POLITICS

The California Public Utilities Commission failed to abide by state law when it slashed financial incentives for residential rooftop solar panels in 2022, environmental groups argued before the California Supreme Court Wednesday.

The commission’s policy, which took effect in April 2023, cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending power they don’t need to the electric grid by as much as 80%.

In arguments before the court, the environmental groups said the decision has stymied efforts to get homeowners and businesses to install the climate-friendly panels.

The commission violated state law, the groups argued, by not considering all the benefits of the solar panels in its decision and by not ensuring that rooftop solar systems could continue to expand in disadvantaged communities.

More than two million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal set by a 2018 law of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.

On the other side of the courtroom battle were lawyers from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, arguing that the commission’s five members, all pointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, had followed the law in making their decision.

In briefs filed before Wednesday’s oral arguments, the government lawyers sided with those from the state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mica Moore, deputy solicitor general, said at the hearing in downtown Los Angles that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This was raising electric bills, she said, especially hurting low-income electric customers.

The credits for the energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid are valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commissioners have voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.

The environmental groups and other critics of the commission’s decision have argued that there is no “cost shift.” They say that the commission failed to consider in its calculations the many benefits of the rooftop solar panels, including how they lower the amount of transmission lines and other infrastructure the utilities need to build.

“The cost shift narrative is a red herring,” argued plaintiff’s attorney Malinda Dickenson, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group and the Protect Our Communities Foundation.

Moore countered by saying the commission doesn’t have to consider all the possible societal or private benefits of the rooftop panels.

For example, even though the rooftop panels could result in conserving land that was otherwise needed for industrial scale solar farms, the government lawyers argued in their brief, the commission was not obligated to consider that value in its calculation of the amount of costs the rooftop panels shift to other customers.

The government lawyers also said the commission had created other programs beyond the electric bill credits to help disadvantaged communities afford the solar systems.

The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.

During the oral arguments, the seven justices focused on a legal question of whether a state appeals court erred when it ruled in January 2024 against the environmental groups and said that the court must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.

“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court concluded in its opinion.

The environmental groups argue the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.

Moore told the seven justices that the appeals court had made the correct decision to defer to the commission.

Not all justices seemed to agree with that.

“But we’re pretty good about figuring out what the law says,” Associate Justice Carol Corrigan said to Moore during the proceeding. “Why should we defer on that to the commission?”

The justices will weigh the arguments made by both sides and issue a decision in the next 90 days.

The big utilities have for decades tried to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.

On another front, the state’s three big utilities are now lobbying in Sacramento to reduce credits for Californians who installed their panels before April 15, 2023. The commission’s decision in 2022 left the incentives in place for those panel owners for 20 years after their purchase.

Early this year, Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), a former Southern California Edison executive, introduced a bill that would have ended the program for all solar owners who installed their systems by April 2023 after 10 years. In face of opposition and protests by solar owners, Calderon amended the bill so it would end the program — where credits are valued at the retail electric rate — only for those selling their homes.

Calderon said the bill would save the state’s electric customers $2.5 billion over the next 18 years.

On Monday, Roderick Brewer, an Edison lobbyist, sent an email to Assemblymembers, urging them to vote for the bill known as AB 942. “Save Electricity Customers Billions, Promote Equity,” he urged in the email.

The Assembly voted 46 to 14 to approve the bill on Tuesday night, sending it to the state Senate for consideration.

The timing of the vote surprised opponents of the bill. They expected a vote late this week because of rules that allow more time for bills to be reviewed after they are amended. Calderon amended the bill late Monday.

Nick Miller, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, said Calderon had asked for a waiver of the rules so that it could be voted on Tuesday night.

Such waivers, Miller said, are “not uncommon.”

Henry Salvatori, an Italian immigrant who became a confidant and major contributor to the nation’s most powerful and successful Republicans, including three U.S. presidents, has died. He was 96.

Salvatori, remembered as a key figure in Ronald Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet” of advisors, died Sunday at St. John’s Medical Center in Santa Monica.

A champion of conservative causes for decades, Salvatori used proceeds from the sale of his highly profitable oil company, Western Geophysical Corp., to become an important contributor and influence in the presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald R. Ford.

The oil company Salvatori founded in 1933 now operates as Western Atlas, a division of Litton Industries. Despite his innovative seismic instrument that lent accuracy to prospecting for oil, Salvatori was more famous as a behind-the-scenes politician.

He became so well known as an eminence of the Republican conservative hierarchy that when Democrat Jesse Unruh launched his fall gubernatorial campaign against Reagan on Labor Day in 1970, he chose to do so in front of Salvatori’s Bel-Air home.

As Unruh told a host of reporters that Salvatori stood to get a $4,113 property tax break if a tax-shift bill proposed by the then-governor became law, Salvatori, fresh from his tennis court, yelled through the gate: “Oh, you ass, you.”

The next day, Reagan assailed Unruh for “harassing” Salvatori.

Salvatori was not one to accept such conduct quietly. He said later that he was pleased the tactic had apparently not done Unruh any political good, and he continued to complain that Unruh “had the gall to come into my driveway.”

Salvatori, unlike many other insider Republican advisors, seldom attempted to stay out of the limelight. He readily made himself accessible to reporters and others, and he never was apologetic or secretive about his views.

He was a conservative long associated with highly conservative candidates, buthe sometimes displayed a streak of independence. He once said that despite being an avid anti-Communist, he could accept a socialist government as long as it respected individual freedoms. And after directing then-Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty’s drive for reelection in 1969, he tried, in a speech at the maverick conservative Democrat’s inaugural, to hold out an olive branch to blacks who had been offended by the racial nature of Yorty’s campaign against challenger Tom Bradley.

A few years later, Salvatori temporarily broke with Reagan, supporting the more moderate incumbent, Ford, for the 1976 presidential nomination. Later, however, his ties with Reagan were restored and he was a supporter of Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

Salvatori was born in Rome on March 28, 1901. He came to the United States as a child and grew up in New Jersey, where his father was a wholesale grocer.

Educated at Pennsylvania and Columbia universities, he became an expert in the science of prospecting for oil by seismic methods. By the late 1950s, his company was the world’s largest offshore seismic contractor.

But it was as a political advisor, campaign director and big contributor that Salvatori became best known. San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto, in fact, once charged that Salvatori, not Reagan, was the real governor of California, through all the money he raised for Reagan and the influence he wielded.

Salvatori usually acted with a strong hand. As finance chairman of the Goldwater presidential campaign in 1964, he was accused in a book written later by the two men who handled the campaign’s public relations with almost strangling the effort by holding back on money for staff so that it could be saved for television advertising. Salvatori’s “most ineluctable fault,” said the book by Herbert M. Baus and William B. Ross, was that he “could not keep his hands off the nuts and bolts of the campaign.”

Characteristically, a year after the book appeared, when he was brought in as campaign director on an emergency basis to save Yorty from defeat by Bradley, the first step Salvatori took was to hire Ross as his chief assistant.

Salvatori and his late wife, Grace, gave a reported $90,000 to the Republican Party in 1968, and contributed $100,000 to Nixon’s reelection campaign in 1972.

Besides their political contributions, they gave major gifts to USC, Stanford University, Caltech, Pepperdine University, Claremont McKenna College, the University of Pennsylvania, Howard University and the Marlborough School in Los Angeles, among others. Schools are named after Salvatori at USC and Stanford. The Salvatoris also contributed greatly to hospitals, children’s clubs, civic groups and the arts.

Politically most active during the period in the 1960s and early ‘70s when anti-Vietnam War fervor and campus dissidence were at their height, Salvatori was unabashedly opposed to the protesters.

“These revolutionaries and critics of our society, lacking wisdom and understanding and beguiled by Communist-inspired ideology, focus on the unresolved problems of our nation and demand instant solutions,” he said at a Columbus Day observance at Los Angeles City Hall in 1970. “Deficient in perspective and realism and with little understanding of our inspiring history, they would destroy the highest civil order ever created by man–the United States of America.”

Salvatori always was proud of his role. “The Eastern press in particular always describes me by implication at least as if I’m secret, or sinister, perhaps, a mysterious guy in the background,” he once said. “This isn’t so.”

Instead, he was assertive, in private as well as public.

Probably the most famous example of Salvatori’s self-confidence and general assertiveness was his attempt, on Feb. 25, 1976, when he was 75, to personally fight off two young masked gunmen who invaded his home and carried off $450,000 in silverware and other loot.

At one point, he pulled a pistol on the pair but was quickly disarmed. He suffered a 2 1/2-inch cut on his right leg in a scuffle with the gunmen, who finally left him and his wife bound hand and foot in an upstairs bedroom. The injury later required an operation.

“There wouldn’t have been any violence if I didn’t react,” a calm and unruffled Salvatori told reporters a few hours later. He said the two burglars seemed surprised when he grabbed for his weapon in a night stand and quoted one of them as saying, “Can you imagine this guy pulling a gun on us?”

Police said Salvatori was lucky he was not shot. Much of what was stolen was later recovered, and the two burglars were convicted and sentenced to prison.

Survivors include a son, Henry Ford Salvatori; a daughter, Laurie Salvatori Champion, and a grandson. His wife of 54 years, Grace, died in 1990.

Funeral services will be private. Memorial donations may be made to St. John’s Hospital Foundation.

WASHINGTON — A Texas hospital that repeatedly sent a woman who was bleeding and in pain home without ending her nonviable, life-threatening pregnancy violated the law, according to a newly released federal investigation.

The government’s findings, which have not been previously reported, were a small victory for 36-year-old Kyleigh Thurman, who ultimately lost part of her reproductive system after being discharged without any help from her hometown emergency room for her dangerous ectopic pregnancy.

But a new policy the Trump administration announced on Tuesday has thrown into doubt the federal government’s oversight of hospitals that deny women emergency abortions, even when they are at risk for serious infection, organ loss or severe hemorrhaging.

Thurman had hoped the federal government’s investigation, which issued a report in April after concluding its inquiry last year, would send a clear message that ectopic pregnancies must be treated by hospitals in Texas, which has one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans.

“I didn’t want anyone else to have to go through this,” Thurman said in an interview with the Associated Press from her Texas home this week. “I put a lot of the responsibility on the state of Texas and policy makers and the legislators that set this chain of events off.”

Uncertainty regarding emergency abortion access

Women around the country have been denied emergency abortions for their life-threatening pregnancies after states swiftly enacted abortion restrictions in response to a 2022 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three appointees of President Trump.

The guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 was an effort to preserve access to emergency abortions for extreme cases in which women were experiencing medical emergencies. It directed hospitals — even ones in states with severe restrictions — to provide abortions in those emergency cases. If hospitals did not comply, they would be in violation of a federal law and risk losing some federal funds.

On Tuesday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law and inspecting hospitals, announced it would revoke the Biden-era guidance around emergency abortions.

The law, which requires doctors to provide stabilizing treatment, was one of the few ways that Thurman was able to hold the emergency room accountable after she didn’t receive any help from staff at Ascension Seton Williamson in Round Rock, Texas, in February 2023, a few months after Texas enacted its strict abortion ban.

An ectopic pregnancy left untreated

Emergency room staff observed that Thurman’s hormone levels had dropped, a pregnancy was not visible in her uterus and a structure was blocking her fallopian tube — all telltale signs of an ectopic pregnancy, when a fetus implants outside of the uterus and has no room to grow. If left untreated, ectopic pregnancies can rupture, causing organ damage, hemorrhage or even death.

Thurman, however, was sent home and given a pamphlet on miscarriage for her first pregnancy. She returned three days later, still bleeding, and was given an injected drug intended to end the pregnancy, but it was too late. Days later, she showed up again at the emergency room, bleeding out because the fertilized egg growing on Thurman’s fallopian tube ruptured it. She underwent an emergency surgery that removed part of her reproductive system.

CMS launched its investigation of how Ascension Seton Williamson handled Thurman’s case late last year, shortly after she filed a complaint. Investigators concluded the hospital failed to give her a proper medical screening exam, including an evaluation with an OB-GYN. The hospital violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients. Thurman was “at risk for deterioration of her health and wellbeing as a result of an untreated medical condition,” the investigation said in its report, which was publicly released last month.

Ascension, a vast hospital system that has facilities across multiple states, did not respond to questions about Thurman’s case, saying only that it “is committed to providing high-quality care to all who seek our services.”

Penalties for doctors, hospital staff

Doctors and legal experts have warned abortion restrictions like the one Texas enacted have discouraged emergency room staff from aborting dangerous and nonviable pregnancies, even when a woman’s life is imperiled. The stakes are especially high in Texas, where doctors face up to 99 years in prison if convicted of performing an illegal abortion. Lawmakers in the state are weighing a law that would remove criminal penalties for doctors who provide abortions in certain medical emergencies.

“We see patients with miscarriages being denied care, bleeding out in parking lots. We see patients with nonviable pregnancies being told to continue those to term,” said Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights that represented Thurman. “This is not, maybe, what some people thought abortion bans would look like, but this is the reality.”

The Biden administration routinely warned hospitals that they need to provide abortions when a woman’s health was in jeopardy, even suing Idaho over its state law that initially prohibited nearly all abortions, unless a woman’s life was on the line.

Questions remain about hospital investigations

But CMS’ announcement on Tuesday raises questions about whether such investigations will continue if hospitals do not provide abortions for women in medical emergencies.

The agency said it will still enforce the law, “including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.”

While states like Texas have clarified that ectopic pregnancies can legally be treated with abortions, the laws do not provide for every complication that might arise during a pregnancy. Several women in Texas have sued the state for its law, which has prevented women from terminating pregnancies in cases where their fetuses had deadly fetal anomalies or they went into labor too early for the fetus to survive.

Thurman worries pregnant patients with serious complications still won’t be able to get the help they may need in Texas emergency rooms.

“You cannot predict the ways a pregnancy can go,” Thurman said. “It can happen to anyone, still. There’s still so many ways in which pregnancies that aren’t ectopic can be deadly.”

Seitz writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Berkeley — The school bus ride was less than three miles from one side of Berkeley to the other, but from 1969 to 1973 it transported Carole Porter to an entirely different world.

Like her neighbor and friend Kamala Harris, Porter was one of thousands of black children bused into predominantly white neighborhoods to learn. It was part of Berkeley’s bold experiment in desegregation.

But even in a city that had become a worldwide symbol of 1960s counterculture revolt, systemic racial prejudice in education and housing remained deeply entrenched.

“That’s a really hard thing to reconcile,” said Porter, 55. “Berkeley was an oxymoron. It was a contradiction in many ways.”

Harris’ three years of busing from her family’s mainly black working-class neighborhood to a prosperous white enclave in the hills overlooking San Francisco Bay was at once universal and uniquely Berkeley.

As in many American cities, the discriminatory housing policy known as redlining kept blacks from moving into white neighborhoods in Berkeley and busing fueled some white flight to the suburbs.

But unlike other sizable cities, Berkeley undertook its busing program voluntarily and required both white and black families to travel into unfamiliar neighborhoods. Rapid demographic and political changes shielded the community from the most extreme pushback, including violence, that hobbled busing efforts nationwide.

More than 50 years after Berkeley launched its busing program, Harris, one of its most famous participants, thrust it back into the spotlight in last week’s Democratic presidential debate.

As California’s first black senator chastised her rival Joe Biden for his fight against forced busing in the ’70s, she leaned on her personal history in Berkeley, portraying herself as a beneficiary of the charged battle for educational equality.

“There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,” Harris said. “And that little girl was me.”

Thelette A. Bennett, 71, a retired vice principal of Berkeley High School, grew up in the same neighborhood as Harris.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Contrary to its enduring reputation as a progressive mecca, the Berkeley of Harris’ childhood was more politically muddled. The conservative John Birch Society operated two bookstores in the area. It wasn’t until the early 1960s that Democrats cracked a Republican stronghold on the city council. Black residents were restricted to living to the southern and western flats, while whites resided in the northern hills.

Thelette A. Bennett, 71, a retired vice principal of Berkeley High School, grew up in the same neighborhood as Harris.

Bennett’s father, a black World War II Navy veteran, was an airplane mechanic at a local naval air station in 1945, when redlining blocked him and his wife from buying a house in a white neighborhood. Even in the black neighborhood where they settled, she said, they needed to get a white real estate agent to buy a home and transfer it to them.

“There were only certain areas where they could buy a home,” Bennett said. “We lived where they allowed us to live.”

But a large influx of African Americans during and after World War II and whites affiliated with UC Berkeley were pulling the local politics to the left, paving the way for desegregation. Black leaders raised concerns about segregation in the city starting in the late 1950s.

In response, the school board studied the matter, concluding that all but three of the district’s 17 elementary schools and two of the three junior high schools were segregated. (Berkeley High, the city’s only high school, was integrated by default.) In 1964, the school board voted to desegregate its junior high schools.

Residents’ reactions were not as extreme as the segregation battles elsewhere in the country, such as the South, but “it wasn’t as far from that as you might assume,” said Natalie Orenstein, a reporter for local news site Berkeleyside. “There were definitely really angry parents and hours-long school meetings.”

Desegregation opponents launched recall campaigns of multiple school board members over the junior high busing program, but lost by a wide margin.

“When the recall failed, that vote was interpreted by the school board and liberals as a vote to go ahead,” said Charles Wollenberg, author of “Berkeley: A City in History.” “So in 1968, they also began integration of the elementary schools.”

This January 1970 photo provided by the Kamala Harris campaign shows her, left, with her sister, Maya, and mother, Shyamala, outside their apartment in Berkeley after her parents’ separation.

(Kamala Harris campaign via AP)

Harris began attending a white school in 1970 as a first-grader. Her mother would kiss her goodbye and then she would walk to the corner and get on the bus to Thousand Oaks Elementary School, Harris wrote in her 2019 memoir. “I only learned later that we were part of a national experiment in desegregation.… At the time, all I knew was that the big yellow bus was the way I got to school.”

Leading the charge was Neil Sullivan, the Berkeley schools superindendent previously tasked with integrating Prince Edward County, Va., which had closed its public schools to defy desegregation orders.

School busing and race tore L.A. apart in the 1970s. Now, Kamala Harris is reviving debate »

“School integration can change attitudes — that is the key factor,” Sullivan wrote in a 1969 book about his Berkeley tenure. “It is our hope that in the integrated school we shall not raise another generation of bigots.”

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in a foreword to Sullivan’s book, said that he had felt discouraged about the progress of school integration nationwide. But upon hearing the Berkeley superintendent’s desegregation plan, “hope returned to my soul and spirit.”

Berkeley was distinct for choosing to integrate on its own, not under duress from the court, and made the busing requirements apply equally to black and white children.

Covering Kamala Harris

“They weren’t just requiring black children to go to school in white neighborhoods,” said Erica Frankenberg, an education and demography professor at Penn State University who researched the Berkeley programs. “They were also saying we need to be equitable in sharing the burden of going further away…. That was extremely rare.”

Some white families embraced the experiment. Sophie Hahn, currently a Berkeley City Council member, said her family moved from neighboring Kensington into the hills of northern Berkeley so she could participate in busing.

From fourth to sixth grade, she rode the bus to Columbus Elementary School (later renamed after civil rights icon Rosa Parks), where most of the students and teachers were black. Hahn learned African history and some Swahili, and the kids sang “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” a civil rights ballad often called the Black National Anthem.

“People were giddy,” said Hahn, 57. “I was brought up thinking that what we were doing in Berkeley was going to change the world.”

But others fled to avoid busing. The district saw a decline in enrollment in the 15 years after integration, from 16,000 students to 9,000, partly fueled by white flight, according to Berkeleyside.

Harris has fondly recounted her early school days.

“Because the students came from all over the area, we were a varied bunch; some grew up in public housing and others were the children of professors,” she wrote in her memoir. “I remember celebrating varied cultural holidays at school and learning to count to ten in several languages.”

Carole Porter similarly spoke warmly of the experience, recalling Swedish, Jewish and Latina friends she made at Thousand Oaks Elementary School — which is now emblazoned with a mural featuring its famous alumna, Harris.

“I think it made me who I am today,” she said.

Her younger sister, Lois Porter, however, said being bused to Thousand Oaks in 1970 for kindergarten was difficult.

“We were treated horribly,” by the white teachers, and the white students “wouldn’t play with us,” she said.

“I just remember it being very tense,” she said. “I didn’t trust white people for a long time.”

The tumult in Berkeley over busing paled in comparison to other American cities. In 1974, court-ordered busing led to violent clashes in Boston. Five years later, Los Angeles voters recalled the school board president who pledged to follow court orders for mandatory busing.

Nearly 90% of the American public opposed busing, according to a Gallup poll in the early 1970s. In Berkeley, just over half of parents opposed busing before it went into effect, and only 30% opposed it once the program was put in place.

Sen. Kamala Harris and former Vice President Joe Biden, left, speak as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) looks on during the second night of the first Democratic presidential debate on June 27 in Miami.

(Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

Today, Berkeley operates under a newer desegregation plan that is based on socioeconomic and demographic data instead of a student’s race. The original desegregation policy remains a source of civic pride.

“The legacy is that every single kid in Berkeley from grades K-5 has baseline the same resources at their schools, the same quality of teachers school to school,” said Orenstein, the Berkeleyside reporter. “But I think it’s a complicated and unfinished legacy given the persistent achievement gap and equity issues that public school districts everywhere are faced with.”

For the black students of those first integrated classes, the socializing and networking with white children was just as crucial as the classroom learning, said Carole Porter. She believes it formed a springboard for Harris’ presidential ambitions.

“She would not be where she is today if she had not had that opportunity,” she said.

Neighbor Jane Yamashiro takes a selfie in front of a mural depicting presidential candidate Kamala Harris on a wall at Thousand Oaks Elementary School in Berkeley on June 29.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Times staff writers Michael Finnegan reported from Berkeley, Seema Mehta and Melanie Mason from Los Angeles.

WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) apologized on Thursday for his impassioned comments about two Supreme Court justices, saying he “should not have used the words.”

Schumer derided Trump-appointed Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh on Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard arguments on a Louisiana law restricting abortion rights, saying they “will pay the price” if they side with the court’s conservatives on this case. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” he added.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer said his words “didn’t come out the way I intended to.”

“My point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose,” he said. He added: “I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language.”

A clip of Schumer’s speech circulated on social media and was condemned by conservatives, including President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who on Thursday said the words “at the very best…were astonishingly reckless and irresponsible” and “clearly…dangerous.”

“It has almost been a century since the last time Democrats threatened to pack the Supreme Court because they wanted different rulings. History still judges that disgraceful episode to this day,” McConnell said. “So I would suggest that my Democratic colleagues spend less time trying to threaten impartial judges, and more time coming up with ideas that are actually constitutional.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare rebuke, saying Schumer’s comments were “not only inappropriate” but “dangerous.”

“All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter,” Roberts said.

During court arguments on Wednesday, justices focused their questions on how specifically the Louisiana law would affect women and clinics that perform the procedure.

“I feel so deeply the anger of women all across America about Senate Republicans and the courts working hand in glove to take down Roe v. Wade,” Schumer told his Senate colleagues. “Republican state legislatures are restricting a woman’s right to choose so severely as to make it nonexistent, and the courts are now likely to go along because Senate Republicans have confirmed nominees they believe will strip away women’s rights and fundamentally change this country.

“I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court,” he said, “and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.”

WASHINGTON — A majority of U.S. journalists who followed the 1992 presidential campaign believe President Bush’s candidacy was damaged by press coverage of his record and of the economy, according to a survey released Saturday.

Only a small percentage of print and broadcast journalists think the campaign of President-elect Bill Clinton was similarly harmed by media coverage. In fact, more than one in three said coverage benefited the Arkansas governor.

Most journalists interviewed believe the press treated Bush fairly. He was harmed, they said, not by media bias but by accurate reporting on his performance in office and on the nation’s economy.

These are the principal findings of a special survey of more than 250 top- and middle-level journalists conducted by the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press. The survey was conducted in the final weeks of the election campaign.

Four in five journalists surveyed rated press performance in the 1992 campaign as good or excellent, saying it generally was better than the coverage in 1988.

Public opinion surveys conducted throughout the campaign showed most Americans also gave positive ratings to media coverage, although by a smaller margin. Nearly six in 10 people surveyed gave the press good or excellent marks. More than one in three, however, judged the performance as fair or poor.

The Times Mirror survey found the media judging the impact of its coverage differently at the end of the campaign than it had in an initial survey last May, during the final stages of the presidential primary battles.

The earlier polling found most journalists–slightly more than 50%–believed campaign coverage was having a “neutral effect” on Bush’s campaign as he turned back the challenge of conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan.

At that time, 64% thought Clinton was being hurt by media coverage during his struggle with the so-called “character” problems that beset his primary campaign.

The latest poll also found that journalists gave the industry high marks for specific aspects of campaign coverage. Overall, more than 70% gave ratings of good or excellent to coverage of Clinton’s Vietnam draft status, the candidates’ positions on issues and the economy.

The press gave itself a somewhat lower grade for coverage of independent candidate Ross Perot, with 63% rating it as good or excellent. The survey said one senior editor summed up the attitude of many by saying: “We were all on the verge of carrying very critical stories about his temperament and his personal life when he pulled out. Since he re-entered, we’ve treated him as an eccentric.”

The coverage of Bush’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal received the harshest judgment by journalists. More than 70% of respondents said the coverage was only fair or poor, with only 24% rating it as good. A television executive said only the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post had “done a good job of explaining this issue.”

The survey said a large number of journalists cited the emergence of talk shows this year as a chastening sign that politics can work well “without the press as interlocutor.”

However, critics of this new phenomenon “took aim at the cheerleading-like atmosphere” of some talk show political interviews, saying too many questions were soft, with no follow-up questions, the poll reported.

After Gavin Newsom was elected lieutenant governor, he repeatedly made clear his frustration with the job and its lack of responsibilities. The official portfolio for the office is thin, including sitting on boards that oversee the state’s higher education system and public lands, leading an economic council and serving as acting governor when California’s chief executive is out of state or otherwise unavailable.

Newsom, now the front-runner in the governor’s race, missed scores of meetings held by the University of California Board of Regents, the California State University Board of Trustees and the California State Lands Commission, according to a Times review of attendance records.

He attended 54% of UC Regents meeting days, 34% for Cal State and 57% for state lands, according to a Times review of attendance records between 2011 and 2018. The Times included in the tally days when Newsom was present for only part of the day, and excluded days when Newsom had no committee meetings or other official business to attend.

Membership of the three panels is the most prominent duty of a lieutenant governor, a post considered to be largely ceremonial.

“There’s no denying that the official responsibilities of the lieutenant governor are more modest than some other constitutional offices — the English call it an ‘heir and a spare,’” said former California Gov. Gray Davis, who was lieutenant governor before being elected to lead the state. “But 43 states have a lieutenant governor whose primary function is to step in if something happens to the governor.”

Newsom’s opponents have criticized him for failing to fully participate in the three panels, which set policy on tuition, athletics programs and expansion for much of the state’s higher-education system, and manage issues including oil drilling and access to some of California’s publicly owned lands.

“Californians are working harder than ever before just to stay in the middle class. It appears Gavin Newsom is hardly working — or at least not working for the people who pay his salary,” said Luis Vizcaino, a spokesman for former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Newsom defended his record, saying it paralleled that of other elected officials on the panels.

“I’ve tried not to be the quote-unquote politician on the board. I tried to avoid being the guy who shows up just to give the press release. I tried to be constructive and I tried to be engaged,” he said in an interview. “Every tough vote, we were there — the ones that matter, the close votes.”

Observers of the UC and Cal State panels agreed that the elected officials on the boards had spottier attendance than appointees. The State Lands Commission comprises three members, so when one is absent, he or she typically sends an alternate to voice concerns and vote on the member’s behalf. Attendance on the panels has previously been raised as a campaign issue — Republican Dan Lungren poked Davis about his absences during a 1998 gubernatorial debate.

Newsom’s Democratic rivals in the race — state Treasurer John Chiang, former state schools chief Delaine Eastin and Villaraigosa — held various roles on the same three boards during prior terms in elected office. Chiang served on the State Lands Commission when he was controller, and Villaraigosa and Eastin sat on the UC and Cal State boards while serving as Assembly speaker and state superintendent of public instruction, respectively.

They also failed to attend many meetings.

Chiang attended 46% of Lands Commission meeting days between 2007 and 2014 when he was state controller. Villaraigosa and Eastin each attended less than 10% of the Cal State meetings during their time on that board. Though they both routinely skipped UC meetings, the full picture of their attendance is unclear due to a lack of available records documenting their time on the boards in the 1990s.

But their jobs at the time were more demanding than the role of lieutenant governor. The speaker must be in Sacramento during the legislative session, and the state schools chief oversees curriculum, testing and finances for the 6.3 million students in the state’s schools. As controller, Chiang was California’s chief bookkeeper, administering the state’s payroll and serving on more than 70 boards and commissions.

Newsom’s responsibilities as lieutenant governor are much more limited in scope, a point he has frequently drawn attention to.

Before he ran for lieutenant governor in 2010, he derided the role as having “no real authority and no real portfolio.”

After he was elected, he drafted legislation to put the office of lieutenant governor on the gubernatorial ticket — similar to how a president and vice president are elected together — but couldn’t find a legislator to carry the bill. If elected governor, Newsom said he hopes to revisit the proposal.

Two years into the job, during a break in filming his Current TV show, Newsom was asked by friend and hotelier Chip Conley how frequently he went to Sacramento.

“Like one day a week, tops,” Newsom said. “There’s no reason.… It’s just so dull.”

A few months later, as a Times reporter trailed Newsom in the Capitol, he stopped when a woman asked him to pose for a picture with her son. The boy asked him what a lieutenant governor does.

“I ask myself that every day,” Newsom replied.

He has repeatedly joked about the post over the years, including in an interview with The Times during his 2014 reelection campaign when he paraphrased a line from then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry, himself a former lieutenant governor: “Wake up every morning, pick up the paper, read the obituaries, and if the governor’s name doesn’t appear in there, go back to sleep.”

Garry South, a former advisor to Newsom who is not publicly backing a candidate in the governor’s race, recalled urging him to knock it off.

“I did convey to him on a couple of occasions … that I didn’t think it was a good idea to tell voters they had elected you to a worthless position,” South said. “To his credit, I think he’s done much less of that in the last few years.”

Newsom said that the transition from mayor of San Francisco — when he worked on issues including same-sex marriage, universal healthcare and homelessness — to lieutenant governor was difficult.

“In honesty, I totally get it. I’m not even going to be defensive about it. There was absolutely early frustration. That’s all it represented years and years ago,” he said, noting that his time in Sacramento has been much slower than his life as mayor, a change he described as a “major cultural transition.” “It’s a different pace. That was reflected in those lazy comments of mine [that] I by definition regret because we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But it expressed a sentiment at the time.”

Newsom said he grew into his job and realized he could use his bully pulpit to promote issues he cared about, including successful 2016 ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana and implement stricter gun controls.

Still, Newsom’s statements about his job have provided plenty of fodder for his rivals.

“If he was so bored, why did he refuse to show up for his job on the UC Board of Regents, or on the CSU Board of Trustees or at the State Lands Commission? Where was Gavin when he was supposed to be working on behalf of all the Californians who actually show up for their jobs?” said Fabien Levy, a spokesman for Chiang. “California needs a serious leader, not someone who’s in it just for show.”

But parties with business before the panels and fellow members said Newsom has been active and attentive when present.

“He has been engaged and thoughtful, and particularly interested in the financial structures and financial stability and financial accountability,” said Shane White, chairman of UC’s Academic Senate and a dentistry professor at UCLA.

A fellow UC regent, who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely about Newsom’s tenure on the board, agreed.

“He’s been substantially more engaged than the vast majority of elected officials who have served on the board,” said the regent, who is unaligned in the race. “He does his homework.”

Former Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, a Villaraigosa backer who sits on the UC Regents board, said Newsom’s attendance is not that different from other elected officials who sit on the panel.

“If you want to hit him for attendance, it’s a valid hit. If you want to hit him for only being involved in the most high-profile issues, it’s a valid hit. But it’s not inconsistent with other ex officio board members,” Pérez said, adding that he personally liked Newsom and the two men frequently voted on controversial issues the same way. “The difference is he made such a big deal about [how] the office doesn’t do anything, and then he doesn’t go to the things it does.”

Follow California politics by signing up for our email newsletter »

Coverage of California politics »

[email protected]

For the latest on national and California politics, follow @LATSeema on Twitter.

Before the sun rose Tuesday, Benito Flores fortified the front door of his one-bedroom duplex on a narrow street in El Sereno.

Flores, a 70-year-old retired welder, had illegally seized a home five years ago after its owner, the California Department of Transportation, had left it vacant. He’d been allowed to stay for a few months, then was directed to this nearby home owned by the agency, but now it was time to go.

Later in the morning, deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department were scheduled to lock him out.

Flores clearly had other plans. Over months, he’d sawed wooden two-by-fours to use as a brace between the front door and an interior wall to make it harder to breach. He bolted shut the metal screen door. Once Flores was satisfied he’d secured the entrance Tuesday, he retreated to a wooden structure he built 28 feet high in an ash tree in the backyard.

If the police wanted him to leave, they’d have to come get him in his tree house.

“I plan to resist as long as I can,” Flores said.

The homemade structure, 6 feet tall and 3 feet wide, represents the last stand for Flores and a larger protest that captured national attention in March 2020. Flores and a dozen others occupied empty homes owned by Caltrans, acquired by the hundreds a half-century ago for a freeway expansion that never happened. They said they wanted to call attention to the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles.

The issue, Flores said, remains no less urgent today. Political leaders, he argued, have failed to provide housing for all who need it.

“They don’t care about the people,” Flores said. “Who is supposed to give permanent housing to elders, disabled and families with children? It is the city and the state. And they are evicting me.”

For the public agencies involved, the resistance represents an intransigence that belies the assistance and leniency they’ve offered to Flores and fellow protesters who call their group “Reclaiming Our Homes.” The state allowed group members, or Reclaimers, to remain legally and paying rents far below market rates for two years. Since then, the agencies have continued to offer referrals for permanent housing and financial settlements of up to $20,000 if group members left voluntarily.

Evictions, they’ve said, were a last resort and required by law.

“We don’t have any authority to operate outside of that,” said Tina Booth, director of asset management for the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, which is operating the housing program on Caltrans’ behalf.

Four Reclaimers, including Flores, remain in the homes.

Two have accepted settlements and are expected to leave within weeks. The final Reclaimer also has a court-ordered eviction against him, but plans to leave without incident.

Caltrans wants to sell Flores’ home and the other empty houses in El Sereno to public or nonprofit housing providers, which would make them available to low-income residents for rent or purchase.

Flores said evicting him makes no sense because the property is intended to be used as affordable housing that he qualifies for. Flores, who suffers from diabetes, collects about $1,200 a month in Social Security and supplemental payments. If he’s removed, Flores said, he has no other option except to sleep in his van — where he lived for 14 years before the home seizure.

“We are going to live on the streets for the rest of our lives,” Flores said of he and others evicted in the protest group in an open letter he sent to Sheriff Robert Luna last week.

Flores received advance notice of the lockout. His supporters began arriving at 6 a.m. Tuesday to fill the normally sleepy block. Flores already was up in the tree.

Within 90 minutes, more than two dozen people had arrived. They stationed lookouts on the corners. Some went inside Flores’ house through a side door to provide another layer of defense.

1

2

1. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies speak over a fence to Benito Flores on Shelley Street in El Sereno, CA on Tuesday, June 3, 2025. 2. Benito Flores speaks with the media on Tuesday, June 3, 2025 saying that the sheriff’s department that will serve him with eviction lack compassion and that him living on the street will mean facing death.

Gina Viola, an activist and former mayoral candidate, rallied the crowd on the sidewalk. It was “despicable,” she said, to leave homes empty when so many were in need. She said those in power needed to act, just as Flores and the Reclaimers have, to provide permanent housing immediately.

“This is part of a reckoning that is long overdue,” Viola said.

She pointed to the tree house, praising Flores.

“He’s a 70-year-old elder who has climbed … into the sky to make this point to the world: ‘This is my home and I won’t leave it.’”

The structure has been visible from the street for weeks. Flores had attached a sign to the front with a message calling for a citywide rent strike.

The tree house is elaborate. Flores used galvanized steel braces to attach a series of ladders to the ash tree’s trunk. Where the trunk narrowed higher in the tree, Flores bolted spikes into the bark to make the final few steps into the structure.

Inside the tree house and hanging on nearby branches were blankets, warm clothing, food, water and his medication. To keep things clean, there’s a wooden broom he can sweep out leaves and other detritus. Flores expected to charge his phone via an extension cord connected to electricity in the garage. He bolted a chair to the bottom of the tree house and has a safety belt to catch him should he fall.

Deputies had not yet arrived by 9 a.m. Flores descended, wearing a harness, to speak with members of the news media from his driveway. He spoke from behind a locked fence.

Flores rejected the assertion that the Housing Authority has provided him with another place to live. He said the agency’s offers of assistance, such as Section 8 vouchers, aren’t guarantees. He cited the struggles that voucher holders face when finding landlords to accept the subsidies.

“They offered me potential permanent housing,” Flores said of the Housing Authority.

Jenny Scanlin, the agency’s chief strategic development officer, said that Flores was offered more than two dozen referrals to other homes, but that he rejected them. Some involved waiting lists and vouchers, but others had occupancy immediately available, she said.

“We absolutely believe he would have had an alternative place to live — permanent affordable housing” — had Flores accepted the assistance, Scanlin said.

Joseph De La O, 62, seized a Caltrans-owned home in 2020. He accepted a settlement from HACLA and has since returned to homelessness. He came to Flores’ home to help protest the eviction.”

As Flores held court in the driveway, he rolled up a pant leg to show a sore from his diabetes and said that on the streets he’d have nowhere to refrigerate his insulin.

While Flores spoke, supporters were on edge. Representatives of the property management company milled a block away holding drills.

Around 9:45, two sheriff’s cruisers parked a block away. Three deputies got out and met the property managers, then walked to Flores’ home.

Flores’ supporters met them at the driveway. The deputies said they wanted to talk to Flores and brushed past to the locked gate. Flores told them to ask themselves why they needed to evict a senior citizen. The deputies responded that they had offered assistance from adult protective services and were following orders from the court.

A deputy handed Flores a pamphlet describing housing resources the county offered, including information about calling 211. Flores held up the paper above his head to show everyone. The crowd started booing and yelling “Shame.”

An officer then tried to reason with Flores in Spanish. But it was clear things were going nowhere.

“Suerte,” the officer said to Flores. “Good luck.”

Then they left.

The Sheriff’s Department could not immediately be reached for comment, and a Caltrans spokesperson referred comment to the Housing Authority. Scanlin said she expected the lockout process would continue per the court’s order.

Flores and his supporters believe sheriff’s deputies could return at any time. Some are planning to camp out at his house overnight.

WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was already at the briefing room lectern Tuesday when Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a special advisor to President Trump until just last week, launched into a scathing rebuke targeting his signature legislation.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” Musk wrote on his social media platform, X. “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”

“Shame on those who voted for it,” he added. “You know you did wrong. You know it.”

It was the latest, sharpest critique of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” making its way through Congress from Musk, who ended his tenure as a special government employee last week despite his efforts to stay on, according to an Axios report.

In a CBS interview aired last week, Musk also called the bill a disappointment. “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he said, “but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”

The Trump administration had already been on defense over the future of the bill, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in a $3.8-trillion increase to the national debt over 10 years.

House Republicans approved the measure in late May. But multiple Republicans in the Senate, where the party holds a slim majority, have balked at its effects on the deficit, as well as several major proposals in the legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing access to Medicaid coverage.

One GOP senator, Joni Ernst of Iowa, drew national criticism over the weekend after responding to constituent concerns regarding Medicaid cuts at a town hall last week by saying, “well, we are all going to die.” The exchange put threats to Medicaid in the legislation back in the headlines, forcing the White House to put out a press release on Monday with the subject line: “MYTHBUSTER: No, People Will Not ‘Literally Die’ with the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

“The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill,” Leavitt said at the briefing, asked to respond to Musk’s X post. “It doesn’t change the president’s opinion.”

The bill would also cut clean energy tax credits passed during the Biden administration, which have benefited Musk’s electric vehicle company, Tesla.

Trump has also bucked Musk on other matters in recent days. Despite Musk’s opposition, Trump brokered an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to build the largest artificial intelligence campus outside of the United States with the backing of Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, a Musk rival.

The president also withdrew Jared Isaacman, reportedly an ally of Musk, as his nominee for NASA administrator. Musk’s rocket ship company, SpaceX, relies heavily on government contracts.

He openly advocated for the death of then-President-elect Donald Trump, hailing himself as an “assassin” and threatening to shoot the would-be 47th commander-in-chief shortly after the election, prosecutors say.

Those words, left on Facebook posts, are at the center of a federal grand jury indictment. On Tuesday, Yucca Valley resident Thomas Eugene Streavel, 73, pleaded not guilty to three felony counts of making threats.

The San Bernardino County man was arrested Monday just before 11 a.m. by United States Marshals and arraigned the next day inside Central District Court in Riverside.

He’s out on a $10,000 bond and is expected back in court July 28. Streavel could serve up to 15 years in prison if found guilty on all counts.

“This defendant is charged with threatening the life of our President — a man who has already survived two deranged attempts on his life,” said U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in a statement. “The Department of Justice takes these threats with the utmost seriousness and will prosecute this crime to the fullest extent of the law.”

A number listed for Streavel was not answered, and no attorney was listed for him in court documents.

His actions were detailed in a grand jury indictment from May 29 that was unsealed Tuesday.

Streavel posted a variety of threats in the days after Trump’s electoral victory in November, according to the Justice Department.

“[T]rump is a dead man walking for the time being until a patriot like myself blows his [expletive] brains out in the very near future,” Streavel posted on Nov. 6., according to court documents.

Six days later, Streavel posted on Facebook that he was “willing to make America great again and blow his [expletive] brains out,” the indictment says.

There were similar Facebook rants on Nov. 19 and on 28.

In the earlier instance, he wrote, “Let me put a bullet right between the ears of your president-elect…That’s my purpose for living,” according to the indictment.

He later posted, “I’m praying for a successful assassination of your president-elect.” He then added, “my life’s mission is killing the worthless LOSER [expletive] and my mission starts tonight so watch yourself trump [sic], you are a dead [expletive] and I am your assassin,” court documents show.

Streavel’s posts extend to before the election, when on Oct. 15 he wrote, “today is the perfect day to blow his brains out and I’d love to be the one to pull the trigger.”

The Secret Service is also investigating the matter.

“The type of rhetoric and threats made by this defendant are similar to those that led to an attempt on the President’s life last year,” said United States Atty. Bill Essayli. “There is no place for political violence or threats of violence in the United States.”

Trump was injured in a shooting at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13. The shooting left one rally attendee dead and two critically injured, and the unidentified gunman was killed by the Secret Service, according to that agency.

At Trump’s West Palm Beach, Fla., golf course on Sept. 15, a Secret Service agent scoping out the area one or two holes ahead of him saw the muzzle of an AK-47-style weapon pointing out of the tree line on the perimeter of the course.

Trump was unharmed in the second attempt on his life in two months.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass won’t be called as a witness in a multiday federal court hearing that could determine whether the city’s homelessness programs are placed in receivership.

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, told U.S. District Judge David O. Carter on Tuesday that he and his legal team were withdrawing subpoenas issued in recent weeks to Bass and City Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Traci Park. Battling over the appearances, which were opposed by the city, would have delayed the proceedings for several months, he said.

The alliance, which sued the city in 2020 over its response to the homelessness crisis, originally sought testimony from the three politicians as part of an evidentiary hearing focused on whether the city failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement on homelessness programs.

The agreement, reached in 2022 between the city and the alliance, requires the city to provide 12,915 beds for its unhoused population by June 2027. The alliance contends that the city already is failing to meet the milestones of the agreement and has no clear path to that goal. City officials say they fully intend to comply by the deadline.

The possibility that Bass could testify in Carter’s courtroom provided a rare source of drama for the past week of hearings, which have focused on such granular issues as the definition of a homeless encampment.

Umhofer, in an interview, said he dropped Bass and the others because the city’s lawyers had threatened to pursue an appeal to block the three politicians from testifying, which would have triggered a delay of at least two to three months.

“I think it’s cowardly for the mayor to not testify,” he said. “She’s come in to court on multiple occasions and and shared talking points, but has never undergone cross-examination. For her to resist a subpoena is the definition of avoiding accountability and transparency.”

Umhofer argued that the testimony provided over the last week is already enough to show that the city’s homelessness programs should be overseen by a third-party receivership appointed by the court.

A Bass spokesperson did not immediately respond to Umhofer’s remarks. Theane Evangelis, an attorney for the city, said Umhofer’s description of Bass as cowardly — made in front of the judge during Tuesday’s hearing — was “uncalled for.”

“The Alliance lawyers apparently recognized that there was no legal basis for their subpoenas,” Evangelis said later in a statement. “They should never have issued them in the first place. The City is complying with the agreement settling a 2020 lawsuit, and it is indisputable that thousands of new housing units have been built and homelessness is down in LA for the first time in years.”

Bass declared a state of emergency on homelessness in 2022, on her first day in office, securing additional power to award contracts and sign off on lease agreements for interim housing and other facilities. That same year, she launched Inside Safe, which has been moving thousands of unhoused Angelenos into hotels, motels and other interim housing. She also created a program to accelerate the approval of certain types of affordable housing.

The alliance has portrayed the city’s homelessness response programs as irrevocably broken, arguing that the only recourse is for the judge to turn them over to a third-party receiver. During six days of testimony, lawyers for the alliance repeatedly highlighted the findings of a consulting firm that the programs lack adequate data systems and financial controls, leaving them vulnerable to fraud.

Lawyers for the alliance also pointed out that the city has repeatedly missed the quarterly milestones established in its settlement agreement.

Over the last week, lawyers for the city argued that their client has made “best efforts” to comply with the settlement agreement. They also contended that the milestones are not mandatory. And they said the alliance is the party that’s “flat-out ignoring” the terms of the agreement.

Evangelis said the agreement allows for the city’s obligations to be paused, and the terms to be renegotiated, if an emergency takes place. The Palisades fire broke out in January, destroying thousands of homes.

“Instead of recognizing the enormous stress that our city is under and honoring its promise to meet and confer … the alliance ran to court the month after those fires and sought sanctions against the city’s supposed breaches,” Evangelis told the court last week.

The alliance placed Bass on its witness list last month, saying she has “unique knowledge” of the facts — and had put herself at the center of the debate by promising to lead on homelessness.

Lawyers for the city argued that putting Bass and the two council members on the stand would place “an undue burden” on them as elected officials. They instead presented as witnesses City Administrative Officer Matthew Szabo, who is the city’s top budget official, and Deputy Mayor Etsemaye Agonafer, calling them the most knowledgeable about the settlement agreement.

Last week, Carter delayed ruling on whether Bass and the council members should testify, saying he first wanted to hear from Szabo and Agonafer, who handles homelessness issues for Bass.

Agonafer testified for about four hours Thursday. Szabo, who has overseen the city’s compliance with the settlement agreement, was questioned off and on during four hearing days. In multiple exchanges, he said he was confident the city would comply with the terms of the settlement by June 2027.

The two council members sought as witnesses by the alliance have been highly critical of the city’s homelessness programs.

Rodriguez, who represents the northeast San Fernando Valley, frequently uses the phrase “merry-go-round from hell” to describe the city’s struggle to get accurate data from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a city-county agency.

Park, who represents part of the Westside, said during the council’s budget deliberations last month that the city had wasted billions of dollars on homeless programs. Before casting her vote, she also said the city is “unable to manage” its own homeless affairs.

California lawmakers on Tuesday moved one step closer to placing more guardrails around artificial intelligence-powered chatbots.

The Senate passed a bill that aims to make chatbots used for companionship safer after parents raised concerns that virtual characters harmed their childrens’ mental health.

The legislation, which now heads to the California State Assembly, shows how state lawmakers are tackling safety concerns surrounding AI as tech companies release more AI-powered tools.

“The country is watching again for California to lead,” said Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, on the Senate floor.

At the same time, lawmakers are trying to balance concerns that they could be hindering innovation. Groups opposed to the bill such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation say the legislation is too broad and would run into free speech issues, according to a Senate floor analysis of the bill.

Under Senate Bill 243, operators of companion chatbot platforms would remind users at least every three hours that the virtual characters aren’t human. They would also disclose that companion chatbots might not be suitable for some minors.

Platforms would also need to take other steps such as implementing a protocol for addressing suicidal ideation, suicide or self-harm expressed by users. That includes showing users suicide prevention resources.

The operator of these platforms would also report the number of times a companion chatbot brought up suicide ideation or actions with a user, along with other requirements.

Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson, one of the bill’s co-authors, said she supports innovation but it also must come with “ethical responsibility.” Chatbots, the senator said, are engineered to hold people’s attention including children.

“When a child begins to prefer interacting with AI over real human relationships, that is very concerning,” said Sen. Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa).

The bill defines companion chatbots as AI systems capable of meeting the social needs of users. It excludes chatbots that businesses use for customer service.

The legislation garnered support from parents who lost their children after they started chatting with chatbots. One of those parents is Megan Garcia, a Florida mom who sued Google and Character.AI after her son Sewell Setzer III died by suicide last year.

In the lawsuit, she alleges the platform’s chatbots harmed her son’s mental health and failed to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to these virtual characters.

Character.AI, based in Menlo Park, Calif., is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. The company has said that it takes teen safety seriously and rolled out a feature that gives parents more information about the amount of time their children are spending with chatbots on the platform.

Character.AI asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit, but a federal judge in May allowed the case to proceed.

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

It’s a process known as “rescission,” which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump’s aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies.

The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a “disgusting abomination” for increasing the federal deficit.

White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds.

“

Here’s what to know about the rescissions request:

Will the rescissions make a dent in the national debt?

The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds.

“He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,” Leavitt said.

Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September “and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.”

“It’s one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,” he added.

What programs are targeted by the rescissions?

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR.

The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia.

Is the rescissions package likely to get passed?

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them.

“This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Johnson said. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.”

Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber’s most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration.

“We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,” the group said in a press release.

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting.

“Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,” the Maine lawmaker said in a statement.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

California leaders denounced reports Tuesday that the Trump administration is preparing to strip the name of slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk from a naval ship honoring his legacy, calling it a slap in the face for the LGBTQ+ community just as Pride month begins.

Milk was elected as a San Francisco supervisor in the 1970s, becoming one of the first openly gay elected officials in the country. After he was assassinated in San Francisco City Hall in 1978, he became an icon of the gay rights movement, with images of his face becoming synonymous with the struggle for gay rights.

Milk had served in the Navy prior to becoming an activist and political figure, and LGBTQ+ advocates and service members fought for years to have his legacy formally recognized by the Navy.

The outlet Military.com first reported Tuesday afternoon that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered the Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, an oiler built in San Diego as part of a series of vessels named for civil rights leaders. It was launched in 2021.

The Pentagon would not confirm or deny that the ship would be renamed.

In a statement to The Times, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said Hegseth “is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all [Department of Defense] installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos,” and that “any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete.”

The Pentagon would not say whether such a review had been launched for the USNS Harvey Milk. The Navy referred questions to the Pentagon.

The removal of Milk’s name would be in line with a broader push by Hegseth and other leaders in the Trump administration to remove formal acknowledgments of queer rights and other programs or messages promoting diversity, equity and inclusion across the federal government.

Leaders in California — where Milk is often hailed as a hero — were quick to denounce the idea of stripping his name from the vessel.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on the social media platform X that Trump’s “assault on veterans has hit a new low.”

San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk speaks to reporters in October 1978, weeks before he was assassinated.

(James Palmer / Associated Press)

Trump and Hegseth have also issued a sweeping ban on transgender people serving in the military.

“Harvey Milk wasn’t just a civil rights icon — he was a Korean War combat veteran whose commander called him ‘outstanding,’” Newsom said. “Stripping his name from a Navy ship won’t erase his legacy as an American icon, but it does reveal Trump’s contempt for the very values our veterans fight to protect.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) echoed Newsom with her own comment on X.

“Our military is the most powerful in the world — but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the ‘warrior’ ethos,” she wrote. “It is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener, who is gay and once represented the same district as Milk on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said in an interview with The Times that the move was all “part of Trump’s systematic campaign to eliminate LGBTQ people from public life.”

“They want us to go away, to go back in the closet, not to be part of public life,” Wiener said. “And we’re not going anywhere.”

After graduating from college, Milk enlisted in the Navy in 1951 and was stationed in San Diego. According to the Harvey Milk Foundation, he resigned at the rank of lieutenant junior grade in 1955 “after being officially questioned about his sexual orientation.”

He moved to San Francisco in 1972, opened a camera shop on Castro Street, and quickly got into politics — rallying the growing local gay community to fight for rights and build strategic alliances with other groups, including organized labor and the city’s large Asian and Pacific Islander community.

Milk was elected to the Board of Supervisors in 1977, and helped lead efforts to defeat a 1978 ballot initiative that would have barred gay and lesbian people from teaching in public schools statewide — a major political win for the LGBTQ+ community.

That same year, Milk was assassinated alongside Mayor George Moscone at City Hall by former Supervisor Dan White. His killing cemented his status as an icon of the gay rights movement.

Wiener called Milk “an absolute hero” who “died for our community” and deserves the honor of having a naval vessel named after him.

“A group of LGBTQ veterans worked for years and years to achieve this goal of naming a ship for Harvey, and to have that taken away so casually, right during Pride month, is heartbreaking and painful,” Wiener said.

Removing his name would mean more than scrubbing a stenciling off the side of a ship, Wiener said, “especially now with the attacks on our community, and so many young LGBTQ people [seeing] so much negativity towards our community.”

Milk was a “very visible role model for young queer people, and he gave people hope in a way that hadn’t happened before from any high-profile queer leader, and he was murdered because of his visibility and leadership for our community,” Wiener said, and for young queer people today “to see the name of a gay man on the side of a military vessel, it’s very, very powerful.”

U.S. officials first announced in 2016 that a ship would be named for Milk, as well as for abolitionist Sojourner Truth, Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren, Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy, suffragist Lucy Stone and U.S. Rep. John Lewis.

At an event marking the start of construction on the ship in 2019, Milk’s nephew Stuart Milk said the naming of the ship after his uncle “sends a global message of inclusion” that did not just say the U.S. will “tolerate everyone,” but that “we celebrate everyone.”

CINCINNATI — George Bush today assailed a longtime associate’s public relations firm for trying to capitalize on ties to the vice president. “I denounce it,” Bush said.

The vice president said in an interview that he had spoken to Fred Bush, a top Republican fund-raiser who is not related to him, about the solicitation to the Haitian government made by Fred Bush’s partner, Michael Govan.

“I denounce it. I don’t like it. I think it’s wrong,” Bush said, giving his first comment on the matter during an interview aboard Air Force Two en route to Cincinnati.

Asked why voters should believe he would fill a Bush administration with people who were not intent on influence peddling, Bush replied, “They know I’ve been in public life for 20 years, and no one has ever made any allegations about impropriety on my part, because they know how strongly I feel about ethics in government.”

The GOP presidential nominee, who rarely mentions the White House ethics office he proposed early in the campaign, said he still intends to set up one if elected.

Fred Bush has said his partner acted over his veto and without his knowledge in seeking a contract for Bush & Co. to represent Haiti. He called it a “rotten, rotten thing to happen” to him and to the Bush campaign. The firm’s letter touted Fred Bush’s connections to the vice president.

WASHINGTON — The family of a 4-year-old Bakersfield girl with a rare medical condition has been granted humanitarian protection from deportation, allowing her to continue receiving lifesaving treatment in the United States.

The plight of the girl, who The Times has identified by her initials, S.G.V., drew public outrage and galvanized dozens of lawmakers to advocate on her behalf. The girl and her parents, who are from Mexico, originally received temporary permission to enter the U.S. legally through Tijuana in 2023.

The Trump administration had rescinded the legal protections of S.G.V. and her parents, leaving them vulnerable to deportation. Her doctor at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles said she could die within days of losing her medical care for short bowel syndrome, a condition that prevents her body from completely absorbing nutrients from food.

Last week, 38 congressional Democrats, including California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, condemned the termination of the family’s status and urged the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate it.

“Without action, S.G.V. will die,” the lawmakers wrote May 29 to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. “We urge a prompt response from your Department and a swift decision to extend this family’s legal status in the U.S.” The lawmakers wrote that the family’s situation “clearly meets the need for humanitarian aid.”

In a letter Monday to the family and their attorney, acting field office director Carmen Paniagua of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote: “This is to advise you that effective June 2, 2025, you have been granted Humanitarian Parole for a period of one year.”

In April, the girl’s mother, Deysi Vargas, received notice from the federal government that their humanitarian protections and permission to work legally had been terminated. The notice told them to leave voluntarily or else “the federal government will find you.”

An online fundraiser for S.G.V.’s care amassed more than $40,000 as of Tuesday.

WASHINGTON — President Trump wants his “big, beautiful” bill of tax breaks and spending cuts on his desk to be signed into law by the Fourth of July, and he’s pushing the slow-rolling Senate to make it happen sooner rather than later.

Trump met with Senate Majority Leader John Thune at the White House early this week and has been dialing senators for one-on-one chats, using both the carrot and stick to nudge, badger and encourage them to act. But it’s still a long road ahead for the 1,000-page-plus package.

“His question to me was, How do you think the bill’s going to go in the Senate?” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said about his call with Trump. “Do you think there’s going to be problems?”

It’s a potentially tumultuous three-week sprint for senators preparing to put their own imprint on the massive Republican package that cleared the House late last month by a single vote. The senators have been meeting for weeks behind closed doors, including as they returned to Washington late Monday, to revise the package ahead of what is expected to be a similarly narrow vote in the Senate.

“Passing THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL is a Historic Opportunity to turn our Country around,” Trump posted on social media. He urged them Monday “to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY.”

Thune, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, has few votes to spare from the Senate’s slim, 53-seat GOP majority. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than $4.5 trillion in tax cuts — with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home.

“It’d be nice if we could have everybody on board to do it, but, you know, individual members are going to stake out their positions,” Thune said Tuesday.

“But in the end, we have to succeed. Failure’s not an option. We’ve got to get to 51. So we’ll figure out the path forward to do that over the next couple of weeks.”

At its core, the package seeks to extend the tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term at the White House, and add new ones the president campaigned on, including no taxes on tips and others. It also includes a massive build-up of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security.

To defray the lost tax revenue to the government and avoid piling onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services. Estimates are 8.6 million people would no longer have healthcare and nearly 4 million would lose Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits.

The package also would raise the nation’s debt limit by $4 trillion to allow more borrowing to pay the bills.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s bill “is ugly to its very core.”

Schumer said Tuesday it’s a “lie” that the cuts won’t hurt Americans. “Behind the smoke and mirrors lies a cruel and draconian truth: tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy paid for by gutting healthcare for millions of Americans,” said the New York senator.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to soon provide an overall analysis of the package’s impacts on the government balance sheets, particular its rising annual deficits. But Republicans are ready to blast those findings from the congressional scorekeeper as flawed.

Trump on Tuesday switched to tougher tactics, deriding the holdout Republican senators to get on board.

The president laid into Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning deficit hawk who has made a career of arguing against government spending. Paul wants the package’s $4-trillion increase to the debt ceiling out of the bill.

“Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!).” Trump posted.

The July 4 deadline is not only aspirational for the president, it’s all but mandatory for his Treasury Department. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned Congress that the nation will run out of money to pay its bills if the debt ceiling, now at $36 trillion, is not lifted by mid-July or early August to allow more borrowing. Bessent has also been meeting behind closed doors with senators and GOP leadership.

Thune acknowledged Tuesday that lifting the debt ceiling is not up for debate.

“It’s got to be done,” the South Dakota senator said.

The road ahead is also a test for Thune, who, like Johnson, is a newer leader in Congress and among the many Republicans adjusting their own priorities with Trump’s return to the White House.

While Johnson has warned against massive changes to the package, Thune faces demands from his senators for adjustments.

To make most of the tax cuts permanent — particularly the business tax breaks that are the Senate priorities — senators may shave some of Trump’s proposed new tax breaks on automobile loans or overtime pay, which are policies less prized by some senators.

There are also discussions about altering the $40,000 cap that the House proposed for state and local deductions, known as SALT, which are important to lawmakers in high-tax New York, California and other states, but less so among GOP senators.

“We’re having all those discussions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another key voice in the debate.

Hawley is among a group of senators, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, who have raised concerns about the Medicaid changes that could boot people from health insurance.

A potential copay of up to $35 for Medicaid services that was part of the House package, as well as a termination of a provider tax that many states rely on to help fund rural hospitals, have also raised concerns.

“The best way to not be accused of cutting Medicaid is to not cut Medicaid,” Hawley said.

Collins said she is reviewing the details.

There’s also a House provision that would allow the auction of spectrum bandwidth that some senators oppose.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.

NEWARK, N.J. — Newark Mayor Ras Baraka sued New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor on Tuesday over his arrest on a trespassing charge at a federal immigration detention facility, saying the Trump-appointed attorney had pursued the case out of political spite.

Baraka, who leads New Jersey’s biggest city, is a candidate in a crowded primary field for the Democratic nomination for governor next Tuesday. The lawsuit against interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba coincided with the day early in-person voting began.

The lawsuit seeks damages for “false arrest and malicious prosecution,” and also accuses Habba of defamation for comments she made about his case, which was later dropped.

Citing a post on X in which Habba said Baraka “committed trespass,” the lawsuit says Habba issued a “defamatory statement” and authorized his “false arrest” despite “clear evidence that Mayor Baraka had not committed the petty offense of ‘defiant trespass.’” The suit also names Ricky Patel, the Homeland Security Investigations agent in charge in Newark. Baraka’s attorney, Nancy Erika Smith, said they also expect to sue President Trump’s administration but are required to wait six months.

“This is not about revenge,” Baraka said during a news conference. “Ultimately, I think this is about them taking accountability for what has happened to me.”

Emails seeking comment were left Tuesday with Habba’s office and the Homeland Security Department, where Patel works.

Videos capture chaos outside the detention center

The episode outside the Delaney Hall federal immigration detention center has had dramatic fallout. It began on May 9 when Baraka tried to join three Democratic members of Congress — Rob Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman — who went to the facility for an oversight tour, something authorized under federal law. Baraka, an outspoken critic of Trump’s immigration crackdown and the detention center, was denied entry.

Video from the event showed him walking from the facility side of the fence to the street side, where other people had been protesting. Uniformed officials then came to arrest him. As they did, people could be heard urging the group to protect the mayor. The video shows a crowd forming and pushing as officials led off a handcuffed Baraka.

He was initially charged with trespass, but Habba dropped that charge last month and charged McIver with two counts of assaulting officers stemming from her role in the skirmish at the facility’s gate.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa rebuked Habba’s office after moving to dismiss the charges. “The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, followed swiftly by the dismissal of these trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrisome misstep by your Office,” he wrote.

McIver decried the charges and signaled she plans to fight them. A preliminary hearing is scheduled later this month.

Baraka said the aftermath of the withdrawn charge meant he had to explain it in the media and argue his case when he had done nothing wrong.

“I want somebody to apologize, write a letter, say this was wrong, come out and say, ‘We shouldn’t have done this,’” he said.

New Jersey targeted over its so-called sanctuary policies

Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed facility, opened earlier this year as a federal immigration detention facility. Florida-based Geo Group Inc., which owns and operates the property, was awarded a 15-year contract valued at $1 billion in February. The announcement was part of the president’s plans to sharply increase detention beds nationwide from a budget of about 41,000 beds this year.

Baraka sued Geo soon after that deal was announced.

Then, on May 23, the Trump Justice Department filed a suit against Newark and three other New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary policies. There is no legal definition for sanctuary city policies, but they generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

New Jersey’s attorney general has a statewide directive in place prohibiting local police from collaborating in federal civil immigration matters. The policies are aimed at barring cooperation on civil enforcement matters, not at blocking cooperation on criminal matters. They specifically carve out exceptions for when Immigration and Customs Enforcement supplies police with a judicial criminal warrant. The Justice Department said, though, the cities won’t notify ICE when they’ve made criminal arrests, according to the suit.

It’s unclear whether Baraka’s role in these fights with the White House is affecting his campaign for governor. He’s one of six candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in the June 10 election to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.

On Tuesday, Baraka explained the timing of the suit as an effort to get the case before the court before it was too late. He described the arrest and fallout as a distraction during the campaign.

“But I also think that us not responding is consent,” he said.

In a video ad in the election’s final weeks, Baraka has embraced a theme his rivals are also pushing: affordability. He says he’ll cut taxes. While some of the images show him standing in front of what appears to be Delaney Hall, he doesn’t mention immigration or the arrest specifically, saying: “I’ll keep Trump out of your homes and out of your lives.”

Trump has endorsed Jack Ciattarelli, one of several Republicans running in the gubernatorial primary. Ciattarelli has said if he’s elected, his first executive order would be to end any sanctuary policies for immigrants in the country illegally.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The federal Bureau of Prisons must continue providing hormone therapy and social accommodations to hundreds of transgender inmates following an executive order signed by President Trump that led to a disruption in medical treatment, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said a federal law prohibits prison officials from arbitrarily depriving inmates of medications and other lifestyle accommodations that its own medical staff has deemed to be appropriate.

The judge said the transgender inmates who sued to block Trump’s executive order are trying to lessen the personal anguish caused by their gender dysphoria, which is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match.

“In light of the plaintiffs’ largely personal motives for undergoing gender-affirming care, neither the BOP nor the Executive Order provides any serious explanation as to why the treatment modalities covered by the Executive Order or implementing memoranda should be handled differently than any other mental health intervention,” he wrote.

The Bureau of Prisons is providing hormone therapy to more than 600 inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The bureau doesn’t dispute that gender dysphoria can cause severe side effects, including depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, the judge said.

The Republican president’s executive order required the bureau to revise its medical care policies so that federal funds aren’t spent “for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.”

Lamberth’s ruling isn’t limited to the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. He agreed to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of anyone who is or will be incarcerated in federal prisons.

Trump’s order also directed the federal Bureau of Prisons to ensure that “males are not detained in women’s prisons.” In February, however, Lamberth agreed to temporarily block prison officials from transferring three incarcerated transgender women to men’s facilities and terminating their access to hormone therapy.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the Transgender Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Lamberth, a senior judge, was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

AUSTIN, Texas — President Trump and congressional Republicans have made it a priority this year to require people to prove citizenship before they can register to vote. Turning that aspiration into reality has proved difficult.

Trump’s executive order directing a documentary, proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections has been blocked by a judge, while federal legislation to accomplish it doesn’t appear to have the votes to pass in the Senate. At the same time, state-level efforts have found little success, even in places where Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office.

The most recent state effort to falter is in Texas, where a Senate bill failed to gain full legislative approval before lawmakers adjourned on Monday. The Texas bill was one of the nation’s most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals because it would have applied not only to new registrants but also to the state’s roughly 18.6 million registered voters.

“The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters,” said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas.

Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for a proof-of-citizenship mandate by arguing it would improve public confidence in elections.

Before his win last year, Trump falsely claimed noncitizens might vote in large enough numbers to sway the outcome. Although noncitizen voting does occur, research and reviews of state cases has shown it to be rare and more often a mistake.

Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof of citizenship are overly burdensome and threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married.

The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy advisor with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states.

That hasn’t resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn’t want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote.

In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans — every one of them co-authored the bill — ended up faltering.

“I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn’t need to make this mistake,” said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee.

Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this year in New Hampshire, which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year.

Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it.

In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data were handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents’ citizenship status. It came after officials had identified some 200,000 voters who were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not.

A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three years in Kansas before it was overturned by federal courts. The state’s own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible.

In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber.

Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session’s limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns.

“Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time,” Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year.

The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in.

Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn’t be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant’s status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided.

The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation.

Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump’s executive order: “This bill fully answers the president’s call,” she said.

Cassidy and Lathan write for the Associated Press. Cassidy reported from Atlanta. AP writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyo.; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo.; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Fla.; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.