Stereotypes

SACRAMENTO — While President Trump was pushing National Guard troops from city to city like some little kid playing with his toy soldiers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was coaxing voters into fighting the man’s election-rigging scheme.

It turned out to be an easy sell for the governor. By the end, Californians appeared ready to send a loud message that they not only objected to the president’s election rigging but practically all his policies.

Trump is his own worst enemy, at least in this solidly blue state — and arguably the California GOP’s biggest current obstacle to regaining relevancy.

Here’s a guy bucking for the Nobel Peace Prize who suggests that the country resume nuclear weapons testing — a relic of the Cold War — and sends armed troops into Portland and Chicago for no good reason.

The commander in chief bizarrely authorized Marines to fire artillery shells from a howitzer across busy Interstate 5. Fortunately, the governor shut down the freeway. Or else exploding shrapnel could have splattered heads in some topless convertible. As it was, metal chunks landed only on a California Highway Patrol car and a CHP motorcycle. No injuries, but the president and his forces came across as blatantly reckless.

And while Trump focused on demolishing the First Lady’s historic East Wing of the White House and hitting up billionaire grovelers to pay for a monstrous, senseless $300-million ballroom — portraying the image of a spoiled, self-indulgent monarch — Newsom worked on a much different project. He concentrated on building a high-powered coalition and raising well over $100 million to thwart the president with Proposition 50.

The ballot measure was Newsom’s and California Democrats’ response to Trump browbeating Texas and other red states to gerrymander congressional districts to make them more Republican-friendly. The president is desperate to retain GOP control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Newsom retaliated with Prop. 50, aimed at flipping five California House seats from Republican to Democrat, neutralizing Texas’ gerrymandering.

It’s all sleazy, but Trump started it. California’s Democratic voters, who greatly outnumber Republicans, indicated in preelection polling that they preferred sleazy redistricting to an unhinged president continuing to reign roughshod over a cowardly, subservient Congress.

A poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 93% of likely Democratic voters supported Prop. 50. So did 57% of independents. Conversely, symbolic of Trump’s hold on the GOP and our political polarization, 91% of Republicans opposed the measure.

Similar partisan voting was found in a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Pollster Mark Baldassare said that “96% of the people voting yes on 50 disapprove of Trump.”

Democrats — 94% of them — also emphatically disapproved of the Trump administration’s immigration raids, the PPIC poll showed. Likewise, 67% of independents. But 84% of Republicans backed how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was rounding up people living here illegally.

ICE agents shrouded in masks and not wearing identification badges while traveling in unmarked vehicles — raiding hospitals, harassing school kids and chasing farmworkers — are not embraced in diverse, immigrant-accepting California.

When the PPIC poll asked voters how undocumented immigrants should be handled, 69% — including 93% of Democrats — chose this response: “There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally.” But 67% of Republicans said they should be booted.

The ICE raids were among the Trump actions — and flubs — that helped generate strong support for Prop. 50. It was the voters’ device for sticking it to the president.

“Californians are concerned about the overreach of the federal government and that helped 50,” Democratic consultant Roger Salazar says. “It highlights how much the Trump administration has pushed the envelope. And a yes vote on Prop. 50 was a response to that.”

Jonathan Paik, director of a Million Votes Project coalition that contacted 2 million people promoting Prop. 50, says: “We heard very consistently from voters that they were concerned about the impact of Trump’s ICE raids and the rising cost of living. These raids don’t just target immigrants, they destabilize entire communities and deepen economic struggles.

“Voters saw Prop. 50 as a way to restore balance and protect their families’ ability to work, pay rent and live safely.”

The measure also provided a platform for Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California to explore possibly joining a crowded field of candidates running for governor. Newsom is termed-out after next year.

The Trump administration did Padilla a gigantic favor in June by roughing up the senator and handcuffing him on the floor when he tried to query Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Los Angeles news conference about ICE raids. Such publicity for a politician is golden.

Padilla became a leading advocate for Prop. 50 while seriously considering a gubernatorial bid. The senator said he’d decide after Tuesday’s special election.

“I haven’t made any decision,” he told me last week. “Sometime in the next several weeks.”

But it’s tempting for this L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants who was inspired to enter politics by anti-immigrant bashing in the 1990s.

“I’d have an opportunity and responsibility to be a leading voice against that,” he said. “California can be a leader for the rest of the country on immigration, environmental protection, reproduction quality, healthcare…”

In many ways it already is. But Trump hates that. And California Republicans step in it by meekly following the hugely unpopular president. Prop. 50 is the latest result.

California Republicans can do better than behave like Trump’s wannabe reserve toy soldiers.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A youth movement is roiling Democrats. Does age equal obsolescence?
The what happened: Most Americans have avoided shutdown woes. That might change.
The L.A. Times Special: Voters in poll side with Newsom, Democrats on Prop. 50 — a potential blow to Trump and GOP

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s me again, California columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for your usual host, Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner, who will be back next week.

California’s Proposition 50, the measure that would redraw election maps to favor Democrats, started out seeming controversial and likely to spark a huge battle.

But in recent days, it’s become clear that the majority of Californians are pro-50. So much so that Gov. Gavin Newsom has offered up the ultimate taunt — he’s ended small-donor fundraising on the measure. Can you imagine President Trump telling MAGA, “Keep your five bucks. It’s better in your pocket than mine.”

So it’s sort of like Newsom is walking across the finish line flush with swagger and cash — maybe not wise, but a statement.

Obviously, Newsom will soon be asking for more money for more things, including his was-never-not-happening presidential bid. But for now, the narrative he’s crafted with Proposition 50 (win or lose, because truly you don’t know until the last ballot is counted) is a consequential and important win for democracy and a ray of hope for the next election, merely a year away.

Here’s why.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Texas state Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins appear at a news conference in July at the governor’s mansion.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

It was never unpopular

The big secret you should know about Proposition 50 is that it was never unpopular with California’s blue voters.

Sure, Republicans hate it. Especially those, such as Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who will probably lose their jobs if it passes. I’ll give Kiley credit on this — he for a short bit tried to convince his party that all mid-decade redistricting was bad. He had no luck, mostly because House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) rolls like jelly when it comes to Trump.

But the majority of Republicans in California and across the country have offered nary a whisper in condemnation of red-tilting cheat maps.

In truth, Proposition 50 started out as a bluff — nothing more than a way to push back on Texas Republicans who were working at full speed to appease Trump by rejiggering their own maps to provide him with a safe margin of seats for the midterms.

Hoping to deter Texas appeasement GOPers from this scorched-earth pursuit, Texas Democratic congressional representatives started floating the rumor this year that if the Lone Star State went forward with its scheme to create five extra red seats, California would do the same for blue. It was nothing more than a bit of tit-for-tat blustering.

There was, however, no such plan by Newsom, and insiders say the feint took the governor by surprise. But kind of a happy surprise, because the idea caught on like wildfire and — even more surprising — turned out to be legally doable.

Newsom’s team did a couple of polls and guess what? Yep, voters wanted to fight back against Trump’s takeover. Congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, agreed to back the measure and fundraise and here we are: A poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 6 in 10 likely voters support the measure, and of those who have already voted, 67% are in favor.

That backs up another new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California that found 56% of likely voters support the measure, mostly along party lines. Forty-three percent are against it.

Only 2% were undecided in The Times’ poll, and that dropped to 1% in the PPIC poll.

So Californians have made up their minds — now they just need to mail in their ballots (I swear I will send mine very, very soon).

What will 50 actually do?

So let’s say Proposition 50 does sail to victory. What then? Will it really save democracy, which is really in need of saving?

Probably not. Maybe. Hopefully? Here’s the truth. Our elections are in hugely big trouble, which I wrote about on Tuesday. For the vast majority of you who didn’t read that, here’s the recap: Donald Trump will probably try to cheat.

That suppression may take many forms. It could be new rules to make it harder to vote — such as requiring multiple forms of IDs with matching names (which many married women lack). It could involve something as dire as military “protection” of our polls. It may look like another attempt to end mail-in ballots or early voting.

It could involve Mike “Jelly” Johnson refusing to seat elected Democrats, as he is currently doing with Arizona’s newly elected, release-the-Epstein-files Arizona Rep. Adelita Grijalva.

It will almost certainly include charges of voter fraud, which Trump is already yapping about on social media. And it will almost certainly involve Republican gerrymandered maps in states besides Texas (though there are surprising holdouts in some places, including Nebraska).

All of that is to say that the midterms are going to be both a big, steaming mess and historically important.

But Proposition 50 shows that not only is there will to resist this breakdown of democracy, but there are also ways to fight. Whether or not it ultimately is the key to restoring the power check of an independent Congress, it’s an important proof that the fight is not over.

There are a couple of other things that stand out in this moment of uncertainty. First, Newsom is the Comeback Kid. There was a time after Kamala Harris took the Democratic nomination when his chances of ever sitting behind the Resolute Desk seemed slim. But Proposition 50 coincided with, and fed, his new turn as chief troll — and actually as an effective foil — to Trump.

He has quickly become one of the most recognizable leaders nationwide in fighting authoritarianism, and to his credit, he is speaking truth at a difficult moment.

Yes, that benefits him, but I’ll take pro-democracy pushback wherever I find it — and so apparently will other Californians. The same PPIC poll that found the majority of likely voters support Proposition 50 also found that 55% approve of the way Newsom is doing his job, and about half think California is on the right track.

Nationally, he’s gaining ground too. Another poll about the New Hampshire primary, often considered one of the first harbingers of Democratic things to come, found Newsom in second place after former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

In a couple of other polls, Newsom is in the mix, along with Buttigieg and New York U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So he’s in the running, and not just in his own head — making Proposition 50 a win for the governor.

But Congress, that’s another story. Californians (and Americans in general) are not pleased with their congressional representatives. The PPIC poll found that only 14% of California adults are happy with the way Congress is doing its job. Honestly, judging from the way I feel about it, that seems high.

So keep your eye on California races, even after the maps are redrawn. The youngs are after the olds, and voters seem ready for change. Pelosi is facing two serious challengers, including state Sen. Scott Wiener. In Sacramento, Rep. Doris Matsui has a youthful contender.

California voters may end up wanting even more change than Democrats anticipate. They’re clearly in a mood to fight, and no telling with whom.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: We checked DHS’s videos of chaos and protests. Here’s what they leave out.
The what happened: The Republicans thwarting the White House’s redistricting hopes
The L.A. Times special: ICE officials replaced with Border Patrol, cementing hard tactics that originated in California

P.S. More from Homeland Security. This is deeply disturbing propaganda being produced and disseminated without much remark by an armed federal agency. For those who aren’t J.R.R. Tolkien nerds, it’s a reference to a great evil destroying society. Whether or not you support the removal of undocumented people, the portrayal of all undocumented folks as evil and dangerous is well … dangerous. And wrong.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s anti-Trump, anti-Texas congressional redistricting gamble seems about to pay off.

Newsom’s bet on Proposition 50 is looking like a winner, although we won’t really know until the vote count is released starting election night Nov. 4.

Insiders closely watching the high-stakes campaign would be shocked if Republicans pulled an upset and defeated the Democrats’ retaliatory response to red state gerrymandering.

They talk mostly about the expected size of victory, not whether it will win. The hedged consensus is that it’ll be by a modest margin, not a blowout.

Any size victory would help Newsom promote himself nationally as the Democrat whom party activists anxiously seek to aggressively fight Trumpism. It could energize grassroots progressives to back the Californian in early 2028 presidential primaries.

Propositions 50’s defeat, however, could be a devastating blow to Newsom’s presidential aspirations. If Californians wouldn’t follow him, why should other people?

Private and independent polls have shown Proposition 50 being supported by a small majority of registered voters. Not enough for an early victory dance. But the opposition is nowhere close to a majority. A lot of people have been undecided. They may not even bother to vote in a special election with only one state measure on the ballot.

As of last week, the return of mail-in ballots was running about the same as in last year’s presidential election at the same point — very unusual.

A slightly higher percentage of Democrats were casting ballots than GOP registrants. This is particularly significant in a state where 45% of voters are Democrats and only 25% are Republicans. The GOP needs a humungous turnout to beat Democrats on almost anything.

You can credit President Trump’s antics for riling up Democrats to vote early.

One practical importance of early Democratic voting is that the “yes” side doesn’t need to spend more money appealing to people who have already mailed in their ballots.

“It’s a bird in the hand kind of thing,” says Paul Mitchell, the Democrats’ chief data processor and principal drawer of the gerrymandered congressional maps up for approval in Proposition 50.

Mitchell believes the large recent weekend turnouts in California of “No Kings” protesters are indicative of the anti-Trump outrage that is generating Democratic enthusiasm for Proposition 50.

Republican consultant Rob Stutzman thinks that Proposition 50 could have been beaten with enough money. But not nearly enough showed up. Potential donors probably concluded it was a lost cause, he says. Don’t waste the cash.

It takes ridiculous amounts of money to win a competitive statewide race in California, with 23 million diverse voters scattered over hundreds of miles and several costly media markets.

Democrats, with their unmatched California power, have raised well over $100 million from unions, billionaire Democratic donors and other political investors.

Billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer put up $12 million. There are rumors he’s tempted to run for governor.

Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso is thinking very seriously about entering the 2026 gubernatorial race. He just paid for 100,000 pro-50 mail pieces in L.A. County, aimed at those least likely to vote.

One problem for the opposition is that it never unified behind a main anti-50 message. It ranged from “reject Newsom’s power grab” to “win one for Trump” and a purist lecture about retaining California’s current congressional districts drawn by a voter-created good government citizens’ commission.

The basic pro-50 message is simply, as Steyer says in his TV ad: “Stick it to Trump.”

This contest at its core is about which party controls Congress after next year’s midterm elections — or whether Republicans and Democrats at least share power. It’s about whether there’ll be a Congress with some gumption to confront a power-mad, egotistical president.

The fight started when Trump banged on Texas to redraw — gerrymander — its congressional districts to potentially gain five more Republican seats in the House of Representatives. Democrats need only a slight pickup to capture House control — and in an off-year election, the non-presidential party tends to acquire many.

Texas obediently obliged the nervous Trump, and other red states also have.

Newsom responded by urging the California Legislature to redraw this state’s maps to potentially gain five Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ underhanded move. The lawmakers quickly did. But in California, voter approval is needed to temporarily shelve the independent commission’s work. That’s what Proposition 50 does.

It also would boost Newsom’s standing among party activists across America.

“He’s been trying to claim the national leadership on anti-Trump. This is a chance for him to show he can deliver,” says UC Berkeley political scientist Eric Schickler. “There’s a sense the party doesn’t know how to fight back.

“On the flip side, if he were unable to persuade California voters to go along with him, it would be a hard sell to show Democrats nationally he’s the best person to take on Republicans.”

“It’s a gamble,” says UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser. “If 50 wins, he’s a person who can effectively fight back against Donald Trump. If it loses, he has no hope of winning on the national level.”

But veteran political consultant Mike Murphy — a former Republican who switched to independent — thinks Newsom could survive voters’ rejection of Proposition 50.

“It would take some of the shine off him. But he’d still be a contender. It wouldn’t knock him out. The worst you could say was that he lost 50 but was fighting the good fight.

“If 50 wins, Gavin might have a good future as a riverboat gambler if he puts all the chips in.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Pelosi faces challenges as age becomes unavoidable tension point for Democrats
The TK: Justice Department says it will monitor California poll sites amid Prop. 50 voting
The L.A. Times Special: She was highly qualified to be California governor. Why did her campaign fizzle?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s Anita Chabria again. Today, I’m coming to you from a coffee shop where I just used Apple Pay to buy a dirty chai.

Why does that matter? Because in the last five minutes, I’ve dropped all kinds of data into the universe. What I drink, how much I’ll pay for it, how long I sat here using this Wi-Fi and dozens of other details that companies are willing to pay for but that I don’t even think about — much less benefit from.

Every day, we all walk around dropping data like garbage — when in reality it’s gold. Especially in the age of budding artificial intelligence, when the smallest bit of insight is being crammed into these new robo-gods in the hope of making them seem ever smarter and more human.

It all raises the question, if it’s our data, shouldn’t we be paid for it?

André Vellozo thinks so, and is working to make that a reality. He’s a Brazilian hippie based in Silicon Valley, an outsider in an increasingly conservative and insular community with an idea that’s more about equality than power.

“Everything you do generates value and data,” Vellozo said. “Now you can collect.”

Here’s what he envisions — and why it’s as much politics as business.

A bus stop advertises Artisan AI, an artificial intelligence software company, along the Embarcadero in downtown San Francisco.

(Florence Middleton / For The Times)

Pennies add up

Think of Vellozo’s idea a bit like streaming royalties, giving you a small paycheck every time information you create is used, be it details of a coffee purchase or your hospital stay. Obviously, an artist could never keep track of every single time their show or song is played — they rely on managers and brokers.

Vellozo’s company, DrumWave, would act as that broker for individuals’ data. In his scenario, every person from birth would have a digital wallet where every bit of data they drop is accounted for. This is stuff you are already creating, whether you’re aware of it or not — and which companies are too often collecting, whether you are aware of it or not.

How many “accept all” buttons have you clicked in your life without reading the details of what you are agreeing to, including allowing others to sell your data for their own profit?

When companies want to use that data — which they do to understand economics in the macro and micro, or to study health outcomes, or to feed those large language models such as ChatGPT — DrumWave packages it and licenses it for use without identifying details, but with each consumer’s consent.

Data goes out, payment comes it — over and over for the life of the account.

It’s not as far-fetched as it might seem. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a similar idea in 2019, arguing, “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data.”

Nothing ever came of it, in no small part due to the lobbying and money thrown at government by big tech. I asked the governor’s office if there was still any interest around the idea and got nothing back from them. But California already has a law that could give folks control of their data, though it isn’t often used the way Vellozo envisions.

Downsides

There are, of course, many obstacles and potential pitfalls. Data privacy is one that comes up often — do we really want to be selling the details of our most recent colonoscopy, anonymous or not?

And of course, there’s also the potential for exploitation. What data would the poor or desperate be willing to sell, and how cheaply?

Annemarie Butler is an associate professor of philosophy at Iowa State University who specializes in the ethics of AI. She wonders if people would really understand what their data was being used for or by whom, and if they would be able to pull it back in any way once it’s out there.

She also said that there may be no meaningful way to opt out.

“Our own data are not always restricted to that one person,” she warns. “DNA is probably the clearest example of this: When one shares a DNA sample, she shares vital (and immutable) information about any of her blood relatives. And yet only she provides the consent.”

Of course, privacy is something of an illusion right now.

And, Vellozo points out, it’s not just that we are currently giving data away for free under the current system — we are all actually paying to create that data in the first place. We pay for the electricity that charges our phones. We pay the monthly service charge on our devices. We are actively putting in our time and labor to create the information.

Vellozo’s company is currently running a pilot of digital wallets with rideshare drivers in California.

He points out that these drivers spend a lot of money and energy creating information that will likely be used to train their AI replacements — their gas, the cost of the car, insurance, maintenance and time. Then all that information — who they pick up, when, how long the ride is and a million other details — is just collected and used to create profit for others.

In another milestone, Brazil — a country that has embraced a national model of digital payments much to the chagrin of many technology and banking companies, and President Trump for that matter — is on board with the idea of a digital wallet for all citizens. Vellozo was back home this week to work on that effort.

A check on AI

So why does all this matter in a politics newsletter?

Beyond money, data ownership offers another benefit: Regulation. Although California has arguably done more to regulate AI than almost any other state, the controls on the technology remain woefully slim. The federal government, after a fancy dinner redolent in flattery at the White House, has made it clear it has no interest in protecting people from this powerful technology, or the men who would wield it.

Vellozo sees the ownership of data as an important step in curbing the power of corporations to pursue ever-mightier AI models without oversight.

The coming changes induced by artificial intelligence are going to be profound for the average person. Already, we are seeing a world in which physical money, or at least the movement of it, is increasingly a relic. Financial companies are becoming tech companies, and money is digital (yes, economists, I know this is technically too simple).

Combine that with the changes in our ability to earn money through work, and the power imbalance already faced by the poor and working class becomes, well, really bad. Remember the railroad barons? This is going to make it seem like they were running ice cream trucks.

We need to rethink what a successful economy looks like. Because AI is going to give a few people not just a lot of money, but a lot of power — by scavenging the knowledge and work of the rest of us. It will take all of us to build successful AI, but the rewards will go to a handful.

So the idea of owning our data is not really about Vellozo’s company or if it accomplishes its goal.

It’s about creating a future in which individual power isn’t a thing of the past.

And where the coming changes benefit society, not just the corporate titans who would like us all to remain too confused to object.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Just like humans, AI can get ‘brain rot’ from low-quality text and the effects appear to linger, pre-print study says
The what happened: Trump empowers election deniers, still fixated on 2020 grievances
The L.A. Times special: Malibu residents flee as international buyers snap up burned-out lots

P.S. We’re continuing to look at the blatant (and frankly frightening) propaganda that Homeland Security is posting on its official social media. Case in point, this recruitment ad with … medieval knights? Not only is this image chock-full of Christian nationalism dog whistles, it’s aimed at the young men Immigration and Customs Enforcement is hoping to recruit with its edgelord/video game fanatasies that would turn legimate law enforcement efforts into a religious crusade against immigrants.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Some witty person long ago gave us this immortal line: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

Humorist Will Rogers usually is credited — wrongly. Mark Twain, too, falsely.

The real author was Gideon J. Tucker, a former newspaper editor who founded the New York Daily News. He later became a state legislator and judge, and he crafted the comment in an 1866 court opinion.

Anyway, Californians are safe from further legislative harm for now. State lawmakers have gone home for the year after passing 917 bills. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 794 (87%) and vetoed 123 (13%).

I’m not aware of any person’s life being jeopardized. Well, maybe after the lawmakers and governor cut back Medi-Cal healthcare for undocumented immigrants to save money.

One could argue — and many interests did — that what the Legislature did to increase housing availability made some existing residential neighborhoods less safe from congestion and possible declining property values.

But kudos to the lawmakers and governor for enacting major housing legislation that should have been passed years ago.

Public pressure generated by unaffordable costs — both for homebuyers and renters — spurred the politicians into significant action to remove regulatory barriers and encourage much more development. The goal is to close the gap between short supply and high demand.

But legislative passage was achieved over stiff opposition from some cities — especially Los Angeles — that objected to loss of local control.

“It’s a touchy issue that affects zoning and is always going to be controversial,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who finessed through a bill that will allow construction of residential high-rises up to nine stories near transit hubs such as light-rail and bus stations. The measure overrides local zoning ordinances.

Wiener had been trying unsuccessfully for eight years to get similar legislation passed. Finally, a fire was lit under legislators by their constituents.

“The public understands we’ve screwed ourselves by making it so hard to build homes,” Wiener says.

But to win support, he had to accept tons of exceptions. For example, the bill will affect only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. There are eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Sacramento.

“Over time it will have a big effect, but it’s going to be gradual,” Wiener says.

Dan Dunmoyer, who heads the California Building Industry Assn., calls it “a positive step in the right direction.”

Yes, and that direction is up rather than sideways. California could accommodate a cherished ranch-house lifestyle when the population was only a third or half the nearly 40 million people it is today. But sprawling horizontally has become impossibly pricey for too many and also resulted in long smog-spewing commutes and risky encroachment into wildfire country.

Dozens of housing bills were passed and signed this year, ranging from minutia to major.

The Legislature continued to peck away at the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Opponents of projects have used the act to block construction for reasons other than environmental protection. Local NIMBYs — ”Not in my backyard” — have resisted neighborhood growth. Businesses have tried to avoid competition. Unions have practiced “greenmail” by threatening lawsuits unless developers signed labor agreements.

Another Wiener bill narrowed CEQA requirements for commercial housing construction. It also exempted from CEQA a bunch of nonresidental projects, including health clinics, manufacturing facilities and child-care centers.

A bill by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) exempted most urban infill housing projects from CEQA.

You can’t argue that the Legislature wasn’t productive this year. But you can spar over whether some of the production was a mistake. Some bills were both good and bad. That’s the nature of compromise in a functioning democracy.

One example: The state’s complex cap-and-trade program was extended beyond 2030 to 2045. That’s probably a good thing. It’s funded by businesses buying permits to emit greenhouse gases and pays for lots of clean energy projects.

But a questionable major piece of that legislation — demanded by Newsom — was a 20-year, $1-billion annual commitment of cap-and-trade money for California’s disappointing bullet train project.

The project was sold to voters in 2008 as a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s $100 billion over budget and far behind its promised 2020 completion. No tracks have even been laid. The new infusion of cap-and-trade money will merely pay for the initial 171-mile section between Merced and Bakersfield, which the state vows to open by 2033. Hot darn!

Newsom muscled through the bill at the last moment. The Legislature should have taken more time to study the project’s future.

One gutsy thing Democratic legislators and the governor did — given that “oil,” among the left, has become the new hated pejorative sidekick of “tobacco” — was to permit production of 2,000 more wells annually in oil-rich Kern County.

It was part of a compromise: Drilling in federal offshore waters was made more difficult by tightening pipeline regulations.

Credit the persistent Sen. Shannon Grove, a conservative Republican from Bakersfield who is adept at working across the aisle.

“Kern County knows how to produce energy,” she told colleagues during the Senate floor debate, citing not only oil but wind, solar and battery storage. “We are the experts. We are not the enemy.”

But what mostly motivated Newsom and legislators was the threat of even higher gas prices as two large California oil refineries prepare to shut down. Most Democrats agreed that the politically smart move was to allow more oil production, even as the state attempts to transcend entirely to clean energy.

Let’s not forget the most important bill the Legislature annually passes: the state budget. This year’s totaled $325 billion and allegedly covered a $15-billion deficit through borrowing, a few cuts and numerous gimmicks.

Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek last week projected deficit spending of up to $25 billion annually for the next three years.

In California, no state bank account is safe when the Legislature is in session.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Sen. Scott Wiener to run for congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi
California vs. Trump: Federal troops in San Francisco? Locals, leaders scoff at Trump’s plan
The L.A. Times Special: One of O.C.’s loudest pro-immigrant politicians is one of the unlikeliest

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s me, California columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for your usual host, Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner.

Andrea Grossman was a kid when her mother pulled her out of school to join the 1969 Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, a nationwide day of peaceful protest. They held hands while her mom walked in a knit suit and ladylike shoes, joining more than 2 million people nationwide.

Grossman, now one of the organizers of the Beverly Hills segment of the “No Kings” marches being held in more than 2,000 cities this weekend, remembers that opponents of that long-ago protest threw stinky rat poison on the lawns in Exposition Park so participants couldn’t sit on the grass. But protesters were not deterred.

“It made it all the more rebellious of us to be there,” Grossman told me. “It made us more insistent that we had to be there.”

Today, that rat poison is being metaphorically hurled by MAGA leaders such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), in the form of noxious allegations that the No Kings marches are “Hate America” rallies staged for a “rabid base” of criminal agitators.

“It’s all the pro-Hamas wing and the antifa people, they’re all coming out,” Johnson said on Fox News.

Of course, that is dumb and false. It would be all too easy to write off comments such as Johnson’s as partisan jibber-jabber, but his insidious words are the kind of poison that seeps into the soil and shouldn’t be ignored.

Participants in the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam demonstrate in 1969 at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

(Clay Geerdes / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

Johnson isn’t the only Republican working overtime to smear everyday folks such as Grossman. Talk about organized campaigns — Trumpites are all going after No Kings with the same script.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said: “These guys are playing to the most radical, small, and violent base in the country. You’ll see them on Saturday on the Mall. They just do not love this country.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has parroted similar messaging, and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), diving into old, antisemitic conspiracies, described the events as “a Soros paid-for protest,” adding that the National Guard would probably need to be activated.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi added her two cents, apparently confusing printed signs, the kind that say, a union or organizations such as Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, might have made up, with evidence of diabolical terrorist networks.

“You’re seeing people out there with thousands of signs that all match,” Bondi told Fox News. “They are organized and someone is funding it. We are going to get to the funding of antifa, we’re going to get to the root of antifa and we are going to find and charge all of those people who are causing this chaos.”

Note to Bondi: Matching signs are not a conspiracy. Just ask Kinko’s.

But in her defense, it was a mere two weeks ago when President Trump addressed the leaders of the U.S. military at Quantico, Va. There, he warned that the use of military troops on American protesters was about to become reality, if he has any say in it.

“This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control,” Trump said.

That came on the heels of his executive order declaring antifa — a general descriptor for anyone who opposes fascism — as a terrorist organization.

So to recap: The president declares “antifa” a terrorist organization, warns military brass that they must be ready to defeat internal enemies, then MAGA Republicans begin to falsely claim No Kings rallies are full of “antifa.”

Andrea Grossman, second from left, with other activists in 2024 discussing efforts to protect a Beverly Hills abortion clinic.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Bad journalism

Grossman calls the idea that she is anti-American “preposterous.”

“We wouldn’t be out there spending our time and energy if we weren’t desperately worried for our country. Of course we love America,” she said.

Here’s where I eat my own: Media are failing miserably and unforgivably in covering this issue — this terrifying march to turn peaceful protest into a criminal offense. We shouldn’t be asking Grossman whether she hates America. We should be pushing Johnson and his ilk to defend his attack on people like her.

“We can both recognize that it’s ridiculous and also that it’s pretty sinister,” Leah Greenberg told me.

She’s the co-executive director of Indivisible, the organization behind the No Kings effort, and she’ll be at the D.C. event — the one Johnson specifically condemned. At the first No Kings rally in Philadelphia, her husband led more than 1,000 people in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, some real anti-American stuff.

“We have to see what is currently happening here, not only as Republicans desperately grasping for a message, but also of them creating a permission structure to, you know, invite a broader crackdown on peaceful dissent,” Greenberg warned.

I asked Grossman whether she felt personally at risk by taking on this organizing role at such a fraught moment, even in Beverly Hills, that hotbed of radicalism. At first, she said she didn’t. But when I asked her why not, she paused for a bit.

“We have to put ourselves out there and it takes risk sometimes,” she finally said. “I mean, I don’t consider myself a freedom fighter by any means. I consider myself a woman of a certain age, you know, who has to stand up and be loud and noisy.”

In her regular life, Grossman runs one of the preeminent literary salons in Los Angeles, drawing authors and luminaries including Rob Reiner, Rep. Jasmine Crockett and legal podcaster Joyce Vance. She was also one of the “abortion yentas” who last year fought a losing battle to protect a controversial abortion clinic in the neighborhood. So she knows risk and doesn’t shy away from it.

But this moment is different, because it’s not normal for a president to declare protests to be terrorism, or for legislators to deem them un-American. It is not normal to fear that the military will be used to silence us.

Which is why No Kings is so crucial to this moment.

It is a movement that seeks to draw the most normal, the most average, the most mild of people to highlight just how abnormal this government is. No flags are going to be burned (though that is a protected 1st Amendment right, no matter what Trump says). No Molotov cocktails will be tossed. Hamas is not invited.

Greenberg said that “anybody with eyes” can see who comes to a No Kings rally.

“You see veterans, you see members of faith communities. You see federal workers, dedicated public servants. You see parents and grandparents and kids all coming together in this joyous and defiant opposition,” she said.

Those are exactly the types that turned out in June, when somewhere between 3 million and 6 million people marched in what felt like a cross between a fall school carnival and a Fourth of July parade. People sauntered, they sat, they sang. But most of all, they showed up.

“If we’re going to be afraid and not say anything, then [they] win,” Grossman said. “The only way to stand up to oppression is to get out there in huge, great numbers.”

So like her mom, she’ll march and she’ll ignore the poison — and much to the dismay of MAGA, I suspect millions of others just like her will too.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Justices lean toward rejecting race in redistricting, likely boosting GOP in 2026
The what happened: Mike Johnson’s nightmare: Kevin Kiley is unhappy with the speaker and has nothing to lose
The L.A. Times special: USC finds itself in funding battle between Trump and Newsom over the campus’ future

P.S. This is another bit of propaganda from the Department of Homeland Security. “Remigrate” is a term often embraced by the far right that alludes to the forced deportation of immigrants, legal or not, especially those who are not of European origin.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla apparently dreams of becoming California’s next governor. He’s thinking hard about entering the race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom. And Katie Porter may have just opened the starting gate for him.

Porter has been regarded as the early front-runner. But she tripped and stumbled badly during a contentious, unprofessional and rude performance in a recent routine TV interview that went viral.

We don’t know the extent of her injury. But it was certainly enough to make Padilla’s decision a lot easier. If he really deep down covets the job of governor, the time seems ripe to apply for it.

Padilla wouldn’t need to vacate the Senate merely to run. He’d have what’s called a “free ride”: He doesn’t face reelection next year because his Senate term runs through 2028.

But a Senate seat is gold plated. No term limits — a job often for life. It offers prestige and power, with sway over a global array of issues.

Why would Padilla trade that to become the governor whose state is plagued by homelessness, wildfires and unaffordable living for millions?

For starters, it’s not much fun these days to be in the toothless Senate minority as a Democrat.

The California governor has immense power over spending and taxes, the appointment of positions ranging from local fair board members to state Supreme Court justices and the fate of hundreds of bills passed each year by the Legislature.

You lead the most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

The office provides an automatic launching pad for anyone with presidential aspirations, such as the termed-out present occupant.

Anyway, Padilla, 52, is a proud native Californian, raised in the San Fernando Valley with strong ties to the state.

And he’s immensely qualified to be governor, having served well in local, state and federal branches of government: Los Angeles City Council, state Senate, California secretary of State and the U.S. Senate.

There has been speculation for weeks about his entering the gubernatorial race. And in a recent New York Times interview, he acknowledged: “I am weighing it.”

“Look, California is home,” he said. “I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there. … I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful.”

How long will he think? “The race is not until next year,” he said. “So that decision will come.”

It should come much sooner than next year in order to be elected governor in this far-flung state with its vast socio-economic and geographic diversity.

Former Democratic Rep. Porter from Orange County has been beating him and every announced candidate in the polls — although not by enough to loudly boast about.

In a September poll by Emerson College, 36% of surveyed voters said they were undecided about whom to support. Of the rest, 16% favored Porter and just 7% Padilla.

In an August survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 38% were undecided. Porter led with 17%. The nearest Democrat at 9% was Xavier Becerra, former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, state attorney general and 12-term congressman. Padilla wasn’t listed.

Why Porter? She gained renown during congressional hearings while grilling corporate executives and using a white board. But mainly, I suspect, voters got to know her when she ran statewide for the U.S. Senate last year. She didn’t survive the primary, but her name familiarity did.

By contrast, Padilla has never had a tough top-of-the-ticket statewide race. He was appointed by Newsom to the Senate in 2021 to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris’ election as vice president.

Democratic strategist Garry South says it would be “risky” for Padilla to announce his candidacy unless he immediately became the front-runner. That’s because he’d need that status to attract the hefty campaign donations required to introduce himself to voters.

“Unlike the governor, a California senator is not really that well known,” the strategist says. “And he hasn’t been a senator that long. I don’t think voters have a sense of him. In order to improve his [poll] numbers, he’s going to have to spend a lot of money. If he were an instant frontrunner, the money would flow. But if he jumps in with only half the votes [of

the frontrunner], there’s no reason for money to flow.

“And the longer he waits, the less time he has to raise the money.”

Porter may have eased the way for Padilla.

The UC Irvine law professor came unglued when CBS Sacramento reporter Julie Watts asked what she’d tell California’s 6 million Donald Trump voters in order to win their needed support for governor. Porter reacted like a normal irritated person rather than a seasoned politician.

She tersely dismissed the question’s premise and replied that the GOP votes wouldn’t be needed.

When the interviewer persisted, Porter lost her cool. “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” she said, threatening to walk out. But she didn’t.

It was raw meat for her campaign opponents and they immediately pounced.

Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to “leave this race” because she’s “a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”

Veteran Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who’s not involved in the contest, says the TV flub “hurts her a lot because it goes to likability.”

If Padilla really longs for the job, he can stop dreaming and take advantage of a golden opportunity.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California tightens leash on puppy sales with new laws signed by Newsom
Wut?: Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist
The L.A. Times Special: At Trump’s Justice Department, partisan pugnacity where honor, integrity should be

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — A peace plan for Gaza touted by President Trump as a historic breakthrough is facing its first test this week after Israel and Hamas agreed in principle to an initial list of terms that could end the war.

The 20-point American plan reflects an administration losing patience with Israel, while also leveraging its relationships with Arab partners to finally pressure Hamas into a deal that would release the Israeli hostages still in its custody two years since the Oct. 7 attack.

On Wednesday evening, Trump said both parties had agreed to the first phase of his plan, securing the hostage release in exchange for a limited Israeli troop withdrawal.

“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Trump wrote on social media. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.”

The president’s push comes amid an unexpected and growing divide within the Republican base over support for Israel — once seen as a bedrock of the alliance — and as Trump presents himself as a global peacemaker, ahead of the announcement of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

The president is expected to travel to the region over the weekend to secure the deal.

“All Parties will be treated fairly!” Trump wrote. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

Who controls Hamas?

People attend a pro-Palestinian vigil and protest on Tuesday outside Columbia University.

(Adam Gray / Getty Images)

One former senior Biden administration official who worked on the Gaza crisis told The Times that Trump’s 20-point plan “is credible,” if not fully baked, and that Trump’s position of influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may give the proposal “a real chance of success.”

Devastated after two years of war, Hamas had seen its continued holding of the hostages as its only remaining leverage to ensure later stages of a peace agreement are implemented by the Israelis. Trump’s plan demands an immediate release of all of the hostages, both dead and alive, in an initial phase, preceding reconstruction of the Strip that removes Hamas from power.

An opening emerged for progress in the talks after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.

“A lot of this stems from the Israeli attack on Hamas in Doha,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations. “The Qataris panicked, and went to Trump to ask for defense and assurance that Israel would never do that again. And I think he had a price: to deliver Hamas.”

“Can they deliver Hamas? They can deliver the guys in Doha,” Abrams continued. “They can threaten them with expulsion. They can tell them that they’re living in fancy hotels, but they can be Palestinian refugees tomorrow morning. But the relationship between those people and the leadership on the ground is very unclear.”

U.S. officials believe it is the Egyptians, more so than the Qataris, with intelligence, sourcing and leverage on the ground in the Gaza Strip that can bring Hamas’ chain of command in compliance with a settlement. But whether Egyptian leadership is willing to exert its leverage is unclear. An unusual Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula, in violation of the Camp David Accords that have secured Israel’s peace with Egypt since 1979, is causing widespread concern in diplomatic circles over Cairo’s intentions.

Talks over Trump’s plan have moved from Doha to Cairo.

“If talks in Cairo focus solely on the first phase of the peace plan — the release of hostages and prisoners, the first Israeli withdrawal in Gaza and the flood of humanitarian goods — there is a good chance of success,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute. “But if the talks range into subsequent phases of the plan, including Hamas disarmament and deployment of third-country troops to Gaza, it will likely get bogged down as has been the case before.”

Pressure on Israel

Trump’s diplomatic push has also exposed growing concern within his administration over the damage Israel’s continued military campaign is inflicting on its global reputation — and on its support within the United States.

Over the weekend, speaking with an Israeli news outlet, Trump said that Netanyahu had “gone too far in Gaza, and Israel has lost a lot of support in the world.” It came amid reports that Trump had scolded Netanyahu over his initial reaction to Hamas’ willingness to negotiate over the plan.

“Whether you believe it was justified or not, right or not, you cannot ignore the impact that this has had on Israel’s global standing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

Much of the world supports Trump’s plan, which would see a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee oversee governance in the strip, and an international coalition funding the reconstruction of its economy and infrastructure. Palestinians would not be forced to leave the territory.

The proposal comes amid signs that Israel is rapidly losing support within the United States, with new polls showing 59% of Americans disapprove of its actions. A Pew poll showed that 55% of Republicans said they view Israel favorably — but that a growing generational divide, across party lines, risks eroding support for Israel over time.

“I think it’s gone on too long,” Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and former Fox News host, said last week on the Fifth Column Podcast. “I know what Hamas does, trust me. And I’ve been covering it. But that doesn’t mean that the devastation and destruction can go on forever.”

Other prominent figures on the right, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and commentators Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, have become more vocal criticizing Israel in recent months.

“Israel’s now taken out Hezbollah, it’s decimated Hamas, it had a war with Iran that we almost got dragged into,” Kelly added. “It’s time to wrap it up in this American’s view. I am entitled to that opinion. And I will not be shamed out of it by being called an antisemite.”

Netanyahu and his closest allies, including Ron Dermer, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs and a former ambassador to Washington, have long believed that Israel is best served relying more on deep ties to the American right than on Jewish Americans overall or on balanced bipartisanship. Increased opposition to the war among MAGA Republicans may force Netanyahu’s team to expedite its end.

Whether discontent on the right is driving Trump to push for a peace deal is unclear. But his personal involvement could prove key to success, regardless of his motives, Satloff said.

“The key new factor that is giving a chance to phase one is President Trump’s intense personal interest in freeing the hostages and the desire of key Arab players not to disappoint him,” Satloff said. “But we shouldn’t exaggerate the importance of even this critical factor — the entire house of cards can still collapse.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘I don’t want this all on camera,’ gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter says in testy interview
The deep dive: Your guide to Proposition 50: California redistricting
The L.A. Times Special: Those hyper-realistic videos you’re seeing could be fake news — because they’re actually AI ads

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Regardless of all the campaign jabber, Proposition 50 is not about saving democracy, stopping power grabs or veering off the moral high road. It’s about which political party controls Congress.

Or whether Republicans and Democrats share the power.

It’s also about exerting some control over unhinged President Trump. That would happen if voters across America next year flip the House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat, ending one-party rule of the federal government. Proposition 50 could help do that.

Does an obedient Republican Congress continue to allow Trump to walk all over it? Or does a new Democrat-led House exercise its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances over the executive branch?

This is what’s potentially at stake in California’s special election on Nov. 4. And it’s mostly what has motivated political donors to kick in an astronomical $128 million so far for the fight.

But let’s back up.

For many decades, state legislators drew their own districts — gerrymandering them to blatantly help themselves and their party win elections. And with some creative hands from California’s House delegation, Sacramento’s lawmakers also gerrymandered congressional districts.

It was unethical but perfectly legal. The final straw came in 2001 when legislators of both parties conspired to draw districts that protected every incumbent, whether Democrat or Republican.

California voters finally had enough and in 2008 banned gerrymandering. They assigned legislative redistricting to an independent bipartisan citizens’ commission. In 2010, voters also gave the panel responsibility for drawing House seats.

It has worked great. Politicians no longer get to choose their own voters. And the districts have become much more competitive.

District maps have always been drawn at the beginning of each decade after the decennial census — until now.

This time, Trump got worried that Republicans could lose the House in next year’s elections — a fate that has often befallen a president’s party during a midterm.

So Trump pressured Texas Gov. Greg Abbott into orchestrating a mid-decade legislative gerrymandering of his state’s House districts, with the aim of gaining five more Republican seats. The president has also been browbeating other red states to rig their congressional lines.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly retaliated. He asked an eager Democrat-controlled Legislature to draw up new House maps designed to gain five new Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ action.

Democrats already outnumber Republicans in the California House delegation, 43 to 9. In Texas, Republicans hold 25 of the 38 House seats. Nationally, Democrats need to gain just three seats to retake House control.

Unlike in Texas, Newsom needs the voters’ permission to resume gerrymandering. That’s what Proposition 50 does, along with granting voter approval of proposed new weird-looking congressional maps drawn by Democratic lawmakers.

How weird? To make a new 2nd District Democrat-friendly, it was stretched hundreds of miles from the rural northeastern Oregon border southwestward into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.

Under the ballot measure, the independent commission would resume redistricting in 2031 after the next census. Proposition 50’s opponents contend Democrats can’t be trusted to keep the gerrymandering temporary.

And they’re hypocritically screaming about a “Newsom power grab” — without also pointing the finger at Trump and Abbott, who started this fight.

At its core, this is a brawl over raw political power. Forget any idealism.

Longtime Republican operative Jon Fleischman mixed his party’s principal talking point with reality in a recent blog:

“Prop. 50 is a naked power grab by Gavin Newsom,” he wrote.

“If it passes, five of nine safe GOP House seats in California will flip to safe Democrat, potentially flipping the House next year.”

In trying to rally Democratic voters — who outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California — Newsom frames Proposition 50 as essential for democracy.

“It’s all at stake,” the governor asserts, sounding a bit hyperbolic. “This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves … and stand guard for the republic and our democracy.”

Come on, our republic will survive regardless of what happens to Newsom’s gerrymandering proposal — even if Trump does strain democracy.

Proposition 50 also is opposed on idealistic grounds — particularly by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and wealthy GOP donor Charles Munger Jr. Both were strong backers of creating the independent redistricting commission. Munger has contributed $33 million to the anti-50 effort.

“Gerrymanders are a cancer and mid-decade gerrymanders are metastasis,” Munger wrote in a New York Times op-ed last month.

If Democratic politicians gerrymander California, he asserted, “then they lose the moral high ground.”

Well, if this is the moral high ground we’re living in under the Trump regime, I’d like to move to another level.

My definition of a moral high ground doesn’t include a Congress that won’t push back against a bully president who cuts back millions in research aid to universities because he doesn’t like what they teach, who sics his own masked police force of unidentified agents on California residents, who sabotages our anti-pollution programs.

Isra Ahmad, a member of the independent commission, noted in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece that “California has embraced [redistricting] equity and transparency while states like Texas entrench partisan advantage.”

And she asked: “Does taking the high road matter when your opponents are willing to play dirty?”

The answer: We should all play by the same rules — even if it unfortunately requires temporary gerrymandering. After Trump leaves, we can return to the high road.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California voters were mailed inaccurate guides ahead of November special election
The interpersonal read: He’s a real pain for Gavin Newsom. And a rising Democratic star
The L.A. Times Special: In the biggest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, some claim they were paid to sue

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Happy Thursday. Your usual host, D.C. Bureau Chief Michael Wilner, is on assignment. So you’re once again stuck with me, California columnist Anita Chabria.

Welcome to another week of the onslaught and overload that is Trump 2.0. What should we talk about?

President Trump’s threat to use the military in more American cities? Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth’s He-Man rant to top military brass?

Or what about the government shutdown?

In a week with enough drama to make the Mormon wives on Hulu seem tame in comparison, it’s hard to know whether all of it matters or none of it. Because, of course, we desperately want none of it to matter, since it’s all just too much.

But too much is never enough for Trump. So let’s break it down, starting with the big man himself.

A protester holds a sign outside of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building on Sept. 28, 2025, in Portland, Ore.

(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

“I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” the Commander-in-Beef said during his Kim Jong Il-style televised address to military leaders.

“San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” Trump said. “This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it’s out of control.”

Yes, Los Angeles, you, with your whimsical opera whodunits and Hollywood ghost tours, are a threat to American stability. Knock it off or the National Guard will knock it off for you.

Those statements from Trump came minutes after Hegseth said to his military officers, “You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.”

Senior military leaders look on as President Trump speaks at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Sept. 30, 2025, in Quantico, Va.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Which sounds exactly like the kind of guy we should sent in to do crowd control at the Olympics. But before you dismiss the entire performance as strongman cosplay, consider how indifferent most Americans are to threats that the military will soon roll into Portland, Ore., or even our acceptance of troops in Chicago.

After L.A. and Washington, D.C., Trump has done exactly what he set out to do: Reduce our alarm at the use of the military on our streets so that it seems normal, almost benign. In fact, many now agree that this is the way to go. A recent study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention found that “nearly one third of respondents (32%) agree at least somewhat that the current federal government ‘should use the military to help enforce its policies.’”

Yikes.

It is, in fact, not OK. Protesting citizens are not the “enemy within.” Democrats are not the enemy. Jimmy Kimmel is not the enemy. Heck, even tech-bro libertarians aren’t the enemy, no matter how arrogant they are.

But the last few days have seen the president, through executive orders and speeches, label all dissent and dissenters as enemies — even using state agencies to do it. After the government shutdown, the Department of Housing and Urban Development displayed a banner on its homepage that blamed the “Radical Left.”

So the president has defined the “enemy within” as those who oppose him, and now informed the military personnel that they “have to handle it.”

Armed members of the National Guard patrol on Aug. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

What about the ‘beardos’?

That Hegseth, so clever. In between celebrating death and violence, he found time to attack female service members, “weak” men, those who would dare investigate wrongdoing in the military and of course, the most dreaded of insurgents: the “beardos.”

An apparent mash-up of “beard” and “weirdo,” which would please most eighth-grade boys, Hegseth used the term to describe what he said was an “unprofessional” look of some soldiers that is henceforth forbidden.

Of all the crazy and concerning in his 45-minute rant, why do I care about this moment?

Those beardos are mostly Black and brown men. Black men are prone to a shaving bump condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae and are sometimes granted permanent shaving waivers because of it. Hegseth wants to kick out of the military men with this painful condition who don’t shave.

It’s likely also aimed at Sikh service members, who grow beards as part of their religious observance. Until now they’ve been granted exemptions too. While this is a small number of servicemen, it’s significant that Hegseth’s “unprofessional” policy targets minorities.

Hegseth made it clear what he thinks of inclusion in any form, dubbing it an “insane fallacy” that “our diversity is our strength.”

Instead, he argued that it is widely accepted that “unity is strength.”

The troubling idea there is the confusion between unity and uniformity. Can’t a Black, bearded soldier have unity with a white, clean-shaven one? Can’t a female soldier share unity and purpose, a American identity, with a male fighter? Of course.

But Hegseth, who fired top Black and female military leaders this year, was never really talking about unity, was he? At least not the pluralism that has defined American unity until now.

The bipartisan flop

Let’s bounce to JD Vance, a “beardo” whose humorlessness has become his defining trait.

“There’s a lot of emergency healthcare at hospitals that are provided by illegal aliens,” he said on Fox News, in his ongoing press tour to blame the government shutdown on Democrats. The line here, a false one, is that Democrats are demanding the federal government pay healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants.

“We turned off that funding because of course we want American citizens to benefit from those hospital services,” Vance said.

Maybe if immigrants weren’t eating so many cats and dogs, they wouldn’t need so much healthcare. But I digress.

What Vance is maybe alluding to, disingenuously, is federal law that says anyone who enters an emergency room must be provided lifesaving services. So if an undocumented immigrant is in a serious car accident and is taken to a hospital, it is required to at least stabilize the person.

The same law was used, much to MAGA consternation, to protect some abortion services in dire cases — a protection Trump largely undid.

This raises the question, should we just let seriously injured brown people die in the waiting room because they can’t produce a passport?

But it’s also true that some states — through state funds — do insure undocumented immigrants, especially children and pregnant women. California is one of the few states that offer undocumented residents of all ages and genders access to its Medi-Cal coverage, though Newsom was forced by budget concerns to scale back that access in coming years. But states that do offer this coverage are, through a quirk in federal law, reimbursed at a higher rate for emergency services, also likely what has Vance in a tizzy.

The rationale behind offering this insurance has been proved out multiple times — preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. Give a guy a prescription for heart medication and he may not have a heart attack that lands him in the emergency room.

Federal programs, though, aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people. That ban includes folks who want to buy their own affordable insurance through the marketplaces created by Obamacare.

The real issue around insurance and the shutdown is how much the cost of this marketplace insurance is about to skyrocket for average Americans. About 24 million Americans get their health insurance through these plans, with most receiving a tax credit or subsidy to help with the costs. The Republican plan would take away those credits, leaving consumers — many in the middle class — with premiums that would at least double in the coming year.

It is somewhat shocking that Democrats are doing such a terrible job getting the word out about this — instead going on the defensive to the claims about undocumented insurance. Average people — Republican or Democrat — cannot afford a doubling of their insurance costs. This is a bipartisan issue. All Americans want affordable healthcare.

We should not sacrifice affordable insurance in favor of billionaire-friendly policies and because Democrats are fumbling an easy message.

So, unfortunately, in a week of chaos, yes, it all matters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Here’s how the U.S. government shutdown will impact California
The what happened: Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks
The L.A. Times special: Jane Fonda, derided as ‘Hanoi Jane’ and a traitor during the Vietnam War, is a modern-day force in Democratic politics

P.S. I’m starting a propaganda watch, because it’s becoming off the hook. This is from the Department of Homeland Security. “Defend your culture.” You mean, like, your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — A former state legislative leader says fellow Democrats in Sacramento have long ignored the housing needs of middle-class Californians. And he has a plan to help them buy a new home.

To their credit, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers have been chipping away at regulatory obstacles to home building in recent years, particularly in the just-concluded legislative session.

But the building pace is still far behind what’s sorely needed — and what Newsom promised when he first ran for governor seven years ago. Supply doesn’t come close to meeting demand and that pushes home prices much higher than millions of middle-class families can afford.

One of the biggest raps on California is that housing costs have skyrocketed out of reach for many. That’s a big reason why lots of middle-class folks have fled the so-called Golden State for less expensive regions.

“Much of the work by the governor and the Legislature in recent years has focused on homelessness and affordable housing, both of which require taxpayer subsidies and leave the middle class behind,” says former Van Nuys lawmaker Bob Hertzberg, who was an Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader.

“Middle-class Californians just can’t save up enough for a down payment. And the few government programs to assist middle-class buyers are complex, underfunded and are restricted to first-time homebuyers.”

He notes the political consequences: “We [Democrats] haven’t done enough for them. And they’re punishing us in their voting patterns.”

Yes, the middle class has been turning right all across the country. Housing affordability is a problem in many states, but is particularly acute in California.

In July, the median price for an existing single-family home in California was $884,050, according to the California Assn. of Realtors. The normal 20% down payment would require a buyer to lay out $176,810 in cash. Not many young couples — or middle-aged either — have that much spare money on them.

The median home price varies greatly throughout the state. In San Mateo County, it’s $2.1 million; in San Francisco, $1.6 million. Other counties: Orange, $1.4 million; Riverside, $630,000; Ventura, $949,500; Kern, $390,000; Sacramento, $559,000.

Hertzberg has submitted a proposed ballot initiative for the 2026 election that would allow middle-class buyers of brand-new homes to borrow most of their down payment.

Rather than putting up 20% of the selling price in cash, the buyer would fork over just 3% — $26,522 based on the July statewide median price — and borrow the remaining 17%, or $150,289.

So, there’d be the regular first mortgage on 80% of the selling price, plus a second mortgage on the down-payment loan.

Based on Hertzberg’s calculations, for example, a three-bedroom, three-bath Santa Clarita home selling for $700,000 would require monthly payments of $4,253 on the two mortgages. That assumes a combined interest rate of 7%.

New townhouses and condos also would qualify under the program. The statewide median price for those in July was $647,000.

Why only new homes? Hertzberg says it’s “critically important” to increase the housing supply and the only way to do that is to build more. At the same time, it creates construction jobs.

Also, politically, it draws the support of developers, carpenters unions and Realtors.

And for local governments, it generates more property and sales taxes.

Who’s defined as middle class? Buyers whose household income is less than 200% of the median for their local area. Statewide, that’s $193,000. But it varies: $213,200 in Palmdale, $262,600 in Camarillo, $207,800 in San Bernardino, $177,000 in Fresno, $311,720 in San Francisco.

Unlike other government housing programs, this one isn’t limited to just first-time homebuyers. It only requires buyers to be Californians and to live in the home as their primary residence. No renting out.

The program would be administered and implemented by the California Housing Finance Agency.

“Most importantly — no cost to taxpayers,” Hertzberg says.

The “Middle Class Homeownership” act would be financed by the sale of $25 billion in revenue bonds that would create the down-payment loan pot. Borrowers must repay their second mortgage if the home is sold or refinanced within 15 years.

Regular lending institutions would arrange the loans and charge minimum fees.

“It’s very difficult to work with a government bureaucracy, so we’ll have banks handle all the paperwork,” Hertzberg says.

He says the program would be self-financed. Loan repayments would resupply the pot for additional homebuyers. He figures the $25-billion kitty would generate up to 150,000 new homes — helpful, but still well below the millions more that California needs.

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., says California would need to be building 437,000 new homes annually to reach Newsom’s original campaign promise of 3.5 million by the time he leaves office after next year. Instead, we’re building only 112,000.

Hertzberg recalls that about five years ago he introduced legislation to spur middle-class home ownership. “It got loaded up with taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing and provisions from so many interest groups, I just walked away,” he says.

“Anytime there’s a nickel on the table, the interest groups find a way to grab it.”

“I was majority leader of the Senate,” he continues. “I know how to do this stuff. But I couldn’t get something just focused on the middle class.

“Let’s get them a home. Home is where the wealth is. Home is a dream.”

Hertzberg’s plan makes sense in concept. We rightly help veterans buy homes. Why not also help the entire struggling middle class.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Supporters of redrawing California’s congressional districts raise tens of millions more than opponents
The deep dive: DC Explained: Medi-Cal Cuts Loom in San Diego as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Begins to Hit Home
The L.A. Times Special: Who’s winning the redistricting fight? Here’s how to read the polls

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — In an interview with Rachel Maddow this week promoting her new memoir, Kamala Harris was asked whether her book tour is part of a strategy to run again for the presidency in 2028.

“That’s not my focus at all,” Harris replied, dismissive of the idea. “It really isn’t.”

Democratic strategists agree that her book, “107 Days,” and the tour that has followed suggests Harris lacks a serious plan for a future in elected politics, generating more questions than clarity on her path forward and future role in public life.

The book has reopened a fractious intraparty debate over who is to blame for last year’s loss to President Trump. Polls show Harris’ standing in the field of 2028 Democratic presidential contenders as relatively weak for a figure who led the party less than a year ago. And even in California, her home state, Democrats prefer another potential candidate, Gov. Gavin Newsom, over her for the next contest.

A historically weak showing

Harris argues in her book she had too little time to mount a competitive campaign after President Biden announced he would drop out of the race that July, handing the party mantle to her with little notice.

She called it “reckless” to allow Biden to make the decision to run for reelection on his own, and on tour, has acknowledged responsibility for not speaking up more on the matter herself. But she has not stated explicitly that it was a mistake for him to enter the race in the first place.

Harris would ultimately post the worst electoral college showing for a Democrat since Michael Dukakis in 1988.

“I realize that I have and had a certain responsibility that I should have followed through on,” she told Maddow. “When I talk about the recklessness, as much as anything, I’m talking about myself.”

Potential 2028 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, many of whom already are making visits to battleground states, have seized the moment of her tour to criticize her handling of the 2024 race. Harris wrote in the book that it was her duty as Biden’s vice president to remain loyal to him, despite acknowledging that, at 81, Biden “got tired” on the job.

“She’s going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly,” Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro told a SiriusXM podcast last week.

The book touches on Shapiro as well as Pete Buttigieg, Biden’s former Transportation secretary and another possible contender in 2028, as figures she considered as potential running mates. But airing her assessments of active political aspirants has only drawn more scrutiny. On “Good Morning America” this week, asked whether her book had hurt her relationships with fellow Democrats, Harris replied, “that’s not my intention, and I hope not.”

“Harris, like other well-known Democrats, naturally wants to be a part of the national conversation — about 2024, 2026 and 2028. What happened, what should the party do, and who should lead it forward?” said Andrew Sinclair, an assistant professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “These are all questions Democrats are actively debating now, and even if she decides not to run in the future, Harris has a high enough profile in the party to have a role in answering those questions.”

Passing on a potential run for governor of California, Harris told Stephen Colbert that she had decided America’s system of elected offices was no longer the venue for her to enact change. “I think it’s broken,” she said.

But her memoir and book tour have shed little light on what alternatives she might have in mind to remain a relevant figure in public life — or what vision she has for the Democratic Party going forward.

She concludes the book with a handful of platitudes on the need to invest in Gen Z.

“We need to come up with our own blueprint that sets out our alternative vision for our country,” she wrote.

Newsom better positioned

High-quality polls show Harris remains a leading choice for Democrats in the next campaign cycle, tied or slightly edged out by Newsom. But under the hood, data indicate that less than 20% of Democrats view her as an ideal party leader entering the coming race.

Newsom’s polling trajectory, on the other hand, has begun moving in the opposite direction.

A series of polls published late last month found support for the California governor had surged over the summer, as Newsom embraced high-profile battles with Trump over ICE raids in Los Angeles, national gerrymandering efforts and the cultural memesphere.

And after Trump took substantial time in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week to deride climate change as a “hoax,” Newsom is in New York, as well, to attend Climate Week, highlighting California initiatives in interviews with Colbert and the New York Times.

His combative appearances, looking forward to 2028 and beyond, offer a contrast with a book tour by Harris that has thus far focused on the past.

“Governor Newsom has deftly positioned himself as the national Democrat most consistently ready to stand up to the president, adopting the tools — his podcast — and tactics — in-your-face-social media — that proved so effective for the GOP ticket last time,” said Bruce Mehlman, a bipartisan campaign consultant in Washington.

But the pace of political change in Trump’s America makes current polling unreliable, Sinclair said.

“The 2028 election is far away at a time when the political situation in the United States is changing rapidly,” he said, adding: “At best, Democratic leaders today can put themselves in a position to be influential, but I do not think anyone knows enough about what is going to happen next to have much more of a plan than that.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Family of former DACA recipient who died in ICE custody says officials ignored his pleas for help
The deep dive: RFK Jr. wants an answer to rising autism rates. Scientists say he’s ignoring some obvious ones
The L.A. Times Special: How viral rumors worsened the fallout from an ICE raid at Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — John Burton was the unique sort of political leader we need much more of in today’s hate-spewing politics.

First, he dedicated his life to fighting for a cause that earned him only personal satisfaction and absolutely no political gain: the powerless poor, particularly the aged, blind and disabled.

These aren’t folks with any money to donate to political coffers. They’re not members of unions harboring large piles of campaign cash. They don’t volunteer to walk precincts before elections. Many can barely walk. They’re not organized. More likely they live lonely lives. And they never heard of John Burton.

Burton — and only Burton — had these peoples’ backs in Sacramento’s halls of power for many years. And no one has taken his place.

Second, this bleeding-heart San Francisco liberal instinctively liked and befriended many political opposites with whom he developed working relationships to achieve his and their goals. He’d loudly denounce their conservative positions on issues but not them personally — in contrast to today’s ugly, click-driven, opportunistic American politics.

Right-wingers? “I never held that against anybody,” Burton writes in his recently released autobiography, “I Yell Because I Care: The Passion and Politics of John Burton, California’s Liberal Warrior.”

“Like, you never know when you might need a right-winger for something. And when you do, it’s best to give them something in return. And it’s even better when what they want is something you don’t really care about. Sometimes, that’s the way s— gets done in politics.”

When it gets done, which is almost never these days in Congress. Things might get done in Sacramento — for good or bad — because Democrats wield ironclad control over all branches of government, unlike when Burton was a legislator during decades that required bipartisan compromise.

Burton was infamously foul-mouthed and often rude. But colleagues, staffers, lobbyists and reporters rolled their eyes and adjusted. OK, so you couldn’t always quote his exact words in a family newspaper or on TV.

At heart, Burton was a softie and extrovert who genuinely liked people of all political persuasions. And they liked him because he was a straight shooter whose word was golden — the No. 1 asset for most anyone in politics.

Softie? Longtime Burton spokesman David Seback recalls this incident when the lawmaker was Senate president pro tem, the No. 2 most powerful office in the Capitol:

“There was a guy who was pretty severely disabled who would go with difficulty using crutches from office to office delivering copies of these multi-page conspiracy theory laden packets he put together to all 120 legislators. There were some typewritten parts, some handwritten, some xeroxed photos.

“One day John stopped him and said, ‘From now on, you deliver one copy to my office.’ After that, all the legislators got a copy of these packets stamped, ‘Compliments of John Burton.’”

Most Capitol denizens — if they noticed him at all — probably dismissed this packet-carting conspiracy theorist on crutches as a sad kook. But he’s the type who was Burton’s purpose in life to help.

Burton, 92, died Sept. 7 at a hospice facility in San Francisco.

The Times ran an excellent Page 1 obituary on Burton written by former Times staffer Dan Morain. It covered the bases well: A pro-labor lawmaker instrumental in shaping California politics over six decades on topics as varied as welfare, foster care, mental health, auto emissions and guns.

Burton was integral to a powerful political organization founded by his older brother, U.S. Rep. Phil Burton, that included two of John’s closest pals: future San Francisco mayors George Moscone and Willie Brown. The organization kick-started the political careers of future U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

John Burton left Congress in 1982 to fight cocaine addiction and remained clean and sober the rest of his life. He was reelected to the Legislature in 1988, ultimately chosen as Senate leader and termed out in 2004. Then he became state Democratic Party chairman for the second time.

When Burton died, I was recovering from an illness and missed out writing about him. That bothered me. So I’m doing it now.

I got to know Burton when he was first elected to the Assembly with Willie Brown in 1964. Both were fast learners about how the Capitol worked and ultimately each was elected leader of his house.

“Sometimes all it takes to succeed in politics is to make sure somebody has a nice view of Capitol Park and an extra secretary,” Burton writes in his autobiography of rounding up enough of Senate votes to become leader.

In the entertaining book, co-written with journalist Andy Furillo, Burton writes extensively about “the neediest of the needy…. My district included a ton of single-room occupancy hotels south of Market Street that were filled with people who cooked off hot plates and had to go down the hall to the bathroom. They survived on their federal and state assistance checks.”

Governors and legislative leaders of both parties routinely ripped off these poor folks’ federal aid increases to help balance the state budget in tough economic times. Or they’d try to until Burton blocked them.

“For some people,” Burton once told me, “it can be the difference between tuna fish and cat food for lunch.”

Without calling up local TV — as most politicians would — Burton bought blankets and drove around San Francisco by himself handing them out to the homeless.

“We were brought up to be that way,” Burton told me. “My old man [a doctor], he’d do house calls in the Fillmore, a Black area, at 2 in the morning. And if the family looked like it didn’t have money, he’d say, ‘Forget it. Go buy the kid a pair of shoes.’”

Thanks to Burton, the state was forced into buying lots of tuna fish lunches for the neediest of the needy.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘We’re not North Korea.’ Newsom signs bills to limit immigration raids at schools and unmask federal agents
The TK: Here’s why the redistricting fight is raging. And why it may be moot
The L.A. Times Special: Don’t hold your breath, but as raids stifle economy, Trump proves case for immigration reform

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — Of all the investigations underway by the FBI, the case of Charlie Kirk’s killing is one that President Trump’s allies expect the bureau to get right. Yet its director, Kash Patel, has struggled out of the gate.

A series of missteps

He posted misleading updates of the manhunt for a suspect on social media, blaming “the heat of the moment” in testimony before a Senate panel on Tuesday. He failed to coordinate his messaging internally with Justice Department leadership. Instead of returning to headquarters, Patel dined at an exclusive restaurant in New York as the search unfolded. And after a suspect was apprehended, Patel joined Fox News to share unprecedented details.

It was a series of missteps viewed in law enforcement circles as rookie errors, reflective of a director in over his head.

Trump has publicly stood by Patel in recent days. But leading voices in the MAGA movement have wondered aloud whether it is time for Patel to be removed, and top officials at the White House and Justice Department are reportedly questioning his future at the bureau. The president has also installed another loyalist in a top deputy position at FBI headquarters, raising questions over his plans.

Kash Patel discusses the hunt for Charlie Kirk’s killer at a news conference Friday in Orem, Utah, joined by Utah Department of Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason, left, and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox.

(Lindsey Wasson / Associated Press)

The renewed spotlight on Patel comes amid suspicion in right-wing circles the director is suppressing the release of files from the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious sex offender, at Trump’s direction. And last week, former bureau officials filed a lawsuit against the administration accusing the White House of exerting extraordinary political influence over the FBI, issuing loyalty tests for agents to determine their support for Trump.

On Saturday, Trump told Fox News that he was “very proud of the FBI,” praising the agency for ultimately catching the suspected killer. “Kash — and everyone else — they have done a great job,” he added.

“In normal times, any run-of-the-mill president of either party would certainly have serious concerns with keeping Patel around,” said Douglas M. Charles, a professor and FBI historian at Penn State Greater Allegheny, characterizing Patel as historically unqualified for the role. “Of course, we are not living in normal political times.”

Patel’s job sustainability, Charles said, “rests not on whether he is competent, but exclusively on whether President Trump is satisfied with him.”

“Patel is not acting as an independent FBI director,” Charles added, “the standard we have historically had since 1973.”

Jeopardizing the Kirk case?

Justice Department officials reacted with alarm after Patel shared the content of text messages from the suspect in Kirk’s shooting, revelations that got out front of official court filings.

“Why are we reluctant to share the details of the investigation itself, and comment on the case?” Jeff Gray, the Utah County attorney, said Tuesday, outlining state charges against the murder suspect. “Because I want to ensure a fair and impartial trial.”

“I can’t talk about details at all,” said Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general, asked for insight into the case in a Fox News interview on Monday.

The episode drew harsh rebuke from Democrats on Capitol Hill this week, where Patel was scheduled for hearings with the House and Senate judiciary committees. “Could I have been more careful in my verbiage?” he mused, before facing a slew of questions from lawmakers.

But Patel fiercely defended himself, repeatedly citing his experience as a prosecutor in the national security division of the Justice Department, and later at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and at the Defense Department.

“I’m not going anywhere,” Patel told the Senate. “If you want to criticize my 16 years of service, please bring it on.”

Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, a professor emeritus and FBI historian at the University of Edinburgh, said that precedent exists of public officials undermining the prosecution of high-profile cases, sometimes with devastating consequences. “The Patel remarks and actions may well prejudice the trial of Tyler Robinson,” he said, referencing Kirk’s murder suspect.

On Capitol Hill, Patel said his social posts and media appearances were in service of transparency with the American people. But the charges, trial, and evidence in the case are all public, said Norm Eisen, co-founder of the States United Democracy Center and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment trial.

“Patel’s appointment as FBI director raised red flags from the start, mainly because of his lack of relevant experience and his partisan background. What we’ve seen in recent days has only reinforced those concerns,” Eisen said.

“The Utah County attorney leading the prosecution knew better than to comment on Patel’s speculative claims, correctly pointing out that it was necessary to preserve an impartial jury,” he added. “Making political speeches about the case undermines the integrity of the process and jeopardizes the prosecution.”

Political litmus tests

In a heated exchange with Patel this week, Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, asked the director whether anyone from the bureau had been terminated or disciplined “in whole or in part” for being assigned to work on investigations of Trump in recent years. Trump was ultimately charged with federal crimes over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his handling of highly classified documents.

“Anyone that was terminated at the FBI was done so for failing to meet their standards, uphold their constitutional oath, and effectuate the mission,” Patel replied, adding: “No one at the FBI is terminated for case assignments alone.”

The line of questioning came amid reports and a lawsuit alleging Patel has taken direct instructions from the White House to fire individuals involved in the Trump investigations.

Three former senior FBI officials — Spencer L. Evans, Brian J. Driscoll Jr. and Steven J. Jensen — brought the lawsuit after being fired from their jobs in a “campaign of retribution,” according to the filing, a 68-page document that paints Patel as a vassal of Trump prioritizing his social media image over the work of the bureau.

“Patel not only acted unlawfully, but deliberately chose to prioritize politicizing the FBI over protecting the American people,” the lawsuit reads.

But it was questioning over the Epstein case that set off Patel’s patience.

At the end of their exchange, Schiff asked the director how he could possibly be in the dark over the circumstances of a prison transfer for Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s close confidante serving 20 years in prison for aiding his abuse of hundreds of women and girls, to one of the most comfortable facilities in the federal penitentiary system. Patel erupted, calling Schiff a “buffoon” over his investigations of the president.

“Here’s the thing, Mr Patel,” Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, told Patel, ending a similarly heated exchange. “I think you’re not gonna be around long. I think this might be your last oversight hearing.”

“Because as much as you supplicate yourself to the will of Donald Trump and not the Constitution,” Booker added, “Donald Trump has shown us he is not loyal to people like you.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: L.A.’s online ‘hood’ culture turns real-world violence into viral content
The deep dive: Primm was once an affordable casino mecca for L.A. Now it has become a ghost town
The L.A. Times Special: White supremacists, death threats and ‘disgust’: Charlie Kirk’s killing roils Huntington Beach

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Hello and happy Monday.

Pigs are flying and Satan has on a puffer jacket. I know these things because the impossible is happening — I am writing about why Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert are right.

And why California’s Republican congressional representatives should be ashamed and shamed.

You may know these women as beacons of the far right, maybe even the fringe-right, in Congress. Hailing from Georgia, South Carolina and Colorado, respectively, they have dabbled in QAnon conspiracy theories, including about sex trafficking and powerful pedophiles, among other questionable actions.

But I’ll say this for the trio — they’ve stayed true to their beliefs, even under direct pressure from the White House. So a (limited) shout-out to Greene, Mace and Boebert.

What am I talking about? Jeffrey Edward Epstein, of course (I think he committed enough crimes to earn his middle name included, serial killer style).

Boebert, Mace and Greene are three of only four Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who have signed a discharge petition (a kind of work-around to bypass leadership) to release the full Epstein files, supposedly containing a trove of information on men who bought and sold sex with teenage girls.

“These are some of the richest, most powerful people in the world that could sue these women into poverty and homelessness,” Greene said at a recent news conference with some of the victims. “Yeah, it’s a scary thing to name names, but I will tell you, I’m not afraid to name names, and so if they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor, and I’ll say every damn name that abused these women. I can do that for them.”

And, to my immense shock at having something in common with Greene, I say — that is how it’s done, lady. You go.

Not a single Republican House member from California has backed releasing the Epstein files. Every California Democratic representative has signed. So let’s talk about that.

I am sick of Epstein. Why are you writing this?

Like most of you, I too am tired of hearing endless political chatter about Epstein.

For the blessedly uniformed among you, Epstein was an extremely rich dude. No one is quite sure where all that money came from, but he apparently used a great deal of it to buy influence with powerful men, and sex traffic underage girls — allegedly children as young as 11 .

He died by suicide while in jail in 2019 (lots of conspiracy theories on whether it was in fact suicide) but in 2021 his paramour-partner Ghislaine Noelle Maxwell was also convicted of child sex trafficking and other offenses.

Epstein and Maxwell have ties to Donald Trump, including a much-discussed “birthday book” that honestly I do not care about other than to say, “Ick.” That has made the whole thing an endless political brouhaha.

But many of the many victims of Epstein and Maxwell have called for their information to be released by the Justice Department, which holds more than 100,000 pages of the investigation. They, like survivors of sexual assault everywhere, want accountability, if justice remains elusive. They want names named. They want to stop being afraid, stop being stuck by their pain and their past, and allow the world to decide, if courts won’t, just how much truth they are telling.

These are brave women who were brutalized as children for the pleasure of men with money. They have a right to have their stories known if that’s what they choose.

This is not politics. This is decency.

The California problem

Like Greene, I’m willing to name some names. Here they are — California’s GOP representatives in the House:

Releasing the Epstein files requires only one of them to sign the discharge petition. Just one of these fine representatives from the Golden State could do the right thing, stand for a bipartisan value that Californians of both parties hold — sex trafficking is bad — and show what real leadership looks like.

Anyone? Anyone?

“If Epstein survivors want this information released, it should be released. These women have had the courage to speak out and it’s infuriating that Congress would block release of information — they’d rather help with a cover-up than stand with survivors,” state Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) told me.

She’s a former state Justice Department prosecutor who specialized in trafficking, and has worked on controversial bipartisan legislation at the Capitol with Republican Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield. That legislation earned her the ire of her own party, but on an issue this important, she did what she believed was right over what was easy.

“Protecting kids and standing up for survivors of human trafficking should not be a partisan issue and in California, we’ve shown it doesn’t have to be,” Krell said.

In fact, the discharge petition in the House is a bipartisan effort — introduced by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and our own Ro Khanna of California, a Democrat.

In particular, I’d like to call out Kiley for his hypocrisy. Recently, he introduced a bipartisan sex trafficking bill in Congress that’s a smart idea — the National Human Trafficking Database Act, which would create a database at the Department of Justice that tracks cases across the country. He did it with Reps. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga). Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are carrying the bill in the Senate.

“We must do everything we can to prevent human trafficking and having the necessary tools at our disposal will bring us closer to stopping this awful crime,” Kiley said in a press release.

Huh.

Seems like Kiley gets the issue. Seems like he’s saying the right things. And for a guy about to be gerrymandered out of his own district — with his own party not seeming to care — he doesn’t have much to lose by doing the right thing and signing the discharge petition. My email to his office on the topic remains unanswered.

Liz Stein, an Epstein and Maxwell survivor who spoke at the news conference, said (as reported by the 19th News) that her life has never been the same since the abuse started. Since then, it has “felt like someone shut off the lights to my soul.”

There. Is. No. Excuse.

“This is not a partisan issue, but an American issue,” New Mexico Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, said in a press release. “To my Republican colleagues, if these heartbreaking stories aren’t enough, sign the petition for your daughters and for all the women in your lives that you would want protected from pedophiles. Because it’s not just about Epstein, but about all the women and children who are trafficked, abused, sexually assaulted, and ignored in their pain. The survivors today told their stories to not only push for the Epstein files to be released, but for a better future where women and girls are believed and supported, and abusers are held accountable.”

I can’t say it any more directly. Hiding behind politics on this one is the act of a coward.

If you won’t stand up against the rape of children, what do you stand for?

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: L.A. fires burned their block. For each, the disaster was just beginning.
The what happened: Lawyers fear 1,000 children from Central America, dozens in California, are at risk of being deported
The L.A. Times special: What the writings on the bullet casings from Charlie Kirk’s killer might mean

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — Warning signs of eroding trust in public health under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have prompted growing calls for his resignation from Democratic lawmakers, career public servants and his own family. But one doctor-turned-governor has other ideas.

Democratic Gov. Josh Green of Hawaii, a career emergency room physician, has privately pressed the Trump administration to create a new post for Kennedy that would remove him from responsibility over vaccines, while allowing him to focus on areas of public health where his theories enjoy greater scientific backing — on nutrition, pesticides and chronic disease, the governor said in an interview.

“They’ve simply gone too far, and it’s not the president who’s gone too far. It’s Secretary Kennedy,” Green told The Times, suggesting two Republican appointees — Mehmet Oz, Trump’s current administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Jerome Adams, former U.S. surgeon general during Trump’s first term — as potential replacements he would publicly support.

“We’re entering flu season,” Green said. “These viruses, if people aren’t vaccinated, will cause large numbers of excess fatalities, and there will be no one to look to for responsibility other than the secretary of Health.”

“I recommended it to people at the highest levels, and I have worked hard to maintain a constructive relationship with the current administration,” Green added. “It’s up to them to make this call. But you can see now that it’s very possible.”

A tense public hearing on Capitol Hill last week laid bare bipartisan concerns over Kennedy’s vaccine skepticism, with three Republican senators — Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — expressing alarm at turmoil within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over vaccine guidance and accessibility.

Kennedy, at the hearing, stated without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines had caused harm and death, and questioned CDC statistics on how many lives they had saved.

“The president is not pleased deep down with this as a distraction,” Green added. “It is not helpful to any administration to have outbreaks.”

A Western health alliance

Without changes in Washington, Hawaii will join a burgeoning alliance of western states to issue independent public health guidance, Green said.

The West Coast Health Alliance, formed this month by California, Washington and Oregon, will issue recommendations that rely on many of the career scientists and experts dismissed by Kennedy in recent months, as well as organizations such as the the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Assn.

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green shown during a black-tie dinner at the White House in 2024.

(Anna Rose Layden / Getty Images)

Kenneth Fink, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, will be the state’s day-to-day representative to the alliance. But “as a physician, I’m also available to the group, to help bring other experts from across the country into the fold,” Green said.

The collective has not yet decided whether to set up a formal alternative to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, a vaccine advisory panel of experts whose entire membership was fired by Kennedy and replaced by vaccine skeptics.

But many experts are already in touch with Green and other members of the alliance, which has begun discussing how to structure itself.

Green, 55, will serve next year as head of the Western Governors Assn., representing 19 states west of the Mississippi River, and is encouraging other states to join the effort, including those led by Republicans. “I really do want to take public health out of politics,” he said.

Already, Green and his counterparts have discussed executive actions they can take at the gubernatorial level, in coordination across the alliance, to protect vaccine access.

Vaccines pushed off-label by the FDA may need special authorization for access, for example. States may also need to fund vaccine access to individuals who fall outside new federal recommendations for eligibility.

Hawaii already anticipates having to spend $15 million in state dollars to ensure everyone who wants a COVID booster shot can receive one, supplementing federal funding, the governor said.

“There are going to be some needs to use executive orders from us as governors,” Green said. “I will be doing that. And I’ll be recommending that to my colleagues in the alliance.”

A national security threat

In May, Green traveled to Washington to testify before a Senate subcommittee where Republican lawmakers were holding a hearing titled, “The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies.” Its main target was the administration of COVID vaccines.

Green was the sole defender of the pandemic response on a six-member panel.

“As a physician, I cared for patients all the way through the COVID pandemic, and we would have had thousands of additional deaths if we didn’t vaccinate our state,” he said. “This is no joke.”

“Mr. Kennedy referred to his Senate hearing as theater,” he added. “It’s not theater when you’re an ER doc and you’re caring for patients and having to intubate them.”

Hawaii emerged from the pandemic with the lowest mortality rate of any state in the union, and one of the highest vaccination rates. Green served as lieutenant governor at the time.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Finance Committee.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

A CDC analysis presented in June, under Kennedy’s leadership, found that COVID vaccines “have been evaluated under the most extensive safety monitoring program in U.S. history,” rejecting conspiracy theories around their association with a range of alleged side effects.

The CDC has found a rare but statistically significant number of cases of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart, in males between ages 18 and 24 who have taken the shots, 90% of whom experience full recoveries and resulting in no known deaths.

Under Kennedy, for the first time since its introduction, the COVID vaccine has become difficult to find. The FDA has revoked emergency-use authorization for the shots and is recommending them only for individuals over 65 years old, or those over 5 with underlying health conditions.

The Trump administration has also gutted funding of the National Institutes of Health and cut $500 million in funding for mRNA vaccine research, a development that Green called an imminent risk to national security, allowing countries such as China to dominate access to critical technologies during future public health emergencies that could leave Americans vulnerable.

Trump himself has indicated concern, last week telling reporters, “I think you have to be very careful when you say that some people don’t have to be vaccinated. It’s a very, you know, it’s a very tough position.”

“You have vaccines that work. They just pure and simple work,” Trump added. “They’re not controversial at all. And I think those vaccines should be used, otherwise some people are going to catch it and they endanger other people. And when you don’t have controversy at all, I think people should take it.”

Green saw Trump’s remarks as a sign of a potential shift.

“I think that Secretary Kennedy is doing our country a disservice, and frankly, he’s doing the president a disservice,” Green said. “This is going to hurt the president of the United States and his administration.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Barabak: ‘I think it was recklessness’: Harris bashes Biden for late exit from 2024 campaign
The deep dive: California has a strict vaccine mandate. Will it survive the Trump administration?
The L.A. Times Special: Fewer jobs, AI threats and rising healthcare costs. A tough role for SAG-AFTRA’s new leader

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Sneha Revanur has been called the “Greta Thunberg of AI,” which depending on your politics, is an insult or, as the youngs would say, means she’s eating.

That’s good.

Either way, Revanur, a 20-year-old Stanford University senior who grew up in Silicon Valley, isn’t worried about personal attacks, though she’s been getting more of them lately — especially from some big tech bros who wish she’d shut up about artificial intelligence and its potential to accidentally (or purposefully) destroy us all.

Instead of fretting about invoking the ire of some of the most powerful men on the planet, she’s staying focused on the breakneck speed with which AI is advancing; the utter ignorance, even resistance, of politicians when it comes to putting in place the most basic of safety measures to control it; and what all that will mean for kids who will grow up under its influence.

“Whatever long-term future AI creates, whether that’s positive or negative, it’s [my generation] that’s going to experience that,” she told me. “We’re going to inherit the impacts of the technology we’re building today.”

This week, California will make a big decision about that future, as legislators vote on Senate Bill 53.

Because I am a tech idiot who struggles to even change the brightness on my phone’s display, I will use the simplest of metaphors, which I am sure will make engineers wince.

Imagine lighting your gas stove, then leaving on vacation. Maybe it will all be fine. Maybe it will start a fire and burn your house down. Maybe it blows up and takes out the neighborhood.

Do you cross your fingers and hope for the best? Do your neighbors have a right to ask you to pretty please turn it off before you go? Should you at least put a smoke alarm up, so there’s a bit of warning if things go wrong?

The smoke alarm in this scenario is SB 53.

The bill is a basic transparency measure and applies only to the big-gun developers of “frontier” AI models — these are the underlying, generic AI creatures that may later be honed into a specific purpose, like controlling our nuclear weapons, curing cancer or writing term papers for cheating students.

But right now, companies are just seeing how smart and powerful they can make them, leaving any concerns about what they will actually do for the future — and for people like Revanur, whose lives will be shaped by them.

If passed, the law would require these developers to have safety and security protocols and make them public.

It would require that they also disclose if they are aware of any ways that their product has indicated it may in fact destroy us all, or cause “catastrophic” problems, defined as ones with the potential to kill or seriously injure more than 50 people or cause more than $1 billion in property damage.

It requires the companies to report those risks to the state Office of Emergency Services, and also to report if their models try to sneakily get around commands to not do something — like lying — a first requirement of its kind in law.

And it creates a whistleblower protection so that if, say, an engineer working on one of these models suddenly finds herself receiving threats from the AI (yes, this has happened), she can, if the company won’t, give us a heads-up about the danger before it’s unleashed.

There are a couple other rules in there, but that’s the gist of it. Basically, it gives us a tiny glimpse inside the companies that quite literally hold the future of humanity in their hands but are largely driven by the desire to make oodles of money.

Big Tech has lobbied full force against the bill (and has been successful in watering it down some). Enter Revanur and the AI safety organization she started when she was 15: Encode.

The California Capitol is nothing if not a mean high school, so maybe Revanur was more prepared than the suits expected. But her group of “backpack kids,” as they have been derogatorily called, has lobbied in favor of government oversight of AI with such force and effect that SB 53 actually has a chance of passing. This week, it is likely to receive final votes in both the Assembly and Senate, before potentially heading to the governor’s desk.

I’m not huge on quoting lobbyists, but Lea-Ann Tratten summed it up pretty well.

Revanur and her group have gone from being dismissed with a “who are you, you’re nothing” attitude from lawmakers to having “an equal seat at the table” with the clouty tech bros and their billions, Tratten said. And they’ve done it through sheer persistence (though they are not the only advocacy group working on the bill).

Tratten was hired by Encode last year when Revanur was backing a much stronger piece of legislation by the same author, Sen. Scott Wiener. That bill, SB 1047, would have regulated the AI industry, not just watched over it.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed that bill, basically saying it went too far, but still acknowledging that a “California-only approach may well be warranted especially absent federal action by Congress.” He also set up a commission to recommend how to do that, which released its report recently — much of which is incorporated into the current legislation.

But since that veto, Congress has indicated approximately zero interest in taking on AI. And last week, Trump hosted a formal dinner for the titans of AI where they sucked up to the businessman-in-chief, leaving little hope of any federal curbs on their aspirations.

Shortly after that meal, the White House sent out a press release entitled, “President Trump, Tech Leaders Unite to Power American AI Dominance.”

In it, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, gushed, “Thank you for being such a pro-business, pro-innovation President. It’s a very refreshing change. We’re very excited to see what you’re doing to make our companies and our entire country so successful.”

That left me wondering who exactly will be dominated. OpenAI recently sent a subpoena to Encode, digging around to see if it’s being funded by competitor Elon Musk (who is in a notoriously nasty legal battle with Altman), and demanding all their emails and communications about the bill. Revanur said Encode has no affiliation with Musk other than having filed an amicus brief in his lawsuit, and those claims are “ridiculous and baseless.”

“Like, we know for a fact that we have no affiliation with Elon,” she said.

Still, “people expect us to sort of hide in the corner and stop what we’re doing,” because of the pressure, she said.

But that’s not going to happen.

“We’re going to keep doing what we’re doing,” she said. “Just being a balanced, objective, thoughtful third party that’s able to be this watchdog, almost, as the most powerful technology of all time is developed. I think that’s a really important role for us.”

Right now, AI is in its toddler stages, and it’s already outsmarting us in dangerous ways. The New York Times documented how it may have pushed a teen to suicide.

In July, Musk’s AI tool Grok randomly starting calling itself “MechaHitler” and began making antisemitic comments, according to the Wall Street Journal. Another AI model apparently resorted to blackmailing its maker when it was threatened with being turned off.

An AI safety researcher familiar with that blackmail incident, Aengus Lynch, warned it wasn’t a one-off, according to the BBC.

“We see blackmail across all frontier models — regardless of what goals they’re given,” he said.

So here we are in the infancy of a technology that will profoundly change society, and we already know the genie is out of the bottle, has stolen the car keys and is on a bender.

Before we get to the point of having to choose who will go back in time to save Sarah Connor from Skynet and the Terminator, maybe we just don’t go there. Maybe we start with SB 53, and listen to smart, young people like Revanur who have both the knowledge to understand the technology and a real stake in getting it right.

Maybe we put up the smoke alarm, whether the billionaire tech bros like it or not.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ICE Agents Are Wearing Masks. Is That Un-American?
The Sign of the Times: In face of extreme heat, L.A. may require landlords to keep their rentals cool
The L.A. Times Special: A ‘Roomba for the forest’ could be SoCal’s next wildfire weapon

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

HELLO AND HAPPY THURSDAY. IT’S ME, ANITA LYNNE CHABRIA, COMING TO YOU IN ALL CAPS — BECAUSE THAT’S NOW HOW POLITICS IS DONE.

No, I won’t really torment you with shift-lock psychosis. But we will be diving into Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wildly successful social media trolling of Donald Trump. Although much has been written about his parody of the president’s bombastic style, replete with weird syntax and tongue-in-cheek self-aggrandizement, it turns out it’s far more than just entertaining.

More than any other Democratic presidential hopeful out there, the social media offensive has raised both his profile and political fortunes — and highlighted some uncomfortable truths about American politics in this moment when the vast majority of voters are getting their information in 20-second snippets on TikTok, YouTube and X: Social media is not the sideshow, it’s the main event.

But it’s about more than GCN (Gavin Christopher Newsom, as he now signs his posts) making it to the Resolute desk.

Whether you love Newsom or hate him, California is the epicenter on the resistance to Trump’s push to expand presidential powers into authoritarianism. In courts, in the Legislature and on social media, this is the state that has fought back most effectively.

Newsom’s recent decision to throw caution and subservience to the wind is at the heart of that, a move from frenemy to fighter that is essential to shaping and protecting the future of our democracy. One cheeky post at a time.

The seed of inspiration

How did we wind up here? Although January may seem like eons ago, it was in reality only nine short months since Newsom showed up uninvited on the tarmac in L.A. to greet Trump, even embrace him, as the president came to view the fire damage in Pacific Palisades and Altadena.

Newsom was still in that frenemy phase, trying to reason with, flatter and cajole a president who demands praise, but who, like the fable of the scorpion and the frog, will always attack because it’s in his nature. California needs fire aid, and as Newsom said at the time, “I hope he comes with a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. That’s the spirit to which we welcome him.”

That, however, didn’t work out great. Trump not only dillydallied with fire money, threatening conditions, he also sent the National Guard into L.A. for a nonexistent emergency around immigration protests, then strong-armed Texas into redrawing voting maps to help ensure MAGA keeps control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.

So now California has Proposition 50, the effort to redraw our own maps to find more Democratic seats, and a hoppin’-mad governor (get that frog reference?) who knows a scorpion when he sees one.

What does this have to do with social media, you ask? In mid-August GCN wrote to DJT with one last peace offering: California would stop its push for redistricting if other states stopped as well. No luck, big surprise.

But staffers at Newsom’s office were in a mood, and thought it would be funny to tweet out the last paragraph of that letter in all caps, Trump-style. The only change? Switching the last line from the statesman-like “And America will be better for it” to the Trump-favored “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

And there, in a moment of frustration and gallows humor — no grand strategy intended — the seed of inspiration was planted.

The Result

That post has received 5 million views so far, and emboldened Newsom to go further. Since then, his trolling has been both prolific, pointed, and extremely popular.

The X account where Newsom does most of his smack-posting, @GovPressOffice, gained more than 500,000 followers in recent weeks, and racked up more than 480 million impressions. That’s up 450%, according to CNN’s Harry Enten.

He’s been in demand on traditional media as well (and seems to be living rent-free in the brains of right-wing Fox commentators), and has made himself available to digital content creators — who have helped him reach more than 30 million views across various platforms.

Newsom’s speech about the National Guard coming into L.A. — at nine minutes long, an eternity these days — was viewed more 40 million times in a week.

And, as Enten also pointed out, 75% of California Democrats now say they want Newsom to run for president, and betting markets give Newsom a 24% chance of being the Democratic nominee, rating him with the highest potential in the pack.

Love-bombed with all that success, Newsom has pushed further into the rage-baiting. The “GCN” sign-off? That came from Newsom himself. But there’s a team behind the effort, and they’re running 24/7 to keep the big, beautiful bludgeoning going.

But what about democracy?

Great for Newsom, you say, but how does a meme of him with bulging biceps save democracy? Here’s the thing I learned covering the rise not just of Trump, but of the extremist and fringe ideologies such as QAnon that fueled his base: It would not happen without social media.

Social media is the sauce that has seasoned this change in our politics, which sounds obvious but is much deeper than most realize. Social media created communities, communities largely without physical or ethical boundaries. Anything goes, and the more intense and crazy, the deeper it tends to go. The more people believe, the more involved they become.

Short take: Social media spreads extremism.

But can social media also spread resistance?

The hardest parts of an autocracy are division and fear. It feels lonely and scary to speak out. Newsom has done two crucial things with his social media barrage.

First, he showed us that the Republicans were right all along. For years, the far-right has found Trump’s social media hilarious, and all the funnier because Democrats were outraged by its crassness, vulgarity and childishness. Many Democrats found no humor in a president behaving in ways that would get their own teenagers grounded.

But as soon as Newsom did it, Democrats were the ones who found it funny, especially the irony-free Republican outrage. And empowering. And awesome. Suddenly, they got the joke.

In copying, Newsom was subverting — not just holding up a mirror to the bad behavior, but revealing that Democrats have in fact had a stick somewhere unnecessary and need to admit that low humor tickles the American fancy. He has given Democrats something light and amusing to rally around, creating community that has been sadly lacking.

And community is where resistance thrives, same as with extremism. When people feel not alone, they feel stronger.

That’s the second thing Newsom has brought with his trolling. Democrats, Republicans, democracy-backers of any stripe are relieved to laugh at Trump together — because nothing undermines his power more than a collective chuckle at his expense.

Like this:

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: The AI Doomsday Machine Is Closer to Reality Than You Think
The what happened: Trump can’t use Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members, court rules
The L.A. Times special: California pushes back on Trump’s CDC with West Coast Health Alliance

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — There are echoes from California Republicans’ disastrous past in their solid support of the Trump administration’s ugly raids targeting Latinos suspected of illegal immigration.

California’s GOP apparently still hasn’t learned. Scaring, insulting and angering people is not an effective recruiting tool. It doesn’t draw them to your side. It drives them into the opposition camp.

That should have been a lesson learned three decades ago when Republicans strongly pushed a harsh anti-illegal immigration ballot initiative, Proposition 187. It became principally responsible for changing California from a politically competitive state to one where the GOP is essentially irrelevant.

This occurred to me when reading recent poll data that showed strong overall objection in California to President Trump’s oft-inhumane immigration enforcement policies — among virtually every group, that is, except Republican voters. They overwhelmingly support his tactics.

The in-depth poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies delved into voter attitudes toward Trump’s mass deportation actions.

On the basic question of his immigration enforcement strategy, 69% of registered voters disapproved and just 29% approved. But there was a sharp difference between political parties. Democrats almost unanimously disapproved — 95%. And 72% of independents were opposed. But 79% of Republicans approved.

Interviewers also asked about specifics. And GOP voters were with Trump all the way.

Strong majorities of Republicans disagreed that federal agents “have unfairly targeted Latino communities for their race or ethnicity,” believed the raids have “primarily focused” on undocumented “serious” criminals — although evidence shows that many law-abiders have been snatched — and thought “all undocumented immigrants need to be deported.”

Smaller Republican majorities disagreed that detained undocumented immigrants “have a right to due process” and a court hearing — although the due process clause of the 5th Amendment indicates they do — and agreed that “agents should expand enforcement into schools, hospitals, parks and other public locations.”

Democrats and independents expressed emphatically opposite views — and they greatly outnumber Republicans in California.

The parties also reported diametrically opposite feelings when viewing news accounts of raids by federal agents. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans said it made them feel “hopeful, like justice is finally being served.” Democrats said they were “enraged and/or sad. What is happening is unfair.”

Republicans were more divided on whether immigration agents should be required to show clear identification, such as wearing badges. Armed agents have been going incognito in street clothes, traveling in unmarked vehicles and wearing masks.

Among GOP voters, 50% opposed requiring identification and 45% supported the idea.

Two bills currently are awaiting votes in the state Assembly to require agent identification and ban masks in most circumstances.

“Agents have been running around wearing essentially ski masks, grabbing people, throwing them into unmarked cars and disappearing them,” says Sen. Mark Wiener (D-San Francisco), author of the mask ban bill. “In a democracy, we don’t have secret police running around masked.”

Listening to Republican voters, I’m hearing reverberations from 1994 when that GOP generation overwhelmingly backed Proposition 187, led by Gov. Pete Wilson, who was subsequently demonized by Democrats and, particularly, Latinos.

That now-infamous measure would have denied most public services — including schooling — to undocumented immigrants, and turned teachers and nurses into snitches. It passed by a landslide, but a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional.

Republicans voted for Proposition187 by 3 to 1 and independents by 3 to 2, according to a Los Angeles Times exit poll. Democrats opposed it by 2 to 1.

White people voted for Proposition 187 by 59% to 41% — the exact victory margin — but Latinos opposed it by 78% to 22%. Today, there are a lot fewer white people and lots more Latinos in California.

The measure awakened Latinos and spawned a new generation of Democratic political leaders, including U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, former L.A. Mayor and Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and other legislative honchos.

And it instigated a hemorrhaging of Republican voters in California. In the November presidential election, Republicans amounted to only 25% of registered voters. In 1994, they were 37%. Many have since shifted to registering as independents, who amounted to only 10% back then and are 22% now. Democrats also have lost slightly to nonpartisan ranks, falling from 49% to 46%.

No Republican candidate has won a statewide race since 2006, and Democrats hold supermajorities in both legislative houses.

The GOP has been touting an uptick in Latino support in November’s election. But is that a trend, or just the reflection of a sorry Democratic presidential campaign? How will Latino voters react to immigration agents chasing people through farm fields, seizing teens without telling their parents and stalking picnickers?

“Republicans can talk about crime and homelessness and gas prices all they want but the immigration issue is a boulder in the road that will keep large numbers in California from listening to what they say on any other issue,” says Dan Schnur, a USC and UC Berkeley political science instructor who was Wilson’s spokesman in 1994.

GOP consultant Mike Madrid, who has written a book about how Latinos are transforming democracy, says Republicans “are limiting what could be a tidal wave of voters in their direction. They’re their own worst enemies.”

He adds: “Latinos are primarily economic voters but will respond when attacked. As long as the GOP resorts to anti-Latino appeals they’ll fight back.”

Republican voter attitudes also are symptomatic of today’s extremely polarized politics.

“Wherever Trump decides to steer the ship, Republicans are following him. Trump is the Pied Piper here,” says Mark DiCamillo, the IGS pollster.

Republican consultant Kevin Spillane theorized that Republican respondents in the poll were “rallying around Trump. They thought they were really being asked about him.”

Whatever. They need to evolve into the increasingly diverse 21st century. We can secure the border without storming churches, hospitals and schools.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom, California lawmakers strike deal that would allow Uber, Lyft drivers to unionize
The TK: ‘The party is in shambles.’ But some Democrats see reasons for optimism
The L.A. Times Special: Their brotherly love transcends politics — and California’s tooth-and-nail redistricting fight

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is back in Washington as Congress prepares to return for the fall.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson called an early start to summer break in July, attempting to shut down bipartisan clamor for the full release of the Epstein files. But Democrats are eager to launch back into a scandal that has dogged President Trump and divided his MAGA base.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, plans to partner with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky to quickly force a vote on the House floor ordering the Justice Department to release its entire trove of documents from the investigation of Epstein, a convicted sex offender who abused hundreds of women and girls.

The success of the measure is far from guaranteed. It is unclear whether the Justice Department would even abide by it. But Democrats plan to make sure the issue does not go away, regardless of its outcome, multiple Democratic aides said.

Democratic lawmakers’ focus on Epstein will be “high” out of the gate once Congress returns after Labor Day, one senior House Democratic staffer told The Times.

Republicans “will not want to be put in a position of voting against disclosure,” said the staffer, who requested anonymity to share internal discussions. “The same thing that tripped up Johnson in July is still there.”

California Dems lead charge for release

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) has pushed for the release of the Epstein documents.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

Epstein, a wealthy financier with a deep bench of powerful friends, died in a New York City prison in August 2019 facing federal charges in a sprawling child sex trafficking conspiracy.

The charges followed reporting by the Miami Herald of a scandalous sweetheart deal brokered by federal prosecutors in Florida that had allowed Epstein to serve a months-long sentence, avoiding federal charges that could have resulted in life imprisonment.

The chief prosecutor in that case, Alex Acosta, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, went on to serve as Labor secretary in Trump’s first term.

Acosta has agreed to sit for a transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee on Sept. 19.

It is just one of several milestones coming up for the Oversight Committee, which voted to subpoena all Justice Department records in the case before dismissing for recess. Democrats, partnering with Republicans rebelling against the party line, forced the subpoena vote.

The first set of those documents were delivered last week. But Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the committee, said that 97% of the 33,000 pages of documents handed over by the Justice Department so far were already public.

The Justice Department and the Oversight Committee said that the records would be released on a piecemeal basis as department officials work to redact sensitive information on Epstein’s victims.

Garcia and Khanna have been leading the charge for an expansive release of documents in the Epstein case — a call that has drawn fierce pushback from Trump, who had a close friendship with Epstein for roughly a decade.

“There is no excuse for incomplete disclosures,” Garcia said. “Survivors and the American public deserve the truth.”

‘Gentleman in all respects’

Democrats never made an issue of the Epstein files when they held Congress and the White House under President Biden, dismissing the story as another right-wing conspiracy theory. But Democratic lawmakers now see the issue as an opportunity to cause a split between Trump and his supporters, highlighting his resistance to releasing the files for a voter base that has called for their disclosure since Epstein’s 2019 death.

Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the Oversight Committee, issued a new subpoena this week to Epstein’s estate for all material from 1990 through his death that references presidents and vice presidents, as well address books, contact lists, and videos recorded at Epstein’s properties.

That could result in the disclosure of a book compiled for Epstein marking his 50th birthday in the early 2000s, first reported over the summer by the Wall Street Journal, that allegedly includes a letter from Trump featuring a lewd doodle and a note that reads, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump has denied he wrote the note.

The Oversight Committee has also voted to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s close associate who is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple minor girls.

Maxwell and her attorneys are openly angling for a pardon from Trump, raising suspicions among Democrats over the reliability of her testimony. But any appearance by Maxwell on Capitol Hill would become a media sensation, drawing national attention back to the case.

The second most powerful figure in the Justice Department, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, personally interviewed Maxwell in July over the course of two days. She absolved Trump of any criminality in the interview without even being asked to do so.

“The president was never inappropriate with anybody,” Maxwell said, according to a transcript released last week.

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

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Why the Grateful Dead are one of California’s greatest natural phenomena
The deep dive: Will your congressional district shift left or right in Newsom’s proposed map?
The L.A. Times Special: Why COVID keeps roaring back every summer, even as pandemic fades from public view

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.