POLITICS

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.

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador became a political flashpoint in the Trump administration’s stepped-up immigration enforcement, was being returned to the United States to face criminal charges related to what the Trump administration said was a massive human smuggling operation that brought immigrants into the country illegally.

He is expected to be prosecuted in the U.S. and, if convicted, will be returned to his home country in El Salvador at the conclusion of the case, officials said Friday.

“This is what American justice looks like,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Friday in announcing the return of Abrego Garcia and the criminal charges.

The charges stem from a 2022 vehicle stop in which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. A report released by the Department of Homeland Security in April states that none of the people in the vehicle had luggage, while they listed the same address as Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime, and the officers allowed him to drive on with only a warning about an expired driver’s license, according to the Homeland Security report. The report said he was traveling from Texas to Maryland, via Missouri, to bring in people to perform construction work.

In response to the report’s release in April, Abrego Garcia’s wife said in a statement that he sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, “so it’s entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle. He was not charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing.”

The Trump administration has been publicizing Abrego Garcia’s interactions with police over the years, despite a lack of corresponding criminal charges, while it faces a federal court order and calls from some in Congress to return him to the U.S.

Authorities in Tennessee released video of a 2022 traffic stop last month. The body-camera footage shows a calm and friendly exchange with Tennessee Highway Patrol officers.

Officers then discussed among themselves their suspicions of human trafficking because nine people were traveling without luggage. One of the officers said, “He’s hauling these people for money.” Another said he had $1,400 in an envelope.

An attorney for Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said in a statement after the footage’s release in May that he saw no evidence of a crime in the released footage.

“But the point is not the traffic stop — it’s that Mr. Abrego Garcia deserves his day in court,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

The move comes days after the Trump administration complied with a court order to return a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico despite his fears of being harmed there. The man, identified in court papers as O.C.G, was the first person known to have been returned to U.S. custody after deportation since the start of President Trump’s second term.

WASHINGTON — The clamorous end to President Trump’s alliance with Elon Musk is increasing pressure on the White House over its signature legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — a bill under intense scrutiny in the Senate that Musk wants killed over its price tag, but that Trump views as critical to the success of his presidency.

The bill faces strong headwinds among senators across the Republican spectrum, including fiscal conservatives who say it authorizes unsustainable spending, as well as moderates who fear the consequences of offsetting costly tax breaks in the bill with steep cuts to Medicaid.

Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin among those seeking to decrease spending in the bill, told NPR this week that it has “no chance of passing” the Senate in its current form.

“It’s easy to be the parent that says, ‘We’re going to go to Disney World.’ It’s hard to be the parent that says, ‘yeah, but we can’t afford it,” Johnson told reporters on Capitol Hill Friday. “To get to yes, I need a commitment to return to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending.”

Trump’s relationship with Musk, the world’s richest man and the largest Republican donor during the 2024 presidential campaign, shattered on Thursday in an exchange of public insults between the two men. After leaving his role in the administration last week, where he was assigned to cut federal spending and government waste, Musk sounded off on the bill as an “abomination” that would cause the national debt to soar.

Trump responded by suggesting Musk opposed the legislation because it includes cuts to energy tax credits that have benefited Tesla, Musk’s electric vehicle company. The billionaire entrepreneur may also be angry, Trump mused, because his recommendation to head NASA was rejected — an important position for SpaceX, another Musk business.

Those comments set off an online tirade from Musk that claimed credit for Trump’s election victory and accused the president of links with Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious child sex offender.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X, his social media platform. “Such ingratitude.”

Musk contributed over $280 million to Trump and other Republicans during the 2024 presidential campaign. But his tenure in the White House has come at a steep cost. Tesla’s profits plummeted 71% over the first three months of the year, with reputation rankings showing a similarly precipitous drop amongst consumers. In Thursday alone, as his feud with Trump escalated, Tesla’s stock price dropped 14%.

“I’m not even thinking about Elon,” Trump told CNN’s Dana Bash in a phone interview on Friday. “He’s got a problem. The poor guy’s got a problem.”

Musk was also quieter on Friday, focusing his social media activity on his companies, a sign that both men see mutual destruction in the fallout from their feud.

But the source of their feud — the bill — remains on thin ice.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill could add $2.4 trillion to annual deficits over the next decade and result in 10.9 million people losing their health insurance, prompting GOP senators like Shelley Moore Capito, of West Virginia, where 28% of the state population is enrolled in Medicaid, to express concern.

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, told reporters that the caucus is open to exploring cuts to another popular health program — Medicare, for Americans 65 and older — if it results in lowering the overall costs of the bill.

“The focus, as you know, has been on addressing waste, fraud, abuse within Medicaid and, but right now, we’re open to suggestions that people have them about other areas where there is, you know, clearly, waste, fraud and abuse that can be rooted out in any government program,” Thune said in a news conference.

Asked whether Medicare cuts are on the table, Thune replied, “I think anything we can do that’s waste, fraud and abuse are open to discussions.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, defended the bill against Musk’s attacks on Friday and said his calls to kill the bill were a “surprise.”

“I don’t argue with Elon on how to build rockets,” Johnson said. “I wish he wouldn’t argue with me about how to craft legislation.”

Johnson has said his goal is to have the legislation passed into law by Independence Day, before lawmakers start traveling home for a series of long summer recesses.

But there are other reasons for the deadline. The Treasury Department anticipates the country could risk default unless Congress raises the debt ceiling by August. And tax cuts passed in 2017, under the first Trump administration, are set to expire at the end of this year, leading Republicans to warn of a 68% tax increase if the bill fails.

WASHINGTON — When he first ran for office, Donald Trump appeared to be a new kind of Republican when it came to gay rights.

Years earlier, he overturned the rules of his own Miss Universe pageant to allow a transgender contestant to compete. He said Caitlyn Jenner could use any bathroom at Trump Tower that she wanted. And he was the first president to name an openly gay person to a Cabinet-level position.

But since returning to office this year, Trump has engaged in what activists say is an unprecedented assault on the LGBTQ+ community. The threat from the White House contrasts with World Pride celebrations taking place just blocks away in Washington, including a parade and rally this weekend.

“We are in the darkest period right now since the height of the AIDS crisis,” said Kevin Jennings, who leads Lambda Legal, a longtime advocacy organization. “I am deeply concerned that we’re going to see it all be taken away in the next four years.”

Trump’s defenders insist the president has not acted in a discriminatory way, and they point to public polling that shows widespread support for policies like restrictions on transgender athletes.

“He’s working to establish common sense once again,” said Ed Williams, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, which represents LGBT conservatives.

Harrison Fields, the principal deputy press secretary at the White House, said, “the overall MAGA movement is a big tent welcome for all and home to a large swath of the American people.”

“The president continues to foster a national pride that should be celebrated daily, and he is honored to serve all Americans,” Fields said.

Presidential actions were widely expected

Trump made anti-transgender attacks a central plank of his campaign reelection message as he called on Congress to pass a bill stating there are “only two genders” and pledged to ban hormonal and surgical intervention for transgender minors. He signed an executive order doing so in January.

His rally speeches featured a spoof video mocking transgender people and their place in the U.S. military. Trump has since banned them outright from serving. And although June is recognized nationally as Pride month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week that Trump has “no plans for a proclamation.”

“I can tell you this president is very proud to be a president for all Americans, regardless of race, religion or creed,” she added, making no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Williams described Pride activities as a progressive catch-all rather than a civil rights campaign. “If you’re not in the mood to protest or resist the Trump administration,” he said, “Pride is not for you.”

Trump declined to issue Pride Month proclamations in his first term, but did recognize the celebration in 2019 as he publicized a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality headed by Richard Grenell, then the U.S. Ambassador to Germany and the highest-profile openly gay person in the administration. (Grenell now serves as envoy for special missions.)

“As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation,” Trump posted on social media.

Times have changed where Trump is concerned

This time, there is no celebrating.

The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which Trump named himself chairman of after firing members of the board of trustees, canceled a week’s worth of events celebrating LGBTQ+ rights for this summer’s World Pride festival in Washington, D.C., at one of the nation’s premier cultural institutions.

Trump, who indicated when he took up the position that he would be dictating programming, had specifically said he would end events featuring performers in drag. The exterior lights that once lit the venue on the Potomac River in the colors of the rainbow were quickly replaced with red, white and blue.

Multiple artists and producers involved in the center’s Tapestry of Pride schedule, which had been planned for June 5 to 8, told The Associated Press that their events had been quietly canceled or moved to other venues.

Inside the White House, there’s little second-guessing about the president’s stances. Trump aides have pointed to their decision to seize on culture wars surrounding transgender rights during the 2024 campaign as key to their win. They poured money into ads aimed at young men — especially young Hispanic men — attacking Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for supporting “taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners,” including one spot aired during football games.

“Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you,” the narrator said.

Jennings flatly rejected assertions that the administration hasn’t been discriminatory. “Are you kidding me? You’re throwing trans people out of the military. That’s example No. 1.”

He points to the cancellation of scientific grants and funding for HIV/AIDS organizations, along with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “petty and mean” order to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, which commemorates the gay rights activist and Navy veteran.

Jennings also said it doesn’t help that Trump has appointed openly gay men like Grenell and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to high-profile positions: “I would call it window dressing.”

Less tolerance for the issues as time passes

Craig Konnoth, a University of Virginia professor of civil rights, compared the U.S.’ trajectory to that of Russia, which has seen a crackdown on gay and lesbian rights after a long stretch of more progressive policies. In 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism.

Williams said Trump has made the Republican Party more accepting of gay people. First lady Melania Trump, he noted, has hosted fundraisers for his organization.

“On the whole, we think he’s the best president ever for our community. He’s managed to support us in ways that we have never been supported by any administration,” Williams said. “We are vastly accepted within our party now.”

Trump’s approach to LGBTQ+ rights comes amid a broader shift among Republicans, who have grown less tolerant in recent years.

While overall support for same-sex marriage has been stable, according to Gallup, the percentage of Republicans who think marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriage dropped to 41% this year. That’s the lowest point since 2016, a year after the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, and a substantial decline from a high of 55% in 2021.

There’s been a similar drop in the share of Republicans who say that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable, which has dropped from 56% in 2022 to 38% this year. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage and say that same-sex relations are morally acceptable.

An AP-NORC poll from May also found that Trump’s approach to handling transgender issues has been a point of relative strength for the president. About half (52%) of U.S. adults said they approve of how he’s handling transgender issues — a figure higher than his overall job approval (41%).

Douglas Page, who studies politics and gender at Gettysburg College, said that “trans rights are less popular than gay rights, with a minority of Republicans in favor of trans rights. This provides incentives for Republicans to speak to the conservative side of that issue.”

“Gay people are less controversial to Republicans compared to trans people,” he said in an email, “so gay appointees like Secretary Bessent probably won’t ruffle many feathers.”

Megerian and Colvin write for the Associated Press. Colvin reported from New York. Linley Sanders and Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.

With new legal muscle, the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation is upping pressure on Paramount Global to abandon efforts to settle President Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit targeting CBS and “60 Minutes.”

Respected Washington litigator Abbe David Lowell this week joined the team representing the New York advocacy group, which has vowed to sue Paramount should it settle with Trump. The group owns Paramount shares.

Lowell, who has represented Hunter Biden, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, is working on the case with attorney Norm Eisen, a Trump critic who helped House Democrats with strategy during Trump’s first impeachment hearings in 2019.

Eisen is a former ambassador to the Czech Republic who served as White House ethics advisor under President Obama.

Late Thursday, the two attorneys sent a strongly worded letter to Paramount’s chairwoman and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other board members arguing that a Trump settlement would cause “catastrophic” harm to the embattled media company.

Hunter Biden (left) with his attorney Abbe Lowell (right) at a House committee hearing last year.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

1st Amendment experts have labeled Trump’s lawsuit frivolous. But Paramount leaders are desperate to end the Trump drama and some believe a truce could clear a path for the Federal Communications Commission to approve the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

Paramount needs the FCC to authorize the transfer of the CBS station licenses to the Ellison family.

The prospect of a Trump settlement has carved deep divisions within Paramount, which includes CBS News and “60 Minutes.”

“Trading away the credibility of CBS’s news division to curry favor with the Trump Administration is an improper and reckless act that will irreparably damage the company’s brand and destroy shareholder value,” Lowell said in a statement late Thursday.

“The board is legally and morally obligated to protect the company, not auction off its integrity for regulatory approval,” Lowell said.

The FCC review of Skydance’s proposed takeover of Paramount has become a slog. Skydance and Paramount face an October deadline to finalize the sale or the deal could collapse.

Paramount, in a statement, said that it is treating the FCC review and the Trump lawsuit as separate matters. “We will abide by the legal process to defend our case,” a corporate spokesman said.

Paramount’s lawyers entered mediation with the president’s legal team in late April, but no resolution has been reached. Paramount offered $15 million to Trump to end his suit, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the president rejected the overture and asked for more.

On Thursday, Redstone disclosed that she has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and is receiving treatment. Last month, doctors removed her thyroid but cancer cells had spread to her vocal chords.

In their seven-page letter, Lowell and Eisen told Paramount’s leaders that, should they approve a Trump settlement to gain traction at the FCC, they would be violating their fiduciary duty to shareholders and potentially breaking federal anti-bribery statutes.

“We believe [a settlement] could violate laws prohibiting bribery of public officials, thereby causing severe and last damage to Paramount and its shareholders,” Lowell and Eisen wrote.

“To be as clear as possible, you control what happens next,” they said.

The admonition follows a similar warning from three U.S. senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) In a May 19 letter, the senators wrote that paying money to Trump to help win clearance for the Paramount sale could constitute a bribe.

“It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the three senators wrote in their letter.

In addition, two California Democrats have proposed a state Senate hearing to examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.

The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a yet-unscheduled joint committee hearing in Sacramento.

The California lawmakers, in their letter, said a Trump settlement could also violate California’s Unfair Competition Law because it could disrupt the playing field for news organizations.

Earlier this week, Paramount asked shareholders to increase the size of its board to seven members at the company’s annual investor meeting next month.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation was created in 2012 to protect and defend public interest journalism.

This spring, Lowell left his former major law firm, Winston & Strawn, where he had been a partner for years. He formed his own boutique firm, Lowell & Assoc., with a focus on “public interest representation in matters that defend the integrity of the legal system and protect individuals and institutions from government overreach,” according to its website.

Lowell’s firm also includes lawyer Brenna Frey, who made a high-profile exit from another prominent law firm, Skadden Arps, after it cut a deal with Trump to avoid becoming a target. That law firm agreed to provide $100 million in free legal services.

Last month, Frey appeared on CBS’ “60 Minutes” to air her decision to resign from Skadden Arps.

“I was able to tell my story on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ because of the independence of a courageous news division, which is what’s at risk now,” Frey said in a statement.

Of course, Trump’s Secretary of Defense wants the name of Harvey Milk, the murdered gay rights pioneer, stripped from a ship.

Never mind that Milk served in the Korean War as a diving instructor, eventually discharged because of his sexual orientation. Or that he had exhibited courage in facing down haters as the nation’s first publicly out elected official. After all, when Pete Hegseth’s not sending confidential war plans via Signal to people who shouldn’t be privy to them, he’s busy bloviating about the “warrior ethos.”

Hegseth is a military veteran, a National Guardsman who did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he’s also someone who has made a career out of telling Americans he, above everyone else, knows what our veterans need and what our armed forces need to defend the U.S. in an increasingly volatile world. So Hegseth may know something about warriors and fighting. So did Milk.

But Hegseth is too busy playing Rambo to recognize it. Instead, he’s weaponizing bigotry to remake the U.S. military as a scorched-earth, hetero-Christian outfit ready to stamp out liberal heretics here and abroad. That’s not befitting anyone who calls themselves a warrior, no matter how many pseudo-patriotic tattoos and American flag items of clothing Hegseth loves to sport.

A true warrior follows a code of honor that allows respect to those they disagree with and sometimes even combat. For Hegseth to specifically ask that the USNS Harvey Milk have its name changed during Pride Month — the same month that he’s requiring all trans service people to out themselves and voluntarily leave their positions or be discharged against their will — does not represent the “reestablishing [of] the warrior culture” that the Navy is citing as the reason for the moves.

Instead, it reveals Hegseth’s Achilles heel, one he shares with Trump: a fundamental insecurity about their place in a country that diversified long ago.

CBS News is also reporting the Navy is recommending the renaming of ships named after civil rights icons Medgar Evers, Cesar Chavez, Sojourner Truth and Lucy Stone along with ships that haven’t yet been built but are scheduled to bear the names of Dolores Huerta, Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harriet Tubman.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell gave my colleague Kevin Rector the same malarkey he’s giving the rest of the media when asked for comment about this matter: That Hegseth is “committed” to making sure all named military assets “are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos.”

Marine Col. Alison Thompson, left, talks with Jenn Onofrio, center, a White House Fellow to the secretary of the Navy and Patrik Gallineaux, right, of the Richmond/Ermet Aid Foundation prior to the launching of the USNS Harvey Milk, a fleet replenishment oiler ship named after the first openly gay elected official in 2021 in San Diego.

(Alex Gallardo / Associated Press)

I can understand the argument can be made that naval ships should be named only after those who served, which would eliminate people like Huerta, Ginsburg and Truth. But there was a beauty in the idea of having the names of civil rights heroes adorn ships in the so-called John Lewis class, oilers named after the late congressman. It was a reminder that wars don’t just happen on the front lines but also on the home front. That those who serve to defend our democracy don’t just do it through the military. That winning doesn’t just happen with bullets and bombs.

That sometimes, the biggest threat to our nation hasn’t been the enemy abroad, but the enemy within. It’s not just my wokoso opinion, either — the oath that all Navy newcomers and newly minted officers must take have them swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

You might not associate Huerta, Truth, and Marshall with the military — indeed, I was surprised the Navy had honored them, period. But I and millions of Americans do remember them for fierceness in their respective battlegrounds, a steeliness any sailor should aspire to. For anyone in Hegseth’s world to even think about erasing their name is a disgrace to the Stars and Stripes — but what else should we expect from a department whose boss evaded military service by claiming to have debilitating bone spurs?

The striking of Milk’s name from an oiler, and proposed renaming of dry cargo ships named for Evers and Chavez, is particularly vile.

Milk joined the Navy in the footsteps of his parents. He was so proud of his military background that he was wearing a belt buckle with his Navy diver’s insignia the night he was assassinated. Evers was inspired to fight Jim Crow after serving in a segregated Army unit during World War II. Chavez, meanwhile, was stationed in the western Pacific shortly after the Good War during his two-year Navy stint.

I called up Andres Chavez, executive director of the National Chavez Center and grandson of Cesar, to hear how he was feeling about this mess. Andres was there in 2012 when the USNS Cesar Chavez was launched in San Diego, christened with a champagne bottle by Helen Chavez, Cesar’s widow and Andres’ grandmother. He said “it was probably the second-most memorable commemoration I’ve seen of my Tata after Obama” dedicated the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument in the Central Valley that year.

The USNS Cesar Chavez was the last of the Navy’s Lewis and Clark class of boats, all named after pioneers and explorers. Andres said his family was initially “hesitant” to have a naval ship named in honor of their patriarch “because so much of Cesar’s identity is wrapped up in nonviolence” but accepted when they found out the push came from shipyard workers from San Diego’s Barrio Logan.

“And there’s been so many Latinos who have served in the military in this country, so we accepted on behalf of them as well,” he said.

The Chavez family found out about the possibility of the USNS Cesar Chavez losing its name from reporters.

“We’re just gonna wait and see what’s next, but we’re not surprised by this administration anymore,” Andres said. “It’s just not an affront to Cesar; it’s an affront to all the Latino veterans of this country.”

He pushed back on Hegseth’s definition of what a warrior is by bringing up the work of his grandfather and Milk. The two supported each other’s causes in the 1970s and met “numerous” times, according to Andres.

“They served by creating more opportunities for other people and fighting for their respect,” he concluded. “That’s the definition of a warrior.”

When Michele Kaemmerer showed up at firehouses in the 1990s, she sometimes encountered firefighters who didn’t want to work with her and would ask to go home sick.

Los Angeles fire officials supported Kaemmerer, the city’s first transgender fire captain, by denying the requests.

If the slights hurt her, she didn’t let it show.

“She really let things roll off her back pretty well. Some of the stuff was really hurtful, but she always had a good attitude,” said Janis Walworth, Kaemmerer’s widow. “She never took that out on anybody else. She was never bitter or angry.”

Kaemmerer, an early leader for transgender and women’s rights at a department not known for its warm welcome to women and minorities, died May 21 at age 80 of heart disease at her home in Bellingham, Wash. She is survived by Walworth and two children.

Michele Kaemmerer wears a shirt to show pride in her trans and lesbian identity in an undated photo.

(Courtesy of Janis Walworth)

A Buddhist, a Democrat, a feminist and a lesbian transgender woman, Kaemmerer busted stereotypes of what a firefighter was. She joined the LAFD in 1969 — long before she transitioned in 1991 — and became a captain 10 years later.

“Being in a fire, inside of a building on fire, at a brush fire … it’s adrenaline-producing and it’s great,” Kaemmerer said in a 1999 episode of the PBS show “In The Life,” which documented issues facing the LGBTQ+ community. The episode featured Kaemmerer when she was captain of Engine 63 in Marina del Rey.

“The men and women here feel very stressed out having a gay and lesbian captain,” Savitri Carlson, a paramedic at the firehouse, said in the episode. “You have to realize, this is not just a job. We live, sleep, shower, eat together, change together.”

But Kaemmerer brushed off the snubs.

“They’re forced to live with a lesbian, yes,” she said, laughing as she prepared a meal at the firehouse. “And it doesn’t rub off.”

Those close to her said that Kaemmerer, who retired in 2003, was able to deal with the scrutiny and snide remarks because she was an optimist who saw the best in people.

“She really didn’t dwell on that stuff,” said Brenda Berkman, one of the first women in the New York City Fire Department, who met Kaemmerer in the 1990s through their work for Women in the Fire Service, now known as Women in Fire, which supports female firefighters across the world.

The suspicion sometimes came from other women. When Kaemmerer joined Women in the Fire Service, some members didn’t want her to go with them on a days-long bike trip.

Some argued that Kaemmerer was “not a real woman,” wondering what bathroom she would use and where she would sleep.

“She made clear she would have her own tent,” Berkman recalled. “I said to my group, ‘We can’t be discriminating against Michele — not after all we’ve fought for to be recognized and treated equally in the fire service. She has to be allowed to come.’”

Kaemmerer joined the trip.

Michele Kaemmerer fights a brush fire in an undated photo.

(Courtesy of Janis Walworth)

Born in 1945, Kaemmerer knew from an early age that she identified as a woman but hid it out of fear of being beaten or shamed. She cross-dressed secretly and followed a traditional life path, marrying her high school sweetheart (whom she later divorced), joining the Navy and having two children.

“I was very proud of her [when she came out],” said Kaemmerer’s daughter, who asked not to be identified for privacy reasons. “It takes incredible courage to do what she did, especially in a particularly macho, male-driven career.”

When she came out as transgender, Kaemmerer was captain of a small team at the LAFD, with three men working under her.

“It was very difficult for them,” she said in the PBS interview.

Kaemmerer focused on her work. During the 1992 L.A. riots, her fire truck was shot at as she responded to fires, Berkman said.

In the PBS interview, Kaemmerer said that some firefighters who knew her before she transitioned still refused to work with her.

Some women who shared a locker room with her worried that she might make a sexual advance. Most firefighters sleep in the same room, but Kaemmerer sometimes didn’t, so others would feel comfortable.

“Sometimes I will get my bedding and I will put it on the floor in the workout room or the weight room and sleep in there,” she said in the PBS interview.

As she was talking to PBS about her experience as a transgender woman in the fire department, the bell sounded.

“That’s an alarm coming in,” she said, standing up and walking out of the interview.

The former chairman of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission is under investigation for alleged retaliation against a Sheriff’s Department sergeant who faced scrutiny for his role in a unit accused of pursuing politically motivated cases.

Sean Kennedy, a Loyola Law School professor who resigned from the commission this year, received notification from a law firm that said it had “been engaged by the Office of the County Counsel to conduct a neutral investigation into an allegation that you retaliated against Sergeant Max Fernandez,” according to an email reviewed by The Times.

Kennedy and other members of the commission questioned Fernandez last year about his connections to the Sheriff’s Department’s now-disbanded Civil Rights and Public Integrity Detail, a controversial unit that operated under then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva.

Kennedy said the commission’s inquiry into Fernandez appears to be what landed him in the crosshairs of the investigation he now faces. Kennedy denied any wrongdoing in a text message Thursday.

“I was just doing my job as an oversight official tasked by the commission to conduct the questioning at an official public hearing,” he wrote.

Last week, Kennedy received an email from Matthias H. Wagener, co-partner of Wagener Law, stating that the county had launched an investigation.

“The main allegation is that you attempted to discredit Sergeant Fernandez in various ways because of his role in investigating Commissioner Patti Giggans during his tenure on the former Civil Rights & Public Corruption Detail Unit,” Wagener wrote. “It has been alleged that you retaliated for personal reasons relating to your relationship with Commissioner Giggans, as her friend and her attorney.”

The Office of the County Counsel confirmed in an emailed statement that “a confidential workplace investigation into recent allegations of retaliation” is underway, but declined to identify whom it is investigating or who alleged retaliation, citing a need to “ensure the integrity of the investigation and to protect the privacy of” the parties.

“In accordance with its anti-retaliation policies and procedures, LA County investigates complaints made by employees who allege they have been subjected to retaliation for engaging in protected activities in the workplace,” the statement said.

The Sheriff’s Department said in an email that it “has no investigation into Mr. Kennedy.”

Reached by phone Thursday, Fernandez said that he doesn’t “know anything about” the investigation and that he has not “talked to anybody at county counsel.”

“This is the first I’m hearing about it,” he said. “Who started this investigation? They haven’t contacted me. I don’t know how that got into their hands.”

In a phone interview, Kennedy described the inquiry as “extraordinary.”

“I think that this is just the latest in a long line of Sheriff’s Department employees doing really anything they can to thwart meaningful oversight,” Kennedy said. “So now we’re at the point where they’re filing bogus retaliation complaints against commissioners for doing their jobs.”

Kennedy resigned from the Civilian Oversight Commission in February after county lawyers attempted to thwart the body from filing an amicus brief in the criminal case against Diana Teran, who served as an advisor to then-L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón.

The public corruption unit led several high-profile investigations during Villanueva’s term as sheriff, including inquiries into Giggans, the Civilian Oversight Commission, then-L.A. County Supervisor Shelia Kuehl and former Times reporter Maya Lau.

One of the unit’s investigations involved a whistleblower who alleged that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority unfairly awarded more than $800,000 worth of contracts to a nonprofit run by Giggans, a friend of Kuehl’s and vocal critic of Villanueva. The investigation made headlines when sheriff’s deputies with guns and battering rams raided Kuehl’s Santa Monica home one early morning in 2022.

The investigation ended without any criminal charges last summer, when the California Department of Justice concluded that there was a “lack of evidence of wrongdoing.”

Asked Thursday about the claim that Kennedy — who served as a lawyer for her while she was being investigated by the public corruption unit — interrogated Fernandez as a form of retaliation, Giggans called it “bogus” and said Fernandez “was subpoenaed because of his actions as a rogue sheriff’s deputy.”

Lau filed a lawsuit last month alleging the criminal investigation into her activities as a journalist violated her 1st Amendment rights. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta ultimately declined to prosecute the case against Lau.

Critics have repeatedly alleged that Villanueva used the unit to target his political enemies, a charge the former sheriff has disputed.

In October, Kennedy and other members of the Civilian Oversight Commission spent five hours interrogating Fernandez and former homicide Det. Mark Lillienfeld about the public corruption unit, of which they were members.

Kennedy questioned Fernandez’s credibility during the exchange, asking about People vs. Aquino, a ruling by an appellate court in the mid-2000s that found he had provided false testimony during a criminal trial that was “deliberate and no slip of the tongue.”

Fernandez argued that he had “never lied on the stand,” adding that “that’s ridiculous, I’m an anti-corruption cop.”

Fernandez also fielded questions about whether he was a member of a deputy gang. Critics have accused deputy cliques of engaging in brawls and other misconduct.

Fernandez said he was not in a deputy gang or problematic subgroup. But he acknowledged that he drew a picture of a warrior in the early 2000s that he got tattooed on his body.

A lieutenant tattooed with that image previously testified that it is associated with the Gladiators deputy subgroup, of which Fernandez has denied being a member.

Kennedy also asked Fernandez about a 2003 incident in which he shot and killed a 27-year-old man in Compton. Fernandez alleged the man pointed a gun at him, but sheriff’s investigators later found he was unarmed.

In a 2021 memo to oversight officials, Kennedy called for a state or federal investigation into the Civil Rights and Public Integrity Detail and its “pattern of targeting” critics of the Sheriff’s Department.

Then-Undersheriff Tim Murakami responded in a letter, writing that the memo contained “wild accusations.”

On May 30, Wagener questioned Kennedy about “why I examined Max Fernandez about his fatal shooting of a community member, his Gladiators tattoo, his perjury in People v. Aquino, and why he put references to people’s sexual orientation in a search warrant application,” Kennedy wrote in a text message Thursday. “I told him I was just asking questions that relate to oversight.”

Robert Bonner, chair of the Civilian Oversight Commission, provided an emailed statement that called the investigation into Kennedy “extremely troubling and terribly ironic.”

“The allegation itself is rich,” Bonner wrote. “But that [it is being] given any credence by County Counsel can only serve to intimidate other Commissioners from asking hard questions.”

SAN ANSELMO, Calif. — It’s hard to miss Brian Colbert. It’s not just his burly 6-foot-4 frame, his clean-shaven head or the boldly patterned, brightly colored Hawaiian shirts he’s adopted as an unofficial uniform.

Colbert is one of just a small number of Black people who live in wealthy, woodsy and very white Marin County — and the first Black supervisor elected since the county’s founding more than 175 years ago.

He didn’t lean into race, or history, as he campaigned in the fall. He didn’t have to. “As a large Black man,” he said, his physicality and the barrier-breaking nature of his candidacy were self-evident.

Rather, Colbert won after knocking, by his count, on 20,000 doors, wearing out several pairs of size 15 shoes and putting parochial concerns, such as wildfire prevention, disaster preparedness and flood control, at the center of his campaign. He continues, during these early months in office, to focus on a garden variety of municipal issues: housing, traffic, making local government more accessible and responsive.

That’s not to say, however, that Colbert doesn’t have deeply felt thoughts on the precedent his election set, or the significance of the lived experience he brings to office — different from most in this privileged slice of the San Francisco Bay Area — at a time President Trump is turning his back on civil rights and his administration treats diversity, equity and inclusion as though they were four-letter words.

“I think of the challenges, the indignities that my grandparents suffered on a daily basis” living under Jim Crow, Colbert said over lunch recently in his hometown of San Anselmo. He carefully chose his words, at one point resting an index finger on his temple to signal a pause as he gathered his thoughts.

Colbert recalled visits to Savannah, Ga., where he attended Baptist church services with his mother’s parents.

“I remember looking at the faces,” Colbert said, “and to me they were the faces of African Americans waiting for death, because they were aware and knew of the opportunities that had been denied to them simply because of the color of their skin. But what gave them hope was the belief their kids and grandkids would have a better life. I am a product of that hope, in so many ways.”

Colbert, 57, grew up in Bethel, Conn., about 60 miles northeast of New York City. Residents tried to prevent his parents — an accountant and a stay-at-home mom — from moving into the overwhelmingly white community. Neighbors circulated a petition urging the owners to not sell their home to the Black couple. They did so anyway.

Colbert went on to earn degrees in political science and acting, public policy and law. He traveled the world with his wife, a Syrian American, practiced law on Wall Street, ran a chocolate company and a small tech firm. He lived for 3½ years in Turkey, where he taught international law and political science at a private university.

In 2007, when the couple returned to the U.S., they set their sights on the Bay Area, drawn by the weather, the natural beauty and the entrepreneurial spirit that drew countless opportunity seekers before them. (Colbert started wearing Hawaiian shirts on the Silicon Valley conference circuit, after being mistaken one too many times for a security guard.)

In 2013, Colbert, his wife and their daughter settled in San Anselmo, a charmy tree-lined community about 15 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The relatively short commute to San Francisco, where he manages a medical concierge service, the quality schools and the vast open space were big attractions — though Colbert knew he and his family would stand out, just as he had in Bethel.

San Anselmo, with its rugged hillsides and red-brick downtown, has about 13,000 residents. The Black population is less than 2%. But Colbert’s extensive travels and life overseas convinced him that people “on a certain level [are] the same” everywhere — “warm, welcoming, kind, generous, helpful.”

He had an abiding interest in policy and public service, so in 2013 Colbert joined the city’s Economic Development Council. Four years later, he was elected to the Town Council. He served seven years, one in the rotating position of mayor, before running for the nonpartisan Board of Supervisors.

Inevitably, he encountered racism along the way. There were threatening phone calls and emails. He got the occasional side-eye as he canvassed door-to-door in all-white neighborhoods. For the most part, however, “people were incredibly pleasant” and campaigning “was no more challenging … than it would be [for] any candidate.”

On a recent sunny afternoon, Colbert was greeted heartily — “Hey, Brian!” “Hey, supervisor!” — as he strode past Town Hall to Imagination Park, a gift the city’s most famous resident, filmmaker George Lucas, bequeathed along with life-sized statues of Yoda and Indiana Jones.

These are fraught times. The reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd has given way to a backlash and a president who disdains efforts at equality, complains of anti-white prejudice and purges powerful Black men and women in the name of a mythical colorblind society.

Given a chance to speak directly to Trump, what would Colbert — a Democrat — say?

“Mr. President, thank you for your service,” he began. “Being in public offices is hard and difficult.”

He paused. Several beats passed. A waiter cleared away dishes.

“I would encourage you to change your tone, certainly publicly, and broaden your perspective and embrace those who might have a different perspective than you,” Colbert went on. “Many people have come to this country and they’ve added value. They’ve made this country for the better.

“Remember those who don’t necessarily have easy access to power. Remember those who are struggling. Focus on those who are most vulnerable and are highly dependent on the government to help them through a short amount of time. I mean, the American experiment is incredible. Keep that in mind. A little empathy. Simple acts of kindness. Place yourself into someone else’s shoes.

“Thank you, Mr. President.”

SACRAMENTO — In a largely courteous gathering of half a dozen of California’s top gubernatorial candidates, four Democrats and two Republicans agreed that despite the state boasting one of the world’s largest economies, too many of its residents are suffering because of the affordability crisis in the state.

Their strategies on how to improve the state’s economy, however, largely embraced the divergent views of their respective political parties as they discussed housing costs, high-speed rail, tariffs, climate change and homelessness on Wednesday evening at the first bipartisan event in the 2026 race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Californians are innovators. They are builders, they are designers, they are creators, and that is the reason that we have the fourth largest economy in the world,” said former Rep. Katie Porter, a Democrat from Irvine. “But businesses and workers are being held back by the same thing. It is too expensive to do things here. It is too expensive to raise a family. It is too expensive to run a business.”

Conservative commentator Steve Hilton, a Republican, argued that state leaders need to end the “stranglehold” of unions, lawyers and climate change activists on California policy.

“I’ve been traveling this state. Everywhere I go, it’s the same story, this heartbreaking word that I get from every business I meet, every family is in such a struggle in California,” he said, with a raspy voice that he explained immediately upon taking the stage was caused by a sore throat.

At the forum were former Rep. Katie Porter, top row from left, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former legislative leader Toni Atkins; former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, bottom row from left, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and conservative commentator Steve Hilton.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

The candidates spoke to about 800 people at a California Chamber of Commerce dinner during the 80-minute panel at the convention center in Sacramento. The chamber’s decision on whom to invite to the forum was based on which ones were leaders in public opinion surveys and fundraising. Making the cut were former Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Hilton, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra was also invited to participate in the forum but had a scheduling conflict.

The sharpest exchange of the evening was between Kounalakis, a Democrat, and Bianco, a Republican.

After the candidates were asked about President Trump’s erratic tariff policies, Kounalakis cited her experience working for her father’s real estate company as she criticized Bianco for arguing for a wait-and-see approach toward the president’s undulating plans.

“You’re not a businessman, you’re a government employee,” she said to Bianco. “You’ve got a pension, you’re going to do just fine. Small businesses are suffering from this, and it’s only going to get worse, and it’s driven, by the way, it is driven by Donald Trump’s vindictiveness toward countries he doesn’t like, countries he wants to annex, or states he doesn’t like, people he doesn’t like. This is hurting California, hurting our people, and it’s only going to make things worse, until we can get him out of the White House.”

Bianco countered that Kounalakis and the other Democratic gubernatorial candidates are directly responsible for the economic woes facing Californians because they have an “unquenchable thirst” for money to fund their liberal agenda.

“I just feel like I’m in ‘The Twilight Zone.’ I have a billionaire telling me that my 32 years of public service is OK for my retirement,” he said. “It’s taxes and regulations that are driving every single thing in California up. We pay the highest taxes, we pay the highest gas, we pay the highest housing, we pay the highest energy.”

The Democrats onstage, though largely agreeing about policy, sought to differentiate themselves. The sharpest divide was about whether to raise the minimum wage. On Monday, labor advocates in Los Angeles proposed raising it in Los Angeles County.

Atkins reflected most of her fellow Democrats’ views, saying that while she wanted to see higher wages for workers, “now is not the time.” Villaraigosa said that while he believes in a higher minimum wage, “we can’t just keep raising the minimum wage.”

Kounalakis, though, said not increasing the minimum wage would be inhumane.

“I think we should be working for that number, yes, I do,” she said. “You want to throw poor people under the bus.”

California’s high cost of living is a pressing concern among the state’s voters, and the issue is expected to play a major role in the 2026 governor’s race.

Nearly half feel worse off now compared with last year, and more than half felt less hopeful about their economic well-being, according to a poll released in May by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times.

Nearly exactly a year before the gubernatorial primary next year, the event was the first time Democratic and Republican candidates have shared a stage. It was also the first time GOP candidates Bianco and Hilton have appeared together.

Although the state’s leftward electoral tilt makes it challenging for a Republican to win the race — Californians last elected GOP politicians to statewide office in 2006 — Bianco and Hilton are battling to win one of the top two spots in next year’s primary election.

The pair expressed similar views about broadly ending liberal policies, such as stopping the state’s high-speed rail project and reducing environmental restrictions such as the state’s climate-change efforts that they argue have increased costs while having no meaningful effect on the consumption of fossil fuels.

A crucial question is whether Trump, whom both Bianco and Hilton fully support, will eventually endorse one of the Republican candidates.

The gubernatorial candidates, some of whom have been running more than a year, have largely focused on fundraising since entering the race. But the contest to replace Newsom is growing more public and heated, as seen at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention. Several of the party’s candidates scurried around the Anaheim convention center, trying to curry favor with the state’s most liberal activists while also drawing contrasts with their rivals.

But the Democratic field is partially frozen as former Vice President Kamala Harris weighs entering the race, a decision she is expected to make by the end of the summer. Harris’ name did not come up during the forum.

There were a handful of light moments.

Porter expressed a common concern among the state’s residents when they talk about the cost of living in the state.

“What really keeps me up at night, why I’m running for governor, is whether my children are going to be able to afford to live here, whether they’re going to ever get off my couch and have their own home,” she said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that his first call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping since returning to office was “very positive,” announcing that the two countries will hold trade talks in hopes of breaking an impasse over tariffs and global supplies of rare earth minerals.

“Our respective teams will be meeting shortly at a location to be determined,” Trump wrote on his social media platform after the call, which he said lasted an hour and a half.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will represent the U.S. side in negotiations.

The Republican president, who returned to the White House for a second term in January, also said Xi “graciously” invited him and First Lady Melania Trump to China, and Trump reciprocated with his own invitation for Xi to visit the United States.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said Trump initiated the call between the leaders of the world’s two biggest economies.

The ministry said in a statement that Xi asked Trump to “remove the negative measures” that the U.S. has taken against China. It also said that Trump said “the U.S. loves to have Chinese students coming to study in America,” although his administration has vowed to revoke some of their visas.

Comparing the bilateral relationship to a ship, Xi told Trump that the two sides need to “take the helm and set the right course” and to “steer clear of the various disturbances and disruptions,” according to the ministry statement.

Trump had declared one day earlier that it was difficult to reach a deal with Xi.

“I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” Trump posted Wednesday on his social media site.

Craig Singleton, senior director of China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the phone call “simply paused escalation on trade” but “didn’t resolve core tensions” in the bilateral relations.

With the White House still weighing more punitive measures, the current calm could be upended as Beijing also is prepared to fight back the moment Washington escalates, Singleton said. “We’re likely one competitive action away from further confrontation,” he said.

In his note, Gabriel Wildau, managing director at the consultancy Teneo, wrote that the call “prevented derailment of trade talks but produced no clear breakthroughs on key issues.”

Trade negotiations between the United States and China stalled shortly after a May 12 agreement between the two countries to reduce their tariff rates while talks played out. Behind the gridlock has been the continued competition for an economic edge.

The U.S. accuses China of not exporting critical minerals, and the Chinese government objects to America restricting its sale of advanced chips and access to student visas for college and graduate students.

Trump has lowered his 145% tariffs on Chinese goods to 30% for 90 days to allow for talks. China also reduced its taxes on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%. The back and forth has caused sharp swings in global markets and threatens to hamper trade between the two countries.

Bessent had suggested that only a conversation between Trump and Xi could resolve these differences so that talks could restart in earnest. The underlying tension between the two countries may persist, though.

During the call, Xi said that the Chinese side is sincere about negotiating and “at the same time has its principles,” and that “the Chinese always honor and deliver what has been promised,” according to the Foreign Ministry.

Even if negotiations resume, Trump wants to lessen America’s reliance on Chinese factories and reindustrialize the U.S., whereas China wants the ability to continue its push into technologies such as electric vehicles and artificial intelligence that could be crucial to securing its economic future.

The United States ran a trade imbalance of $295 billion with China in 2024, according to the Census Bureau. Although the Chinese government’s focus on manufacturing has turned it into a major economic and geopolitical power, China has been muddling through a slowing economy after a real estate crisis and COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns weakened consumer spending.

Trump and Xi last spoke in January, three days before Inauguration Day. The pair discussed trade then, as well as Trump’s demands that China do more to prevent the synthetic opioid fentanyl from entering the United States.

Despite long expressing optimism about the prospects for a major deal, Trump became more pessimistic recently.

“The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” Trump posted last week. “So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!”

Weissert and Megerian write for the Associated Press.

Paramount Global’s efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento.

Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe.

Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.

“I haven’t seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,” state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. “We’re concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.”

Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount’s $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family’s fortunes.

Trump contends CBS edited the “60 Minutes” interview to enhance Harris’ appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount’s recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous.

“This is a really important case,” said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA’s School of Law. “Legislators are starting to raise alarms.”

But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount’s leaders paid a bribe.

Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room.

“We would have to have a lot more facts,” Cummings said. “Bribery requires a quid pro quo … and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.”

Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it’s unclear who would prosecute such a case.

No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the “60 Minutes” edits rose to the level of news distortion.

It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said.

Vice President Kamala Harris talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker.

(CBS News)

That hasn’t stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms.

U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company’s deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down.

“It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. “If Paramount officials make these concessions … to influence President Trump … they may be breaking the law.”

Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators’ questions by this week’s deadline, according to Warren’s office.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has suggested that Paramount executives could be liable for unlawfully paying a bribe if it settles President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS to secure approval of Paramount’s sale to Skydance Media.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment.

Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance’s proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal’s particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power.

Trump has demanded Paramount pay “a lot” of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC.

For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution.

Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology.

The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations.

Paramount’s leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources.

The two California state senators — Becker and Tom Umberg (D-Orange) — hope such fractures provide an opening.

Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento.

McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said.

Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence.

“You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,” Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.

California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times.

The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris’ response to a question during a “60 Minutes” interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show “Face the Nation” used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, “60 Minutes” aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul.

Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered “mental anguish” as a result of the interview.

CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine.

Since then, the FCC’s review of Paramount’s Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr’s approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family.

Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters.

Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction.

Trump and his team “essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,” Cummings said.

Paramount’s decision could open the company to shareholder complaints.

The reason Trump’s CBS “60 Minutes” lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is “because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,” said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates.

“This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,” Stern said.

Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump’s goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million.

“The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,” Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. “If Trump’s goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President’s best interests.”

UCLA’s Cummings sees another deleterious outcome.

A settlement could “legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there’s some sort of corruption within these media entities,” Cummings said. “He could point to a settlement and say: ‘I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.’ ”

“Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,” Cummings said.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer harassed and retaliated against a high-ranking female prosecutor in his office after she raised concerns about his conduct and tried to protect other prosecutors who were sexually harassed by another superior, according to a jury verdict Thursday.

The jury, which heard the case in San Diego County to avoid potential conflicts, found Spitzer acted with malice against Tracy Miller, who was at one point the highest-ranking woman in the prosecutor’s office.

The jury also found that the county did not take reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment, and took “adverse employment action” against Miller.

“Tracy Miller had the fortitude to resist the most powerful law enforcement person in the county, and she prevailed,” John Barnett, Miller’s attorney, said after the verdict was read. “It took a lot of courage, and the jury saw that she was right.”

The county declined to comment on the verdict.

The jury found the county, Spitzer and former Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson liable for $3 million in damages, including $1.5 million for past emotional distress.

Late Thursday, the jury also ruled Spitzer would be liable for an additional $25,000 in punitive damages.

In a statement to The Times, Spitzer said he accepted “full responsibility for any and all actions which occur in my administration, including my own actions and the actions of my former Chief Assistant District Attorney Shawn Nelson.”

Spitzer, in the statement, made no mention of the allegations of retaliation or harassment made by Miller in the lawsuit but said he had “set a very high standard which I expected all my employees to meet, and Ms. Miller was overseeing extremely important assignments.”

“It is no secret that there was a lot of frustration on my part with her lack of performance in handling these very serious matters,” Spitzer said in the statement after the jury returned with their verdict. “I respect the jury’s decision, and I am heartbroken over the fact that any of my actions could have been interpreted as anything other than a good faith effort to clean up the public corruption in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, and to create a work ethic that adheres to what Orange County residents demand of its District Attorney.”

Unlike criminal trials, civil trials in California do not require a unanimous verdict. In this civil case, juror decisions ranged from 12 to 0 to 9 to 3 for the various claims upheld against the defendants. The jury voted 10 to 2 to award punitive damages against Spitzer.

Miller accused Orange County, Spitzer and Nelson of retaliation and forcing Miller out after she objected to Spitzer’s actions while heading the office. Miller alleged she tried to protect female prosecutors from being retaliated against after they alleged they were sexually harassed by Gary LoGalbo, a former supervisor who was also friends with Spitzer.

Former and current prosecutors in the office described a “challenging” and “demanding” environment inside the prosecutors office, but some said they faced threats of being fired or demoted.

In her testimony, Miller said Spitzer and Nelson used “gender-based slurs,” disrespected her and undermined her authority in the office.

According to her suit, Miller alleged she had raised concerns that Spitzer had violated the Racial Justice Act by bringing up questions about race while determining whether to seek the death penalty against a Black defendant, and that Spitzer used race in case assignments.

Miller said in court that Spitzer, in retaliation, had threatened to fire her close friends in the office and dismantle programs she had spearheaded.

But much of the trial centered on what occurred shortly after several female prosecutors alleged they were sexually harassed by LoGalbo, a former police officer and the best man at Spitzer’s wedding.

When an internal county investigation confirmed the women were harassed, the report identified Miller and her testimony by describing her position and gender. Afterward, Miller testified, Spitzer targeted her and criticized her for writing notes during executive meetings.

“You could see anytime a subject came up, Tracy was taking notes about our meetings,” Spitzer testified. “There was a point of time where it was very curious to me, why do you seem to be memorializing everything we’re doing?”

Spitzer, who testified on multiple days during the trial, denied the accusations of harassment and retaliation. He acknowledged deep tensions within the office after he assumed the role in 2018 but attributed the opposition to employees who supported the previous district attorney, Tony Rackauckas.

“I knew it was going to be miserable, and it was miserable,” Spitzer said in testimony, at one point wiping away tears.

He said that was part of the reason he chose Nelson, now a county Superior Court judge, as chief assistant district attorney when he first took office.

“I picked him because I was going into battle, in the lions’ den,” Spitzer said.

But Miller testified Nelson’s actions also raised problems in the district attorney’s office after the allegations of sexual harassment were made. For example, prosecutors testified that during a sexual harassment training session for managers, Nelson stood up and said there were “no victims.”

On Thursday, one of the attorneys representing Miller urged jurors to seek punitive damages against Spitzer, arguing that the acts of retaliation and harassment against Miller were not isolated events.

“This wasn’t just a single incident,” he told jurors. “It wasn’t negligence. This was intentional. It was a long-term, long series of events.”

In his statement Thursday, Spitzer apologized while also criticizing Miller’s work performance during her time in the office.

“In hindsight, I realize that I was not as sensitive to the issues Ms. Miller was facing at the time as I should have been, and for that I am truly sorry,” the statement read.

Tracy Kennedy, an attorney representing the county, told jurors that there was no need to seek additional punitive damages against Spitzer, and that the $3 million sent a message to the district attorney about his behavior in office.

“He’s heard it, he understands,” she said. “He has been punished.”

The county still faces eight sexual harassment lawsuits involving allegations that were made against LoGalbo.

“It’s very important for the public to know what happened,” said Barnett, Miller’s attorney. “I was confident that our case was strong and we were right.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation’s anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight.

In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that “members of a majority group” must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win.

Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against “any individual” who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation.

The law “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience.

Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation.

But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to “background circumstances” or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims.

This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals.

But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide.

Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump’s drive to rid the government of DEI policies.

Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people.

In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, “we said that ‘[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.’”

A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, “holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.”

Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the “majority” in the workplace differs by workplace.

“Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.”

“Defining the ‘majority’ is even more difficult in the context of race,” he wrote. “American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.”

The court’s ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames’ claim of discrimination.

Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others.

“As a practical matter, more ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss,” said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York.

Although the decision doesn’t significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington.

The “background circumstances” rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that “it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.”

Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the “opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ approach was not typical, so I don’t expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground.”

Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and “pretty straightforward” perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups.

And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said.

There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn’t expect any issues.

“There is some potential for mischief, but I don’t think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts,” McGinnis said. “The short answer is, it should not change much.”

Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.

The California Department of Justice will investigate a fatal shooting by Los Angeles Police Department officers under a law that empowers the state attorney general to probe police shootings of unarmed people — despite the LAPD saying the man killed Tuesday was holding a gun.

At 10 p.m. Tuesday, officers responded to a reported shooting in an apartment building in the 1000 block of Ardmore Avenue in Koreatown, LAPD officials said in an unsigned statement.

As they entered the building, Ronald Gainer Jr. exited an apartment holding a handgun, officials said. The officers fired at Gainer, who retreated into the apartment.

The officers entered the unit and took Gainer into custody, according to the LAPD. Gainer, 35, died at a hospital, according to the L.A. County Medical Examiner’s office.

Officers found a handgun and discharged cartridge casings “at scene,” the LAPD said, along with a second gun and ammunition inside the apartment.

According to the police statement, Gainer was involved earlier that evening in a “domestic violence incident” with his girlfriend. After she fled, Gainer allegedly fired a gun into the air and toward a building, prompting the response by the officers who shot him, the LAPD said.

The LAPD’s Force Investigation Division was already probing the shooting — standard protocol for all uses of force by officers — when on Wednesday
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced his office was investigating as well.

In a press release, Bonta cited Assembly Bill 1506, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to investigate police shootings of unarmed people.

Alexandra Duquet, a spokeswoman for Bonta, said state prosecutors will investigate cases when it isn’t immediately clear whether the person killed had control of a weapon.

Assembly Bill 1506 defines “possession” of a weapon as being “under the civilian’s dominion and control at the time of the shooting.”

Agents from the Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement will conduct an investigation separate from the LAPD’s and present their findings to prosecutors in Bonta’s office, who will make a decision to bring criminal charges.

If no case is filed, state prosecutors must release a report detailing the evidence and the legal reasoning for why charges were not warranted.

California’s two most prominent Democrats remain mum on their future plans, but former Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Gavin Newsom both took time to tend to their political personas in Compton Thursday, attending separate events at local schools.

As hundreds of graduating seniors crossed the stage in their blue and white regalia early that morning at Compton High School, many paused to shake hands and take selfies with an honored guest on the dais: the former vice president herself, who’d made a surprise appearance after being invited by a graduating student.

Several hours later, Newsom read to young students at Compton’s Clinton Elementary School before standing with local leaders in front of a cheery, cartoon mural to launch a new state literacy plan. The issue is one of deep importance to the governor, whose own educational career was often defined by his dyslexia.

The adjacent appearances, which occurred a few miles apart, were “coincidental,” Newsom said. But they come at a moment when both the high-octane Democrats are in a political limbo of sorts.

The pair are viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates, but the California political world is also waiting on tenterhooks to see if Harris enters California’s 2026 race for governor – a move that would almost certainly preclude a 2028 presidential bid. Harris is expected to make a decision by summer, and her entrance would upend the already crowded race.

With just 19 months left in his second and final term, the lame duck governor is scrambling to cement his gubernatorial legacy while also positioning himself as a pragmatic leader capable of steering his national party out of the wilderness. Harris, meanwhile, must decide if she actually wants to govern a famously unwieldy state and, if she does, whether California voters feel the same.

Both Harris and Newsom were notably absent at the state party convention last weekend, as thousands of party delegates, activists, donors and labor leaders convened in Anaheim.

California Governor Gavin Newsom presents his Golden State Literacy Plan at Clinton Elementary School in Compton on Thursday.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Newsom was a famously loyal surrogate to then-President Biden. But in recent months with his “This Is Gavin Newsom” podcast and its long list of Democratic bête noire guests, the governor has worked to publicly differentiate his own brand from that of his bedraggled party, one controversial interview at a time.

Meanwhile, Newsom — who previously scoffed at the speculation and said he wasn’t considering a bid for the White House, despite his manifest ambitions — is more openly acknowledging that he could run for the country’s top job in the future.

“I might,” Newsom said in an interview last month. “I don’t know, but I have to have a burning why, and I have to have a compelling vision that distinguishes myself from anybody else. Without that, without both, and, I don’t deserve to even be in the conversation.”

Newsom demurred Thursday when asked whether he thought Harris would run for governor.

“Look, I got someone right behind me running for governor, so I’m going to be very careful here,” Newsom said to laughter, as California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — who announced his 2026 gubernatorial bid back in September 2023 — smiled behind him.

Harris attended the Compton High graduation at the invitation of Compton Unified School District Student Board Member MyShay Causey, a student athlete and graduating senior. She did not speak at the ceremony, though she received an honorary diploma.

Staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is slapping sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court over the tribunal’s investigation into alleged war crimes by Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza and in the West Bank.

The State Department said Thursday that it would freeze any assets that the ICC judges, who come from Benin, Peru, Slovenia and Uganda, have in U.S. jurisdictions. The move is just the latest step that the administration has taken to punish the ICC and its officials for investigations undertaken against Israel and the United States.

“As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.

“The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” Rubio said. “This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.”

In February, The Hague-based court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, was placed on Washington’s list of “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons,” barring him from doing business with Americans and placing restrictions on his entry into the U.S. Khan stepped aside last month pending an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct.

Within minutes of the administration’s announcement, the court condemned its actions. “These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution,” ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah said in a statement.

The new sanctions target ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou, who is from the West African country of Benin and was part of the pretrial chamber of judges who issued the arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year. She also served on the bench that originally greenlighted the investigation into alleged Israeli crimes in the Palestinian territories in 2021.

The 69-year-old was also part of the panel of judges who issued the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023. Last year, a court in Moscow issued a warrant for her arrest.

From Slovenia, Beti Hohler was elected as a judge in 2023. She previously worked in the prosecutor’s office at the court, leading Israel to object to her participation in the proceedings involving Israeli officials. Hohler said in a statement last year that she had never worked on the Palestinian territories investigation during her eight years as a prosecutor.

Bouth Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, from Peru, and Solomy Balungi Bossa, from Uganda, are appeals judges at the ICC. Each woman has worked on cases involving Israel.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a member of and neither recognizes the legitimacy of the court, which has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes over his military response in Gaza after the Hamas attack against Israel in October 2023. Israel strongly denies the allegations.

Lee and Quell write for the Associated Press. Quell reported from The Hague.

A man described by law enforcement as one of Southern California’s most prominent street racing influencers has been charged by Los Angeles County prosecutors with 16 counts of conspiracy for organizing a number of so-called “street takeovers.”

Erick Romero Quintana, 22, pleaded not guilty during a brief court appearance Thursday in downtown L.A. He faces at least a decade in prison after authorities charged him with running the Instagram account @privatemeetz, which blasted out the locations of 16 different takeover events across South L.A. to its more than 60,000 followers from December 2022 to November 2023, according to a criminal complaint filed last month.

At one of those events, a 24-year-old girl died after a spinning car careened into the crowd.

Street racing events have long proved to be a deadly part of Southern California’s broader car culture. A Times investigation found that at least 179 people were killed in street racing related incidents between 2000 and 2017. While people often think of street races as the quarter-mile one-on-one speed contests highlighted by the early installments in the “Fast & The Furious” film franchise, so-called “sideshows” or “takeovers” can often prove dangerous too.

At takeover events, racers and spectators rush to an intersection and block traffic, while motorists perform stunts in a small space with little room between the asphalt they’re skidding across and the audience itself. Drivers often perform “burnouts” or “doughnuts,” trying to see how many times they can spin their car in a circle, or compete to see who can skid to a stop closest to a fixed object without crashing into it.

The charges filed against Quintana represent a novel approach to target people involved in the racing scene who aren’t drivers. Sgt. Arnold Castellanos, a member of the LAPD’s Street Racing Task Force, said the first-of-its-kind prosecution is a necessary step.

“Street takeovers have evolved into so much more than just cars doing donuts. Over time ‘car clubs’ have formed, these car clubs ‘compete’ against each other to see who has the better drivers and can ‘bully’ other drivers out of the pit,” Castellanos said. “This has escalated tensions and has resulted in the car clubs acting like gangs.”

Quintana is due back in court in July. Each conspiracy count carries a minimum prison sentence of 16 months.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said the charges against Quintana are the beginning of a broader effort to rein in street racers. Hochman noted that the takeovers can attract large and unruly crowds, which commit secondary crimes in the areas where they take place. He pointed to the large mob that smashed their way into a Compton bakery and robbed it after a takeover last year.

“People like Quintana are the ones bringing together the street racers and the spectators, they are as responsible and accountable for the crimes being committed as all the other participants in the conspiracy,” Hochman said.

Quintana’s attorney, Bart Kaspero, said he was “puzzled” by law enforcement’s approach to the case. While he didn’t dispute that Quintana was behind the account or that he posted locations of takeovers, he said his client didn’t attend the events or drive at any of them. He likened the prosecution to charging someone who handed out fliers to a party where a crime was committed.

“To target the guy who just announced where the meetings are, is a bit of overkill,” he said.

Kaspero described his client as a mere “car enthusiast” and rejected police and prosecutors’ depictions of street takeovers as havens of criminality, or the idea that his client should have known something bad would happen at the events he allegedly organized.

“I think it’s safe to say most people that are there are there for a spectacle,” Kaspero said.

Hochman said it would be impossible for Quintana to argue he didn’t know something dangerous might happen at a takeover event, considering he allegedly organized 15 additional takeovers after a woman died the Christmas Day event he posted locations for in Hyde Park.

Castellanos said Quintana’s account would post Instagram stories with “symbols or abbreviations which coincided with intersections allowing for all to respond in a flash mob fashion and overwhelm the location.” He said people like Quintana exploit the “carnage” that happens at takeover events to gain online clout, hoping they will gain enough of a following to monetize their accounts.

Castellanos said people who attend takeovers have a “Grand Theft Auto” mentality — invoking the popular video game franchise where players can turn pixelated versions of Los Angeles, Miami and New York into violent lawless playgrounds — “where individuals believe they are untouchable and do not fear law enforcement or the criminal justice system.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia “fight for a while” before pulling them apart and pursuing peace.

In an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump likened the war in Ukraine — which Russia invaded in early 2022 — to a fight between two young children who hated each other.

“Sometimes you’re better off letting them a fight for a while and then pulling them apart,” Trump said. He added that he had relayed that analogy to Russian President Vladimir Putin in their phone conversation on Wednesday.

Asked about Trump’s comments as the two leaders sat next to each other, Merz stressed that both he and Trump agreed “on this war and how terrible this war is going on,” pointing to the U.S. president as the “key person in the world” who would be able to stop the bloodshed.

But Merz also emphasized that Germany “was on the side of Ukraine” and that Kyiv was only attacking military targets, not Russian civilians.

“We are trying to get them stronger,” Merz said of Ukraine.

Thursday’s meeting marked the first time that the two leaders sat down in person. After exchanging pleasantries — Merz gave Trump a gold-framed birth certificate of the U.S. president’s grandfather Friedrich Trump, who emigrated from Germany — the two leaders were to discuss issues such as Ukraine, trade and NATO spending.

Trump and Merz have spoken several times by phone, either bilaterally or with other European leaders, since Merz took office on May 6. German officials say the two leaders have started to build a “decent” relationship, with Merz wanting to avoid the antagonism that defined Trump’s relationship with one of his predecessors, Angela Merkel, in the Republican president’s first term.

The 69-year-old Merz — who came to office with an extensive business background — is a conservative former rival of Merkel’s who took over her party after she retired from politics.

A White House official said topics that Trump is likely to raise with Merz include Germany’s defense spending, trade, Ukraine and what the official called “democratic backsliding,” saying the administration’s view is that shared values such as freedom of speech have deteriorated in Germany and the country should reverse course. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to preview the discussions.

But Merz told reporters Thursday morning that if Trump wanted to talk German domestic politics, he was ready to do that but he also stressed Germany holds back when it comes to American domestic politics.

Merz has thrown himself into diplomacy on Ukraine, traveling to Kyiv with fellow European leaders days after taking office and receiving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Berlin last week. He has thanked Trump for his support for an unconditional ceasefire while rejecting the idea of “dictated peace” or the “subjugation” of Ukraine and advocating for more sanctions against Russia.

In their first phone call since Merz became chancellor, Trump said he would support the efforts of Germany and other European countries to achieve peace, according to a readout from the German government. Merz also said last month that “it is of paramount importance that the political West not let itself be divided, so I will continue to make every effort to produce the greatest possible unity between the European and American partners.”

Under Merz’s immediate predecessor, Olaf Scholz, Germany became the second-biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Merz has vowed to keep up the support and last week pledged to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any range limits.

In his remarks on Thursday, Trump still left the threat of sanctions on the table. He said sanctions could be imposed for both Ukraine and Russia.

“When I see the moment where it’s not going to stop … we’ll be very, very tough,” Trump said.

At home, Merz’s government is intensifying a drive that Scholz started to bolster the German military after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In Trump’s first term, Berlin was a target of his ire for failing to meet the current NATO target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and Trump is now demanding at least 5% from allies.

The White House official said the upcoming NATO summit in the Netherlands later this month is a “good opportunity” for Germany to commit to meeting that 5% mark.

Scholz set up a 100-billion euro ($115 billion) special fund to modernize Germany’s armed forces — called the Bundeswehr — which had suffered from years of neglect. Germany has met the 2% target thanks to the fund, but it will be used up in 2027.

Merz has said that “the government will in the future provide all the financing the Bundeswehr needs to become the strongest conventional army in Europe.” He has endorsed a plan for all allies to aim to spend 3.5% of GDP on their defense budgets by 2032, plus an extra 1.5% on potentially defense-related things like infrastructure.

Another top priority for Merz is to get Germany’s economy, Europe’s biggest, moving again after it shrank the past two years. He wants to make it a “locomotive of growth,” but Trump’s tariff threats are a potential obstacle for a country whose exports have been a key strength. At present, the economy is forecast to stagnate in 2025.

Germany exported $160 billion worth of goods to the U.S. last year, according to the Census Bureau. That was about $85 billion more than what the U.S. sent to Germany, a trade deficit that Trump wants to erase.

“Germany is one of the very big investors in America,” Merz told reporters Thursday morning. “Only a few countries invest more than Germany in the USA. We are in third place in terms of foreign direct investment.”

The U.S. president has specifically gone after the German auto sector, which includes major brands such as Audi, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Porsche and Volkswagen. Americans bought $36 billion worth of cars, trucks and auto parts from Germany last year, while the Germans purchased $10.2 billion worth of vehicles and parts from the U.S.

Trump’s 25% tariff on autos and parts is specifically designed to increase the cost of German-made automobiles in hopes of causing them to move their factories to the U.S., even though many of the companies already have plants in the U.S. with Volkswagen in Tennessee, BMW in South Carolina and Mercedes-Benz in Alabama and South Carolina.

There’s only so much Merz can achieve on his view that tariffs “benefit no one and damage everyone” while in Washington, as trade negotiations are a matter for the European Union’s executive commission. Trump recently delayed a planned 50% tariff on goods coming from the European Union, which would have otherwise gone into effect this month.

One source of strain in recent months is a speech Vice President JD Vance gave in Munich shortly before Germany’s election in February, in which he lectured European leaders about the state of democracy on the continent and said there is no place for “firewalls.”

That term is frequently used to describe mainstream German parties’ refusal to work with the far-right Alternative for Germany, which finished second in the election and is now the biggest opposition party.

Merz criticized the comments. He told ARD television last month that it isn’t the place of a U.S. vice president “to say something like that to us in Germany; I wouldn’t do it in America, either.”

Kim, Grieshaber and Moulson write for the Associated Press. Moulson reported from Berlin. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.