“In the minds of the progressive Democrats who run” Los Angeles and California, “ICE efforts to arrest and deport those who have entered the country illegally are unpopular among their constituents and, therefore, must be illegitimate,” marvel’s National Review’s Jim Geraghty.

Indeed, “Democrats and large swaths of the media” insist Los Angeles “would not be beset by so much widespread violence and unrest” if ICE “had never tried to enforce immigration law” there.

That is: LA is “so primed for violence, such a powder keg of anarchic malcontents, that the US government must simply throw up its hands and concede that it cannot enforce immigration law there.”

Then again, that’s how Gov. Gavin Newsom and “Mayor Karen Bass approach governing — when a task is too difficult, they just don’t even make the attempt.”

“In a real national emergency, FEMA will not be the answer,” charge Barry Angeline & Dan McCabe at The Hill.

“We were brought to Puerto Rico to fix FEMA’s broken disaster recovery processes after Hurricane Maria struck in 2017.”

After two years, just 5% to 8% “of cost estimates had been completed.” Eight years later, “recovery remains incomplete.”

“We thought reform was possible. We were wrong.” The core problem is “FEMA’s unique DEI mandate: 80 percent of positions had to be filled locally, regardless of qualifications.”

Unqualified workers harassed us for being “the straight old white guys.” “Merit was irrelevant.”

“President Trump has spoken of dismantling it. He cannot do it soon enough.” “He should devolve emergency operations to the states via block grants.”

“It is not ending FEMA, but continuing to fund FEMA that is radical.”

California Democrats are splitting over “the state’s burdensome climate policies,” which are driving away jobs and boosting energy costs, reports The Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley.

After two major refineries announced plans to shut down, a USC study “projected that gasoline prices could rise to more than $8 a gallon because of the constricted supply.”

Lawmakers who backed restrictions that triggered the shutdowns are now “up in arms” and lashing out at Gov. Gavin Newsom and his regulators.

But “the goal of California’s climate regulations is to raise gasoline prices to goad people to buy electric cars.” Dems just don’t want to “pay a political price” for their own policies.

Newsom says people should just take trains. Then again, he’s “term-limited, so he won’t face irate voters next November.”

“Few tears will be shed in Silicon Valley or at Big Tech firms over Elon Musk’s precipitous fall from White House grace,” chortles Axios’ Scott Rosenberg.

Tech leaders now hope “they can get back to dealmaking and policy-setting without worrying about a key competitor whispering in the president’s ear.”

As “AI is exploding, defense tech is booming, and crypto firms are champing at the bit,” the winners may be “MAGA-friendly tech firms” such as “Palantir and Anduril in defense tech,” Meta, or “Jeff Bezos and his Blue Origin firm.”

And Vice President JD Vance has a chance “to reassert his primacy as the Trump administration’s ambassador to tech.”

“Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently canceled” $10 billion in Biden-era grants and loans, but that barely scratches the surface of wasteful energy spending, moans Reason’s Jeff Luce.

The top “egregious examples” include “a $332 million grant” to Exxon Mobile, which earned $33.7 billion in 2024 and does “not need taxpayer support,” plus “a grant of up to $170.9 million” to ketchup-maker Kraft Heinz, and “$575 million in grants (which are still active)” to greenify the factories of massive steel-producer Cleveland-Cliffs, “which generated $19.2 billion in revenue” in 2024.

But “federal backing for favored energy projects” will continue, as the Energy Department is reportedly “considering financing a $44 billion pipeline in Alaska.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board