The Brief

As President Joe Biden today bowed to the growing chorus of elected Democrats and Democratic voters calling for him to exit the 2024 race, everyone is taking another good hard look at Kamala Harris.

“Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala Harris to be the nominee of our party this year, ” Biden wrote in a social media post, calling his selection of Harris to be his vice president “the best decision I’ve made.”

Vice presidents rarely get much attention. What attention Harris has gotten on the job hasn’t been particularly positive. Counter to the reputation she cultivated early on in her career as a pragmatic politician and sharp-minded prosecutor, public opinion on Harris soured in the summer of 2021 and has mostly stayed sour.

That was in part thanks to the White House saddling her with a series of unenviable and intractable tasks. Beyond that her role, like that of most vice presidents, has been high on profile, but low on actual responsibility. It’s a job perhaps best described by fictional Veep Selina Meyer as the political equivalent of being “declawed, defanged, neutered, ball-gagged, and sealed in an abandoned coal mine.”

Nor was Harris faring much better with voters in her home state. Last year 59% of California voters in a Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll said they would not welcome her on the top of the ticket.

But now that Harris is being considered as the most likely substitute for Biden, more voters seem to be warming to her. A fresh Washington Post poll found that the vast majority of Democratic voters nationwide would be “satisfied” with Harris at the top of the ticket. The same poll found her narrowly beating Trump in a head-to-head election among registered voters.

And so the nation is catching itself back up to speed on all things Harris — and that means catching up on a life of accomplishment and controversy here. More than any other vice president in generations, Kamala Harris’ biography is singularly Californian.

Born in Oakland, bussed to school in Berkeley, tested by San Francisco’s cutthroat municipal politics and propelled onto the national stage as the state’s top law enforcement officer and then its first female senator of color, Harris’ approach to politics and policymaking were honed here.

Now that voters are reconsidering whether Harris has what it takes to be president of the United States — and as Donald Trump and JD Vance train their oppo-machine upon her — we’re resurrecting this look at her California years and career. Here are nine ways that California shaped Kamala Harris, and that Harris shaped California.

A child of Berkeley

In a state full of transplants, Harris is a lifelong Californian.

She was was born in 1964 in Oakland — the hospital a little over a mile from the city hall where, more than half a century later, she would announce her short-lived 2020 bid for the presidency. Born to immigrant parents who met while getting their PhDs and protesting for civil rights at UC Berkeley, she spent her childhood in Berkeley. Harris’ father, Donald Harris, is from Jamaica and her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, is from India. The couple split when Harris was 7, and Harris and her sister Maya were raised mostly by her mother, who died in 2009.

In the first Democratic presidential debate in 2019, Harris famously skewered Joe Biden — then her campaign rival — for his past opposition to federally mandated busing to desegregate public schools. For Harris, she said, the issue was “personal.”

Specifically, Harris rode the “red rooster” from Berkeley’s working-class flatlands to Thousand Oaks Elementary School at the base of the affluent north Berkeley hills. This was 1969, just one year after Berkeley Unified introduced its “two-way” busing program across its elementary schools. Berkeley being Berkeley, unlike local integration plans across the country, the city had undertaken this one on its own accord.

After the debate dust-up, Harris clarified that she does not support federally mandated busing, a policy stance not so dissimilar from the one she needled Biden over.

Traversing back and forth between different strata of society — black, white and Asian; well-off and working-class — is a familiar trope in Harris’ biography.

“It wasn’t a homogenous life,” said Debbie Mesloh, a friend who has also worked for Harris as a communication director and a consultant. “She’s a very resourceful person in that she can move in between these worlds.”

Vice President Kamala Harris graduated from Howard University in 1986. Her graduating year photo is in the bottom row, second from right.

Harris spent her teenage years in Montreal, moving there with her sister and mother when Gopalan accepted a university research position there. She earned a political science and economics degree at Howard University in Washington D.C. but returned to California to get her law degree in 1989 at the University of California, Hastings in San Francisco.

Until her most recent move to Washington, she called California home.

Fresh out of law school, she joined the Alameda County district attorney’s office in 1990, serving there eight years before crossing the bay to San Francisco. In 2003, she unexpectedly won election as San Francisco district attorney, where she served two terms before her narrow election as state attorney general in 2010. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

The influence of king/queen-maker Willie Brown

Former state Assembly Speaker and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown has helped accelerate many a successful political career in California (including that of Gov. Gavin Newsom). Harris got a boost from Brown, too.

In March 1994, San Francisco Chronicle’s legendary columnist Herb Caen described the scene at Brown’s surprise 60th birthday party. Clint Eastwood was there, wrote Caen, and he “spilled champagne on the Speaker’s new steady, Kamala Harris.” Brown had a reputation for dating much younger women. In his column, Caen described Harris, then a deputy district attorney of Alameda County, as “something new in Willie’s love life. She’s a woman, not a girl.”

The relationship ended after two years, but her connection to Brown, three decades her senior, did have an outsized effect on her career.

Willie Brown and Kamala Harris in 1994.

“I would think it’s fair to say that most of the people in San Francisco met her through Willie,” John Burton, who used to be president pro tem of the state Senate, former chair of the California Democratic Party and a San Francisco political powerhouse in his own right, told Politico.

The speaker gave Harris a couple plum positions on two state regulatory boards — the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission. “If you were asked to be on a board that regulated medical care, would you say no?” Harris told SFWeekly a few years later.

Harris’ connection to Brown also helped her make connections across San Francisco high-society and California political elite. In 1996, a year after Brown became mayor and Harris broke off the relationship, she joined the board of trustees at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

When Harris ran for San Francisco district attorney nearly a decade later, her first contribution came from Elaine McKeon, chair of the museum’s board. More — much more — poured in from donors with last names like Fisher, Getty, Buell, Haas and other noble houses of the Bay Area.

But from the beginning of her political career, Harris has seen her connection with Brown as a liability — a cudgel that opponents can use against her and, at worst, a tired, sexist trope used to question the legitimacy of her ascendant career. In the first run to be San Francisco’s district attorney, Harris deliberately hired a campaign consultant known for working with clients outside the Brown political machine. During that same campaign, she described her past relationship with the former speaker and mayor as “an albatross hanging around my neck.”

As for Brown, he recently told a reporter, regretfully, that he and Harris are no longer in touch.

A lack of clarity

You saw it in the presidential race. You’ve seen it in her as vice president. As the New York Times once put it: “the content of her message remains a work in progress.” We saw it before in California.

While running the California Department of Justice, Harris was often loath to wade into the political battles taking place just a few blocks away in the state Legislature.

There was the bill that would have required her office to investigate police shootings. She did not take a formal position (though she did tell a reporter it would be bad policy). The bill died.

There was the proposal to force police departments to gather data on the ethnicity and race of the civilians they stop. Harris also declined to take a position. It passed anyway.

And on the biggest criminal justice overhaul in California in a generation, Harris also kept mum.

Prompted by a judicial decree that the state had to dramatically cut the population of its overcrowded prison system, “realignment” was a package of state policies passed in 2011 that shifted tens of thousands of inmates out of state custody and into county jails or onto the rolls of local probation systems.

Despite in many ways reflecting the lessons described in her book “Smart on Crime,” which argued that non-violent criminals can be redirected into less punitive systems without jeopardizing public safety, Harris, the state’s top law enforcement officer, was silent on the policy.

That earned a rebuke from the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, which wrote in its endorsement of her 2016 Senate candidacy that Harris “has been too cautious and unwilling to stake out a position on controversial issues, even when her voice would have been valuable to the debate.”

What some critics call prevarication or flip-floppery, her supporters call pragmatism. Those are just two ways of describing the same quality, said Corey Cook, a political scientist and provost at St. Mary’s College, and a longtime observer of San Francisco politics.

“She’s not an ideologue,” he said, meaning rather than stake out the boldest, ideologically-coherent agenda, she tends to focus on individual fixes to specific problems. Hence the “3am agenda” of her presidential campaign, a collection of policy changes designed to address the problems that keep the average voter up at night.

“The idea that she would have consistent positions on issues informed by ideology isn’t who she is,” said Cook. Harris may appear to pick her battles, he said, because for her “the only lasting solutions are going to be the ones that are able to sustain a majority coalition of support.”

Making a mark: sex crimes, domestic violence, child abuse

Harris has never shied away from the “tough on crime” label when it comes to a certain class of criminals: domestic violence perpetrators, child abusers and sex traffickers.

After nearly a decade in Alameda County and a short stint as a deputy district attorney in San Francisco (she left, calling the leadership there “dysfunctional”), in 2000, Harris joined the San Francisco city attorney’s office under Louise Renne.

Renne said she was looking for someone to head the office’s Child and Family Service unit, which investigates child abuse cases. This was not considered a prestigious post. Prosecutors inside the unit had taken to calling it “kiddie law.”

Renne thought Harris, who had focused on child abuse and sexual exploitation cases in Alameda County, would be a good fit.

That instinct was confirmed on Harris’ first day on the job, Renne said, when a number of children who had been separated from their parents were formally adopted into new families.

“She comes into my office and says ‘Come on, Louise, we’ve got to go over to court. There are going to be adoptions today,’ and she had all these teddy bears,” Renne recalled. “She knew the occasion. She knew it was an important one and it should be celebrated.”

Harris’ focus on the victims of abuse and exploitation continued after she was elected as San Francisco’s District Attorney.

“I don’t know what the term ‘teenage prostitute’ means. I have never met a ‘teenage prostitute.’ I have met exploited kids,” Mesloh, then Harris’ communications director, recalls her boss saying at her first all-staff meeting. Harris then ordered her prosecutors not to use the term in court. A year later, Harris sponsored a bill putting the crime of human trafficking into the state criminal code.

Some Democrats say Harris’ prior life as a prosecutor with a focus on sex crimes would be a key advantage in a potential general election contest against Trump, who has been found liable in a civil case for sexual assault and recently became the first former president to be convicted of a felony. In that case, the 34 counts were related to the falsifying of business records in connection to an alleged sexual encounter with a pornographic film actress.

But using the full force of the law to penalize pimps, traffickers and other abusers has earned Harris some criticism from civil libertarians and from advocates for sex workers.

In one of her final acts as California’s attorney general, Harris had the CEO of Backpage.com, Carl Ferrer, arrested on pimping charges. Backpage was an online classifieds site known for its “adult services” section, which prosecutors had long warned served as a marketplace for sex traffickers.

The arrest was based on a contentious legal argument that pit anti-trafficking fervor against the First Amendment. Since Backpage was merely a platform for ads, its lawyers argued, it was protected by the same law that protects Google from being held liable for illicit websites listed in its search results. A superior court judge agreed and threw out the case, though an amended charge, pursued by Harris’ successor, then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, led Ferrer to plead guilty to money laundering and conspiracy to facilitate prostitution and to the shuttering of the site.

The Harris mantra: ‘Smart on Crime’

One of the reasons Harris became known as a rising-star District Attorney was her focus on prevention, which she explained in her book, Smart on Crime, written in 2009, the year before she ran for attorney general.

“Public health practitioners know that the most beneficial use of resources is to prevent an outbreak, not to treat it,” Harris wrote. “Instead of just reacting to a crime every time it is committed, we have to step back and figure out how to disrupt the routes of infection.”

Kamala Harris as San Francisco District Attorney on June 18, 2004.

(

Marcio Jose Sanchez

/

AP Photo

)

Harris’ “Back on Track” program, considered the most successful implementation of this idea, redirected first-time, non-violent drug offenders into supervised education, job training courses, therapy sessions and life skills classes. It was a modest program, but a novel one compared to what most other big city law enforcement officers were doing in 2005.

“In that time period, I think that she was a radical,” said Mesloh. The program has since been emulated by cities around the country. When Harris became attorney general, she launched a similar pilot program for Los Angeles County.

Harris’ focus on prevention produced some of her key accomplishments as district attorney. But in the context of the 2020 presidential primary, some of those same accomplishments struck many critics on the left as overly punitive.

The year after launching Back on Track, Harris introduced an anti-truancy initiative. Based on a statistical correlation that chronic class skippers are more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of homicide, Harris’ office began threatening the parents of persistently absent students with prosecution.

Harris has been quick to point out that the “stick” in this carrot and stick approach only came out after a series of escalating interventions, including mandatory meetings with school staff and social workers. No one went to jail under the program, though a handful of parents were fined. Within a few years, city truancy rates fell by a third and Harris took credit.

In 2010 her office sponsored a bill to take the program statewide. In the hands of other district attorneys, the statute was used in at least a handful of cases to put parents behind bars. Critics have said that the policy has been disproportionately wielded against poor parents of color.

In a 2019 interview, Harris said she regretted any “unintended consequences” of the state law.

Harris has (almost) always opposed capital punishment

Her opposition to the death penalty has been one of the most controversial stands in her career, but it’s also an example for those who criticize her lack of consistency.

On April 10, 2004, three months after her inauguration as San Francisco’s new district attorney, 29-year-old police officer Isaac Espinoza was gunned down by a 21-year-old with an AK-47. Three days later, Harris made good on a campaign promise and vowed not to seek the death penalty for the shooter. David Hill was later convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

The decision engendered a predictably fierce backlash from the police union and rebukes from politicians. “This is not only the definition of tragedy,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at Espinoza’s funeral, “it’s the special circumstance called for by the death penalty law.” The assembled officers cheered while Harris remained seated.

Some of Harris’ critics say she has wavered in tougher political circumstances.

In 2014, when a federal court judge ruled that California’s administration of the death penalty was unconstitutional, Harris appealed the decision as state attorney general, arguing that it was “not supported by the law.”

Harris later said that she was obligated to defend capital punishment as the legal representative of the state. Many have pointed out that she was happy not to defend a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that voters passed in Proposition 8 when it was challenged a year earlier. Harris’ response: She was merely reflecting the position of her client, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration.

She also explained that the judge’s ruling, which held that the long delays between sentencing and execution in California amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment,” could be used to justify speeding up the state’s system of capital punishment.

Prosecutorial overreach controversies

Both as district attorney and as state attorney general, Harris led offices that criminal justice advocates say was overly aggressive in pursuing convictions and lacked transparency in a way that belies Harris’ brand as a “progressive prosecutor.”

In March 2010, just as Harris was campaigning to become California’s attorney general, San Francisco authorities shut down a police department crime lab in the city’s Hunters Point naval yard. A technician named Deborah Madden was accused of skimming drugs, raising broader questions about the lab’s ability to appropriately handle evidence in criminal cases. (Madden later pleaded guilty).

Harris immediately dismissed 20 drug cases, but the number eventually grew to over 1,500 after documents showed that prosecutors within Harris’ office had known about Madden’s potential unreliability months before the lab was closed, but had neglected to tell defense attorneys.

A superior court judge later excoriated Harris’ office, writing that the violations infringed on the defendants’ constitutional rights.

Afterward, Harris formed a unit to handle the sharing of evidence with criminal defense attorneys. She has also said that she did not know about the problems at the crime lab until after the scandal blew up.

But that hasn’t done much to assuage the concerns of critics who say Harris had a tendency toward prosecutorial overreach, which continued once Harris became the state’s attorney general.

Kamala Harris is sworn in as California’s attorney general on Jan. 6, 2011.

(

Office of the Attorney General of California

)

In 2015, for example, lawyers for an inmate convicted of murder attempted to have the case thrown out after new evidence suggested that Riverside County prosecutors lied on the stand during the initial trial. Harris’ office, representing the state prison system, resisted, only backing down after footage of one of her deputies being eviscerated by three federal judges went viral.

A spokesperson for her since-abandoned presidential campaign said Harris ordered her office to drop the challenge as soon as “she became aware” of the case.

Critics point to other examples. There was her office’s decision to defend a molestation conviction that local prosecutors had secured with a false confession.

Asked about that case, the spokesperson said that it was “long-standing practice” for prosecutors within the Californian Department of Justice to file legal motions without the express approval of the Attorney General, implying that, again, Harris was not aware that her office was making the argument. But in this case, the spokesperson added, state prosecutors believed “the original case…was valid and that the victim in the case deserved justice.”

Another example: her office’s refusal to take over a 2011 Seal Beach mass shooting case after a judge recused the entire Orange County District Attorney’s office for widespread prosecutorial misconduct. Harris defended her decision: “it was being handled at the local level.”

Such a track record is to be expected of any prosecutor, said Sally Lieber, who worked with Harris on human trafficking legislation while representing Mountain View in the state Assembly.

“It is an adversarial system and so she was filling a particular role, but I think that she was able to do it in a very sophisticated, smart and responsive way,” she said.

As California’s AG: Playing hardball

Harris’ biggest accomplishment while California’s attorney general was to secure a financial settlement with some of the country’s largest banks accused of illegally foreclosing on homeowners.

In September 2011, Harris pulled out of ongoing negotiations between attorneys general from nearly every US state and the five banks, calling the proposed deal of $2-to-$4 billion “crumbs on the table.”

Harris was not the first attorney general to walk away, but the departure of the country’s largest state seemed to have its intended effect.

A few months later, with California back in the mix, a new deal was struck. This time, California got $20.2 billion in debt reductions and direct financial assistance.

Still, some consumer groups and outside experts were critical of the deal, arguing that the banks would have been forced to write off much of that bad debt eventually. “All sizzle, no steak,” is how Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin put it.

But Harris’ willingness to play hardball did result in a bigger settlement, said Rob McKenna, former Washington attorney general who was part of the negotiations.

“It’s possible for states to overstate the impact they had on the final settlement. The former New York Attorney General (Eric Schneiderman) would sometimes make claims about the settlement and improvements he had obtained,” he said. “But it’s fair to say that Attorney General Harris negotiated and obtained some improvement in the settlement for California.”

Kamala the campaigner

Harris launched her 2020 presidential campaign high on fanfare and hype, only to flame out less than a year later before even making it to Iowa. It was a historically stark underperformance from a candidate that many Democratic insiders believed would be a formidable contender.

In California, Harris’ electoral track record has been mixed.

Her first spin on the campaign trail was a superlative success. In her 2003 race for San Francisco District Attorney, she pushed out a two-term incumbent and won more votes than any other candidate running for a city-wide office that year.

Harris’ first run for statewide office didn’t go quite smoothly. Her race for Attorney General against Republican Steve Cooley wasn’t called until weeks after Election Day. Yes, Harris won. But she did so by less than a percentage point.

Now, after 18 years in which not a single Republican has won statewide office in California, it’s easy to look back at that nail-biter of an election and see an early sign of Harris’ weakness as a candidate. But at the time, the calculus was a little different. Cooley, a relative moderate, was considered the favorite to win against Harris, a San Francisco liberal. This was 2010, which proved to be a historic landslide election for the GOP. The fact that Harris eked it out despite those headwinds, and as the first woman and person of color to hold that office no less, cemented her status as a rising star in the Democratic Party.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris talk as they assess the damage during the Creek Fire at Pine Ridge Elementary on Sept. 15, 2020, in Auberry.

(

Gary Kazanjian

/

AP Photo

)

Also rising was Gavin Newsom. The two were San Francisco friends and ran in the same social circles even before their political careers ignited. They share the same political consultants. And when the two most prestigious California elective offices opened up — for governor and U.S. senator — they sidestepped a ballot rivalry when she successfully ran for the Senate, as did he for governor.

Newsom has said — and recently reiterated — that he would not challenge Harris for the Democratic presidential nomination should Biden withdraw. Although Newsom’s name frequently appears on lists of hypothetical Biden replacements, she is already on the ticket and is seen by many as the heir-apparent.

Regardless, both are publicly saying now, again and again, that they are backing Biden.

This story incorporates prior reporting and interviews from CalMatters’ 2020 election coverage.

The Trump administration on Thursday released its plan to open up federal waters off the coast of California to oil drilling, taking a momentous step that state leaders and environmentalists had long expected.

The Interior Department’s proposal, which sets up a direct confrontation with Sacramento on energy and climate change, would also allow drilling in federal waters off the coast of Alaska and the Southeastern U.S. It would rip up a ban on new offshore drilling in most of these places that President Joe Biden signed a few weeks before he left office.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order repealing that ban on his first day in office in January, and last month, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled Biden had overstepped his authority.

Administration officials argued that the move to open federal waters to new oil and gas leases will help restore energy security and protect American jobs.

“By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that America’s offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a press release.

Gov. Gavin Newsom previously said the plan would be “dead on arrival” and promised attendees at an international climate conference last week that California would immediately sue.

On Thursday, his office quickly blasted the proposal as “idiotic” and “reckless.” He added that it “endangers our coastal economy and communities and hurts the well-being of Californians.”

Companies have drilled very little oil off the coast of California since the 1969 Union Oil platform blowout spilled 4.2 million barrels of crude into the waters 6 miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, catalyzing an environmental movement.

Newsom’s press release included a photo of a bird covered in crude oil, with a caption that said, “If Trump gets his way, coming to a beach near you soon!”

Numerous California lawmakers, including Sen. Alex Padilla and Rep. Jared Huffman, hastily convened a media call to push back on the plan.

Padilla called it “another outrageous announcement” from an “out of control administration.”

Rep. Jimmy Panetta compared the proposal to Trump’s controversial renovation of the White House.

“The California coastline is not the East Wing of the White House,” he said.

The Democratic lawmakers are supporting legislation that would prohibit new oil and gas leases off the West Coast.

The public will have a 60-day window to comment on the plan when it appears in the Federal Register on Monday.

Orange County isn't where you'd expect to find your next great bagel. But that's exactly what's happening in Irvine and Costa Mesa, where bakeries are proving that the future of bagels isn't about replicating New York — it's about reinventing it with California's best ingredients.

Three shops have quietly been reinvigorating an old formula, taking inspiration from traditional East Coast-style bagel shops while using farm-sourced ingredients to create something unlike anything else in Southern California (or the country).

Read on and enjoy these maximalist offerings.

RISE Bagels (Irvine)

The One Fish from RISE Bagels in Irvine, featuring a bright, silky lox bagel layered with sweet yellow tomatoes, pickled onions, and plenty of dill.

(

Ron De Angelis

/

Courtesy RISE Bagels

)

Chef John Park's bagel philosophy stemmed from his desire for something lighter than traditional, heavy New York bagels. Park and his team opened RISE Bagels earlier this month in an upscale Irvine business park, tucked away like an oasis among pristine high-rise buildings.

Park aims for bagels with a crispy crust and more air pockets. These aren't special sourdough or crazy fermentation projects — just a focus on achieving lighter crust and crumb.

RISE offers signature open-face options like the One Fish ($20), featuring smoked salmon with citrus notes (orange, lime, lemon, dill, coriander, fennel, black pepper), a balanced sweet-salty ratio, and pickled onions with yuzu kosho, a fermented paste containing chili peppers, yuzu peel and salt. The Two Fish ($23) adds dashi-marinated salmon roe for a touch of sweetness and smokiness.

Closed sandwich options include Get Jjigae With It ($18), with beef bulgogi, kimchi jjigae, scrambled eggs, American cheese, sesame leaf, soy-pickled radish, cucumber, and ssam jang schmear made from fermented soybeans and chili paste. The Jersey Boy features Taylor ham, soft scrambled egg, American cheese, ketchup, and Tokyo Negi schmear — a Japanese long onion spread sourced from Girl and Dough farm in San Diego.

On my recent visit, the One Fish delivered a level of freshness that nearly knocked me off my feet — a touch of salty brine as if it had just been harvested from nearby San Clemente beaches. The Jersey Boy brought me back to land with sweet, gooey flavors from soft scrambled egg, melty American cheese, and ketchup, with just the right amount of salty notes in between.

Boil &  Bake (Costa Mesa)

Boil & Bake in Costa Mesa features fresh figs over cream cheese with a heavy drizzle of hot honey and a scatter of sesame seeds on their black and white sesame bagel.

(

Gab Chabrán

/

LAist

)

Carlos Perez's bagel education began at 8, working under his father, also named Carlos, when the family took over Shirley’s Bagels, an Orange County staple. But the son of Guatemalan immigrants wanted to move beyond Restaurant Depot products and machine-made dough. After working his way from dishwasher to manager at local restaurants, he felt ready to open his own place. He connected with Chef Luke Bramm, who'd trained in fine dining kitchens and specialized in curing meats, through a mutual chef friend. Together, they opened Boil & Bake in Costa Mesa, developing a three-day sourdough process and strict farm-sourcing philosophy, seasonally editing the menu — removing items entirely when local ingredients aren't available.

The menu splits between open-face bagels and sandwiches, emphasizing California ingredients and house-made products. The O.G. features Guatemalan-style longaniza sausage with cilantro aji crema (a nod to Perez's heritage), while The Dodger pairs Native Cure smoked salmon with pickled onions instead of traditional capers. The Fully Loaded Lox ($20) goes maximalist with house-cured fish, cucumber, radish, and sprouts. The M.F. takes a more inventive route with maple-fennel sausage and sweet-onion Aleppo aioli. Valdivia Farms heirloom tomatoes and La Bahn Ranch eggs appear throughout, reinforcing the local-sourcing philosophy. Most items range from $14 to $17.

On my visit, I ordered a black-and-white sesame bagel topped with black figs and hot honey, that day's special. Quartered black figs with their deep purple-red flesh glistened under a drizzle of hot honey. It feels more California farmers market than traditional East Coast bagel shop, with fresh-tasting, light flavors that work well together.

Deli Seoul Bagels (Costa Mesa)

A beautifully chaotic egg, tofu, and cheese combination — runny, melty, and nestled inside an egg bagel, made with Irene's chili mayo from Deli Seoul.

(

Gab Chabrán

/

LAist

)

Also in Costa Mesa is Deli Seoul, a mother-and-son operation run by Jun and Irene Wang. Irene opened Deli Seoul in 2008 in a busy shopping center off Harbor Boulevard as a traditional bagel shop. Jun joined later after leaving the tech industry. It was only in the last year that the family decided to lean into their Korean heritage in bagel form.

The breakfast menu operates on a build-your-own model: customers start with a bagel or bread ($7.50 base, $9.85 with protein), then add cheese and protein. Korean options set it apart: Seoul steak with a sweet sauce, spicy pork, sweet-glazed Spam and marinated organic tofu sit alongside traditional bacon and sausage. Specialty bagels include coconut, pineapple, and Asiago. Sauces range from standard mayo to Irene's Korean chili mayo and chipotle mayo. It's customization that appeals to both traditionalists and adventurous eaters.

Jun Wang and his mother Irene pose together in the kitchen area of Deli Seoul in Costa Mesa.

(

Gab Chabrán

/

LAist

)

By my third stop that day, I was experiencing a bit of bagel burnout, despite my love for them. So I ordered something different: a bagel sandwich with scrambled egg and marinated tofu, with Irene's Korean chili mayo on an egg bagel. The combination was surprisingly light and flavorful, perfectly summing up what Deli Seoul offers — a delightfully diverse array of flavors from an approachable perspective that still represents what's happening with bagels in Orange County.

Infant formula linked to a botulism outbreak that has sickened dozens of babies across 15 states may still be on store shelves even after being recalled, federal health officials say.

As of Wednesday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said, 31 cases of suspected or confirmed infant botulism have been reported in babies who consumed ByHeart Whole Nutrition formula and got sick between August and mid-November.

No deaths have been reported. But all 31 babies were hospitalized with the illness, which can cause a potentially life-threatening form of gradual paralysis in infants less than a year old.

"Epidemiologic and laboratory data show that ByHeart Whole Nutrition infant formula might be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, which is causing infant illness in multiple regions of the country," the FDA said.

ByHeart Whole Nutrition recalled two batches of its infant formula earlier this month before expanding the recall to all of its products — which include cans and single-serve packets — last week. They are sold at major retailers — including Target, Publix, Walmart and Whole Foods — and online nationwide, with some products shipped to customers outside the U.S.

ByHeart, which describes itself as a "next-generation baby nutrition company," first hit the market in 2022. The FDA says its products make up "approximately 1%" of all infant formula sold in the U.S., so it does not have concerns about a potential shortage.

In an apology note to parents, ByHeart says it is cooperating with the FDA and "investigating every facet of our process" to identify the cause of the outbreak.

In the meantime, the company — along with the FDA — is urging adults to stop using the formula and monitor their babies for symptoms of botulism. The FDA is also asking stores to stop selling the product.

But in its Wednesday update, the agency said it had "received reports that recalled formula is still being found on store shelves in multiple states." NPR has reached out to the FDA for more information but did not hear back by publication time.

The FDA says it is working with state partners and retailers "to ensure an effective recall" as its investigation into the outbreak continues.

ByHeart infant formula was removed from shelves at a Walmart store in Temecula, Calif..

(

JoNel Aleccia

/

AP

)

What we know about the outbreak

As of Wednesday, the FDA said the 31 cases had been reported in 15 states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Washington.

The outbreak has grown since the FDA first announced its investigation on Nov. 8. At that point, it said that out of an estimated 83 cases of infant botulism reported nationwide since August, 13 of the infants had consumed ByHeart formula at some point.

That raised red flags because botulism is uncommon in dairy products and "there is no historical precedent of infant formula causing infant botulism," the FDA said.

In response, ByHeart promptly recalled two batches of its products. The next day, it announced that the California Department of Public Health had tested a sample from one of those batches, and the result came back positive for Clostridium botulinum, the bacteria that causes infant botulism.

That sample came from an opened can, which ByHeart originally said did not prove that its product was to blame (as the bacteria can occur naturally in places like soil and dust). But in an FAQ on its website, it now says further testing by a third-party group identified the bacteria in some samples of unopened formula, too.

ByHeart says the FDA informed it in a "late-night call" on Nov. 10 that it had found two more cases of infant botulism in babies that had consumed its formula. The next day, ByHeart, citing "too many unanswered questions," recalled all of its products and released information for parents about how to switch to a different formula brand.

What to know about infant botulism 

Botulism is a rare but serious illness caused by Clostridium botulinum. When a baby swallows the spores, "they grow in the gut and make toxin," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Symptoms can appear three to 30 days after consuming the bacteria, and generally start with constipation, poor feeding, difficulty swallowing and loss of head control.

"If untreated, infants with infant botulism experience a progressive, flaccid paralysis that can lead to breathing difficulties and require weeks of hospitalization," the CDC says.

Treatment for infant botulism involves an antitoxin known as BabyBIG, which is administered through an IV.

The CDC says parents should stay vigilant for several weeks after their baby last consumed ByHeart formula. They are advised to wash contaminated surfaces and label any leftover powder "DO NOT USE" and store it safely for a month, in case their infant develops symptoms and the state health department wants to test it.

The CDC says parents should seek immediate medical care if they see any concerning symptoms, and also directs them to an infant botulism outbreak hotline from the California Department of Public Health set up specifically to respond to this outbreak.

What the company is doing 

ByHeart says it is conducting its own "extensive testing" and giving the FDA "complete and unrestricted access to all of our facilities and products for their investigation."

The company has released more resources for customers in the days since the recall, like a 24/7 support hotline and refunds for purchases since October.

It has also pledged to implement stronger safeguards and testing in the future, saying that Clostridium botulinum was "not among the pathogens routinely tested for across the industry" — until now.

In the meantime, several affected family members have taken legal action.

The parents of two four-month-olds who were hospitalized with infant botulism — in Arizona and Kentucky — filed separate federal lawsuits last week. They accused ByHeart of negligence and are seeking compensation for medical bills and emotional distress after both their daughters required hospitalization. A separate class-action suit filed in New York alleges deceptive marketing.

ByHeart told NPR over email that it cannot comment on litigation, but reiterated its commitment to supporting families and the FDA's investigation.
Copyright 2025 NPR