Politics
With her city in flames, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass' political future hangs in the balance
Apocalyptic fires had been ravaging Los Angeles for more than 24 hours when Mayor Karen Bass stepped off a plane and into a now-viral encounter that may come to define her mayoralty.
As an Irish reporter who happened to be on her flight hurled questions at her, the mayor of the nation’s second-largest metropolis stood silent and seemingly paralyzed.
“Do you owe citizens an apology for being absent while their homes were burning?” No answer.
“Do you regret cutting the fire department budget by millions of dollars, Madame Mayor?” No answer.
“Have you nothing to say today?”
Bass stared forward, then down at her feet, before pushing her way down the sky bridge and out toward her smoldering city.
She had left Los Angeles on Jan. 4, as the National Weather Service intensified warnings about a coming windstorm, to attend the inauguration of Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama. She remained out of the country as the Palisades fire ignited, then exploded, with other fires soon erupting in and around the city.
She returned Wednesday to public outrage about her whereabouts and questions about empty hydrants, an empty reservoir and, according to some, insufficient resources at the Fire Department. Her handling of questions in the days that followed has only intensified some of that criticism.
Bass has also battled extraordinary dissension in her own ranks, with Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley in interviews Friday characterizing the department as understaffed and underfunded and implying that Bass had failed her. False rumors that night that Bass had fired Crowley added to the chaos and sense that Bass was not entirely in control.
Now — while Bass navigates a calamity that will redefine the city — her political future also hangs in the balance.
In a moment of anguish where people desperately want heroes and villains to make sense of their own pain, Bass has undoubtedly become a punching bag for portions of the city.
Her absence, combined with an unsteady early performance and the unprecedented attack from her fire chief, have only intensified her vulnerabilities. And on X, she has become a much-maligned conservative meme.
But only time will reveal the severity of the political fallout. There will be investigations into whether fire and water officials failed and whether City Hall missed opportunities to make communities more fire resilient. Such answers will take months, if not years, to sort out.
In a belligerent California landscape only provisionally tamed by human hands, fire is an inevitability. Many of the seeds for destruction were sown long before Bass took office — rising temperatures that left hillsides dry and poised to explode with intense winds, planning decisions from generations ago that placed homes inside vulnerable, brush-covered canyons.
Even before last week’s unprecedented firestorms, climate change was reshaping California in terrifying ways, with fire leveling entire communities in places like Santa Rosa and Paradise.
And the hard work of rebuilding is just beginning.
“For all Angelenos, we are hurting, grieving, still in shock and angry. And I am too,” Bass said during a briefing Saturday morning. “The devastation our city has faced. But in spite of the grief, in spite of the anger, in spite of the shock, we have got to stay focused until this time passes, until the fires are out.”
Bass, who declined to be interviewed, pledged a “a full accounting of what worked and especially what did not” once the flames have receded.
Elected in November 2022, the first-term mayor has spent her initial years in office focused on the city’s sprawling and complex homelessness emergency. She has made some incremental progress on homelessness, but had also faced few external crises until last week.
Before the fires, even as Angelenos expressed frustration with the direction of the city, residents still largely approved of her job performance.
But that goodwill is dissipating.
In recent days, the hits have come from all sides, with her 2022 challenger, billionaire mall mogul Rick Caruso, castigating Bass in the media for her absence and handling of the fire.
Caruso, whose Palisades mall survived the conflagration with the help of private firefighters, told The Times last week that Bass’ “terrible” leadership had resulted in “billions of dollars in damage because she wasn’t here and didn’t know what she was doing.”
A Change.org petition demanding her resignation has received more than 120,000 signatures.
Bass, 71, has also been blasted over cutbacks in Fire Department operations, with those attacks coming from both the right and the left. Kenneth Mejia, the city controller and progressive darling, has been particularly critical on social media.
Bass and the city’s budget analysts have pushed back on that budget cut narrative, pointing out the department was projected to grow significantly this year — well before the fires broke out, thanks in large part to a package of firefighter raises.
On Monday morning, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of The Times, said it was “a mistake” for the paper to have endorsed Bass in 2022 in an interview on “The Morning Meeting,” a YouTube-based politics show. (Endorsements are made by The Times’ editorial board, which operates separately from the newsroom.)
Critics have also harped on Bass’ lack of visibility outside of official briefings, saying the former six-term congresswoman has appeared more like a legislator than a chief executive during a moment when residents desperately want to feel reassurance from their leader.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, several members of the county Board of Supervisors and City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, have been more visibly present than the mayor in affected communities and on local news.
But the real crucible for the mayor is only just beginning to take shape, with her political prospects inextricably tied to the almost unfathomably knotty recovery ahead.
In a place long circumscribed by disaster, Bass is facing a catastrophe with financial and logistical burdens that will likely dwarf the combined fallout from the 1994 Northridge earthquake and the 1992 civil unrest. She will also be responsible for a mammoth environmental cleanup effort and the challenge of housing thousands of newly homeless Angelenos in an already supercharged housing market. All of this will have to happen as she prepares for the massive footprint and operational challenges of the coming 2028 Olympics.
Before swaths of the city immolated, the Democratic mayor of an overwhelmingly Democratic city was widely expected to sail into a second term with no serious opponents in the 2026 election.
Potential challengers may now “smell blood in the water,” as one local political consultant put it, and reassess the viability of mounting their own campaigns amid a rapidly shifting political landscape.
A representative for Caruso, a Republican-turned-Democrat who spent more than $100 million of his personal fortune on his 2022 campaign, did not respond when asked if he planned to run again. Jane Nguyen, a spokesperson for Mejia, said the city controller was “focused on the job right now” and had not made any decisions about future races.
“I don’t think this is a fatal situation yet for her reelection chances,” said Ange-Marie Hancock, a former USC political science and international relations department chair, who now leads Ohio State University’s Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.
There is still time for the former South L.A. community organizer to pivot back to the political brand she is known for, defined by “a deep sense of care for the community,” Hancock said.
But it won’t be easy.
Even some political allies have looked askance at the mayor’s handling of the snowballing critiques last week, with several expressing disbelief at the viral airport interview and her tone on followup questions in the days following.
The mayor, who has long brushed off questions she casts as politically motivated with an air of annoyance, was combative and defensive in news conferences when pressed about her trip. It took days for her to publicly acknowledge the level of raw fury being expressed about the city’s fire response.
Only a portion of the lethal conflagrations are within city boundaries, though Bass has also battled blame for the response to the Eaton fire, which is well outside her purview.
Others have condemned Bass’ critics as political vultures who are only hurting the city in an already perilous moment.
“It is not warranted,” Steve Soboroff, a former president of the Los Angeles Police Commission and longtime supporter of the mayor, said of the criticism. “It’s just convenient and easy for people who want to spend their time pointing fingers instead of looking forward. This was an act of God. This was a force majeure. This was beyond anybody’s control.”
Bass obviously does not control the wind, nor can she see the future. And an obliteration of this magnitude required a perfect storm of factors that few would have predicted several days ahead of time.
Still, before Bass left town, the regional branch of the National Weather Service was predicting critical fire conditions, verbiage that shifted to “extreme fire weather conditions” on Jan. 5. By late last Monday morning, they had issued an urgent warning for a “life-threatening & destructive windstorm,” raising nagging questions about the mayor’s priorities and why she did not leave Ghana sooner.
“I don’t understand how they did not cancel her trip,” a senior staffer for another local elected official said, explaining that their office had begun viewing the coming wind event as a grave threat during the preceding weekend. “It was political malpractice.”
The staffer, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said it was common practice for Los Angeles politicians to cancel, or prepare to cancel, prearranged events during severe weather events.
Still, Bass is not the first California political leader to lead in absentia during a moment of exigent crisis.
Former Mayor James Hahn was on a lobbying trip to Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11, 2001, and unable to return to the city for several days with air travel suspended. When the Watts riots erupted in 1965, then-Gov. Pat Brown was famously vacationing in Greece; his absence helped cement his ouster by challenger Ronald Reagan the next year.
In a city of more than 4 million people, TMZ happened to find two prominent Bass supporters — actors Kym Whitley and Yvette Nicole Brown — exiting a San Fernando Valley grocery store on Saturday. They fervently defended Bass in a seemingly impromptu interview.
They implied that Bass was being held to a higher standard as a Black woman and unfairly blamed for a natural disaster.
“When smear campaigns begin against her with a political motive, she’s not the kind to fly her own flag,” Brown said Sunday of the mayor, who typically eschews public political fights. “And more importantly, this is not the time for anyone to be trying to position themselves for the next election.”
The mayor’s quiet style and penchant for soft power, which some have found lacking in this moment of roaring catastrophe, could also be a strength in the months to come.
Bass’ dexterity as a coalition builder and the deep federal relationships that she used as a selling point during her campaign make her particularly well poised to succeed in leading the city’s recovery, Soboroff said.
As other state and local leaders took showboating shots at President-elect Donald Trump, Bass publicly sought to defuse the friction, saying she had been in conversation with representatives of the incoming administration and was not worried about any alleged lack of communication.
“During disasters, we look for someone to blame. But it’s also that our politics have become polarized and nationalized, so this gets used as an excuse to bash on California for a variety of reasons,” said Manuel Pastor, director of the USC Equity Research Institute.
Pastor, who served on Bass’ transition team, cited the echo chamber of disinformation on X and right-wing political actors seizing on the crisis for their own ends.
“She will be judged on the rebuilding, and she will be judged on whether or not the city can get itself in shape for the Olympics,” Pastor said.
Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.
Politics
Pete Hegseth to Face Democratic Questioning in Confirmation Hearing
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to head the Pentagon, is scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday to answer questions on a range of issues, including a sexual assault allegation, his lack of management experience and his comments against women serving in combat.
Mr. Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has a slew of commentary, opinions and allegations to explain, as Democratic lawmakers get their chance to question him about his qualifications to lead the Defense Department, an $849 billion enterprise with nearly three million employees.
Eyes will also be on Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, who is an Army Reserve and National Guard veteran and a sexual assault survivor. Ms. Ernst received a barrage of criticism from Trump supporters last month after she said that Mr. Hegseth needed to address issues including the role of women in the military and sexual assault prevention. Her support is viewed as critical to Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation chances.
Whether Mr. Hegseth has the votes to be confirmed remains an open question. After the committee hearing, the full Senate must vote on the confirmation. If all Democrats oppose him, he can afford to lose the support of just three Republican senators.
A former Army major who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and a member of the National Guard until 2021, Mr. Hegseth will presumably need a congressional waiver that is required for any Pentagon chief who has been retired from active-duty military service less than seven years.
The waivers became big issues during the confirmation hearings for the current defense secretary, Lloyd J. Austin III, and for Jim Mattis, who served as defense secretary during the first Trump administration.
But it has rarely been mentioned ahead of Mr. Hegseth’s hearing because there have been so many other issues to discuss.
The top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were briefed late Friday on the findings from the F.B.I.’s background check of Mr. Hegseth. Other members of the committee expressed concern that they might not have relevant information for Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation hearing.
“I need to see his F.B.I. background check. We need to see his financial disclosures,” said Senator Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois. “And we need to know about any other potential lawsuits he might be facing, any other allegations he might be facing.”
Democrats and Mr. Hegseth’s backers have both complained that the other side has been unresponsive to attempts to arrange meetings with Mr. Hegseth.
Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the committee, is the one Democrat who as of last week had met with Mr. Hegseth. Mr. Reed said in a statement after the two talked on Wednesday that the meeting “raised more questions than answers.”
In addition to the sexual assault allegation against Mr. Hegseth, accusations have also emerged detailing episodes of public drunkenness, workplace sexual improprieties and mismanagement of the veterans nonprofits he ran. Mr. Hegseth has said the sexual assault allegation arose from a consensual encounter. He also told reporters last month that he was “a different man than I was years ago.”
The allegations against Mr. Hegseth have failed to sway most Republican senators, many of whom have argued that senators should discount such claims unless the accusers are willing to come forward publicly.
Mr. Hegseth, who has been married three times, has also acknowledged having extramarital affairs. The New York Times reported last month that his mother, Penelope Hegseth, wrote him an email in 2018 saying he had routinely mistreated women for years and displayed a lack of character.
Mrs. Hegseth later said that she had written the email “in anger, with emotion,” at a time when he and his wife were going through a difficult divorce, and that she apologized for what she had written.
Extramarital affairs and public intoxication can leave officers and troops in the military subject to disciplinary action. Some senior military leaders have questioned privately whether Mr. Hegseth’s confirmation could send conflicting messages to troops about discipline.
Mr. Hegseth’s commentary and writings on a number of issues are also likely to provide fodder for the hearing. In his book “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free,” Mr. Hegseth complained about “woke” generals who he said had made the military “effeminate” by pushing diversity policies.
He said that Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a position that usually works closely with the defense secretary, should be fired for being too “woke.” General Brown is African American.
“America’s white sons and daughters are walking away” from the military, he wrote, “and who can blame them.”
Before he was nominated by Mr. Trump to be defense secretary, Mr. Hegseth said that he did not believe that women should be in combat. “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7. Having women in combat, he said, “hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.”
A month later, he offered some clarification. Asked about the issue on the podcast “The Megyn Kelly Show” in early December, Mr. Hegseth said that “if we have the right standard and women meet that standard, roger — let’s go.” But, he added: “If they can’t, and that’s a product of physical differences because the standard is high, then that’s just the reality.”
Politics
DOJ releases former Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on investigation into Trump election interference case
The Justice Department made public Volume One of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s final report on his now-closed investigations into President-elect Donald Trump, days before he is set to be sworn into office.
Attorney General Merrick Garland released the first volume, which focuses on the election case against Trump, of Smith’s report on Tuesday at midnight after back-and-forth in the federal court system. The report was released at midnight because that was when the original hold on Volume One expired.
An opening letter from Smith, who resigned last week, to Garland said that it is “laughable” that Trump believes the Biden administration, or other political actors, influenced or directed his decisions as a prosecutor, stating that he was guided by the Principles of Federal Prosecution.
“Trump’s cases represented ones ‘in which the offense [was] the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain,’” Smith said, referencing the principles.
APPEALS COURT WILL NOT BLOCK PARTIAL RELEASE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH’S TRUMP REPORT
In the lengthy report, Smith said his office fully stands behind the decision to bring criminal charges against Trump because he “resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power” after he lost the 2020 election.
Smith said in his conclusion that the parties were determining whether any material in the “superseding indictment was subject to presidential immunity” when it became clear that Trump had won the 2024 election. The department then determined the case must be dismissed before he takes office because of how it interprets the Constitution.
“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind,” the report stated.
READ THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:
In an early Tuesday morning post on Truth Social, Trump called Smith “desperate” and “deranged” for releasing his “fake findings” in the middle of the night.
SPECIAL COUNSEL WEISS BLASTS BIDEN IN FINAL HUNTER PROSECUTION REPORT
Garland appointed former Justice Department official Jack Smith as special counsel in November 2022.
Smith, a former assistant U.S. attorney and chief to the DOJ’s public integrity section, led the investigation into Trump’s retention of classified documents after leaving the White House and whether the former president obstructed the federal government’s investigation into the matter.
Smith was also tasked with overseeing the investigation into whether Trump or other officials and entities interfered with the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, including the certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, 2021.
Smith charged Trump in both cases, but Trump pleaded not guilty.
FLASHBACK: ATTORNEY GENERAL GARLAND NAMES SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE TRUMP ON MAR-A-LAGO DOCUMENTS, JAN. 6
The classified records case was dismissed in July 2024 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.
Smith charged Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request.
FLASHBACK: TRUMP SAYS HE ‘WON’T PARTAKE’ IN SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION, SLAMS AS ‘WORST POLITICIZATION OF JUSTICE’
This month, though, Cannon temporarily blocked the release of Smith’s final report. A federal appeals court reversed her ruling, allowing the Justice Department to make Smith’s report public.
In the classified records probe, Smith charged Trump with 37 federal counts including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements. Trump pleaded not guilty.
FLASHBACK: FBI SAID IT HAD ‘PROBABLE CAUSE’ TO BELIEVE ADDITIONAL CLASSIFIED DOCS REMAINED AT MAR-A-LAGO, AFFIDAVIT SAYS
Trump was also charged with an additional three counts as part of a superseding indictment out of the investigation: an additional count of willful retention of national defense information and two additional obstruction counts.
In the 2020 election case, Smith charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; violation of an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. Trump pleaded not guilty.
The cases brought by Smith against Trump never made it to trial in either jurisdiction.
Despite efforts by Trump attorneys to prevent the report’s release, Attorney General Merrick Garland had maintained that he would make at least one volume of Smith’s report public.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Politics
Opinion: Conservatives like me fear Trump will break through guardrails that restrained him last time
President-elect Trump’s imminent return to the White House sparks a pressing question: Can the guardrails of American democracy survive another four years of the only U.S. president who sought to undermine the peaceful transfer of power?
Many of us on the center-right are worried the answer will be “no.” After all, conservatism, at its core, is about conserving the institutions, traditions and hard-won lessons of history.
The guardrails face a tougher test with Trump’s second term. In 2016, his inexperience and the presence of structural safeguards and institutionalists — military officers, establishment Republicans and professional bureaucrats — helped check his worst impulses. In 2025, Trump and his allies are better equipped to evade resistance. He has vowed to purge dissenters and surround himself with loyalists who have learned how to manipulate the levers of power.
As author and former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum warned (alluding to the movie “Jurassic Park”), “This time, the Velociraptors have figured out how to work the doorknobs.” Trump’s proposed Cabinet picks underscore this shift: Kash Patel, who has openly outlined an enemies list in his book “Government Gangsters,” is slated to head the FBI, while former “Fox News Weekend” co-host Pete Hegseth, a staunch ally, is poised to lead the Department of Defense. These appointments signal a deliberate strategy to consolidate power and weaken institutional checks.
Meanwhile, as Trump returns to power, he is now backed by a Republican Party reshaped in his image. Critics like former Rep. Liz Cheney and former Sen. Mitt Romney have been pushed out (the former lost a primary, the latter retired). Figures such as Sen. Mitch McConnell are too diminished to offer meaningful resistance. Former establishment Republicans, like Rep. Elise Stefanik, have fully embraced the MAGA agenda, completing the party’s transformation into a vehicle for Trump’s ambitions.
Outside of politics, the media and major institutions are also faltering as counterweights. Some, unable to stop Trump in the past, are now accommodating him. Settlements like ABC News’ payment to resolve Trump-related defamation claims risk chilling critical reporting (host George Stephanopoulos erroneously said Trump was found liable for rape because he forced himself on writer E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room in 1996, but under New York law the term for Trump’s offense is “sexual abuse”). Social media platforms like Meta seem to be aligning their policies with Trump’s base, for instance by eliminating a fact-checking system that was instituted after Facebook was used to boost the Trump campaign in 2016.
The courts have long served as a vital bulwark of democracy, but questions remain about how long that role can endure. The actions of Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whose rulings and maneuverings in the classified documents case appear to favor Trump, raise concerns about judicial impartiality. Further amplifying these worries are recent examples of potential conflicts of interest involving Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., as well as controversies surrounding their spouses’ political activities.
President Biden has touted his judicial appointees as defenders of the rule of law, and in a recent ceremony, he boasted: “These judges also are a vital check on the excesses of — of other branches of government, including Congress and the executive branch when they overreach and run afoul of the constitutional and institutional safeguards.” Time will tell how effective Biden’s appointees will be at holding the executive branch accountable.
The risks are clear: intimidation and co-option of dissenters, consolidation of power within law enforcement and the military, and systematic weakening of democratic foundations.
Some will dismiss these concerns as hysteria. But conservatives are supposed to sound the alarm when traditional institutions are threatened. Not long ago, for example, many conservatives worried that liberal “social engineering” policies like redefining the institution of marriage or allowing women to serve in combat roles might begin to erode America’s foundational structures.
It is ironic that many of the same conservatives have little concern about preserving fundamental principles like the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power.
So what should those of us who are concerned about Trump’s strongman tendencies do?
First, reject hysteria — rhetorical warnings about “fascism” have proven ineffective at swaying voters, at least so far. We shouldn’t so easily take the bait when Trump trolls us, for example, by saying he wants to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.”
But complacency is equally dangerous. Trump’s return offers an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to democracy and push back against his most harmful impulses. To do so is not to be hysterical, but to be interested in preserving the “last best hope of Earth,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine” held that even a 1% chance of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon warranted treating that existential threat as a certainty. By that logic, the slim possibility of Trump finding a way to remain in office beyond 2028 demands serious attention.
This isn’t a perfect analogy, nor is it a call for panic or extreme measures. Rather, it’s a call for sobriety and vigilance — particularly given Trump’s ongoing efforts to erode the norms and institutions that have safeguarded our democracy.
As Ronald Reagan warned, “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Today, those words resonate as both a reminder and a warning. It’s up to us to protect the democratic institutions that safeguard our liberty — for this generation and the next.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
-
Politics1 week ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health1 week ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
Technology5 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
Science3 days ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology6 days ago
Las Vegas police release ChatGPT logs from the suspect in the Cybertruck explosion
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies’ Review: Thai Oscar Entry Is a Disarmingly Sentimental Tear-Jerker
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Movie Review: Millennials try to buy-in or opt-out of the “American Meltdown”
-
Health1 week ago
Michael J. Fox honored with Presidential Medal of Freedom for Parkinson’s research efforts