POLITICS

WASHINGTON — Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who has led an effort in the Trump administration to cut jobs and programs across the federal government, stood by President Trump’s side on Friday in the Oval Office, officially for the last time as a government employee. But neither man was clear whether Musk’s active hand in government is truly over.

Their display of unity comes after Musk, the entrepreneur behind Tesla and SpaceX, issued a series of criticisms of Trump’s policies, both directly and through his companies, and as reports emerge that the billionaire fought fierce battles with the president’s aides and has relied on potent drugs while serving as Trump’s confidante.

“Nobody like him,” Trump said of Musk at the White House event. “He had to go through the slings and the arrows, which is a shame, because he’s an incredible patriot.”

“Many of the DOGE people, Elon, are staying behind. So they’re not leaving. And Elon’s really not leaving,” Trump added. “He’s going to be back and forth, I think, I have a feeling. It’s his baby.”

Musk praised the team of DOGE, an acronym for the Department of Government Efficiency program, for saving what he said was $175 billion in government spending. The program had initially set a more lofty goal of cutting $2 trillion, and it is unclear if Musk’s team has even met its revised figure, with the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service documenting an increase in federal spending over this time last year.

“The DOGE team is doing an incredible job,” Musk said. “I’ll continue to be visiting here, and be a friend and advisor to the president.”

Whether Musk continues in his role will have legal consequences. As a special government employee, Musk is obligated to end his service, now that the maximum work period allowed of 130 days has passed.

A group of 14 states has sued, arguing that Musk’s employee status was a ruse for the Trump administration to bring him into a powerful government role without having to go through a Senate confirmation process.

A federal judge in Washington on Wednesday ruled that Musk’s initial appointment was questionable, stating he “occupies a continuing position” and “exercises significant authority,” opening up a broader legal challenge over the constitutionality of his work for DOGE.

In a series of interviews leading up to his official departure from government, Musk has said that he plans to lessen his political spending going forward, and has criticized the Trump administration and congressional Republicans for pursuing legislation that would balloon the national deficit, a move he said was contrary to DOGE’s mission.

His departure this week comes after the New York Times reported on Musk’s heavy use of ketamine, a potent anesthetic drug, and after a Wall Street Journal article detailed Musk’s attempts to thwart Trump from pursuing partnerships on artificial intelligence in the Middle East that would benefit Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI and a personal nemesis of Musk’s.

Musk’s time in government has been marked by multiple setbacks for his companies. SpaceX has failed to meet essential engineering milestones for Starship, a critical super-heavy rocket ship that is critical to the U.S. effort to return humans to the moon and his own personal goal of reaching Mars. And Tesla, his electric vehicle company, saw a 71% plunge in profits in the first quarter of 2025 and a 50% drop in stock value from its highs in December.

“I think I probably did spend a bit too much time on politics,” Musk told Ars Technica, a science and technology publication, in an interview on Tuesday.

“It’s not like I left the companies,” he added. “It was just relative time allocation that probably was a little too high on the government side, and I’ve reduced that significantly in recent weeks.”

On Wednesday evening, the world’s wealthiest man announced that his sojourn in the nation’s capital is almost over. “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Elon Musk posted to X, the social media platform he owns.

While Musk was quick to add that the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency mission “will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” his departure will represent the effective end of DOGE as we know it. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “much of DOGE’s work will shift to the White House Office of Management and Budget,” which is headed by Russell Vought.

The DOGE team claims it identified about $175 billion in total savings. Given the federal government spent $6.75 trillion in fiscal 2024 alone, that may seem like a mere drop in the bucket. And given that Musk himself once vowed to identify taxpayer savings in the trillions of dollars — albeit without much of a timeline attached to that pronouncement — it certainly is a bit disappointing.

But consider some of the specific outrageous spending outlays identified by Musk’s team as ripe for the cutting board, such as $382 million from alleged fraudulent unemployment benefits (as the Department of Labor had previously flagged) and astonishing extravagance on the foreign stage — for instance, $2 million to an organization in Guatemala advocating gender-affirming healthcare and $20 million to a “Sesame Street”-inspired early childhood initiative in Iraq.

Such ideologically driven spending is emblematic of what Vought, in a Newsweek op-ed written two years ago during the Biden-era presidential interregnum, described as the “the scourge of a woke and weaponized bureaucracy.” The brief DOGE experiment, which uncovered tens of thousands of combined government contract and grant terminations that would shock the conscience of most Americans with any inclination toward sound fiscal stewardship, is proof that such a “woke and weaponized bureaucracy” isn’t merely speculative — it really exists.

There is probably a lot more, furthermore, where that $175 billion in flagged waste came from. And Vought, who has worked with Musk since last year, is the right man to continue the mission once Musk fully returns to the private sector.

There are now at least two additional steps that must be taken — one pressing short-term item and one more difficult longer-term item.

The reconciliation budget in the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” that passed the House last week, and which is now pending before the Senate, did not incorporate the DOGE cuts. It seems there is a procedural reason for this: The DOGE cuts are technically post hoc rescissions of presently appropriated money, and rescissions of current outlays are typically subject to their own process. An obscure figure known as the Senate parliamentarian controls the process by which the annual reconciliation budget bill — a favored tool because it permits a Senate majority to bypass the chamber’s legislative filibuster — can pass muster. And Capitol Hill Republicans apparently fear that including the DOGE rescissions would endanger President Trump’s desired bill.

But without Congress actually enacting the DOGE cuts into law, history will show this entire exercise to have been largely futile. Accordingly, Vought and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget must, following the reconciliation bill’s passage and enactment into law, transmit a fresh rescission package to Speaker Mike Johnson’s desk. It is extraordinarily important that the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress demonstrate not merely that they can identify excessive spending but also that they are willing to cut it.

The longer-term problem is thornier.

While DOGE has served a useful function, and while Vought’s office can probably identify a good amount more in the way of “woke and weaponized bureaucracy” cost-cutting measures, it is a matter of basic mathematics that something more will be needed to begin to rein in America’s soaring annual deficits and our shocking national debt.

The Republican Party of Donald Trump has moved in a strongly populist direction on issues of political economy. On many fronts, such as antitrust and industrial policy efforts to reshore vital supply chains, such a shift is very much welcome.

But at some point, both Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have to find some way to come together and put our entitlement programs — above all, Medicare and Social Security — on a path to sustainability. The political optics of being perceived as “cutting” either of these programs are simply horrible, so any attempt at reform will not be easy. But it must be done anyway, as the recent Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating makes starkly clear. The longer we wait, the more credit downgrades and interest payment spikes we risk.

Basic game theory suggests that neither party will want to blink first. Recall the 2012-era political ads accusing then-GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan of throwing grandmothers off cliffs. The politics are nasty, divisive and radioactive. But this must get done. So we’ll have to find some way to force everyone to do it together. And in the meantime, as a down payment, let’s just make sure DOGE’s crucial work was not done in vain.

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

Guess who suddenly has a “TACO” allergy? President Yuge Taco Salad himself.

In the annals of four-letter words and acronyms Donald Trump has long hitched his political fortunes on, the word “taco” may be easy to overlook.

There’s MAGA, most famously. DOGE, courtesy of Elon Musk. Huge (pronounced yuge, of course). Wall, as in the one he continues to build on the U.S.-Mexico border. “Love” for himself, “hate” against all who stand in his way.

There’s a four-letter term, however, that best sums up Trump’s shambolic presidency, one no one would’ve ever associated with him when he announced his first successful presidential campaign a decade ago.

Taco.

His first use of the most quintessential of Mexican meals happened on Cinco de Mayo 2016, when Trump posted a portrait of himself grinning in front of a giant taco salad while proclaiming “I Love Hispanics!” Latino leaders immediately ridiculed his Hispandering, with UnidosUS president Janet Murguia telling the New York Times that it was “clueless, offensive and self-promoting” while also complaining, “I don’t know that any self-respecting Latino would even acknowledge that a taco bowl is part of our culture.”

I might’ve been the only Trump critic in the country to defend his decision to promote taco salads. After all, it’s a dish invented by a Mexican American family at the old Casa de Fritos stand in Disneyland. But also because the meal can be a beautiful, crunchy thing in the right hands. Besides, I realized what Trump was doing: getting his name in the news, trolling opponents, and having a hell of a good time doing it while welcoming Latinos into his basket of deplorables as he strove for the presidency. Hey, you couldn’t blame the guy for trying.

Guess what happened?

Despite consistently trashing Latinos, Trump increased his share of that electorate in each of his presidential runs and leaned on them last year to capture swing states like Arizona and Nevada. Latino Republican politicians made historic gains across the country in his wake — especially in California, where the number of Latino GOP legislators jumped from four in 2022 to a record nine.

The Trump taco salad tweet allowed his campaign to present their billionaire boss to Latinos as just any other Jose Schmo ready to chow down on Mexican food. It used the ridicule thrown at him as proof to other supporters that elites hated people like them. Trump must have at least felt confident the taco salad gambit from yesteryear worked because he reposted the image on social media this Cinco de Mayo, adding the line “This was so wonderful, 9 years ago today!”

It’s not exactly live by the taco, die by the taco. (Come on, why would such a tasty force of good want to hurt anyone)? But Trump is suddenly perturbed by the mere mention of TACO.

Doritos Locos Tacos at the Taco Bell Laguna Beach location.

(Don Leach/Daily Pilot)

That’s an acronym mentioned in a Financial Times newsletter earlier this month that means Trump Always Chickens Out. The insult is in reference to the growing belief in Wall Street that people who invest in stocks should keep in mind that the president talks tough on tariffs but never follows through because he folds under pressure like the Clippers. Or a taco, come to think of it.

Trump raged when CNBC reporter Megan Cassella asked him about TACO at a White House press conference this week.

“Don’t ever say what you said,” the commander in chief snarled before boasting about how he wasn’t a chicken and was actually a tough guy. “That’s a nasty question.”

No other reporter followed up with TACO questions, because the rest of the internet did. Images of Trump in everything from taco suits to taco crowns to carnivorous tacos swallowing Trump whole have bloomed ever since. News outlets are spreading Trump’s out-of-proportion response to something he could’ve just laughed off, while “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” just aired a parody song to the tune of “Macho Man” titled — what else? — “Taco Man.”

The TACO coinage is perfect: snappy, easily understandable, truthful and seems Trump-proof. The master of appropriating insults just can’t do anything to make TACO his — Trump Always Cares Outstandingly just doesn’t have the same ring. It’s also a reminder that Trump’s anti-Latino agenda so far in his administration makes a predictable mockery of his taco salad boast and related Hispandering.

In just over four months, Trump and his lackeys have tried to deport as many Latino immigrants — legal and illegal — as possible and has threatened Mexico — one of this country’s vital trading partners — with a 25% tariff. He has signed executive orders declaring English the official language of the United States and seeking to bring back penalties against truck drivers who supposedly don’t speak English well enough at a time when immigrants make up about 18% of the troquero force and Latinos are a big chunk of it.

Meanwhile, the economy — the main reason why so many Latinos went for Trump in 2024 in the first place — hasn’t improved since the Biden administration and always seems one Trump speech away from getting even wobblier.

As for Latinos, there are some signs Trump’s early presidency has done him no great favors with them. An April survey by the Pew Research Center — considered the proverbial gold standard when it comes to objectively gauging how Latinos feel about issues — found 27% of them approve of how he’s doing as president, down from 36% back in February.

President Trump gives a thumbs up to the cheering crowd after a Latinos for Trump Coalition roundtable in Phoenix in 2020.

(Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)

Trump was always an imperfect champion of the taco’s winning potential, and not because the fish tacos at his Trump Grill come with French fries (labeled “Idaho” on the menu) and the taco salad currently costs a ghastly $25. He never really understood that a successful taco must appeal to everyone, never shatter or rip apart under pressure and can never take itself seriously like a burrito or a snooty mole.

The president needs to move on from his taco dalliance and pay attention to another four-letter word, one more and more Americans utter after every pendejo move Trump and his flunkies commit:

Help.

A coalition of airlines, hotels and concession companies at Los Angeles International Airport filed paperwork Thursday to force a citywide vote on a new ordinance hiking the minimum wage of hotel and airport workers to $30 per hour by 2028.

The group, known as the L.A. Alliance for Tourism, Jobs and Progress, is hoping to persuade voters to repeal the ordinance. But first, the alliance would need to gather about 93,000 signatures within 30 days to qualify the measure for the ballot in an upcoming election.

Phil Singer, a spokesperson for the alliance, said the wage increase “threatens revenue Los Angeles urgently needs” — and its standing as the host of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

“Small businesses will be forced to shut down, workers will lose their jobs, and the economic fallout will stretch across the city,” Singer said in an email. “We’re fighting for all of it: the city’s future, the jobs that sustain our communities, and the millions of guests the tourism industry proudly serves year after year.”

The new ballot measure campaign comes just two days after Mayor Karen Bass signed the minimum wage legislation into law.

The wage ordinance has been hotly opposed by an array of L.A. business organizations, which argue that it increases wages in the tourism industry too much and too quickly. However, it was welcomed by unions representing hotel and airport employees, which have supported many of the politicians who backed the measure.

The alliance’s campaign committee has received major funding from Delta Airlines, United Airlines and the American Hotel & Lodging Assn., Singer said. The group’s petition, submitted to the city clerk’s office, was signed by five businesspeople, including Greg Plummer, operator of an LAX concession company; Mark Beccaria, a partner with the Hotel Angeleno on L.A.’s Westside; and Alec Mesropian, advocacy manager with the organization known as BizFed.

The alliance is targeting a law that’s slated to push the hourly minimum wage to $22.50 on July 1 for housekeepers, parking attendants and hotel restaurant workers, as well as LAX skycaps, baggage handlers and concession employees. The wage would jump to $25 in 2026 and $27.50 in 2027.

The wage increase was spearheaded by Unite Here Local 11, the hotel and restaurant worker union, and by Service Employees International Union United Service Workers West, which represents private-sector airport workers.

Kurt Petersen, co-president of Unite Here Local 11, called the business group’s proposal “shameful” and promised his union’s members would go “toe to toe out on the streets” with the alliance’s signature gatherers.

“The hotel industry’s greed is limitless,” Petersen said. “They would rather spend millions getting them to sign this petition than pay their workers enough to live in Los Angeles. It’s shameful, but we’re confident that Angelenos will see through their deceptions and stand with workers.”

Under the city’s laws, hotel and airport workers have minimum wages that are higher than those who are employed by other industries.

The hotel minimum wage, approved by the council in 2014, is currently $20.32 per hour. The minimum wage for private-sector employees at LAX is $25.23 per hour, which includes a $5.95 hourly healthcare payment.

For nearly everyone else in L.A., the hourly minimum wage is $17.28, 78 cents higher than the state’s. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.

Backers of the airport and hotel minimum wage hikes say they will help some of the region’s lowest paid workers cover the rising cost of rent and food, while also giving them more disposable income to spend locally, delivering a boost to the region’s economy.

Detractors say it will undermine efforts by L.A.’s tourism industry to recover from the decline in business that was sparked by the outbreak of COVID-19 five years ago. They contend the ordinance will lead to layoffs, while also chilling development of new hotels.

The ordinance also requires airport and hotel businesses to provide an hourly healthcare payment — on top of the minimum wage — that starts at $7.65 in July and is expected to go up each year. (Hotels will be exempted from that requirement until 2026.)

Once the healthcare requirement is included, some businesses will be required to pay their workers an additional 60% over a three-year period, opponents of the wage increase say.

WASHINGTON — President Trump may seek to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants who recently entered the United States under a two-year grant of parole, the Supreme Court decided Friday.

Over two dissents, the justices granted an emergency appeal and set aside rulings by judges in Boston who blocked Trump’s repeal of the parole policy adopted by the Biden administration.

That 2023 policy opened the door for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans to apply for entry and a work authorization if they had a financial sponsor and could pass background checks. By the time Biden left office, 530,000 people from those countries had entered the U.S. under the program.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“The court plainly botched this,” Jackson said, adding that it should have kept the case on hold during the appeals.

It was the second time in two weeks that the justices upheld Trump’s authority to revoke a large-scale Biden administration policy that gave temporary legal status to some migrants.

The first revoked program gave temporary protected status to around 350,000 Venezuelans who were in this country and feared they could be sent home.

The parole policy allowed up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries to enter the country with temporary legal protection. Biden’s officials saw it as a way to reduce illegal border crossings and to provide a safe and legal pathway for carefully screened migrants.

The far-reaching policy was based on a modest-sounding provision of the immigration laws. It says the secretary of Homeland Security may “parole into United States temporarily … on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons any alien” who is seeking admission.

Upon taking office, Trump ordered an end to “all categorical parole programs.” In late March, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the parole protection would end in 30 days.

But last month, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked DHS’s “categorical” termination of the parole authority. The law said the government may grant parole on a “case-by-case basis,” she said, and that suggests it must be revoked on a case-by-case basis as well.

On May 5, the 1st Circuit Court in a 3-0 decision agreed that a “categorical termination” of parole appeared to be illegal.

Three days later, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed another emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing that a judge had overstepped her authority.

The parole authority is “purely discretionary” in the hands of the DHS secretary, he wrote, and the law bars judges from reviewing those decisions.

While the Biden administration “granted parole categorically to aliens” from four counties, he said the Boston-based judges blocked the new policy because it is “categorical.”

He accused the judges of “needlessly upending critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry, vitiating core Executive Branch prerogatives, and undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election.”

Immigrants rights advocates had urged the court to stand aside for now.

Granting the administration’s appeal “would cause an immense amount of needless human suffering,” they told the court.

They said the migrants “all came to the United States with the permission of the federal government after each individually applied through a U.S. financial sponsor, passed security and other checks while still abroad, and received permission to fly to an airport here at no expense to the government to request parole.”

“Some class members have been here for nearly two years; others just arrived in January,” they added.

In response, Sauer asserted the migrants had no grounds to complain. They “accepted parole with full awareness that the benefit was temporary, discretionary, and revocable at any time,” he said.

The Biden administration began offering temporary entry to Venezuelans in late 2022, then expanded the program a few months later to people from the other three countries.

In October of last year, the Biden administration announced that it would not offer renewals of parole and directed those immigrants to apply to other forms of relief, such as asylum or temporary protected status.

It’s unclear exactly how many people remained protected solely through the parole status and could now be targeted for deportation. It’s also not clear whether the administration will seek to deport many or most of these immigrants.

But parolees who recently tried to adjust their legal status have hit a roadblock.

In a Feb. 14 memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it was placing an administrative hold on all pending benefit requests filed by those under the parole program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, as well as a program for Ukrainians and another for family reunification.

The memo said USCIS needed to implement “additional vetting flags” to identify fraud, public safety or national security concerns.

“It’s going to force people into an impossible choice,” said Talia Inlender, deputy director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law. Those who stay face potential detention and deportation, she said, while those who willingly leave the U.S. would be giving up on their applications.

The DHS memo said the government could extend the parole for some of them on a case-by-case basis. But Trump’s lawyers said migrants who were here less than two years could be deported without a hearing under the “expedited removal” provisions of the immigration laws.

Inlender said the government should not be allowed to strip people of lawfully granted legal status without sufficient reason or notice. Inlender, who defended the program against a challenge from Texas in 2023, said she expects swift individual legal challenges to the Trump administration’s use of expedited removal.

“So many people’s lives are on the line,” Inlender said. “These people did everything right — they applied through a lawful program, they were vetted. And to pull the rug out from under them in this way should be, I think, offensive to our own idea of what justice is in this country.”

Staycee Dains was about a month into her job overseeing the Los Angeles city animal shelters when an employee openly defied her.

Dains asked the employee to clean a kennel. Instead, the employee picked up a hose and sprayed a dog in the face, Dains said.

Dains thought the employee should be fired, but she said the city’s personnel department recommended five days of leave.

Mayor Karen Bass hired Dains in June 2023 after promising to make L.A. “a national model for animal welfare” by turning around its troubled shelters, where dogs may live in overcrowded and dirty kennels and volunteers have complained that animals sometimes don’t get food and water.

But in an interview with The Times, Dains said she felt powerless to solve entrenched problems that included severe understaffing and employees who mistreated or neglected animals.

She said she was repeatedly told by the personnel department, which functions like a human resources department at a private company, that she couldn’t fire problem employees. She also clashed with one of the unions that represents shelter employees.

At one point, Dains even reached out to L.A. County prosecutors for help.

Meanwhile, as the overcrowding worsened, more dogs and cats were euthanized in city shelters under her watch than in the preceding years.

“We need to tell the unfiltered, unvarnished truth about what is happening in the shelters,” Dains said.

In August, after a little more than a year as Animal Services general manager, Dains went on paid leave. A few days later, a top Bass advisor told Dains that her last day would be Nov. 30 and that she was free to resign before then.

Zach Seidl, a Bass spokesperson, pushed back on Dains’ accusations.

“Many of these characterizations are misleading and some are just plain inaccurate,” he said in an email.

Dains, in a series of interviews, said the city does not provide enough funding to meet the basic needs of the animals in its six shelters.

During Bass’ first year in office, amid critical reporting by The Times and others about conditions in the shelters, the mayor offered an 18% budget increase — far less than the 56% the Animal Services department had requested. The following fiscal year, her budget proposal slightly lowered the department’s funding.

Last week, in passing a budget that closed a nearly $1-billion shortfall, the City Council spared Animal Services from major cuts.

Dains, who previously held top shelter jobs in San José and Long Beach, said her employees were desensitized to the suffering of the animals after witnessing it day after day. The understaffing was so bad that three people were responsible for 500 dogs: cleaning kennels, setting up adoptions and working with the medical team, she said.

“I couldn’t sleep knowing that animals were just in those hellholes suffering,” said Dains, who now works at a shelter system in Sacramento. “It was awful.”

Dains, who made about $273,000 a year in L.A., said she witnessed some of her employees “terrorizing” dogs by banging on their kennels, or spraying them with water to move them back. She told the employees to stop the behavior, but some said they had been trained to treat the dogs that way, she said.

To ensure that animals were fed and their enclosures cleaned, Dains suggested starting a schedule that tracked when each task was done. But a union representative worried that the information could be used to punish employees, Dains said.

Ultimately, Dains said, she dropped the proposal because of the opposition from the union, Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 300. A representative from the union declined to comment.

Dain said that personal entanglements and gossip among employees sometimes made it hard to hold them accountable.

Some supervisors had had sexual relationships with their subordinates, which led them to overlook the employees’ poor work performance, according to Dains. Others used the “dirt” they had on co-workers to protest when confronted about their own behavior, she said.

Dains said she suspected that some employees were sleeping during night shifts instead of cleaning cages or doing paperwork. She showed The Times a photo of dog beds arranged on the floor of a staff room like a “nest.”

She said she also witnessed employees watching videos on their phones, rather than working. Others ignored people who walked into the shelter looking to adopt a pet, she said. Some employees told her that colleagues failed to give food or water to cats and dogs.

At the same time, Dains said, other employees went “above and beyond constantly” to make up for those who didn’t pull their weight.

“There’s a significant portion of staff that just aren’t doing their jobs,” she said. “I saw this constantly.”

Dains put some of the blame on supervisors, who were “not requiring them to perform.”

When she tried to discipline supervisors, she faced pushback, she said.

After she put a supervisor on leave who was accused of bullying people, Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 300 filed a grievance against her, Dains said.

A spokesperson for the personnel department declined to comment.

At the same time, Dains acknowledged that she should have been tougher on some of the assistant general managers who reported directly to her. But she said she wanted to maintain working relationships with them.

It is a “tricky thing to do to start writing up executive-level managers that you are trying to work with,” she said.

A shelter employee, who requested anonymity because he didn’t have permission to talk to the media, agreed with Dains’ assessment.

“There’s no accountability, there’s no repercussions,” he said. “And the staff who do work have to work twice as hard.”

A report last year by Best Friends Animal Society, which highlighted the poor conditions in the shelters and suggested possible solutions, criticized Dains as the “biggest barrier” to improvement.

The shelters lacked written protocols, and the euthanasia policy “changed five times in the last year” without communication about the changes, the report said.

According to a Times analysis, the number of dogs euthanized at city shelters from January through September last year increased 72% compared with the same period the previous year. The number of dogs entering the shelters increased each year since 2022, but the number put to death far outpaced the population gain.

In the crowded conditions, animals started behaving poorly and suffered “mental and emotional breakdown,” according to the Best Friends report. That made them less likely to be adopted and more likely to be euthanized.

Dains, in her interview with The Times, defended her euthanasia decisions, arguing that it wasn’t safe for the animals, staff, volunteers or the public to “warehouse” dogs in kennels for months or years.

She said that there was no euthanasia policy when she arrived and that the department was creating one during her tenure.

Bass was Dains’ boss, but Dains’ main contact was Jacqueline Hamilton, deputy mayor of neighborhood services. Dains said she spoke often with Hamilton and told her about the personnel problems and other issues. But Hamilton didn’t offer any meaningful help and didn’t want her to publicize the poor conditions at the shelters, Dains said.

“I am not getting any movement or traction,” Dains told The Times, describing her work experience.

Seidl, the Bass spokesperson, said Dains “was given support to succeed, including assistance in communicating the status of the department to the public and decision makers.”

Dains said that shortly after she became general manager, she asked Deputy Dist. Atty. Kimberly Abourezk, who worked on animal cruelty cases, to send a letter to the mayor about poor conditions at the shelters.

Venusse D. Dunn, a spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, said Abourezk didn’t send the letter because she visited city animal shelters and didn’t find evidence of any crimes.

The office “is not in a position to tell another agency how to operate their facility,” Dunn said.

Annette Ramirez, a longtime Animal Services staffer, is now interim general manager. The “severe overcrowding crisis,” as the department described it in news release this month, continues.

Thousands of California Democrats will gather this weekend to be courted by gubernatorial and potential presidential candidates, rage against the Trump administration and organize for the 2026 election.

However, the state’s two most prominent Democrats — former Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newson — will not be attending the multiday gathering of roughly 4,000 party delegates, activists, donors, labor leaders and other powerful voices in the largest Democratic state in the nation, according to a source familiar with the event’s planning.

Their absences are notable given speculation about their political futures. Newsom and Harris are both viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates. Harris also may jump into California’s 2026 race for governor, and is expected to make a decision by the end of the summer.

Both were invited to the state party convention in Anaheim, according to the source. Harris is expected to send a video greeting attendees. Harris representatives did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Newsom is scheduled to participate in a Democratic Governors’ Assn.’ gathering in Portland to coordinate efforts to fight Trump’s tariffs, a spokesperson said. But the gathering doesn’t begin until Sunday, the final day of the state party convention. A letter from the governor to delegates is included in the convention program.

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist, said there was little benefit to either one attending the gathering.

“There’s no question that well-known, well-defined political figures like the governor and former vice president could be met with mixed reactions,” he said. “If I was advising them, I’m honestly not sure I could come up with a justification for their going. What’s the upside?”

Prominent California Democrats have routinely faced backlash from liberal delegates at the party’s annual conventions. Anti-fracking advocates interrupted a speech by former Gov. Jerry Brown over his support for the controversial oil extraction practice and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein was booed during her 1990 speech supporting the death penalty. Her then-gubernatorial campaign turned the latter into a television advertisement aimed at that era’s more moderate electorate.

Newsom, once a darling at such conventions, could possibly face similar fallout among party loyalists because of recent statements about opposing transgender athletes being allowed to compete in women’s sports as well as bantering with conservative heroes such as Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk on his podcast.

If she attended, Harris could be criticized for complicity in hiding former President Biden’s alleged cognitive decline while in office, an allegation lodged in a recent book that argues that deception led to Trump’s 2024 victory.

However, Harris has the luxury of time as she decides what to do next in her political career. Harris’ delay in making a decision about the gubernatorial contest, however, has drawn scorn from some Democrats who have announced their candidacies.

Every prominent Democrat who has announced a gubernatorial run is expected to attend the convention.

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond have official speaking roles because they currently serve in elected office, as does former state Controller Betty Yee because she is the party’s vice chair.

Former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, businessman Stephen J. Cloobeck, former Rep. Katie Porter and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will also be wooing attendees.

Potential 2028 presidential candidates Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and N.J. Sen. Cory Booker are also scheduled to speak to California Democratic Party delegates at the Anaheim Convention Center.

In addition to addressing delegates at caucus meetings, such as labor, environmental, Latino and women voters, candidates will meet with donors and court activists throughout the weekend. Social gatherings include a Friday night fireworks show, an ice cream social and a party titled “Punk the System” hosted by state Democrats as well as the powerful nurses’ and teachers’ lobbies.

“Dance. Drink. Rage for Democracy,” reads the invite to the gathering.

Candidates are also hosting events — Yee is offering “healthy breakfast bites” and coffee on Saturday morning. Cloobeck, a billionaire who made his fortune in real estate and hospitality, is planning a reception that night with the theme “Fight for California, Celebrate CA Dems!”

The longtime donor and fundraiser for Democrats and philanthropic causes has never previously run for elected office. In his first introduction to state party activists, Cloobeck said he plans to focus on lessons from the 2024 election and urging Democrats not to be tone deaf to the electorate’s needs.

“The party should work for everyone,” Cloobeck said. “It can’t cater to only special interests or well-connected individuals.”

State party chairman Rusty Hicks, who is widely expected to win reelection at the convention, said California Democrats have reflected and reckoned with last year’s election results, “some good and some bad and some ugly.”

While the party bucked national trends by performing strongly in congressional races, it also unexpectedly lost legislative seats and saw a decline in voter turnout among Latinos, Asian Americans and young people, Hicks said.

“We can’t just compete in targeted seats,” he said. “We have to compete everywhere in a different way. What happened in ‘24 — the good and the bad — informs what our work is in ‘26.”

Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

SIERRA VALLEY, Calif.  — Standing among his cattle in a broad green pasture, beneath a brilliant blue sky about an hour north of Lake Tahoe, rancher Dan Greenwood surveyed the idyllic landscape and called it what he feels it has become: a death trap.

Behind him, a 3-month-old calf that had been mauled by wolves the night before lay in the grass with deep wounds on its flanks. Two of its legs were so badly injured they could barely support the calf’s weight when it tried to stand. The animal’s agitated mother paced a few feet away.

Greenwood wrapped his hand around one of the calf’s ankles and gently rolled it onto its back to inspect the savage bite wounds.

The first wild wolf monitored by scientists via an electronic collar crossed from Oregon into California in 2011. Today, there are seven established packs in the Golden State.

(Malia Byrtus / California Wolf Project/UC Berkeley)

He was trying to decide whether to give the calf another day to see if it could recover enough to keep up with its mother — or put it out of its misery before the wolves returned to finish the job.

“If I can just walk up and grab him, then so can the wolf,” Greenwood said with a pained look on his face. “That’s not a challenge for them at all.”

What is a challenge in the rugged expanse of the Sierra Valley right now is keeping up with all the calls coming in from ranchers whose cattle have been mauled by wolves. Across the valley, which straddles Sierra and Plumas counties, there have been 30 confirmed wolf attacks since March, 18 of them fatal, said Sierra County Sheriff Mike Fisher.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

That doesn’t include a deer that was attacked in a subdivision just outside the small town of Loyalton as stunned residents looked on in disbelief, or the massive, frenzied elk that was chased onto a front porch in the middle of an April night and slaughtered by two wolves. A terrified 21-year-old stood on the other side of the front door, clutching a pistol and wondering if someone was trying to break in.

Once the “ruckus” died down enough for him to open the door and peek outside, Connor Kilmurray said, he saw “blood everywhere, it was smeared on the walls and the door. … It was definitely a massacre.”

When Fisher arrived to investigate, he was relieved that the desperate elk, which weighed hundreds of pounds, hadn’t crashed straight through the front door and into the living room with two snarling wolves on its heels.

Sierra County Sheriff Mike Fisher shows where wolves slaughtered an elk late at night on the front steps of a home in Loyalton.

“If it had just been a foot over, two feet over, that would have been quite an awakening,” Fisher said.

For ranchers, the solution to the growing problem in California’s rural northern counties seems obvious: They want to shoot the wolves preying on their cattle.

But while wolf populations are large enough that hunting them is allowed in much of the American West — in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming — they are still listed as an endangered species in California. Killing a wolf here is a crime punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison.

Local authorities say there have been 30 confirmed wolf attacks on cattle in the Sierra Valley since March, 18 of them fatal.

Whether Sierra Valley ranchers would face such consequences is another question. The wolf attacks feel so out of control, said Sierra County Dist. Atty. Sandra Groven, that she would not pursue charges against a rancher who kills a wolf caught preying on cattle.

Groven cautioned that she was not giving carte blanche to poachers to engage in “outrageous conduct,” or issuing a license for anyone to “go on a killing spree.” But given the frequency of wolf attacks in the valley recently, she said, she doesn’t see how she could bring charges against one of her neighbors for defending themselves or their property.

“Bottom line, I would not prosecute,” Groven said. “What are they supposed to do? Run up and wave their arms and say, ‘Go away’?”

The struggle between ranchers and wolves is as old as herding itself, and nobody interviewed for this article wanted to repeat the sins of the past: By the early 20th century, wolves in the United States had been hunted to near extinction. Only a small pack remained in northern Minnesota when then-President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act in 1973 and wolves were added to a list of protected animals.

With their numbers still low two decades later, government biologists reintroduced wolves from Canada to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. In the years since, they have prospered and slowly migrated across the West.

“We feel like our hands are tied,” rancher Dan Greenwood says of his efforts to protect his cattle from wolves. “We’re exhausted, and there’s zero help.”

(Andy Barron / For The Times)

The first wild wolf monitored by scientists via an electronic collar crossed from Oregon into California in 2011. Today, there are seven established packs in the Golden State, with an estimated population of about 70 wild wolves.

State wildlife biologists and other conservationists excited at the prospect of a wolf comeback assumed the predators would target their natural prey, mostly deer and elk. But decades of logging and climate change have vastly altered the forests and terrain in much of Northern California, leaving deer and elk in short supply. Instead, many of the wolves have taken to hunting the lumbering, docile, domesticated cattle grazing in plain sight on wide-open pastures.

When that happens, ranchers say, it’s like someone coming into your store and stealing from the shelves. Nobody pretends cattle are pets — they’re bred and raised to be slaughtered. But no business can survive for long without some way to protect the merchandise.

To defend the livestock, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife promotes non-lethal “hazing” of the predators, which can include firing guns toward the sky, driving trucks and ATVs toward wolves to try to shoo them away and harassing them with noise from drones. But according to local ranchers, none of that seems to work, at least not for long.

And that has led to near rebellion in California’s northeastern counties, including Sierra, where local authorities have declared a state of emergency and are begging state officials for permission to more aggressively “remove” problem wolves.

The reason hazing doesn’t seem to work, according to ranchers, is that the wolves appear to have no fear of humans. And the cattle, which have gone generations without having to deal with these apex predators, seem to have forgotten how to defend themselves by sticking together in herds.

Turning such naive, docile cattle loose in sprawling pastures is a little like turning “me loose in downtown L.A.,” said Cameron Krebs, a fifth-generation rancher in eastern Oregon who has been dealing with aggressive wolves for years. “I might get hurt, might run into the wrong person, might get run over by a car, just because I don’t have the sense to look both ways,” he said with a laugh.

Krebs has become something of a hero in environmental circles for his dedication to finding non-lethal ways to co-exist with wolves, which boil down to making sure the animals in his herd stick together — the way wild buffalo and elk do — so it’s harder for wolves to single out and separate one of them.

But that takes a lot of time and manpower, and there are inevitably wolves that outwit even the most well-intentioned efforts. “At that point, you need to be able to shoot them,” Krebs said. “It’s just one of the tools in the toolbox.”

UC Davis researchers Tina Saitone, left, and Ken Tate mount a camera to capture wolf activity.

A camera attached to a fence port monitors wolf activity.

Back in the Sierra Valley, Greenwood said he saw his first wolf in 2018, from his living room window, standing over a calf it had just killed. “It was just taunting me,” Greenwood said in disbelief.

But things didn’t get really bad until 2022, when he lost nearly two dozen animals to the increasingly brazen wolves. Since then, he said, he has been fighting an exhausting, losing battle.

“I felt really, really bad as we were shipping cows in here in May,” Greenwood said, standing in an immense pasture on a portion of his ranch in nearby Red Clover Valley. “It’s beautiful up here; there’s plenty of grass growing. Everything’s right for them, except there’s wolves circling in the hills just waiting for those trucks to get here.”

He’s versed in the non-lethal techniques promoted by environmental advocates and embraced by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, but his shoulders slumped and his eyes searched the horizon as he explained how impractical they seem to him now.

“Profit margins are so, so thin,” he said, noting that some people seem to think all ranchers are as rich as Kevin Costner’s character on “Yellowstone.” But his reality is nothing like TV.

“It’s just me and another guy running 1,200 acres of irrigated hay and 600 cows,” Greenwood said. “I could maybe get all of these cows into a corral at night if I had six guys on horses helping me,” but there’s no money for that.

“We feel like our hands are tied. We’re exhausted, and there’s zero help,” Greenwood said.

UC Davis researcher Ken Tate points to wolf fur caught on a barbed-wire fence.

In 2021, the state set up a $3-million pilot project to reimburse ranchers for cattle lost to wolves and help pay for non-lethal deterrents, such as flags tied to electrified fences and lights affixed to fence posts.

But Greenwood said by the time he finished filling out all the paperwork for the cattle he lost in 2022, the state money had run out. “I still haven’t seen a dime,” he said.

Arthur Middleton, a professor of wildlife management working with UC Berkeley’s California Wolf Project, said he’s been taken aback by how bold the wolves are becoming in the Sierra Valley.

In April, while a TV news crew from Sacramento was filming an interview with the sheriff in a cattle pasture, two gray wolves appeared in the background stalking the livestock, Middleton recounted. The sight of them so close to the road in broad daylight, with a noisy news crew filming nearby, was like nothing he has witnessed in many years of working on wolf recovery.

“That just goes to show what an incredible challenge ranchers and wildlife managers have on their hands,” Middleton said.

For many Sierra Valley residents, the question is no longer whether problem wolves are going to be forcefully removed, it’s who is going to do it. Pissed-off ranchers? Or environmental professionals working with an eye to eliminate the most prolific cattle killers while preserving the rest of the pack?

There’s a joke circulating in the valley this spring: “Shoot, shovel and shut up,” Groven said. She added that she doesn’t think any of the ranchers have followed through on the implied threat, but said it would be hard to blame them if they did.

Fisher, the sheriff, said he would like the authority to shoot a wolf he believes poses a risk to human safety — like the pair that chased the elk onto someone’s front porch. But he thinks the Department of Fish and Wildlife should be responsible for “removing” wolves that habitually attack cattle.

“They’re very patient,” rancher Dan Greenwood says of using non-lethal methods to scare off wolves. “They just outlast you.”

Greenwood said he’s not advocating for the elimination of the wolves. He just wants to be able to protect his livestock.

He saw the wolves moving among his cattle the night the 3-month-old calf was mauled and another one was killed. Following the law, he kept his hands off his gun and revved up his ATV, chasing the predators more than a mile away, hoping that was far enough to keep the cattle safe.

It wasn’t. “They’re very patient,” Greenwood said. “They just outlast you.”

The 3-month-old calf? It died of its wounds before the wolves could return.

After losing last month in Orange County Superior Court, the state of California is asking a state appellate court to overturn a Huntington Beach measure that could require voters to present photo identification to cast ballots in local elections.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, the state’s top elections official, have been tangling with Huntington Beach in court for more than a year over Measure A, which amends the city charter to say that local officials “may” require photo ID for municipal elections starting in 2026.

In April, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nico Dourbetas said the state had not shown that “a voter identification requirement compromises the integrity of a municipal election.” Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns called the ruling a “huge victory.”

Bonta appealed Wednesday to the 4th Appellate District, where the state hopes for a more favorable hearing. In February, a three-judge panel from the 4th District said that Huntington Beach’s assertion of a “constitutional right to regulate its own municipal elections free from state interference” was “problematic,” but kicked the case back down to Orange County Superior Court.

More than 53% of Huntington Beach voters supported the charter amendment in the March 2024 election.

The amendment also requires that Huntington Beach provide 20 in-person polling places and to monitor ballot drop boxes. The city has not shared plans on how the law could be implemented in next year’s elections.

A representative for Huntington Beach didn’t respond to requests for comment Thursday. The city’s lawyers have argued that the city charter gives local officials autonomy to oversee municipal issues, including local elections.

Bonta and Weber contend that while California’s 121 “charter cities” can govern their own municipal affairs, local laws can’t conflict with state laws on issues of “statewide concern,” including the integrity of California elections and the constitutional right to vote.

The voter ID law is one of several fronts in the ongoing battle that conservative officials in Huntington Beach have waged against California since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The city has used similar arguments about its charter city status in fights over state housing laws, education policies for transgender students and “sanctuary state” immigration laws.

The issue of voter ID has become a flashpoint with conservative politicians, including President Trump, who in January demanded that California enact a voter ID law in order to receive aid for the devastating Los Angeles area wildfires.

California voters are required to verify their identities when they register to vote, and the state imposes criminal penalties for fraudulent registration. California does not require photo identification at the polls but does require that voters provide their names and addresses.

The photo ID measure may also be invalidated by Senate Bill 1174, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last fall, which bars local election officials from requiring photo identification in elections.

A cadre of civil rights groups brought a lawsuit late Wednesday challenging Riverside County’s use of cash bail to detain people as they await trial, citing squalid conditions inside the county’s jails where dozens of inmates have died in recent years.

The class-action suit is the latest to challenge the legality of cash bail systems in California after a 2021 state Supreme Court ruling found it is unconstitutional to jail defendants solely because of their inability to pay their way out from behind bars.

“Every day, Riverside County imprisons people based on nothing more than their inability to pay an arbitrary, pre-set amount of cash that Defendants demand for their release,” attorneys for the civil rights groups argue in the 80-page complaint. “These individuals are not detained because they are too dangerous to release: The government would release them right away if they could pay. They are detained simply because they are too poor to purchase their freedom.”

The suit was brought by the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Civil Rights Corps, Public Justice in Oakland and several other law firms on behalf of two people incarcerated in Riverside County jails and two local faith leaders. It names as defendants the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Chad Bianco, the Riverside County Superior Court system and the county.

Lt. Deirdre Vickers, a sheriff’s department spokesperson, said she could not comment on pending litigation, as did a representative for the county court system. The county executive’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

While the suit argues money bail is unconstitutional across California and seeks an injunction ending its use, attorneys said they are focusing on Riverside County following a spate of deaths in the jails in 2022. That year, Riverside County recorded 18 inmate fatalities, the highest number in a decade.

The following year, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, a Democrat, opened what remains an ongoing investigation into complaints about living conditions in the county jails and allegations that deputies use excessive force against detainees.

Inmate deaths have fallen since 2022. The county reported 13 jail fatalities in 2023 and six last year, according to Vickers.

Bianco — a law-and-order conservative who has joined a crowded field of Democrats to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom in the 2026 election — has previously dismissed the state’s investigation into his jails as politically motivated. Bianco maintains the jail deaths, many of which authorities attribute to drug overdoses and suicides, are a reflection of the inmates’ life choices rather than a sign of any problem with the jail system.

“Every single one of these inmate deaths was out of anyone’s control,” Bianco said after news of the state investigation broke. “The fact of the matter is that they just happened to be in our custody.”

The cash bail system has deep roots in the U.S. as a means of pressuring defendants to show up for scheduled court appearances. Attend trial, and the sizable cash payments are returned to you or your family; skip court, and you forfeit your deposit.

Critics argue it effectively creates a two-tiered justice system, allowing wealthy defendants to pay their way out while awaiting trial, and leaving low-income defendants stuck behind bars. Proponents of eliminating the bail system contend that decisions about whether to jail defendants ahead of trial should be based on the severity of their crimes and the risk they pose to public safety, and not hinge on their income status.

Brian Hardingham, a senior attorney with Public Justice, said people sometimes spend days in jail awaiting their first court appearance, only for a prosecutor to decline to file a case presented by local police. That stint behind bars can have an outsize effect on people’s lives, especially if they are low-income, Hardingham said.

“You meet people with 6-month-old kids in jail who, if they’re lucky, there is a partner or a parent or someone who can watch their kids,” he said, adding that even a brief stretch in a county jail can result in people losing their job, vehicle or even their residence.

Supporters of the cash bail system, including many law enforcement groups, say that doing away with it would leave too many defendants free to potentially flee and re-offend, leading to crime spikes.

The issue grew increasingly controversial during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the virus spread with deadly consequences through the state’s jails and prisons. Los Angeles County instituted a zero-bail policy for most offenses in 2020, trying to reduce jail crowding at a time when the virus was spreading rapidly. That policy was rescinded in June 2022.

Despite concerns from police groups, a 2023 report to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors showed re-arrest and failure-to-appear rates remained relatively static among those freed pre-trial while the zero-bail policy was in place.

A similar lawsuit to the one filed against Riverside County prompted Los Angeles County court officials to revise their bail policies in 2023. Under the new system, the vast majority of defendants accused of misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies are now cited and released, or freed under specified conditions after a judge reviews their case. Defendants accused of serious offenses, including murder, manslaughter, rape and most types of assault, still face a stiff cash bail schedule.

Fears that the new system would result in a crime spike have not been borne out. Total crime in areas patrolled by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department fell by about 2% in 2024, the first calendar year the reduced bail policy was in place, according to department data. The city of Los Angeles has seen significant decreases in the number of robberies, property crimes and aggravated assaults committed this year, as of mid-May, records show.

Given the 2021 state Supreme Court ruling and the changes in Los Angeles, Hardingham said he is hopeful other counties will shift their bail policies without having to engage in a court fight.

“We would hope that they would be willing to see the writing on the wall and make the changes that are necessary,” he said.

Federal Communications Commissioner Anna M. Gomez traveled to Los Angeles this week to sound an alarm that attacks on the media by President Trump and his lieutenants could fray the fabric of the 1st Amendment.

Gomez’s appearance Wednesday at Cal State L.A. was designed to take feedback from community members about the changed media atmosphere since Trump returned to office. The president initially expelled Associated Press journalists from the White House, for example. He signed an executive order demanding government funding be cut to PBS and NPR stations.

Should that order take effect, Pasadena-based radio station LAist would lose nearly $1.7 million — or about 4% of its annual budget, according to Alejandra Santamaria, chief executive of parent organization Southern California Public Radio.

“The point of all these actions is to chill speech,” Gomez told the small crowd. “We all need to understand what is happening and we need people to speak up and push back.”

Congress in the 1930s designed the FCC as an independent body, she said, rather than one beholden to the president.

But those lines have blurred. In the closing days of last fall’s presidential campaign, Trump sued CBS and “60 Minutes” over edits to an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, alleging producers doctored the broadcast to enhance her election chances. CBS has denied the allegations and the raw footage showed Harris was accurately quoted.

Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, upon taking office in January, revived three complaints of bias against ABC, NBC and CBS, including one alleging the “60 Minutes” edits had violated rules against news distortion. He demanded that CBS release the unedited footage.

The FCC’s review of Skydance Media’s pending takeover of CBS-parent Paramount Global has been clouded by the president’s $20-billion lawsuit against CBS. The president rejected Paramount’s offer to settle for $15 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, which said Trump has demanded more.

Two high-level CBS News executives involved in “60 Minutes” were forced out this spring.

Gomez, in an interview, declined to discuss the FCC’s review of the Skydance-Paramount deal beyond saying: “It would be entirely inappropriate to consider the complaint against the ’60 Minutes’ segment as part of a transaction review.” Scrutinizing edits to a national newscast “are not part of the public interest analysis that the commission does when it considers mergers and acquisitions,” she said.

For months, Gomez has been the lone voice of dissent at the FCC. Next month, she will become the sole Democrat on the panel.

The longtime communications attorney, who was appointed to the commission in 2023 by former President Biden, has openly challenged her colleague Carr and his policies that align with Trump’s directives. She maintains that some of Carr’s proposals, including opening investigations into diversity and inclusion policies at Walt Disney Co. and Comcast, go beyond the scope of the FCC, which is designed to regulate radio and TV stations and others that use the public airwaves.

The pressure campaign is working, Gomez said.

“When you see corporate parents of news providers … telling their broadcasters to tone down their criticisms of this administration, or to push out the executive producer of ’60 Minutes’ or the head of [CBS] News because of concerns about retribution from this administration because of corporate transactions — that is a chilling effect,” Gomez said.

Wednesday’s forum, organized by the nonprofit advocacy group Free Press, was punctuated with pleas from professors, journalists and community advocates for help in fending off Trump’s attacks. One journalist said she lost her job this spring at Voice of America after Trump took aim at the organization, which was founded more than 80 years ago to counter Nazi propaganda during World War II.

The Voice of America’s remaining staffers could receive reduction-in-force notices later this week, according to Politico.

Latino journalists spoke about the difficulty of covering some stories because people have been frightened into silence due to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

For now, journalists are able to carry out their missions “for the most part,” said Gabriel Lerner, editor emeritus of the Spanish-language La Opinión.

But he added a warning.

“Many think that America is so exceptional that you don’t have to do anything because fascism will never happen here,” Lerner said. “I compare that with those who dance on the Titanic thinking it will never sink.”

The White House pushed back on such narratives:

“President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history. He regularly takes questions from the media, communicates directly to the public, and signed an Executive Order to protect free speech on his first day back in office,” spokesperson Anna Kelly said. “He will continue to fight against censorship while evaluating all federal spending to identify waste, fraud, and abuse.”

FCC Commission Chairman Brendan Carr on Capitol Hill.

(Alex Wroblewski / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Traditionally, the five-member FCC has maintained an ideological balance with three commissioners from the party in power and two from the minority. But the senior Democrat — Geoffrey Starks — plans to step down next month, which will leave just three commissioners: Gomez, Carr and another Republican, Nathan Simington.

Trump has nominated a third Republican, Olivia Trusty, but the Senate has not confirmed her appointment.

Trump has not named a Democrat to replace Starks.

Some on Wednesday expressed concern that Gomez’s five-year tenure on the commission could be cut short. Trump has fired Democrats from other independent bodies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Gomez said if she is pushed out, it would only be because she was doing her job, which she said was defending the Constitution.

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) applauded Gomez’s efforts and noted that he’s long appreciated coordinating with her on more routine FCC matters, such as ensuring wider broadband internet access.

“But now the fight is the survival of the free press,” Ruiz said.

He noted that millions of people now get news from non-journalist sources, leading to a rise of misinformation and confusion.

“What is the truth?” Ruiz said. “How can we begin to have a debate? How can we begin to create policy on problems when we can’t even agree on what reality is?”

California on Wednesday joined 15 other states filing suit against the National Science Foundation and its acting director, alleging the agency has illegally terminated millions of dollars in grants and imposed new fees that have ended or crippled research vital to health, the economy and the advancement of knowledge.

The Trump administration has defended its actions as both legal and necessary to align the NSF with the president’s priorities.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, specifically targets the science foundation for “terminating grants for scientific research that seeks to promote and understand diversity in higher education and the workforce,” according to a statement from California Atty. General Rob Bonta.

The suit alleges that the NSF’s actions are illegally arbitrary and capricious and violate federal law on the management and use of federal funding.

Bonta’s office asserted that between 1995 and 2017, the number of women in science and engineering occupations, or with science or engineering degrees, doubled with help from federal support; minorities, meanwhile, went from representing about 15% in the occupations to about 35%.

The suit also seeks to overturn the Trump administration’s 15% cap on indirect costs related to research, which universities say are critical to carrying out their work. Such indirect costs include maintaining lab space, keeping the temperature controlled and the proper handling and disposal of biological, chemical and biochemical materials.

Like other key federal agencies, the National Science Foundation has been in turmoil since Trump took office in January — undergoing across-the-board funding cuts, layoffs and reorganization as well as apparent ideological litmus tests for research, sweeping grant terminations and a funding freeze on grant applications.

The Trump administration has fired back at critics.

Earlier this month Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, criticized diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in federally funded research, calling them “close-minded” in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.

Kratsios also called for a reduction of “red tape” in scientific research, the online news site FedScoop reported. He said there is a “crisis of confidence in scientists” that comes from fears that political biases are impacting research.

Trump officials also have repeatedly maintained that the federal government is rife with waste and fraud.

The federal actions have come at extreme cost, according to Bonta.

“President Trump wants to make America’s universities second tier with his backwards efforts to slash research funding that has kept us on the cutting edge of science and innovation,” Bonta said. “For more than 50 years, Congress has expressly authorized the National Science Foundation to train up the next generation of talent and invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep our position as a global leader” in science, technology, engineering and math.

“With President Trump’s latest round of indiscriminate funding cuts, America is poised to fall behind its competitors at a critical moment in the global technology race. We’re suing to stop him,” Bonta said.

In California, billions of dollars are at risk across the California State University, University of California and public community college systems.

“Many innovations — like the internet, GPS, and MRI technology — trace their origins to research initially funded by NSF. Without NSF funding, many California colleges and universities will be forced to substantially reduce or stop altogether potentially groundbreaking programs and research projects,” according to Bonta’s office.

Terminated NSF grants, for instance, include a five-year, $3-million project, “Computational Research for Equity in the Legal System.” This study examined crime data for patterns of racial bias while also looking at police misconduct and eviction policies, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Canceled UC Berkeley grants included projects on electoral systems and two on environmental science education.

The NSF has also told staff to screen grant proposals for “topics or activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities” that had shifted under the Trump administration, the journal Nature reported.

The lawsuit lays out a wide range of benefits and goals of the federal funding.

“From developing AI technology that predicts weather patterns to protect communities, to developing sustainable solutions for environmental and economic challenges, to making power grids more sustainable, NSF-funded research at American universities ensures this nation’s status as a global leader in scientific innovation,” according to the lawsuit.

The other states involved in the litigation are Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington.

The pattern of federal cuts and turmoil related to research also is playing out with the National Institutes of Health. And California also is party to a lawsuit over cuts to these grants.

Tara Kerin, a project scientist who works in pediatric infectious disease research at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, said that the funding cuts at the National Science Foundation echoed similar ones made at the National Institutes of Health.

That, she said, makes her “very nervous about the future of science and research.”

Kerin, whose work has partly focused on HIV prevention and detection in young adults, was funded by NIH grants — until they were cut this spring.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers this week condemned the Trump administration’s termination of humanitarian protections that have left a 4-year-old girl who is receiving critical medical treatment in Los Angeles vulnerable to deportation and death.

On Tuesday, The Times published the story of S.G.V., who has short bowel syndrome — a rare condition that prevents her body from completely absorbing nutrients. She and her parents received temporary permission to enter the U.S. legally through Tijuana in 2023.

In a letter Thursday to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, 38 congressional Democrats, including California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, urged her to reconsider the termination of the family’s legal status.

“We believe this family’s situation clearly meets the need for humanitarian aid and urge you and this Administration to reconsider its decision,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is our duty to protect the sick, vulnerable, and defenseless.”

Last month, S.G.V.’s family, who now live in Bakersfield, received notice from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that their status had been terminated and that they had to leave the country immediately. Earlier this month, they applied again for humanitarian protections.

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that the family is not actively in the deportation process and that their application is still being considered.

The girl’s physician, Dr. John Arsenault of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, wrote in a letter requested by her family that any interruption in her daily nutrition system “could be fatal within a matter of days.”

The story about S.G.V. drew swift public outcry. An online fundraiser for the girl’s care had amassed nearly $26,000 as of Thursday morning.

The letter to Noem was led by Reps. Luz Rivas (D-North Hollywood) and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles). Rivas said state legislators and constituents messaged her about the family, asking what she could do to help.

While the family lives outside of Rivas’ district, which encompasses the north-central San Fernando Valley, she said it is her role as a California Democrat and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to speak up for immigrant constituents in districts where Republican representatives may not do so.

“That’s why we’re organizing as members of Congress,” Rivas said. “Without action from Secretary Noem and this administration, this little girl will die within days.”

In a post on X, Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) called the situation “heartbreaking.” Seeking to deport the girl despite her medical condition is “cruel and inexcusable,” Chu added.

In another X post, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) wrote: “Trump wants to deport a four-year-old who could die from a life-threatening medical condition if her treatment is interrupted. How does this cruelty make us a stronger nation?”

The family and their attorneys held a news conference Wednesday at the Koreatown office of the pro bono firm, Public Counsel. The lawyers explained that the equipment administered by the hospital to S.G.V. for home use is not available outside the U.S.

“If they deport us and they take away my daughter’s access to specialized medical care, she will die,” said Deysi Vargas.

Attorneys for the family noted that S.G.V. is not the only child affected in recent months by the Trump administration’s immigration policies. In an attempt to speed up arrests and deportations, they said, children are needlessly being swept up in the process.

Gina Amato Lough, directing attorney at Public Counsel, said the girl’s case “is a symbol of the recklessness of this administration’s deportation policies.”

“We’re seeing a pattern of cruelty and a violation of our most treasured rights and values,” said Amato Lough. “These are people coming to us for protection, and instead we’re sending them to die. That’s not justice, and it doesn’t make us any safer.”

President Trump’s tariff strategy has been thrown into turmoil after a U.S. court issued a rare rebuke blocking many of the import taxes he has threatened and imposed on other countries.

In a ruling issued late Wednesday, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade declared that the Trump administration had wrongly invoked a 1977 law in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs on dozens of countries and they were therefore illegal. It also extended that ruling to previous tariffs levied on Canada, Mexico and China over the security of the U.S. border and trafficking in fentanyl.

The Trump administration immediately said it would appeal, putting the fate of the tariffs in the hands of an appellate court and potentially the Supreme Court. The ruling doesn’t affect Trump’s first-term levies on many imports from China or sectoral duties planned or already imposed on goods including steel, which are based on a different legal foundation that the Trump administration may now be forced to make more use of to pursue its tariff campaign.

It’s unclear just how fast Wednesday’s ruling will go into effect, with the court giving the government up to 10 days to carry out the necessary administrative moves to remove the tariffs. But if the decision holds, it would in a matter of days eliminate new 30% U.S. tariffs on imports from China, 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico and 10% duties on most other goods entering the U.S.

Those tariffs and the prospect of retaliatory ones have been seen as a significant drag on U.S. and global growth and eliminating them — even temporarily — would improve prospects for the world’s major economies.

There is uncertainty over whether the ruling represents a permanent setback to Trump’s push to reshape global trade or a mere impediment. Trump and his supporters have attacked judges as biased and his administration has been accused of failing to fully comply with other court orders, raising questions over whether it will do so this time.

A White House spokesperson dismissed the ruling as one made by “unelected judges” who should not have the power “to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” Trump has invoked national emergencies ranging from the U.S. trade deficit to overdose deaths to justify many of his tariffs.

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

If the ruling isn’t reversed or ignored, one of the consequences could be greater fiscal concerns at a time when bond markets are questioning the trajectory of the U.S.’s mounting debt load. The Trump administration has been citing increased tariff revenues as a way to offset tax cuts in his “one big, beautiful bill” now before Congress, which is estimated to cost $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

U.S. importers paid a record $16.5 billion in tariffs in April and Trump’s aides have said they expected that to rise in the coming months.

Major trading partners including China, the European Union, India, and Japan that are in negotiations with the Trump’s administration must now decide whether to press ahead in efforts to secure deals or slow walk talks on the bet they now have a stronger hand.

Deal doubts

Also thrown into doubt would be the outlines for a trade deal that Trump reached with the UK earlier in May. That potential pact calls for the imposition of a 10% U.S. tariff on all imports from the UK that would be null and void if Wednesday’s decision endures.

“I don’t know why any country would want to engage in negotiations to get out of tariffs that have now been declared illegal,” said Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown Law School professor and former WTO judge and general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative. “It’s a very definitive decision that the reciprocal worldwide tariffs are simply illegal.”

Hillman and other legal experts pointed out that Trump has other legal authorities he can draw on. But none would give him as broad powers as those he invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

A provision of the 1974 trade act gives presidents the power to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days, though only in the event a balance of payments crisis, which Trump may not want to declare given the current nervous state of bond markets, Hillman said.

Trump could also invoke other authorities to impose tariffs on individual sectors or countries, as he did in his first term. In recent months, he has already used national security powers to impose duties on imported steel, aluminum and cars and launched seven other investigations pertaining to things like pharmaceuticals, lumber and critical minerals.

“The Trump administration’s toolbox won’t be completely empty,” Dmitry Grozoubinski, director of ExplainTrade and author of the book “Why Politicians Lie About Trade” said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. But as for IEEPA, “if they comply with this ruling that takes that toy out of the toy box.”

More uncertainty

Wednesday’s ruling came in two parallel cases brought by a conservative group on behalf of a small business and U.S. states controlled by Democrats.

“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the conservative Liberty Justice Center, which brought one of the cases.

For many other businesses, it brought the prospect of yet another sharp turn in U.S. tariff policies and more short-term questions and headaches.

Southern California-based Freight Right Global Logistics has several shipments on the water now for clients all over the U.S., carrying goods largely from China. Those containers are filled with everything from toys to robots, and it’s very uncertain what the tariff burden will be for those shipments when they land, said Freight Right Chief Executive Robert Khachatryan.

Khachatryan fielded questions Wednesday evening from his clients on potential refunds, which tariffs will be removed, and what would be the effective dates.

“We are working hard to answer customers questions but the reality is that there is not enough information out there yet,” he said. “Tomorrow we’re going to be all over the place figuring out what this means in practice.”

Donnan, Larson and Curtis write for Bloomberg News.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply limited the reach of environmental impact statements in a victory for developers.

The justices said these claims of the potential impact on the environment have been used too often to delay or block new projects.

“A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process. A course correction of sorts is appropriate,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, speaking for the court.

He said procedural law has given judges and environmentalists too much authority to hinder or prevent development, he said.

“Fewer projects make it to the finish line. Indeed, fewer projects make it to the starting line. Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary,” he said. “And that in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like. And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.”

In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled for the developers of a proposed 88-mile railroad in northeastern Utah which could carry crude oil that would be refined along the Gulf Coast.

In blocking the proposal, judges had cited its potential to spur more drilling for oil in Utah and more pollution along the Gulf Coast.

Long before Clayton Kershaw donned No. 22 and Fernando Valenzuela wore No. 34, another number told fans it was time for Dodger baseball: 76.

Union Oil Co., the 76 gasoline brand’s former owner, helped finance Dodger Stadium’s construction. The brand’s current owner, Phillips 66, remains a major sponsor. Through six World Series titles, orange-and-blue 76 logos have been a constant presence at Chavez Ravine. They tower above the scoreboards and grace the outfield walls.

So when 76 recently posted on Instagram that it had begun sponsoring L.A.’s rivals in San Francisco — with an orange-and-blue logo on the center field clock at Oracle Park — some Dodgers fans weren’t pleased.

“THE BETRAYAL,” one fan wrote on Instagram.

“bestiessss nooooo,” another lamented.

76 was unfazed, responding: “Still a bestie, just spreading the love!”

Strange as the reactions may sound, it’s not unheard of for long-lived ad campaigns to take on a life of their own, evolving from paid promotions to cultural touchstones. Outside Fenway Park in Boston, Red Sox fans have fought to preserve the massive Citgo sign, with its logo of a Venezuelan-owned oil company.

Nor is it shocking that Houston-based Phillips 66 would market itself through another baseball team. The 76 gasoline brand, after all, evokes the patriotism of 1776 — a clever marketing ploy. And what’s more American than Major League Baseball?

Still, the timing of Phillips 66’s decision to start sponsoring the Giants is intriguing.

Since last summer, nearly 30,000 people have signed a petition urging Dodgers ownership to cut ties with the oil company. California is currently suing Phillips 66 and other oil and gas companies for climate damages, accusing them of a “decades-long campaign of deception” to hide the truth about the climate crisis.

Climate activists protest outside Dodger Stadium before a game May 15, 2025, calling on the team’s ownership to drop Phillips 66 as a sponsor.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter held its third protest at Dodger Stadium before a game against the Athletics on May 15. Activists cloaked in sackcloth marched outside the parking lots. One played a bagpipe.

“It was a bit hard for the fans to comprehend,” organizer Lisa Kaas Boyle acknowledged.

Still, she believes the cause is righteous.

A former environmental crimes prosecutor and a co-founder of the Plastic Pollution Coalition, Kaas Boyle lost her home in the Palisades fire. She’s also a Dodgers fan, having caught the bug from her husband, whose 89-year-old mom grew up cheering for the team in Brooklyn. She has a special place in her heart for Kiké Hernández.

So when the Dodgers joined other sports teams in pledging $8 million to wildfire relief, she felt the organization was “speaking out of two sides of its mouth.” She pointed to a study concluding that the weather conditions that helped drive the Palisades and Eaton fires were 35% more likely due to climate change.

“If you really care about us fire victims, you wouldn’t be promoting one of the major causes of the disaster,” Kaas Boyle said. “If you really care, you wouldn’t be boosting their image, greenwashing it through baseball.”

At least one member of the Dodgers ownership group cares about presenting a climate-friendly image.

Tennis star Billie Jean King posted on Facebook, Instagram and X in the fall promoting a climate summit being held next week at the University of Oxford, co-hosted by an arm of the United Nations. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has called on all countries to ban fossil fuel advertising.

So, what does King think of the 76 ads at Dodger Stadium?

Hard to say. Her publicist didn’t respond to my request for comment.

Dodgers infielder Miguel Rojas scratches a message in the dirt near second base at Dodger Stadium on May 18, with a 76 logo on the outfield wall in the background.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

The Dodgers also declined to respond. Same goes for the Giants and Phillips 66.

So why is the oil company “spreading the love” to the Bay Area?

Again, hard to know for sure. But Duncan Meisel has a theory. He runs the advocacy group Clean Creatives, which pressures ad agencies to stop working with fossil fuel clients. And he suspects that lawmakers and regulators based in Sacramento are less likely to attend a baseball game in L.A. than in nearby San Francisco.

“If you’re 76, and you’re worried about decision-makers in California, that’s where you’d want to be,” he said.

Indeed, Phillips 66 may have reasons to be worried.

The company plans to close its Los Angeles County oil refinery this year — a troubling sign of the economic times for Big Oil as California shifts toward electric cars. Lawmakers are also weighing a “polluters pay” bill that would require fossil fuel companies to help pay for damages from more intense heat waves, wildfires and storms.

Phillips 66, meanwhile, was arraigned this month on charges that it violated the U.S. Clean Water Act by dumping oil and grease from its L.A. County refinery into the local sewer system. (It pleaded not guilty.) That followed a win for climate activists in March, when state Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) wrote to Dodgers controlling owner Mark Walter, urging him to dump Phillips 66.

Hence, perhaps, the newfound relationship with the Giants.

“That’s why you advertise,” Meisel said. “If you’re a company like Phillips 66 that’s under threat from political and cultural pressures in California, it’s hard to get a better deal than sponsoring a local sports team.”

If you look closely, you can see the 76 ad on the digital clock high above the center field fence at San Francisco’s Oracle Park on May 4 (Star Wars Day, hence the Stormtroopers).

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

It’s not just California turning up the heat on Phillips 66. Executives have been battling a pressure campaign from Elliott Investment Management, which won two seats on the company’s board last week.

As Elliott ramped up the pressure on Phillips 66 earlier this year, executives announced an expanded sponsorship deal with their hometown ball club — another Dodgers nemesis, as it happens, the cheating Houston Astros.

Phillips 66 now sponsors the home run train atop the high left-field wall at Houston’s Daikin Park (formerly Minute Maid Park). The train is filled with 25 oversized baseballs, each representing a special moment in Astros history — yes, including the World Series title they stole from the Dodgers.

As Phillips 66 brand manager John Field said in an April news release: “Sponsorships like these are more than just fun — they’re a strategic investment.”

Fun and strategic, sure, if you’re mainly invested in oil industry profits. If you care about watching baseball games in safe temperatures, without choking on wildfire smoke, you might reach a different conclusion.

One thing’s for sure: Fossil fuel companies will keep pumping money into baseball so long as teams let them. The Astros, Texas Rangers and Cleveland Guardians all wear jersey patches sponsored by oil and gas companies.

In California, meanwhile, Phillips 66 will keep reminding Dodgers fans how much they love looking at 76 logos — a playbook so successful it once inspired a campaign to save the rotating 76 balls above gas stations.

“This is a heavy play on Americana,” Roberta J. Newman said.

A Yankees fan and professor in New York University’s Liberal Studies program, Newman wrote the fascinating book, “Here’s the Pitch: The Amazing, True, New, and Improved Story of Baseball and Advertising.” There may be nobody with a better understanding of the cultural and political power of baseball-linked advertising.

The former 76 gas station in the Dodger Stadium parking lot, seen in 2003.

(Alex Gallardo / Los Angeles Times)

When a brand like 76 associates itself with the Dodgers — through special ticket deals, joint promotions with the team charity and TV commercials starring Vin Scully — it’s engaged in “meaning transfer,” Newman said.

“Your positive associations of the Dodgers will become positive associations with 76,” she said.

Most fans won’t drive away from Dodger Stadium and immediately choose 76 over a rival gasoline station. But in the long run, they’ll have good vibes when they see the orange-and-blue logo. It’ll feel familiar, friendly.

If that sounds nuts — well, you might want to tell business executives they blew $1 trillion on ads last year.

“People might think, ‘Oil is terrible. But 76 is the Dodgers,’” Newman said.

Now it’s the Giants, too — not that Newman thinks the dual loyalty will hurt the company. As one Instagram user, a Giants fan, wrote: “Hey Dodger fans, it’s OK! … 76 is a California icon and tradition from North to South!”

Fair enough. Wildfires are getting bigger and more destructive up there too.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our “Boiling Point” podcast here.

For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @sammyroth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace has delivered some sharp criticism of President Trump since she became a host on the progressive-leaning cable news network in 2017.

So it’s surprising that her new podcast shares its name with one of Trump’s regular boasts about his team: “The Best People.”

“I thought he had abandoned it,” Wallace, 53, told The Times. “But I actually think ‘the best people’ was one of his best messages in 2016.”

“He abandoned it officially when he picked Matt Gaetz,” she added, referring to Trump’s first choice for attorney general.

Each week on “The Best People,” starting Monday, Wallace will have lengthy conversations with actors, musicians, thought leaders and other figures outside of politics. The guest on the first episode is actor and fellow podcaster Jason Bateman, followed by Sarah Jessica Parker, music producer Jimmy Jam, folk singer Joan Baez and Milwaukee Bucks coach Doc Rivers in coming weeks.

The jump into podcasting comes as the network looks for more ways to reach the growing number of consumers who are no longer watching cable TV.

The network says its existing audio podcasts, which include series from hosts Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Jen Psaki, will top 10 million downloads in May.

“Our goal is to meet our audience where they are and to bring the talent of our hosts and anchors to them in those spaces,” said Madeleine Haeringer, MSNBC’s senior vice president of digital, audio and longform. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all formula — but instead, tailoring each project to both the host and the platform.”

Wallace said she was ready to expand her role at MSNBC before the corporate changes. Podcasting appealed to her because, as a working mom, she knows many women aren’t available to watch her daily program in the afternoon.

Her branching out into less overtly political territory is somewhat unexpected.

The former Bush White House communications director’s tenure on the ABC talk show “The View” was brief, partly due to her lack of pop culture expertise.

That’s not a concern this time around, she said. The guests she solicited for “The Best People” are coming to the table to discuss their own advocacy issues apart from the kind of instant political analysis presented on her MSNBC program “Deadline: White House.”

Wallace connected with Jimmy Jam when they discussed creating a “We Are the World” type of musical production to aid Ukraine. She knew Rivers through his social justice activism (as coach of the Los Angeles Clippers, he had to guide the players through the scandal over former owner Donald Sterling’s racist comments) and Parker for her devotion to literacy programs.

The podcast format allows them to open up in a way that doesn’t always happen on live TV.

“For some reason, people sitting in front of their computer screens on the Zoom are even more candid and forthcoming about how they feel,” Wallace said.

Wallace is wading into digital media at a time when MSNBC is in transition. The channel, along with other NBCUniversal cable outlets, is being spun off from current owner Comcast into a new company called Versant.

Comcast is getting out of the cable channel business, with the exception of its potent reality brand Bravo, out of concern about the steady decline of the pay TV audience. Over the last 10 years, cord-cutting has reduced the number of cable homes MSNBC reaches by 33%.

MSNBC also saw a mass exodus of viewers just after the presidential election, as its loyal left-leaning audience tuned out after Trump’s victory.

The ratings have gradually climbed back up, with MSNBC maintaining its second place position behind perennial cable leader Fox News but well ahead of third place CNN. In May, the network was up 24% from the lows it hit in November and December, but is still down 35% compared to the presidential campaign-elevated levels of a year ago, according to Nielsen.

But leadership at Versant has it made clear that MSNBC will continue to cater to a politically progressive audience.

Wallace believes the commitment to the network’s point of view has only deepened under new management. “It’s a culture that really rewards deep wonky coverage of politics,” she said. “[MSNBC President] Rebecca Kutler has come in and tripled down on all of that.”

The spinoff requires separating MSNBC from NBC News, where some journalists were uneasy with the intensity of partisan commentary on the cable network. Versant is hiring its own newsgathering team — as many as 100 journalists — including justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian, who is moving over from NBC.

“To work for someone who is hiring reporters at a time when we’re looking at an administration that seems a little meh about the Constitution is pretty forward leaning,” Wallace said.

She was inspired to try something new by the extracurricular activities of her husband, the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Michael S. Schmidt, who co-created the Netflix thriller series “Zero Day” with former NBC News President Noah Oppenheim.

“Michael enjoyed it so much it gave me the idea to add something that is a little outside my comfort zone,” Wallace said.

Wallace met Schmidt, 41, at MSNBC, where he is a contributor. They married in 2022 and a year later had their first child via surrogate. Wallace also has a 13-year-old son, Liam, from her first marriage.

While Wallace and Schmidt have a business-like dynamic when they appear together on the program, family matters creep in off-camera.

“When we are both on set, my son is texting us about dinner,” Wallace said. “During the breaks, we’re never talking about the rule of law. We’re talking about logistics.”

Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee were childhood friends, altar boys raised in the Catholic pews and prosperous suburbs of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

By the mid-1970s, Boyce was angry about the Vietnam War and Watergate. He was a liberal, a stoner and a lover of falcons. Lee, a doctor’s adopted son, was a cocaine and heroin pusher who was spiraling into addiction.

How they became spies for the Soviet Union is a story emblematic of 1970s Southern California, where the state’s massive Cold War aerospace industry collided with its youthful anti-establishment currents.

Everyone agrees it should never have been possible.

In the summer of 1974, Boyce, a bright but disaffected 21-year-old college dropout, got a job as a clerk at the TRW Defense and Space Systems complex in Redondo Beach. He won entree through the old-boys network: His father, who ran security for an aircraft contractor and was once an FBI agent, had called in a favor.

In this series, Christopher Goffard revisits old crimes in Los Angeles and beyond, from the famous to the forgotten, the consequential to the obscure, diving into archives and the memories of those who were there.

Boyce made $140 a week at the defense plant and held down a second job tending bar. TRW investigators had performed only a perfunctory background check. They skipped his peers, who might have revealed his links to the drug culture and to Lee, who already had multiple drug busts and a serious cocaine habit — the white powder that would inspire his nickname.

In “The Falcon and the Snowman,” Robert Lindsey’s account of the case, the author describes Boyce beginning the day by popping amphetamines and winding down after a shift puffing a joint in the TRW parking lot. Falconry was his biggest passion. “Flying a falcon in exactly the same way that men had done centuries before Christ transplanted Chris into their time,” Lindsey wrote.

Boyce impressed his bosses and was soon cleared to enter the steel-doored fortress called the “black vault,” a classified sanctum where he was exposed to sensitive CIA communications pertaining to America’s network of espionage satellites. The satellites eavesdropped on Russian missiles and defense installations. Among the goals was to thwart a surprise nuclear attack.

Reading CIA communiques, Boyce didn’t like what he saw. Among its other sins, he decided, the U.S. government was deceiving its Australian allies by hiding satellite intelligence it had promised to share and meddling in the country’s elections.

“I just was in total disagreement with the whole direction of Western society,” Boyce told The Times many years later. He attributed his espionage opportunity to “synchronicity,” explaining: “How many kids can get a summer job working in an encrypted communications vault?”

Soon he made his life’s “biggest, dumbest decision.” He told his buddy Lee they might sell government secrets to the Soviets. Lee talked his way into the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, where Russians fed him caviar and bought classified documents with the toast, “To peace.”

Lee’s KGB handlers devised protocols. When he wanted to meet, he would tape an X to lampposts at designated intersections around Mexico City.

For more than a year, thousands of classified documents flowed from the TRW complex to the Soviets, with Boyce sometimes smuggling them out in potted plants. In exchange, he and Lee received an estimated $70,000.

At parties, Lee showed off his miniature Minox camera and bragged that he was engaged in spycraft. In January 1977, desperate for money to finance a heroin deal, he flouted KGB instructions and appeared unannounced outside the Soviet Embassy. Mexican police thought he looked suspicious and arrested him.

He held an envelope with filmstrips documenting a U.S. satellite project called Pyramider. Under questioning, Lee revealed the name of his co-conspirator and childhood friend, who soon was also under arrest. Boyce had just returned from a hawk-trapping trip in the mountains.

The espionage trials of the two men presented special challenges for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles. The Carter administration was ready to pull the plug on the case if it meant airing too many secrets, but a strategy was devised: Prosecutors would focus on the Pyramider documents, which involved a system that never actually got off the ground.

Joel Levine, one of the assistant U.S. attorneys who prosecuted Boyce and Lee, said only a fraction of what they sold to the Soviets ever came out at trial.

“I was told these other projects should not be revealed. It’s too costly to our government, and you can’t base a prosecution on them either in whole or in part,” Levine said in a recent interview. “You just gotta stay away from it.”

For federal prosecutors in L.A., hanging over the case was the memory of a recent humiliation: the collapse of the Pentagon Papers trial, as a result of the Nixon administration’s attempt to bribe the presiding judge with a job. It had caught prosecutors by surprise.

“We were afraid it would ruin our reputation forever if something like that were to happen,” Levine said. “So we made it very, very clear right from the get-go that if we smelled something like that was afoot, we would walk into court and have the case dismissed on our own.”

The defendants had sharply different motives. Lee was in it for the money, Richard Stilz, one of the prosecutors, said in a recent interview. But “Boyce was totally ideology. He wanted to damage the United States government,” Stilz said. “He just hated this country, period.”

The defendants got separate trials. A rift that had been growing between them deepened with their mutually hostile defenses. Lee’s defense: Boyce had led him to believe he was working for the CIA, feeding misinformation to the Russians. Jurors convicted Lee of espionage, nonetheless, and a judge gave him a life term.

Boyce’s defense: Lee had blackmailed him into espionage by threatening to expose a letter he had written, while stoned on hashish, alleging secret knowledge of CIA malfeasance. Jurors convicted Boyce as well, and a judge gave him 40 years.

In January 1980, at a federal prison in Lompoc, Boyce hid in a drainpipe and sprinted to freedom over a fence. He was on the run for 19 months. He robbed banks in the Pacific Northwest until federal agents caught him outside a burger joint in Washington state.

He was convicted of bank robbery and got 28 more years. In 1985, the same year a popular film adaptation of “The Falcon and the Snowman” was released, Boyce testified on Capitol Hill about the despair attending a life of espionage.

“There was no thrill,” he said. “There was only depression, and a hopeless enslavement to an inhuman, uncaring foreign bureaucracy…. No American who has gone to the KGB has not come to regret it.”

He spoke of how easily he had been allowed to access classified material at TRW. “Security was a joke,” he said, describing regular Bacardi-fueled parties in the black vault. “We used the code destruction blender for making banana daiquiris and mai tais.”

Cait Mills was working as a paralegal in San Diego when she read the Lindsey book and became fascinated by the case. She thought Lee had been unfairly maligned, and she spent the next two decades fighting to win him parole.

She got letters of support from the prosecutors and the sentencing judge attesting that Lee had made strides toward rehabilitation. He had taken classes in prison and become a dental technician. He won parole in 1998.

She turned her attention to freeing Boyce, with whom she fell in love. She wrote to the Russians and asked how much value there had been in the stolen TRW documents and received a fax claiming it was useless. He got out in 2002, and they married. They later divorced but remain close. Both live in central Oregon.

Stilz maintains the damage to America was “enormous.”

“In a murder case, you have one victim and a person dies,” Stilz said. “In an espionage case, the whole country is a victim. We were so far advanced over the Russians in spy satellite technology. They leveled the playing field. That’s probably the most important point.”

He gives no credence to the Russian government’s claim that it derived no value from the secret information. “Of course they’d say that,” Stilz said. “What do you think they’d say? ‘Oh yeah, it allowed us to catch up with the United States in terms of spying.’ They’re not gonna say that.”

Cait Mills Boyce said that Boyce and Lee, childhood best friends, no longer speak, and that the silence between them wounds Boyce.

“He said, ‘I love that man; I always loved him. He was my best friend.’ It hurt him so badly.”

She said Boyce, now in his 70s, lives a solitary life and immerses himself in the world of falconry. “His entire life, and I kid you not, is falconry,” she said. “He will die with a falcon on his arm.”

Part of what pushed him into the world of espionage, she thinks, was the challenge. “I think his uncommon smarts led him down a whimsical path that ended up being a disastrous path, not just for him but for everybody involved,” she said.

The movie “The Big Short” — dramatizing the reckless behavior in the banking and mortgage industries that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis — captures much of Wall Street’s misconduct but overlooks a central player in the collapse: the federal government, specifically through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

These two government-created and government-sponsored enterprises encouraged lenders to issue risky home loans by effectively making taxpayers co-sign the mortgages. This setup incentivized dangerous lending practices that inflated the housing bubble, eventually leading to catastrophic economic consequences.

Another critical but overlooked factor in the collapse was the Community Reinvestment Act. This federal law was intended to combat discriminatory lending practices but instead created substantial market distortions by pressuring banks to extend loans to borrowers who might otherwise have been deemed too risky. Under threat of regulatory penalties, banks significantly loosened lending standards — again, inflating the housing bubble.

After the bubble inevitably burst, Fannie and Freddie were placed under conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The conservatorship imposed rules aimed at preventing future taxpayer-funded bailouts and protecting the economy from government-fueled market distortions.

Now, President Trump’s appointee to lead that agency, Bill Pulte, is considering ending this conservatorship without addressing the core structural flaw that fueled the problem in the first place: implicit government guarantees backing all Fannie and Freddie mortgages. If Pulte proceeds without implementing real reform, taxpayers on Main Street are once again likely to be exposed to significant financial risks as they are conscripted into subsidizing lucrative deals for Wall Street.

Without genuine reform, the incentives and practices that led to the crisis remain unchanged, setting the stage for a repeat disaster.

Pulte’s proposal isn’t likely to unleash free-market policies. Instead, it could further rig the market in favor of hedge funds holding substantial stakes in Fannie and Freddie, allowing them to profit enormously from the potential upside, while leaving taxpayers to bear all the downside risks.

A meaningful solution requires Fannie and Freddie to significantly strengthen their capital reserves. The two government-sponsored enterprises still remain dangerously undercapitalized. A report from JP Morgan Chase describes it this way: “Despite steady growth in [their net worth], the GSEs remain well below the minimum regulatory capital framework requirements set by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2020.” Imposing robust capital requirements similar to those that govern private banks would oblige the two enterprises to internalize their risks, promoting genuine market discipline and accountability.

Further reforms should address transparency and oversight. Enhanced disclosure standards would allow investors, regulators and the public to better assess risks. Additionally, limiting the types of mortgages these entities can guarantee could reduce exposure to the riskiest loans, further protecting taxpayers. Implementing clear rules that prevent Fannie and Freddie from venturing into speculative financial products would also mitigate potential market distortions.

Critically, the federal government must clearly communicate that future bailouts are not an option. Explicitly removing government guarantees would compel Fannie and Freddie to operate responsibly, knowing that reckless behavior will lead to their insolvency, not to another taxpayer rescue. Clear legal separation from government backing is essential to prevent moral hazard.

The combination of government guarantees, regulatory pressure from policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and inadequate capital standards created the perfect storm for the 2008 financial crisis. Ignoring these lessons and repeating past mistakes would inevitably lead to a similar disaster.

Proponents of prematurely releasing Fannie and Freddie argue that market conditions have changed and risk management has improved. Yet, history repeatedly demonstrates that without structural changes, financial entities — particularly those shielded by government guarantees — inevitably revert to risky behavior when market pressures and profit incentives align. Markets function best when participants bear the full consequences of their decisions, something impossible under the current structure of these government-sponsored enterprises.

Ultimately, the only responsible approach is removing taxpayers from the equation entirely. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should participate in the mortgage market only as fully private entities, without any implicit government guarantees.

The American public doesn’t need a sequel to “The Big Short.” The painful lessons of the 2008 crisis are too recent and too severe to be ignored or forgotten. Market discipline, fiscal responsibility and genuine reform — not government-backed risk-taking — must guide our approach going forward. We can only hope that the Trump administration chooses fiscal responsibility over risky experiments that history has already shown end in disaster.

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

It was the first and possibly the most dramatic act by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass after she took office: declaring a city emergency on homelessness.

That move, backed by the City Council, gave Bass the power to award no-bid contracts to nonprofit groups and to rent hotels and motels for interim homeless housing. It also allowed Bass to waive regulations limiting the size and scale of certain types of affordable housing.

Now, two and a half years into Bass’ tenure, some on the council are looking to reassert their authority, by rescinding the homelessness emergency declaration.

Councilmember Tim McOsker said he wants to return city government to its normal processes and procedures, as spelled out in the City Charter. Leases, contracts and other decisions related to homelessness would again be taken up at public meetings, with council members receiving testimony, taking written input and ultimately voting.

“Let’s come back to why these processes exist,” McOsker said in an interview. “They exist so the public can be made aware of what we’re doing with public dollars.”

McOsker said that, even if the declaration is rescinded, the city will need to address “the remainder of this crisis.” For example, he said, the homeless services that the city currently provides could become permanent. The city could also push county agencies — which provide public health, mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment — to do more, McOsker said.

Bass, for her part, pushed back on McOsker’s efforts this week, saying through an aide that the emergency declaration “has resulted in homelessness decreasing for the first time in years, bucking statewide and nationwide trends.”

“The Mayor encourages Council to resist the urge of returning to failed policies that saw homelessness explode in Los Angeles,” said Bass spokesperson Clara Karger.

The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, also known as LAHSA, reported last summer that homelessness declined by 2.2% in the city of L.A., the first decrease in several years. The number of unsheltered homeless people — those who live in interim housing, such as hotels and motels, but do not have a permanent residence — dropped by more than 10% to 29,275, down from 32,680.

The push from McOsker and at least some of his colleagues comes at a pivotal time.

Last month, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted to pull more than $300 million from LAHSA, the city-county agency that provides an array of services to the unhoused population.

Meanwhile, the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, which has been battling the city in court over its response to the crisis, is pushing for a federal judge to place the city’s homelessness initiatives into a receivership.

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for the alliance, said the city has “very little to show” for its emergency declaration in terms of progress on the streets.

“It’s our view that a state of emergency around homelessness is appropriate, but that the city is not engaged in conduct that reflects the seriousness of the crisis — and is not doing what it needs to do in order to solve the crisis,” he said.

Inside Safe, Bass’ signature program to bring homeless people indoors, has moved 4,316 people into interim housing since it began in 2022, according to a LAHSA dashboard covering the period ending April 30. Of that total, nearly 1,040 went into permanent housing, while nearly 1,600 returned to homelessness.

Council members voted this week to extend the mayor’s homelessness emergency declaration for another 90 days, with McOsker casting the lone dissenting vote. However, they have also begun taking preliminary steps toward ending the declaration.

Last week, while approving the city budget, the council created a new bureau within the Los Angeles Housing Department to monitor spending on homeless services. On Tuesday, the council asked city policy analysts to provide strategies to ensure that nonprofit homeless service providers are paid on a timely basis, “even if there is no longer a declared emergency.”

The following day, McOsker and Councilmember Nithya Raman — who heads the council’s housing and homeless committee — co-authored a proposal asking city policy analysts to report back in 60 days with a plan addressing the “operational, legal and fiscal impacts” of terminating the emergency declaration.

That proposal, also signed by Councilmembers John Lee and Ysabel Jurado, now heads to Raman’s committee for deliberations.

While some on the council have already voiced support for repealing the emergency declaration, others say they are open to the idea — but only if there is a seamless transition.

“I want to make sure that if we do wind it down, that we do it responsibly,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who represents the southwest San Fernando Valley.

Blumenfield wants to protect Executive Directive 1, which was issued by Bass shortly after she declared the local emergency, by enshrining its provisions into city law. The directive lifts height limits and other planning restrictions for 100% affordable housing developments, which charge rents below market rates.

Raman said the city must confront a number of issues stemming from the homelessness crisis, such as improving data collection. But she, too, voiced interest in exploring the end of the emergency declaration.

“This is also an extremely important conversation, and it is one I am eager to have,” she said.