The Brief

The simmering battle over the public library in Huntington Beach erupted again this spring when provocative signs cropped up around town overnight.

“Protect our kids from porn,” the placards warned in bold red letters. Funded by a city councilmember’s political action committee, they urged people to vote against a pair of ballot measures in an upcoming special election, including one that would abolish a controversial new community review board for library books.

As parents dropping off their children spotted the blunt message near elementary schools that April morning, outrage began to spread online over the delicate explanations it required for kids who were far too young to understand. One man declared on social media that he cut the word “porn” out of 12 signs and delivered the pieces to city hall.

“Frankly, it reads more like a tactic to provoke than a message grounded in conservative values, and that’s something I believe we should rise above,” the man said in a video posted to a popular Facebook forum.

Now, with only a week remaining before the election, proponents of the ballot measures to roll back library restrictions are hoping enough of those frustrated, weary parents in this Orange County beach community show up to carry them to victory.

The election — the culmination of nearly two years of tense clashes over sexual content in children’s books, parental rights and censorship — carries the weight of more than just the future of the local library.

An ascendant political movement, led by the self-proclaimed “MAGA-nificent 7” members of the city council, has in recent years turned Huntington Beach into the bulwark of conservative resistance to California’s progressive governance and a hotbed of nationally resonant culture wars, including on vaccines, Pride flags and voter ID.

As complaints about obscene material being available to young readers dragged even the once-beloved library into the fray, the increasingly marginalized liberal residents of Huntington Beach have mobilized — and floundered. Not unlike the national Democratic Party, which has grappled with how to counteract the full-throttle early months of President Donald Trump’s second term, their struggle to curb the breakneck transformation of their city’s identity have left many wondering how far the council can push its revolution.

“It’s just a war being waged on the community by people in an attempt to gain power,” said Natalie Moser, a former member of a liberal council minority who was ousted in November. She has criticized the Huntington Beach conservatives for reframing all of city politics as a partisan fight. “People are easier to manipulate when they’re divided, when they don’t see each other as people but just another side.”

Opponents of Measures A and B display book titles they want removed from the children’s section of the library during an event at Lake Park in Huntington Beach on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

The most optimistic believe the “protect our kids from porn” signs could be a turning point, waking up apolitical voters and swaying moderates in this Republican-leaning community to reject the restrictions on library material. If the ballot measures pass next week, they hope it will send a signal that residents want the city council to refocus on the fundamentals of municipal governance — public safety, road maintenance and economic development.

“It’s just so disheartening to see our city council turn this city against itself,” said Erin Spivey, one of several Huntington Beach librarians who quit in the past two years because of city interventions that they considered repressive. “People are getting really sick and tired of the city council overstepping what they are supposed to be doing. They’re supposed to be making our community better.”

'Let the community decide' on kids books

Amid a surging national book banning movement, the debate arrived in Huntington Beach two summers ago, when then-new Councilmember Gracey Van Der Mark — a locally notorious activist who made it her cause célèbre to get what she deems sexual content out of the children’s section — first proposed reviewing and restricting access to certain library material.

Van Der Mark is alarmed by a contemporary wave of picture books and sex education manuals that she feels goes far beyond what is appropriate for young readers and could damage kids who accidentally encounter the material before they are ready.

“The last thing you want is a child to pick up a book and have a big picture of penises or instructions for how to masturbate,” she said in an interview.

The city council eventually adopted an ordinance establishing a 21-member community board to review library books for “textual or graphic references to sex, sexual organs, sex acts, relationships of sexual nature, or sexual relations in any form.” The board would have the authority to move the material to the adult section or prevent the library from purchasing it in the first place, though it has yet to be seated, in part because of a subsequent state law prohibiting these types of committees.

Van Der Mark compares the concept to the movie ratings system, arguing that it would empower parents by giving them more say in what their children read. She complained that librarians who reject the community input because they believe they know better are elitist.

“Librarians are human. They are human. They are not perfect, just like you and I are not perfect. Mistakes are going to be made,” she said. “Let the community decide. Let the community give their input on whether they think those books meet their community standards.”

But the opposition to library book restrictions has been fierce and sustained, frequently spilling into long, rancorous public comment sessions at city council meetings. Free speech advocacy groups have joined, including the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit earlier this year.

Critics say they fear the book review committee would allow the city council to assert more control over the library and eventually ban material that doesn’t align with its conservative views.

They are especially concerned that many of the books Van Der Mark and her allies have singled out are LGBTQ-themed. Some see warning signs in the recent cancellation of a library book club for gay novel “The Guncle” and a Facebook post by another city councilmember tying the “dramatic alarming rise” in LGBTQ identification among young people to the “explosion of LGBTQ+ literature.”

“What they’re trying to do is exert their moral standards on others — and that’s unacceptable in society,” said Gina Clayton-Tarvin, a member of a local school district board that endorsed the ballot measures. “This is almost like attacking what is American.”

Lindsay Klick, a Huntington Beach parent and a longtime librarian in Orange County, said library collections should be expansive, so that everyone can find books that interest them and decide for themselves what they want to read.

“The library is not a winner-take-all thing like an election,” she said.

She criticized the city council for manufacturing outrage over sexual content in the library by selectively highlighting small excerpts from books out of their context, as if cropping the crotch from a picture of the statue of David.

Carol Daus looks at books in the children’s section of the Huntington Beach Central Library that could be restricted for including sexual content on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

Carol Daus looks at books in the children’s section of the Huntington Beach Central Library that could be restricted for including sexual content on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

It’s an effective strategy for politicians looking to raise their profiles as they seek higher office; Van Der Mark, who launched a bid for state Assembly last month, is the latest.

But it’s not a true reflection of how library patrons feel, Klick said, like at the small Orange County branch where she works near the Air Force base in Los Alamitos, which has the same books that the Huntington Beach city council has objected to.

“No one complains. It’s not a problem,” she said. “Why? Because we don’t have Gracey Van Der Mark.”

Ground zero in the national book battle

A special election in Huntington Beach carries high stakes for the national battle over children’s library books.

Library supporters collected thousands of signatures last fall for the pair of ballot measures; the second would limit the city’s ability to outsource library services, after the city council briefly explored privatizing the library last year. The council called a special election for June 10, rather than adopting the proposals outright or placing them on the ballot in 2026.

The outcome has become deeply important for the conservatives backing the city council as well. The two sides collectively spent more than $230,000 on the campaign by late May.

National activist Karen England, whose organization pushes to remove “pornographic books” from schools, has been speaking at city council meetings and church services in recent weeks to help raise awareness for the ‘no’ campaign. She said this is the first ballot measure that she is aware of challenging a book removal policy at a public library and she worries that, if successful, it could become a model for librarians across the country to cut parents out of deciding what their children read.

“That’s what I’m fighting against. They don’t know best,” she said. “I do feel like this is ground zero.”

The campaign has gotten extremely heated, with each side accusing the other of using emotion and misinformation to whip residents into a confused frenzy about what they’re actually voting on. Proponents of the ballot measures mock the conservative city council for injecting more government into peoples’ lives. Opponents complain that they are hamstrung in making their case to voters, because the offending library material is so obscene that they cannot even show it on social media or the news.

But the tension reached a zenith with the “protect our kids from porn” signs, which furious library supporters say unfairly portrayed it as a place run by groomers and pedophiles.

“If they feel like there is porn in the library, they should come and arrest me. Because I personally handed ‘It’s Perfectly Normal’ to patrons,” the former librarian Spivey said, referring to one of the books that Huntington Beach has moved out of the children’s section. “I wish they would, because it would show the community that what they’re doing is a lie.”

Van Der Mark, the architect of the library book review committee, said critics are simply trying to distract from the pornographic nature of the challenged books.

“You’re offended by the word (porn) but not the actual material,” she said.

Supporters of Measures A and B protest in Lake Park.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

Signs that state support and opposition for ballot initiatives related to library book restrictions in Huntington Beach on May 31, 2025.

(

Mette Lampcov

/

CalMatters

)

Yet despite the heightened significance that both sides place on the special election, neither seems ready to stand down if they lose. The ACLU lawsuit is still in court, and many Huntington Beach conservatives say they could never accept the challenged books being available in the children’s section of the library.

Casey McKeon, another city councilmember heavily involved in the library debate, said he is frustrated by how vehemently some people have pushed back against the book review board, even though the council “did this the right way” — through its policymaking process, because local parents were upset about the material.

“So we’re not supposed to fix an issue if it’s quote-unquote social or cultural?” he said.

The conservative city council members are leading Huntington Beach exactly the way that voters elected them to, McKeon said, and while the pace of the changes may upset some people, the council cannot wait to fix what it sees is wrong with the city.

“You only get four years,” he said. “You don’t know if you’re going to get re-elected. You don’t have forever.”

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

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power officials said crews made significant progress overnight to repair a rupture in a 100-year-old water main in West Hollywood that caused a massive sink hole and severe flooding in the area on Thursday.

Repairs included cutting and removing a 25-foot-long section of the broken pipe and putting a replacement in place.

LADWP officials said the pipe will be repressurized, checked for leaks, and tested for regulatory compliance. It will need to be refilled before street paving.

The department doesn't have a specific completion date for the fix.

Sunset Boulevard between Sherbourne Drive and San Vicente Boulevard is still closed to traffic. Nearby streets have limited access, including at Cynthia and San Vicente, for public safety.

A map of road closures provided by LADWP as of July 18.

(

Courtesy LADWP

)

Where things stand for local businesses

Dialog Cafe on Holloway Drive said on Instagram on Thursday that the cafe sustained significant damage and didn't know when it can reopen.

And Book Soup reported on social media Saturday that they remained closed. The said they hope to reopen within a few days, noting the "the neighborhood remains inaccessible except to residents."

Republicans are leaning into immigration enforcement as one of their top campaign issues this midterm cycle — despite a rocky start to the year for messaging on the president's top policy.

An NPR analysis of advertisement data from the firm AdImpact shows that when it comes to immigration, Republicans are spending more money and running more ads than Democrats are. The data set includes ads purchased from January through June, before immigration enforcement officers shot and killed people in Maine and Texas this month.

These political ads offer one indication of where each party sees its momentum going with voters, as candidates across the country gear up for the general election in November. The data suggests Republicans see immigration as a winning issue: Since the start of the year, Republicans and their supporting organizations have run nearly 300 ads nationwide that either include a mention of immigration or are solely about immigration. This compares to 62 ads from Democrats and their supporting organizations.

"Republicans stood up for Americans. Democrats sat down for illegals. Thomas Massie sides with these radical-left lunatics," reads one ad funded by the MAGA KY PAC, a political action committee that was set up to defeat Republican Rep. Thomas Massie in the primary. The ad cost over $831,000; Massie, a frequent critic of President Trump, went on to lose his race to Trump-endorsed candidate Ed Gallrein.

Among the most expensive was a $928,000 ad buy in the Michigan governor's race.

"No greater example of waste, fraud, and abuse in Michigan than using our tax dollars to give benefits to illegal immigrants. As governor, I'll be incredibly supportive of ICE coming here and removing these fraudsters," says Republican candidate Perry Johnson, who calls himself a "MAGA Conservative" and has pitched his business approach to running a state.

Immigration was a winning issue for Republicans in the 2024 elections, with themes like increasing border security and reducing crime.

"Campaigns are not trying to change minds. They're trying to shape what the election's about. They're trying to energize the voters they already have," said Cameron Shelton, a professor of political economy at Claremont McKenna College. "If Republicans are investing much more heavily in immigration advertising, one interpretation is that they believe immigration is exactly that kind of [mobilizing] issue in today's electorate."

Immigration and enforcement are among the top issues for both parties

Most of the ads have run during the primary season, which is now more than half over. Since more than 90% of seats up for grabs in gubernatorial, House and Senate races are considered safe for one party or another, the primary campaign has become decisive for many candidates nationwide.

Some Democrats became more vocal on the issue of immigration at the start of 2026, particularly in states that were seeing intense waves of enforcement. Democrats in New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota, for example, referenced the administration's tactics in their calls to "abolish ICE," or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and argued the administration had gone too far.

The Illinois Future PAC ran two ads, each worth more than $800,000, earlier this year to support Juliana Stratton's stance on abolishing ICE. The current lieutenant governor later won the Illinois Democratic primary for Senate.

But months into the year, Democrats have prioritized other topics, often to differentiate themselves from members of their own party, like on healthcare, while Republicans are keeping immigration-related themes on Americans' screens.

During the primary season, Shelton said, campaigns are testing out the issues they think might matter through the general election.

For both parties, "Donald Trump" is the top subject in TV ad buys, according to data from AdImpact. "Immigration" is the issue with the second-highest spending for Republicans; for Democrats, "ICE" is the third-highest, after "healthcare."

"It's a signal to donors, it's a signal to activists, to interest groups, to local candidates. It helps coordinate a lot of the actors that we think of as the party," Shelton said. "That's another reason why some of these early ads are interesting, because they are signals of the direction that is trying to be set out."

Republicans link top issues to immigration

Between January and June, Republicans outspent Democrats on immigration-related political advertising by about $36 million. Republican ads focused on immigration, which total $53 million in spending, have aired across the country in 88 races and 27 states. Ads for Democratic candidates, which total $17 million, have run in 20 races and 11 states, primarily those that have seen increased immigration enforcement action like California, New York and Illinois.

"Republican candidates have a large menu of issues we are on the right side of that are all very popular amongst voters," said Mike Marinella, national press secretary at the National Republican Congressional Committee. He listed the border, crime and the economy as issues that Republican candidates can connect to immigration.

"Immigration intersects with each of them," he said. "The most effective message depends on the district and how those issues are affecting that particular community," he added.

Zach Lahn, who won the GOP primary bid for Iowa governor, spent about $475,000 on an ad in May that vowed to ban H-1B visa holders from being hired by Iowa government agencies and universities, linking immigration and economic concerns.

Crossings at the border have plummeted since Trump took office. Marinella said candidates are still keeping the issue of border security top of mind for their voters.

A majority of the ads promoting Republican candidates include keywords such as "securing the border" and discuss border wall funding and crime. Some also go a step further to talk about specific proposals supported by the administration, such as limiting commercial driver's licenses and supporting the SAVE America Act, which would require stricter proof of citizenship to vote.

For example, in Florida's 19th congressional district, Jim Oberweis, one of several candidates vying for the GOP seat, spent $880,000 on seven ads that advocated for ending birthright citizenship.

Democrats lean into pro-immigration statements

Ads promoting Democratic candidates, on the other hand, shy away from specific policy proposals. Instead, they include criticism of incumbents for recent votes on bills that have provided funding to immigration officers or expanded the scope of who could be detained. Others focus on personal connections to immigration, proposals to limit enforcement and general pro-immigrant statements.

"Democrats are finding their voice on immigration after a rough few years during the Biden administration," said Frank Sharry, senior fellow at Third Way, a centrist think tank. "I don't think they'll be running a bunch of ads on it. I do think they'll be speaking to the issue and winning the argument, which is more important than whether they run ads on it or not."

A poll from Gallup released in July shows that most Americans think immigration is a good thing, and a majority support some form of pathway to citizenship rather than a blanket deportation policy — though there are sharp differences by party. A majority of Republicans favor hiring more Border Patrol agents, deporting anyone without legal status and banning sanctuary cities.

Republican ads broadcast during Senate races in Ohio, Texas and Alaska and gubernatorial contests in New York and Iowa are already starting to target Democrats. Strategists said this trend suggests how each party may lean into immigration leading up to the November election. But they also caution against reading too much into advertisements to gauge party strategy.

"Back in the day, ads were king. Now you have so many diverse streams of information arriving to people on their phones that it's just not the same," Third Way's Sharry said, noting interviews, debates, and other forms of public statements aren't captured in the ad data.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Making daylight saving time permanent moved a step closer to reality this week, when the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass a measure to eliminate the annual clock-changing ritual.

But some Orthodox Jewish organizations are fighting to prevent the bill from becoming law.

The measure, called the Sunshine Protection Act, passed in a 308-117 vote in the House on Tuesday (July 14). It now heads to the Senate, where its passage is uncertain. President Donald Trump has championed the effort, describing on his Truth Social account moving the clocks forward and back as a "ridiculous, twice yearly production."

If passed, the bill would give Americans an extra hour of sunshine in the evenings during the winter. But it would also push winter sunrises one hour later. That's of concern to Orthodox Jews, who pray three times a day, beginning with the Shacharit morning prayer service, which by tradition cannot begin in the dark.

"The bottom line is, if prayers have to start an hour later that will have a direct effect on people getting to work and on when schools can start," said Rabbi A.D. Motzen, national director of government affairs for Agudath Israel of America, an organization representing U.S. Orthodox Jews.

A constellation of other Orthodox Jewish groups also opposes the measure, including the Orthodox Union and the Coalition for Jewish Values.

In Jewish law, some prayers, such as those in the morning service, can only be said communally, in a quorum of 10 Jewish adults, called a minyan. That requirement means going to synagogue every morning before heading out for work or school and saying prayers, such as the Shema, the central prayer of Jewish life, collectively. The morning service typically lasts 35 minutes but on some occasions can last close to an hour.

"It becomes a communal issue when, for example, a synagogue that has had a morning prayer service for 100 years suddenly does not have a quorum of 10 men who can show up at the prayer time close to 9 o'clock because they have jobs," Motzen said.

Motzen, who works in the Washington, D.C., office of Agudath Israel, said the organization already has the support of Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who last year objected to fast-tracking the bill.

Orthodox Jews make up only 9% of the estimated 5.8 million Jewish adults in the U.S., according to Pew Research Center. Larger Jewish groups have not publicly taken a position.

Congress has grappled with turning back the clocks many times. In 1974, it tried to abandon clock-switching, but repealed the law a few months later following public outcry. In 2022, the Senate unanimously passed a measure making daylight savings time permanent, but the bill died in the House.

Orthodox Jews are not the only constituencies opposed to the change. Some medical and health advocates argue that the human body's internal clock is better aligned with the sun during standard time rather than daylight saving time. School boards and parents are also concerned about children walking to school in pitch-black conditions during winter mornings.

That latter concern, which Motzen described as a safety issue, is one Orthodox Jews share as well.

Making daylight saving time permanent would make sunrise after 8 a.m. in most parts of the country, and after 9 a.m. in a few select places. For example, according to a list compiled by Agudath Israel, sunrise would take place after 9 a.m., (and as late as 9:13 a.m.) for 55 days a year in South Bend, Indiana. In Detroit, Michigan, sunrise would take place after 9 a.m. for 23 days a year.

Hawaii and most of Arizona abide by standard time year round, as do Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.

This story was produced through a collaboration between NPR and Religion News Service.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Updated July 18, 2026 at 14:11 PM ET

After Medicaid officials improperly shared data about millions of people in January with immigration officials, ICE then shared that data with the data analytics firm Palantir, according to new court filings. Palantir operates an app called ELITE that is used by ICE agents to show the addresses of noncitizens who may be subject to deportation.

That revelation was made public in a motion filed Thursday by more than 20 Democratic attorneys general who sued the Trump administration last year over its data-sharing agreement between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and ICE.

Palantir said in a statement to NPR that the dataset in question had been purged.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in California ruled in December that health officials could share with ICE certain details from Medicaid data about immigrants without lawful status from the states that had sued, such as home addresses, dates of birth and immigration status.

Chhabria, who was appointed by former President Obama, then temporarily paused data sharing between CMS and ICE for immigration enforcement purposes in late May after federal officials admitted CMS had shared data with ICE in January that went beyond what the court order allowed. One dataset of refugees in Minnesota included U.S. citizens, and another that was transferred on Jan. 7 contained data of millions of people, including those in the country legally.

ICE was supposed to delete the improperly shared data. Chhabria set a hearing for August to further clarify his order and clear up ambiguity regarding which categories of noncitizens' data could be lawfully shared with ICE.

But in recent days, federal officials have admitted to additional instances of improper data sharing.

In a court filing last week, the Justice Department said that CMS again inadvertently reshared with ICE the dataset with millions of names that CMS had first improperly shared with ICE in January. The government said the error occurred during an effort to share data from states not involved in the lawsuit.

Alberto Briseno, a section chief for ICE's Homeland Security Investigations, wrote in a declaration that ICE personnel deleted the file after it was discovered and it was not used for law enforcement purposes.

Then Briseno revealed that a day later, the agency had done a broader search and discovered that half a dozen users still had a copy of the Jan. 7 dataset.

In that most recent declaration, Briseno said he was not aware of any additional copies of the dataset, but said the recent searches have "highlighted technological difficulties of making a representation that every possible variation of the file has been searched for and located." He added, "ICE will continue to make good faith efforts to delete any copies that may be found in the future."

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is asking the judge to expand his order to allow ICE to receive data on a broader category of noncitizens – to potentially include all immigrants who are not legal permanent residents, citizens or have another form of permanent status.

"ICE's inability to identify Medicaid records in its possession undercuts any claim that the agency should be entitled to more access to that data," the Democratic attorneys generals wrote in their motion filed late Thursday.

Their motion continued, "Each successive revelation of a violation of the Order makes it more difficult for Plaintiff States to have confidence in Defendants' ability to maintain and secure this data in compliance with the Order, and more difficult for Plaintiff States to communicate assurances to Medicaid providers, enrollees (and their counsel), and the public at large about the privacy and confidentiality of their healthcare data."

Palantir provided the following statement to NPR: "Our customers control their own data and manage access to that data. When Palantir employees are granted access to a customer's dataset, it is solely to help integrate and analyze that data — which is what our software does — not to store it or use it for our own purposes. Palantir can confirm that the dataset in question was purged pursuant to government instruction."

DHS didn't immediately return a request for comment about its transfer of data to Palantir.

According to a declaration filed by California deputy attorney general Anna Rich, when plaintiffs asked what federal officials did to ensure Palantir and other contractors had purged the data, defendants responded that the data had been shared over a Microsoft Teams chat and the shared data was deleted from the chat. Rich shared in her declaration a document turned over in discovery from federal officials that shows a redacted transcript of what appears to be ICE personnel asking Palantir to delete the file.

In an April 30 hearing, Chhabria had warned the federal government would not be able to continue using Medicaid data for deportation efforts if it continued improperly sharing the data of citizens and legal immigrants.

"If the federal government cannot be sufficiently careful then it can't use the information, ok?" Chhabria had said.

Copyright 2026 NPR