MEXICO CITY — Juan Orlando Hernández, a convicted drug trafficker whom prosecutors said “paved a cocaine superhighway” to the United States, walked out of a West Virginia prison this week a free man.

That was thanks to President Trump, who on Monday granted a full pardon to Hernández, the former right-wing leader of Honduras who was serving a 45-year sentence for supporting what a U.S. attorney general had called “one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking conspiracies in the world.”

Trump’s extraordinary reprieve outraged many in Latin America and raised critical questions about his escalating military campaign in the region, which the president insists is aimed at combating the drug trade.

On Tuesday, Trump warned of imminent “strikes on land” in Venezuela, whose leftist leader, Nicolás Maduro, the White House describes as a “narcodictator” and seems intent on forcing him from power.

“If Trump is supposedly a drug warrior, why did he pardon a convicted trafficker?” said Dana Frank, a professor emerita at the UC Santa Cruz specializing in recent Honduran and Latin American history. She described the drug war narrative embraced by the White House as little more than a pretext to push U.S. economic and political interests in the region and justify “a hemispheric attack on governments that are not following what the United States wants.”

The U.S. has killed dozens of alleged low-level drug traffickers in missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, and has massed 15,000 troops and a fleet of warships and fighter jets off the coast of Venezuela.

Venezuela, home to the world’s largest known oil reserves, has been controlled by Maduro’s leftist authoritarian government since 2013.

The White House has gone to great lengths this year to cast Maduro as a drug trafficking mastermind who leads a smuggling network known as Cartel de los Soles that is composed of high-ranking Venezuelan military officials. Last month the administration designated Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist group.

But security experts in Venezuela and law enforcement officials in the U.S. say Cartel de los Soles is not a well-organized drug smuggling organization like the cartels of Mexico. They say it also is unclear whether Maduro directs illicit activities or whether he simply looks the other way, perhaps in a bid to build loyalty, while his generals enrich themselves. Maduro says the accusations are false and that the U.S. is trying to remove him from office to gain access to Venezuelan oil.

The evidence against Hernández, on the other hand, was much more damming.

Hernández was implicated in multiple drug trafficking cases brought by U.S. authorities, who accused him of helping traffic 400 tons of drugs through Honduras and of accepting millions of dollars in bribes from Mexican cartel kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Hernández, prosecutors said, used his army to protect traffickers and once boasted that he was going to “shove the drugs right up the noses of the gringos” by flooding the U.S. with cocaine.

Hernández insisted that the case against him was politically motivated and that his 2024 conviction relied on testimony of witnesses — largely convicted drug traffickers — who were not credible. The Trump administration cited those reasons this week when explaining the president’s pardon.

Hernández’s wife, Ana Gracía de Hernández, cast the pardon as an act of justice, writing on social media, “After nearly four years of pain, waiting, and difficult trials, my husband Juan Orlando Hernández RETURNED to being a free man, thanks to the presidential pardon granted by President Donald Trump.”

The pardon appears related to a Trump administration effort to sway the results of the recent Honduran presidential election.

Ahead of Sunday’s vote, Trump threatened on social media to withhold aid from Honduras if voters did not elect the conservative candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura, who is a member of the same conservative National Party that Hernández belongs to.Trump also slammed the current Honduran president, leftist Xiamora Castro.

Election results were still being counted Tuesday but showed Asfura neck-and-neck with another conservative, Liberal Party candidate Salvador Nasralla. Castro was trailing far behind.

Since returning to the White House this year, Trump has sought to exert dominance in Latin America like few presidents in recent memory, cutting deals with right-wing leaders such as Argentina’s Javier Millei and El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele and punishing leftist governments with tariffs and sanctions.

Trump and his officials have overtly sought to influence other elections, supporting right-wing candidates in recent elections in Argentina and Peru.

“It’s a bullying of the democratic process,” Frank said. “It’s a heartbreak for the sovereignty of these countries.”

At home, Trump has repeatedly intervened in the justice system with pardons.

Trump’s decision to pardon Hernández comes amid a flurry of clemency actions from the president, whose pardon attorney, Ed Martin, has openly advocated for Justice Department investigations that would burden Trump’s political enemies, paired with leniency for his friends and allies. “No MAGA left behind,” Martin wrote on social media in May.

Legal experts say the president’s pardons and commutations appear targeted toward individuals accused of abuses of power and white-collar crimes — the sort of crimes that Trump has been charged with throughout his adult life.

Just in the last several weeks, the president has offered commutations to George Santos, a former congressman convicted of defrauding donors, and David Gentile, a private equity executive convicted of a $1.6-billion scheme that prosecutors say defrauded thousands of ordinary investors.

He also pardoned Changpeng Zhao, a crypto finance executive with ties to the Trump family who pleaded guilty to money laundering, as well as Paul Walczak, a nursing home executive who pleaded guilty to tax crimes, only for his mother to secure clemency for him at a Mar-a-Lago dinner.

The clemency actions have divided Trump’s base of supporters, some of whom see the president as protecting conservative voices that faced political prosecutions under the Biden administration. Others still see Trump protecting rich allies as much of the country faces an affordability crisis.

Linthicum reported from Mexico City and Wilner from Washington.

President Donald Trump is continuing to advocate for the Senate GOP to nix the filibuster.

In a Monday Truth Social post, the president shared a video featuring clips of former Attorney General Eric Holder, who opined that if Democrats win a “trifecta” in the 2028 elections, the prospect of expanding the Supreme Court should be under consideration. 

Holder made the comment while speaking with Ben Meiselas, co-founder of MeidasTouch, which posted the video last month.

SENATOR RON JOHNSON WARNS GOP WILL BE IN ‘BIG TROUBLE’ IF PARTY IGNORES DEMOCRATS’ PLAN TO ‘NUKE’ FILIBUSTER

In the Monday Truth Social post, Trump referred to Holder, who served under Democratic President Barack Obama, as an “Obama sycophant” and said that “Eric Holder (known as ‘FAST AND FURIOUS’) just gave a Speech where he emphatically stated, above all else, that Democrats will PACK the Supreme Court of the United States if they get the chance. The word is, he wants 21 Radical Left Activist Judges, not being satisfied with the heretofore 15 that they were seeking.”

Trump suggested that eliminating the filibuster would enable Republicans to win in the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 White House contest.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER CALLS ON DEMOCRATS TO FOCUS ON SUPREME COURT EXPANSION, TERM LIMITS

“It will be 21, they will destroy our Constitution, and there’s not a thing that the Republicans can do about it unless we TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, which will lead to an easy WIN of the Midterms, and an even easier WIN in the Presidential Election of 2028,” he asserted.

JOHN FETTERMAN RIPS JAMES CARVILLE OVER COURT-PACKING PLAN, TELLS DEMOCRATS TO ‘WIN MORE ELECTIONS’

“Why would the Republicans even think about giving them this opportunity? The American People don’t want gridlock, they want their Leaders to GET THINGS DONE — TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, AND HAVE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FOUR YEARS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, BY FAR, WITH NOT EVEN THE HINT OF A SHUTDOWN OF OUR GREAT NATION ON JANUARY 30TH!” Trump declared in the post.

Outraged Santa Barbara residents jumped into action when a developer unveiled plans last year for a towering apartment complex within sight of the historic Old Mission.

They complained to city officials, wrote letters and formed a nonprofit to try and block the project. Still, the developer’s plans went forward.

Then something unusual happened.

Four hundred miles away in Sacramento, state lawmakers quietly tucked language into an obscure budget bill requiring an environmental impact study of the proposed development — which housing advocates allege was an attempt to block the project.

The legislation, Senate Bill 158, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, didn’t mention the Santa Barbara project by name. But the provision was so detailed and specific it couldn’t apply to any other development in the state.

The fallout was swift: The developer sued the state and a Santa Barbara lawmaker, the powerful new president of the state Senate, is under scrutiny over her role in the bill.

The saga highlights the governor’s and state Legislature’s growing influence in local housing decisions, and the battle between cities and Sacramento to address California’s critical housing shortage.

In the face of California’s high cost of housing and rent, state leaders are increasingly passing new housing mandates that require cities and counties to accelerate the construction of new housing and ease the barriers impeding developers.

In this case, the law targeting the Santa Barbara development does the opposite by making it harder to build.

‘A horrendous nightmare’

The fight started last year after developers Craig and Stephanie Smith laid out ambitious plans for an eight-story housing project with at least 250 apartments at 505 East Los Olivos St.

The five-acre site is near the Old Mission Santa Barbara, which draws hundreds of thousands of tourists each year.

In Santa Barbara, a slow-growth haven where many apartment buildings are two stories, the Los Olivos project was perceived as a skyscraper. The mayor, Randy Rowse, called the proposal “a horrendous nightmare,” according to local media site Noozhawk.

But the developer had an advantage. California law requires cities and counties to develop plans for growth every eight years to address California’s increasing population. Jurisdictions are required to pinpoint areas where housing or density could be added.

If cities and counties fail to develop plans by each eight-year deadline, a provision kicks in called “builder’s remedy.”

It allows developers to bypass local zoning restrictions and build bigger, denser projects as long as low or moderate-income units are included.

Santa Barbara was still working with the state on its housing plan when the deadline passed in February 2023. The plan was complete by December of that year, but didn’t become official until the state certified it in February 2024.

Opponents of the proposed Santa Barbara development, clockwise from bottom left: Cheri Rae, Brian Miller, Evan Minogue, Tom Meaney, Fred Sweeney and Steve Forsell.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

A month prior, in January, the developers submitted their plans. And since they included 54 low-income units, the city couldn’t outright deny the project.

“The developers were playing chess while the city was playing checkers,” said Evan Minogue, a Santa Barbara resident opposed to the development.

He said older generations in California resisted change, leaving the state to come in with “heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all policies to force cities to do something about housing.”

Santa Barbara, a wealthy city that attracts celebrities, bohemian artist-types and environmental activists, has a long history of fighting to keep its small-town feel.

In 1975, the City Council adopted a plan to limit development, along with water consumption and traffic, and keep a cap on the city’s population at 85,000. In the late ‘90s, actor Michael Douglas — an alum of UC Santa Barbara — donated money to preserve the city’s largest stretch of coastal land.

Hemmed in by the Santa Ynez Mountains, the city is dominated by low-slung buildings and single-family homes. The median home value is $1.8 million, according to Zillow. A city report last year detailed the need for 8,000 more units, primarily for low-income households, over the coming years.

Stephanie and Craig Smith, the developers of the project at 505 East Los Olivos Street.

(Ashley Gutierrez)

Assemblymember Gregg Hart, whose district includes Santa Barbara, supports the language in the budget bill requiring the environmental review. He doesn’t want to see the proposed development tower over the Old Mission and blames the builder’s remedy law for its introduction.

“It’s a brilliant illustration of how broken the ‘builder’s remedy’ system is,” said Hart. “Proposing projects like this undermines support for building density in Santa Barbara.”

Similar pushback has been seen in Santa Monica, Huntington Beach and other small cities as developers scramble to use the builder’s remedy law. A notable example recently played out in La Cañada Flintridge, where developers pushed through a mixed-use project with 80 units on a 1.29-acre lot despite fierce opposition from the city.

Still, the controversial law doesn’t exempt developments from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, the state’s landmark policy requiring a study of the project’s effects on traffic, air quality and more.

The developers behind the Los Olivos Street project sought to avoid the environmental review, however, because of a new state law that allows many urban infill projects to avoid such requirements. Assembly Bill 130, based on legislation introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), was signed into law by Newsom in June.

When the Los Olivos developers asked city officials about using AB 130 for their project, a Santa Barbara community developer director told them in July 2025 that the CEQA review was necessary. AB 130 doesn’t apply if the project is planned near a creek and wetland habitat, or other environmentally sensitive area, the director wrote.

Months later, the state Legislature passed its budget bill requiring the review.

Santa Barbara residents who oppose the project said they didn’t ask for the bill.

But if the review finds that traffic from the development would overwhelm fire evacuation routes, for instance, they may have an easier time fighting the project.

“We don’t want to come off as NIMBYs,” resident Fred Sweeney, who opposes the project, said, referring to the phrase “not in my backyard.” Sweeney, an architect, and others started the nonprofit Smart Action for Growth and Equity to highlight the Los Olivos project and a second one planned by the same developer.

Standing near the project site on a recent day, Sweeney pointed as cars lined up along the main road. It wasn’t yet rush hour, but traffic was already building.

A ‘really strange’ bill

Buried deep in Senate Bill 158, the bill passed by state lawmakers targeting the Los Olivos project, is a mention of the state law around infill urban housing developments. Senate Bill 158 clarified that certain developments should not be exempt from this law.

Developments in “a city with more than 85,000 but fewer than 95,000 people, and within a county of between 440,00 and 455,000 people,” and which are also near a historical landmark, regulatory floodway and watershed, are not exempt, the bill stated.

According to the 2020 census, Santa Barbara has a population of 88,768. Santa Barbara County has a population of 448,229. And the project sits near both a creek and the Santa Barbara Mission.

The controversial development fit the bill.

Monique Limón is president pro tem of the California state Senate.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

A representative for Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón told CalMatters that the senator was involved in crafting that exemption language.

During a tour of an avocado farm in Ventura last month, Limón declined to comment on her role. She cited the lawsuit and directed questions to Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office.

Limón, who was born and raised in Santa Barbara, confirmed that she did talk to Sweeney — who started the nonprofit to fight the development — about opposition to the development.

The Los Olivos project had “a lot of community involvement and participation,” she said. “In terms of feedback, what I understand, reading the articles, there are over 400 people that have weighed in on it … it’s a very public project.”

Limón also defended her housing record.

“Every piece of legislation I author or review, I do so based on the needs of our state but also with the lens of the community I represent — whether that is housing, education, environmental protections or any other issues that come across my desk,” Limón said.

The developers filed a lawsuit against the city and state in October, claiming that SB 158 targets one specific project: theirs. As such, it would be illegal under federal law, which bans “special legislation” that targets a single person or property.

The home currently located at the proposed development site.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The suit claims that Limón promoted and ushered the bill through the state Senate, argues that it should be overturned and questions the required environmental review, which would likely add years to its timeline and millions to its budget.

Stephanie Smith, one of the developers, told The Times that the bill was born of the “protests of wealthy homeowners, many of whom cosplay as housing advocates until the proposed housing is in their neighborhood.”

“As a former homeless student who worked full time and lived in my car, I know what it means to struggle to afford housing. Living without security or dignity gave me a foundational belief that housing is a nonnegotiable basic human right,” Smith said.

Public policy advocates and experts expressed concern about state lawmakers using their power to meddle with local housing projects, especially when carving out exemptions from laws they’ve imposed on everyone else in the state.

“It’s hard to ignore when legislation is drafted in a narrowly tailored way — especially when such language appears late in the process with little public input,” said Sean McMorris of good government group California Common Cause. “Bills developed in this manner risk fostering public cynicism about the legislative process and the motivations behind narrowly focused policymaking.”

UC Davis School of Law professor Chris Elmendorf, who specializes in housing policy, called the bill’s specific language “really strange” and questioned whether it would survive a legal challenge.

He expects to see more pleadings for exemptions from state housing laws.

“Local groups that don’t want the project are going to the legislature to get the relief that, in a previous era, they would have gotten from their city council,” Elmendorf said.

UC Santa Barbara student Enri Lala is the founder and president of a student housing group. He said the bill goes against a recent pro-housing movement in the area.

“It’s certainly out of the ordinary,” said Lala. “This is not the kind of move that we want to see repeated in the future.”