The Brief

A year after he took the top job in 2019, the president of one of California’s largest and most powerful unions said in a newsletter that he wanted to be “the 800 pound gorilla” in Sacramento politics.

Since then, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union known as CCPOA representing 26,000 state prison guards, has spent and spent, in a way it never did before. Its biggest recipient: Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has taken $2.9 million from the union since he was elected governor.

That’s 31% of all political spending by the union since 2001.

The union under President Glen Stailey gave $1.75 million to Newsom’s anti-recall campaign in 2021 – the largest single contribution to that effort – and another $1 million to support Proposition 1, Newsom’s treatment and housing plan for people experiencing serious mental illness, which passed by the narrowest of margins this year.

That’s a noted contrast to the union’s relationship with the three governors who preceded Newsom, especially former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fought the union’s proposed raises and was the target of an aborted recall campaign launched by the union.

CCPOA has contributed more than $9.3 million to political campaigns in the last 20 years

Prior to the Newsom administration, the prison union’s biggest political expense came in 2005, when it joined other labor organizations in fighting a package of ballot measures sponsored by Schwarzenegger that would have curbed state spending and weakened public employee unions. The unions won, dealing Schwarzenegger a major defeat.

Campaign finance records show the union largely stayed out of political fights during former Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration. It avoided the ballot measures that lowered criminal sentences for nonviolent crimes and gave inmates more opportunities for parole — propositions that voters passed and that contributed to declining headcounts in state prisons.

Then Newsom took office, and the union’s pocketbook opened wide.

There are two ways to look at that spending, according to interviews with legislators, labor leaders, former prison officials and budget watchdogs.

In one, it’s a naked display of power: one of the richest unions in a labor-friendly state reminding its top politicians that it can spend with them — or against them. That’s primarily the view from outside the Capitol.

In the other view, from inside the Capitol, it’s a reflection of the union’s anxiety in the face of waning influence as California’s future almost certainly includes fewer prisons and fewer union-represented prison guards to staff them. The numbers don’t lie: California is housing 70,000 fewer inmates in state prisons than it did in 2011.

At the outset of his first term, Newsom floated the idea of closing a single state prison. He’s since closed three and canceled a contract on another private prison, collectively saving hundreds of millions of dollars. But facing a budget deficit and 4,000 fewer inmates projected to be in prison by the end of his term in 2026, Newsom demurred this year from shutting down another institution.

In a year of budget scarcity, when each inmate costs about $132,000 to house annually and the Legislative Analyst’s Office has said the state has space to close five more prisons, Newsom has been stubborn about keeping prisons open. He has said he wants to keep some additional capacity in the system, and that he wants to build up rehabilitative programs that can help inmates reintegrate into society.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, in a written statement said the governor has tried to balance potential budget savings with public safety needs inside prisons.

“Saving taxpayers billions of dollars without impacting public safety, Gov. Newsom has closed more prisons than any of his predecessors,” he wrote. “The governor’s decisions have been based exclusively on meeting the evolving needs of our criminal justice system, in a manner that maximizes public safety and the judicious use of taxpayer dollars.

Nathan Ballard, an adviser to the union and a longtime Newsom ally, said in written responses to questions from CalMatters that the union and the governor had “respectful and substantive” discussions about potential prison closures this budget cycle.

“Union leaders clearly aired their views and listened very carefully to the administration’s priorities,” Ballard said. “The governor made it known that he valued the union’s input. Ultimately, Gov. Newsom’s process is his own, and it would be irresponsible to speculate about how he arrives at any particular decision.”

The millions of dollars the union shoveled into Newsom’s most significant projects were a reflection of the union’s priorities, he said.

“When the union and the governor are in alignment policy-wise, as they were during Proposition 1, the CCPOA does not hesitate to fight hard for the governor’s initiatives,” he said.

“Even while grappling with policy areas where they are less aligned, there is a strong commitment to finding areas of agreement and progress.”

CCPOA's big contracts in Newsom years

Spending lots of money to support the most powerful executive in the state is perhaps not surprising. So what happens to the politicians who cross the prison guard union?

When the union wanted to get rid of John Moorlach, a Republican state senator who was questioning pension benefits for California public employees, it spent more than $1 million against him in his Orange County race. Then the flyers started popping up, sponsored by the union, tying the Never Trumper senator to the policies and personal predilections of Donald Trump.

“It was cartoonish,” said Lance Christensen, Moorloch’s campaign manager in that 2020 race. “You would think that the public safety unions whose job it is to serve and defend and protect Californians would want a guy like John Moorlach, who was law and order and supportive generally of public safety programs.”

Former Sen. John Moorlach lost his reelection campaign in 2020. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, or CCPOA, spent heavily against him. The Republican lawmaker had carried legislation that would have allowed public employees to choose 401(k) plans instead pensions.

(

Anne Wernikoff

/

CalMatters

)

The prison guard union has spent $3.8 million across 32 state legislative races in this century – $1.2 million of that was spent to defeat Moorlach. He lost to Democrat Dave Min, 51%-49%.

“They decided that it was time to go hammer and tong after him, and take him out,” Christensen said.

The union, which represents about 10% of all state workers, has undoubtedly gotten good deals for its members, arguably none more so than last year, when it negotiated a $1 billion raise over three years. Correctional officers also got a new state-funded retirement perk out of the deal, in addition to their California Public Employees’ Retirement System pensions. And when the state mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for state employees, prison guards were permitted to skip them.

That spending has consistently come under fire from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which found in 2019 and 2021 that the Newsom administration offered “no evidence to justify (a) pay increase” in an unusually harsh analysis of proposed prison guard raises.

The analysis found that California prison guards have neither a recruitment nor a retention problem, and that their salaries were already in line with the salaries in the counties where they work – if not more than 5% higher than comparable job classifications.

Last year, the Legislative Analyst’s Office excoriated Newsom’s administration for repeatedly refusing to make public a 2018 compensation study on prison guard salaries and benefits. The administration regularly publishes compensation studies regarding its 18 other employee bargaining units.

Instead, the administration provided a 2022 compensation study, which the Legislative Analyst’s Office called “flawed” for its failure to account for overtime pay and its selection of large, metropolitan counties as pay comparison points rather than the rural areas where most prison guards work.

“The study is flawed to the point that it is not helpful in meeting its stated objective and we recommend policymakers not use it to assess whether the state’s compensation package for correctional officers is appropriate to attract and retain qualified workers,” according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Those raises, said Brian Kaneda, deputy director for Californians United for a Responsible Budget, put the state’s budget crisis in sharper relief.

“The CCPOA has a stranglehold on Sacramento politics,” Kaneda said. “Everyone’s struggling right now, but prison guards are getting a $1 billion raise. Explain how this could possibly be the right move for California as we tussle with this historic budget deficit.”

When asked to gauge the union’s influence in Sacramento and the diverging views on its power, Ballard said union leadership concentrates on its members more than its lobby.

“The union’s leaders are focused on matters of character, not reputation,” he said. “The CCPOA’s leaders are street-smart correctional officers who have worked in very tough conditions for decades, and as a group they are not terribly concerned with perceived status.”

Is CCPOA a factor in Newsom's prison closures?

Newsom began identifying prisons to close in 2020. More followed in 2022. Then, Newsom stopped naming additional prisons to close even though they have thousands of empty beds.

What changed? For one, people’s perception of crime spiked in the pandemic — though the kind of crimes that would merit prison time mostly went down.

For a governor who perhaps has ambitions beyond Sacramento, that’s important, said one Democratic legislator who did not want their name used for fear of retaliation by both the governor’s office and the prison guard union.

“I don’t think the CCPOA is the reason we’ve stalled on prison closures,” said the legislator. “I think it’s the governor himself or someone in the governor’s office protecting (the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation).

“My presumption is the governor is moderating his views on public safety because of where he wants to go nationally. And so he’s super careful about any perception of being soft on crime.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at San Quentin State Prison announcing that the facility will be transformed to focus on training and rehabilitation on March 17, 2023.

(

Martin do Nascimento

/

CalMatters

)

In its heyday during the prison building boom of the 1990s and 2000s, the prison guard union would never have had to account for such calculations, said former Corrections Secretary Matt Cate. Back then, both parties had incentives to make nice with the union.

“At the time, the Democrats were more moderate than they are now and they were doing everything to support labor generally,” said Cate, who was appointed corrections secretary in 2008 by Schwarzenegger and stayed for two years under Brown, leaving the office in 2011. “Meanwhile, Republicans were staunchly in favor of law enforcement and long sentences because they didn’t believe in rehabilitation and re-entry.

“So CCPOA had an open field. It was just a much easier job than what the CCPOA faces today. It’s not as easy today to be an 800-pound gorilla as it would have been 20 years ago.”

Cate doubts the union is the sole reason, or even the main reason, that Newsom stopped designating prisons for closure. Closing a prison is like closing “a small city,” Cate said, with 3,000 inmates and 800-1,000 employees represented by a dozen or more different unions. The prison system’s health care is managed by a federal monitor, and another federal monitor oversees the state’s prison mental health care.

Taking on a Democrat, and losing

One legislator who crossed the prison union and whose career survived was Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat, who said the sharp-elbowed tactics employed by the union under Stailey, its president, were reflective of the union’s approach in the 1990s, a time when the union’s power was at its height.

“If they sneezed,” he said, “people got a cold.”

In 2020, Jones-Sawyer fell into their crosshairs, literally.

The union ran an online ad against Jones-Sawyer that showed Stailey pointing at a wall of photos of legislators. Over Jones-Sawyer’s photo was a piece of white paper with crosshairs and a red dot. Jones-Sawyer took that as a threat, and the union pledged to pull the ad down and re-edit it.

“It became clear that if they wanted to get back the power, they needed to take somebody out to put the fear into everybody,” said Jones-Sawyer, who won re-election that year. “They thought I was an easy target to take out. They learned that was not the case.”

A finger belonging to California Correctional Peace Officers Association president Glen Stailey points at a bullseye taped over the official portrait of Democratic Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer in a Facebook video produced by the association.

(

screenshot via Facebook

/

CalMatters

)

Jones-Sawyer notes that the union didn’t spend much under former Gov. Brown – not until the threat of prison closures became a reality after Newsom’s election in 2018.

“Once they started talking about closing prisons, that’s when the fear from the CCPOA came up,” Jones-Sawyer said. “That’s when they started writing double max-out checks.”

Jones-Sawyer said he’s frustrated by what he sees as abuses within the prison system, especially guards with multiple infractions keeping their jobs. The Office of the Inspector General earlier this year found that the corrections department had reclassified a backlog of staff misconduct complaints as “routine grievances,” and allowed the statute of limitations to expire in 127 complaints between 2022 and 2023.

Now, Jones-Sawyer said, he’s considering calling for an audit of the prison system’s facilities and spending.

“When (the corrections department) comes back and says this is the best way to do it, we try to see their logic and a lot of times we don’t,” he said.

Are those hard-charging tactics isolating the prison union? One bill introduced this year may be an indication. The bill would limit the number of empty beds available in the prison system to account for the declining inmate population.

Among the bill’s registered supporters are immigration advocates, the California Public Defenders Association and anti-incarceration lobbies.

There was just one group registered in opposition: the CCPOA.

Seven years ago, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law to bring safe and affordable drinking water to the state’s most disadvantaged communities.

Last week, Newsom celebrated the program’s accomplishments.

“Over 1 million people that didn't have access to clean, safe drinking water today have access to clean, safe drinking water,” Newsom told a conference room filled with California’s water leaders, to a round of applause.

“I'm not saying that to impress you, but to impress upon you real progress. A lot more work to be done.”

But that work could lose critical funding as the Newsom administration overhauls its source: California’s carbon market. The changes to the program’s funding priorities and revenue threaten efforts to bring clean drinking water to schools, homes and communities across California.

“If that funding goes away,” said Sherry Hunter, who has long battled the arsenic leaching into the water supply in the historic Tulare County town of Allensworth, “Oh my god, I can’t even imagine.”

Climate money for clean water

A critical piece of California’s clean water funding is linked to the state’s carbon market, which sets a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions that oil refineries, power plants and manufacturers can meet by buying and trading carbon credits.

Lawmakers tap this fund for environmental efforts, like combatting unsafe drinking water in rural communities.

In 2019, Newsom signed a law that gave rise to the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience, or SAFER, drinking water program at the State Water Resources Control Board. The law called for funding it with $130 million a year from carbon market revenues through 2030.

It can be a risky source of funding, subject to the rise and fall of credit auctions. But the law came with a promise: When the proceeds fell flat, the state’s general fund would make up the rest.

This isn’t the only pot of money that California draws on for its safe drinking water efforts, but it’s the most versatile, paying for emergency and other types of assistance that bonds and more restrictive funding can’t.

When Newsom and California lawmakers don’t budget enough to provide bottled water for households and schools with dry or dangerous taps, this fund covers the costs.

When low-income communities can’t pay for the technical expertise to manage their water systems or compete for grants needed to drill new wells and connect to safer water, the safe and affordable drinking water fund can help bridge that gap.

Cases of water Sherry Hunter collects in her home in Allensworth on Sept.4, 2024. The community of Allensworth has been dealing with an ongoing issue of arsenic leaking into its wells, one of which consistently exceeds state health limits.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

Thousands of households and dozens of schools rely on this money for emergency supplies — like Hope Elementary School in Porterville, where the taps flow with elevated levels of nitrate. The contaminant is linked to cancers, pregnancy complications and a life-threatening condition in infants known as “blue baby syndrome” when consumed in high enough quantities.

More than $83,000 has been awarded from the fund since 2021 to supply the school with bottled water and roughly $110,000 for technical assistance as the school district works to connect to safer supplies, according to the water board.

The funding lets school officials put their budget to work in the classroom.

“Thank goodness,” said Melanie Matta, the school district’s superintendent and principal. About three-quarters of the students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, Matta said. “That water can get expensive, right? We're already running on a pretty tight budget.”

Matta has a message for Newsom: She’d like him to tour her school, and witness why this money is so important.

“When you meet our kids and walk our small school community, you’ll see exactly why this fight matters and why this funding must be protected,” Matta said in an email. “Safe water is not a gift. It’s a promise. And we need your help to keep that promise.”

‘There’s nothing left’ 

The cuts began in September, when Newsom and lawmakers struck a deal to reauthorize the state’s carbon market after weeks of tense and chaotic negotiations — renaming it “cap and invest.”

The new laws deprioritized funding lawmakers had promised to safe drinking water, clean air, fire resilience, affordable housing and other programs — shifting their priority behind $1 billion for high-speed rail and $1 billion for lawmakers to direct through the budget.

The laws removed the 2030 expiration for the safe and affordable drinking water program. But they also dropped the original promise to make up any funding shortfalls from the carbon market — putting $100 million at risk through 2030, according to a Department of Finance forecast in January.

Assemblymember James Gallagher, a Republican from Chico, called the new priority system “unfortunate” and “misplaced” at a budget subcommittee hearing in March.

“If you ask these Central Valley communities, these rural communities, ‘What would you prefer? Would you want safe drinking water coming out of your faucet, or do you want a high-speed rail in your community?’” he said. “I'm pretty sure I know the answer.”

Now, climate regulators on the California Air Resources Board — chaired by Newsom appointee Lauren Sanchez — are proposing to overhaul the carbon market in ways that could cut revenues in half.

If adopted, the changes could leave no funding at all for safe drinking water and other third-tier programs as soon as the 2027–28 fiscal year, according to legislative analyst Helen Kerstein — though, Kerstein added, the forecasts are uncertain.

Sanchez, who was Newsom’s top climate advisor before leading the air board, defended the staff proposal at a Senate oversight hearing last week.

“Do you believe the Legislature intended to eliminate funding for affordable housing, transit, drinking water, wildfire prevention and clean air programs with the reauthorization?” Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes, a Democrat from San Bernardino and chair of a Senate budget subcommittee, asked Sanchez.

Sanchez said the staff proposal didn’t specifically call for defunding those programs.

“Let me stop you for a moment. That will be the effect,” Reyes said. “There's nothing left … and those are the most important programs that have served the community.”

Newsom deflected, pointing to the Legislature.

“Any suggestion that California is ‘trading away’ clean drinking water ignores both the current budget proposal, and the Legislature’s ongoing role in funding these priorities,” spokesperson Anthony Martinez said in an emailed statement. Martinez hinted at, but did not specify, what’s coming in Newsom’s May budget revision Thursday.

‘Many of them were left behind’ 

Roughly 613,000 people still rely on water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water. Regulators at the state water board deem another 661 water systems serving nearly 2 million people “at risk” of failure.

Still, almost one million more people have safe drinking water than in 2019 — which state water officials attribute to the safe drinking water program and its unique, flexible pot of money.

“When we were relying on the community to spend its own time and money to get ready, many of them got left behind,” said Darrin Polhemus, who leads the state water board’s Division of Drinking Water. “The safe drinking water fund has allowed us to prepare communities to do long-term projects, faster.”

The program, which draws from other state and federal funding sources, has awarded more than $1.8 billion in grants for disadvantaged communities. It’s helped around 320 water systems serving 3.3 million people come off the state’s failing list, even as other, at-risk suppliers stumble onto it.

The safe and affordable drinking water fund also has helped pay for emergency repairs, technical assistance, bottled water supplies and even some construction costs in communities from San Bernardino to Tulare, Monterey and Sutter counties — all contending with aging and contaminated water systems.

“We could not have done it without them,” said Sherry Hunter in Allensworth, which started work on a new well and storage tank in January to bring clean water to a town struggling with arsenic and other water problems for over a century.

“There's a lot of other smaller disadvantaged communities that depend on them as well,” Hunter said.

The costs for fixing these water systems and household wells could hit billions of dollars in the coming years, according to a 2024 water board analysis. And Polhemus said the challenge will grow — even as funding shrinks — as water suppliers face new limits on contaminants like hexavalent chromium.

“If we’ve started and committed to a project, we’ve got the funding reserve to see it through,” Polhemus said. “It’s just, we won’t be starting new projects.”

Federal money is also running out. A Biden-era funding boost ends this year, slashing another, more restrictive fund for drinking water infrastructure projects from hundreds of millions of dollars to tens of millions, according to federal and water board data. Congressional earmarks could eat into what remains.

Tami McVay, emergency services director for the nonprofit Self-Help Enterprises, which connects rural communities to affordable housing and safe drinking water, is worried.

Her program provides bottled water to more than 3,000 households in the San Joaquin Valley, and trucks water to refill storage tanks at roughly 700 more. Her team helps replace domestic wells and test their water. And it relies on state funding.

Seeing the potential cuts, she said, “it definitely made our mouths drop a little.”

Polhemus said he understands communities are nervous.

“We're going to work with the funds we're given to continue the program as best we can, because we know the need still exists,” he said. “The question of how much of it exists, of course, comes out of our hands and into the political arena.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing further budget cuts and expanding the state’s reserves despite a recent surge in tax revenue — an attempt to balance the books in anticipation of a looming long-term deficit in the coming years, he said.

In a presentation riddled with criticism of the Trump administration and featuring memes including an image of President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as “Dumb and Dumber,” Newsom released his last budget plan as governor on Thursday.

He proposed a $350 billion spending plan that would zero out the state’s budget deficit for two years and cut longer-term budget gaps in half. Newsom had pledged not to leave his successor with a giant structural deficit.

“I’m not trying to get out of Dodge,” Newsom said. “This is a balanced budget structurally for the next 18 months after I’m gone.”

He proposed slashing general fund spending by $1.8 billion, primarily by further cutting Medi-Cal, including by raising monthly premiums on undocumented immigrant adults by $20 and reinstating Medi-Cal asset tests.

While Newsom wants the state to continue withdrawing $7 billion from the state’s reserves this year, his proposal would also shore up the rainy day fund by transferring $3.6 billion to the account and setting aside nearly $10 billion more for fiscal year 2027-28.

The governor’s presentation is an updated outlook at the state’s finances since January, when Newsom’s administration projected a “modest shortfall” of $2.9 billion that would grow to a $22 billion deficit in fiscal year 2027-28.

Since then, the state’s tax revenue has grown faster than anticipated, thanks to a robust stock market and California’s robust AI-driven technology sector. Newsom projects that the state will see $16.5 billion more in revenue over a three-year budgeting window than expected in January.

A graphic shown during Gov. Gavin Newsom's presentation of his revised 2026-27 budget proposal in Sacramento on May 14, 2026. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters But Newsom said the state’s financial outlook remains ominous, attributing much of the uncertainty to Trump’s policies, including a spending plan the president calls his “one, big beautiful bill.” It could strip 2 million low-income Californians of health insurance coverage, and the war in Iran, which has sent gas prices skyrocketing nationwide.

“We have a president who … doesn’t particularly give a damn about the financial situation of the average American,” Newsom said.

It’s unclear how long California’s revenue boon would last. The recent spike in tax collection suggests that the stock market is reaching “bubble territory” and could head toward an “eventual bust,” said the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which advises the state Legislature. “The state should be prepared for revenues to be tens of billions lower within one or two years.”

California’s spending has continued to outpace revenue growth. Since fiscal year 2019-20, spending has grown by more than $100 billion, primarily from maintaining and expanding K-14 education, according to the LAO.

“We need to tighten our belt, and we need to focus on the outcomes,” he said.
But Newsom is proposing new spending in some areas, including $300 million to subsidize private healthcare for low-income and middle-class Californians as well as money to offer paid pregnancy leave for TK-12 and community college employees and to cut filing fees for roughly 250,000 new businesses in half.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

In L.A., we tout ourselves as having one of the best food scenes in the world, with cuisines from nearly every corner of the globe available to sample.

And yet a few still occasionally fall through the cracks. Blame geography, or the lack of a sizable population to sustain such establishments. Either way, the gap is real.

Puerto Rican food is one of those cuisines. Despite a handful of restaurants scattered throughout the Southland, cocina criolla remains largely underrepresented. For me, it's personal.

My grandfather was Puerto Rican, born on the island and eventually settling in El Paso, Texas, where he met my grandmother — who was Mexican — before shipping out to fight in the Korean War. He came back, but the family didn't hold. He and my grandmother split when my dad was young. And yet his spirit has always loomed in the family background.

Harry Chabrán and Angie Chabrán, Gab's grandparents.

(

Courtesy Gab Chabrán

)

I'm always looking for ways to connect with that side of my heritage, which is why, when I heard chef and writer Monti Carlo was writing a cookbook called Spanglish: Recipes & Stories, I invited her to appear at our next Cookbook Live event on May 21 as an opportunity to dig deeper.

Speaking in Spanglish

Monti Carlo has been working in food media for the past 15 years, first appearing on Season 3 of MasterChef, where she placed fifth. Since then, she's served as an advisor for the James Beard Foundation.

Monti Carlo, author of "Spanglish: Recipes & Stories," will be in conversation at The Crawford in Pasadena on Thursday, May 21.

(

Rafael N Ruiz Mederos

/

Courtesy Simon Element

)

Born and raised in Puerto Rico, she spent much of her youth in Texas — navigating what many of us know as a hybrid identity, that particular life lived between cultures. Hence the title: Spanglish is a term used by many whose families come from Latin American countries but who grow up speaking English, often mixing both languages in the same sentence, sometimes in the same breath. For Carlo, it's also an act of reclamation — taking back a word that's long been used to marginalize Puerto Ricans in the diaspora.

Understanding the food

When discussing the recipes in her book, Carlo keeps coming back to one dish in particular: pastelón.

It's a dish that encapsulates the cuisine — sweet fried plantain slices layered with picadillo, a beef mince made with raisins and olives, bound together with egg, and blanketed in cheese.

"It's salty and sweet," she said. "That's our favorite flavor."

And that distinction matters. Puerto Rican cuisine, she's quick to note, isn't built around heat the way Mexican food is. It's subtler than that, rooted in a balance of contrasts — and no ingredient embodies that better than the plantain, which Carlo describes as the most foundational ingredient in the cuisine, even though it wasn't originally native to the island, having been brought by enslaved people from Africa.

"Spanglish: Recipes & Stories" by Monti Carlo, with a foreword by Gordon Ramsay, is available now.

(

Courtesy Simon Element

)

"My goodness, what a plantain can do," she said. "From being eaten green to being eaten while it's surrounded by fruit flies."

To her, that full arc — starchy and firm at one end, deeply sweet and soft at the other — is a portrait of Puerto Rican cooking itself.

Carlo's version in the book is vegetarian, using mushrooms instead of ground beef, while keeping two of the cuisine's foundational bases intact: recaíto and sazón. Recaíto is a pureed aromatic blend — green peppers, herbs, and recao (also known as culantro) — that gives dishes their distinctive green hue. Sazón is a dry seasoning made up of garlic powder, oregano, coriander, annatto, and ground turmeric.

Finding sazón in the Southland

Puerto Rican food exists in SoCal — you just have to know where to look. As someone who's always on the lookout for a plate of pasteles or a bowl of mofongo, a few spots have stood the test of time, including Señor Big Ed's in Cypress and Mofongos in North Hollywood.

Señor Big Ed's

Señor Big Ed's has been open since 1982 — though it didn't start as a Puerto Rican restaurant. It opened as a Green Burrito, a local Mexican fast food chain that was later purchased by the company that owns Carl's Jr. The name comes from an item on the original menu, and it stuck even after the previous owner, Rafael Rodriguez, originally from San Juan, added Puerto Rican food to the menu in 1990.

A spread from Mofongos in North Hollywood featuring an alcapurria, a mofongo with broth, and pique, shot on an El Gran Combo record.

(

Gab Chabrán

/

LAist

)

Yolanda Coronado has cooked at Señor Big Ed's since day one and bought the restaurant in 2003. Her daughter Veronica, who helps manage day-to-day operations, said the name still catches people off guard.

"The restaurant is named after a burrito," she laughed. But the food is unambiguously boricua — and Coronado makes sure of it, offering free pastelillos to anyone who walks in looking for a taco. "As soon as I see someone trying to order a taco or a burrito, I'm like, hey, have you tried the Puerto Rican food?"

For the Puerto Ricans who find them, the reaction is often immediate. "They get emotional when they see the flags," she said. "They start smelling the sofrito and the garlic. It reminds them of grandma's cooking."

Mofongos

In North Hollywood, Augusto Coën, the owner of Mofongos, has been making the same case since November 2009. "When I started the business, there weren't any Puerto Rican restaurants in Los Angeles County," he said.

Nearly 17 years later, he's built a following that includes Jimmy Smits, Luis Guzmán, and Cardi B — though Coën is quick to note the restaurant is as much for an electrician as an actor. Awareness, he says, is growing slowly, with some help.

"The popularity of people like Bad Bunny has made people curious about things that are Puerto Rican — that really helps out," he said.

A tray of empanadas from Olga's Empanadas, a Puerto Rican cottage kitchen operation run by Olga Gonzalez out of her home in Perris.

(

Photo courtesy Olga Gonzalez

)

Olga's Empanadas

And the search extends further than you might expect. Out in Perris — some 70 miles from downtown L.A. — Olga Gonzalez runs a cottage kitchen out of her home, selling homemade Puerto Rican empanadas fried or frozen for pickup. Olga Gonzalez inherited the business, Olga's Empanadas, from her late mother Ana, who started it in the San Gabriel Valley. While also working the graveyard shift at a warehouse, Gonzalez has grown the menu to 16 flavors, drawing customers from Beaumont, Temecula, and Hemet — and as far as Watts and Compton, making the reverse trek.

"I have so many customers just saying like, we don't have any of this out here," Gonzalez said. "That's why I'm cooking."

Come hungry

Carlo comes to The Crawford on Thursday, May 21, at 6 p.m., and she's not coming empty-handed. She'll be cooking — a passion fruit hand cake, to be exact — and if you're wondering what that means for me, she's already warned me that it's arms day (those egg whites don’t whip themselves). Tickets and more information at laist.com/events.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is suspending a requirement that foreign visitors from countries that have qualified for the World Cup and have bought tickets for the soccer tournament pay as much as $15,000 in bonds to enter the United States, the State Department said Wednesday.

The department imposed the bond requirement last year for countries that it said had high rates of people overstaying their visas and other security issues as part of the Republican administration's broader crackdown on immigration.

Travelers to the United States from 50 countries are required to pay the new bond, and five of those countries have qualified for the World Cup — Algeria, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Tunisia.

Citizens from those five countries who have purchased tickets from FIFA are now exempt from the visa bond requirement. World Cup team players, coaches and some staff already had been exempt from the bond requirement as part of the administration's orders to prioritize the processing of visas for the tournament.

"The United States is excited to organize the biggest and best FIFA World Cup in history," Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar said. "We are waiving visa bonds for qualified fans who bought World Cup tickets" and opted in to the FIFA Pass system that allows expedited visa appointments as of April 15.

The waiver is a rare loosening of immigration requirements under the administration and will ease travel burdens for at least some visitors to the U.S. for the World Cup, which begins June 11 and is co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The administration has taken dramatic steps to restrict immigration in ways that critics say are incongruous with the type of unifying message that a global sporting event such as the World Cup is supposed to project.

For instance, the administration has barred travelers from Iran and Haiti, though World Cup players, coaches and other support personnel are exempt. Travelers from Ivory Coast and Senegal, face partial restrictions under an expanded version of that travel ban, even without the visa bond exemption.

Foreign travelers also had faced potential new requirements to submit their social media histories, although that policy from U.S. Customs and Border Protection had not gone into effect. Also, the administration had deployed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at airports recently when Transportation Security Administration personnel were not being paid during a partial federal shutdown.

Those measures prompted Amnesty International and dozens of U.S. civil and human rights groups to issue a "World Cup travel advisory" that warns travelers about the climate in the U.S.

In a report this month, the main advocacy group for U.S. hotels blamed visa barriers and other geopolitical issues for "significantly suppressing international demand," leading to hotel bookings for the soccer tournament that are far below what had initially been anticipated.

The American Hotel & Lodging Association said travelers are concerned about potentially lengthy visa wait times and increased fees, along with uncertainty about how they're being processed to enter the U.S.

The bond requirements are part of the administration's larger effort to clamp down on migrants who travel to the U.S. on temporary visas but then overstay them. Visa applicants from the affected countries are required to pay $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000 in bonds, which will be refunded if the traveler complies with the terms of the visa or if the visa application is denied.

As of early April, the number of World Cup fans affected by the bond requirement was believed to be relatively small, perhaps only about 250 people, according to U.S. officials who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. But they said that number was changing rapidly as more people buy tickets and some with tickets opt against traveling.

FIFA had requested the waiver, which had to be approved by the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, and was the topic of discussion at multiple meetings at the White House and elsewhere in Washington for several months, the officials said.

Copyright 2026 NPR