Connect with us

Politics

In two L.A. City Council races, police 'abolition' is a wedge issue

Published

on

In two L.A. City Council races, police 'abolition' is a wedge issue

Long before she uttered the words “F— the police,” Los Angeles City Council candidate Ysabel Jurado made clear she was not happy with the city’s approach to public safety.

In a candidate questionnaire last year, Jurado promised to move money out of the LAPD and into other programs. She said police should be removed from K-12 schools. And she described herself as an “abolitionist” — someone who favors the “abolition of police and the prison industrial complex.”

“I believe that we keep ourselves safe,” she wrote in the 20-page questionnaire she provided to the Democratic Socialists of America — now one of her most crucial supporters.

Tuesday’s election will determine whether Jurado and her allies can push City Hall further left on public safety by expanding the bloc of council members who want to rein in police spending and reallocate the savings.

Jurado, a tenant rights attorney, is looking to unseat Councilmember Kevin de León in an Eastside district. Another DSA-backed candidate, business owner Jillian Burgos, is gunning for a seat in the San Fernando Valley.

Advertisement

In both contests, police abolition — and law enforcement spending overall — has emerged as a political fault line, particularly for voters worried about crime and disorder.

Jurado, through a spokesperson, has described abolition as an aspirational goal, one that would take many years and many steps. De León says Jurado’s words should be taken literally, and seriously, by voters in his district, which stretches from downtown to El Sereno and Eagle Rock.

Los Angeles City Councilman Kevin de León, pictured in 2023, has sent campaign mailers assailing his opponent’s stances on public safety.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

De León, who has highlighted the issue in campaign mailers, calls Jurado’s approach to public safety “elitist and irresponsible,” saying low-income neighborhoods would suffer the most. He ramped up his attacks over the last week after Jurado told a group of college students, “What’s the rap verse? F— the police, that’s how I see ‘em,” in response to a question about abolishing the police.

“We need the police to keep our communities safe. It’s just that simple,” De León said. “Every nation in the world, including the most progressive nations — Scandinavian countries, Sweden, Finland, Norway — they have police.”

Jurado has disputed the idea that she would defund the LAPD, telling audiences she still wants officers responding to violent crime. At the same time, she has argued that — with 1 in 4 city dollars going to the Los Angeles Police Department — too much is being spent on police.

“The safest cities in America invest in recreation and parks, libraries and our youth, but we’re not doing that,” she said.

Three of the council’s 15 members voted against Mayor Karen Bass’ budget this year, in large part because of their objections to police spending. Jurado and Burgos, if elected, could add two more votes to that bloc.

Advertisement

De León and former state Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian, who is facing off against Burgos, support Bass’ push to hire more police and return the department to 9,500 officers. Both are in favor of the mayor’s decision to give a package of raises and bonuses to police, which is expected to add $400 million to the city’s yearly budget by 2027.

Jurado opposes both efforts. So does Burgos, an optician and part owner of a murder mystery theater company. On the day the council approved the police raises, Burgos accused city leaders of choosing “militarization” over humanity, saying the money should have gone to housing and community services instead.

“Crime is down overall,” she said in an interview. “I think we can invest in other solutions.”

Like Jurado, Burgos identified herself as an abolitionist in her DSA questionnaire. Like Jurado, she told the DSA she would remove police officers from K-12 schools. Both said police unions should not be part of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which represents about 300 union groups and is a major fixture in city politics.

A woman smiles outdoors.

Los Angeles City Council candidate Jillian Burgos, pictured in January, has come out against the mayor’s effort to hire more police and return the LAPD to 9,500 officers.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The DSA’s L.A. chapter has become a powerful political force, pushing city leaders for stronger tenant protections, higher wages and lower law enforcement spending. Over the last four years, the group has worked to successfully unseat three City Hall incumbents.

It has been a key supporter of Burgos, sending 167 people to knock on doors for her, according to a spokesperson for the L.A. chapter. Nearly 330 DSA volunteers have done the same for Jurado, the spokesperson said.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file officers, has sought to counter those efforts, sending campaign mailers that call Burgos’ public safety platform “dangerous.” The union has allocated $445,000 for canvassers, digital ads and other efforts to defeat Jurado and reelect De León.

“Ms. Jurado told [voters] loud and clear that if she wins, it will be ‘F-the police,’ and that means fewer officers patrolling neighborhoods and enforcing the law,” Police Protective League President Craig Lally said in a statement.

Advertisement

The two council contests come as LAPD sworn staffing has shrunk about 12% over the last five years, to about 8,800 officers — the lowest point since 2002. Bass and the council have attempted to reverse the slide by giving raises, increasing starting pay and offering retention bonuses.

Those measures are expected to take a big bite out of the city budget, adding an estimated $1 billion in costs over a four-year period. With city leaders struggling to balance the books, many other city agencies have had to make cuts, leaving positions vacant or eliminating them entirely.

Even with a smaller LAPD, homicides in the city have declined 29% this year compared with the same period in 2022. The number of gunshot victims dropped 27%, according to the LAPD.

Jennifer Macias, who co-chairs the DSA’s L.A. chapter, said her organization added the abolition question to its candidate surveys after George Floyd was murdered by police in Minneapolis. She called the question an important part of the endorsement process — and “integral” to the group’s values.

Macias, who lives in Jefferson Park, said the city needs a way to respond to emergencies without involving police who are “systemically violent.” She described police abolition — the idea of getting to zero officers — as “a North Star goal” that will be achieved only over time, after other programs are put in place.

Advertisement

“Not having the police doesn’t mean that we’re not responding to harm,” she said.

Burgos said that, for her, abolition means moving away from “reactive” law enforcement responses and toward expanded social services, such as job training, job placements and mental health care.

“All of that is community care, and that’s what I am for,” the North Hollywood resident said.

Nazarian, like the three other candidates, said he wants to expand the city’s network of unarmed responders to assist people experiencing nonviolent mental health crises. At the same time, he slammed the idea of police abolition, saying there’s “nothing progressive” about it.

“The rich and the upper class will always find a way. They will hire their own security,” the North Hollywood resident said. “What will be left is the majority of the population — the middle class and the poorer working class — who will be left to fend for themselves.”

Advertisement
A man next to a street.

Los Angeles City Council Candidate Adrin Nazarian says there’s “nothing progressive” about the concept of police abolition.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

Nazarian, whose family fled Iran when he was 8, said there will always be people who seek to victimize others, and therefore, a need for police.

Jurado, for her part, said she has never used the phrase “defund” while referring to the LAPD. At the Cal State L.A. event where she said “F— the police,” she also argued that police should be focusing on gangs, violent crime and “the drugs that are invading our communities.”

In an interview, Jurado said she does not yet know whether she would routinely vote against LAPD spending proposals that come before the council, as one of her closest allies, Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, has done.

Advertisement

“We check boxes” on questionnaires, Jurado said. “But at the end of the day, we use our best judgment.”

Over the last week, Jurado has dismissed the criticism of her “F— the police” remark, saying it was “just a lyric” from a rap song. She called the attack ads from the police union “noise.”

A woman stands in the middle of a street.

Los Angeles City Council candidate Ysabel Jurado said the attacks on her campaign from the police union are just “noise.”

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

If recent L.A. elections are any guide, the Highland Park resident has reason to be confident.

Advertisement

Hernandez, who also represents part of the Eastside, defeated two-term incumbent Gil Cedillo in 2022 while identifying herself as an abolitionist. She scored that victory even after the police union sent mailers warning that her policies would result in the release of rapists and violent criminals.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, while running in 2022, also identified himself as an abolitionist in his DSA questionnaire. He defeated the incumbent, Mitch O’Farrell, by a wide margin.

“Abolition gets thrown out as a scare tactic and a way to divide people,” he said. “But many abolitionists believe that the way we root out crime, the way we stop crime, is by putting resources into families and into communities, and that will eventually lead to a society where we don’t need police officers. It’s very utopian when you think about it.”

Soto-Martínez pointed out that De León courted the Democratic Socialists in 2018, when he was a state lawmaker seeking to unseat U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Although De León’s DSA candidate questionnaire did not include a question about police abolition, he came out in favor of abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency that polices the border.

These days, De León is slamming Jurado as the “handpicked” DSA candidate, calling her public safety views “too dangerous” for L.A. That shows that De León is “a hypocrite,” Soto-Martínez said.

Advertisement

De León, in response, said this year’s DSA is “not the same as the Bernie Sanders DSA in 2016 or 2018.” Abolition of police, he said, is just one area where the group has become too extreme.

De León, who lives in Eagle Rock, has been at odds with Hernandez and Soto-Martínez over copper wire theft, which has left many streets — including the newly built 6th Street Bridge — in darkness. Hernandez and Soto-Martínez cast the only votes against De León’s plan to create a task force to combat such thefts.

Last summer, De León credited the task force with making 82 arrests and recovering 2,000 pounds of copper.

De León’s approach to public safety has resonated with at least some constituents. Last week, dozens gathered in Highland Park to denounce Jurado’s use of the F-word and voice support for the LAPD.

“In this crazy world that we live in, we need to fund the police, not you-know-what the police,” El Sereno resident Eddie Santillan said.

Advertisement

Times staff writer Libor Jany contributed to this report.

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending