Justice Department and New York Mayor Adams face judge’s scrutiny in bid to dismiss criminal charges

• February 19, 2025

By LARRY NEUMEISTER and MICHAEL R. SISAK, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Justice Department lawyers and New York City Mayor Eric Adams are set to face a federal judge who is signaling that he’s unlikely to rubber stamp their request to drop the mayor’s corruption charges weeks before an April trial.

Judge Dale E. Ho in Manhattan scheduled the Wednesday afternoon hearing after three government lawyers from Washington made the dismissal request on Friday. Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor resigned after she refused an order to do so.

Ho already indicated that the hearing was likely to be only an initial step when he wrote in an order Tuesday that one subject on the agenda will be a discussion of “procedure for resolution of the motion.”

Also set for discussion are the reasons for the request to dismiss the indictment against the Democrat that charges the first-term mayor with accepting over $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and lavish travel perks from a Turkish official and business leaders seeking to buy his influence while he was Brooklyn borough president. He has pleaded not guilty.

Early last week, Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told prosecutors in New York in a memo to drop the charges because the prosecution “has unduly restricted Mayor Adams’ ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime.” He said charges could be reinstated after November’s mayoral election.

Two days later, then-interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying Bove’s request to drop charges in return for assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws would betray Bondi’s own words that she “will not tolerate abuses of the criminal justice process, coercive behavior, or other forms of misconduct.”

“Dismissal of the indictment for no other reason than to influence Adams’s mayoral decision-making would be all three,” Sassoon, a Republican, said of what she called a “quid pro quo” deal as she offered to resign. She also said prosecutors were about to bring additional obstruction of justice charges against Adams.

Bove responded to Sassoon with apparent anger, accepting her resignation and accusing her of “pursuing a politically motivated prosecution despite an express instruction to dismiss the case.” He then informed her that two prosecutors assigned to the case were suspended with pay and that an investigation would determine if they keep their jobs.

If either of those prosecutors wished to comply with his directive to dismiss charges, he welcomed them to do so, but Hagan Scotten quit the following day, writing in a resignation letter that he supported Sassoon’s actions.

Scotten wrote to Bove that it would take a “fool” or a “coward” to meet his demand to drop the charges, “but it was never going to be me.”

In all, seven prosecutors, including five high-ranking prosecutors at the Justice Department in Washington, had resigned by Friday.

Since then, a small army of former prosecutors have gotten behind the defiant stand by Sassoon and other prosecutors.

On Friday, seven former Manhattan U.S. attorneys, including James Comey, Geoffrey S. Berman and Mary Jo White, issued a statement lauding Sassoon’s “commitment to integrity and the rule of law.”

On Monday, three former U.S. attorneys from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut submitted papers to Ho suggesting that he appoint a special prosecutor if he finds the Justice Department acted improperly or that he order all evidence be made available to state and local prosecutors.

A former Watergate prosecutor filed papers separately, telling the judge to reject the government’s request and consider assigning a special counsel to explore the legal issues and ultimately consider appointing an independent special prosecutor to try the case.

Also Monday, Justice Connection, an organization advocating for Justice Department employees, released a letter signed by over 900 former federal prosecutors to career federal prosecutors that said they have “watched with alarm” as values “foundational to a fair and justice legal system” have been tested.

In the letter, the former prosecutors said they “salute and admire the courage many of you have already exhibited. You have responded to ethical challenges of a type no public servant should ever be forced to confront with principle and conviction, in the finest traditions of the Department of Justice.”

On Tuesday, Alex Spiro, a lawyer for the mayor, wrote to the judge, saying those who believed that Adams struck a “quid pro quo” with prosecutors were wrong.

“There was no quid pro quo. Period,” he said.

​ Orange County Register 

Trump imposes his vision on America in departure from first-term stumbles

• February 19, 2025

By CHRIS MEGERIAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Months into his first term as president, Donald Trump was furious with the snowballing Russia investigation and ordered White House counsel Don McGahn to make sure that special counsel Robert Mueller got fired.

“Mueller has to go,” McGahn recalled Trump saying. “Call me back when you do it.”

But McGahn didn’t do it, and Trump didn’t even bring it up the next time they saw each other. Such incidents were common during Trump’s initial experience in the White House, where officials would soften or ignore his most outrageous decisions and the president seemed unwilling to enforce his will.

It’s hard to imagine the same thing happening during Trump’s second term. Instead of repeating his laissez-faire attitude toward his own administration, the Republican president is asserting control at every opportunity, backed up by loyalists at all levels of government. Despite occasional disorganization and confusion, there’s a headstrong determination to push through any obstacles.

Trump doesn’t just want to change course from Joe Biden’s presidency, his team is holding back congressionally authorized funding championed by his Democratic predecessor.

Not only did Trump officials tell the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop working, his team set up a tip line so people could report unauthorized actions taken by staff at the agency.

Trump wasn’t satisfied with simply firing all the board members at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. He made himself chairman.

This time, Trump seems to be saying, his orders will not be ignored. This time, there will be follow through.

The White House summarizes Trump’s approach with the mantra “promises made, promises kept.” Administration officials also dismiss concerns that the president is exercising too much control. They say Trump is entitled to impose his vision on the government that he was elected to lead.

Others see something darker and more menacing for the country and its future.

“Donald Trump’s instincts haven’t changed,” said Timothy Naftali, a Columbia University historian. “He’s just angrier, meaner and more effective than he was in his first term.”

Trump often felt as though he was undermined in his first term by the “deep state,” a term used by his allies to describe civil servants and career officials. Now, he’s moving swiftly to cut the federal bureaucracy with the help of Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur Trump has empowered to oversee the downsizing of the workforce.

“We’ve never had a president come into office with such a deep desire for revenge,” Naftali said. “Donald Trump is trying to hollow out institutions that he thinks embarrassed him.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created to protect Americans from financial fraud, abuse and deceptive practices, has been brought to a standstill. The U.S. Agency for International Development, a leading distributor of humanitarian assistance, was shut down.

A prime target is the Department of Justice, which infuriated Trump by investigating him during his first term and after leaving office. He was indicted twice by federal authorities, although the cases were dropped after he won last year’s election because sitting presidents can’t be prosecuted while in office.

Now Trump has filled leadership positions with loyalists, such as Emil Bove, the acting deputy attorney general, who was previously Trump’s defense attorney.

Last week, Bove pushed to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, saying it was more important for Adams to help Trump enact stricter immigration policies.

“The pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams’ ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior Administration,” Bove wrote.

Several prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned in protest, and a court hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.

Trump said that he wasn’t involved in the decision to drop the case against Adams, but he’s previously said that the Democratic mayor had been unfairly targeted for political reasons.

Another example of Trump’s heavy-handed approach this time has been his handling of criminal charges against supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Hours after taking the oath of office a month ago, the president pardoned roughly 1,500 people, including those who attacked police officers.

Then his administration decided to push even further. Thousands of FBI employees are being questioned about their role in Jan. 6 investigations, with suggestions that they could face punishment.

Bove said agents “who simply followed orders and carried out their duties in an ethical manner” were not at risk, adding that “the only individuals who should be concerned … are those who acted with corrupt or partisan intent.”

It’s a sharp change from Trump’s first administration, which included a number of establishment figures who resisted his impulses.

Olivia Troye, a former national security official who has been a critic of Trump, said staff members would confer with each other after meetings with the president.

“Why don’t you hold on that before you go do something, and let’s see what happens,” Troye recalled people saying. “Let’s see if it passes.”

The mixed signals were partly a matter of inexperience. The president and some of his advisers had never served in government.

“During the first administration, quite frankly, they had no idea what they were doing,” Troye said. “Now they have people in place who were there the first time around. They’ve been preparing to execute for several years.”

Trump has taken a scorched-earth approach to uprooting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, commonly known as DEI. He’s signed executive orders to end the programs, but that wasn’t enough for his administration.

Messages distributed by the Office of Personnel Management, which functions as the human resources agency for the federal government, said employees should not try to “disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language.”

Anyone who sees evidence of DEI should immediately disclose it.

“There will be no adverse consequences for timely reporting this information,” the messages said. “However, failure to report this information within 10 days may result in adverse consequences.”

​ Orange County Register 

CIF-SS boys basketball playoffs: Tuesday’s scores, updated schedule for Friday’s semifinals

• February 19, 2025

The Orange County scores from Tuesday’s CIF-SS boys basketball playoff games and the schedule for the semifinals Friday, Feb. 21.

CIF-SS BOYS BASKETBALL PLAYOFFS

OPEN DIVISION

Third round of pool play, Tuesday

Pool A

Harvard-Westlake 61, JSerra 48

Notre Dame/SO 67, Santa Margarita 59

Fourth round of pool play, Friday

La Mirada (0-2) at Santa Margarita (0-2), 7 p.m.

JSerra, bye

DIVISION 1

Quarterfinals, Tuesday

Crean Lutheran 73, Campbell Hall 66

Los Alamitos 56, Rolling Hills Prep 54

Santa Barbara 75, Mater Dei 70 (OT)

Semifinals, Friday

Crean Lutheran at Los Alamitos, 7 p.m.

DIVISION 2AA

Quarterfinals, Tuesday

Pacifica Christian 54, San Juan Hills 38

Fairmont Prep 75, Chino Hills 40

Semifinals, Friday

Pacifica Christian at Corona Centennial, 7 p.m.

Riverside Poly at Fairmont Prep, 7 p.m.

DIVISION 2A

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Irvine 71, Long Beach Cabrillo 66

St. Bonaventure 71, Villa Park 65 (OT)

Semifinals, Friday

Irvine at St. Bonaventure, 7 p.m.

DIVISION 3AA

Quarterfinals, Tuesday

San Gabriel Academy 66, Capistrano Valley Christian 51

Sage Hill 43, Tustin 39 (OT)

Semifinals, Friday

San Gabriel Academy at Sage Hill, 7 p.m.

DIVISION 4AA

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Santiago 66, Workman 64

Pacifica 44, Cate 41

Semifinals, Friday

Pacifica at Santiago, 7 p.m.

DIVISION 4A

Quarterfinals, Tuesday

Citrus Hill 65, Katella 43

DIVISION 5AA

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Sierra Vista 63, Anaheim 60

DIVISION 5A

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Saddleback 68, Gabrielino 61 (OT)

Semifinals, Friday

Arroyo at Saddleback, 7 p.m.

​ Orange County Register 

CIF-SS girls soccer playoffs: Tuesday’s scores, updated schedule for Saturday’s semifinals

• February 19, 2025

The scores for the Orange County teams that played Tuesday in the CIF-SS girls soccer playoffs and the schedule for the semifinals Saturday, Feb. 22.

CIF-SS GIRLS SOCCER PLAYOFFS

OPEN DIVISION

Semifinals

First leg of 2-game series, Tuesday

Santa Margarita 3, Oaks Christian 0

Second leg of 2-game series, Saturday

Santa Margarita at Oaks Christian, 5 p.m.

DIVISION 1

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Westlake 3, Edison 0

Troy 0, Los Alamitos 0 (Troy wins on PKs)

Mater Dei 3, Canyon 2

Orange Lutheran 1, Hart 0

Semifinals, Saturday, 5 p.m.

Troy at Westlake, 5 p.m.

Orange Lutheran at Mater Dei, 5 p.m.

DIVISION 3

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Foothill 2, Crean Lutheran 1

Portola 1, Trabuco Hills 0

Semifinals, Saturday

Foothill at Portola, 5 p.m.

DIVISION 4

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Sage Hill 1, Costa Mesa 1 (Sage Hill wins on PKs)

Semifinals, Saturday

Coachella Valley at Sage Hill, 5 p.m.

DIVISION 5

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Estancia 2, Tahquitz 1

Semifinals, Saturday

Viewpoint at Estancia

DIVISION 6

Quarterfinals, Tuesday 

Whittier Christian 1, Channel Islands 0

Segerstrom 1, Long Beach Cabrillo 0

Godinez 3, Barstow 1

Semifinals, Saturday

Segerstrom at Whittier Christian, 5 p.m.

Godinez at Thacher, 5 p.m.

​ Orange County Register 

A comprehensive look at DOGE’s firings and layoffs so far

• February 19, 2025

By MEG KINNARD, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of federal government employees have been shown the door in the first month of President Donald Trump’s administration as the White House and its Department of Government Efficiency fire both new and career workers, tell agency leaders to plan for “large-scale reductions in force” and freeze trillions of dollars in federal grant funds.

It is affecting more than just the national capital region, home to about 20% of the 2.4 million members of the civilian federal workforce, which does not include military personnel and postal employees workers. More than 80% of that workforce lives outside the Washington area.

There is no official figure available of the total firings or layoffs. The Associated Press tallied how agencies are being affected based on AP reporting and statements from lawmakers and employee unions.

Here is a look at some of the broad and specific ways federal agencies and employees are being affected by the administration’s reductions, as of Wednesday:

‘Deferred resignation’ proposal for federal workers

The White House offered a “deferred resignation” proposal in exchange for financial incentives, like months of paid leave, to almost all federal employees who opted to leave their jobs by Feb. 6.

But just before that deadline, a federal judge blocked Trump’s plan, wanting to hear arguments from the administration and the labor unions, which said the offer was illegal.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, about 75,000 federal employees had accepted the offer as of Feb. 12.

Probationary employee layoffs

There have also been wide-ranging layoffs of probationary employees — those generally on the job for less than a year and who have yet to gain civil service protection. Potentially hundreds of thousands are affected.

On Feb. 13, the administration ordered agencies to lay off nearly all such workers. According to government data maintained by OPM, 220,000 federal employees had less than a year on the job as of March 2024.

Department of Veterans Affairs

On Feb. 13, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced the dismissal of more than 1,000 employees who had served for less than two years. According to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., that included researchers working on cancer treatment, opioid addiction, prosthetics and burn pit exposure.

Education Department

At least 39 people have been fired from the Education Department, including special education specialists and student aid officials, according to a union that represents agency workers.

There have also been nearly $900 million in cuts to the department’s Institute of Education Services, which tracks the progress of America’s students. It is unclear to what degree the institute would continue to exist. Industry experts said at least 169 contracts were terminated Feb. 10.

Energy Department

Hundreds of federal employees tasked with working on the nation’s nuclear weapons programs were laid off Feb. 13, but that move was largely rescinded hours later, according to a memo obtained by the AP. Three U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation said as many as 350 employees at the National Nuclear Security Administration were ousted, with some losing access to email before they had learned they were fired.

Department of Health and Human Services

The cuts include more than 5,000 employees at the Department of Health and Human Services.

At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 1,300 probationary employees — roughly one-tenth of the agency’s total workforce — are being forced out. The Atlanta-based agency’s leadership was notified of the decision Feb. 14, according to a federal official who was at the meeting and was not authorized to discuss the orders and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Department of Homeland Security

The probationary cuts included more than 130 employees at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which oversees the nation’s critical infrastructure, including the federal efforts to secure election systems. It is not clear whether those included 17 employees who had worked on election security and had already been placed on leave.

Four employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency — its chief financial officer, two program analysts and a grant specialist — were fired Feb. 11 over payments to reimburse New York City for hotel costs for migrants.

Internal Revenue Service

The IRS will lay off thousands of probationary workers in the middle of tax season, according to two people familiar with the agency’s plans who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

It is unclear how many IRS workers will be affected or when the cuts will happen.

National Park Service

The administration has fired about 1,000 newly hired National Park Service employees who maintain and clean parks, educate visitors and perform other functions.

The firings were not publicly announced but were confirmed by Democratic senators and House members. Adding to the confusion, the park service now says it is reinstating about 5,000 seasonal jobs that were initially rescinded last month.

Seasonal workers are routinely added during the warm-weather months to serve more than 325 million annual visitors who descend on the nation’s 428 parks, historic sites and other attractions.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The administration has ordered the agency — created after the 2008 financial crisis and subprime mortgage-lending scandal — to stop nearly all its work, effectively shutting it down.

Agriculture Department

The new agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, said on Feb. 14 that her agency had invited Elon Musk’s DOGE team with “open arms” and that layoffs “will be forthcoming.”

Foreign aid and development

Trump swiftly ordered a halt to much of the aid that the United States sends abroad. Several weeks later, the pause is on pause.

In his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order directing a 90-day hold on most of the foreign assistance disbursed through the State Department.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued several specific exemptions, including emergency food programs and military aid to Israel and Egypt from the freeze on foreign assistance. But thousands of U.S.-funded humanitarian, development and security programs worldwide stopped work or prepared to do so.

Without the money to pay staff, aid organizations including the U.S. Agency for International Development began laying off hundreds of employees. Crews removed the agency’s signage from its Washington headquarters.

But on Feb. 13, a federal judge considering some of the lawsuits challenging agency cuts ordered the administration to temporarily lift the funding freeze.

Federal grants and loans

The White House said last month it was pausing federal grants and loans as the Republican administration began an across-the-board ideological review.

The freeze could affect trillions of dollars and cause widespread disruption in health care research, education programs and other initiatives. Even grants that have been awarded but not spent are supposed to be halted.

“The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve,” said a memo from Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Democrats and independent organizations said the move was illegal because Congress had already authorized the funding.

Inspectors general

Each of the federal government’s largest agencies has its own independent inspector general who is supposed to conduct objective audits, prevent fraud and promote efficiency.

Trump has fired at least 17 of them, including watchdogs he appointed in his first term. At least one Democratic appointee, Michael Horowitz at the Justice Department, was spared.

Trump told reporters that “it’s a very common thing to do” and that he would “put good people in there that will be very good.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the firings were a “chilling purge.” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a top Trump ally, acknowledged that the firings may have violated the law, but he added, “Just tell them you need to follow the law next time.”

Department of Justice

It’s normal for politically appointed U.S. attorneys to be replaced, but it is not standard procedure for career prosecutors to be ousted with a change in administrations.

The Justice Department said last month that it had fired more than a dozen employees who worked on criminal prosecutions of Trump by special counsel Jack Smith’s team.

By tradition, career employees remain with the department across presidential administrations regardless of their involvement in sensitive investigations.

Multiple senior career officials were also reassigned.

State Department

A large number of senior career diplomats who served in politically appointed leadership positions — as well as in lower-level posts at the State Department — left their jobs at the demand of the new administration.

It was not immediately clear how many nonpolitical appointees were being asked to leave.

Kinnard can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP

​ Orange County Register 

Debra Saunders: Live From New York, it’s the liberal media

• February 19, 2025

WASHINGTON — Sunday night’s “SNL50: The Anniversary Special” celebrated the long-running NBC show as you knew it would — with the soothing reassurance to its ostensibly liberal viewers that they own comedy and that, in their world, the right’s only place in their orbit is as the butt of their self-satisfied jokes.

Even though President Donald Trump hosted the show in 2004 and 2015, he was conspicuously absent from the Rockefeller Plaza stage. Because everyone knows that an essential ingredient of any “SNL” episode is to reassure young voters that their politics have a monopoly on virtue and fun.

Days before the November election, during the show’s famed cold open, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris got an assist from cast member Maya Rudolph, who played the vice president talking to herself (Harris) in the looking glass. It was a love fest. I remember watching that skit and thinking it exhibited yet another reason Trump was likely to win the election.

It’s the smugness, stupid.

NBC has absolutely no problem signaling to the majority of voters who supported Trump that they have no place in the spotlight.

There was one pro-Trump character during the three-hour-plus TV special. MAGA-hat wearing contestant Tom Hanks at first recoils when “Black Jeopardy” host Kenan Thompson tries to shake his hand. Because, don’t you know, Trump World is racist?

That’s one reason I rarely watch the show. I am happy to laugh at my politics. I just wish “SNL” comedians could do likewise. The show’s ratings might perk up, too.

Because, right now, watching “SNL” is sort of like watching a White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. It’s occasionally funny, but you know the comedian’s political leanings will be further left than most voters.

Ditto Sunday morning fare on NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.

On “Face the Nation” Sunday morning, host Margaret Brennan stepped in it again. As she interviewed Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Brennan engaged in the stalest of Sunday talk show habits: asking a Republican to comment on another Republican’s ill-conceived rhetoric.

Except this time, the Republican quote-maker in question was highly articulate Vice President JD Vance, who on Friday very deliberately had told the Munich Security Conference that he fears the biggest security threat to Europe is not Russia or China or any external actor. “What I worry about is the threat from within,” Vance told the gathering, “the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.” Values like free speech.

You might expect Brennan to appreciate Vance’s remarks because, well, free speech is sort of important to the news business.

Instead, Brennan went after the “Hillbilly Elegy” author’s remarks, when she argued, “Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups.”

So the cause of genocide in Nazi Germany wasn’t antisemitism or Hitler, it was free speech.

I have one question: How is someone as completely out of touch as Brennan still working?

Conservative social media had a field day. Once again, the right is shown as the champion of the First Amendment while Big Media are asking what free speech accomplishes. And they have no idea how they look to the audience they are losing.

Who’s going to tell them? It doesn’t matter. They can’t hear it.

That “Face the Nation” segment is the stuff of a “Saturday Night Live” skit. But do the “SNL” writers see that?

Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at [email protected]. Follow @debrajsaunders on X.

​ Orange County Register 

Conflicting studies obscure the reality of California’s fast food wage battle

• February 19, 2025

California’s Capitol has seen countless conflicts between economic interests, but few match the intensity of a duel between the fast food industry and labor unions that seemingly ended two years ago with compromise legislation raising the minimum wage to $20.

Ever since the higher wage went into effect last year, the feuding factions have argued over whether the increase has benefited workers without significant negative impacts, as Gov. Gavin Newsom and other advocates have claimed, or has reduced employment and raised prices, as the industry maintains.

The debate is picking up steam as the Fast Food Council, an entity created to oversee pay and working conditions, ponders a new effort by unions to boost the minimum wage even higher.

First, a brief history.

In 2022, the Legislature passed and Newsom signed a union-backed bill that would have raised the fast food minimum wage to $22 an hour and declared that fast food franchises are merely subsidiaries of the parent chains, rather than independently owned businesses.

The industry disliked the wage increase but loathed the challenge to the franchise system and responded with a referendum to overturn the law. However, a multimillion-dollar ballot battle was averted in 2023 with compromise legislation. It mandated a $20 minimum wage and set aside the franchise status issue, but retained creation of the Fast Food Council. The new wage went into effect last April and the conflict continued with ongoing debate about the law’s effects.

Proponents have cited multiple studies by academics at Harvard, UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley contending that the wage hike has had minimal, if any, negative effects.

“We find that the policy increased average hourly pay by a remarkable 18 percent, and yet it did not reduce employment,” a study by the UC Berkeley Institute for Research and Labor Employment concluded. “The policy increased prices about 3.7 percent, or about 15 cents on a $4 hamburger (on a one-time basis), contrary to industry claims of larger increases.”

In October, Newsom declared that “This study reaffirms that our commitment to fair wages for fast-food workers is not only lifting up working families but also strengthening our economy. The data shows that investing in workers benefits everyone — workers, businesses, and our state as a whole.”

However, both the UC Berkeley labor center and Harvard’s Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy lean to the left, and the fast food industry dismisses their studies as biased.

In January, an industry coalition called Save Local Restaurants sent a letter to Newsom declaring that “an additional wage increase would once again unfairly single out our livelihoods and cripple thousands of small business owners like us who are already struggling to survive the $20/hour minimum wage, our customers and our employees.”

On Monday, the industry released its own impact study, conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, a private consulting firm. It found that wage increases have reduced fast food employment, shortened the hours worked, compelled fast food franchises to use more automation and resulted in markedly higher consumer prices.

Both pro and con studies used roughly the same employment data generated by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agency does not collect specific data on the fast food chains affected by the minimum wage legislation, so the rival researchers had to extrapolate what they contend are valid statistical bases.

The situation cries out for some truly objective research into this experiment in industry-specific wage-setting. It could be extended to other economic sectors, but without some reliable data on effects, everyone involved is shooting in the dark. It will be politics, rather than fact, which governs the outcomes.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

​ Orange County Register 

Donald Trump is sort of a fascist, actually

• February 19, 2025

Last week, this reputable news outlet published a piece by Walter E. Block, a distinguished professor of economics at Loyola University, New Orleans, where he argued that Trump is not a fascist – on the contrary, that “Trump is entitled to label the regulatory Democrats as fascists, not the other way around.” Now, I don’t really care much about whether some individual fits semantically with some semi-arbitrarily defined label, but I found Block’s arguments to be at best disingenuous and uncharitable to those who would label Trump as such.  

Why does Block think that Trump isn’t a fascist? According to him, it’s because fascists typically exert executive control over industry and Trump doesn’t do that. That’s most of it. He ignores all of the other components that go into whether someone adequately embodies fascism.

When attempting to determine whether something fits a definition, all that is usually required is to look at the necessary and sufficient conditions that are generally stipulated to encompass that definition, and compare them to the target of analysis. That’s usually all there is to it – debates about what the necessary and sufficient conditions should be are another matter. 

What’s the point of determining whether someone is a fascist? I believe that our social consciousness about our shared values of our democratic system tend to automatically categorize someone who is fascist as “bad” because they violate those values and someone who is not a fascist as “better, insofar as they do not violate those values.” Therefore, practical considerations dictate that it’s desirable to clarify to people what sorts of labels they should apply to others.

So let’s keep it as simple possible and use the Wikipedia definition for fascism: “Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.”

Is Trump far-right? Well, he’s not a moderate. He is spearheading the implementation of Project 2025, placing the lead architects of the Heritage Foundation project in critical positions: Russ Vought in charge of the Office of Management and Budget, Tom Homan as border czar, and John Ratcliffe as CIA director, among others. By their own admission, they’re trying to turn our government into a Christian theocracy and are attempting to implement a total ban on abortion.

Is Trump authoritarian? Again, the whole point of Project 2025 is for conservatives to coagulate power within the executive branch. Trump is currently commandeering the legislative branch’s power over spending by ordering things like a funding freeze whose spendings were legitimately mandated by Congress, and he’s also currently ignoring the judicial branch’s orders to release those funds. He’s staffing the government with puppets so that he can implement his will without worrying about checks on his power. That’s authoritarian, whether you agree with the substance of what he’s doing or not. 

Is Trump ultranationalist or militaristic? His road to victory was paved by rhetoric that positioned America against the rest of the world, with a consistent emphasis on claiming that the satisfaction of our interests is incompatible with the satisfaction of the interests of other nations – someone is a winner and someone is a loser, and we must ensure America is always the winner. He’s threatening to violate the sovereignty of multiple countries by force. He is threatening to take the Gaza strip and permanently remove millions of Palestinians. This sure sounds like the militarism and expansionism that is characteristic of fascists.

Is Trump forcefully suppressing opposition? He’s firing anyone who doesn’t pass his little loyalty test and is allegedly willing to use military force against dissenting domestic protesters. Republicans have been relegated to such a pathetic status that they’re actually truly performing acts of fealty as you would with a king, such as Rep. Claudia Tenney proposing legislation to make Trump’s birthday a national holiday. Just genuinely embarrassing stuff where you really have to set your pride aside to propose it. 

Is Trump implementing a strong regimentation of the economy and society? This is where Block made his point and, in some ways, Trump fits this condition and in other ways he doesn’t. He certainly speaks about deregulating and he does in some respects. In others, he increases regulation. Tariffs themselves are regulations. He’s attempting to undermine the free markets so as to manipulate the competitiveness (a foolhardy attempt) of domestic manufacturing. He’s mandating that society must dispense with DEI and woke ideology. Again, whether or not you think that this is a good thing, he fits the condition for fascism. It doesn’t appear to be a “strong” regimentation, but it’s not the “furthest” from fascism you can be.

So the upshot of all of this is that Trump is somewhat of a fascist. 

Block’s argument rests on the thought that executive control over industry is a necessary condition for a leader to be fascist. 

First, there is no principled reason to think that executive control over the economy is a necessary condition when a leader exhibits so many of the other conditions in the definition. 

Second, there is substantial reason to believe that Trump is exercising some executive control over the economy. It’s not to the extent of the Third Reich, obviously that would be hyperbole. But he does have something beyond modest fascist tendencies, all things considered. 

Trump genuinely embodies at least some Hitler and Mussolini adjacent tendencies that are in stark opposition to our democratic values.

Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. He is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Rochester. You can reach him at [email protected].

​ Orange County Register