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

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Published

on

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

transcript

transcript

Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”

Advertisement
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 4, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

Published

on

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday. 

The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country. 

Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.

Advertisement

The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)

REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.

House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”

Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure. 

Advertisement

Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”

“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.

Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah. 

“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)

Advertisement

RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH

The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.

A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.

The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.

Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.

Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Published

on

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s .8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

Advertisement

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

Advertisement

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

Advertisement

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Advertisement

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

Advertisement

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending