Politics
Commentary: Half a century ago, Californians saved the coast. Will Trump threats spark another uprising?
In 1972, thousands of Californians came together in what was a defining moment in state history. They were united by fears that the spectacular coast was in danger of becoming overdeveloped, heavily industrialized, ecologically diminished and irreversibly privatized.
Rue Furch, a Sonoma State University student, signed on as a volunteer for Proposition 20, which called for a commission to “preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the environment and ecology of the coastal zone.”
“I was just one of the worker bees, and it felt great to be doing something positive,” said Furch, whose role was “collecting signatures and holding signs and showing up to rallies.”
Steve Lopez
Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.
In Sacramento, a young legislative assistant named Sam Farr (who would later become a U.S. congressman), helped organize a coastal bike ride, led by state Sen. Jim Mills, that galvanized Proposition 20 support and drew hordes of reporters as cyclists pedaled from Land’s End in San Francisco to Balboa Park in San Diego.
“The highway patrol kind of designed the route,” said Farr, who recalled that cyclists camped at state parks along the way and dined on food donated by supporters of the rolling “save our coast” call to arms.
In Los Angeles, teams of young environmentalists sabotaged dozens of campaign billboards, hung by the opposition, which originally said,“The Beach Belongs to You – Don’t Lock it Up. Vote No on Proposition No. 20.” The activists painted the word “Yes” over the word “No.”
So why am I telling you this a half-century later?
Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, who traveled the California coast for several weeks in 2016, finally realizes his childhood dream to surf in Santa Cruz. The coastal tour marked the 40th anniversary of the Coastal Act. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
Because voter-approved Proposition 20 led to the 1976 California Coastal Act and the creation of the Coastal Commission, which is now under threat like never before, targeted by the Trump administration, federal legislation and other critics.
In a January visit to Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires, Trump said the Coastal Commission is “considered the most difficult in the entire country” and said when it comes to rebuilding, “we are not going to let them get away with their antics.”
If that seems personal, it is. Trump, who bought a Ranch Palos Verdes golf course at a discounted price in 2002, after the 18th hole fell into the ocean, has had disputes with the Coastal Commission over waterfalls on the property and a 70-foot tall flagpole erected without a permit.
In February, Trump special missions envoy Ric Grenell painted a bullseye on the coastal commission, saying that fire relief assistance could be held up if California doesn’t bow to the administration’s wishes. He called the Coastal Commission “an unelected group of people who are crazy woke left” and said that “putting strings on them to get rid of the California Coastal Commission is going to make California better.”
The iconic Bixby Creek Bridge in Big Sur. California’s Coastal Commission is now under threat like never before, targeted by the Trump administration, federal legislation and other critics.
(apollo(c)/beketoff – stock.adobe.com)
To be clear, the commissioners are selected by elected people, which is often how commissions work. And speaking of powerful unelected people, the name Elon Musk comes to mind, and Trump’s Oval Office playmate has his own beef with the Coastal Commission. Musk’s SpaceX company sued the commission last fall after commissioners rejected a bid to increase the number of rocket launches from the U.S. military’s Vandenberg Space Force Base near Lompoc.
Military officials have said in support of SpaceX that they’d like to increase the number of launches from a handful to as many as 100 annually. The commission argued that most of the launches are for private interests rather than for military purposes, and that sonic booms and environmental impacts are a problem.
And it might be wise to hold off on increased launches following Thursday’s explosion of a SpaceX craft that ripped apart after takeoff from Texas. A shower of debris led to the grounding of flights at several Florida airports, and this was the second such SpaceX disaster in seven weeks. At the very least, SpaceX employees — just like federal employees targeted by Musk — should get memos asking what they had done in the seven days prior to each crash to justify keeping their jobs.
To be fair, the Coastal Commission staff and its commissioners are not beyond reproach, nor have commissioners always served with honor, so scrutiny and pushback ought to be part of the process. Nearly a decade ago, my Times colleagues and I examined the ways in which wealthy property owners and developers used lawyers, lobbyists and political connections in attempting to influence commission decision-making.
In the case of the recent SpaceX case, commissioners made bone-headed political comments about Musk in rejecting the bid for more launches, naively handing him lawsuit fodder.
And the commission — which is made up of more than 100 staff members and 12 voting commissioners — has a history of irritating property owners and even governors with painfully long reviews of applications (caused, in part, by decades of under-staffing) for everything from new coastal construction to property improvements of various types.
Dogs competed in the 14th annual Imperial Beach Surf Dog Competition in August 2019.
(Rick Nocon/For The San Diego Union-Tribune)
Several recent bills by Democratic legislators have tried (with limited success) to chip away at agency authority and clear the way for more housing, and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order limiting commission oversight in the interest of speeding up rebuilding in the Palisades fire zone.
Republicans, meanwhile just want to tear it all apart. On March 5, U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) called for stripping the commission of its power, saying the agency is “out of control and has veered from its purpose of protecting the coast.”
Susan Jordan of the nonprofit California Coastal Protection Network, quickly sized up what that would mean.
“This is like the federal government putting a big for-sale sign on the California coast,” she said. “It basically takes away the state’s ability to comment on and provide feedback on projects … It’s like an open invitation to oil drilling, to any commercial venture, to liquefied natural gas terminals.”
There’s a reason that has not already happened, and it has a lot to do with that movement that began in 1972 (the story has been captured in a new documentary on the people who were determined to save the coast).
A whimbrel flies along the beach at the Jalama creek estuary at Jalama State Beach.
(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
There’s a reason that as you travel the coast, you see all those roadside beach access signs.
There’s a reason that when beachfront property owners put up illegal “private property” signs or otherwise attempt to drive away those who have a right to enjoy the beach, they’re cited and fined.
There’s a reason the 1,100-mile natural wonder that stretches from the Oregon border to the Mexico border does not, for the most part, resemble the blighted, overdeveloped coasts of other states.
There’s a reason any and all development proposals are exhaustively reviewed, with the perils of sea level rise in mind, and in the interest of protecting marine and shore habitats.
The reason is the California Coastal Act of 1976, a people-inspired, legislatively approved framework that guides state and local governments on the use of land and water in the coastal zone, and embodies the idea that this natural wonder is not owned by anybody, but by everybody, and that it must be treated — with careful, unwavering stewardship — like the public treasure that it is.
One of the first directors of the agency, the late and legendary Peter Douglas, recognized that there would always be threats to the commission and to the shore.
It’s why he said:
“The coast is what it is because a lot of people worked really hard and sacrificed to protect it. And if we want it to be there for our children, we have to keep fighting to protect it. In that way, the coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.”
If it takes another bike ride, I’m ready to roll.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Politics
Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.
During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.
“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)
This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.
According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.
But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.
Politics
California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds
California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.
The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.
The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.
The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.
Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.
“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”
Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”
“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.
Politics
Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
transcript
transcript
Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.
-
“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
January 8, 2026
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios