West Coast

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Ridiculous blunder’: Trump wades into California’s water wars – and strikes some of his strongest supporters

      by

      Under orders from Donald Trump, billions of gallons of irrigation water were laid waste in California’s thirsty agricultural hub this month, a move that left water experts shocked and local officials scrambling.The water, stored in two reservoirs operated by the army corps of engineers, is a vital source for many farms and ranches in the state’s sprawling and productive San Joaquin valley during the driest times of the year. It will be especially important in the coming months as the region braces for another brutally hot summer with sparse supplies.The reservoirs are also among the few the US president can control directly.Staged to give weight to Trump’s widely debunked claims that flows could have helped Los Angeles during last month’s devastating firestorm and to show that he holds some power over California’s water, he ordered the army corps to flood the channels. Less than an hour of notice was reportedly given to water authorities down-river who rushed to prepare for the unexpected release, which threatened to inundate nearby communities.The move is just the latest in a series of misinformed attempts Trump has made to wade into California’s water wars, adding new challenges and conflicts over the state’s essential and increasingly scarce water resources. But in what now appears to be just a political stunt, Trump has struck some of his strongest supporters. Many counties across California’s rural Central valley – home to much of its roughly $59bn agricultural industry – backed Trump in the last election, forming a red strip at the heart of the blue state.“It is almost mind-boggling that this has happened,” said Thomas Holyoke, a professor of political science and water expert at California State University, Fresno, calling the act a “ridiculous blunder”.Experts, who were left scratching their heads in the aftermath, have found no justification for the order. The reservoirs were not at risk of overflowing and irrigation is not necessary during the wetter winter months. These releases also did not support threatened ecosystems such as those in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, where contentious debates continue about flows and diversions.Some have suggested the flows will help bolster groundwater stores, “but a lot of that water will end up evaporating,” said Holyoke. “It’s just going to be water lost – and they know it.”‘Purely a stunt’Governed by agreements between an array of stakeholders and close coordination between federal and local officials, releases from these reservoirs are typically well-planned. Lake Kaweah and Lake Success, the two reservoirs in Tulare county, are part of a sprawling network of channels that do not flow to the ocean or connect to the aqueduct serving the southern part of the state.The water held within them is also largely spoken for. Its distribution isn’t often contentious.But Trump, it seems, saw it differently.“Everybody should be happy about this long fought Victory!” he said in a post on Truth Social the day the release was ordered, boasting that he opened a flow for 5.2bn gallons of water alongside a photo of a nondescript waterway.Acting quickly, local authorities were able to convince federal officials to bring that total down to 2bn, which was released over three days.View image in fullscreenBut Trump’s rhetoric around the issue hasn’t shifted. He has made several false statements about water in California and his ability to direct it including claims that he sent the US military to turn on the water in the aftermath of the deadly fires, his clear misunderstanding about where water supplies originate from and distribute to, and his allusion to a simple valve that can be turned to control water supply.He posted again thanking the army corps of engineers “for their LOVE of our Country, and SPEED in getting this Emergency DONE! [sic]” saying that water was “heading to farmers throughout the State, and to Los Angeles”, even as experts repeatedly debunked this claim.“Those releases had absolutely zero to do with anything to do in Los Angeles,” said Gregory Pierce, a water policy expert and the director of the UCLA Water Resources Group, adding that this also did not benefit anyone in the central valley. “This was a stunt purely so Trump could say that he did something and released the water.”Few have been willing to admonish the administration for the move. Support for Trump and hopes that he will aid agriculture with its water woes is still strong in this region.“I have a conservative mindset. I encourage the trigger-pulling attitude, like: ‘Hey, let’s just get stuff done,’” Zack Stuller, a farmer and president of the Tulare county farm bureau told Politico, admitting that the reservoir release was a little nerve-wracking.The bureau declined to comment to the Guardian, but sent a combined statement from the four water management associations and districts, which attempted to make sense of the puzzling and dangerous release. In it, they said there would be “continued close coordination with the Administration and the Army Corp of Engineers”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSome locals who said they were deeply concerned about the act and its outcome said they were afraid to speak out because their businesses might be targeted by supporters of the administration.While Trump continues to frame the action as evidence that he has taken power over California water, he isn’t able to control much water policy in the state, according to Pierce.“The federal government of course matters for water in California, but not that much,” he said, adding that’s why Trump ordered releases where he was able to, even if they weren’t connected to the overall problem he was claiming to address. The federal government does play a role in funding big projects but “California’s been left on an island with respect to federal support for quite some time,” he said.Trump has tried to exert more control through funding, especially now that the state is depending on the federal government for aid in the aftermath of the Los Angeles wildfires, now considered one of the most costly natural disasters in history with damage estimates climbing above $250bn.View image in fullscreenTrump has cast California’s governor Gavin Newsom as his opponent on the issue, but when it comes to water, and more specifically boosting supplies of it for cities and agriculture, the two might already be on the same page.The state recently issued a fact-check on Trump’s claims, which criticized him for spreading misinformation, but highlighted how supplies have increased since Trump’s first term.Environmental advocates have long criticized the Delta Conveyance, a controversial infrastructure project championed by Newsom that would reroute more water to the south, which could get even more momentum under a Trump presidency.“The governor is actually aligned with Trump on this and I think Trump has only recently figured that out,” Pierce said. “The cards are certainly stacking up that that’s going to be pushed forward.”That doesn’t mean that Trump’s misleading rhetoric won’t leave a mess.“President Trump comes blundering into this complex situation with no understanding at all or no effort at understanding how it works,” said Holyoke.“California is trying to strike a delicate balance,” he added, detailing the challenging and layered issues that come with distributing essential resources to residents, the agricultural industry, and declining ecosystems as the world warms and supplies run short.“Farmers in the valley are hurting from water cutbacks, there is no question about that,” Holyoke said. “The answer isn’t to toss all the laws and court orders aside and throw lots of water at farmers. We simply need to find inventive ways to make the best use of the water that we have.” More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats demand conflict-of-interest answers over Elon Musk ‘Doge’ role

      by

      The California senator Adam Schiff has demanded answers about Elon Musk’s potential conflicts of interest in his role leading the “department of government efficiency” (Doge), as evidence grows of his complex business relationship with agencies now facing cuts.In a Monday letter to the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, Schiff accused Musk of operating in a legal grey zone, noting that as a “special government employee” Musk is subject to strict conflict-of-interest regulations while retaining “significant financial interests in multiple private companies that benefit from federal government contracts”.He is now demanding a response before 13 February about whether Musk had completed a financial disclosure report and whether he had received any waivers exempting him from potential penalties for financial entanglements.“Mr Musk’s compliance with federal conflicts of interest and other related obligations remains unknown to Congress and the public,” the letter read.The controversy centers on Musk’s dual role as a government official and CEO of companies under federal scrutiny, including Starlink, a satellite internet service operated by Musk’s SpaceX. Most notably, USAid was investigating Starlink’s operations in Ukraine just months before Musk, as Doge chief, moved to dismantle the agency.USAid inspector general Paul K Martin confirmed to Congress in September that the agency was looking into its oversight of Starlink terminals provided to Ukraine. The investigation focused on a 2022 collaboration where USAid helped deliver 5,000 Starlink terminals to the war-torn nation.Tesla, valued at $1.25tn – more than all other American automakers combined – faces multiple federal investigations that could be affected by Doge’s restructuring and government regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s investigation into Tesla’s autopilot system identified design flaws that “led to foreseeable misuse and avoidable crashes” in an April report linking the technology to 13 fatalities.Further entanglements arise from Neuralink, Musk’s brain computer chip company. The firm received FDA clearance for human trials in May 2023 after initially being denied permission, but remains under investigation by the FDA and the Department of Agriculture over its animal testing practices. Reuters reported that approximately 1,500 animals died in four years of testing at Neuralink facilities.“Mr Musk’s companies have been the subject of at least 20 recent investigations or reviews by federal agencies, which heightens the risk that Mr Musk may seek to use his new position to shield his companies from federal scrutiny,” Schiff wrote.Last weekend, a federal judge blocked Doge-affiliated employees from accessing a sensitive Department of the Treasury payment system that handles 90% of federal payments. Another judge temporarily halted Doge’s move to place thousands of USAid employees on immediate leave – a decision that would have effectively ended the agency’s ongoing investigations.In response, Musk posted on X that the judge who made the decision should be impeached, and later suggested that the “worst 1% of appointed judges” be purged yearly.The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has claimed Musk would “excuse himself” from any conflicts, but Schiff says such assurances are insufficient.“Unless [Wiles] or another senior White House official, in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics, provided a written waiver prior to Mr Musk’s appointment as a special government employee, Mr Musk may have violated the federal criminal conflict of interest statute by undertaking acts otherwise prohibited by law,” Schiff wrote in the letter.Send us a tip
      If you have information you’d like to share securely with the Guardian about the impact of cuts to federal programs, please use a non-work device to contact us via the Signal messaging app at (646) 886-8761 or JosephGedeon.01 More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      California city partners with US border patrol to surveil beach for migrant boats

      by

      Leaders of the southern California city of San Clemente, located about halfway between Los Angeles and San Diego, are partnering with US Customs and Border Protection to place surveillance cameras along the city’s beach to detect boats carrying passengers attempting to enter the country without authorization.At a Tuesday gathering of the town’s city council, members ordered city manager Andy Hall to begin coordinating with Customs and Border Protection (CBP).Mayor Steven Knoblock – a Republican who was elected in November on a public safety platform – told the Los Angeles Times the cameras are intended to spot fishing boats, called pangas, attempting to dock on San Clemente’s shores and to lower crime rates.“People have observed pangas crammed with illegal aliens, hitting our beach, and then scattering in the community or jumping into a van, which is parked nearby and ready to receive them,” Knoblock told the LA Times.He added: “San Clemente has had significant crime issues with the sophisticated Chilean burglary rings hitting our neighborhoods on a very systematic basis and continues to be a problem.”The state of California has prohibited law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities since 2017, when the state passed its “sanctuary state” law in an effort to prevent mass deportations during the first Trump administration. After Donald Trump’s victory in the November 2024 election, Democratic California governor Gavin Newsom gathered lawmakers for a special legislative session to “Trump-proof” the state. But since wildfires devastated much of southern California, the state is now seeking federal aid to rebuild.Before San Clemente city council members voted to collaborate with CBP on the camera initiative, the city had been considering joining a lawsuit against the state’s sanctuary law.San Clemente will not technically be violating the sanctuary state law by coordinating with CBP. The law specifically prevents law enforcement from cooperating with CBP, but San Clemente does not have its own police force. Instead, the city will work directly with border patrol.Knoblock has proposed installing cameras that operate 24/7 and cover about 7 miles of territory.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I’m recommending the cameras being aimed oceanward with a rotating telescopic lens and thermal imaging for night viewing,” Knoblock told the LA Times. “This additional visibility will hopefully provide interdiction prior to [migrants] hitting our beaches.”City officials are also considering ways to open access to the footage to the public.This is not Knoblock’s first time challenging California sanctuary laws. As a city council member in 2022 he sponsored a measure calling for California to become a “sanctuary city for life” – in contrast with California’s laws permitting abortion.Nor is it the first time a California city has challenged the state’s sanctuary law for immigrants. In December, the San Diego county sheriff said she would cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement despite state laws prohibiting such activity. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrat Derek Tran ousts Republican rival in key California House seat

      by

      Democrat Derek Tran ousted Republican Michelle Steel in a southern California House district Wednesday that was specifically drawn to give Asian Americans a stronger voice on Capitol Hill.Steel said in a statement: “Like all journeys, this one is ending for a new one to begin.” When she captured the seat in 2020, Steel joined Washington state Democrat Marilyn Strickland and California Republican Young Kim as the first Korean American women elected to Congress.Tran, a lawyer and worker rights advocate and the son of Vietnamese refugees, declared victory earlier this week. He said his win “is a testament to the spirit and resilience of our community. As the son of Vietnamese refugees, I understand firsthand the journey and sacrifices many families in our district have made for a better life.”The contest is one of the last to be decided this year, with Republicans now holding 220 seats in the House, with Democrats at 214. The Associated Press has not declared a winner in California’s 13th district, where Democrat Adam Gray was leading Republican John Duarte by a couple of hundred votes.Steel held an early edge after election day, but late-counted ballots pushed Tran over the top.Steel filed a statement of candidacy on Monday with federal regulators, which would allow her to continue raising funds. It wasn’t immediately clear if she planned to seek a return to Congress.In the campaign, Tran warned of Republican threats to abortion rights. Steel opposes abortion with exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman, while not going so far as to support a federal ban. Tran also warned that Donald Trump’s return to the White House would put democracy at risk.On Capitol Hill, Steel has been outspoken in resisting tax increases and says she stands strongly with Israel in its war with Hamas. “As our greatest ally in the Middle East, the United States must always stand with Israel,” she said. She advocates for more police funding and has spotlighted her efforts on domestic violence and sexual abuse.The largest demographic in the district, which is anchored in Orange county, south-east of Los Angeles, is Asian Americans, and it includes the nation’s biggest Vietnamese community. Democrats hold a four-point registration edge.Incomplete returns showed that Steel was winning in Orange county, the bulk of the district. Tran’s winning margin came from a small slice of the district in Los Angeles county, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly two to one. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris had a whirlwind 107-day campaign. What’s next for her?

      by

      Whatever happened to Kamala Harris? For 107 days she was everywhere, filling TV screens and campaign rallies in her whirlwind bid for the White House. Then, with election defeat by Donald Trump, it all ended as abruptly as it began. The rest is silence.“The vice-president has taken time off to go spend time with her family,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Thursday, acknowledging that Harris is holidaying in Hawaii with husband Doug Emhoff. “She has worked very hard for the last four years, and her taking a couple of days to be with her family, good for her.”With Trump’s special brand of chaos already dominating the Washington agenda, Harris’s vice-presidency is clearly in a winding down. When she formally leaves office on 20 January, she will face her first spell as a private citizen since she was elected San Francisco’s district attorney in 2003.Speculation has already begun as to what might come next. While Harris, 60, has not announced any specific plans, supporters suggest that options include a move into the private sector, a return to California politics – or another presidential run in 2028.Bakari Sellers, a close ally of Harris and former representative from South Carolina, said: “She can do anything she wants to do. She’s more than capable. She’s given this country more than enough. She can go to the private sector and make money. She can go to a law school and teach.“She can be governor of California and pretty much clear the field. She can run for president again. Or she can just say to hell with it and go and spend time with Dougie. That decision hasn’t been made yet but her options are plentiful.”The last incumbent vice-president to lose an election was Al Gore in 2000. He went on to make an Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and win the Nobel peace prize for his efforts to combat the climate crisis.Election losers since then have included John Kerry, later a secretary of state, and John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom served in the Senate. Hillary Clinton wrote a book about her 2016 defeat entitled What Happened, while the 2020 election loser, Trump, bounced back to regain the White House earlier this month.Harris might be tempted by a spell in the private sector. Law firms and lobbying groups would welcome her legal background and political connections. Alternatively she could contribute to the policy debate by joining a thinktank or launching her own advocacy organisation.She could also write a book offering her perspective on her time in Joe Biden’s White House, including its internal tensions, and her hastily improvised campaign against Trump. Its level of candour would probably depend on whether she is planning a return to the political arena.California governor Gavin Newsom is term-limited in 2026, raising the prospect of Harris seeking to make more history by becoming the state’s first female governor. As a former California senator and attorney general, she enjoys high name recognition in the state and would have no problem attracting donors.Harris would be following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon, who lost the 1960 presidential election and ran for California governor two years later. But he lost that race, too. He told reporters: “You don’t have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last news conference.” He roared back to win the presidency in 1968.View image in fullscreenHarris would, however, face competition from fellow Democrats in 2026. Lieutenant governor Eleni Kounalakis, a longtime Harris ally, has already announced her candidacy, potentially setting up a contentious primary contest.Bill Whalen, a political consultant and speechwriter who has worked for California governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson, said: “There’s a gubernatorial race sitting there waiting for her if she wants it. If you look at the polls, there is no clear frontrunner. If she were to jump in, she would immediately push most Democrats out of the race and, given California’s politics, if it’s her versus a Republican in November, she would be a cinch to win it.”The governorship of California, the most populous state in the US, would offer a high-profile platform that could keep Harris in the national spotlight and potentially position her for a future presidential run. Like Newsom, Harris could style herself as a leader of the Democratic resistance to Trump.But focusing on a gubernatorial race could detract from Harris’s efforts to build national support and momentum for a potential 2028 presidential campaign. Whalen, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California, said: “The question is, does she want to be a governor or does she want to be a president? If she wants to be president, then governor is not the right path because she would have to run for that office in 2026 and pivot right around and run for president in 2027.”If Harris became governor, she might have to wait until 2032 for another White House bid. Whalen commented: “That’s a long time to wait in politics. If she wants to run for president again, then it’s pretty simple: she and Gavin Newsom and [Illinois governor] JB Pritzker and others have to figure out who is the tip of the spear of the so-called resistance. That would be the card for her to play.”Democrats are still shellshocked by Harris’s 312-to-226 defeat by Trump in the electoral college. But as of Thursday’s count, she was trailing Trump by only 1.7% in the national popular vote. She had a total of 74.3m votes, the third-highest popular vote total in history after Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024.The idea of Harris making another bid for the White House in 2028 is already being floated. She retains access to the Democratic party’s most extensive donor network.A Morning Consult opinion poll this week found that 43% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they would vote for Harris if the party’s 2028 presidential primary were held today. She was well ahead of transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg at 9% and Newsom at 8%.But precedent is against her. Democrats have historically shown little appetite for re-nominating candidates who previously lost presidential elections, as Gore could testify. Moreover, following the defeats of both Clinton and Harris, the party will undoubtedly grapple with whether they want to put forward a woman for the third time. Democrats may also be inclined to move on from the Biden-Harris era and seek fresh faces.Chris Scott, who was coalitions director for Harris during the campaign, said: “I have no idea what she plans on doing next. I have definitely heard the reports, as have a lot of folks around her, of her potentially running for governor. It would be a great thing for California if that was what she decided to do and it also keeps her in the conversation.”Scott pointed to Harris’s strong advocacy for issues such as reproductive rights and economic opportunity. “There is a chance that she could run in 2028 again. Obviously a lot of things have to look different next time around. But a loss here does not negate that she has been an outstanding public servant for her entire career. It is my hope that we have not seen the last of her in politics.” More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      How Trump 2.0 might affect the wildfire crisis: ‘The harms will be more lasting’

      by

      In the days that followed Donald Trump’s election win, flames roared through southern California neighborhoods. On the other side of the country, wildfire smoke clouded the skies in New York and New Jersey.They were haunting reminders of a stark reality: while Trump prepares to take office for a second term, the complicated, and escalating, wildfire crisis will be waiting.As the climate crisis unfolds, communities across the country are spending seasons under smoke-filled skies. Federal firefighters are overworked and underpaid, the cost of fire suppression has climbed, and millions of people are at risk of losing their insurance. Landscapes and homes alike have been reduced to ash as the world continues to warm.The president-elect has offered few plans to address the emergency. Instead, he’s promised to deliver a wave of deregulation, cripple climate-supporting agencies, and clear departments of logistical experts relied upon during disasters.His allies, including the authors of Project 2025, a conservative playbook for a second Trump administration, have recommended privatizing parts of the federal government that now serve the public good.In the past week, Trump’s announcements for key cabinet nominations has already shown he’s begun to solidify an anti-science agenda.“Whatever happens at a broad scale is going to affect our ability to manage risks, respond to emergencies, and plan for the future, “ said University of California climate scientist Daniel Swain. “I don’t see any way there won’t be huge effects.”Here are the challenges ahead:Setting the stakesLooking back at his first term, Trump had a poor record managing large wildfire emergencies – and he had many opportunities. After presiding over the response to destructive blazes that left a devastating toll, including the Camp fire that claimed the lives of 85 people in and around the town of Paradise, in 2020 he told a crowd in Pennsylvania that high-risk fire states such as California, and their residents, were to blame.“I said you gotta clean your floors, you gotta clean your forests – there are many, many years of leaves and broken trees and they’re like, like, so flammable, you touch them and it goes up,” he said. That year, a record 10.2m acres were charred across the US.In a signal of how politicized disaster management in the Trump era became, he added: “Maybe we’re just going to have to make them pay for it because they don’t listen to us.”Such comments raised fears among experts and officials working to protect these landscapes and the neighborhoods near them that Trump didn’t understand the magnitude of the risks US forests faced.He’s been unwilling to embrace the strategies that the scientists and landscape managers recommend to help keep catastrophic fire in check, including a delicate and tailored approach to removing vegetation in overgrown forests, protecting old-growth stands, and following those treatments with prescribed burning.The risks and challenges have only intensified since his first term.Some in the wildfire response communities are hopeful that Trump will cut red tape that’s slowed progress on important forest treatments, but others have highlighted a blunt approach could do more harm than good.Many have voiced concerns over ambitions set out in Project 2025 to curb prescribed burning in favor of increasing timber sales.Meanwhile, federal firefighters are waiting to see whether Trump and a Republican-led Congress will secure long-overdue pay raises.The US Forest Service (USFS), the largest employer of federal firefighters, has seen an exodus of emergency responders over abysmally low pay and gaps in support for the unsustainable and dangerous work they do.Federal firefighters who spend weeks at a time on the fireline and rack up thousands of hours in overtime each summer, make far less than their state- and city-employed counterparts with paychecks that rival those of fast-food employees. That exodus has hampered its ability to keep pace with the year-round firefighting needs.“Doing less with your resources makes a task like fire suppression and fuels management extremely more challenging,” said Jonathan Golden, legislative director of the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.Joe Biden facilitated a temporary pay raise for federal wildland firefighters, but those expire at the end of the year. With Trump promising large cuts to federal budgets and the bureaucrats who operate them, many fear the Republican leadership in Congress won’t push the legislation needed to ensure these essential emergency responders keep their raise.If the pay raises are allowed to expire, many more federal firefighters will walk out the door – right when they are needed most.“The job isn’t going to get any easier,” Golden said. “My hope is that we continue to have a well-staffed and well-funded professional workforce that can answer the call year-round – because that’s what is required.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEmergencies on the riseBillion-dollar weather and climate disasters are on the rise. There was a historic number in the US in 2023 with a total of 28 – surpassing the previous record of 22 in 2022. With more than a month left, there have already been 24 this year.Trump has a history of stalling in the aftermath of natural disasters, opting instead to put a political spin on who receives aid. For wildfires during his first term, that meant threatening California and other Democratic-majority states with delayed or withheld funding to punish them for their political leanings.This time, some fear he may also reduce the amount of aid provided by Fema. Project 2025 has called for a shift in emergency spending, putting the “majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government” and either eliminating or armoring grants that fund preparedness to push Trump’s political agenda.The framework advises the next president to remove all unions from the department and only give Fema grants to states, localities and private organizations who “can show that their mission and actions support the broader homeland security mission”, including the deportation of undocumented people.These tactics could hamper both preparedness and recovery from wildfires and other disasters, especially in high-risk blue states such as California and others across the west.The administration has also been advised by Project 2025 authors to dismantle or severely hamper the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose forecasting has been essential to warn when dangerous weather arises, and remove all mention of the climate crisis in federal rhetoric and research.Trump’s picks of a former congressman Lee Zeldin to head the Environmental Protection Agency and North Dakota governor Doug Burgum as the Department of Interior secretary – two agencies deeply connected to US climate policy – indicate his strong skepticism of the climate crisis. Zeldin and Burgum have clear directives to oversee rampant deregulation and expedite extraction on public lands.“Folks at federal agencies are already being gently advised to think about the language they use to describe things,” Swain said. He thinks the effects will be far-reaching, especially when it comes to wildfire preparedness and response. Disabling science and weather-focused agencies could reduce important intel that responders rely on, reduce nimbleness and hamper efforts to plan into the future.“A lot of people are thinking this is going to be the second coming of the first Trump administration and I don’t think it’s the right way to be thinking about it,” Swain said.“This time, it’s highly plausible that the disruption and the harms will be a lot deeper and more lasting – it will be much harder to reverse.”Big picture problemsEven before Trump retook the White House, the US was missing the mark on its ambitious climate goals. But scientists and experts have offered clear warnings about how Trump’s policies could accelerate dire outcomes.“Climate change is a huge crisis and we don’t have time to spare,” said Julia Stein, deputy director of the Emmett Institute on climate change and the environment at the UCLA School of Law.Stein pointed to the potential for many of these policies to be challenged in court, much like they were the first time around. States such as California, which is also home to one of the world’s largest economies to back it, are already preparing to challenge Trump’s policies. The directives of the first Trump administration were often legally vulnerable, Stein said, and she thinks they might be again this time around, especially if he attempts to rid the agencies of career bureaucrats and their deep knowledge of how things work.In a state where wildfires are always a risk, California is also bolstering its own approach, doubling down on landscape treatments and investing in preparation, mitigation, and response according to Stein, who noted the $10bn climate bond just passed by voters there that will go toward wildfire prevention and mitigation.Still, fires don’t recognize borders. The threats continue to push into areas that aren’t accustomed to them, and larger swaths of the country will be forced to grapple with smoke. Without partners in federal agencies that manage lands across the US, states will struggle to address the mounting challenges on their own.“Continuing to enforce those laws in California will blunt some of the impact for Californians,” she said. “The unfortunate thing – especially when it comes to climate change – there are going to be national and global consequences for inaction at the federal level.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Portland’s first ranked-choice vote elects progressive outsider as mayor

      by

      In 2022 it appeared the political winds in Portland, Oregon, one of the US’s most progressive cities, were beginning to shift. Residents who had grown frustrated over the city’s approach to homelessness rejected the incumbent, Jo Ann Hardesty – the first Black woman to serve on the city council – in favor of the “law-and-order” Democrat Rene Gonzalez, who pledged to back an expanded police force and “clean up” Portland.But this month, as swaths of the US electorate moved to the right, the Pacific north-west city took a markedly different approach. Residents elected the most diverse city council in Portland history, opting for more progressives, and rejected Gonzalez as mayoral candidate. Instead, they chose Keith Wilson, a businessperson who has never before held office and has promised to end unsheltered homelessness in a year.Wilson had large leads over his competitors in the election, the first in which the city used ranked-choice voting and in the latest results was leading the second place candidate 60% to 40%.The most conservative candidates for mayor and the county board, who took hardline stances, lost, Richard Clucas, a political science professor at Portland State University, pointed out.“Both were defeated significantly because Portland remains a very progressive city despite what people may have heard elsewhere,” Clucas said.The results came as the city was in the midst of what officials have described as a “once-in-a-generation” change to its government system and major voting reforms. This month, for the first time ever, Portland used ranked-choice voting to elect a mayor and a larger, more representative city council. The new officials will have different roles as Portland moves from a commission form of government to one overseen by a city administrator.Voters approved the overhaul two years ago – the same year Gonzalez won – as the city of 630,000 people grappled with a declining downtown, rising homelessness, a fentanyl crisis, growing public drug use and a sluggish recovery from the pandemic. Voters appeared to take out their dissatisfaction with crime, homelessness and drug use on Hardesty, the most progressive member of city council, said Ben Gaskins, a political science professor Lewis & Clark College in Portland.Some have speculated the city was beginning to recoil from its progressive values, particularly after voters in the county ousted the progressive district attorney for a challenger endorsed by police groups. That came shortly after Oregon moved to reintroduce criminal penalties for the possession of hard drugs, in effect scrapping the state’s groundbreaking drug decriminalization law.Claims the city is turning away from progressivism are significantly overstated, Gaskins said – instead, the shifts indicate an electorate that is more focused on tactical concerns rather than ideological ones.Gonzalez was widely considered a frontrunner in this year’s mayoral race. Calling it a “make-or-break election”, the commissioner said that as mayor he would add hundreds of officers to city streets and stop “enabling the humanitarian crisis on our streets by ending the distribution of tents and drug kits”.Wilson, who serves as the chief executive of a trucking company and founded a non-profit to expand shelter capacity and ultimately end homelessness, made the issue the center of his campaign, pledging to reform the city’s approach to alleviating the crisis. He insisted the issue could be addressed with “care and compassion”, the Oregonian reported, and said he would increase the number of night-time walk-in emergency shelters available in churches and community centers.That approach appealed to city voters, Clucas said, over harsher remedies. “They don’t simply want a crackdown, arrests and other things; they want to find some way to compassionately address it.”At a debate in October, Wilson said he would give city leaders an F for their efforts to address homelessness, according to the Oregonian. “Letting people suffer and die on our streets is unacceptable … I believe that every person in Portland deserves a bed every night,” he said.The progressive Carmen Rubio, a city council member, was also a frontrunner in the race. But she lost endorsements after reporting from the Oregonian revealed that she had received about 150 parking and traffic violations since 2004, many of which she failed to pay for months and years, and that she had her license suspended multiple times.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGonzalez’s campaign was hurt by reporting from the Willamette Week that showed the “public safety champion” had also received seven speeding tickets between 1998 and 2013, and had his license suspended twice.Wilson was once considered a long-shot candidate, but he was probably bolstered by the city’s new ranked-choice voting system, experts said.His position as a businessperson coming from outside the political system allowed him to be a “compromise candidate”, Gaskins said. Wilson fit the gap of someone who is progressive but still represents a change to the status quo, he said.“I think the fact Keith Wilson was able to win shows Portland wants someone who is clearly on the left but who is focused on policy solutions and getting things done versus just being the most ideologically pure candidate in the race,” he said.“He is a candidate of this particular moment.”In an acceptance speech last week, Wilson pledged to build trust and take advantage of a “transformative opportunity”.“It’s time to end unsheltered homelessness and open drug use, and it’s time to restore public safety in Portland,” he said. “Voters aren’t interested in pointing fingers. They just want us to get things done.”Along with Wilson, residents also elected 12 city councillors, nearly half of whom are people of color, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported – a remarkable shift given that just seven years ago, only two people of color had ever been elected to city government. At least four of the new councillors identify as LGBTQ+, the outlet reported, and five received endorsements from the Democratic Socialists of America chapter in Portland. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Oakland mayor and county’s district attorney ousted in historic recall

      by

      Voters have ousted Oakland’s mayor and the region’s progressive district attorney, in a major political shake-up for the northern California port city. It’s the first time in modern history that voters here have ousted leadership from either position.Sheng Thao, the mayor, and Pamela Price, the district attorney for Alameda county, were both the target of recall campaigns, launched amid discontent over the city’s challenges: a spiralling housing crisis, rising costs and the departure of the city’s last remaining major league sports team.But the recall campaigns particularly centered on residents’ enduring frustrations about the area’s crime rates. Like many cities in the US, Oakland experienced a surge in violent crime during the pandemic, one that took longer than elsewhere to subside. Statistics had shown both violent and non-violent crime finally trending down – before the election, the Oakland police announced a 30% drop in homicides this year compared to 2023. Non-fatal shootings were down 20% and robberies were down 24%. Still, many residents remained deeply frustrated.The overwhelming support for both recalls came amid a broader sentiment in the state that crime had become out of control. Californians also supported a tough-on-crime measure, Prop 36, to enact harsher penalties for retail theft, property crimes and drug offenses and undo some of the landmark criminal justice reforms from a decade ago. They also voted down Prop 6, a measure to ban forced prison labor. Foundational Oakland Unites, a committee set up to fund signature gathering before the mayoral recall, sent residents a “Common Sense Voter Guide” that encouraged a yes on 36 and no on 6.While the campaigns tapped into deep frustrations among residents, they were funded in large part by a handful of the region’s wealthy residents. Over the summer, the local news site the Oaklandside revealed that Philip Dreyfuss, a hedge-fund manager who lives in the wealthy enclave of Piedmont, had been the biggest funder to the effort to recall the mayor. Ron Conway, a billionaire tech investor, was another major funder.Thao, the mayor, came into office just two years ago, the first Hmong American to lead a major city. She faced opposition from the start of her tenure, including from the city’s police department – she fired the police chief early in her term – and her moderate opponent in the mayoral contest.“People are fed up with crime and homelessness,” Dan Lindheim, a former Oakland city administrator and now professor at UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy, told the Guardian in October. “And they want to hold somebody accountable. It was like: ‘We don’t like what they’re doing, so – symbolically – it’s off with their heads.’”Criticism intensified after the FBI raided Thao’s home in a sprawling corruption investigation. The agency has neither implicated the mayor in any wrongdoing, nor absolved her of involvement. Thao has maintained her innocence.“It was just piling one thing on top of another,” Lindheim said. “That was the seal of death for her mayoral position.”In a statement last week, Thao said she was proud of her administration’s accomplishments and was “committed to ensuring we stay on track by supporting a smooth transition”.Price, the district attorney for Alameda county, which includes Oakland, was also ousted in a recall campaign that began just months after she took office. She was the first Black woman to hold the job. A former civil rights attorney, Price had come into office promising to reform the justice system, stop “over-criminalizing” young people and hold law enforcement to better account.The Alameda county board of supervisors is expected to appoint an interim district attorney.Thao must vacate the office as soon as election results are certified on 5 December and the Oakland city council declares a vacancy at its next meeting, Nikki Fortunato Bas, the city council president, said in a statement.A special election for a new mayor will be held within 120 days, or roughly four months.Until then, Bas will serve as interim mayor, unless she wins a seat on the Alameda county board of supervisors. As of Monday, Bas was trailing in that race. More