Judge rules on CA’s mask ban for law enforcement

February 12, 2026 By Lynn La 2 Comments

A federal judge has pumped the brakes on a California law banning local and federal officers from wearing masks. But both sides — California lawmakers and the Trump administration — are claiming victory.

In her ruling Monday, District Judge Christina Snyder, a Clinton-appointee, said that because the legislation exempted state law enforcement, it discriminated against federal agents and is therefore unconstitutional. Authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, the law was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1, but has been put on hold after the Trump administration sued last November to block the measure. Snyder’s temporary injunction goes into effect Feb. 19.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi called the ruling a “key court victory” on social media, adding that the federal Justice Department will “continue fighting and winning in court for President (Donald) Trump’s law-and-order agenda.”

So why, then, did Wiener also consider the ruling “a huge win”?

Wiener argues that Snyder’s ruling just means the law “must apply to all levels of police,” including state officers, to be considered constitutional.

The San Francisco Democrat said he initially included the carveout based on talks with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office — a claim Newsom’s aides deny, reports The New York Times — and now plans to introduce a bill that includes state officers. 

At an unrelated bill signing in Sacramento on Tuesday, Newsom told reporters that he was “disappointed in the (court’s) decision,” and that he believed the measure “should have been a federal masking bill, period.”

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: ,

Newsom blasts Trump administration’s immigration crackdown; touts California’s drug enforcement efforts

February 11, 2026 By Deborah Brennan 6 Comments

Keeping up with your California representatives felt impossible before. Now you can watch them like a hawk: Sign up for My Legislator, your weekly, personalized report that tracks what your state representatives say and do.

Gov. Gavin Newsom touted California’s drug interdiction efforts during a San Diego press conference Monday that contrasted the state’s public safety efforts with combative tactics by President Donald Trump’s administration.

Since 2021, Newsom said, National Guard troops have seized 34,357 pounds of fentanyl worth an estimated $506 million at California ports of entry.

“This is what the National Guard should be doing,” Newsom said at the event. “This is the kind of partnership that makes sense.”

Last month a federal judge ended federal control of the National Guard troops in Los Angeles  and returned them to Newsom’s command, six months after President Donald Trump ordered 4,000 troops to the city to quell protests against federal immigration raids in California. Newsom argued that Trump’s deployment of the Guard diverted them from duties including drug enforcement and wildfire prevention.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Newsom terms out after eight years as governor this year, and is expected to launch a campaign for president in the 2028 election. He has positioned himself as a resistance figure against Trump’s intensified immigration crackdown and heightened federal control over states.

On Monday, Newsom argued that California is combating crime and patrolling its border, while responding to disruption in the wake of the administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

“It’s the kind of thing that we should be doing more,” he said. “It’s not about politics. It’s not about creating anxiety and fear.”

CalMatters could not reach the White House for comment Monday. 

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

California Patriot Profile: Steve Frank, A Longtime California Conservative Leader

February 9, 2026 By Jon Fleishman 3 Comments

From the Nixon and Reagan eras to today, a consistent voice for limited government in the Golden State

We received the sad news of the passing of Steve Frank overnight and want to share this recent tribute to Steve that Jon Fleischman published just before Steve died.

A Relentless Conservative Voice in California Politics

Every week, we feature a Californian whose work, influence, or integrity stands out, even in a state that often rewards the opposite. Some make an impact through elected office, others through scholarship, and many through long-term activism. These profiles are open to all subscribers and guests.

Steve Frank is a Republican because he is a conservative, not the other way around. His values and principles came first, and they continue to define him today. Party affiliation has always been a vehicle, not an identity.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

For decades, Steve has been motivated by a consistent set of beliefs: faith, freedom, free enterprise, and the conviction that limited, accountable government matters. Those principles are not seasonal. They have driven his work through victories, defeats, and long stretches where California politics offered little encouragement to conservatives who refused to compromise simply to fit in.

That consistency explains why Steve Frank has never been a comfortable figure inside political institutions, even ones he helped build. He has always measured success by fidelity to principle rather than proximity to power.

A Movement Conservative, Not a Media Creation

Steve Frank did not arrive in California politics through social media or cable television. His involvement long predates both.

Born on December 28, 1946, in the Bronx, Frank later moved to California, attended Los Angeles City College, and earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Redlands. He served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War with the 1st Infantry Division, an experience that shaped his lifelong interest in national defense and veterans’ issues.

His conservatism was forged in an era when activists built organizations rather than personal brands. From early on, he became deeply involved in party mechanics, rules, and grassroots organizing—areas that rarely attract attention but often determine outcomes.

Click here to read the full article in Jon Fleishman’s So Does It Matter

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Fix the potholes or fight the power? That’s the choice facing California’s next governor

February 9, 2026 By Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria 2 Comments
  • California’s gubernatorial race features a large field of Democrats and Republicans with no clear front-runner.
  • Most candidates have struggled to articulate distinct policies or break through the political noise.

You may have missed it, what with President Trump’s endless pyrotechnics, but California voters will decide in November who succeeds Gavin Newsom, the highest-profile governor since the Terminator returned to Hollywood.

Unfortunately for those attempting to civically engage, the current crop of contenders is, shall we say, less than enthralling.

In alphabetical order (because there is seriously no prohibitive front-runner), the major candidates are Xavier Becerra, Chad Bianco, Ian Calderon, Steve Hilton, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, John Slavet, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Whew! (Pause to catch breath.)

Armed with that knowledge, you can now go out and win yourself a few bar bets by asking someone to name, say, even two of those running.

Meantime, fear not. Your friendly columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria have surveyed the field, weighed the odds, pondered California’s long history and concluded … they have absolutely no clue what will happen in the June 2 primary, much less who’ll take the oath of office come next January.

Here, they discuss the race that has Californians sitting on neither pins nor needles.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

A political earthquake in mayor’s race makes election a referendum on L.A.’s future

February 8, 2026 By Steve Lopez 1 Comment
  • Raman’s candidacy raises the question of whether L.A. is ready to move further in the direction of New York City, which just elected the ultra-progressive Zohran Mamdani as mayor.
  • Raman and Bass have largely been allies and have endorsed each other’s reelection bids.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass was having a really bad week.

But then it turned into a pretty good week, and she must have breathed a sigh of relief.

Until the Saturday morning surprise.

I had to set fire to my scorecard, and to the column I had just drafted, which touched on all the expected big-name challengers who had bowed out of the mayoral race in the past several days: L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, billionaire businessman Rick Caruso (who forced a runoff with Bass the last time around), and former L.A. Unified schools chief Austin Beutner.

It was looking as though we wouldn’t get a badly needed, monthslong, toe-to-toe face-off about all that’s right and wrong in the sprawling metropolis of high hopes and low expectations. In a conversation I had with Loyola Marymount University’s Fernando Guerra, a decades-long observer of the local political scene, he made this observation about the dull political season that was shaping up:

“What is interesting to me is that no one from the establishment political class is running against [Bass] when she is clearly vulnerable.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Vulnerable because of her handling of the Palisades fire and its aftermath.

Vulnerable because of limited progress on core issues such as homelessness, housing affordability and the shameful condition of streets, sidewalks and parks.

But then came Saturday morning, when, in an unexpected move, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman decided to step up, injecting a new element of drama into the race.

It was a surprise because Raman and Bass are not political enemies. In fact, they’ve largely been allies and have endorsed each other’s reelection bids.

So what was Raman thinking in signing up for a challenge in which she is clearly the underdog?

“I have deep respect for Mayor Bass. We’ve worked closely together on my biggest priorities and her biggest priorities, and there’s significant alignment there,” Raman told The Times. “But over the last few months in particular, I’ve really begun to feel like unless we have some big changes in how we do things in Los Angeles, that the things we count on are not going to function anymore.”

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , ,

UCLA fires DEI director over posts on Kirk’s death

February 7, 2026 By Jaweed Kaleem 2 Comments

In the days after Charlie Kirk was fatally shot in September while speaking at a Utah college campus, stunned followers of his conservative movement mourned online, condemning political violence. From his Los Angeles home, Johnathan Perkins, a Black diversity, equity and inclusion director at UCLA, had a different take.

“Good riddance,” he wrote on Bluesky. In another post: “It is OKAY to be happy when someone who hated you and called for your people’s death dies — even if they are murdered.”

Later: “I’m always glad when bigots die.”

Perkins said he was exercising his right to free speech on his own time about a divisive public figure. Screenshots of his posts spread across conservative news sites and social media. He received online death threats. Complaints poured into UCLA inboxes.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Officials swiftly placed Perkins on paid leave and opened an investigation. UCLA also issued a rare statement about an employee: “Violence of any kind — including the celebration of it — is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”

Last week, UCLA fired him, and his last day on the payroll was Friday.

The termination letter, which Perkins allowed The Times to review, cited violations of policies on “workplace violence prevention,” including posts that “referenced or appeared to endorse violence or death” and made “demeaning or generalized remarks about demographic groups.”

“Given the nature of your role as a Director of Race and Equity, the university has determined that this conduct significantly undermined trust in your leadership and adversely affected the office’s effectiveness and credibility,” it said.

Perkins’ story is among more than 100 cases nationwide of college faculty or staff who were disciplined for comments about Kirk. The incidents included dozens in which employees wished Kirk harm, said he deserved to die, or expressed happiness at his death, according to a Times review of social media, news reports and legal cases.

Several disciplined workers have since returned to campus, sued or received settlements, including a Tennessee professor reinstated after a $500,000 payout and a Fresno State lecturer back on the job after suspension, according to local news reports and faculty groups. Other suspensions are still under campus investigation, litigation or settlement talks.

Perkins’ firing, however, appears to be an outlier and has raised concerns among free speech advocates who question whether political considerations contributed to UCLA’s decision at a precarious time for the university as it faces Trump administration pressure to clamp down on diversity measures.

“Discipline for offensive speech that’s nevertheless protected under the law” is worsening as universities face federal pressure to limit DEI, pro-Palestinian protest and the recognition of transgender people,” said Zach Greenberg, director of the Faculty Legal Defense Fund at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

At the time, Vice President JD Vance urged universities to fire employees for speaking out against Kirk after he was killed, warning that campuses that refused could face federal funding cuts — an issue UCLA was already confronting. Weeks before the Kirk shooting, the Trump administration demanded that UCLA pay a $1.2-billion fine to settle federal civil rights investigation findings of it mishandling antisemitism complaints and called for sweeping policy changes in exchange for restoring frozen grant funding.

In a statement, UCLA did not elaborate on the Perkins firing. “This person is no longer an employee at UCLA following the completion of an internal investigation,” it said.

Perkins, who holds a law degree from the University of Virginia, was also given a roughly 250-page set of investigation findings by UCLA that detailed a history of social media controversies. He declined to allow The Times to review the file because he intends to file a lawsuit challenging his dismissal and cite the report in his case.

His social media activity shows a strident, polemical voice on racism and systemic injustice.

He’s out of the $137,000 job he’d held for five years since UCLA recruited him after he worked at Harvard’s legal office. In Westwood, he led DEI programs around campus training, hiring and student access to learning. Perkins has raised about $10,000 on GoFundMe to relocate to his hometown of Philadelphia and fund his suit.

He’s now searching for his next job.

Controversy over Kirk, Turning Point

Kirk and the organization he founded, Turning Point USA, aligned with President Trump and fueled youth conservatism. He was best known for campus visits — like the Utah Valley University stop — where he sparred with students over immigration, gender, abortion and other hot-button issues.

Kirk called himself a free speech advocate. Critics said he stifled it by promoting intolerance. His group — now led by his widow, Erika Kirk — runs Professor Watchlist, which university faculty blame for harassment and doxxing of those the website deems to be “radical professors” tied to feminism, LGBTQ+ studies and diversity.

Representatives for Turning Point USA did not respond to a request for comment about Perkins and other cases of faculty and staff suspensions or firings in response to speech about Kirk. On Professor Watchlist, where Perkins has been featured since 2022, Turning Point calls him “no stranger to racially incendiary remarks.”

Kirk also faced criticism for what some saw as inflammatory statements. In 2022, after a man attacked the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), Kirk called the incident “awful” while calling for an “amazing patriot” to bail out the attacker. He cited Leviticus 20:13, which suggests that a man who has sex with another man should be put to death, as “God’s perfect law.” In a 2024 podcast, he mocked DEI’s influence on hiring, saying, “If I see a Black pilot, I hope he’s qualified.”

Those were the kinds of comments Perkins said offended him about Kirk, who was a fierce critic of the rise of campus identity politics and its role in scholarship.

Not Perkins’ first time in spotlight

“It boils down to me and other Black people and other brown people … simply not being sad that this man who was so openly hateful was against all of us,” said Perkins, who is the grandson of civil rights activist John M. Perkins of Mississippi.

Perkins remains a prolific social media user. On his Bluesky profile, he calls himself the “foremost” expert on Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative government and cultural blueprint — many of its proposals were adopted by Trump — which calls for DEI’s elimination and mass deportations.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Supreme Court declines to block California’s new mid-decade congressional map

February 6, 2026 By Devin Dwyer 4 Comments

California voters approved Proposition 50 in November.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by California Republicans to block a newly redrawn congressional map backed by Democrats and endorsed by voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. 

The move allows the state to move forward with a map enacted by Proposition 50, approved in November, that could potentially allow Democrats to flip five seats currently held by Republicans. 

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

California’s mid-decade map change was backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party in response to efforts by Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw their maps — at President Donald Trump’s urging — in order to give Republicans a better chance at retaining majority control of Congress. 

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas. He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November,” Newsom posted on X on Wednesday after the Supreme Court’s order.

Click here to read the full article at ABC News

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Tax billionaires, cut rents and other takeaways from California’s first gubernatorial debate

February 5, 2026 By Seema Mehta and Nicole Nixon 1 Comment
  • Six Democrats and one Republican debated in San Francisco, with candidates attacking Gov. Newsom about policies such as $24 billion of spending on homelessness that critics argue failed to address the roots of the problem.
  • Democratic candidates proposed populist solutions including taxing billionaires, implementing rent control and freezing utility costs to address California’s soaring cost of living.
  • Billionaire Tom Steyer leads fundraising with $28.9 million, nearly all of which he contributed to his bid. But the race remains wide open with more voters undecided than supporting any candidate.

SAN FRANCISCO — Gov. Gavin Newsom, barred from running for reelection, still took heat Tuesday during the first debate in California’s 2026 race for governor.

Six Democrats and one Republican on the stage in Newsom’s hometown of San Francisco took direct aim at the governor’s record on homelessness, efforts to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and opposition to an anti-crime ballot measure that Californians overwhelmingly passed two years ago.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who unsuccessfully ran against Newsom for governor in 2018, pointed to state spending on homelessness as an example of ineptitude.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

“We spent $24 billion at the state, along with billions more from the counties and the cities throughout the state, and homelessness went on,” he said. “We cannot be afraid to look in the mirror.”

The televised debate revealed the schism between the moderate and progressive Democrats hoping to replace Newsom, as well as efforts by Steve Hilton, the sole Republican who took part, to coalesce the conservative vote.

Hilton, a former Fox New commentator and British political strategist, called on his top GOP rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, to drop out of the race.

“My Republican colleague Chad Bianco is not here tonight to face these Democrats or his record in 2020, during the Black Lives Matter riots,” Hilton said at the event, which was co-sponsored by the nonprofit Black Action Alliance, which was founded to give Black voters a greater voice in the Bay Area.

Bianco “took a knee when told to by BLM, now he says he was praying,” Hilton said. “Chad Bianco has got more baggage than LAX.”

Bianco was invited to the debate but said he was unable to attend because of a scheduling conflict. His campaign did not respond to requests for comment about Hilton’s attacks.

The at times feisty debate came amid a gubernatorial race that thus far has lacked sizzle or a candidate on either side of the aisle who has excited Californians. Public opinion polls show that most voters remain undecided.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

US Supreme Court – still waiting for an answer on Proposition 50

February 4, 2026 By James V. Lacy 1 Comment

Filing for Congressional races begins in less than a week

With February 9 being the start date for candidates to file to run for Congress in California’s Congressional districts, the U.S. Supreme Court still has not acted on the application of the Plaintiff California GOP members for a Preliminary Injunction pending an appeal of the divided Three-Judge panel’s decision in Los Angeles finding Gavin Newson’s Proposition 50 gerrymander to be legal. If the Supreme Court were convinced to grant the application, the previous Congressional District lines of the nonpartisan commission would be used in the next election, and the lines would remain unchanged from prior elections this decade. But unless that happens, the new Proposition 50 lines, which are intended to drastically reduce Republican influence in California Congressional elections for the next three cycles, will be in place as a result of their adoption by voters in the last special election.

All necessary papers have now been filed with the Supreme Court and it is simply a matter of time when the Court will act on them. Papers filed include the Plaintiff CA GOP members’ request for the injunction and accompanying briefs, the U.S. Department of Justice’s excellent brief in support of the Plaintiffs, and Friend of the Court briefs in support of the Preliminary Injunction from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (a particularly good one citing strong case law previously overlooked), the America First Policy Institute, the Center for Election Confidence, and a group of individuals suing in a separate case involving Louisiana’s congressional lines. The California GOP Plaintiffs also filed a well-done “Reply” brief.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Papers in opposition include the Response of the Newsom Defendants, and their Defendant-Intervenor allies League of United Latin American Citizens and the Democratic Congressional Committee, and a supporting Friend of the Court brief from liberal election law Professor Richard L. Hasen. (Fewer allies of the Newsom Defendants filed briefs in the Supreme Court than in the underling litigation in Los Angeles.)

Click here to read the full article at James V. Lacy’s Substack

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,

Lame duck no more? Trump stockpiles hundreds of millions ahead of midterms.

February 3, 2026 By Jessica Piper 3 Comments

Campaign finance disclosures filed late Saturday revealed details of the president’s unmatched political fundraising operation.

Donald Trump’s political war chest grew dramatically in the second half of 2025, according to new campaign finance disclosures submitted late Saturday, giving him an unprecedented amount of money for a term-limited president to influence the midterms and beyond.

Trump raised $26 million through his joint fundraising committee in the back half of last year, and another $8 million directly into his leadership PAC. And a super PAC linked to him has more than $300 million in the bank.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

All together, a web of campaign accounts, some of which he controls directly and others under the care of close allies, within the president’s orbit have $375 million in their coffers.

The funds far outstrip those of any other political figure — Republican or Democrat — entering 2026, and have no real historical precedent. And Trump could put them to use this year for the midterms, or to shape future elections, even as he cannot run for president again.

Trump continues to outpace any other Republican in raising money, both from large and small-dollar donors. His joint fundraising committee — Trump National Committee, which pools fundraising for a variety of Trump-aligned groups — accounted for 1 in 8 dollars raised on WinRed, the primary Republican online fundraising platform, during the second half of 2025, according to a POLITICO analysis.

And no super PAC raised even half as much in 2025 as the $289 million from MAGA Inc., the Trump-aligned super PAC that both the president and Vice President J.D. Vance appeared at fundraisers for last year.

Trump has given few clues as to how he might put the funds to use. Trump National Committee primarily sends funds to the president’s leadership PAC, Never Surrender, with a bit of money also going to the Republican National Committee and Vance’s leadership PAC, Working For Ohio.

Candidates cannot use leadership PAC money for their own election efforts. But the accounts — which are common across Washington and have long been derided by anti-money in politics groups as “slush funds” — allow politicians to dole out money to allies or fund political travel.

Never Surrender spent $6.7 million from July through December, with more than half of that total going toward advertising, digital consulting and direct mail — expenses typically linked to fundraising.

So far, Trump’s groups have held their powder in Republican primaries. While Trump has endorsed against a handful of Republican incumbents now locked in competitive primaries — including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky — and threatened others, he hasn’t used money. A super PAC targeting Massie, MAGA KY, is run by Trump allies but has largely been funded by GOP megadonor Paul Singer.

Click here to read the full article in Politico

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , ,