Department

WASHINGTON — Arriving in Oklahoma City the night after the worst domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history, Merrick Garland grasped the enormity of the task ahead of him. Downtown resembled a war zone. Military vehicles blocked streets. For blocks, federal agents and police were busy collecting evidence. At the federal building, where 168 people had died in a massive bomb blast, rescue workers were searching through rubble for victims, guided by the eerie glow of floodlights that seemed to Garland as bright as the noonday sun.

With shattered glass crunching underfoot on his way to the command center, Garland knew his Justice Department team would have to surmount obstacles typical of any big investigation. But he also understood broader societal forces required special attention if prosecutors hoped to win justice for those slain: Trust in law enforcement was eroding, America was awash in conspiracy theories, and the government didn’t have a grip on the threat posed by right-wing extremists.

Garland’s oversight of the bombing inquiry provides insights into how, as President Biden’s nominee to be the next attorney general, he would run the Justice Department, according to interviews with former prosecutors and agents, as well as a detailed oral history Garland provided in 2013 to the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum. Though the attack took place nearly 26 years ago, the former prosecutor’s experiences have become newly relevant as he seeks to lead the federal effort to hold accountable those responsible for the deadly siege last month of the U.S. Capitol and to prevent similar violence.

“Merrick Garland has seen the face of domestic terrorism,” said J. Gilmore Childers, a former Justice Department prosecutor who worked with Garland on the Oklahoma City case. “And he has learned how to recognize that face and what it stands for.”

Garland is expected to win easy confirmation from the Senate, which is scheduled to hold a hearing Monday on his nomination. If confirmed, the 68-year-old federal appellate judge will face serious challenges beyond those posed by extremists who stormed the U.S. Capitol.

He has been tasked with expeditiously implementing Biden administration policies that seek to beef up enforcement of civil and voting rights laws, and reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system. He will also need to bolster morale at an agency that became mired in the Trump era over how it handled prosecutions of the president’s associates and the rollout of a special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election while simultaneously overseeing politically sensitive investigations, including a tax inquiry on Hunter Biden, the president’s son.

Garland is sure to get tough questions from senators of both parties. Conservatives are likely to attack him about Biden administration policies they consider to be too liberal. Republican senators expressed similar apprehensions when they torpedoed Garland’s 2016 nomination to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon. They argued at the time that Garland’s appointment would swing the high court too far to the left. The GOP-controlled Senate refused to consider the nomination, and left the seat vacant for the next president to fill — though it was nearly nine months before the election. President Trump succeeded in winning confirmation of Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative federal appellate judge, to the seat.

Still, Garland has drawn support from influential Republicans. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the party’s most recent Judiciary Committee chairman, tweeted shortly after news of Garland’s nomination became public that the judge was “a man of great character, integrity, and tremendous competency in the law.”

His nomination has generated muted enthusiasm from liberal activists concerned he too often sided with law enforcement as a judge, and Democratic senators are expected to ask him about his plans to enforce civil rights laws and the Justice Department’s role in reforming police departments.

Lawmakers are also likely to question him about whether Trump bears legal culpability in urging his followers last month to march to the Capitol before they stormed the complex.

Associates say the federal judge — whose nomination became public hours before the Capitol was besieged — will avoid commenting directly on Trump or the Capitol investigation, but may point to lessons he learned while overseeing the investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing.

Garland has called overseeing that inquiry the capstone of his legal career, which has included a two-decade stint on one of the nation’s most influential appeals courts. Then a top Justice Department official, he spent several weeks in bomb-devastated Oklahoma personally supervising prosecutors and agents before returning to Washington, where he continued to guide the department’s bombing trial preparations.

“This is the central thing, the most significant thing I worked on,” Garland said in the oral history with the Oklahoma City National Memorial, in which he spoke at length about his work on the case.

Lawyers, he added, are not always sure if they make a difference in a specific case. But he never felt that way about Oklahoma City. “Being there makes you feel like you had a role to play in the investigation,” he said, “helping pull people together, and it’s a very satisfying feeling for a lawyer.”

Garland, a 1977 graduate of Harvard Law School, worked in private practice, rising to partner of a major law firm before deciding he needed trial experience, he has said. In 1989, he left his lucrative job and joined the Justice Department as a prosecutor. A few years later, he was tapped by the Clinton administration to serve as principal assistant deputy attorney general, the top advisor to the deputy attorney general who runs the department’s day-to-day operations.

Garland was at his desk April 19, 1995, when an “Urgent Report” flashed across his computer screen. It said there had been explosion at 9:02 a.m. at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Within minutes, the horror became clear: A bomb had detonated and scores of people, including children in a day care center, were missing and presumed dead.

The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was devastated by a bomb that killed 168 people on April 19, 1995.

(Associated Press)

The Oklahoma City U.S. attorney’s office did not have the capacity to spearhead such a vast investigation. The day after the attack, Garland hopped on an FBI jet and headed west.

At first, the government suspected Islamic terrorists were behind the attack. But before Garland could land in Oklahoma, authorities arrested Timothy McVeigh, a former U.S. soldier who had become an anti-government zealot angry over the bloody 1993 storming of the Branch Davidians compound in Waco, Texas.

McVeigh’s initial court appearance was moved from the damaged federal courthouse to nearby Tinker Air Force Base, and Garland arranged that the hearing be open to the media and public, believing that conspiracy theories could be combatted with transparency.

When he met with prosecutors and investigators, he insisted that everyone “do everything by the book,” a mantra veterans of the inquiry still vividly recall. Garland, former agents and prosecutors said, understood missteps would be used to attack the legitimacy of the investigation by McVeigh’s defense team or anti-government extremists.

For example, former agents and prosecutors said, when a company offered to voluntarily turn over records, Garland ordered investigators to instead obtain the information with a subpoena. And when agents wanted to search a car for a second time, Garland told them to seek another warrant.

At the time, the O.J. Simpson trial was generating daily headlines detailing allegations of slipshod police work, and Garland did not want an Oklahoma City investigation to be criticized in the same way.

“It was the most recent sort of ‘Trial of the Century,’ which every few decades there is another trial of the century,” Garland said in the 2013 oral history. “There were a lot of issues in [the O.J. Simpson trial] about how the forensic evidence had been handled and also how the people involved, the investigators had handled themselves, and we wanted to be sure that we were not going to have that kind of circumstance.”

Former prosecutors said Garland’s assiduousness in Oklahoma City and his later assistance in supervising the trial team from Washington set the stage for a successful prosecution of McVeigh and a co-conspirator, Terry Nichols. McVeigh was eventually convicted and sentenced to death. He was executed in 2001. His co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

Through it all, Garland never betrayed emotion, not even when he and Donna Bucella, another Justice Department prosecutor, toured the devastated federal building, she said. With the stench of death in the air, they peered into the gaping hole left by the explosion and noticed a nearby workstation that hadn’t been touched — papers were perfectly stacked on a desk and a sport coat was draped without a wrinkle over a chair.

“We just looked at each other and nodded,” Bucella said. “That’s all you could do. It was a solemn moment.”

Jamie Gorelick, the deputy attorney general who sent Garland to Oklahoma City, said the future nominee was the right person for the job. A quick thinker, he made tough decisions but also wasn’t a micromanager.

“As attorney general, he would know he can’t run investigations, but he will make sure that the right questions are asked, the right resources are brought to bear,” Gorelick said. “That is certainly a lesson he learned from the Oklahoma City bombing.”

Garland has said he was so deeply affected by the bombing that he asked to remain in Oklahoma City to supervise the eventual trials. But Gorelick and Atty. Gen. Janet Reno rejected his request. After several weeks in Oklahoma City, Garland returned to Washington to help run the Justice Department.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the jailed associate of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has told US officials she did not witness any inappropriate conduct by Donald Trump or former President Bill Clinton.

The Trump administration has faced pressure to disclose information about Epstein, who the US president was previously friendly with.

Maxwell was interviewed from prison in July and, according to the newly released transcript, told Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that a much-discussed Epstein “client list” does not exist.

She also called allegations of Prince Andrew having sexual relations with an underage girl in Maxwell’s home “mind-blowingly not conceivable”.

Maxwell is seeking a pardon from Trump and has been accused of lying to federal officials.

Shortly the interview with Blanche – who previously worked as Trump’s personal attorney – she was moved from her from a Florida prison to a new minimum-security facility in Texas. It is unclear why the move was made.

She is currently serving a 20-year sentence in a sex-trafficking scheme, and has petitioned the US Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Her lawyer has said they would “welcome” a pardon from the president.

The White House has been adamant that “no leniency is being given or discussed” in Maxwell’s case.

Trump has maintained that he fell out with Epstein in 2004.

The president has accused his political opponents of using the case to distract from what he sees as his administration’s victories.

But he has also faced pressure from his own Republican Party for more transparency around investigations of Epstein.

In the transcripts – which amount to 300 pages, some heavily redacted – Maxwell said that while she believed Trump and Epstein were friendly “in social settings”, she did not think they were close friends.

“I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting,” she said – alluding to the massage services that some Epstein victims have mentioned. “The president was never inappropriate with anybody.”

“In the times I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects,” she added.

She also said she did not recall Trump sending Epstein a 50th birthday note in 2003, which drew recent headlines after the note was reported in the Wall Street Journal.

In the interview, Blanche also asked Maxwell about the alleged “client list” of high-profile personalities that has become the object of conspiracy theories in recent years.

Maxwell was asked about several well-known figures, including Bill Gates, Elon Musk, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, actor Kevin Spacey, model Naomi Campbell and Prince Andrew – whom she denied she introduced to Epstein.

The list of his high-profile associates had become a focal point for conspiracy theorists who insisted that it was being kept hidden by the “deep state” to protect prominent participants in Epstein’s crimes.

Several figures in Trump’s administration – including FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino – repeated those claims in the past, although they have since backtracked.

“There is no list,” Maxwell said.

Maxwell also spoke about Prince Andrew, whose relationship with Epstein eventually led to his stepping down from royal duties.

She called it a “flat untruth” that she’d been the one who introduced the Duke of York to Epstein.

“First of all, let’s just state, I did not introduce him to Prince Andrew,” she said.

She spoke at length of Epstein’s relationship with both Prince Andrew and the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson.

Prince Andrew has previously said that Maxwell introduced him to Epstein. But Maxwell said she believed it was the duchess who was responsible.

When approached by the BBC about Maxwell’s claim, Sarah Ferguson’s representatives declined to comment.

Maxwell also spoke about Prince Andrew’s alleged relationship with a woman whose name has been redacted in the transcript.

She said she found the allegations against the Duke of York “mind-blowingly not conceivable”, partly due to the size of her house where the events allegedly took place.

She was also asked about a “famous photo” of Prince Andrew and the unnamed woman, with Maxwell in the background. She told Blanche this photo was fake.

The prince was accused by Virginia Giuffre, who is not named in the transcript, of sexually abusing her when she was 17. He denied the allegations but reached a financial settlement with her in 2022, which contained no admission of liability or apology.

A widely circulated photo shows him alongside Giuffre with Maxwell in the background. Andrew has previously disputed its authenticity.

Giuffre took her own life earlier this year. Her family has condemned the justice department for interviewing Maxwell and said she is a “monster” whose testimony cannot be trusted.

According to Maxwell, she first befriended Epstein in 1991, and subsequently developed a sexual relationship with him.

Even after that relationship ended, she said she was still paid by Epstein – up to $250,000 (£184,782) a year by 2009 – and remained “friends with benefits”. She added that their relationship was “almost non-existent” between 2010 and his death.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

“I do not believe he died by suicide, no,” Maxwell said when asked, although she added that she did “not have any reason” to believe that he had been killed in a bid to silence him.

“It’s ludicrous,” she said of theories that he was murdered. “I also happen to think if that is what they wanted, they would’ve had plenty of opportunity when he wasn’t in jail.”

“And if they were worried about blackmail or anything from him, he would’ve been a very easy target,” she added.

Earlier this year, reports emerged that Trump had been told by US Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name appeared in the official files of the investigation into Epstein .

Trump has never been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the case – and on the campaign trail last year said he would publicise more information about the case.

But he reversed his position several months into his administration, saying the case was closed, and criticised supporters and journalists who continued to press him on it.

NEW YORK — A federal judge who presided over the sex trafficking case against financier Jeffrey Epstein has rejected the government’s request to unseal grand jury transcripts.

The ruling Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend, also turned down the government’s request.

Barring reversal on appeal, Berman’s decision forecloses the possibility of grand jury testimony being released now that three judges have reached the same conclusion. A federal judge in Florida declined to release grand jury documents from an investigation there in 2005 and 2007.

The rulings are a collective repudiation of the Justice Department’s effort to divert attention away from its stated refusal to release a massive trove of records in its possession and make clear that the still-sealed court documents contain none of the answers likely to satisfy the immense public interest in the case.

President Trump had called for the release of transcripts amid rumors and criticism about his long-ago involvement with Epstein. During last year’s presidential campaign, Trump promised to release files related to Epstein, but he was met with criticism — including from many of his own supporters — when the small number of records released by his Justice Department lacked new revelations.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on Wednesday.

Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts “pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department had informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, “had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.”

The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The entire transcript was 70 pages. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Berman ruled.

Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. She was recently transferred from a prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial.

Maxwell’s case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department’s statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump’s base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up.

Since then, officials in Trump’s Republican administration have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts.

“The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,” Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the Justice Department’s refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts.

“By comparison,” Berman added, “the instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged conduct.”

Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution.

In a letter to Maxwell’s lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September.

Comer wrote that although Maxwell’s testimony was “vital” to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.

Neumeister and Sisak write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

The former Los Angeles fire chief filed a legal claim against the city Wednesday, alleging that Mayor Karen Bass “orchestrated a campaign of misinformation, defamation, and retaliation” to protect her political image after the most destructive wildfire in city history.

Kristin Crowley and her lawyers accuse Bass of ousting her, and repeatedly defaming Crowley as Bass sought to shift blame for the way the city handled the catastrophic Palisades Fire “while concealing the extent to which she undermined public safety” with cuts to the fire department’s budget.

The legal claim alleges that Bass scapegoated Crowley amid mounting criticism of the mayor’s decision to attend a ceremony in Ghana on Jan. 7, when the fire erupted. Bass left Los Angeles despite her knowing of the potential severe winds and deadly fire danger, the claim alleges.

“As the Fire Chief, for nearly three years, I advocated for the proper funding, staffing and infrastructure upgrades to better support and protect our Firefighters, and by extension, our communities,” Crowley said in a statement to The Times. “The lies, deceit, exaggerations and misrepresentations need to be addressed with the only thing that can refute them — the true facts.”

Bass and the city had yet to respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Crowley’s lawyers say Bass “initially praised the department’s preparedness” and even portrayed the response positively. “But as criticism mounted over her absence, Bass reversed course,” the legal claim said. “She sought to shift blame to Crowley, falsely stating that Bass was not aware of the nationally anticipated weather event, that Crowley sent 1,000 firefighters home who could have fought the blaze, and misrepresenting the department’s budget…”

Bass removed Crowley on Feb. 21, six weeks after the firestorm that consumed Pacific Palisades, killing 12 people and destroying nearly 7,000 homes.

The mayor said she was demoting Crowley for failing to inform her about the dangerous conditions or to activate hundreds of firefighters ahead of the blaze. She also said Crowley rebuffed a request to prepare a report on the fires — a critical part of ongoing investigations into the cause of the fire and the city’s response.

According to her lawyers, Crowley had “repeatedly warned of the LAFD’s worsening resource and staffing crisis,” prior to the fire, and warned that “aging infrastructure, surging emergency calls, and shrinking staff left the city at risk.”

In the 23-page claim, Crowley said Bass cut the department’s operating budget by nearly $18 million that year and “eliminated positions critical to maintaining fire engines, trucks, and ambulances.”

After Crowley complained publicly that the budget cuts had “weakened the department’s readiness, Bass retaliated,” the lawyers allege. On Jan 10, after Crowley told FOX LA, “we are screaming to be properly funded,” Bass called her to the mayor’s office.

“I don’t know why you had to do that; normally we are on the same page, and I don’t know why you had to say stuff to the media,” the lawyers say Bass told the chief, but said she wasn’t fired.

The next day, retired Chief Deputy Ronnie Villanueva began working at the Emergency Operations Center, donning a Mayor’s office badge. Then Feb. 3, 2025, two weeks before Chief Crowley was removed from her position, Villanueva wrote a Report to the Board of Fire Commissioners identifying himself as Interim Fire Chief” — a position he now holds.

Crowley was eventually ousted and put on leave. Her lawyers allege Bass’s public accusation at the time that Crowley refused to participate in an after action report of the Palisades fire after being asked to by the Fire Commission President Genethia Hayes, a Bass appointee — was blatantly false and she was never asked.

A legal claim is a precursor to a civil lawsuit, and is required by California law when suing a government entity. In her claim, Crowley alleges Bass and her subordinates have conducted a “public smear campaign aimed at discrediting Crowley’s character and decades of service,” following her dismissal.

Crowley’s attorneys, Genie Harrison and Mia Munro, allege that Bass and others in her administration defamed Crowley, retaliated against her in violation of California’s labor code and violated Crowley’s First Amendment rights. Crowley is seeking unspecified damages above $25,000.

Harrison, who has represented numerous victims of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, said Crowley’s claim “presents her extensive advocacy efforts to obtain the funding and resources the LAFD needed to fulfill its public safety mission. It also shows Mayor Bass’ repeated refusals to provide those resources.”

Bass made the assertion about the failed deployment after an investigation by The Times found that Fire Department officials could have ordered about 1,000 firefighters to remain on duty as winds were building but opted against it. The move would have doubled the firefighting force on hand when fire broke out.

But Crowley and her lawyers say in the legal claim the “LAFD did not have sufficient operating emergency vehicles to safely and effectively pre-deploy 1,000 (or anywhere near 1,000) additional firefighters on January 7.” In simple terms, the department did not have the money or personnel “to repair and maintain emergency fire engines, fire trucks, and ambulances,” the claim alleges.

The Times investigation found the department had more than 40 engines available to battle wildfires, but fire officials staffed only five of them.

Crowley’s lawyers dispute that in the claim. They say “the LAFD staffed all its front-line fire engines (including all the 40 engines that Bass later falsely stated sat “idle.”

Shohei Ohtani was four weeks into his major league career when former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt pitched a gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium. Ohtani, then a rookie with the Angels and now a global superstar with the Dodgers, was 23.

Today, Ohtani is 31, and McCourt still has no official response to his pitch.

In an effort to accelerate a decision, as The Times reported last month, McCourt’s lobbyists latched onto a state bill designed to expedite transit projects and persuaded legislators to add language that would put an even speedier timeline on potential legal challenges to the gondola.

That bill is scheduled for consideration by an Assembly committee Wednesday, and more than 100 community members rallied Monday in opposition to the bill — or, at least, to the part that would benefit the gondola project.

The Los Angeles City Council last week approved — and Mayor Karen Bass signed — a resolution urging state legislators to drop the gondola part of the bill or dump the bill entirely.

“We are fighting a billionaire,” City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez told the crowd. “How you doing today?”

There were snacks and stickers, T-shirts and tote bags, even bandanas for dogs (and there were lots of very good dogs). There were signs, both earnest and amusing (“Frank McCourt and the Aerial Cabins of Doom”).

Even if McCourt wins in Sacramento, Hernandez said, the City Council must approve the gondola project. In 2024, the council authorized a Dodger Stadium traffic study, intended to evaluate alternatives to the gondola, which could include expanding the current bus shuttles from Union Station and introducing the park-and-ride buses such as the ones that have operated for years at the Hollywood Bowl.

Last month — 16 months after the council authorized the study — the city’s department of transportation invited bidders to apply to conduct the study, via a 56-page document that explains what the city wants done, how to do it, and when the work should be completed.

Sixteen months?

Colin Sweeney, spokesman for the transportation department, said the preparation of contracts requires compliance with various city rules, coordination with several city departments, and availability of city staff.

“This process can take up to 24 months,” Sweeney said.

An artist’s rendering of the Dodger Stadium landing site of a proposed gondola project that would ferry up passengers to games.

(Aerial Rapid Transit Technologies / Kilograph)

The traffic study is due next fall. If it is delivered on time, that could be nearly a three-year wait for one study in advance of one vote for one of the several governmental approvals the gondola would require.

Is the city — or, at least, the elected representatives opposed to the gondola — slow-walking the project?

“We’re not slow-walking nothing,” said Hernandez, whose district includes Dodger Stadium. “This is how the city moves.”

The councilmember pointed to the tree behind her.

“It takes us 15 years to trim a tree,” she said.

Excuse me?

“We’ll trim this tree this year,” Hernandez said, “and we won’t get to it again for 15 years.”

The industry standard, she said, is five years.

In L.A. she said, it can take 10 years to fix a sidewalk, three to five years to cut a curb for a wheelchair, nine months to one year to repair a street light.

“When you have enough resources, you can do things like put a new section into a bill to fast-track your project,” Hernandez said. “When you have money, you can do that.”

But I wanted to flip the question: If McCourt can spend half a million bucks on lobbyists to try to push his project forward, and if he is approaching a decade with no decision, what hope do the rest of us have?

We need housing. We need parks. We need shade. And, yes, we need better ways to get in and out of Dodger Stadium.

Los Angeles Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez speaks during a news conference in December.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“Do I believe we need to fast-track really good projects that have shown that there are financial plans behind them that will benefit the community?” Hernandez said. “If there are ways to do that ethically, let’s do it. But, if we’re talking about fast-tracking a project because you’ve got access to change state law, that’s not something we should be doing.

“Do I think there’s a lot of barriers to achieving good projects, whether they are housing developments or other transportation? I do. I think we can cut through some of that. I think we should.

“We need to deliver quicker for our people.”

It’s not just the city of Los Angeles. The gondola project has slogged through Metro since 2018.

Love him or loathe him, like the gondola or hate it, does Hernandez believe McCourt — or any other developer — should be able to get a yes or no on his proposed project within eight years?

“I believe he should, yeah,” Hernandez said. “One hundred percent. I think he should.”

Even if the gondola is approved, who knows whether any fan would be able to ride it to see Ohtani play? For now, the gondola is not approved, not financed, and not under construction. Ohtani’s contract with the Dodgers expires in another eight years.

In a police department with a long tradition of colorful nicknames — from “Jigsaw John” to “Captain Hollywood” — LAPD Sgt. Joseph Lloyd stands out.

“The Grim Reaper.”

At least that’s what some on the force have taken to calling the veteran Internal Affairs detective, usually out of earshot.

According to officers who have found themselves under investigation by Lloyd, he seems to relish the moniker and takes pleasure in ending careers, even if it means twisting facts and ignoring evidence.

But Lloyd’s backers maintain his dogged pursuit of the truth is why he has been entrusted with some of the department’s most politically sensitive and potentially embarrassing cases.

Lloyd, 52, declined to comment. But The Times spoke to more than half a dozen current or former police officials who either worked alongside him or fell under his scrutiny.

During the near decade that he’s been in Internal Affairs, Lloyd has investigated cops of all ranks.

When a since-retired LAPD officer was suspected of running guns across the Mexican border, the department turned to Lloyd to bust him.

In 2020, when it came out that members of the elite Metropolitan Division were falsely labeling civilians as gang members in a police database, Lloyd was tapped to help unravel the mess.

And when a San Fernando Valley anti-gang squad was accused in 2023 of covering up shakedowns of motorists, in swooped the Reaper again.

Recently he was assigned to a department task force looking into allegations of excessive force by police against activists who oppose the government’s immigration crackdown.

At the LAPD, as in most big-city police departments across the country, Internal Affairs investigators tend to be viewed with suspicion and contempt by their colleagues. They usually try to operate in relative anonymity.

Not Lloyd.

The 24-year LAPD veteran has inadvertently become the face of a pitched debate over the LAPD’s long-maligned disciplinary system. The union that represents most officers has long complained that well-connected senior leaders get favorable treatment. Others counter that rank-and-file cops who commit misconduct are routinely let off the hook.

A recent study commissioned by Chief Jim McDonnell found that perceived unfairness in internal investigations is a “serious point of contention” among officers that has contributed to low morale. McDonnell has said he wants to speed up investigations and better screen complaints, but efforts by past chiefs and the City Council to overhaul the system have repeatedly stalled.

Sarah Dunster, 40, was a sergeant working in the LAPD’s Hollywood division in 2021 when she learned she was under investigation for allegedly mishandling a complaint against one of her officers, who was accused of groping a woman he arrested.

Dunster said she remembers being interviewed by Lloyd, whose questions seemed designed to trip her up and catch her in a lie, rather than aimed at hearing her account of what happened, she said. Some of her responses never made it into Lloyd’s report, she said.

“He wanted to fire me,” she said.

Dunster was terminated over the incident, but she appealed and last week a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge granted a reprieve that allows her to potentially get her job back.

Others who have worked with Lloyd say he is regarded as a savvy investigator who is unfairly being vilified for discipline decisions that are ultimately made by the chief of police. A supervisor who oversaw Lloyd at Internal Affairs — and requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media — described him as smart, meticulous and “a bulldog.”

“Joe just goes where the facts lead him and he doesn’t have an issue asking the hard questions,” the supervisor said.

On more than one occasion, the supervisor added, Internal Affairs received complaints from senior department officials who thought that Lloyd didn’t show them enough deference during interrogations. Other supporters point to his willingness to take on controversial cases to hold officers accountable, even while facing character attacks from his colleagues, their attorneys and the powerful Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Officers have sniped about his burly build, tendency to smile during interviews and other eccentricities. He wears two watches — one on each wrist, a habit he has been heard saying he picked up moonlighting as a high school lacrosse referee.

But he has also been criticized as rigid and uncompromising, seeming to fixate only on details that point to an officer’s guilt. People he has grilled say that when he doesn’t get the answer he’s looking for, he has a Columbo-esque tendency to ask the same question in different ways in an attempt to elicit something incriminating.

And instead of asking officers to clarify any discrepancies in their statements, Lloyd automatically assumes they are lying, some critics said.

Mario Munoz, a former LAPD Internal Affairs lieutenant who opened a boutique firm that assists officers fighting employment and disciplinary cases, recently released a scathing 60-page report questioning what he called a series of troubling lapses in the LAPD’s 2023 investigation of the Mission gang unit. The report name-drops Lloyd several times.

The department accused several Mission officers of stealing brass knuckles and other items from motorists in the San Fernando Valley, and attempting to hide their actions from their supervisors by switching off their body-worn cameras.

Munoz said he received calls from officers who said Lloyd had violated their due process rights, which potentially opens the city up to liability. Several have since lodged complaints against Lloyd with the department. He alleged Lloyd ultimately singled out several “scapegoats to shield higher-level leadership from scrutiny.”

Until he retired from the LAPD in 2014, Munoz worked as both an investigator and an auditor who reviewed landmark internal investigations into the beating of Black motorist Rodney King and the Rampart gang scandal in which officers were accused of robbing people and planting evidence, among other crimes.

Munoz now echoes a complaint from current officers that Internal Affairs in general, and Lloyd in particular, operate to protect the department’s image at all costs.

“He’s the guy that they choose because he doesn’t question management,” Munoz said of Lloyd.

In the Mission case, Munoz pointed to inconsistent outcomes for two captains who oversaw the police division accused of wrongdoing: One was transferred and later promoted, while another is fighting for his job amid accusations that he failed to rein in his officers.

Two other supervisors — Lt. Mark Garza and Sgt. Jorge “George” Gonzalez — were accused by the department of creating a “working environment that resulted in the creation of a police gang,” according to an internal LAPD report. Both Garza and Gonzalez have sued the city, alleging that even though they reported the wrongdoing as soon as they became aware of it, they were instead punished by the LAPD after the scandal became public.

According to Munoz’s report and interviews with department sources, Lloyd was almost single-handedly responsible for breaking the Mission case open.

It began with a complaint in late December 2022 made by a motorist who said he was pulled over and searched without reason in a neighboring patrol area. Lloyd learned that the officers involved had a pattern of not documenting traffic stops — exploiting loopholes in the department’s auditing system for dashboard and body cameras. The more Lloyd dug, the more instances he uncovered of these so-called “ghost stops.”

A few months later, undercover Internal Affairs detectives began tailing the two involved officers — something that Garza and Gonzalez both claimed they were kept in the dark about.

As of last month, four officers involved had been fired and another four had pending disciplinary hearings where their jobs hung in the balance. Three others resigned before the department could take action. The alleged ringleader, Officer Alan Carrillo, faces charges of theft and “altering, planting or concealing evidence.” Court records show he was recently offered pretrial diversion by L.A. County prosecutors, which could spare him jail but require him to stop working in law enforcement. Carrillo has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In an interview with The Times, Gonzalez — the sergeant who is facing termination — recalled a moment during a recorded interrogation that he found so troubling he contacted the police union director Jamie McBride, to express concern. McBride, he said, went to Lloyd’s boss, then-deputy chief Michael Rimkunas, seeking Lloyd’s removal from Internal Affairs.

The move failed. Lloyd kept his job.

Rimkunas confirmed the exchange with the police union leader in an interview with The Times.

He said that while he couldn’t discuss Lloyd specifically due to state personnel privacy laws, in general the department assigns higher-profile Internal Affairs cases to detectives with a proven track record.

Gonzalez, though, can’t shake the feeling that Lloyd crossed the line in trying to crack him during an interrogation.

He said that at one point while Lloyd was asking questions, the detective casually flipped over his phone, which had been sitting on the table. On the back of the protective case, Gonzalez said, was a grim reaper sticker.

“And then as he turned it he looked at me as if to get a reaction from me,” Gonzalez said. “It was definitely a way of trying to intimidate me for sure.”

San Bernardino police responded to what they described as “an officer-involved shooting” involving federal immigration officers Saturday morning.

When police officers responded to the area of Acacia Avenue and Baseline Street shortly before 9 a.m., they encountered immigration agents who said they had fired at a suspect who then fled the scene.

Soon after, according to the San Bernardino Police Department, a man — who has not been identified — contacted the dispatch center, saying that masked men had tried to pull him over, broke his car window and shot at him. He said he didn’t know who they were and asked for police assistance.

In a statement Saturday night, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said agents had been conducting a targeted enforcement operation in San Bernardino and said that “Customs and Border Protection] officers were injured during a vehicle stop when a subject refused to exit his vehicle and tried to run them down.”

“In the course of the incident the suspect drove his car at the officers and struck two CBP officers with his vehicle,” the statement read. Because of that, the official said, a CBP officer discharged his firearm “in self-defense.”

According to a news release from the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, federal agents broke the driver and passenger windows of the vehicle and fired three times. Video the group uploaded on Facebook appeared to capture the interaction, showing agents wearing “police” vests and shouting at those inside to roll down the window.

“No la voy a abrir,” the man said from inside, saying he wasn’t going to open it.

Soon after, the video captured the sound of shattering glass and what sounded like three shots being fired. The video showed a man wearing a hat with CBP on it.

The video appears to show the vehicle leaving after the windows are smashed, but does not capture the driver striking the officers.

“This was a clear abuse of power,” the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice said in its release. “Firing at civilians, harassing families without cause, and targeting community voices must stop.”

According to the San Bernardino Police Department, officers later located the vehicle in the 1000 block of Mt. View Drive and made contact with the man, but they said it was unclear what federal agents wanted him for.

“Under the California Values Act, California law enforcement agencies are prohibited from assisting federal officials with immigration enforcement, so our officers left the scene as the investigation was being conducted by federal authorities,” police said in a news release.

In a statement, a DHS spokesperson misidentified the police department, describing it as the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, and said local authorities had the man in custody but then set him free.

“This decision was made despite the subject refusing to comply and wounding two officers — another terrible example of California’s pro-sanctuary policies in action that shield criminals instead of protecting communities,” the unidentified spokesperson said.

At 1:12 p.m., federal officials requested assistance from the department because a large crowd was forming as they attempted to arrest the suspect, the police said. At that time, federal agents told police he was wanted for allegedly assaulting a federal officer.

Police responded and provided support with crowd control, according to the department.

The Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice said in a news release that the agents didn’t present a warrant and remained outside the home until 3:45 p.m., “pressuring the individual to come outside.”

The group added that two community members “were detained using unnecessary force, including one for speaking out.”

“Federal agents requested assistance during a lawful arrest for assaulting a federal officer when a crowd created a potential officer safety concern,” the police department said in a statement. “This was not an immigration-related arrest, which would be prohibited under California law.”

Federal investigators are currently investigating the circumstances surrounding the shooting, according to the police.

Washington, DC attorney general says in a new lawsuit that Trump is going far beyond his power under the law.

The United States capital, Washington, DC, has challenged President Donald Trump’s takeover of its police department in court, hours after his administration stepped up its crackdown on policing by naming the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) chief, a federal official, as the new emergency head of the department, with all the powers of a police chief.

District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said on Friday in a new lawsuit that Trump is exceeding his power under the law. Schwalb urged a judge to rule that control of the department remains in the city’s hands, and he has also sought an emergency restraining order.

“The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser also pushed back, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Let us be clear about what the law requires during a Presidential declared emergency: it requires the mayor of Washington, DC to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes at the request of the President.

We have followed the law.

In… pic.twitter.com/XfaNqLalFU

— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) August 15, 2025

The lawsuit comes after Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday night that DEA boss Terry Cole will assume “powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police”. The Metropolitan Police Department “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole” before issuing any orders, Bondi said.

Earlier this week, Trump announced that the federal government would take control of the District of Columbia (DC) Metropolitan Police Department to address surging crime.

“I’m announcing a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,” Trump said during the news conference, in which he was joined by Bondi, who was initially set to oversee the city’s police force while it is under federal control.

“This is Liberation Day in DC, and we’re going to take our capital back. We’re taking it back,” Trump said.

He also announced the deployment of the National Guard.

“I’m deploying the National Guard to help re-establish law, order and public safety in Washington, DC, and they’re going to be allowed to do their job properly,” he said.

Trump also said that he intends to remove the capital’s homeless population, but did not provide details on how the plan would be carried out.

Residents wary of escalated show of force

A Washington population already on edge from days of Trump administration ramp-ups has begun witnessing more significant shows of force across the city.

National Guard troops watched over some of the country’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train hub, Union Station.

Volunteers have helped homeless people leave longstanding encampments, but where they were relocating to was often unclear.

Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a baseball game on Thursday. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighbourhood.

The sudden spike in high visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many busy traffic areas, has struck residents going about their day-to-day lives.

Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he will re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.

National Guard troops are usually less of a heavy presence in Washington’s metropolitan area, typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s capital challenged President Trump’s takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration stepped up its crackdown on policing by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, with all the powers of a police chief.

District of Columbia Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb said in a new lawsuit that Trump is going far beyond his power under the law. Schwalb asked a judge to find that control of the department remains in district hands and sought an emergency restraining order.

“The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.

The lawsuit comes after Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume “powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.” The Metropolitan Police Department “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole” before issuing any orders, Bondi said. It was unclear where the move left the city’s current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Justice Department and White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on the district’s lawsuit Friday morning.

Chief had agreed to share immigration information

Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi’s directive was “unlawful,” arguing it could not be followed by the city’s police force. He wrote in a memo to Smith that “members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.

Bondi’s directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief’s directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of “sanctuary policies,” which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquires into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said.

The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the U.S. illegally.

It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city’s homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed.

Residents are seeing a significant show of force

A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear.

Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood.

Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.

Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

Whitehurst, Khalil and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 14 (UPI) — The State and Treasury departments are offering rewards of up to $6 million for information leading to arrests in a Russian-operated cryptocurrency scheme, officials announced Thursday.

Garantex, a Russian-operated cryptocurrency exchange, allegedly used a series of criminals and cybercrime organizations to launder billions of dollars using hacking software, ransomware, terrorism and drug trafficking schemes, the FBI and Secret Service said.

“Between April 2019 and March 2025, Gartantex processed at least $96 billion in cryptocurrency transactions,” a release from the State Department said.

The State Department is offering individual rewards of $5 million and $1 million for Russian national Aleksandr Mira Serda, and other Garantex leaders.

The department is also targeting Grinex, a cryptocurrency exchange that was established as Garantex’s successor.

WASHINGTON — A man charged with a felony for hurling a sandwich at a federal law-enforcement official in the nation’s capital has been fired from his job at the Justice Department, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a social media post Thursday.

A video of Sean Charles Dunn berating a group of federal agents late Sunday went viral online. Dunn was arrested on an assault charge after he threw a “sub-style” sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent, a court filing said.

Dunn, 37, of Washington, was an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division, according to a department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel matter.

“This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ,” Bondi wrote. “You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement.”

A multiagency flood of uniformed federal law enforcement officers had fanned out across the city over the weekend after the White House had announced stepped-up measures to combat crime. That was before President Trump’s announcement Monday that he was taking over Washington’s police department and activating 800 members of the National Guard.

The Justice Department still employs a former FBI agent who was charged with joining a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol and cheering on rioters during the Jan. 6, 2021, siege, repeatedly yelling, “Kill ‘em!” as they attacked police. The former FBI supervisory agent, Jared Lane Wise, is serving as a counselor to Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin Jr., who was a leading figure in Trump’s campaign to overturn the 2020 election.

Around 11 p.m. on Sunday, Dunn approached a group of CBP agents, pointed a finger in an agent’s face and swore at him, calling him a “fascist,” a police affidavit says. An observer’s video captured Dunn throwing a sandwich at the agent’s chest, the affidavit says.

“Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn shouted, according to police.

Dunn tried to run away but was apprehended, police said.

An attorney for Dunn didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Dunn’s charge.

The incident coincided with Trump’s push to flood the city with National Guard troops and federal officers. Trump claims crime in the city has reached emergency levels, but city leaders point to statistics showing violent crime at a 30-year low.

Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The U.S. Treasury Department on Wednesday sanctioned four Mexican nationals and 12 companies in Mexico linked to a “brutally violent” cartel involved in a timeshare fraud of resorts in Puerto Vallarta.

The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control said the Jalisco New Generation Cartel is a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization “that is increasingly supplementing its drug trafficking proceeds with alternative revenue streams such as timeshare fraud and fuel theft.”

Sanctions include blocking all U.S. property owned by the people and the companies named, and the assets must be reported to OFAC. Violations may include civil and criminal penalties.

The agency is reminding current timeshare owners in Mexico: “If an unsolicited purchase or rental offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. Those considering the purchase of a timeshare in Mexico should conduct appropriate due diligence.”

The FBI has a timeshare fraud resource page.

Victims of timeshare fraud can file a complaint with the FBI’s Internet Complaint Center. Elderly customers can contact the Department of Justice’s National Elder Fraud Hotline.

Timeshares are fractional ownership for a vacation property, often one week a year, that are not considered an investment and often are tough to resell.

There are 56 timeshare developments in Puerto Vallarta on Mexico’s Pacific coast, a popular tourist destination that includes beaches, nightlife and cultural attractions. There are 578,000 residents.

“We are coming for terrorist drug cartels like Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion that are flooding our country with fentanyl,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said. “These cartels continue to create new ways to generate revenue to fuel their terrorist operations. At President Trump’s direction, we will continue our effort to completely eradicate the cartels’ ability to generate revenue, including their efforts to prey on elderly Americans through timeshare fraud.”

Approximately 6,000 U.S. victims reported losing nearly $300 million between 2019 and 2023 in timeshare fraud in Mexico, according to the FBI. In 2024, there were 900 complaints with reported losses of more than $50 million.

Beginning in 2012, the Treasury Department said the cartel took control of timeshare fraud schemes in Puerto Vallarta in Jalisco and the surrounding area.

“These complex scams often target older Americans who can lose their life savings,” the release said. “The lifecycle of these scams can last years, resulting in financial and emotional devastation of the victims while enriching cartels like CJNG.”

After information on timeshare owners is received, call center personnel claim to be U.S.-based third-party brokers, attorneys or sales representatives.

Fraud may include timeshare resale, re-rent and investment scams. People are asked to pay advance “fees” and “taxes” via international wire transfers to accounts at Mexican banks and brokerage houses before receiving money supposedly owed to them, the Treasury Department said.

The money never comes to the consumers and they are told to pay more “fees” and “taxes.”

Then they may be further victimized when impersonated law firms claim they can initiate proceedings to recover lost funds. Sometimes, government officials are impersonated, claiming the victims have been involved in suspicious transactions with more “fees” required to release the funds or risk prison time.

The Treasury Department said it had blocked all property and interests in property of the persons named, or in possession or control of U.S. people. This also applies to entities owned at least 50% by one of more blocked people.

In addition, Americans are not allowed to be involved in the property of people blocked.

And secondary penalties may be imposed on participating foreign financial institutions.

The Treasury Department listed three senior cartel members most involved in the fraud, who “orchestrate assassinations of rivals and politicians using high-powered weaponry.” They are Julio Cesar Montero Pinzon (Montero), Carlos Andres Rivera Varela (Rivera), and Francisco Javier Gudino Haro (Gudino).

Five companies “explicitly acknowledge their involvement in the timeshare industry” are Akali Realtors, Centro Mediador De La Costa, S.A. de C.V., Corporativo Integral De La Costa, S.A. de C.V., Corporativo Costa Norte, S.A. de C.V. and Sunmex Travel, S. de R.L. De C.V. They “explicitly acknowledge their involvement in the timeshare industry.” Other companies were involved involved in timeshare-related transactions or involvement in real estate activities.

President Trump’s decision to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington has California officials on high alert, with some worrying that he intends to activate federal forces in the Bay Area and Southern California, especially during the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

Trump said that his use of the National Guard to fight crime could expand to other cities, and suggested that local police have been unable to do the job.

Legal experts say it is highly unusual and troubling for forces to be deployed without a major crisis, such as civil unrest or a natural disaster. The Washington deployment is another example of Trump seeking to use the military for domestic endeavors, similar to his decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles in June, amid an immigration crackdown that sparked protests, experts said.

Washington has long struggled with crime but has seen major reductions in recent years.

Officials in Oakland and Los Angeles — two cities the president mentioned by name — slammed Trump’s comments about crime in their cities. Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee said in a statement that the president’s characterization wasn’t rooted in fact, but “based in fear-mongering in an attempt to score cheap political points.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called it “performative” and a “stunt.”

Trump has said he would consider deploying the military to Los Angeles once again to protect the 2028 Olympic Games. This month, he signed an executive order that named him chair of a White House task force on the Los Angeles Games.

The White House has not said specifically what role Trump would play in security arrangements.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who sits on the city panel overseeing the Games, acknowledged last week that the city is a “little nervous” about the federal government’s plans for securing the event.

Congress recently approved $1 billion for security and planning for the Games. A representative for the Department of Homeland Security declined to explain to The Times how the funds will be used.

Padilla said her concern was based on the unpredictable nature of the administration, as well as recent immigration raids that have used masked, heavily armed agents to round up people at Home Depot parking lots and car washes.

“Everything that we’re seeing with the raids was a real curveball to our city,” Padilla said during a Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum event. It dealt “a real curveball to [efforts] to focus on the things that folks care about, like homelessness, like transportation … economic development,” she said.

Bass, appearing on CNN this week, said that using the National Guard during the Olympics is “completely appropriate.” She said that the city expects a “federal response when we have over 200 countries here, meaning heads of state of over 200 countries. Of course you have the military involved. That is routine.”

But Bass made a distinction between L.A. Olympics security and the “political stunt” she said Trump pulled by bringing in the National Guard and the U.S. Marines after protests over the federal government’s immigration crackdown. That deployment faces ongoing legal challenges, with an appeals court ruling that Trump had the legal authority to send the National Guard.

“I believed then, and I believe now that Los Angeles was a test case, and I think D.C. is a test case as well,” Bass said. “To say, well, we can take over your city whenever we want, and I’m the commander in chief, and I can use the troops whenever we want.”

On Monday, Trump tied his action to what has been a familiar theme to him: perceived urban decay.

“You look at Chicago, how bad it is, you look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don’t even mention that anymore —they’re so far gone,” he said. “We’re not going to let it happen. We’re not going to lose our cities over this.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said officers and agents deployed across the District of Columbia have so far made 23 arrests for offenses including homicide, possession with intent to distribute narcotics, lewd acts, reckless driving, fare evasion and not having permits. Six illegal handguns were seized, she said.

Citing crime as a reason to deploy National Guard troops without the support of a state governor is highly unprecedented, experts said. The National Guard has been deployed to Southern California before, notably during the 1992 L.A. riots and the civil unrest after George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis in 2020.

“It would be awful because he would be clearly violating his legal authorities and he’d be sued again by the governor and undoubtedly, by the mayors of L.A. and Oakland,” said William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University. “The citizens in those cities would be up in arms. They would be aghast that there are soldiers patrolling their streets.”

The District of Columbia does not have control over its National Guard, which gives the president wide latitude to deploy those troops. In California and other states, the head of the National Guard is the governor and there are legal limits on how federal troops can be used.

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878 after the end of Reconstruction, largely bars federal troops from being used in civilian law enforcement. The law reflects a tradition dating to the Revolutionary War era that sees military interference in American life as a threat to liberty and democracy.

“We have such a strong tradition that we don’t use the military for domestic law enforcement, and it’s a characteristic of authoritarian countries to see the military be used in that way,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and a constitutional law expert. “That’s never been so in the United States, and many are concerned about the way in which President Trump is acting the way authoritarian rulers do.”

Whether the troops deployed to Los Angeles in June amid the federal immigration raids were used for domestic law enforcement in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is central in the trial underway this week in federal court in San Francisco.

If Trump were to send troops to California, Banks said, the only legal lever he could pull would be to declare an insurrection and invoke the Insurrection Act.

Unlike in D.C., Trump wouldn’t be able to federalize police departments in other parts of the country. There are circumstances where the federal government has put departments under consent decrees — a reform tool for agencies that have engaged in unlawful practices — but in those cases the government alleged specific civil rights violations, said Ed Obayashi, a Northern California sheriff’s deputy and legal counsel on policing.

“You are not going to be able to come in and take over because you say crime is rising in a particular place,” he said.

Oakland Councilman Ken Houston, a third-generation resident who was elected in 2024, said his city doesn’t need the federal government’s help with public safety.

Oakland has struggled with crime for years, but Houston cited progress. Violent crimes, including homicide, aggravated assault, rape and robbery are down 29% so far this year from the same period in 2024. Property crimes including burglary, motor vehicle theft and larceny also are trending down, according to city data.

“He’s going by old numbers and he’s making a point,” Houston said of Trump. “Oakland does not need the National Guard.”

Times staff writer Noah Goldberg contributed to this report.

A key annual United States government report on global human rights abuses has drastically shifted focus, with references removed to abuses based on sexual orientation, and poor conditions downplayed in ally nations while taking aim at those who have clashed with President Donald Trump.

Released on Tuesday, the 2024 State Department Human Rights Report, was issued months late as Trump appointees altered an earlier draft dramatically to bring it in line with America First values, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The report introduced new categories such as “Life”, and “Liberty,” and “Security of the Person.”

The department referred to its new report as “streamlined” and focused on remaining “aligned to the administration’s executive orders”.

While the 2023 report contains a lengthy introduction with numerous appendices and citations, the newest report has a single introductory page that stresses a desire to “minimize the amount of statistical data in the report”. An NPR analysis found individual country reports are, on average, one-third the length of the previous year’s.

There is no mention of discrimination against women, members of the LGBTQ community, or on the basis of race in the latest report introduction.

Instead, the report sounds an alarm about the erosion of freedom of speech in Europe and ramped up criticism of Brazil and South Africa, both of which Washington has clashed with over a host of issues.

Any criticism of governments for their treatment of LGBTQ rights, which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appears to have been omitted.

The report’s section on Israel is much shorter than last year’s edition and contains no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. Some 61,000 people have died, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, as a result of Israel’s military operations in response to an attack by the Palestinian group Hamas in October 2023.

While last year’s report underscored numerous acts of anti-Semitism in Hungary, noting that a local survey found half the population were “moderately or strongly anti-Semitic”, the new report says the close Trump ally has “made combating anti-Semitism a top priority, publicly emphasizing its welcoming and open environment for Jews”.

The report claims “no credible reports of significant human rights abuses” in El Salvador – where Trump has gained help from President Nayib Bukele, whose country is receiving $6m from the US to house migrant deportees in a high-security mega-prison.

Rights group Amnesty International said in a statement that the report “purposefully fail[ed]” to capture rights abuses in a number of countries.

This year’s Human Rights Report from the U.S. State Department reveals a disturbing effort by the Trump administration to purposefully fail to fully capture the alarming and growing attacks on human rights in certain countries around the globe.

— Amnesty International USA (@amnestyusa) August 12, 2025

This year’s Human Rights Report from the US Department of State shows a visible effort by the Trump administration to purposefully fail to fully capture the alarming and growing attacks on human rights in certain countries around the globe.

On Monday, rights group coalition the Council for Global Equality sued (PDF) the State Department to release report documents, alleging the department had potentially manipulated its latest human rights report.

For decades, the State Department’s congressionally mandated Human Rights Report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy.

This year’s report was prepared following a major revamp of the department, which included the firing of hundreds of people, many from the agency’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which takes the lead in writing the report.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in April, wrote an opinion piece that said the bureau had become a platform for “left-wing activists,” saying the Trump administration would reorient the bureau to focus on “Western values”.

Taking aim at Brazil and South Africa

In Brazil, where the Trump administration has clashed with the government, the State Department found the human rights situation had declined, after the 2023 report found no significant changes. This year’s report took aim at the courts, stating they took action undermining freedom of speech and disproportionately suppressing the speech of supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro, among others.

Bolsonaro is on trial before the Supreme Court on charges he conspired with allies to violently overturn his 2022 electoral loss to leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Trump has referred to the case as a “witch hunt” and called it grounds for a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods.

In South Africa, whose government the Trump administration has accused of racial discrimination towards Afrikaners, this year’s report said the human rights situation significantly worsened. It stated that “South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country.”

In last year’s report, the State Department found no significant changes in the human rights situation in South Africa.

Trump, earlier this year, issued an executive order that called for the US to resettle Afrikaners, describing them as victims of “violence against racially disfavored landowners,” allegations that echoed far-right claims but which have been contested by South Africa’s government.

WASHINGTON — As Gov. Gavin Newsom and the University of California consider whether to sue the Trump administration to restore more than half a billion dollars in federal grants to ULCA, the White House on Tuesday had a terse response.

“Bring it on, Gavin,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt when asked about Newsom’s opposition to a Trump plan demanding more than $1 billion and sweeping campus changes at UCLA to resolve federal antisemitism findings against the university.

“This administration is well within its legal right to do this, and we want to ensure that our colleges and our universities are respecting the First Amendment rights and the religious liberties of students on their campuses and UCLA has failed to do that, and I have a whole list of examples that I will forward to Gavin Newsom’s press office, if he hasn’t seen them himself,” Leavitt said.

The statement was the first public comment from the White House about the high-stakes conflict between the nation’s premier public university system and the Trump administration, which has accused UCLA of violating the civil rights of Jewish students, illegally considering race in admissions and treating transgender people in sports, healthcare and campus life in ways that the government claims hinder women’s rights.

Leavitt spoke after a question from The Times about how Trump would response Newsom’s comments late last week that the settlement offer for UCLA was “extortion” and “ransom.”

“We’ll sue,” Newsom said Friday.

Responding to Leavitt’s comments, a Newsom spokesperson pointed The Times to a meme posted on X after the press conference.

“Glorious leader is entitled to all treasures of the realm, especially from universities,” said the post from Newsom’s press office account. The graphic features an image of what appears to a be a North Korean news anchor with a North Korea flag in the background.

In an earlier joint statement with California legislative leaders, Newsom said that the action against UCLA “isn’t about protecting Jewish students — it’s a billion-dollar political shakedown from the pay-to-play president. Trump has weaponized the Department of Justice to punish California, crush free thinking, and kneecap the greatest public university system in the world.”

No lawsuit has been filed and the UC board of regents, who held an emergency meeting Monday afternoon over the grant cuts, has not announced how it will proceed aside from calling Trump’s current terms “unacceptable.”

Newsom sits as a voting member on the 24-person board, has appointed several of its members and can wield influence on the body, although the final decision on a lawsuit or settlement rests with the regents. Newsom did not attend Monday’s meeting.

In a statement after the meeting, a UC spokesperson said the $1 billion price tag would be “devastating.”

“UC’s leadership spent recent days evaluating the demand, updating the UC community, and engaging with stakeholders,” said Meredith Turner, UC senior vice president of external relations. “Our focus remains on protecting students’ access to a UC education and promoting the academic freedom, excellence, and innovation that have always been at the heart of UC’s work.”

Hundreds of grants — from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and Department of Energy — are on hold at UCLA. The money funds research into cancer, math, brain science and other areas, and helps pay for graduate student stipends and tuition as well as lab upkeep. If the freezes stay for the long-term, administrators are considering layoffs and other budget reductions.

Citing the reasons for the freezes, a July 30 NSF leter to UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk alleged UCLA “engages in racism, in the form of illegal affirmative action, UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias; UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”

Frenk, in a campuswide message the next day, disputed the funding halt.

“This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” he wrote.

Convincing young Black people to become cops long been a tough sell at summer job fairs.

But in recent months the pool of recruits at the Los Angeles Police Department has shriveled to the point of running dry. The last two training academy classes haven’t included a single a Black graduate.

Despite offering generous pay and pensions, police agencies across the country have struggled since the pandemic with finding enough new officers regardless of race.

At the LAPD, the number of Black recruits — especially women — has been dropping for years, leaving the department far short of diversity goals put in place decades ago to counter discriminatory hiring practices.

Compounding matters is President Trump, who has embarked on a far-reaching campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion, or so-called DEI policies.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell quietly shut down the department’s DEI program during an administrative reshuffling this year. Massive cuts to federal agencies and university programs have some officials sounding alarms about a ripple effect in police hiring.

The Oscar Joel Bryant Assn., which represents the LAPD’s 700 or so Black officers, said conversations about responding to attacks on pro-diversity programs “do not need to wait for the future.”

“[T]hose concerns are here today for all groups,” Capt. Capt. Shannon Enox-White, the association’s president, said in a statement. “When we swore an oath to protect the Constitution and the organization’s very mission statement elevates DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) principles, I do not see how we can step away from them now or ever.”

Privately, some Black department officials expressed frustration with recent promotions announced by McDonnell. Only one Black leader moved up in rank. Emada Tingirides, a finalist for the police chief job is now the first Black woman in the department’s long history to hold the rank of assistant chief.

Many of the department’s older Black officers — who joined the force during a hiring push in the 1980s and ‘90s — are now nearing retirement. Several high-ranking Black LAPD officials, including Tingirides and Deputy Chiefs Gerald Woodyard and Alan Hamilton, have already enrolled in the deferred retirement program, meaning they probably will exit before the 2028 Olympic Games in L.A.

The department’s percentage of Black officers has dipped slightly to roughly 8% of the force, just below the percentage of Black city residents.

Diversity issues aside, the LAPD has grappled with other issues when it comes to finding and retaining cops of the future. The hiring process typically takes 250 days to complete after the background check, polygraph screening and a series of tests that each applicant is required to undergo. LAPD officials have said some exasperated candidates have opted to pursue opportunities with other agencies where the wait isn’t nearly as long.

But for some already in the department, the most glaring problem is a lack of support for Black people in uniform. They point to the quiet closure of the DEI office, whose staff members were reassigned and duties absorbed by other units. Proponents considered it a crucial support system for younger Black cops.

Without such support, they say, Black officers will be less likely to receive the professional development or opportunities to work in specialized units that can lead to supervisory roles.

Others argue that stories about the internal mistreatment of Black officers keep people from applying. This year, an officer from the department’s recruitment unit filed a complaint alleging he had recorded racist, sexist and homophobic comments by colleagues, which McDonnell and other officials condemned and pledged to investigate.

Over the last decade, the department has paid out more than $10 million in settlements or jury awards for officers alleging that they were discriminated against based on their race.

Like the city it polices, the LAPD has seen its demographics change dramatically in recent decades. With the department prodded by lawsuits and consent decrees, more than half of the once mostly white force is now Latino. But the number of Black cops — especially women — hasn’t budged much.

Some police critics said that increasing diversity alone isn’t a fix for larger, systemic issues with policing.

But a succession of LAPD leaders have said that diversifying the agency’s ranks is a priority, arguing that doing so can counter generations of distrust of police by Black Angelenos. Still, progress has been slow. A 2022 study by UCLA researchers revealed strong resistance within the department toward efforts to hire more women and officers of color.

Since the start of his second term in office, Trump has called diversity hiring efforts “illegal,” encouraging federal agencies to investigate and withhold funds from institutions that promote DEI practices.

Ivonne Roman of the Center for Policing Equity, a nonprofit think tank based at Yale University, said the president’s anti-affirmative orders will undoubtedly undercut efforts to turn the tide on declining Black officer numbers nationwide.

Even though most local police departments aren’t as dependent on federal funding as, say, public universities, police executives may feel less pressure to diversify their agencies in the current social climate, she said.

Steps such as the dismissal of Biden-era civil rights lawsuits that accused police departments of hiring disparities could embolden discrimination, she said.

“It’s going to have chilling effect,” Roman said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan visited Capitol Hill just weeks after Inauguration Day, with other administration officials and a singular message: They needed money for the White House’s border security and mass deportation agenda.

By summer, Congress delivered.

The Republican Party’s big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts that Trump signed into law July 4 included what’s arguably the biggest boost of funds yet to the Department of Homeland Security — nearly $170 billion, almost double its annual budget.

The staggering sum is powering the nation’s sweeping new Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, delivering gripping scenes of people being pulled off city streets and from job sites across the nation — the cornerstone of Trump’s promise for the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. Homeland Security confirmed over the weekend ICE is working to set up detention sites at certain military bases.

“We’re getting them out at record numbers,” Trump said at the White House bill signing ceremony. “We have an obligation to, and we’re doing it.”

Money flows, and so do questions

The crush of new money is setting off alarms in Congress and beyond, raising questions from lawmakers in both major political parties who are expected to provide oversight. The bill text provided general funding categories — almost $30 billion for ICE officers, $45 billion for detention facilities, $10 billion for the office of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — but few policy details or directives. Homeland Security recently announced $50,000 ICE hiring bonuses.

And it’s not just the big bill’s fresh infusion of funds fueling the president’s agenda of 1 million deportations a year.

In the months since Trump took office, his administration has been shifting as much as $1 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other accounts to pay for immigration enforcement and deportation operations, lawmakers said.

“Your agency is out of control,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Noem during a Senate committee hearing in the spring.

The senator warned that Homeland Security would “go broke” by July.

Noem quickly responded that she always lives within her budget.

But Murphy said later in a letter to Homeland Security, objecting to its repurposing funds, that ICE was being directed to spend at an “indefensible and unsustainable rate to build a mass deportation army,” often without approval from Congress.

This past week, the new Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, along with a subcommittee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, requested a briefing from Noem on the border security components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which included $46 billion over the next four years for Trump’s long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“We write today to understand how the Department plans to outlay this funding to deliver a strong and secure homeland for years to come,” the GOP lawmakers said in a letter to the homeland security secretary, noting border apprehensions are at record lows.

“We respectfully request that you provide Committee staff with a briefing on the Department’s plan to disburse OBBBA funding,” they wrote, seeking a response by Aug. 22.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press the department is in daily discussions with the committee “to honor all briefing requests including the spend plan for the funds allocated” through the new law.

“ICE is indeed pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity,” she said. “This process does include housing detainees at certain military bases, including Fort Bliss.”

Deportations move deep into communities

All together, it’s what observers on and off Capitol Hill see as a fundamental shift in immigration policy — enabling DHS to reach far beyond the U.S. southern border and deep into communities to conduct raids and stand up detention facilities as holding camps for immigrants.

The Defense Department, the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies are being enlisted in what Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, calls a “whole of government” approach.

“They’re orienting this huge shift,” Bush-Joseph said, as deportation enforcement moves “inward.”

The flood of cash comes when Americans’ views on immigration are shifting. Polling showed 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a “good thing” for the country, having jumped substantially from 64% a year ago, according to Gallup. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now.

At the same time, Trump’s approval rating on immigration has slipped. According to a July AP-NORC poll, 43% of U.S. adults said they approved of his handling of immigration, down slightly from 49% in March.

Americans are watching images of often masked officers arresting college students, people at Home Depot lots, parents, workers and a Tunisian musician. Stories abound of people being whisked off to detention facilities, often without allegations of wrongdoing beyond being unauthorized to remain in the U.S.

A new era of detention centers

Detention centers are being stood up, from “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida to the repurposed federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, and the proposed new “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana. Flights are ferrying migrants not just home or to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison but far away to Africa and beyond.

Homan has insisted in recent interviews those being detained and deported are the “worst of the worst,” and he dismissed as “garbage” the reports showing many of those being removed have not committed violations beyond their irregular immigration status.

“There’s no safe haven here,” Homan said recently outside the White House. “We’re going to do exactly what President Trump has promised the American people he’d do.”

Back in February, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, emerged from their private meeting saying Trump administration officials were “begging for money.”

As Graham got to work, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a leading deficit hawk, proposed an alternative border package, at $39 billion, a fraction of the size.

But Paul’s proposal was quickly dismissed. He was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who joined all Democrats in voting against the final tax and spending cuts bill.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

When an explosion killed three L.A. County sheriff’s deputies last month, Mike Fratantoni thought about 1857.

A horse thief named Juan Flores broke out of San Quentin State Prison, joined a posse that called itself Las Manillas — the handcuffs — and headed south toward Southern California. They robbed stores along the way and murdered a German shopkeeper in San Juan Capistrano. Los Angeles County Sheriff James R. Barton was warned about them but ignored the danger. He and his men were ambushed. Four were killed — Barton, Deputy Charles Daly and constables Charles Baker and William Little. The spot, near the interchange where State Route 133 and the 405 Freeway meet in Irvine, is now called Barton Mound.

Orange County was still a part of L.A. County then, the population was just over 11,000, California was a newly minted state, and the Mexican period was giving way to the Wild West.

“They all died alone with no help coming,” said Fratantoni, the Sheriff’s Department’s staff historian. “Today, you know your partner is coming to help you. People say the job’s dangerous now — it’s never not been dangerous.”

So as Sheriff Robert Luna prepared to hold a news conference hours after the accident at a department training facility in East L.A. took the lives of Dets. Joshua Kelley-Eklund, Victor Lemus and William Osborn, Fratantoni sent over notes about what happened to Barton and his men. That’s how Luna was able to tell the public that the latest line-of-duty deaths to befall the department happened on its deadliest day in more than 160 years, a line quickly repeated by media across the country.

Fratantoni describes himself as the “default button” whenever someone has a question about the Sheriff’s Department’s past, whether it’s a colleague or the public, whether it’s about the positive or the scandalous. He can tell you why female deputies stopped wearing caps (blame the popularity of beehive hairdos in the 1960s) and reveal why longtime Sheriff Eugene Biscailuz was a pioneer in trying to rehabilitate addicts (his father was an alcoholic).

It’s a job the Long Island native has officially held for a decade. He assumed the position with the blessing of then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell to tap into a passion Fratantoni had dabbled in on his own almost from the moment he joined the department in 1999.

“You can’t talk about L.A. County history without us,” Fratantoni said when we met at the Hall of Justice. Outside, the flags remained at half-staff in honor of the dead detectives. He was taking me on a tour of the building’s basement museum, which showcased the histories of the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, district attorney’s office and coroner. “We’ve been there from Day 1. We were here before the Board of Supervisors. We were here before LAPD. We’ve never closed. We’ve survived it all.”

“We check with Mike on everything,” Luna told me in a phone interview. Last year, the sheriff joined Fratantoni and other current and retired Sheriff’s Department members for the dedication of a plaque to commemorate the 1857 Barton Mound massacre. “You get 10 minutes with him, and wow.”

I was able to get two hours.

Fratantoni is burly but soft-spoken, a trace of a New York accent lingering in his by-the-books cadence. All around us were books, poster boards and newspaper headlines of criminals that Angelenos still remember and those long forgotten, people such as Winnie Ruth Judd, who murdered two friends in Phoenix in 1931 then traveled to Los Angeles by train with their bodies in trunks.

We passed through a row of original L.A. County jail cells that were brought down piece by piece from their original location on the 10th floor of the Hall of Justice. He pointed out a display case of makeshift weapons, tattoo needles and fake IDs created by inmates over the department’s 175 years. I stared too long at a black jacket and AC/DC hat worn by the Night Stalker — serial killer Richard Ramirez.

Fratantoni shows off vintage items used for illegal gambling.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

The museum receives free rent from L.A. County but is otherwise funded and maintained by the Sheriffs’ Relief Foundation and the dollar a month pulled from the paychecks of Sheriff’s Department employees who sign up to support — “We don’t want to be a burden,” Fratantoni explained. It’s not open to the general public, but he frequently hosts deputies, prosecutors, law students and even school field trips.

“The kids come and love this one for some reason,” he said with a chuckle as we passed a narcotics display. “Not my favorite one.”

Fratantoni never rushed me and turned every question I had into a short story that never felt like a lecture. He frequently apologized for random artifacts strewn around — plaques, movie posters, a biography of mobster Mickey Cohen — or displays not lit to his liking. “Am I putting you to sleep yet?” he joked at one point.

The 45-year-old is more than a curator or nerdy archivist. Luna, like his predecessors Alex Villanueva and McDonnell, has entrusted Fratantoni to not just help preserve the department’s history but also imprint its importance on the men and women who are its present and future.

“I have always been a fan of history,” said Luna, who has organized lunchtime lectures about the department and civil rights. For Black History Month in February, Fratantoni spoke about the troubles faced by deputies William Abbott and John Brady, who in 1954 became the department’s first integrated patrol unit.

The recriminations against Abbott, who was Black, and Brady didn’t come from within but rather the residents in West Hollywood they served. “I believe it’s important to teach our deputies where we’ve been and some of the challenges we’ve faced. You can’t help but to want to listen to his stories,” Luna said of Fratantoni.

“Mike is just phenomenal,” said Deputy Graciela Medrano, a 25-year-veteran who was also at the museum the day I visited. A black ribbon stretched across her badge — a sign of mourning, law enforcement style. “I’ll ask him about cases that happened when I was just starting, and he immediately knows what I’m talking about. He makes us all appreciate our department more.”

Every year, Fratantoni speaks to the latest class of recruits about the department’s history. “They know it’s been around but nothing else. So I share photos, I tell stories. And I tell them, ‘You’re getting a torch passed to you, and you’re going to run the next leg.’ You can see their reactions — our history gives them a sense of purpose.”

He’ll also attend community events with other deputies in vintage uniforms or old department cars. “Someone will see it and say, ‘That’s my granddad’s car’ and smile. We can have conversations with the public we otherwise wouldn’t be able to.”

Fratantoni was supposed to focus this year on the department’s 175th anniversary. Another goal was to seek out an interview with Shirley MacLaine, one of the last surviving queens of the Sheriff’s Championship Rodeo, an annual event that used to fill up the Memorial Coliseum and attract Hollywood A-listers.

But 2025 got in the way. We spoke a week before the burials of Osborn and Kelley-Eklund (the services for Lemus have yet to be announced). Fratantoni also sits on the committee charged with putting names on the Los Angeles County Peace Officers’ Memorial.

“I don’t like doing it, and I hope I don’t have to fill out paperwork for it ever again, but if that’s what I have to do, I’m honored to be a part of it,” he said. “I hold it close to my heart.”

Fratantoni in front of a section of the museum that highlights the history of the L.A. County district attorney’s office.

(Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times)

Even the work commemorating what happened during the Barton Mound massacre remains unfinished. The victims were buried at the old City Cemetery downtown but were moved to Rosedale Cemetery in Mid-City in 1914. No one bothered to mark their new graves, which were lost until researchers discovered them a few years ago. Fratantoni and others are fundraising for new tombstones for their slain predecessors.

He mentioned Daly’s story: Born in Ireland. Came to California for the Gold Rush. Became a blacksmith — he put the shoes on the horses that Barton and his constables were going to use to pursue Las Manillas. A strong, able man whom Barton deputized so he could join them on the day they would all die.

“It’s sad to see people who lost their life be forgotten,” Fratantoni said. “That’s just…”

The historian tasked with talking shook his head in silence.

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James‘ office in a criminal investigation.

Two grand jury subpoenas were issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York seeking information about James’ investigations into the Trump Organization and National Rifle Association, according to CNN, NBC News and ABC News.

There is also a grand jury investigation into James in Albany, N.Y. It is said to be looking into deprivation of rights against Trump.

“Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration’s carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign,” said Abbe Lowell, an attorney for James. “Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration. If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with the facts and law.”

Neither the Justice Department nor the White House has commented on these investigations.

A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General’s office told NBC News: “Any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American. We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers’ rights.”

James sued and won against Trump and his company over fraudulent misrepresentations of his wealth and financial statements. Her office won over $300 million in the case, which is now at over $500 million in interest while he appeals.

James’ office also sued the NRA and its leadership. James had sought dissolution of the NRA, but that was struck down. But she did win a civil fraud case against Wayne LaPierre. A jury convicted him of taking millions from the organization for personal use.

In May the Justice Department opened an investigation into James’ real estate transaction. She responded, saying that she had made a mistake on a mortgage application and that she had filed letters correcting the error.

James is one of many on Trump’s list of political enemies.

He has repeatedly said she is biased against him. In 2021, he sued to stop her fraud investigation, saying, “Her mission is guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent.” The lawsuit also alleged that Trump was the victim of “viewpoint discrimination.” He later dropped the suit.

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to free up its mass deportation efforts across Southern California Thursday, seeking to lift a ban on “roving patrols” implemented after a lower court found such tactics likely violate the 4th Amendment.

The restrictions, initially handed down in a July 11 order, bar masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Los Angeles and cities in seven other counties without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles found in her original decision.

The Trump administration said in its appeal to the high court that Frimpong’s ruling, upheld last week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.”

Lawyers behind the lawsuits challenging the immigration tactics immediately questioned the Trump administration’s arguments.

“This is unprecedented,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. “The brief is asking the Supreme Court to bless open season on anybody on Los Angeles who happens to be Latino.”

The move comes barely 24 hours after heavily-armed Border Patrol agents snared workers outside a Westlake Home Depot after popping out of the back of a Penske moving truck — actions some experts said appeared to violate the court’s order.

If the Supreme Court takes up the case, many now think similar aggressive and seemingly indiscriminate enforcement actions could once again become the norm.

“Anything having to do with law enforcement and immigration, the Supreme Court seems to be giving the president free reign,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a prominent scholar of the country’s highest court. “I think the court is going to side with the Trump administration.”

The Department of Justice has repeatedly argued that the temporary restraining order causes “manifest irreparable harm” to the government. Officials are especially eager to see it overturned because California’s Central District is the single most populous in the country, and home to a plurality of undocumented immigrants.

In its Supreme Court petition, the Justice Department alleged that roughly 10% of the region’s residents are in the U.S. illegally.

“According to estimates from Department of Homeland Security data, nearly 4 million illegal aliens are in California, and nearly 2 million are in the Central District of California. Los Angeles County alone had an estimated 951,000 illegal aliens as of 2019—by far the most of any county in the United States,” the petition said.

President Trump made mass deportations a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, and has poured billions in federal funding and untold political capital into the arrest, incarceration and removal of migrants. Though DOJ lawyers told the appellate court there was no policy or quota, administration officials and those involved in planing its deportation operations have repeatedly cited 3,000 arrests a day and a million deportations a year as objectives.

District and appellate courts have stalled, blocked, and sometimes reversed many of those efforts in recent weeks, forcing the return of a Maryland father mistakenly deported to Salvadoran prison, compelling the release of student protesters from ICE detention, preserving birthright citizenship for children of immigrant parents and stopping construction of Alligator Alcatraz.

But little of the President’s immigration agenda has so far been tested in the Supreme Court.

If the outcome is unfavorable for Trump, some observers wonder whether he will let the justices limit his agenda.

“Even if they were to lose in the Supreme Court, I have serious doubts they will stop,” Segall said.