kincaid drove roughly six hours from Charlotte, N.C., to attend this year. Sitting on a park bench near the reflecting pond, Kincaid said he made a point of attending this year, “because it’s more important than ever to show up for our community.”

Drag dancer Violeta puts on a show for visitors to Beaches Pride Paradise at the WeHo Pride Street Fair along Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood on May 31.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Reminders of the cuts to federal government programs were on full display Sunday. One attendee waved a massive rainbow flag affixed on the same staff as a large USAID flag; another held a “Proud gay federal worker” sign; and a third held an umbrella with the logos of various federal programs facing cuts — including the PBS logo.

Trump’s anti-trans rhetoric had fueled fears of violence or protests targeting World Pride participants; at one point earlier this spring, rumors circulated that the Proud Boys were planning to disrupt this weekend’s celebrations. Those concerns prompted organizers to install security fencing around the entire two-day street party on a multi-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue.

But so far, the only clear act of aggression has been the vandalizing of a queer bar last week. Late Saturday night, there was a pair of violent incidents near Dupont Circle — one of the epicenters of the World Pride celebrations. Two juveniles were stabbed and a man was shot in the foot in separate incidents. The Metropolitan Police Department says it is not clear if either incident was directly related to World Pride.

Fernando, Hussein, Martin and Pesoli write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When racial justice protests roiled cities across America at the depths of the pandemic, President Trump, then in his first term, demonstrated restraint. Threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and to federalize the National Guard never materialized.

This time, it took less than 24 hours of isolated protests in Los Angeles County before Trump, more aggressive than ever in his use of executive power, to issue a historic order. “The federal government will step in and solve the problem,” he said on social media Saturday night, issuing executive action not seen since civil unrest gripped the nation in the 1960s.

It was the latest expression of a president unleashed from conventional parameters on his power, unconcerned with states’ rights or the proportionality of his actions. And the targeting of a Democratic city in a Democratic state was, according to the vice president, an intentional ploy to make a political lesson out of Los Angeles.

The pace of the escalation, and the federal government’s unwillingness to defer to cooperative local law enforcement authorities, raise questions about the administration’s intentions as it responds to protesters. The administration skipped several steps in an established ladder of response options, such as enhancing U.S. Marshals Service and Federal Protective Service personnel to protect federal prisons and property, before asking the state whether a National Guard deployment might be warranted.

Local officials were clear that they did not want, or need, federal assistance. And they are concerned that Trump’s heavy-handed response risks escalating what was a series of isolated, heated clashes consisting of a few hundred people into a larger law enforcement challenge that could roil the city.

The president’s historic deployment prompted fury among local Democratic officials who warned of an infringement on states’ rights. Trump’s takeover of the California National Guard, Gov. Gavin Newsom said, was prompted “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle.”

“Don’t give them one,” he said.

Vice President JD Vance, calling the anti-ICE protesters “insurrectionists,” welcomed the political pushback, stating on X that “one half of America’s political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil.”

Protests against ICE agents on Friday and Saturday were limited in scale and location. Several dozen people protested the flash raids on Friday afternoon outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, with some clashing with agents and vandalizing the building. The LAPD authorized so-called less-lethal munitions against a small group of “violent protesters” after concrete was thrown at an officer. The protest disbursed by midnight.

On Saturday, outside a Home Depot, demonstrators chanted “ICE go home” and “No justice, no peace.” Some protesters yelled at deputies, and a series of flash-bang grenades was deployed.

“What are you doing!” one man screamed out.

Times reporters witnessed federal agents lobbing multiple rounds of flash-bangs and pepper balls at protesters.

Despite the limited scale of the violence, by Saturday evening, the Trump administration embraced the visuals of a city in chaos compelling federal enforcement of law and order.

“The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Saturday night. “These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The commander-in-chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a statement Saturday, said the administration is prepared to go further, deploying active-duty U.S. Marines to the nation’s second-largest city. “This is deranged behavior,” responded California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s decision Saturday to call in the National Guard, using a rarely used authority called Title 10, has no clear historic precedent. President Lyndon Johnson cited Title 10 in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers during protests in Selma, Ala., but did so out of concern that local law enforcement would decline to do so themselves.

By contrast, this weekend, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said it was fully cooperating with federal law enforcement. “We are planning for long-term civil unrest and collaborating with our law enforcement partners,” the department said in a statement.

The 2,000 Guardsmen called up for duty is double the number that were assigned by local authorities to respond to much wider protests that erupted throughout Los Angeles in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020.

Tom Homan, the president’s so-called border czar, told Fox News on Saturday evening that the administration was “already ahead of the game” in its planning for a National Guard deployment.

“This is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” he said. “We’re stepping up.”

National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, deploying around federal buildings in L.A. County.

“If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs,” Trump wrote on Truth, his social media platform, “then the federal government will step in and solve the problem.”

To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there.

But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president.

Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend’s state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris’ 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing.

Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out.

Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts?

Barabak: I’ll start by noting this is the first convention I’ve attended — and I’ve been to dozens — rated “R” for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome.

I’ve covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don’t recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, “I have a [expletive deleted] dream.” Both were pretty darned effective leaders.

Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn’t going to win them back the White House or control of Congress.

Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I’m not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand “toxic.” Walz told his fellow Dems: “We’re in this mess because some of it’s our own doing.”

It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I’m not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance.

I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I’m starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris’ loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values?

Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why.

That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election.

This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It’s not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness.

Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection.

In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected.

Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: “A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.”

Sound familar?

So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout.

Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one.

I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it’s all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don’t like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don’t want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won’t hold the line until the midterms.

They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there’s a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation.

Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it?

Barabak: No, and no.

I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000.

But Trump’s margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn’t even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%.

As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute’s Yuval Levin, who noted Trump’s victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century.

Challengers “win elections because their opponents were unpopular,” Levin wrote, “and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists’ agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.”

It’s a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028.

But Levin is sure looking smart.

Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I’d argue that Harris wasn’t resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some.

Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy “maybe” period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable.

But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.”

Sometimes there’s truth in anger. Musk’s money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn’t resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication?

Barabak:

Chabria: Mark?

Barabak: Sorry.

I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world’s richest man going all neener-neener with the world’s most powerful man I lost track of where we were.

With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It’s not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage.

Then, come 2028, they’ll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment.

Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.

There’s a line in Eric Coomer’s defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, that strikes me as the perfect description of what happens when influential partisans belch lies about innocent people in these insanely charged political times:

“The real world consequences for the subjects of those lies,” says the lawsuit, “have been devastating.”

Indeed.

Think of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, whose lives were destroyed when Rudy Giuliani, once President Trump’s top campaign lawyer, claimed the pair had rigged the 2020 election outcome in their state. Giuliani even invented a blatantly racist story about the women passing drugs to each other at their Fulton County polling place. Trump amplified the claims. The two women received death threats, were loath to leave home even for groceries and had to go into hiding. I will never forget how sad and broken they seemed during their testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Happily, Freeman and Moss won a $148-million settlement from Giuliani, leading the former New York mayor to unsuccessfully sue for bankruptcy in an effort to dodge his obligation. Now stripped of his license to practice law in New York, Giuliani has fallen so far he’s not even a punchline on late night TV anymore.

Just like Freeman and Moss, Coomer, the former director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems, was subjected to a torrent of false claims about election rigging by Lindell and other right-wing conspiracy theorists and media outlets. Like Freeman and Moss, he was terrorized and driven into hiding.

He left his job, moved to a new location, placed guns around the house he borrowed from a friend, experienced depression and panic attacks, and believes he will not be able to return to his profession.

“People were essentially taking bets on how my brother’s corpse would be found and which nefarious shadow group would be behind his death,” Coomer’s brother told the New York Times in 2021. “He would be executed by the state or he would be found with a falsified suicide note and two gunshots in the back of his head.”

Coomer, like others, became collateral damage in the misbegotten MAGA campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Fox News hosts, including Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, completely lost their minds, and the company allowed its highest-profile stars to spew lie after lie about the election in general and Dominion Voting Systems in particular, knowing full well (as News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath) that Dominion was blameless and that Joe Biden had won fair and square.

That unsavory chapter ended up costing Fox $787.5 million in a settlement to Dominion, which allowed the right-wing network to avert a trial.

Coomer, who has filed lawsuits against Giuliani and several others who spread lies about him, now gets his day in court against Lindell. The defamation trial, which began Monday, is expected to last through the end of this week. (Coomer settled suits against conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell; Newsmax; One America News Network, or OAN; and an OAN correspondent. His suit against Guiliani is pending.)

The false claims against Coomer were dreamed up by a conservative Colorado podcaster, Joseph Oltmann, who told listeners that he had infiltrated an “Antifa conference call” in which “Eric, the Dominion guy” claimed to have rigged the election against Trump. (Coomer’s defamation suit against Oltmann is also pending.)

“Oltmann,” says Coomer’s lawsuit, “claimed this supposed call happened on some unspecified date months before the election, but that he did not think to take action until after the election was called for President Biden …. Oltmann’s story is inherently implausible.”

Not to mention, outlandish and preposterous.

In his campaign against Coomer, Oltmann posted a photo of the Dominion executive’s home on his social media and urged his followers to “blow this sh— up. Share, put his name everywhere. No rest for this sh—bag … Eric we are watching you.”

Lindell, who seems never to have come across a right-wing conspiracy theory he couldn’t embrace, picked up on Oltmann’s fantasies about Coomer and began spreading them far and wide — in interviews, on his website, in social media, etc.

On his FrankSpeech media platform, Lindell addressed Coomer directly: “You are disgusting and you are treasonous. You are a traitor to the United States of America.” (Classic case of projection, imho.)

Lindell could have settled as so many others have done. Instead, he has chosen to fight on, hawking pillows, sheets and slippers to pay his legal bills as he goes. His attorney said that because he believed what he was saying was true, it’s not defamation. “It’s just words. All Mike Lindell did was talk,” Lindell’s attorney told the jury. “Mike believed that he was telling the truth.”

Before the trial, Lindell stood on the federal courthouse steps in Denver and proclaimed that his only goal in all this was to ban electronic voting machines and replace them with paper ballots.

“If we can get there,” he said, “I would sacrifice everything.”

If Coomer wins his defamation case against Lindell — and I really hope he does — Lindell will have lost a lot and gained very little. First, the case has nothing to do with the validity of voting machines. Second, an estimated 98% of American voters already cast ballots that leave a paper trail because that’s one way voting machines record votes.

But Lindell, like so many of his MAGA compatriots, still won’t let reality stand in the way of Trump’s Big Lie.

@rabcarian.bsky.social Threads: @rabcarian

It’s unlikely two consecutive California governors have ever shared the multigenerational family connection that links Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom to his predecessor, Gov. Jerry Brown. But beware those looking for something deep: Any ties that bind together the two Democrats do so loosely.

“It’s just not a normal political relationship,” Newsom, who will be sworn in Monday, said in an earlier interview with The Times.

Brown is a singular figure in California’s modern history, the scion of a political family whose meteoric rise in the 1970s gave way to failed efforts at the presidency and U.S. Senate before an electoral rebirth as a mayor, attorney general and governor. And it was Newsom, then a brash, young San Francisco mayor, who briefly stood in Brown’s way, launching an ambitious campaign for the 2010 governor’s race that fizzled almost a year before the election.

But the story goes back much further: Brown and Newsom are members of a political fraternity that dominated their shared hometown of San Francisco for much of the 20th century.

On crime and punishment, Gov. Jerry Brown leaves behind revised rules and a new focus on redemption »

Former Gov. Pat Brown, the current governor’s late father, was elected that city’s district attorney in 1943 after a campaign financed by three friends, including William A. Newsom II, the governor-elect’s grandfather and son of a prominent builder and bank investor.

“If they hadn’t agreed to put up $5,000 [each], I wouldn’t have been a candidate,” Pat Brown said in a 1978 interview for UC Berkeley’s oral history project.

In 1960, Brown’s administration awarded a Squaw Valley concession contract to the elder Newsom, a deal panned by a legislative analyst as the state “paying for everything and getting nothing.”

The two men’s sons grew up alongside each other. William A. Newsom III, the governor-elect’s father, who died last month, was a few years older than Jerry Brown. Both graduated from San Francisco’s St. Ignatius High School and Bill Newsom once briefly dated Brown’s sister, the governor told the crowd at her eulogy in 2015.

During his first term as governor in 1975, Brown appointed Bill Newsom to the Superior Court in Placer County and then to a state appeals court. The governor-elect’s father once recounted how his interest in environmental law and preserving Lake Tahoe had intrigued Brown.

“I went up a couple of times when Gavin was a little boy, and we met with Jerry and talked about things at the lake,” Bill Newsom said in his own oral history interview with UC Berkeley in 2009.

Decades later, the young Newsom and an older Brown ended up on a political collision course. In 2011, frustrated with Brown’s slow pace for appointing members of an economic commission he chaired as lieutenant governor, Newsom drafted his own statewide proposal. Brown, deep into an effort to erase a $27-billion budget deficit, didn’t look kindly on the effort and grabbed the issue for himself by appointing a statewide jobs czar.

“Looking back, I wish I had a do-over,” Newsom told The Times last spring. “He’s dealing with triage and solvency. I would approach it differently.”

In the years since, Newsom has praised Brown’s fiscal philosophy for teaching that “you do not have to be profligate to be progressive,” a mantra to be tested once hundreds of bills — with spending projections sure to run into the billions of dollars — are sent to his desk by the Legislature.

But on Monday, it will be Newsom’s call on what to do, though few expect Brown — now with plenty of time to offer advice — to disappear altogether.

At a campaign event last fall, already preparing to move to his Northern California ranch, he had a simple message for his successor: “I’m only an hour from Sacramento,” he said. “So, Gavin, do not screw up.”

[email protected]

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

Several years ago, little was known about the StingRay, a powerful surveillance device that imitates the function of a cell tower and captures the signals of nearby phones, allowing law enforcement officers to sweep through hundreds of messages, conversations and call logs.

The secrecy around the technology, which can ensnare the personal data of criminals and bystanders alike, spurred lawsuits and demands for public records to uncover who was using it and the extent of its capabilities. In California, a 2015 law requires law enforcement agencies to seek permission at public meetings to buy the devices, and post rules for their use online.

But a Los Angeles Times review of records from 20 of the state’s largest police and sheriff’s departments, plus the Alameda County district attorney’s office, found some agencies have been slow to follow or have ignored the law. Several that partner with federal agencies to work on cases are not subject to the law’s reporting requirements. The result is that little information on StingRay use is available to the public, making it hard to determine how wide a net the surveillance tools cast and what kind of data they gather.

Out of 21 law enforcement agencies surveyed, 12 were found to own or have access to a StingRay or similar device. Nine of those agencies had developed and released online public polices.

**Officers don’t operate the stingray but work with other agencies that may

Source: L.A. Times review of public records

The Times reviewed more than 400 documents it received from public information requests, including grant proposals, purchase orders and memos on the use of StingRays and similar devices generically called “stingrays” or “dirtboxes.”

The devices, which cost between $242,000 and $500,000, are primarily marketed for preventing and responding to terrorist threats, but the documents suggest they are used most frequently in felony criminal cases, such as burglaries, murders and kidnappings.

Out of 21 law enforcement entities The Times surveyed, 12 either owned stingrays or used or had access to them through partner agencies. Nine owned the surveillance devices, and each of them posted public policies online as required by law. Three of the nine went a step further to conduct annual reporting audits that showed when and in what cases the devices were used.

But some stingray policies posted by the law enforcement agencies revealed little about the devices besides noting they were in use. Other agencies took months to post their stingray guidelines online. The Los Angeles Police Department, which owns a stingray, updated its public safety policies to include its stingray guidelines only after questions from The Times.

Data on stingray purchases and use have long been difficult to come by, a problem the 2015 law requiring more public accountability was meant to correct — and has yet to fix.

California police would have to disclose the use of more surveillance devices under this proposed law>>

The Times found that the nine agencies that own stingrays bought them between 2006 and 2013, mostly with federal grant money or under programs or agreements that prohibited any public disclosure, following a national trend. Local tax dollars weren’t used on the purchases, and city and county officials didn’t ask about them in a public forum.

Just two of the 21 law enforcement agencies polled by The Times have ever publicly discussed buying new devices before city or county officials: Santa Clara (which did not buy a device) and Alameda counties.

And only one agency, the Oakland Police Department, has gathered input from the public to develop guidelines for stingray use, which isn’t required under the 2015 law.

“Any tool can be used for good or bad,” said Brian Hofer, chairman of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission, which helped establish the surveillance policies. “This is the most controversial piece of equipment that we know about, and they should not be used in the dark.”

The StingRay II gives off the strongest wireless signal in an area, tricking nearby phones, tablets and laptops to connect. (Associated Press)

(Associated Press)

A device cloaked in secrecy

Stingrays tend to be the size of small briefcases and mimic the function of cell towers. They give off the strongest wireless signal in an area, tricking nearby phones, tablets and laptops to connect.

Investigators can target the location data of specific phones, allowing them to track suspects and their associates. They can also sweep up communications over a wide area. How much and what types of data they collect — location information, audio or images — depends on how the devices are designed and how law enforcement agencies use them.

The technology has been used for about 20 years by federal, state and local law enforcement, often secretly, under manufacturer agreements that typically prohibit agencies from disclosing the purchases.

The public did not learn about the existence of the equipment until 2011, after an inmate in federal prison, Daniel Rigmaiden, spent three years scouring government records and meeting transcripts on a hunch that investigators used some kind of secret device to catch him.

Rigmaiden, a native of Seaside, Calif., who hadn’t had a stable living situation, was arrested in Phoenix for filing fake tax returns. Police were able to find him through tracking an old Verizon wireless card he seldom used to connect online.

“It wasn’t just that [investigators] were able to get historical call data from Verizon,” said Linda Lye, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief in support of his case. “They were able to pinpoint him to a particular apartment in a particular apartment building, which was far more precise.”

State bill requiring California police to disclose surveillance equipment clears its first hurdle>>

In 2015, California lawmakers passed the sweeping Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which prohibited any investigative body in the state from forcing businesses to turn over digital communications without a warrant. That same year, state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) introduced legislation to compel local law enforcement agencies to disclose more information about the use of stingrays in California.

“Our country has a rich history of democracy and civilian oversight,” Hill told a Senate judiciary committee that May. “The stealthy use of these devices undercuts the very nature of our government.”

The law, which took effect in January 2016, requires cities and counties that operate a stingray to create guidelines for how and when officers use the equipment. Any agency that wants to buy a device must first receive approval at a public hearing.

Investigators can target the data of specific phones. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

Opening access to information

The state law helped open up some public access to information about how and where the devices are used. Privacy advocates and lawyers have kept up the public pressure in some cities and counties, particularly in the Bay Area, calling on officials to put ordinances and guidelines in place to bar police from collecting data from those not under investigation.

Under most of those policies, officers can use the technology only when it is critical to a case and is approved by higher-ranking officers, or in emergency situations such as natural disasters. Investigators are also required to obtain search warrants. Any data not considered official evidence can’t be sought, recorded or stored. Officers must delete or destroy all information gathered by the equipment related to an investigation at the end of the period in which they’re authorized to use the technology.

Three agencies keep track of when officers use a stingray — the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the San Jose Police Department and the Alameda County district attorney’s office. But their data offer few details about the cases.

In Los Angeles County, a report from the sheriff’s office showed deputies followed state law and obtained a search warrant in nearly all 138 investigations that required a cell site simulator in 2015, and 38 investigations in 2016, the majority of which were murder cases.

In that time, the device helped officers arrest 70 suspects and find one crime victim. Sheriff’s Department officials declined to disclose further information or records on those cases.

Source: L.A. County Sheriff’s Office Ally Levine / @latimesgraphics Stingray use in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles County asked to use the surveillance equipment for investigations 138 times in 2015 and 38 times in 2016. In 2015 17 Narcotics 16 Assault 9 Robbery 6 Grand theft In 2016 Most common investigations using stingrays Murder 63 Murder 21 Weapons 3 Attempted murder 2 2 Rape 2 Assault* *with a deadly weapon

The Alameda County district attorney’s office, which purchased a device to be operated by the Sheriff’s Department and other area police agencies, said the stingray had not been used as of January.

The San Jose Police Department bought a $500,000 stingray in June 2013, and used it about 20 times between early September 2016 and June 2017.

Law enforcement officers in Oakland and San Jose, as well as several other California cities, say the law requiring them to disclose use of the devices has allowed them to ease community fears over what the technology can and can’t do.

“You watch TV and you’d think that we are sucking their phones dry of all the images, of all the texts, of all the pictures and emails,” said San Jose Police Lt. Steve Lagorio, who crafted guidelines for stingray use with the city attorney’s office. “But we are not. We don’t have that capability.”

The cellphone interceptor at his department is strictly used to target the phones of individual suspects, and Lagorio said he doubted any local law enforcement agencies used the equipment to do much more than that.

A traditional cellphone tower. Cell tower interceptors, often called “stingrays” or “dirtboxes,” tend to be the size of small briefcases and mimic traditional cell towers. (Jeff Roberson / Associated Press)

(Jeff Roberson / AP)

Calls for oversight

Privacy advocates and lawyers say a state agency is needed for oversight to ensure law enforcement agencies are following the law and post their own guidelines.

Most of the records on purchases and grant proposals reviewed by The Times were highly redacted, providing little insight into how their equipment is designed and what it can collect.

The LAPD provided purchase orders and invoices that show the department first obtained price quotes for stingray equipment in 2004, but it is unclear when it acquired the technology. LAPD officials said only that the stingray was not deployed due to technical malfunction issues, but declined to elaborate.

Other records from the Police Department show it obtained another stingray in June 2012, but the department declined to release additional information on the purchase, including its cost.

It was used more than 21 times in routine criminal investigations over four months in 2012, according to LAPD records that were first obtained by the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit that works to advance free speech and open-records laws.

In response to an information request regarding its purchases of stingray devices, the San Francisco Police Department provided heavily redacted records, including a 2012 grant proposal and shipping receipt showing the purchase of “specialized surveillance equipment” in 2007.

The department also gave The Times a document indicating a stingray was bought with 2009 federal grant funds. But a spokesman said the department did not have any public policies on the technology because the equipment was not in use.

Seventeen of the 21 agencies polled by The Times said they did not keep or declined to provide data on how often and in what types of cases they used stingrays.

Privacy advocates point to a loophole in the law that allows some law enforcement agencies to avoid reporting their use of the devices. Police departments that partner with another agency that owns and uses a stingray in an investigation are not required to publish their own guidelines for using the equipment.

The Santa Ana and Fresno police departments, for example, said they did not have any records on the use and policies of surveillance devices. But both departments acknowledge they work with agencies that do have them, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, and might have indirect access to the data they produce.

“Our officers don’t use the equipment, but we often look for fugitive hunters,” Santa Ana Police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna said. “Anaheim [police] may have one, the U.S. Marshals may have one.… They do help us catch fugitives, but whether they have one — you’d have to ask them.”

A new proposal by state Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), left, would expand the state’s transparency laws on StingRays and extend it to all surveillance devices. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

(Rich Pedroncelli / AP)

Increasing transparency

This legislative session, a new proposal by Sen. Hill would expand the state’s disclosure law on stingrays to all surveillance devices, including facial recognition software, drones and social media monitors.

Senate Bill 21 would require law enforcement agencies to disclose not only the use of the surveillance equipment, but the use of any information obtained from the devices.

Civil rights lawyers and advocates have supported the measure, saying transparency is necessary at a time when concerns over surveillance of immigrant and Muslim communities have risen under the Trump administration.

The legislation was narrowly approved by the state Senate, with heavy opposition from law enforcement officials who argued it would give criminals a road map to police agencies’ crime-fighting technology.

Its prospects of passage in the Legislature are unclear. Hill says he understands the technology has many benefits for law enforcement.

“[But] we need people — we need agencies — to be accountable, and we need civilian bodies to create that accountability standard,” he said.

—————————

FOR THE RECORD

6:31 a.m.: This article reported incorrectly that Daniel Rigmaiden was arrested in Phoenix. He was arrested in Santa Clara.

[email protected]

Twitter: @jazmineulloa

The setting matched the message Tuesday as Donald Trump stood beneath the gun barrels of a 57,000-ton battleship in Los Angeles Harbor and fired rhetorical blasts on immigration, trade and national security.

But protesters on shore nearly drowned out Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, as his shipboard rally set the stage for Wednesday’s GOP debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley.

Borrowing Richard Nixon’s polarizing pledge to stand up for the “silent majority” amid the social upheaval of the 1960s, Trump told supporters gathered on the ship’s stern that Americans were disgusted by the U.S. allowing immigrants to “just pour into the country” illegally.

TRAIL GUIDE: All the latest news on the 2016 presidential campaign >>

“They’re disgusted when a woman who’s nine months pregnant walks across the border, has a baby, and you have to take care of that baby for the next 85 years,” Trump, wearing a red baseball cap emblazoned with his “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan, told the crowd.

“Booooooo!” the audience responded.

The comment was typical of Trump’s remarks on illegal immigration on the campaign trail. He has led in polls for much of the summer, tapping into fears about people in the country illegally and garnering support mostly from restive Republicans drawn to his political-outsider status.

Trump appeared unfazed by the loud and relentless taunting by demonstrators waving signs reading “Deport Trump!” and “We’re All Anchor Babies.” But the talkative New York real estate tycoon, whose speeches can exceed a full hour, spoke for just 13 minutes, packing his remarks, as usual, with superlatives.

He pledged a military buildup that would force the leaders of Russia and Iran to respect America.

“Nobody’s going to mess with us,” he said.

He called President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran “one of the dumbest deals and one of the weakest contracts I’ve ever seen of any kind.”

“Fire him, Donald!” a man in the crowd bellowed. “Fire him!”

Get more national political news and the latest from Campaign 2016 >>

Trump, the only one of the 15 candidates in Wednesday’s debates to appear publicly Tuesday in Southern California, assailed Obama on trade with Japan, China and Mexico, saying the leaders of all three countries were smarter and more cunning, a favorite comparison of his.

Japan’s “massive ships float right here and they drop off the cars, right?” he said, gesturing to the giant container vessels floating nearby. “They drop off thousands and thousands and thousands of cars. Millions of cars. And we sell them beef.”

The crowd erupted in laughter.

Trump’s event was a fundraiser for Veterans for a Strong America, a group that endorsed him Tuesday.

Trump’s stature with veterans has been bumpy. Trump offended some this summer when he mocked Arizona Sen. John McCain’s record of service as a prisoner of war for five years in Vietnam, saying he’s “not a war hero.”

He ignored calls to apologize, but has been casting himself as a champion of veterans, as he did again aboard the battleship Iowa, now a museum.

“We have illegal immigrants that are treated better, by far, than our veterans,” he said.

Trump, who received draft deferments during the Vietnam War and has never served in the military, has called on CNN, the sponsor of Wednesday’s debate, to donate its advertising revenue to veterans groups.

Marine veteran Scott Fischer of Lake Forest, who attended the rally, said he was undecided on Trump but was concerned about illegal immigration.

“They’re just letting everyone from all these countries in,” he said.

One of Trump’s biggest applause lines was his promise to make Mexico pay for a wall along its entire border with the U.S. He lamented drugs pouring into the country.

“Not a good deal: We get the drugs, they get the money,” he said. “The drug cartels are going wild. They cannot believe how stupid our government is.”

It was just such comments that drew 18-year-old Rebekah Kritz of San Pedro and a couple of hundred other protesters to the ship’s berth.

“He’s a racist,” Kritz said bluntly. “We can’t let people just constantly call for a wall to be built to keep others out. It’s like putting people against people.”

Follow @finneganLAT and @kurtisalee for political news.

ALSO:

Trump and Schwarzenegger: A political comparison

Meet the busboy who’s taking on Donald Trump over immigration

A frail Nancy Reagan probably won’t make the GOP debate

The Trump administration announced Saturday that National Guard troops were being sent to Los Angeles — an action Gov. Gavin Newsom said he opposed. President Trump is activating the Guard by using powers that have been invoked only rarely.

Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

What is Title 10?

Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad.

Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s leading constitutional law scholars, said “for the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling.”

“It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,” said Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done.”

Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s “border czar,” announced the plan to send the National Guard in an interview Saturday on Fox News as protesters continued confronting immigration agents during raids.

“This is about enforcing the law,” Homan said. “We’re not going to apologize for doing it. We’re stepping up.”

“We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing,” he added. “We’re gonna bring the National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people.”

Newsom criticized the federal action, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was “purposefully inflammatory” and would “only escalate tensions.”

The governor called the president and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor’s office.

Other rarely used powers

Critics have raised concerns that Trump also might try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to activate troops as part of his campaign to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

The president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right.

The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that Trump’s use of the military domestically would be misguided and dangerous.

According to the ACLU, Title 10 activation of National Guard troops has historically been rare and Congress has prohibited troops deployed under the law from providing “direct assistance” to civilian law enforcement — under both a separate provision of Title 10 as well as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Insurrection Act, however, is viewed as an exception to the prohibitions under the Posse Comitatus Act.

In 1958, President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial segregation in schools, and to defend Black students against a violent mob.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, wrote in a recent article that if Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act “to activate federalized troops for mass deportation — whether at the border or somewhere else in the country — it would be unprecedented, unnecessary, and wrong.”

Chemerinsky said invoking the Insurrection Act and nationalizing a state’s National Guard has been reserved for extreme circumstances in which there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace.

Chemerinsky said he feared that in this case the Trump administration was seeking “to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.”

In 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson requested that President George H.W. Bush use the National Guard to quell the unrest in Los Angeles after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. That was under a different provision of federal law that allows the president to use military force in the United States. That provision applies if a state governor or legislature requests it.

California politics editor Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Unions in California are different from those in other places.

More than any state in our troubled country, their ranks are filled with people of color and immigrants. While unions have always been tied closely with the struggles of civil rights, that has become even more pronounced in the years since George Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis.

In the subsequent national soul-searching, unions were forced to do a bit of their own. But where that conversation has largely broken down for general society under the pressure of President Trump’s right-wing rage, it took hold inside of unions to a much greater degree — leading to more leadership from people of color, sometimes younger leadership and definitely an understanding from the rank and file that these are organizations that fight far beyond the workplace.

Which is why the arrest of David Huerta, president of SEIU-USWW and SEIU California, by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Friday is going to have a major impact on the coming months as deportations continue.

“They have woke us up,” Tia Orr told me Saturday morning. She’s the executive director of the 700,000-strong Service Employees International Union California, of which Huerta is a part, and the first African American and Latina to lead the organization.

“And I think they’ve woke people up across the nation, certainly in California, and people are ready to get to action,” she added. “I haven’t seen that in a long time. I don’t know that I’ve seen something like that before, and so yes, it is going to result in action that I believe is going to be historical.”

While unions have voiced their disapproval of mass deportations since the MAGA threat first manifested, their might has not gone full force against them, taking instead a bit of a wait-and-see approach.

Well, folks, we’ve seen. We’ve seen the unidentified masked men rounding up immigrants across the country and shipping them into life sentences at torturous foreign prisons; we’ve watched a 9-year-old Southern California boy separated from his father and detained for deportation; and Friday, across Los Angeles, we saw an anonymous military-style force of federal agents sweep up our neighbors, family members and friends in what seemed to be a haphazard and deliberately cruel way.

And for those of you who have watched the video of Huerta’s arrest, we’ve seen a middle-aged Latino man in a plaid button-down be roughly pushed by authorities in riot gear until he falls backward, and seems to strike his head on the curb. Huerta was, according to a television interview with Mayor Karen Bass, pepper-sprayed as well. Then he was taken to the hospital for treatment, then into custody, where he remains until a Monday arraignment.

U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli wrote on social media that “Federal agents were executing a lawful judicial warrant at a LA worksite this morning when David Huerta deliberately obstructed their access by blocking their vehicle. He was arrested for interfering with federal officers … Let me be clear: I don’t care who you are—if you impede federal agents, you will be arrested and prosecuted. No one has the right to assault, obstruct, or interfere with federal authorities carrying out their duties.”

I have covered protests, violent and nonviolent, for more than two decades. In one of the first such events I covered, I watched an iconic union leader, Bill Camp, sit down in the middle of the road in a Santa suit and refuse to move. Police arrested him. But they managed to do it without violence, and without Camp’s resistance. This is how unions do good trouble — without fear, without violence.

Huerta understands the rules and power of peaceful protest better than most. The union he is president of — SEIU United Service Workers West — started the Justice for Janitors campaign in 1990, a bottom-up movement that in Los Angeles was mostly powered by the immigrant Latina women who cleaned commercial office space for wages as low as $7 an hour.

After weeks of protests, police attacked those Latina workers in June of that year in what became known as the “Battle of Century City.” Two dozen workers were injured but the union did not back down. Eventually, it won the contracts it was seeking, and equally as important, it won public support.

Huerta joined USWW a few years after that incident, growing the Justice for Janitors campaign. The union was and has always been one powered by immigrant workers who saw that collective power was their best power, and Huerta has led decades of building that truth into a practical force. He is, says Orr, an organizer who knows how to bring people together.

To say he is a beloved and respected leader in both the union and California in general is an understatement. You can still find his bio on the White House website, since he was honored as a “Champion of Change,” by President Obama. Within hours of his arrest, political leaders across the state were voicing support.

“David Huerta is a respected leader, a patriot, and an advocate for working people. No one should ever be harmed for witnessing government action,” Gov. Gavin Newsom posted online.

Perhaps more importantly, AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, speaking for her 15 million members, issued a statement.

Huerta “was doing what he has always done, and what we do in unions: putting solidarity into practice and defending our fellow workers,” she said. “The labor movement stands with David and we will continue to demand justice for our union brother until he is released.”

Similar statements came from the Teamsters and other unions. Solidarity isn’t a buzzword to unions. It’s the bedrock of their power. In arresting Huerta, that solidarity has been supercharged. Already, union members from across the state are making plans to gather Monday for Huerta’s arraignment in downtown Los Angeles.

Meanwhile, Stephen Miller, the Santa Monica native and architect of Trump’s deportation plans, has said the raids we are seeing now are just the beginning, and that he would like to see thousands of arrests every day, because our immigrant communities are filled with “every kind of criminal thug that you can imagine on planet earth.”

But in arresting Huerta, the battleground has been redrawn in ways we don’t fully yet appreciate. No doubt, Miller will have his way and the raids will not only continue, but increase.

But also, the unions are not going to back down.

“Right now, just in the last 14 hours, labor unions are joining together from far and wide, communities are reaching out in ways I’ve never seen,” Orr told me. “Something is different.”

Rosa Parks was just a woman on a bus, she pointed out, until she was something more. George Floyd was just another Black man stopped by police. Until he was something more.

Huerta is the something more of these immigration raids — not because he’s a union boss, but because he’s a union organizer with ties to both people in power and people in fear.

The coming months will show what happens when those two groups decide, together, that backing down is not an option.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has reached an agreement with City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson to find the money to reverse the cuts to police hiring made last month by the council.

On Friday, Bass signed the 2025-26 budget approved by the council, which reworked much of her plan for closing a $1-billion shortfall. Among the council’s changes to the mayor’s spending plan was a reduction in the number of police officers hired in the coming fiscal year, which would drop from 480 to 240.

The following day, as part of her signing announcement, the mayor highlighted the separate deal with Harris-Dawson to ensure that “council leadership will identify funds for an additional 240 recruits within 90 days.” The budget year begins July 1.

The money for the additional officers would be allocated within the 90-day deadline, said Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl.

“No one got everything they wanted,” Harris-Dawson said in a statement. “There is still more work ahead, especially our commitment to work with the Mayor to identify the funds for an additional 240 recruits within 90 days.”

Restoring the 240 police recruits would require the council to free up an additional $13.3 million for the coming year. In 2026-27, the cost of those officers — who would be working their first full year — would grow to about $60 million, according to a city estimate.

Bass proposed a budget in April that called for laying off about 1,600 civilian city workers, one-fourth of them at the LAPD. The council voted last month to reduce the layoff number to around 700, in part by scaling back the mayor’s hiring plans at the LAPD and the Los Angeles Fire Department.

During their deliberations, council members said a slowdown in the hiring of police officers would protect the jobs of other workers at the LAPD, including civilian specialists who handle DNA rape kits, fingerprint analysis and other investigative tasks.

Bass, in her statement, thanked the council for “coming together on this deal as we work together to make Los Angeles safer for all.” She said the budget invests in emergency response, homeless services, street repairs, parks, libraries and other programs.

“This budget has been delivered under extremely difficult conditions — uncertainty from Washington, the explosion of liability payments, unexpected rising costs and lower than expected revenues,” she said.

During the budget deliberations, Bass voiced dismay about slowing down recruitment at the LAPD. In recent days, she had weighed whether to veto all or a portion of the budget, which could have led to a messy showdown with the council.

The council voted 12 to 3 to approve the reworked budget proposal last month. Because only 10 votes are needed to override a veto, Bass would have had to secure at least three additional votes in support of her position on police hiring.

Whether Harris-Dawson has the support of his colleagues to find the money — and then spend it on police hiring — is unclear. Unless the city’s labor unions make financial concessions, the council would likely need to either tap the city’s reserve fund or pull money from other spending obligations, such as legal payouts or existing city programs.

The budget provides funding for six classes with up to 40 recruits each at the Police Academy over the coming fiscal year. Bass had originally sought double that number, providing the department with 480 recruits.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who chairs the council’s budget committee, said she shares the mayor’s goal of restoring LAPD recruit classes — and looks forward to “working with her to make it happen.”

“The question has always been how to do it in a way that is fiscally responsible and sustainable,” Yaroslavsky said.

To increase police hiring and eliminate the remaining 700 layoffs, the council will need to turn to the city’s labor unions for additional savings, Yaroslavsky said.

The council’s budget provided enough funding to ensure the LAPD has 8,399 officers by June 30, 2026, the end of the next fiscal year. The $13.3 million sought by Bass would bring the number of officers to more than 8,600.

The LAPD had 8,746 officers in mid-May, down from about 10,000 in 2020, according to department figures.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Noah Goldberg and Laura Nelson, giving you the latest on city and county government.

If Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass manages to hold on to her power to oversee the city’s homelessness programs, she may well have one person to thank: City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.

Szabo, a fixture in the administrations of the past three mayors, was effectively the city’s star witness in its legal battle against the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, the nonprofit group that sued the city in 2020 over its handling of the homelessness crisis.

During a seven-day hearing that concluded Wednesday, the alliance pressed U.S. Dist. Judge David O. Carter to take authority over homeless services away from Bass and the City Council and give it to a to-be-determined third party overseen by the court.

On four of those seven days, Szabo sat in the witness chair, defending the city’s decisions and occasionally offering cutting remarks about the city’s critics. Above all, he insisted the city would meet its obligation to provide 12,915 additional homeless beds by June 2027, as required under a settlement agreement with the alliance.

Szabo, who reports to both Bass and the council, is well known within City Hall for his work preparing the city budget, negotiating with city unions and providing policy recommendations on homelessness and other issues. During his time in Carter’s courtroom, he was also a human shield, taking the brunt of the hostile questions and helping to ensure that Bass and others would not be called to testify.

Throughout the proceedings, the city’s lawyers lodged hundreds of objections to the alliance’s questions, sometimes before they had been fully asked. Carter cautioned them that the rapid-fire interruptions could make things difficult for inexperienced witnesses.

He also made clear that the group did not include Szabo.

“Mr. Szabo,” the judge said, “certainly is used to the stress.”

The alliance had placed not just Bass but also Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Traci Park on its witness list, saying all three had made public statements criticizing the response system. Bass herself called the system “broken” during her State of the City address in April, a fact highlighted by Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for the alliance.

Those statements, Umhofer said, only reinforce the alliance’s argument that the city’s homelessness programs are beyond repair and must be placed into receivership.

“The city is not fixing that broken system,” he said during closing arguments. “It’s simply doubling down on that broken system.”

Bass spokesperson Zach Seidl, asked to explain the mayor’s use of the word “broken,” said she was referring to a number of obstacles, including “an urge from many to return to the old way of doing things that allowed homelessness to explode.”

“But change is happening,” he said. “Under the Mayor’s leadership, we are moving forward.”

The city’s newly hired legal team from Gibson Dunn, the law firm that persuaded the Supreme Court to uphold laws barring homeless encampments on public property, sought to amplify that message. They also claimed the mayor and council members were shielded by the “apex doctrine,” which bars high-level, or apex, government officials from testifying except in extraordinary circumstances.

The city’s lawyers offered up just two witnesses of their own: Szabo and Etsemaye Agonafer, Bass’ deputy mayor for homelessness programs, saying they were the most familiar with the issues. The alliance initially sought 15.

Agonafer testified for about four hours, highlighting progress made by the mayor’s Inside Safe program, which moves people out of encampments and into hotels and motels.

Umhofer ultimately withdrew his subpoenas targeting Bass and the others, saying he didn’t want to incur additional delays. But he called Bass cowardly for failing to show up. By then, he said, his team had enough evidence to show that the city’s elected officials should no longer control homeless programs.

“We have quite literally put the homelessness response system in Los Angeles on trial,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, another alliance attorney, on the final day of proceedings.

The alliance used much of the questioning to highlight problems at the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, also known as LAHSA. That agency, overseen by a board of appointees from the city and county, has been criticized repeatedly in audits dating back to 2001 — documents highlighted by the alliance during the proceedings.

Szabo acknowledged that LAHSA has faced issues with data collection. But he insisted that the city is closely tracking the beds required under its settlement with the alliance. “We have taken steps to ensure that the data we are reporting is accurate,” he told the court.

Carter, who has yet to rule in the case, did not sound as confident in the city’s attention to detail. On Wednesday, he demanded that the city turn over records regarding its compliance with another agreement in the case — this one known as the “roadmap.” The roadmap agreement, which expires June 30, required the city to produce 6,700 beds.

In his order, Carter raised questions about whether city officials had double counted “time-limited subsidies” — money used to help homeless people move into apartments and pay their rent — by applying them both to the roadmap requirements and to the obligations within the alliance settlement agreement.

Szabo said city officials are collecting the records for the judge.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, whose district includes Hollywood, voiced confidence in Szabo. He also praised Bass for taking on the issue of homelessness, pointing out that LAHSA reported that the city had made progress last year.

“We’re doing things that are showing results,” said Soto-Martínez, whose office has participated in 23 Inside Safe encampment operations. “Is it perfect? No. But we’re working through it.”

State of play

— ICE RAID OUTRAGE: L.A.’s elected officials voiced their anger on Friday over a series of federal immigration sweeps in Westlake, Cypress Park and other parts of the city. L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis said the individuals detained were “hardworking Angelenos who contribute to our local economy and labor force every day.”

Bass issued her own statement, saying: “We will not stand for this.”

“As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place,” she said. “These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city.”

— WELCOME, AECOM: Nearly five months after a firestorm laid waste to a wide swath of Pacific Palisades, Bass announced that the city has hired the global infrastructure firm AECOM to develop a plan for rebuilding the area and reconstructing utilities and other infrastructure. The firm will work alongside both the city and Hagerty Consulting, which Bass tapped as a recovery contractor in February, according to the mayor’s office.

— SWITCHING HORSES? Businessman and gubernatorial candidate Stephen J. Cloobeck offered praise for L.A.’s mayor last year, commending her for her work addressing homelessness. He even said he had donated $1 million to LA4LA, an initiative promoted by Bass during her 2024 State of the City address, an event he attended. But last weekend, while making the rounds at the California Democratic Convention, he told The Times he wasn’t so keen on Bass’ leadership. “I would support Rick Caruso in a heartbeat over Mayor Karen Bass, and that’s a quote,” he said.

— MISSED MESSAGES: Bass has come under heavy scrutiny for deleting text messages she sent during the January firestorms. But she wasn’t the only one. L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents the area devastated by the Eaton fire, has an iPhone that “auto deletes” messages every 30 days, her spokesperson said.

— ENGINE TROUBLE: Earlier this year, then-Fire Chief Kristin Crowley cited disabled engines, and a lack of mechanics, as one reason why fire officials did not dispatch more personnel to Pacific Palisades before the Jan. 7 fire. But a Times analysis found that many of the broken engines highlighted by department officials had been out of service for many months or even years — and not necessarily for a lack of mechanics. What’s more, the LAFD had dozens of other engines that could have been staffed and deployed in advance of the fire.

— SAYONARA, CEQA: State lawmakers are on the verge of overhauling the California Environmental Quality Act, which has been used for decades to fight real estate development and public works projects in L.A. and elsewhere. One proposal would wipe away the law for most urban housing developments.

— PADRINOS PAYOUT: L.A. County has agreed to pay nearly $2.7 million to a teenager whose violent beating at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall launched a sprawling criminal investigation into so-called “gladiator fights” inside the troubled facility. Video of the December 2023 beating, captured on CCTV, showed Jose Rivas Barillas, then 16, being pummeled by six juveniles as probation officers stood idly by.

— EVADING EVICTION: A 70-year-old homeless man who illegally moved into a state-owned house in the path of the now-canceled 710 Freeway extension is fighting his eviction. Benito Flores, who seized a vacant residence in El Sereno several years ago, recently holed up in a tree house he built in the backyard — and so far has warded off attempts by sheriff’s deputies to lock him out.

— AIRPORT AHEAD: The long-awaited LAX/Metro transit center at Aviation Boulevard and 96th Street finally opened on Friday, bringing commuters tantalizingly close to Los Angeles International Airport. For now, free shuttle buses will run every 10 minutes along the 2.5-mile route between the transit center and LAX.

— BREAKING BARRIERS: The first transgender captain in the Los Angeles Fire Department died last month at age 80. Michele Kaemmerer joined the LAFD in 1969, retiring in 2003. She transitioned in 1991 and later led Engine 63 in Marina del Rey. In a 1999 interview with PBS, Kaemmerer said that some firefighters who knew her before she transitioned refused to work with her. Despite those hardships, she “always had a good attitude,” said her widow, Janis Walworth.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness did not launch any operations at new locations this week.
• On the docket for next week: The city’s newly formed Charter Reform Commission holds its first meeting on Tuesday, discussing the process that will be used to select its remaining members.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

WASHINGTON — President Bush, reaffirming his support for the anti-abortion movement, told an estimated 200,000 abortion foes gathered under a hot, cloudless sky in the nation’s capital Saturday that their mission “must be to help more and more Americans make the right choice–the choice for life.”

In a brief telephone address broadcast to the crowd over loudspeakers, Bush predicted that “one day, your life-saving message will have reached and influenced every American.” The President urged abortion opponents to “continue to work for the day when respect for human life is sacrosanct and beyond question.”

He added: “I know from your devotion and selflessness that this day cannot be far away.”

With the temperature hovering near 90 degrees, demonstrators spread blankets on the grass, sunbathed and ate picnic lunches in the shadow of the Washington Monument while waiting to hear Bush and to catch a glimpse of Vice President Dan Quayle, who spoke to them in person.

Many wore anti-abortion T-shirts and carried placards reading: “Stop Abortion Now,” “Let My People Grow,” and “Killing Should Never Be a Personal Choice.”

Their numbers far exceeded the estimated 75,000 to 100,000 people who came for the 17th annual March for Life last January, and for a time threatened to rival the 300,000 who attended an abortion rights rally here last year.

Officials from the National Right to Life Committee, which sponsored the rally, said the event was intended to show the strength of their cause, despite a series of recent setbacks suffered at the state level.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could impose restrictions on abortion. The decision, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, galvanized the abortion rights movement to work on behalf of candidates who share their views and to defeat attempts by state legislatures to curtail abortion.

The latest blow to the anti-abortion movement came Friday, when the Connecticut state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill to ensure a woman’s right to an abortion even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision guaranteeing that right. The Connecticut House already has passed the measure, and Gov. William A. O’Neill has promised to sign it.

Bush spoke to the demonstrators from the White House after returning from a five-hour fishing expedition on the Potomac River, where he caught several largemouth bass.

The President made no mention of proposals favored by many abortion foes to add a “human life” amendment to the Constitution. Nor did he refer to the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning its Roe vs. Wade ruling.

The Administration, confronted with a growing division within the Republican Party over its position on abortion, has emphasized its willingness in recent months to accommodate all points of view on the issue.

“In January of this year, I addressed the March for Life on this very issue,” Bush said. “And I said then, and reaffirm now, that your presence on the Mall today reminds all of us in government that Americans from all walks of life are committed to preserving the sanctity and dignity of human life.”

He called the widespread availability of abortion “a tragedy, not only in terms of lives destroyed, but because it so fundamentally contradicts the values that we as a nation hold dear. And when I look at adopted children, I give thanks that their parents chose life.”

Quayle, too, called the prevalence of abortion a “national tragedy.” But he seemed to take a less hard-line approach than he has in the past.

Quayle said that a majority of Americans oppose abortion on demand. “They may disagree about how best to turn the situation around, but almost all stand together against the terrible reality of unlimited abortion on demand,” he said.

Quayle said that “none of us, woman or man, can presume to judge those faced with a problem pregnancy.” But, he added, “the loss of some 25 million children in total to abortion since 1973 has been unspeakable.”

“It is as if we were shooting out the stars, one by one, preparing for ourselves an unending night of the most fearful darkness,” he continued. “You have been voices against the night . . . “

Referring to the growing dispute within GOP ranks–in which some Republican officials have said the GOP “tent” is large enough to include all views on abortion–Quayle said that abortion opponents make up “the largest coalition–I might add, the biggest tent–in American politics.”

Quayle said that Saturday’s demonstration could “begin a healing of the terrible wound which, for almost two decades, has torn at our country’s heart.”

Saying the anti-abortion movement was “more important than partisanship, and surely more important than personal advancement,” Quayle described it as “ the humanitarian movement of our time.”

He added: “Will the American people continue to accept the notion that unborn children are disposable?”

To shouts of “No” from the crowd, he responded: “Our answer is: Not in this country. Not now. Not ever.”

Olivia Gans, the rally director, told the demonstrators that the anti-abortion movement was not faltering, but gaining momentum.

“We are not losing,” she said. “We are winning. We are winning throughout the United States, despite what we hear and what we read. We are winning despite what (National Organization for Women president) Molly Yard has to say. And who listens to Molly Yard anyway?”

Meanwhile, in Portland, Ore., Yard spoke to a rally of about 2,000 people who had gathered to express their opposition to two proposed state laws that would restrict abortion rights. She reiterated that the anti-abortion movement was losing force across the country.

“(They) have lost in virtually every state legislature and they are losing in the elections across the country, and we expect them to lose heavily” in the November, 1990, elections, she said.

Many of the demonstrators in Washington said they traveled by bus, car and airplane from all over the country to show their support for an end to abortion.

“There’s really more people here than I could have imagined,” said James Davis, a paint factory production planner who drove 10 hours nonstop from Lancaster, Ky., with his wife and two children.

“Our prayers are being answered,” added his wife, Dora Sue.

Roger Bus, a lawyer from Kalamazoo, Mich., called the anti-abortion movement “more powerful than it’s ever been.”

And Carol Kraft, a bakery clerk from Emporia, Kan., said this was the first time she had attended an anti-abortion rally in Washington.

“I came because I want to take a stand for life,” she said. “I love life.”

In Southern California, a crowd of abortion opponents estimated by police at 8,300 made a human chain in the form of a cross along the streets of Van Nuys to coincide with the Washington demonstration. Police characterized the two-hour demonstration as peaceful.

“We wanted to send a clear message to politicians that there are many, many people out there who are opposed to abortion,” said Laura Gillen, an organizer of the event.

Organizers included Operation Rescue, the Right to Life League and more than 200 churches from San Diego to Bakersfield.

Participants, who formed the cross along Sherman Way and Van Nuys Boulevard, waved blue-and-white signs in English and Spanish reading “Abortion Kills Children.”

A small group of abortion rights activists carrying their own signs briefly disrupted the demonstration. Barri Falk, coordinator of the San Fernando Valley Chapter of the National Organization for Women, waved a sign that said “Honk for Choice.”

“We’re out here to show our support for life, too,” Falk said. “They want to oppress both men and women.”

Staff writer Mayerene Barker in Van Nuys contributed to this story.

NEW YORK — Speaking out 20 years after his daughter drowned in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick, the father of Mary Jo Kopechne says she did not die in vain because her death “kept the senator from becoming President.”

“He was worried about himself, not Mary Jo,” Joseph Kopechne said in an interview in the July issue of Ladies Home Journal.

Miss Kopechne, 28, died July 19, 1969, when a car driven by Kennedy ran off a bridge at night and plunged into a pond on Massachusetts’ Chappaquiddick Island. She had been a campaign worker for Kennedy’s brother, Robert.

Kennedy said he freed himself from the car and tried to rescue his passenger. But it took him 10 hours to report the accident. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and lost his license for a year.

In the interview, Miss Kopechne’s mother, Gwen Kopechne, 71, said other women who attended a party with Kennedy and Miss Kopechne before the accident “were shut up.”

“I think there was a big cover-up and that everybody was paid off,” she said.

The Kopechnes received a settlement of $140,904, of which $90,904 came from the senator and $50,000 from his insurance company.

The couple had two brief meetings with Kennedy after the accident, Mrs. Kopechne said. “I don’t think he seemed upset either time we saw him,” she said, “and I don’t remember him saying he was sorry.”

Kennedy has expressed regret for Miss Kopechne’s death on numerous occasions.

Mrs. Kopechne said Kennedy has telephoned the couple periodically.

During China’s imperial age, those deemed guilty of the worst offenses were sometimes sentenced to death in a public square by a brutal form of execution known as lingchi. Soldiers — using sharp blades — would slice away pieces of flesh from the accused until they died. Translated, lingchi means “death by a thousand cuts.”

Maybe democracy does die in darkness, as journalist Bob Woodward often suggests. Or maybe democracy’s demise comes in the light of day, in a public forum, where everyone can bear witness. Sometimes those holding the knives are the oligarchs or elected officials drenched in corruption. And sometimes there’s blood on the hands of the people.

On Saturday, voters in San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country — are headed to the polls to decide the first open mayoral race since President Obama’s first term. Or at least some voters will be.

In November 2024, nearly 60% of the 1.3 million registered voters in the county cast a ballot in the general election. However, in the local election held last month, barely 10% showed up to the polls. Before anyone starts throwing shade at San Antonio, in Dallas the turnout was even lower.

Lackluster participation in an “off year” election is not new. However, the mayoral race in San Antonio has increased national interest because the outcome is being viewed as a litmus test for both the strength of the Democrats’ resistance and the public’s appetite for the White House’s policies.

Like other big blue cities nestled in legislatively red states, San Antonio’s progressive policies have been under constant assault from the governor’s mansion. And with neither the progressive candidate, Gina Ortiz Jones, or her MAGA-leaning opponent, Rolando Pablos, eclipsing 50% of the vote in May, the runoff has drawn more than $1 million in campaign spending from outside conservative groups looking to flip the traditionally blue stronghold.

The outcome could provide a possible glimpse into the 2026 mayoral race in Los Angeles, should the formerly Republican Rick Caruso decide to run against Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat. When the two faced off in 2022, around 44% of the city’s registered voters went to the polls. Caruso lost by less than 90,000 votes in a city with 2.1 million registered voters — most of whom didn’t submit a ballot.

It is rather astonishing how little we actually participate in democracy, given the amount of tax dollars we have spent trying to convince other nations that our government system is the best on the planet. Capitulating to President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass voter fraud, many local conservative elected officials have tried to ram through a litany of “voter integrity” policies under the guise of protecting democracy. However, democracy is not a delicate flower in need of protection. It’s a muscle in need of exercise.

“Some people find voting to be a chore,” Michele Carew, the elections administrator for Bexar County — which includes San Antonio — told me. “We need to make voting easier and quite frankly, fun. And we need to get those who don’t feel like their vote counts to see that it does. That means getting out and talking to people in our neighborhood, in our churches, in our grocery stores … about when elections are coming up and what’s at stake locally.”

Carew said that the added outside interest in the city’s election has driven up early voting a tick and that she expects to see roughly a 15% turnout, which is an increase over previous years. It could be worse. The city once elected a mayor with 7% turnout back in 2013. Carew also expressed concern about outside influence on local governing.

“One of the first times I saw these nonpartisan races become more political was in 2020, and so as time goes by it’s gotten even more so. I would like to think once the candidate is elected mayor they remain nonpartisan and do what’s best for the city and not their party.”

In 2024, a presidential election year when you’d expect the highest turnout, 1 in 3 registered voters across this country — roughly 20 million people — took a look around and said, “Nah, I’m good.” Or something like that.

The highest turnout was in Washington, D.C., where nearly 80% showed up. Too bad it’s not a state. Among the lowest turnout rates? Texas — which has the second-greatest number of voters, behind only California.

And therein lies the problem with trying to extrapolate national trends from local elections. Maybe Ortiz Jones will win in San Antonio this weekend. Maybe Caruso will win in L.A. next year. None of this tells us how the vast majority of Americans are really feeling.

Sure, it’s good fodder to debate around the table or on cable news shows, but ultimately the sample size of a mayoral election belies any claims about a result’s meaning. Turnout during an off year is just too low.

One thing we know for certain is most voters in America exercise their right to vote only once every four years. Oligarchs and corrupt officials are not great, but it’s hard for democracy to stay healthy and strong if that’s all the exercise it’s getting.

@LZGranderson

LEOPOLD, Ind. — On the ceiling of Abbie Brockman’s middle school English classroom in Perry County, the fluorescent lights are covered with images of a bright blue sky, a few clouds floating by.

Outside, the real sky isn’t always blue. Sometimes it’s hazy, with pollution drifting from coal-fired power plants in this part of southwest Indiana. Knowing exactly how much, and what it may be doing to the people who live there, is why Brockman got involved with a local environmental organization that’s installing air and water quality monitors in her community.

“Industry and government is very, very, very powerful. It’s more powerful than me. I’m just an English teacher,” Brockman said. But she wants to feel she can make a difference.

In a way, Brockman’s monitoring echoes the reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency began requiring from large polluters more than a decade ago. Emissions from four coal-fired plants in southwest Indiana have dropped 60% since 2010, when the rule took effect.

That rule is now on the chopping block, one of many that President Trump’s EPA argues is costly and burdensome for industry.

But experts say dropping the requirement risks a big increase in emissions if companies are no longer publicly accountable for what they put in the air. And they say losing the data — at the same time the EPA is cutting air quality monitoring elsewhere — would make it tougher to fight climate change.

Rule required big polluters to say how much they are emitting

At stake is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, a 2009 rule from President Obama’s administration that affects large carbon polluters like refineries, power plants, wells and landfills. In the years since, they’ve collectively reported a 20% drop in emissions, mostly driven by the closure of coal plants.

And what happens at these big emitters makes a difference. Their declining emissions account for more than three-quarters of the overall, if modest, decline in all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 2010.

The registry includes places not usually thought of as big polluters but that have notable greenhouse gas emissions, such as college campuses, breweries and cereal factories. Even Walt Disney World in Florida, where pollution dropped 62% since 2010, has to report along with nearly 10,600 other places.

“We can’t solve climate change without knowing how much pollution major facilities are emitting and how that’s changing over time,” said Jeremy Symons, a former EPA senior climate advisor now at Environmental Protection Network, an organization of ex-EPA officials that monitors environmental policies. The group provided calculations as a part of the Associated Press’ analysis of impacts from proposed rule rollbacks.

Symons said some companies would welcome the end of the registry because it would make it easier to pollute.

Experts see a role for registry in cutting emissions

It’s not clear how much the registry itself has contributed to declining emissions. More targeted regulations on smokestack emissions, as well as coal being crowded out by cheaper and less polluting natural gas, are bigger factors.

But the registry “does put pressure on companies to … document what they’ve done or at least to provide a baseline for what they’ve done,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who heads Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tally national carbon emissions yearly.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under Obama, said the registry makes clear how power plants are doing against each other, and that’s an inducement to lower emissions.

“It is money for those companies. It’s costs. It’s reputation. It’s been, I think, a wonderful success story and I hope it continues.”

The potential end of the reporting requirement comes as experts say much of the country’s air goes unmonitored. Nelson Arley Roque, a Penn State professor who co-authored a study in April on these “monitoring deserts,” said about 40% of U.S. lands are unmonitored. That often includes poor and rural neighborhoods.

“The air matters to all of us, but apparently 50 million people can’t know or will never know’’ how bad the air is, Roque said.

EPA seeks to cancel money to fund some air monitoring

The EPA is also trying to claw back money that had been earmarked for air monitoring, part of the termination of grants that it has labeled as targeting diversity, equity and inclusion. That includes $500,000 that would have funded 40 air monitors in a low-income and minority community in the Charlotte, N.C., area.

CleaneAIRE NC, a nonprofit that works to improve air quality across the state that was awarded the grant, is suing.

“It’s not diversity, equity and inclusion. It’s human rights,” said Daisha Wall, the group’s community science program manager. “We all deserve a right to clean air.”

Research strongly links poor air quality to diseases like asthma and heart disease, with a slightly less established link to cancer. Near polluting industries, experts say what’s often lacking is either enough data in specific locations or the will to investigate the health toll.

Indiana says it “maintains a robust statewide monitoring and assessment program for air, land and water,” but Brockman and others in this part of the state, including members of Southwestern Indiana Citizens for Quality of Life, aren’t satisfied. They’re installing their own air and water quality monitors. It’s a full-time job to keep the network of monitors up and running, fighting spotty Wi-Fi and connectivity issues.

Fighting industry is a sensitive subject, Brockman added. Many families depend on jobs at coal-fired power plants, and poverty is real. She keeps snacks in her desk for the kids who haven’t eaten breakfast.

“But you also don’t want to hear of another student that has a rare cancer,” she said.

Walling, Borenstein, Bickel and Wildeman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report from Washington.

WASHINGTON — Migrants placed on a deportation flight originally bound for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men and their guards are contending with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said.

Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed Thursday before a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn’t come from.

Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation.

The judge said that men from other countries must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan.

The men’s lawyers, though, have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. Barnard spoke Friday at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to talk to them Thursday.

The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and President Trump’s administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume.

The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president’s policies.

The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the declaration from an ICE official.

Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. They don’t have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete antimalarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said.

“It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,” Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration.

The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to pause a court order to reinstate Education Department employees who were fired in mass layoffs as part of his plan to dismantle the agency.

The Justice Department’s emergency appeal to the high court said U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold.

Joun’s order has blocked one of the Republican president’s biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.

The judge wrote that the layoffs “will likely cripple the department.”

But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote Friday that Joun was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration.

The layoffs help put in the place the “policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration’s view, are better left to the states,” Sauer wrote.

He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in April voted 5-4 to block Joun’s earlier order seeking to keep in place Education Department teacher-training grants.

The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump’s plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department.

One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general.

The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws.

Education Department employees who were targeted by the layoffs have been on paid leave since March, according to a union that represents some of the agency’s staff. Joun’s order prevents the department from fully terminating them, but none have been allowed to return to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without Joun’s order, the workers were scheduled to be terminated Monday.

Trump has made it a priority to shut down the Education Department, though he has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to do that. In the meantime, Trump issued a March order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to wind it down “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

Trump later said the department’s functions will be parceled to other agencies, suggesting that federal student loans should be managed by the Small Business Administration and programs involving students with disabilities would be absorbed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those changes have not yet happened.

The president argues that the Education Department has been overtaken by liberals and has failed to spur improvements to the nation’s lagging academic scores. He has promised to “return education to the states.”

Opponents note that K-12 education is already mostly overseen by states and cities.

Democrats have blasted the Trump administration’s Education Department budget, which seeks a 15% budget cut including a $4.5 billion cut in K-12 funding as part of the agency’s downsizing.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Collin Binkley contributed to this report.

Nearly five months after a firestorm laid waste to a wide swath of Pacific Palisades, Mayor Karen Bass announced Friday that the global infrastructure firm AECOM will help develop a master plan for rebuilding the area, as well as a plan for reconstructing utilities and other infrastructure.

The firm will work alongside both the city and Hagerty Consulting, which Bass tapped as a recovery contractor in early February, according to the mayor’s office.

Hagerty, an Illinois-based disaster recovery firm, has a yearlong contract with the city for up to $10 million but has faced persistent questions about the specifics of its work.

The mayor’s office did not immediately answer when asked Friday whether Hagerty’s role was being scaled back.

In late January, the mayor, along with four council members and other city officials, heard presentations from Hagerty, AECOM and a third firm also seeking to be the city’s disaster recovery contractor.

After Bass selected Hagerty in February, she said the city was still in discussions with AECOM about a separate contract.

“An unprecedented natural disaster requires an unprecedented, all-hands-on-deck response — all levels of government, philanthropy, the private sector and educational institutions coming together to support the community and rebuild as quickly and safely as possible,” Bass said in a written statement Friday. “AECOM’s expertise in long-term infrastructure planning and design will only further expedite our work to get families home.”

The mayor’s office also did not immediately respond when asked whether the city now has a contract with AECOM, or what the specifics of that contract, including the compensation, are.

Steve Soboroff, a longtime local developer and Bass’ former chief recovery officer, publicly criticized Bass’ decision to choose Hagerty over AECOM as the city’s initial disaster recovery contractor. In an interview in mid-April as he was leaving his post, Soboroff raised questions about Hagerty’s role and said he thought AECOM should have been hired instead.

Along with developing a comprehensive rebuilding master plan and supporting the Palisades’ infrastructure reconstruction, AECOM will help coordinate broader public and private rebuilding efforts.

The company will work on a “logistics plan for materials management in coordination with local builders and suppliers” as well as a master traffic plan as more homeowners leap into the rebuilding process, according to a news release.

AECOM is also the “official venue infrastructure partner” for the 2028 Olympic Games, according to a March news release from LA28.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the DOGE team that had been led by Elon Musk to examine Social Security records that include personal information on most Americans.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and lifted a court order that had barred a team of DOGE employees from freely examining Social Security records.

“We conclude that, under the present circumstances,” the Social Security Administration, or SSA, “may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,” the court said in an unsigned order.

In a second order, the justices blocked the disclosure of DOGE operations as agency records that could be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The court’s three liberals — Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented in both cases.

“Today, the court grants ‘emergency’ relief that allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to hand DOGE staffers the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans,” Jackson wrote. “The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now — before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful.”

The legal fight turned on the unusual status of the newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency. This was a not true department, but the name given to the team of aggressive outside advisors led by Musk.

Were the DOGE team members presidential advisors or outsiders who should not be given access to personal data?

While Social Security employees are entrusted with the records containing personal information, it was disputed whether the 11 DOGE team members could be trusted with same material.

Musk had said the goal was to find evidence of fraud or misuse of government funds.

He and DOGE were sued by labor unions who said the outside analysts were sifting through records with personal information that was protected by the privacy laws. Unless checked, the DOGE team could create highly personal computer profiles of every person, they said.

A federal judge in Maryland agreed and issued an order restricting the work of DOGE.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, an Obama appointee, barred DOGE staffers from having access to the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. But her order did not restrict the Social Security staff or DOGE employees from using data that did not identify people or sensitive personal information.

In late April, the divided 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to set aside the judge’s order by a 9-6 vote.

Judge Robert King said the “government has sought to accord the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) immediate and unfettered access to all records of the Social Security Administration (‘SSA’) — records that include the highly sensitive personal information of essentially everyone in our country.”

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court and said a judge should not “second guess” how the administration manages the government.

He said the district judge had “enjoined particular agency employees — the 11 members of the Social Security Administration (SSA) DOGE team — from accessing data that other agency employees can unquestionably access, and that the SSA DOGE team will use for purposes that are unquestionably lawful. … The Executive Branch, not district courts, sets government employees’ job responsibilities.”

Sauer said the DOGE team was seeking to modernize SSA systems and identify improper payments, for instance by reviewing swaths of records and flagging unusual payment patterns or other signs of fraud.

The DOGE employees “are subject to the same strict confidentiality standards as other SSA employees,” he said. Moreover, the plaintiffs “make no allegation that the SSA DOGE team’s access will increase the risk of public disclosure.”

He said checking the personal data is crucial.

“For instance, a birth date of 1900 can be telltale evidence that an individual is probably deceased and should not still receive Social Security payments, while 15 names using the same Social Security number may also point to a problem,” he said.