THE BOTTOM LINE -
Raman voted to confirm Jim McDonnell as LAPD chief in 2024. Now she wants new leadership. Before asking Angelenos to make her mayor, she owes them a clear explanation of what changed and what her reversal says about her judgment.
Los Angeles voters should not need a political decoder ring to understand where a candidate for mayor stands on who should lead the LAPD. Yet that is where Councilmember Nithya Raman has left them.
In 2024, Raman voted to confirm Jim McDonnell as LAPD chief. Now she wants new leadership.
Mayor Karen Bass has seized on Raman’s shifting statements and accused her challenger of contradicting herself. Bass is Raman’s political opponent, and voters should consider her criticism accordingly. But Bass did not create the contradiction. Raman did.
And it raises one unavoidable question: What changed?
Raman Voted Yes
McDonnell did not simply inherit the job. Bass nominated him, the Police Commission reviewed him, the City Council considered his qualifications, and Raman voted to confirm him.
That matters.
If Raman now believes McDonnell should be replaced, voters deserve more than a new campaign position. They deserve to know why.
What did McDonnell do that caused Raman to lose confidence in him? What standard did he fail to meet? What would his replacement do differently? And if Raman now believes her 2024 vote was wrong, why not simply say so?
Politicians are allowed to change their minds. Sometimes they should. But leadership requires explaining why, especially when the decision involves who commands the LAPD.
This Is Part of a Larger Pattern
McDonnell is not the only area where Raman’s position on policing has evolved.
During her first City Council campaign, Raman embraced calls to “defund the police” and advocated for a substantially smaller armed police force. She later opposed the police compensation package negotiated by Bass and voted against a proposal to add officers. Then she said LAPD staffing should not decline further.
There may be legitimate reasons for that evolution. Experience can change a policymaker’s understanding of complicated issues.
But Raman is no longer running for one City Council district. She is running to lead Los Angeles.
Voters therefore have every right to ask whether these changes reflect lessons learned in office or political repositioning on the road to the mayor’s office.
Then Came the Video
The questions became harder to ignore after Raman appeared in a since-deleted social-media video.
The video opened with Raman and content creator Ed Choi saying, “Only you can stop fascist liars.” Raman’s campaign later said the phrase referred to the Trump administration and federal immigration authorities not Bass, McDonnell, or LAPD officers.
That distinction matters. But the video also criticized McDonnell, included provocative imagery involving him and ended with a call to help “De-Fascistize LA.” It was later removed.
Whatever the intended target, the episode raises another issue that matters in a mayor: judgment.
A candidate may not control every edit made by an outside content creator. But candidates are responsible for their words, their participation, and the messages they choose to amplify.
Los Angeles is not electing an activist-in-chief. It is electing a mayor.
And What About George Gascón?
Then there is former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón.
Law-enforcement sources have indicated that Gascón’s name has circulated as a possible successor to McDonnell. That does not establish that Raman selected Gascón, offered him the position or intends to appoint him. Raman has denied that she plans to do so.
Those distinctions matter. But Raman can settle the broader question with one sentence:
Would you consider George Gascón for LAPD chief yes or no?
Gascón has extensive law-enforcement experience, including decades with LAPD and service as police chief in Mesa and San Francisco. He also left the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office after an intensely controversial tenure involving major disputes over prosecution policies, sentencing enhancements and public safety. Voters replaced him with Nathan Hochman in 2024.
If Raman would rule Gascón out, she should say so. If she would consider him, she should explain why. Either answer is better than ambiguity.
Five Questions. Five Answers.
Raman does not need another campaign video or carefully calibrated statement. She needs to answer five questions:
- Why did you vote to confirm Jim McDonnell in 2024?
- What specifically changed your judgment of his leadership?
- Do you intend to replace him as mayor and why?
- Would you consider George Gascón for LAPD chief?
- What qualifications and public-safety philosophy would you require from the next chief?
These are not partisan questions. They are not “gotcha” questions. They are questions any serious candidate for mayor should be prepared to answer.
A Mayor Has to Decide
Ultimately, this is not about whether someone likes Jim McDonnell. It is not even primarily about George Gascón.
It is about Nithya Raman’s judgment.
Los Angeles’ next mayor will confront police recruitment and retention, homelessness, crime and public disorder, demonstrations, emergency preparedness, immigration-enforcement tensions, police accountability and the enormous security demands surrounding the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
There will be moments when the mayor cannot defer, equivocate or explain later. Decisions will have to be made.
A council member can criticize. A candidate can campaign. A mayor has to decide.
Raman is asking Angelenos to elevate her from one member of a 15 member City Council to the executive leadership of America’s second-largest city. That requires a higher standard.
Maybe Raman has compelling reasons for changing her position on McDonnell. Then she should tell voters what they are. Maybe her thinking about policing has evolved because of what she has learned in office. Then she should explain what she learned. And maybe George Gascón truly is not under consideration. Then she can put the question to rest.
But ambiguity is not an answer. Neither is a deleted video. Neither is another clarification after controversy erupts.
Before Angelenos give Raman the authority to help determine who leads their police department, they deserve to know how she makes decisions and whether she stands behind them.
Because ultimately, Raman’s McDonnell reversal leaves Los Angeles with a question much bigger than the future of one police chief:
If Nithya Raman no longer stands by her own judgment in confirming Jim McDonnell, why should Los Angeles trust her judgment to choose his replacement?
That is not merely a question about Jim McDonnell.
It is a question about whether Nithya Raman is ready to be mayor.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
