Connect with us

News

Los Angeles Fire Chief Faces Calls for Resignation

Published

on

Los Angeles Fire Chief Faces Calls for Resignation

Three years ago, when Kristin Crowley became the first female chief in the history of the Los Angeles Fire Department, she was lauded as a force for stability.

“There is no one better equipped to lead the L.A.F.D. at this moment than Kristin,” the mayor at the time, Eric Garcetti, said of the 22-year veteran of the department. “She’s ready to make history.”

Now, as Los Angeles reels under an extended onslaught of wind-driven wildfire, its fire chief is being buffeted by challenges in and outside her ranks, tension with City Hall and questions about her department’s preparedness. The fires, which are still unfolding on the city’s west side and in the community of Altadena outside the city, have so far leveled nearly 40,000 acres and claimed at least 27 lives.

Last week, complaints about funding for her department boiled over into a public dispute between Mayor Karen Bass and Chief Crowley. This week, veteran fire managers charged that she and her staff should have positioned more engines in advance in high-risk areas like Pacific Palisades, where the fires began on Jan. 7.

At a news conference, she struggled to explain why an outgoing shift of about 1,000 firefighters was not ordered to remain at work last Tuesday as a precaution amid extreme red-flag conditions. “We surged where we could surge,” she said.

Advertisement

A Jan. 13 letter signed by unnamed “retired and active L.A.F.D. chief officers” accused her of a host of management failures and called for her to step down. “A large number of chief officers do not believe you are up to the task,” the five-page letter read in part.

In an email on Thursday, a fire department spokesperson said that the chief was “focused on mitigating the fires” and unable to respond to the letter. The chief has repeatedly emphasized the progress her crews are making.

“Our firefighters are doing an incredible job,” she said in a news briefing on Thursday, as a continuing air and ground assault brought hot spots in Pacific Palisades closer to containment. “As their chief, I’m extremely proud of the work that our people did and continue to do.”

With thousands of evacuees clamoring to return to the remains of their homes and more red-flag wind conditions in the forecast, many civic leaders in Los Angeles have reserved judgment.

“This was a huge natural disaster not any single fire chief could have prevented, whether they had unlimited resources and money,” said Corinne Tapia Babcock, a member of the Los Angeles Fire Commission, which oversees the department and its chief. “You cannot attack a single person for a situation that is this catastrophic.”

Advertisement

Zev Yaroslavsky, a former member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and City Council, said that “an accounting should and will take place when the smoke clears.”

“But these issues can’t be resolved while the city’s on fire,” he added.

Other civic leaders predicted that, sooner or later, the chief would be held to account.

“She’ll be gone in six months,” said Fernando Guerra, who directs the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

Even before the fire, the chief faced strong political challenges, Dr. Guerra said. Her appointment in early 2022 by the prior mayor, Mr. Garcetti, was seen as an attempt to steady the department after years of complaints of harassment and discrimination raised by female L.A.F.D. firefighters.

Advertisement

But it challenged the male-dominated culture of the department, Dr. Guerra noted, as did the election later that year of Ms. Bass as the new mayor. Like other top managers in Los Angeles city government, fire chiefs are mayoral appointees and can be replaced by a new administration. Ms. Bass kept her on.

Even with more than two decades with the department, Chief Crowley was still new in her post — just beginning to develop a base of support — when the Palisades burst into flames last week.

As the fire turned into a catastrophe, critics of Mayor Bass, including Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of The Los Angeles Times, and Elon Musk, the owner of X, the social media platform, charged that the fire department had been underfunded. A December memo from Chief Crowley surfaced, in which she warned the fire commission that a $7.9 million cut in firefighter overtime and the elimination of dozens of civilian positions had “severely limited” the department’s ability to respond to large-scale emergencies.

Ms. Bass had approved a budget last June for the fire department’s current fiscal year that was $23 million less than the prior year’s. But a new contract with the firefighters’ union led to raises, and the final fire budget was actually $53 million more than last year’s.

The claims about underfunding sparked a dayslong dispute with the mayor and her allies. By the end of last week, Chief Crowley had doubled down, telling a local Fox News affiliate that she felt the city government had failed the fire department.

Advertisement

Within hours, she and Ms. Bass — facing criticism herself for having been out of the country when the Palisades fire started — disappeared into the mayor’s office for so long that they missed an evening news briefing. Outside the closed doors, the mayor’s staff repeatedly denied an erroneous report from a British news outlet that the chief had been fired.

By Saturday morning, the mayor and the chief were projecting a unified front, though the tension was apparent. “The chief and I are in lock step,” Ms. Bass said. “And if there are differences that we have, we will continue to deal with those in private.”

But criticisms of the chief flared again this week amid reports in The Los Angeles Times that the firefighting force that was on duty when the Palisades fire started could have been much larger. In years past, the department often paid outgoing shifts overtime to stay at work in times of alarming wind forecasts and tinder-dry conditions.

Internal documents reviewed by The New York Times also showed that the department’s plan on the day of the fire called for advance positioning of only nine additional fire trucks — near Hollywood, the Santa Monica Mountains and elsewhere in the San Fernando Valley — but none in Pacific Palisades.

Patrick Butler, a former L.A.F.D. assistant chief who is now chief of the Redondo Beach, Calif., fire department, said that positioning firefighters and equipment near fire zones in significant numbers well in advance during periods of high wildfire danger has long been a key strategy in the department. “It’s unfathomable to me how this happened, except for extreme incompetence and no understanding of fire operations,” he said.

Advertisement

Others said the fire chief should have kept both the incoming and outgoing shifts of firefighters on duty before the fire as a precaution.

“I can’t speak to why she didn’t exercise it, but it’s a known tactic and it would have doubled the work force,” said Rick Crawford, a former L.A.F.D. battalion chief who is now the emergency and crisis management coordinator for the U.S. Capitol. “I’m not saying it would have prevented the fire, or that the fire wouldn’t have gotten out of control. But she lost a strategic advantage by not telling the off-going shift, ‘You shall stay and work.’”

In the letter purportedly signed by current and retired officers in the department, there were complaints that Chief Crowley had also failed to temporarily call back experienced fire commanders who had recently retired.

“While no one is saying that this fire could have been stopped, there is no doubt among all of us that if you had done things right and prepared the L.A.F.D. for an incident of this magnitude, fatalities would have been reduced, and property would have been saved,” they wrote.

Sharon Delugach, a member of the Los Angeles Fire Commission, said that rumors of disgruntlement within the department had been on the radar but had not risen to the commission’s formal attention before the fires broke out.

Advertisement

Much of the criticism, she said, seemed to reflect sentiments of sexism or homophobia — Chief Crowley is the first lesbian to lead the department — or came from those who were unhappy about change.

Whatever the source, Ms. Delugach said, the timing of the latest dissent is not ideal when many outside of the department seem intent on scoring political points.

“I’m sure they do have very legitimate concerns and I’m sure everybody in the department is there for the right reason,” Ms. Delugach said of the internal criticism. “It’s a shame all this dirty laundry is being aired in the moment of fire.”

Ms. Delugach predicted that Chief Crowley’s future would hinge less on internal and external critiques than on her relationship with Ms. Bass.

“It’s whether she and the mayor can work together, that’s the real question,” Ms. Delugach said. “I hope they can.”

Advertisement

Rachel Nostrant, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Kate Selig and Katie Benner contributed reporting.

News

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

Published

on

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

The US is planning to board and seize Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in the coming days, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal.

The report noted that these actions would take place in international waters, potentially outside of the Middle East.

The US “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil.”

“As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions, or insurance requirements,” Caine continued.

Caine was further quoted as saying that the new campaign, which would be operated in part by the US Indo-Pacific Command, would be part of a broader US President Donald Trump-led campaign against Iran, known as “Economic Fury.”

Advertisement

 White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the WSJ that Trump was “optimistic” that the new measures would lead to a peace deal.

The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday, the WSJ reported.

The report cited CENTCOM as saying that the US has already turned back 23 ships trying to leave Iranian ports since the start of its blockade on the Strait.

The expansion of naval action beyond the Middle East will provide the US with further leverage against Iran by allowing it to take control of a greater number of ships loaded with oil or weapons bound for Iran, the report noted.

“It’s a maximalist approach,” said associate professor of law at Emory University Law School Mark Nevitt. “If you want to put the screws down on Iran, you want to use every single legal authority you have to do that.”

Advertisement

Iran claimed earlier on Saturday that it had regained military control over the Strait, intending to hold it until the US guarantees full freedom of movement for ships traveling to and from Iran.

“As long as the United States does not ensure full freedom of navigation for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled,” the Iranian military stated.

In addition, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on Saturday in an apparent message on his Telegram channel that the Iranian navy is prepared to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Published

on

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

new video loaded: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. Our reporter Jodi Kantor explains what these documents reveal about the court.

By Jodi Kantor, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, June Kim and Luke Piotrowski

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

News

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

Published

on

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

A Pakistani Ranger walks past a billboard for the U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. The talks, led by Vice President JD Vance, produced no concrete movement toward a peace deal.

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images

Despite stalled talks with Iran and a fragile ceasefire nearing its end, President Trump expressed optimism this week that a permanent deal is within reach — one that may include Iran relinquishing its enriched uranium. However, experts who spent months negotiating a nuclear agreement during the Obama administration say mutual mistrust, starkly different negotiating styles make a quick truce unlikely.

Referring to Vice President Vance’s whirlwind negotiations in Islamabad last week that appear to have produced little beyond dashed expectations, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal finalized in 2015, says the administration’s approach was all wrong.

“You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR’s Here & Now earlier this week. “You can’t even do it in a week.” To get agreement on the JCPOA, she said, it took “a good 18 months.”

Advertisement

The talks leading to that deal highlighted Iran’s meticulous style of negotiation, says Rob Malley, who was also part of the JCPOA negotiating team and later served as a special envoy to Iran under President Joe Biden.

Summing up the two sides’ differing styles, Malley said: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

Pool/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Pool/AFP via Getty Images

In 2015, patience led to a deal

The talks in 2015, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated with a marathon 19-day session in Vienna to finish the deal, says Jon Finer, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. Finer was involved in the negotiations as Kerry’s chief of staff. He said his boss’s patience “was a huge asset” in getting the deal to the finish line, he said.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement

“He would endure lectures … ‘let me tell you about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization’… and just keep plowing ahead,” Finer said, adding that a tactic of Iranian negotiators seemed to be “to say no to everything and see what actually matters” to the U.S.

“They’re just maddeningly difficult,” he said. “You need to go back at the same issue 10 or 12 times over weeks or months to make any progress.”

Even so, Finer called the Iranian negotiators “extremely capable” — noting that, unlike the U.S., they often lacked expert advisers “just outside the room,” yet still mastered the details of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and U.S. sanctions.

“They were also negotiating not in their first language,” Finer added. “The documents were all negotiated in English, and they were hundreds of pages long with detailed annexes.”

Vance’s trip to Islamabad suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have the patience for a negotiation to end the conflict that could be at least as complex and time-consuming. “The Trump administration came in with maximalist demands and actually just wanted Iran to capitulate,” Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of state during the Biden administration, told Here & Now. “No nation – even one as odious as the Iran regime – is going to capitulate.”

Advertisement

Distrust but verify

Iran was attacked twice in the past year. First in June of last year, as nuclear negotiations were ongoing, Israel and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear facilities. Months later, at the end of February, Iran was attacked again at the start of the latest conflict. This time around, “the level of trust is probably almost at an all-time low,” Malley said.

“It’s hard for them to take at their word what they’re hearing from U.S. officials,” Malley said. The Iranians, he said, have to be wondering how long any commitment will last and “will be very hesitant to give up something that’s tangible” – such as their enriched uranium – in exchange for anything that isn’t ironclad or subject to suddenly be discarded by Trump or some future president.

“Once they give up their stockpile … they can’t recapture it the next day,” Malley said.

Even during the 2013-2015 nuclear deal talks, the decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington were impossible to ignore, Finer said. “Our theory was not trust but verify — it was distrust but verify,” he said, adding: “I think that was their theory too.”

Malley cautions about relying on the JCPOA as a guide to how peace talks to end the current war might go. The leadership in Tehran that agreed to the deal is now gone — killed in Israeli airstrikes, he says. The regime’s military capabilities are also greatly diminished and “whatever lessons were learned in the past … have to be viewed with a lot of caution, because so much has changed,” he said.

Advertisement

Negotiations have a leveling effect

Mark Freeman, executive director of the Institute for Integrated Transitions, a peace and security think tank based in Spain that advises on conflict negotiations, says several factors shape the U.S.-Iran relationship. Going into talks, one side always has the upper hand, he says, but negotiations have a leveling effect. “The weaker party gains just by virtue of entering into a negotiation process,” he said.

Each side is looking for leverage, he adds.

In Iran’s case, it has used its closure of the Strait of Hormuz to exert such leverage, while the White House has shown an eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly. “If one side perceives the other needs an agreement more … that shapes the entire negotiation,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending