Politics

When word came of Rob Reiner’s senseless death, America fell into familiar rites of mourning and remembrance. A waterfall of tributes poured in from the twin worlds — Hollywood and politics — that the actor, director and liberal activist inhabited.

Through the shock and haze, before all but the sketchiest details were known, President Trump weighed in as well, driving by his diarrhetic compulsion to muse on just about every passing event, as though he was elected not to govern but to serve as America’s commentator in chief.

Trump’s response, fairly shimmying on Reiner’s grave as he wrongly attributed his death to an act of political vengeance, managed to plumb new depths of heartlessness and cruelty; more than a decade into his acrid emergence as a political force, the president still manages to stoop to surprise.

But as vile and tasteless as Trump’s self-pitying statement was — Reiner, he averred, was a victim of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and, essentially, got what he deserved — it also pointed out a singular truism of his vengeful residency in the Oval Office.

In recent decades, the nation has had a president who lied and deceived to cover up his personal vices. Another who plunged the country into a costly and needless war. A third whose willfulness and vanity led him to overstay his time, hurting his party and America as well.

Still, each acted as though he was a president of all the people, not just those who voted him into office, contributed lavishly to his campaign or blindly cheered his every move, however reckless or ill-considered.

As Trump has repeatedly made clear, he sees the world in black-and-white, red-versus-blue, us-versus-them.

There are the states he carried that deserve federal funding. The voters whose support entitles them to food aid and other benefits. The sycophants bestowed with medals and presidential commendations.

And then there are his critics and political opponents — those he proudly and admittedly hates — whose suffering and even demise he openly savors.

When Charlie Kirk was killed, Trump ordered flags be flown at half-staff. He flew to Arizona to headline his memorial service. His vice president, JD Vance, suggested people should be fired for showing any disrespect toward the late conservative provocateur.

By noteworthy contrast, when a gunman killed Minnesota’s Democratic former House speaker, Melissa Hortman, Trump couldn’t be bothered with even a simple act of grace. Asked if he’d called to offer his condolences to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a personal friend of Hortman, Trump responded, “Why waste time?”

This is not normal, much less humane.

This is not politics as usual, or someone rewarding allies and seeking to disadvantage the political opposition, as all presidents have done. This is the nation’s chief executive using the immense powers of his office and the world’s largest, most resonant megaphone to deliver retribution, ruin people’s lives, inflict misery — and revel in the pain.

There were the usual denunciations of Trump’s callous and contemptuous response to Reiner’s stabbing death.

“I’d expect to hear something like this from a drunk guy at a bar, not the president of the United States,” said Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring rather than seeking reelection in 2026. (Which may be why he was so candid and spoke so bracingly.)

But this time, the criticisms did not just come from the typical anti-Trump chorus, or heterodox Republicans like Bacon and MAGA-stalwart-turned-taunter Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even some of the president’s longest and loudest advocates felt compelled to speak out.

“This is a dreadful thing to say about a man who just got murdered by his troubled son,” British broadcaster Piers Morgan posted on X. “Delete it, Mr. President.”

More telling, though, was the response from the Republican Party’s leadership.

“I don’t have much more to say about it, other than it’s a tragedy, and my sympathies and prayers go out to the Reiner family and to their friends,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN when asked about Trump’s response. House Speaker Mike Johnson responded in a similarly nonresponsive vein.

Clearly, the see-and-hear-no-evil impulse remains strong in the upper echelons of the GOP — at least until more election returns show the price Republicans are paying as Trump keeps putting personal vendettas ahead of voters’ personal finances.

One of the enduring reasons supporters say they back the president is Trump’s supposed honesty. (Never mind the many voluminously documented lies he has told on a near-constant basis.)

Honesty, in this sense, means saying things that a more temperate and careful politician would never utter, and it’s an odd thing to condone in the nation’s foremost leader. Those with even a modicum of caring and compassion, who would never tell a friend they’re ugly or call a neighbor stupid — and who expect the same respect and decency in return — routinely ignore or explain away such casual cruelty when it comes from this president.

Those who insist Trump can do no wrong, who defend his every foul utterance or engage in but-what-about relativism to minimize the import, need not remain in his constant thrall.

When Trump steps so egregiously over a line, when his malice is so extravagant and spitefulness so manifest — as it was when he mocked Reiner in death — then, even the most fervent of the president’s backers should call him out.

Do it, and reclaim a little piece of your humanity.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s chief of staff is defending herself after granting an extraordinarily candid series of interviews with Vanity Fair in which she offers stinging judgments of the president himself and blunt assessments about his administration’s shortcomings.

The profile of Susie Wiles, Trump’s reserved, influential top aide since he resumed office, caused scandal in Washington and prompted a crisis response from the White House that involved nearly every single figure in Trump’s orbit issuing a public defense.

In 11 interviews conducted over lunches and meetings in the West Wing, Wiles described early failures and drug use by Elon Musk during his time in government, mistakes by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in her public handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and acknowledged that Trump had launched a retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies.

“I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” Wiles told Chris Whipple, the Vanity Fair writer who has written extensively on past chiefs of staff, “but when there’s an opportunity, he will go for it.”

Wiles also cited missteps in the administration’s immigration crackdown, contradicted a claim Trump makes about Epstein and former President Clinton and described Vice President JD Vance as a “conspiracy theorist.”

Within hours of the Vanity Fair tell-all publishing on Tuesday, Wiles and key members of Trump’s inner circle mounted a robust defense of her tenure, calling the story a “hit piece” that left out exculpatory context.

“The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history,” Wiles said in a post on X, her first in more than a year. “Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story.”

The profile was reported with the knowledge and participation of other senior staff, and illustrated with a photograph of Wiles and some of Trump’s closest aides, including Vance, Bondi and advisor Stephen Miller.

The profile revealed much about a chief of staff who has kept a discreet profile in the West Wing, continuing her management philosophy carried through the 2024 election when she served as Trump’s last campaign manager: She let Trump be Trump. “Sir, remember that I am the chief of staff, not the chief of you,” she recalled telling the president.

Trump has publicly emphasized how much he values Wiles as a trusted aide. He did so at a rally last week where he referred to her as “Susie Trump.” In an interview with Whipple, she talked about having difficult conversations with Trump on a daily basis, but that she picks her battles.

“So no, I’m not an enabler. I’m also not a bitch. I try to be thoughtful about what I even engage in,” Wiles said. “I guess time will tell whether I’ve been effective.”

Despite her passive style, Wiles shared concern over Trump’s initial approach to tariff policy, calling the levies “more painful than I had expected.” She had urged him, unsuccessfully, to get his retribution campaign out of the way within his first 90 days in office, in order to enable the administration to move on to more important matters. And she had opposed Trump’s blanket pardon of Jan. 6 defendants, including those convicted of violent crimes.

Wiles also conceded the administration needs to “look harder at our process for deportation,” adding that in at least one instance mistakes were made when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested and deported two mothers and their American children to Honduras. One of children was being treated for Stage 4 cancer.

“I can’t understand how you make that mistake, but somebody did,” she said.

In foreign policy, Wiles defended the administration’s attack on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and said the president “wants to keep on blowing up boats up until [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro cries uncle,” suggesting the end goal is to seek a regime change.

As Trump has talked about potential land strikes in Venezuela, Wiles acknowledged that such a move would require congressional authorization.

“If he were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then [we’d need] Congress,” she said.

In one exchange with Whipple, she characterized Trump, who abstains from liquor, as having an “alcoholic’s personality,” explaining that “high-functioning alcoholics, or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink.”

He “operates [with] a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing,” she said.

But Trump, in an interview with the New York Post, defended Wiles and her comments, saying that he would indeed be an alcoholic if he drank alcohol.

“She’s done a fantastic job,” Trump said. “I think from what I hear, the facts were wrong, and it was a very misguided interviewer — purposely misguided.”

Wiles also blamed the persistence of the Epstein saga on members of Trump’s own Cabinet, noting that the president’s chosen FBI director, Kash Patel, had advocated for the release of all Justice Department files related to the investigation for many years. Despite Trump’s claims that Clinton visited the disgraced financier and convicted sex abuser’s private island, Wiles acknowledged, Trump is “wrong about that.”

Wiles added that Bondi had “completely whiffed” on how she handled the Epstein files, an issue that has created a rift within MAGA.

“First she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk,” Wiles said.

Wiles added that she has read the investigate files about Epstein, and acknowledged that Trump is mentioned in them, but said “he’s not in the file doing anything awful.”

Vance, who she said had been a “conspiracy theorist for a decade,” said he had joked with Wiles about conspiracies in private before offering her praise.

“I’ve never seen Susie Wiles say something to the president and then go and counteract him or subvert his will behind the scenes. And that’s what you want in a staffer,” Vance told reporters. “I’ve never see her be disloyal to the president of the United States and that makes her the best White House chief of staff that the president could ask for.”

Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget who Wiles described to Whipple as a “right-wing absolute zealot,” said in a social media post that she is an “exceptional chief of staff.” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the “entire administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”

Wiles told Vanity Fair that she would be happy to stay in the role for as long as the president wanted her to stay, noting that she has time to devote to the job, being divorced and with her kids out of the house.

Trump had a troubled relationship with his chiefs of staff in his first term, cycling through four in four years. His longest-serving chief of staff, former Gen. John Kelly, served a year and a half.

Chile has joined South America’s shift to the right, electing Jose Antonio Kast, a hardline conservative, as president.

He tapped into voters’ fears about a rise in crime and migration, and an economic crisis.

His victory marks a significant shift since the end of military rule more than 30 years ago.

It also comes as other populist conservatives have taken office in the region.

From Bolivia to Argentina to El Salvador, the move to the right is being watched closely, particularly by the United States.

But what does it all mean for the political dynamics in South America?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Claudio Barrientos – Professor at the School of History at Diego Portales University

Jose Ragas – Historian and assistant professor at the Catholic University of Chile

Christopher Sabatini – Senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House

President Obama in his farewell address urged listeners unhappy with their representatives to “run for office yourself.” (Zbigniew Bzdak / TNS)

(Zbigniew Bzdak / TNS)

Ammar Campa-Najjar is trying to oust Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter in San Diego County. (Hayne Palmour IV / San Diego Union-Tribune)

(Hayne Palmour IV / San Diego Union-Tribune file)

Sam Jammal, a former staffer in President Obama’s Commerce Department, is now a congressional candidate in Orange County.

(Sam Jammal)

Eleni Tsakopoulos Kounalakis, then the U.S. ambassador to Hungary, waves rainbow flags at a gay pride march in Budapest in 2012. She’s now running for lieutenant governor in California.

(Peter Kollanyi / Associated Press)

Follow California politics by signing up for our email newsletter »

Buffy Wicks, center, who worked in the Obama White House and for the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns, is running for the state Assembly.

(Kirk McKoy / Los Angeles Times)

seema.mehta@latimes.com

For the latest on national and California politics, follow @LATSeema on Twitter.

ALSO

‘Art of the Deal’ writer predicts that Trump will resign by the end of the year

Defending Confederate memorials, Trump equates Gens. Lee and Jackson with Presidents Washington and Jefferson

Trump succeeds where Obama failed – spawning a new wave of liberal activism

Live coverage of California politics

Get ready for what could be a consequential week in the effort by President Trump to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.

Simply put: Does an allegation from the jurist’s high school days carry enough weight to sully — or perhaps derail — his nomination? Will the woman who has made the accusation bring her story to Washington?

Sign up for the Essential Politics newsletter »

FROM CALIFORNIA, AN ACCUSER STEPS FORWARD

On Sunday, a Palo Alto psychologist said she was the one who wrote the letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein alleging sexual assault by Kavanaugh when they were both teenagers.

Christine Blasey Ford came forward in a Washington Post interview published on Sunday, accusing Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party when they were in high school.

Kavanaugh has denied the accusation. But within hours, the story seemed to sharply change the dynamics of the nomination. A handful of Republicans said they wanted to hear more before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Kavanaugh, and the topic could spark a major battle less than two months before the midterm elections.

‘OUR OWN DAMN SATELLITE’

Climate change and a devastating storm both made political news over the past few days.

On climate, few dominated last week’s Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco like Gov. Jerry Brown, the event’s co-host.

Brown spent most of the three-day event behind the scenes, and a private meeting with the veteran Democrat was one of the hottest tickets in town.

“He’s very good at drawing people together,” said Nicholas Stern, a climate change professor at the London School of Economics. “People want to talk to him because he’s so interesting to talk to.”

When Brown did emerge on stage on Friday, he made a bold promise about what California would do next in the face of climate inaction by the Trump administration.

“We’re going to launch our own satellite, our own damn satellite, to figure out where the pollution is and how are we going to end it,” Brown roared from the main stage to applause.

(For keen political observers yes, this seems to bring Brown full circle. In the 1970s, he famously pledged to launch a satellite and earned the nickname “Governor Moonbeam” from a Chicago columnist as a result.)

FLORENCE HITS, TRUMP TALKS ABOUT MARIA

As the Carolinas braced for yet more rain from the massive but slow-moving Florence — downgraded from hurricane to tropical depression — the president seemed to rattle many by insisting the death count in Puerto Rico resulting from last year’s Hurricane Maria had been inflated.

The barrage of angry tweets guarantees that his handling of the current storm, which is still battering North and South Carolina, will be under the microscope.

On Sunday, his top emergency management official seemed to fall in line with that assertion — one that stands in sharp contrast to academic reports and those of Puerto Rico’s own officials.

“You might see more deaths indirectly as time goes on,” FEMA Director Brock Long said on “Meet the Press.”

NATIONAL LIGHTNING ROUND

— A landmark law enacted 24 years ago to govern investigations and prosecutions of violent crimes against women is set to expire this month, and Congress has little time to rush to its rescue.

— Immigration. Technology. Trump. A lot has changed in small-town America. One Iowa town drew the line at its movie theater.

DECISION CALIFORNIA

With election day now only about seven weeks away, we’re going to routinely highlight the important role California is playing in this midterm election. In particular, the state is home to a handful of battleground races for the House of Representatives that could affect the outcome of which party is in power come January.

Look for updates in our newsletters and on our Decision California page online.

— Congressional Republicans are launching another tax-cut push this week. And in California, it could further inflame debate about the controversial new $10,000 limit on deductions for state and local tax payments that hits many residents hard.

— If a blue wave of Democrats sweeps across California congressional races this fall, it could be strengthened by what voters did in 2010 — taking the process of drawing districts away from politicians and giving it to an independent commission.

— Columnist Robin Abcarian hits the campaign trail with the Latino Arab American candidate trying to oust Rep. Duncan Hunter.

POLITICAL ROAD MAP: HOW WE GOT PROPOSITION 11

When voters open their ballot pamphlet this fall and see that they’re being asked to decide whether ambulance company workers should get mandatory rest breaks, they may wonder how such a seemingly narrow topic ended up on the statewide ballot.

But the path for Proposition 11 was a familiar one: an industry that fails to get satisfaction from the Legislature decides to take its case to the voters.

TODAY’S ESSENTIALS

— For nearly a year, investigators have been trying to determine what caused the deadly Tubbs fire in Northern California in 2017. The answer will have huge implications for residents, insurers and, perhaps most importantly, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

— California’s pot czar is being squeezed between lobbyists for the cannabis industry on one side, and cities and law enforcement on the other, who are battling over a proposal to allow marijuana deliveries in municipalities that have banned pot sales.

— With less than two months until election day, California’s two gubernatorial contenders remained locked in a standoff over whether they’ll meet in a formal debate to discuss the issues facing the state.

— Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice endorsed Republican John Cox for California governor on Thursday, saying he has the vision to address the state’s most vexing problems.

— Having fallen short in his recent campaign for governor, conservative state Assemblyman Travis Allen is weighing a run for chairman of the state GOP with the goal of “leading California Republicans back to statewide relevance.”

— A Compton water district that has delivered brown water and therefore could be abolished under legislation on the governor’s desk is waging an eleventh-hour campaign for its survival.

— Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell skipped a reelection debate on Saturday, another awkward episode in a high-powered election that’s left many scratching their heads.

— California housing crisis podcast: What the Legislature did in 2018 and what’s coming next.

LOGISTICS

Essential Politics is published Monday and Friday.

You can keep up with breaking news on our politics page throughout the day. And are you following us on Twitter at @latimespolitics?

Miss Friday’s newsletter? Here you go.

Please send thoughts, concerns and news tips to politics@latimes.com.

Did someone forward you this? Sign up here to get Essential Politics in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a new state-run website Tuesday that tracks what his office calls the “criminal cronies” around President Trump — just the latest trolling tactic by the California governor that directly mirrors Trump’s own use of public resources for political score settling.

Newsom pegged the website’s rollout to recent crime statistics, which were released in early November showing falling rates of homicide and assault in California. The governor’s website catalogs what it calls the top 10 criminal convictions that were followed by pardons offered thus far by Trump — from Jan. 6 rioters to former politicians and business figures convicted of fraud, drug trafficking and financial crimes. The website calls Trump the “criminal in chief.”

The website features AI-generated portraits of such figues as Rod Blagojevich, the only Illinois governor to be impeached and removed from office; former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of drug trafficking; and Ross Ulbricht, the founder of a dark-web drug marketplace who had been serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The images show the men standing in a lineup with the word “felon” stamped in red ink.

“With crime dropping — again — California is proving what real public safety leadership looks like,” read a statement from Newsom. “Meanwhile in D.C., Trump is a felon who surrounds himself with scammers and drug traffickers. We’re providing the public with a resource putting the facts in one place so Californians, and all Americans, can see who he elevates and who he protects.”

The launch is the latest escalation in Newsom’s increasingly aggressive digital campaign against Trump.

In recent months, the governor and his press office have turned social media into a near-daily forum for mocking and trolling the president by firing off all-caps posts, meme-style graphics and sharply worded rebukes aimed at Trump’s brash rhetoric, criminal record, policy proposals and political allies.

The crime data , which was released Nov. 3 by the Major Cities Chiefs Assn., found homicides across California’s major cities fell 18% year over year, robberies dropped 18% and aggravated assaults declined 9%. The association also found that violent crime decreased in every California city reporting data, with the steepest declines in Oakland, where violent crime fell 25%, and San Francisco, where it fell 21%.

Newsom’s new website highlights Trump’s sweeping use of presidential pardons to grant clemency to roughly 1,500 people charged or convicted for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The governor’s office said some of those individuals had prior criminal records and that others went on to be convicted of new crimes after receiving pardons.

The move mirrors tactics Trump and his administration have embraced. Most recently, Trump unveiled a website of “media offenders,” naming journalists and outlets he accuses of bias. Separately, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Kristi Noem has maintained a website highlighting what it calls the “worst of the worst” criminal immigrants arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, framing the page as evidence that the administration is carrying out Trump’s promise of mass deportations.

The state’s website launch comes as Newsom seeks to cast California as a national leader in responsible governance of artificial intelligence.

Earlier Tuesday, the governor announced a slate of initiatives aimed at promoting ethical AI use in state government, including a new advisory council, partnerships with academic and nonprofit groups, and a generative AI assistant for state employees. Among the priorities outlined are strengthening safeguards for children online, countering image-based abuse and improving government operations.

“California is at the forefront of AI technology — and is home to some of the most successful and innovative companies and academic leaders in the world,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not going to sit on the sidelines and let others define the future for us. But we’re going to do it responsibly — making sure we capture the benefits, mitigate the harms, and continue to lead with the values that define this state.”

The US economy gains jobs in healthcare and construction as other sectors stagnate, shrink.

The United States economy lost 41,000 jobs in October and November, and the unemployment rate has ticked up to its highest level since 2021 as the labour market cools amid ongoing economic uncertainty driven by tariffs and immigration policies.

In November, the US economy added 64,000 jobs after shedding 105,000 in October, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The unemployment rate rose to 4.6 percent, up from 4.4 percent in September. Because of the government shutdown in October and November, the US government was unable to gather key data used to gauge the state of the economy, including the unemployment rate for October.

October’s job losses reflected the 162,000 federal workers who lost their posts, a result of deferred buyouts of their contracts,  which expired at the end of September.

In November, there was a loss of another 6,000 government jobs. Gains were seen in the healthcare, social assistance and construction sectors. Healthcare added 46,000 jobs – higher than the 39,000 jobs gained in the sector on average each month over the past 12 months.

Construction added 28,000, consistent with average gains over the past year. The social assistance sector added 18,000 jobs.

Transportation and warehousing lost 18,000. Manufacturing jobs are also on the decline. The sector shed 5,000 jobs in November after cutting 9,000 jobs in October following a 5,000-job loss in September.

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told reporters on Tuesday to expect to see more manufacturing jobs in the next six months.

His assessment was driven by growth in construction jobs and manufacturing investments, which signal job growth is on the way.

People working part time for economic reasons also rose to 5.5 million, which is up 909,000 from September.

“Today’s long-awaited jobs report confirms what we already suspected: [President Donald] Trump’s economy is stalling out and American workers are paying the price,” Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the economic think tank Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement.

“Far from sparking a manufacturing renaissance, Trump’s reckless trade agenda is bleeding working-class jobs, forcing layoffs, and raising prices for businesses and consumers alike.”

The data was released after the Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 3.5-3.75 percent as labour conditions cool.

“The labour market has continued to cool gradually, … a touch more gradually than we thought,” Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said after the rate cut decision last week.

On Wall Street, markets fell slightly after the jobs report. In midday trading, the Nasdaq was down 0.4 percent, the S&P 500 was down 0.5 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 0.4 percent below its market open.

WASHINGTON — Susie Wiles, President Trump’s understated but influential chief of staff, criticized Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and broadly defended the president’s aggressive second administration in a series of interviews published Tuesday in Vanity Fair.

Wiles told the magazine in a wide-ranging, revealing series of conversations that she underestimated the scandal involving Epstein, the disgraced financier, but sharply criticized how Bondi managed the case and the public’s expectations.

After the story was published, Wiles disparaged it as a “disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.”

“Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story,” she wrote in a social media post. “I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.”

Wiles did not deny the comments that were attributed to her.

In her rebuttal, Wiles argued that Trump had accomplished more in 11 months than any president had in eight years because of his “unmatched leadership and vision.”

“None of this will stop our relentless pursuit of Making America Great Again!” she said.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt also rose to Wiles’ defense, writing on the X platform that, “President Trump has no greater or more loyal advisor than Susie. The entire Administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”

In the interview, Wiles said Trump wants to keep bombing alleged drug boats in the waters off the coast of Venezuela until that country’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, “cries uncle.”

And at one point said she and Trump had a “loose agreement” that his retribution campaign would end before the first 90 days of his second term — but it continues well beyond the three-month mark.

Trump tapped Wiles after she managed his winning 2024 campaign. She is the first woman to ever serve as White House chief of staff and is known for shunning the spotlight. It is rare for her to speak as extensively and openly as she did about the president to the magazine, which published its lengthy interview with her — and other members of the White House staff and the Cabinet. Wiles has been speaking to Vanity Fair since just before Trump took office last January.

Asked about Epstein, Wiles said hadn’t really paid attention to “whether all these rich, important men went to that nasty island and did unforgivable things to young girls.”

She said she has read the Epstein file and that Trump is “not in the file doing anything awful.” He and Epstein were friends before they had a falling out.

The Justice Department is facing a Friday deadline to release everything it has on Epstein after Trump, after objecting to the release, signed legislation requiring that the papers be made public.

Wiles criticized Bondi’s handling of the case, going back to earlier in the year when she distributed binders to a group of social media influencers that included no new information about Epstein. That led to even more calls from Trump’s base for the files to be released.

“I think she completely whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” Wiles said of Bondi. “First she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk.”

Wiles, over the series of interviews, described the president behind the scenes very much as he presents himself in public: an intense figure who thinks in broad strokes yet is often not concerned with the details of process and policy. She added, though, that he has not been as angry or temperamental as is often suggested, even as she affirmed his ruthlessness and determination to achieve retribution against those he considers his political enemies.

Trump, she said, has “an alcoholic’s personality,” even though the president does not drink. But the personality trait is something she recognizes from her father, the famous sports broadcaster Pat Summerall.

“High-functioning alcoholics or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink. And so I’m a little bit of an expert in big personalities,” she said, adding that Trump has “a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing.”

On Venezuela, Wiles said Trump wants to keep the pressure on Maduro.

“He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle. And people way smarter than me on that say that he will.” Her comment, though, seemed to contradict the administration’s position that the strikes are about stopping drugs and saving American lives, not regime change.

She said the administration is “very sure we know who we’re blowing up.”

The continued strikes and mounting death toll have drawn scrutiny from Congress, which has pushed back and opened investigations.

Wiles described much of her job as channeling Trump’s energy, whims and desired policy outcomes — including managing his desire for vengeance against his political opponents, anyone he blames for his 2020 electoral defeat and those who pursued criminal cases against him after his first term.

“We have a loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over,” Wiles said early in his administration, telling Vanity Fair that she does try to tamp down Trump’s penchant for retribution.

Later in 2025, she pushed back. “I don’t think he’s on a retribution tour,” she said, arguing he was operating on a different principle: ”‘I don’t want what happened to me to happen to somebody else.’ And so people that have done bad things need to get out of the government. In some cases, it may look like retribution. And there may be an element of that from time to time. Who would blame him? Not me.”

Asked about the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud, Wiles allowed: “Well, that might be the one retribution.”

Superville and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

Minister says probe in response to case of ex-Reform UK lawmaker Nathan Gill, jailed for taking pro-Russia bribes.

The United Kingdom is launching an independent investigation into foreign interference in British politics, just weeks after a former Reform UK lawmaker was jailed for more than 10 years for taking bribes to make pro-Russia statements.

Steve Reed, the UK’s secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, said on Tuesday that he had ordered the probe in response to the case of Nathan Gill, a former Member of the European Parliament and ex-leader of Reform UK in Wales.

“A British politician took bribes to further the interests of the Russian regime,” Reed said in the House of Commons. “This conduct is a stain on our democracy. The independent review will work to remove that stain.”

Gill was sentenced to 10 years and six months in prison on November 21.

He pleaded guilty in September to accepting thousands of euros from a pro-Russian politician in Ukraine between 2018 and 2019, and making scripted statements and television appearances at his behest.

The case had spurred widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum, with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party – which has been leading most polls – last month describing Gill’s actions as “reprehensible, treasonous and unforgivable”.

On Tuesday, Conservative MP Paul Holmes welcomed the independent review into foreign interference as a necessary step.

“Protecting the integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of public trust in our elections,” Holmes told the House.

“Interference in our elections from foreign actors is something that we must all be vigilant against.”

Reed, the housing minister, said the independent probe would be led by Philip Rycroft, former UK permanent secretary for the Department for Exiting the European Union.

“The purpose of the review is to provide an in-depth assessment of the current financial rules and safeguards and make recommendations,” said Reed, adding that Rycroft has been asked to report his findings to the government by the end of March.

The minister noted that the British government put forward a strategy “for modern and secure elections” earlier this year in a push to address foreign interference and public distrust in the electoral system, among other issues.

But Reed said on Tuesday that “events have shown that we need to consider whether our firewall is enough”.

“The independent review will look at this,” he said, including by evaluating the UK’s existing political finance laws, systems to identify and mitigate foreign interference, and safeguards against illicit funding streams.

WASHINGTON — President Trump filed a lawsuit Monday seeking $10 billion in damages from the BBC, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices.

The 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

It accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021” in order to “intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”

The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and $5 billion for unfair trade practices.

The BBC said it would defend the case.

“We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” it said in a statement.

The broadcaster apologized last month to Trump over the edit of the Jan. 6 speech. But the publicly funded BBC rejected claims it had defamed him, after Trump threatened legal action.

BBC chairman Samir Shah had called it an “error of judgment,” which triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news.

The speech took place before some of Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.

The BBC had broadcast the hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Trump said earlier Monday that he was suing the BBC “for putting words in my mouth.”

“They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say, and they’re beautiful words, that I said, right?” the president said unprompted during an appearance in the Oval Office. “They’re beautiful words, talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said. They didn’t say that, but they put terrible words.”

The president’s lawsuit was filed in Florida. Deadlines to bring the case in British courts expired more than a year ago.

Legal experts have brought up potential challenges to a case in the U.S. given that the documentary was not shown in the country.

The lawsuit alleges that people in the U.S. can watch the BBC’s original content, including the “Panorama” series, which included the documentary, by using the subscription streaming platform BritBox or a virtual private network service.

The 103-year-old BBC is a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by every household that watches live TV or BBC content. Bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, it typically faces especially intense scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals.

Australia’s government is fending off political attacks from inside and outside the country after the Bondi massacre. Israeli leaders and interest groups have been condemned for trying to politicise the killings, as Soraya Lennie explains.

Dec. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is suing the BBC for $10 billion, alleging it intentionally misrepresented a speech he gave before the Jan. 6 storming of Capitol Hill in order to influence the result of the 2024 presidential election.

The lawsuit was filed in a Florida court on Monday, more than a month after Trump threatened to bring litigation against Britain’s public broadcaster over the editing of a speech he gave to supporters in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, in the documentary Trump: A Second Chance.

Trump’s lawyers described the documentary’s depiction of him as “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory and malicious,” alleging it was aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the election’s outcome to President Trump’s detriment.”

The suit is for $5 billion in damages, plus interest, costs, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief the court finds appropriate.

The BBC declined to comment Tuesday but vowed it would fight the case.

“As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case. We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” said a spokesman.

The Panorama documentary aired in Britain on Oct. 28, 2024, just days ahead of the Nov. 5 election. The BBC stresses it was not broadcast in the United States and that it did not make it available to view there.

In the documentary, video of Trump’s speech was edited to piece together two comments the president made about 50 minutes apart, while omitting other parts of his speech.

“[T]he BBC “intentionally and maliciously sought to fully mislead its viewers around the world by splicing together two entirely separate parts of Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021,” his lawyers state in the lawsuit.

“The Panorama Documentary deliberately omitted another critical part of the Speech in such a manner as to intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”

The claim refers to the splicing together of excerpts lifted from the video that made it sound as if Trump was inciting his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell,” was what viewers of the program saw, when Trump’s actual words were, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

It wasn’t until 50 minutes later in the speech that Trump made the comments about fighting.

The infraction went unnoticed until early November when The Telegraph published an exclusive on a leaked internal BBC memo in which a former external ethics adviser allegedly suggested that the documentary edited Trump’s speech to make it appear he directed the Jan. 6 attack on Congress.

Following the report, the BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, and head of news, Deborah Turness, resigned.

BBC chairman Samir Shah immediately apologized for what he called an unintentional “error of judgment.”

After Trump wrote the BBC demanding a correction, compensation and threatening a $1 billion lawsuit, the corporation formally apologized and issued a retraction that was the lead story across all of its news platforms on television, radio and online — but said it strongly disagreed “there is a basis for a defamation claim.”

To win the case, Trump’s legal team would need to convince the court the program had caused Trump “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

The BBC has said that since the program was not broadcast in the United States or available to view there, Trump was not harmed by it and the choices voters made in the election were not affected as he was re-elected days after.

However, Trump’s legal team alleges the BBC had a deal with a third-party media company that had rights to air the documentary outside of the United Kingdom.

The blunder has reignited a furious national debate about the BBC’s editorial impartiality and the institution itself, which is funded by a $229 annual license that households with a TV must pay.

It also comes as the future of the BBC is under review, with the renewal date of its royal charter approaching on the centenary of its founding in 2027.

Trump has won out-of-court settlements in a series of disputes with U.S. broadcasters, although largely at significantly reduced sums than those sought in the original lawsuit.

In July, CBS settled a $20 billion claim out of court for $16 million over an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that aired four weeks before the election on Nov. 5.

ABC News paid Trump $15 million and apologized to settle a defamation suit over comments by presenter George Stephanopoulos that incorrectly stated Trump was “liable for rape.”

In 2022, CNN fought and successfully defended a $475 million suit alleging it had defamed Trump by dubbing his claim the 2020 election was stolen from him as the “Big Lie.” The judge ruled it did not meet the legal standard of defamation.

He has live cases pending cases against the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

Bangladeshi President Mohammed Shahabuddin, elected unopposed in 2023 as a nominee of the Awami League, has announced his intention to step down midway through his term following February’s parliamentary election. His decision comes amid tensions with the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

Although the presidency in Bangladesh is largely ceremonial, Shahabuddin gained national prominence during the student-led uprising in August 2024, when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to New Delhi and parliament was dissolved. During this period, Shahabuddin remained the last constitutional authority in the country.

Conflict with Interim Government

Shahabuddin described feeling sidelined by Yunus, citing instances such as being excluded from meetings, the removal of his press department, and the sudden elimination of his portraits from Bangladeshi embassies worldwide. “A wrong message goes to the people that perhaps the president is going to be eliminated. I felt very much humiliated,” he told Reuters in his first media interview since taking office.

Despite these grievances, he affirmed that he would remain in office until elections are held, respecting constitutional norms, and would allow the next government to determine his successor.

Political Landscape Ahead of Elections

Opinion polls suggest the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and hardline Jamaat-e-Islami are the leading contenders to form the next government. Shahabuddin has emphasized that no party has asked him to resign in recent months, and he maintains regular contact with Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman, who has assured him of no intention to seize power.

Military and Democratic Context

Bangladesh has a history of military intervention in politics, but Shahabuddin indicated that the army leadership is committed to democratic processes. During the August 2024 protests, the military largely stayed out of the conflict, which helped shape the political transition.

Personal Analysis

Shahabuddin’s planned resignation reflects a deeper struggle over the symbolic authority of the presidency amid political instability. Although the role is ceremonial, the treatment he received from the interim government appears to have eroded his sense of institutional respect. His public statements highlight not only personal frustration but also the fragility of democratic norms in transitional periods.

Furthermore, the situation underscores the delicate balance between civilian authority and the military in Bangladesh, where past interventions have shaped governance patterns. By signaling his willingness to step down while remaining constitutionally compliant, Shahabuddin seeks to preserve institutional legitimacy while avoiding direct confrontation, potentially smoothing the path for the incoming administration and reducing political friction in a tense electoral environment.

Overall, his resignation would mark a symbolic transition, emphasizing both the limitations of the presidency in Bangladesh’s political system and the ongoing influence of military and interim authorities in shaping the political landscape.

With information from Reuters.

The stunning cathedral has been at the heart of Christianity in the north of the country since the 7th century

From the towering Big Ben to Birmingham’s Mailbox, England boasts a wealth of iconic structures. However, new research from Angi has crowned York Minster as the most beautiful building in England.

York Minster has been a cornerstone of northern Christianity since the 7th century.

Its breathtaking stained glass windows and intricate architecture draw tourists from every corner of the globe.

The Minster’s Rose Window is renowned worldwide, crafted in 1515 by Master Glazier Robert Petty.

The panels showcase alternating Lancaster red roses and Tudor red and white roses, commemorating the union of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York, reports the Express.

One awestruck tourist penned on Tripadvisor: “Must see cathedral in York, not religious visitors but this building is simply outstanding.”

Another echoed: “Although we aren’t religious, this is a must visit. The splendour and grace cannot fail to be appreciated.

“The majesty of the building alone is worth the entrance fee but there is so much more than that.”

A visitor chimed in: “Spectacular! Truly stunning, never appreciated the history of York before, incredible place to visit!”

In 1984, the renowned Minster was hit by a bolt of lightning, leaving townsfolk stunned as they watched the roof become consumed by flames.

Bob Littlewood, superintendent of the Works, recalled: “We suddenly heard this roar as the roof started to come down and we just had to run as the whole thing collapsed like a pack of chairs.”

The fire caused the glass in the cathedral’s world-renowned Rose Window to crack, but miraculously, the window remained intact.

Following the blaze, children’s TV show Blue Peter organised a competition for youngsters to design new bosses for the cathedral roof.

The victorious designs depicted Neil Armstrong’s inaugural steps on the moon and the 1982 recovery of Henry VIII’s warship, the Mary Rose.

Visitors who arrive before January 5 will have the chance to experience York Minster’s Christmas Tree Festival, which features 40 trees displayed throughout the cathedral.

These magnificent trees are individually themed and adorned by local businesses, schools, and charities.

Youngsters can try their hand at the Christmas Tree Trail, hunting for several intriguing features around the Cathedral.

The study sought out the most beautiful buildings in each country worldwide. The world’s most stunning building was named as the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

Paris’s iconic Notre Dame secured second place, while Turkey’s Blue Mosque made it into the top 10.

India’s Taj Mahal, Austria’s Schonbrunn Palace, and the Hungarian Parliament Building were among the top 12 structures.

In the USA, the most stunning structure is Biltmore in Asheville, an 8,000-acre estate constructed by George Vanderbilt.

Most beautiful buildings in the world.

1. Sagrada Familia
2. Notre Dame
3. Biltmore
4. Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque Center
5. Grand Central Terminal

When armed soldiers in the small West African nation of Benin appeared on national television on December 7 to announce they had seized power in a coup, it felt to many across the region like another episode of the ongoing coup crisis that has seen several governments toppled since 2020.

But the scenes played out differently this time.

Amid reports of gunfire and civilians scampering to safety in the economic capital, Cotonou, Beninese and others across the region waited with bated breath as conflicting intelligence emerged. The small group of putschists, on the one hand, declared victory, but Benin’s forces and government officials said the plot had failed.

By evening, the situation was clear – Benin’s government was still standing. President Patrice Talon and loyalist forces in the army had managed to hold control, thanks to help from the country’s bigger neighbours, particularly its eastern ally and regional power, Nigeria.

While Talon now enjoys victory as the president who could not be unseated, the spotlight is also on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The regional bloc rallied to save the day in Benin after their seeming resignation in the face of the crises rocking the region, including just last month, when the military took power in Guinea-Bissau.

This time, though, after much criticism and embarrassment, ECOWAS was ready to push back against the narrative of it being an ineffective bloc by baring its teeth and biting, political analyst Ryan Cummings told Al Jazeera.

“It wanted to remind the region that it does have the power to intervene when the context allows,” Cummings said. “At some point, there needed to be a line drawn in the sand [and] what was at stake was West Africa’s most stable sovereign country falling.”

Is a new ECOWAS on the horizon?

Benin’s military victory was an astonishing turnaround for an ECOWAS that has been cast as a dead weight in the region since 2020, when a coup in Mali spurred an astonishing series of military takeovers across the region in quick succession.

Between 2020 and 2025, nine coup attempts toppled five democratic governments and two military ones. The latest successful coup, in Guinea-Bissau, happened on November 28. Bissau-Guineans had voted in the presidential election some days before and were waiting for the results to be announced when the military seized the national television station, detained incumbent President Umaro Sissoco Embalo, and announced a new military leader.

ECOWAS, whose high-level delegation was in Bissau to monitor the electoral process when the coup happened, appeared on the back foot, unable to do much more than issue condemnatory statements. Those statements sounded similar to those it issued after the coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Guinea. The bloc appeared a far cry from the institution that, between 1990 and 2003, successfully intervened to stop the civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone, and later in the Ivory Coast. The last ECOWAS military intervention, in 2017, halted Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh’s attempt to overturn the election results.

Indeed, ECOWAS’s success in its heyday hinged on the health of its members. Nigeria, arguably ECOWAS’s backbone, whose troops led the interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone, has been mired in insecurity and economic crises of its own lately. In July 2023, when Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the ECOWAS chair, he threatened to invade Niger after the coup there.

It was disastrous timing. Faced with livelihood-eroding inflation and incessant attacks by armed groups at home, Nigerians were some of the loudest voices resisting an invasion. Many believed Tinubu, sworn in just months earlier, had misplaced his priorities. By the time ECOWAS had finished debating what to do weeks later, the military government in Niger had consolidated support throughout the armed forces and Nigeriens themselves had decided they wanted to back the military. ECOWAS and Tinubu backed off, defeated.

Niger left the alliance altogether in January this year, forming the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) with fellow military governments in Mali and Burkina Faso. All three share cultural and geographic affinities, but are also linked by their collective dislike for France, the former colonial power, which they blame for interfering in their countries. Even as they battle rampaging armed groups like Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), the three governments have cut ties with French forces formerly stationed there and welcomed Russian fighters whose effectiveness, security experts say, fluctuates.

But Benin was different, and ECOWAS appeared wide awake. Aside from the fact that it was one coup too far, Cummings said, the country’s proximity to Nigeria, and two grave mistakes the putschists made, gave ECOWAS a fighting chance.

The first mistake was that the rebels had failed to take Talon hostage, as is the modus operandi with putschists in the region. That allowed the president to directly send an SOS to his counterparts following the first failed attacks on the presidential palace at dawn.

The second mistake was perhaps even graver.

“Not all the armed forces were on board,” Cummings said, noting that the small group of about 100 rebel soldiers had likely assumed other units would fall in line but had underestimated how loyal other factions were to the president. That was a miscalculation in a country where military rule ended in 1990 and where 73 percent of Beninese believe that democracy is better than any other form of government, according to poll site Afrobarometer. Many take particular pride in their country being hailed as the region’s most stable democracy.

“There was division within the army, and that was the window of opportunity that allowed ECOWAS to deploy because there wasn’t going to be a case of ‘If we deploy, we will be targeted by the army’. I dare say that if there were no countercoup, there was no way ECOWAS would have gotten involved because it would have been a conventional war,” Cummings added.

Quickly reading the room, Benin’s neighbours reacted swiftly. For the first time in nearly a decade, the bloc deployed its standby ground forces from Nigeria, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, and Sierra Leone. Abuja authorised air attacks on rebel soldiers who were effectively cornered in a military base in Cotonou and at the national TV building, but who were putting up a last-ditch attempt at resistance. France also supported the mission by providing intelligence. By nightfall, the rebels had been completely dislodged by Nigerian jets. The battle for Cotonou was over.

At least 14 people have since been arrested. Several casualties were reported on both sides, with one civilian, the wife of a high-ranking officer marked for assassination, among the dead. On Wednesday, Beninese authorities revealed that the coup leader, Colonel Pascal Tigri, was hiding in neighbouring Togo.

At stake for ECOWAS was the risk of losing yet another member, possibly to the landlocked AES, said Kabiru Adamu, founder of Abuja-based Beacon Security intelligence firm. “I am 90 percent sure Benin would have joined the AES because they desperately need a littoral state,” he said, referring to Benin’s Cotonou port, which would have expanded AES export capabilities.

Nigeria could also not afford a military government mismanaging the deteriorating security situation in northern Benin, as has been witnessed in the AES countries, Cummings said. Armed group JNIM launched its first attack on Nigerian soil in October, adding to Abuja’s pressures as it continues to face Boko Haram in the northeast and armed bandit groups in the northwest. Abuja has also come under diplomatic fire from the US, which falsely alleges a “Christian genocide” in the country.

“We know that this insecurity is the stick with which Tinubu is being beaten, and we already know his nose is bloodied,” Cummings said.

Revelling in the glory of the Benin mission last Sunday, Tinubu praised Nigeria’s forces in a statement, saying the “Nigerian armed forces stood gallantly as a defender and protector of constitutional order”. A group of Nigerian governors also hailed the president’s action, and said it reinforced Nigeria’s regional power status and would deter further coup plotters.

Not yet out of the woods

If there is a perception that ECOWAS has reawakened and future putschists will be discouraged, the reality may not be so positive, analysts say. The bloc still has much to do before it can be taken seriously again, particularly in upholding democracy and calling out sham elections before governments become vulnerable to mass uprisings or coups, Beacon Security’s Adamu said.

In Benin, for example, ECOWAS did not react as President Talon, in power since 2016, grew increasingly autocratic, barring opposition groups in two previous presidential elections. His government has again barred the main opposition challenger, Renaud Agbodjo, from elections scheduled for next April, while Talon’s pick, former finance minister Romuald Wadagni, is the obvious favourite.

“It’s clear that the elections have been engineered already,” Adamu said. “In the entire subregion, it’s difficult to point to any single country where the rule of law has not been jettisoned and where the voice of the people is heard without fear.”

ECOWAS, Adamu added, needs to proactively re-educate member states on democratic principles, hold them accountable when there are lapses, as in the Benin case, and then intervene when threats emerge.

The bloc appears to be taking heed. On December 9, two days after the failed Benin coup, ECOWAS declared a state of emergency.

“Events of the last few weeks have shown the imperative of serious introspection on the future of our democracy and the urgent need to invest in the security of our community,” Omar Touray, ECOWAS Commission president, said at a meeting in the Abuja headquarters. Touray cited situations that constitute coup risks, such as the erosion of electoral integrity and mounting geopolitical tensions, as the bloc splits along foreign influences. Currently, ECOWAS member states have stayed close to Western allies like France, while the AES is firmly pro-Russia.

Another challenge the bloc faces is managing potential fallout with the AES states amid France’s increasing closeness with Abuja. As Paris faces hostility in Francophone West Africa, it has drawn closer to Nigeria, where it does not have the same negative colonial reputation, and which it perceives as useful for protecting French business interests in the region, Cummings said. At the same time, ECOWAS is still hoping to woo the three rogue ex-members back into its fold, and countries like Ghana have already established bilateral ties with the military governments.

“The challenge with that is that the AES would see the intervention [in Benin] as an act not from ECOWAS itself but something engineered by France,” Adamu said. Seeing France instigating an intervention which could have benefitted AES reinforces their earlier complaints that Paris pokes its nose into the region’s affairs, and could push them further away, he said.

“So now we have a situation where they feel like France did it, and the sad thing is that we haven’t seen ECOWAS dispel that notion, so the ECOWAS standby force has [re]started on a contentious step,” Adamu added.

Lawyers for US President Donald Trump say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

United States President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking at least $10bn from the BBC over a documentary that edited his speech to supporters before the US Capitol riot in 2021.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on Monday, seeks “damages in an amount not less than $5,000,000,000” for each of two counts against the United Kingdom broadcaster for alleged defamation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Earlier in the day, Trump confirmed his plans to file the lawsuit.

“I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally… I guess they used AI or something,” he told reporters at the White House.

“That’s called fake news .”

President Trump: “I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally…I guess they used AI or something…they actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with January 6th that I didn’t say.” pic.twitter.com/cUwXqBq3Zd

— CSPAN (@cspan) December 15, 2025

Trump has accused the UK publicly-owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021, speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol, and another where he said, “Fight like hell”.

The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.

Trump’s lawsuit alleges that the BBC defamed him, and his lawyers say the documentary caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

The BBC has already apologised to Trump, admitted an error of judgement and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action.

The broadcaster also said that there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, and that to overcome the US Constitution’s strong legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove in court not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.

The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the programme did not damage Trump’s reputation.

Trump, in his lawsuit, said that the BBC, despite its apology, “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses”.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement that the BBC had “a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda”.

The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed on Monday.

The dispute over the edited speech, featured on the BBC’s Panorama documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, prompted a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.

Other media organisations have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC, when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.

Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all of which have denied wrongdoing.

As he has in three USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times polls conducted in April, July and August, former Vice President Joe Biden leads the field of contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Biden has the backing of 28% of Democratic voters, the latest poll found. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, with 13%, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, with 11%, come next and are basically tied given the poll’s margin of error of 2 percentage points.

Support for Biden has remained relatively steady, while Warren is the only candidate who has consistently gained support since April. Her steady growth in support since the spring has come through consolidating the backing of college-educated, white liberals.

Warren has managed to match many of Sanders’ positions without being perceived by voters as being as far to the left, the poll finds.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

Support for California Sen. Kamala Harris has faded. She had threatened to break into the first tier of candidates after June’s debate, but instead in August she lost many of the supporters she had picked up in July. Likewise, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg hasn’t been able to turn his strength in fundraising into support in the polls and has joined New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke in the low single digits.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

A third tier of candidates has not been able to build momentum and gain sizable support among eligible voters. This tier includes entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

About 1 in 4 of the Democratic primary voters say they are undecided, a sizable segment. Ideologically, those undecided voters are closer to Biden than to any of his major rivals, the poll found. That could give the former vice president an additional cushion.

(Chris Keller / Los Angeles Times)

The August figures come from the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll conducted from Aug. 12 to Sept. 8 among 5,367 adult American citizens, including 2,462 who said they planned to vote in a Democratic primary. The margin of error is 2 percentage points in either direction for the full sample and for the Democratic sub-sample.

Respondents were drawn from a probability-based panel maintained by USC’s Center for Economic and Social Research for its Understanding America Study. The poll was conducted in partnership with, and funded by, the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future. Responses among all eligible voters were weighted to accurately reflect known demographics of the U.S. population. A description of the methodology, poll questions and data, and additional information about the poll are posted on the USC website.

Whether you sat across the table from him or across the aisle, Rob Reiner left no doubt about what he cared about and was willing to fight for.

I had lunch with him once at Pete’s Cafe in downtown L.A., where he was far less interested in what was on his plate than what was on his mind. He was advocating for local investments in early childhood development programs, using funds from the tobacco tax created by Proposition 10 in 1998, which he had helped spearhead.

I remember thinking that, although political activism among celebrities was nothing new, Reiner was well beyond the easier tasks of making endorsements and hosting fundraisers. He had an understanding of public policy failures and entrenched inequities, and he wanted to talk about the moral duty to address them and the financial benefits of doing so.

“He was deeply passionate,” said Ben Austin, who was at that lunch and worked as an aide to Reiner at the time. “He was not just a Hollywood star … but a highly sophisticated political actor.”

Reiner, who was found dead in his Brentwood home over the weekend along with his wife, Michele, was also co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was instrumental in the fight to legalize same-sex marriage in California in 2008.

Michele Singer Reiner was her husband’s “intellectual partner” as an activist, Austin said, even though he was usually the one whose face we saw. But Michele made her voice heard, too, as she did when emailing me about the inexcusable crisis of veterans living on the street, including on the West L.A. veterans administration campus at a time when it was loaded with empty buildings.

I’d check on the progress and get back to her, and she’d check back again when little had changed. At one point, I told her I’d been informed that beds in a new shelter would be filled by the end of the year.

“And if you believe that,” she wrote back, “I’ve got a bridge for you.”

In choosing his causes, Austin said of Rob Reiner, the actor-director-producer “was not jumping on a train that was already moving.” Universal preschool education was barely a fringe issue at the time, Austin said, but Reiner was more interested in social change than making political points.

Reiner’s aggressive instincts, though, sometimes drew pushback. And not just from President Trump, who established a new low for himself Monday with his social media claim that Reiner’s death was a result of his disdain for Trump.

Reiner resigned in 2006 as chairman of California’s First 5 commission, an outgrowth of Prop. 10, after Times reporting raised questions about the use of tax dollars to promote Proposition 82. That Reiner-backed ballot measure would have taxed the rich to plow money into preschool for 4-year-olds.

In 2014, Reiner was at the center of a bid to limit commercial development and chain stores in Malibu, and I co-moderated a debate that seemed more like a boxing match between him and developer Steve Soboroff.

As the Malibu Times described it:

“Rob Reiner and Steve Soboroff came out with guns blazing Sunday night during a Measure R debate that’s sure to be one of the most memorable — and entertaining — Malibu showdowns in recent town history.”

Reiner threw an early jab, accusing Soboroff of a backroom deal to add an exemption to the measure. That’s a lie, Soboroff shot back, claiming he was insulted by the low blow. Reiner, who owned houses in both Brentwood and Malibu, didn’t care much for my question about whether his slow-growth viewpoint smacked of NIMBY-ism.

“I would say there’s a lot of NIMBY-ism,” Reiner snapped. “You bet. It’s 100% NIMBY-ism. Everybody who lives here is concerned about their way of life.”

But that’s the way Reiner was. He let you know, without apology, where he stood, kind of like his “Meathead” character in Norman Lear’s hit TV show “All in the Family,” in which he butted heads with the bigoted Archie Bunker.

Getting back to President Trump, he, too, unapologetically lets you know where he stands.

But most people, in my experience, work with filters — they can self-sensor when that’s what the moment calls for. It’s not a skill, it’s an innate sense of decency and human consideration that exists in the hearts and souls of normal people.

I did not know much about the history of Nick Reiner’s addiction issues and his temporary homelessness. But it became clear shortly after the bodies were found that the Reiners’ 32-year-old son might have been involved, and he was indeed booked a short time later on suspicion of murder.

What I do know is that with such an unspeakable horror, and with the family’s survivors left to sort through the madness of it all, a better response from the president would have been silence.

Anything but a grave dance.

The Reiners died, Trump said, “reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME … .” The deaths occurred, Trump continued, “as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness …”

It was a reaction, Austin said, “that makes the case, better than Rob ever could have, about why Trump has no business being president of the United States.”

steve.lopez@latimes.com

US President Donald Trump has said that an agreement to end Russia’s war on Ukraine is “closer than ever” after key leaders held talks in Berlin, but several officials said that significant differences remain over territorial issues.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that he had “very long and very good talks” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the leaders of France, Germany, the United Kingdom and NATO.

“We’re having tremendous support from European leaders. They want to get it [the war] ended also,” he said.

“We had numerous conversations with President [Vladimir] Putin of Russia, and I think we’re closer now than we have been, ever, and we’ll see what we can do.”

Zelenskyy had earlier said that negotiations with US and European leaders were difficult but productive.

The high-level discussions, involving Zelenskyy, a US delegation led by envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and European leaders, took place in Berlin over two days amid mounting pressure from Washington for Kyiv to make concessions to Moscow to end one of Europe’s deadliest conflicts since World War II.

In a statement following the talks, European leaders said they and the US were committed to working together to provide “robust security guarantees” to Ukraine, including a European-led “multinational force Ukraine” supported by the US.

They said the force’s work would include “operating inside Ukraine” as well as assisting in rebuilding Ukraine’s forces, securing its skies and supporting safer seas. They said that Ukrainian forces should remain at a peacetime level of 800,000.

Two US officials, speaking to the Reuters news agency, described the proposed protections as “Article 5-like”, a reference to NATO’s Article 5 mutual defence pledge.

Ukraine had earlier signalled it may be willing to abandon its ambition to join the NATO military alliance in exchange for firm Western security guarantees.

Speaking to reporters in Berlin, Zelenskyy said that Kyiv needed a clear understanding of the security guarantees on offer before making any decisions on territorial control under a potential peace settlement. He added that any guarantees must include effective ceasefire monitoring.

Ukrainian officials have been cautious about what form such guarantees could take. Ukraine received security assurances backed by the US and Europe after gaining independence in 1991, but those did not prevent Russia’s invasions in 2014 and 2022.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Washington had offered “considerable” security guarantees during the Berlin talks.

“What the US has placed on the table here in Berlin, in terms of legal and material guarantees, is really considerable,” Merz said at a joint news conference with Zelenskyy.

“We now have the chance for a real peace process,” he said, adding that territorial arrangements remain a central issue. “Only Ukraine can decide about territorial concessions. No ifs or buts.”

Merz also said it was essential for the European Union to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine to demonstrate to Moscow that continuing the war is futile. He warned that EU members must share the risks involved in appropriating those assets, or risk damaging the bloc’s reputation.

Meanwhile, the EU has adopted new sanctions targeting companies and individuals accused of helping Russia circumvent Western restrictions on oil exports that help finance the war.

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Putin was “open to peace and serious decisions” but opposed to what he described as “temporary respites and subterfuges”.

Reporting from Berlin, Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane said the outcome of the talks remains unclear.

“We know American emissaries were speaking to Ukrainians here in Berlin yesterday and today. Talks between those two groups have finished, according to a statement by Zelenskyy’s office,” Kane said.

“What we don’t yet know is how much of the US-led 28-point plan – parts of which were acceptable to Moscow but strongly opposed by Kyiv and EU officials – remains intact.”

Kane added that the German government has presented a separate 10-point proposal focused on military and intelligence cooperation rather than a peace settlement. European leaders are expected to continue discussions on the remaining areas of disagreement.

Fighting continues

Meanwhile, Ukraine said on Monday that Russia launched 153 drones overnight, with 17 striking their targets.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence said its forces destroyed 130 Ukrainian drones over Russian territory.

Kyiv said its underwater drones struck a Russian submarine docked at the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Ukraine has stepped up naval attacks in recent weeks on what it has described as Russia-linked vessels in the Black Sea.

Russian forces have continued to target the Ukrainian port city of Odesa, with two Turkish cargo ships hit in recent days. Kyiv said the strikes were aimed at Russian targets.

Zelenskyy also accused Moscow of using its attacks as leverage in peace negotiations.

He said Russia has struck every power station in Ukraine as part of its campaign against the country’s energy infrastructure.

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Let’s be candid about the controversy over whether film director Rob Reiner misspent public funds by raiding the child-development program created by his last ballot initiative, Proposition 10, for cash to promote his new Preschool for All ballot initiative.

Reiner’s not the only one taking advantage.

The supervisory standards set up by Proposition 10 in 1998 are scandalously lax. The program uses income from a tobacco surtax, including 50 cents per pack of cigarettes, to fund health, welfare and educational services for children up to age 5 — things like immunization and preschool.

But it has become a feeding trough for people flogging pet projects and for outside consultants of every stripe.

Proposition 10 bestowed a total lack of accountability on the bodies it established to disburse the money — the state Children and Families Commission (headed by Reiner until he took a leave of absence Feb. 24) and 58 county entities, known as “First5” commissions.

The initiative failed to provide guidance on rudimentary issues such as conflicts of interest, competitive bidding or how success should be measured. And each commission was given the responsibility to audit itself.

The sums involved aren’t trivial. The tobacco levy has produced $4 billion to date. Of this haul, 20% goes to the state commission. The rest is apportioned to the county commissions according to each county’s share of statewide live births.

For an example of how individual commissions disburse this money, let’s look at Orange County, the second-largest First5 in the state (after Los Angeles), which receives about $40 million a year. Its vice chairman, the right-wing political pundit Hugh Hewitt, is Reiner’s most vocal and persistent critic.

Back in 2003, the commission awarded a no-bid, $250,000 annual contract to a consulting firm called the White House Writers Group. What is this outfit, you ask? It’s a Washington-based gang mostly comprising former speechwriters and staff members in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. It was proposed for the contract by Hugh Hewitt, himself a former Reagan White House staffer and a personal friend of one of its principals.

Hewitt says he recommended the firm, which is essentially a high-powered PR outfit, to help the commission rectify what had become “four years of limited success in establishing the partnerships we need [in Washington] in the national health and philanthropy communities.” Whether the contract will put a single vaccine in a child’s arm he doesn’t say; I only know that $250,000 a year would buy a lot of vaccines.

Hewitt also says: “I don’t know and have never inquired about the political affiliation” of the firm’s partners and staff. Leaving aside the fatuous suggestion that a conservative Republican with his background could be unaware of the partisan coloration of such an obvious GOP nest, he doesn’t have to “inquire.” It’s trumpeted loudly on the firm’s website.

Hewitt observes that the OC commission also employs former Democratic assemblyman Phil Isenberg as its lobbyist in Sacramento, as though to prove that the commission is an equal-opportunity political piggy bank.

This got me thinking: Why in heaven’s name does a county commission, with a guaranteed revenue stream and representation in the capital by the statewide First5 commission and by a separate association of county First5 commissions, need its own Sacramento lobbyist?

Hewitt says it’s to keep the Legislature “mindful of the difference between the state commission and the local initiatives.”

What’s the cost of teaching legislators the difference between “state” and “county”? Since 2002, the OC commission has paid Isenberg’s current and former lobbying firms $340,762. That would probably cover the wages of a few school nurses.

Finally, let’s consider the OC commission’s featured new health initiative. This is an avian flu preparedness program, to which it allocated $2.3 million in November. Orange County is the only First5 commission that has established such a program, according to its executive director, Michael Ruane.

As it happens, the avian flu is an issue dear to the particular heart of Hugh Hewitt, who writes incessantly on his weblog about the imminent threat of an avian flu pandemic. Hewitt acknowledges that he “urged the Commission to consider and adopt” the avian flu plan. Reading between the lines, it sounds like his baby.

But at the moment, a large-scale threat to human health from the avian flu is entirely conjectural. Though the virus is spreading rapidly from Asia outward (it hasn’t reached North or South America), the threat is still largely to birds and, to a much smaller degree, farmers and other humans who come in direct contact with the infected animals.

The few known cases of human-to-human transmission — a prerequisite for a pandemic — resulted from extremely close contact with an infected person, such as between mother and child. Experts say the virus would have to mutate to become freely transmissible among humans, and although they don’t rule out the possibility, it hasn’t happened. The federal Centers for Disease Control don’t even recommend that Americans avoid travel to affected regions.

Hewitt defends the program by arguing that children will be “among the most vulnerable groups to the deadly virus.” But that can be said about almost any transmissible disease. Hewitt doesn’t explain why he believes that federal, state and local authorities will be so overmatched by the avian flu that the First5 commission, which has countless other ways to spend its money, needs to step up to the plate.

The irony is that spending on consultants and pet projects like these sends conservatives bouncing off the ceiling when they catch liberals at it. A Wall Street Journal editorial Hewitt quotes approvingly in his weblog commented pointedly, citing the Los Angeles Times, that First5 money “has found its way into the bank accounts of public relations and advertising firms, some of which are run by friends of Mr. Reiner.”

But sweetheart deals and personal hobbyhorses that divert money from children’s programs know no partisan boundaries. How are the friends of Mr. Hewitt doing?

Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You can reach Michael Hiltzik at golden.state@latimes.com and view his web log at latimes.com/goldenstateblog.