Action

A war for the soul of the world is happening right now that’s straight out of the Bible — and I’m not just talking about the Middle East.

In one corner are President Trump and his minions, who insist that everything they do is divinely mandated. They have consistently invoked a violent version of God as they deport undocumented immigrants, try to make the United States whiter, rip up long-standing treaties with allies, rain down bombs like a biblical plague on supposed narco boats and choke nations they deem a threat or whose resources they covet.

They’re the ones who lecture religious leaders on what Jesus stood for, demanding blessings for Trump’s actions — or else.

Just check out the recent allegations in The Free Press that senior defense officials dressed down the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S. in January over Pope Leo XIV’s lack of enthusiasm for Trump’s imperialist ambitions. Or Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he of the tattoos hailing the blood thirst of the Crusades (another Middle Eastern forever war that the “civilized” side lost), who compared the rescue of a downed American aviator in Iran over Easter weekend to the resurrection of Jesus.

It’s a playbook straight out of the Book of Revelations, which describes a Beast in the End Times with “a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” in its quest to hold dominion over the earth.

In the other corner of this existential fight is an actual man of God: Pope Leo XIV.

Rather than cower before a despot who makes the Pharaoh in the Old Testament seem as stable and kind as St. Francis, the first American pope has resisted Trump like a protester at a “No Kings” rally. He has yet to denounce by name anyone in the president’s sordid orbit — but Pope Leo has returned to their actions again and again in his first year as head of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics.

He began his papacy by greeting a cheering crowd with “Peace be with you all” — what Jesus told his disciples after his Resurrection and a brilliant, biblical way to telegraph where he stands in our bellicose times.

On Palm Sunday a few weeks ago, the pontiff proclaimed during Mass in St. Peter’s Square that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war” — a not-so-subtle rebuke to Hegseth, who prayed shortly after the U.S. launched the Iran war for “every round [to] find its mark” and for “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

For his first Easter message, Pope Leo wrote, “Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace! Not a peace imposed by force, but through dialogue!”

Meanwhile, President Trump told a reporter that God supports the destruction he’s inflicting on Iran because “God is good. God wants to see people taken care of.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters at the Pentagon, July 16, 2025, in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

According to the Free Press article, the Vatican declined an invitation from Vice President JD Vance for Pope Leo to visit the U.S., for fear that Trump would use him as a political pawn. Instead, the man born in Chicago as Robert Prevost plans to spend July 4 — America’s 250th birthday — on a Mediterranean island that has long served as a gateway for migrants trying to make it to Europe.

Critics will accuse Pope Leo of Trump Derangement Syndrome and call him particularly short-sighted, since he stands athwart the desires of many American Catholics.

Though he isn’t Catholic, Trump has favored Catholicism far above any other mainline Christian denomination, from acknowledging feast days to packing his administration and the Supreme Court with adherents in a way that even Joe Biden — a lifelong Catholic — never did.

About 55% of Catholics voted for Trump in 2024, per the Pew Research Center. A survey last year by The Catholic Project at The Catholic University of America found “a clear generational shift away from liberal self-identification” among younger priests. Dioceses across the country are reporting the highest amount of converts in decades, many of them drawn in by orthodox Catholic influencers.

But Trump’s embrace of Catholicism, like everything else in his life, has been conditional on fealty to him. His administration pulled tens of millions of federal funds from Catholic charities because they assisted migrants regardless of legal status — something the American Catholic church has done for over a century. Vance, himself a Catholic convert, accused bishops of being “worried about their bottom line” for daring to criticize the move and his boss’ deportation Leviathan.

The Free Press also reported that Trump’s lackeys invoked the Avignon Papacy — when 14th century French kings exiled a succession of popes from the Vatican and made them their puppets — during their browbeating of the Vatican ambassador.

Re-litigating history is an obsession of the Trump regime, so bringing up a medieval episode amounted to a threat to Leo to shape up — or else.

That’s what makes Pope Leo’s stance against a modern-day Babylon even braver. A pope’s main role is to bear witness to the words of Christ, who said far more about taking care of the meek and turning the other cheek than he did about waging war.

The best popes, from John XXIII to John Paul II, know that their words stand as a challenge for all people, believers and not, to create a better world that paves the way for the world to come. Trump wages war for himself; Pope Leo urges us to stand for something other than ourselves.

At this point in his reign, Trump is a dead ringer for the Antichrist, described in the Second Book of Thessalonians as a “man of sin … the son of perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above all.”

Pope Leo would never characterize his opposition to Trump in such apocalyptic terms, of course. But his stance against the president’s tyranny is a call to action in the same vein as John Paul II’s exhortation to the free world to oppose the Soviet empire.

“Let us abandon every desire for conflict, domination, and power,” Pope Leo stated on Easter, “and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars and marked by a hatred and indifference that make us feel powerless in the face of evil.”

Amen, amen, amen.

Across the country, President Trump has installed handpicked loyalists as top federal prosecutors. Several have been pushed out after legal battles because they lack Senate confirmation to serve as U.S. attorneys.

But in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli wields the power of a top prosecutor under a lesser title: “first assistant.”

Essayli clocked his first full year in office this week. He has survived the kinds of challenges that sunk Trump picks in other states through a combination of legal gamesmanship by the U.S. Department of Justice and a lack of action by judges in the Central District of California.

Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits over transgender and environmental policies in California.

After Trump’s firing Thursday of U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, it’s unclear how her replacement will handle continuing battles over the legality of Trump’s appointees. Essayli is popular with high-level administration officials, and received a congratulatory post on X from Vice President JD Vance over the filing of fraud cases earlier this week.

A conservative former state Assembly member from Riverside County, Essayli, 40, was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney last April. Around the time he hit that role’s 120-day limit, Bondi made him a “special attorney” and designated him “first assistant.” A federal judge later disqualified Essayli as acting U.S. attorney, finding he was “not lawfully serving” in the top role. But the judge said he had no authority to undo Essayli’s designation as first assistant. With no one above him in the office, that title leaves Essayli as the de facto U.S. attorney.

In other jurisdictions, members of the federal bench have exercised their authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney. Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee’s chambers did not respond to a request for comment about why no similar action has been taken in L.A.

A court spokesman declined to comment. Essayli did not respond to a request for comment. The White House referred questions to the Justice Department.

A Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement that praised Essayli for prosecuting “drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations, sex traffickers, violent street gangs, leftist rioters and domestic terrorists, fraudsters, and child predators.”

“It is a disservice to our prosecutors and the American people when judges prevent the President and the Attorney General from installing qualified and capable prosecutors who will aggressively enforce our laws and make America safe again,” the Justice Department spokesperson said.

The lack of action by Gee, a President Obama appointee, has surprised some legal observers, especially given the swiftness with which judges in other districts have acted. It also has frustrated some former federal prosecutors that fled the office under Essayli’s chaotic tenure.

One former assistant U.S. attorney, who left the office under Essayli and requested anonymity to discuss sitting judges who will likely preside over future cases of theirs in the district, accused Gee and others of “shirking their responsibilities” by not appointing someone to the vacant U.S. attorney post.

Another former Central District prosecutor who left the office before Essayli’s appointment said Gee was being practical, taking a “protective” stance to “keep the court away from the ire and invectives coming out of the White House.”

It is “unfair to say the court is abdicating its authority,” said the ex-prosecutor, who also requested anonymity to speak candidly about the district’s judges.

Under long-standing Senate tradition, individual senators can block a U.S. attorney nominee in their home state by withholding their “blue slip,” which clears a nominee’s path to a confirmation hearing.

Trump has tried to skirt the Senate confirmation process to appoint top federal prosecutors in multiple states, including New Jersey and Virginia, where two of the president’s personal lawyers were named U.S. attorney — who immediately moved to zealously advance the president’s agenda and, in some cases, prosecute his rivals.

In Virginia, Trump replaced U.S. Atty. Erik Siebert, a nominee who was under Senate consideration, with one of his former personal attorneys, Lindsey Halligan. Siebert had refused to prosecute some of Trump’s political enemies and resigned. In her first ever criminal case, Halligan swiftly moved to indict former FBI Director James B. Comey. The prosecution was later thrown out and Halligan’s appointment deemed illegal.

In New York’s Northern District, when judges moved to oust the president’s former campaign attorney — who received the same “first assistant” designation as Essayli — Justice Department officials promptly fired his replacement.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said Trump’s attempts to bypass the normal confirmation processes are unconstitutional.

“This is very troubling because it circumvents the constitutional procedure of having the president nominate and the Senate confirm. That’s crucial to checks and balances,” he said. “This allows the president to appoint whoever he wants.”

Though Essayli has more law enforcement experience than many of Trump’s chosen prosecutors, he’s still struggled to achieve courtroom victories. His prosecutors have lost nearly all the cases they’ve brought to trial against anti-Trump protesters and abandoned others after grand juries refused to return indictments.

Meghan Blanco, a former federal prosecutor and veteran defense attorney, suggested Gee’s inaction with Essayli might be a clever act of resistance. Rather than picking a fight with the White House, Blanco said, the judges are letting the top prosecutor fall on his face.

“If you’re a judge and displeased with what DOJ is doing and the shenanigans they’re pulling … you let the Essayli appointment play out,” Blanco said. “No one has seen a U.S. attorney’s office lose the way this office is losing now.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times this week that he is working with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to craft legislation to clarify the procedures required to appoint U.S. attorneys and prevent Trump and future presidents from circumventing the Senate.

The legislation, which Schiff did not describe in detail, faces an uphill battle even if Democrats retake the Senate in the upcoming midterms. But the California senator said he is committed to challenging Trump’s maneuvering.

Schiff said Essayli “could not be confirmed and for a reason: He lacks the judgment, temperament and integrity required of a U.S. attorney.”

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, said local federal judges may believe it would be “more disruptive to try and put somebody in when the administration will just fire them.”

But their inaction, she said, has effectively confirmed Essayli as U.S. attorney — and highlights “a real weakness in the system” that demands a legislative fix.

“The bottom line is you have an administration that just doesn’t want to follow the rules,” she said. “There has to be some political will to have Congress do its duty.”

WASHINGTON — Three fired FBI agents sued on Tuesday to try to get their jobs back, saying in a class-action lawsuit that they were illegally punished for their participation in an investigation into President Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The federal lawsuit adds to the mounting list of court challenges to a personnel purge by FBI Director Kash Patel that over the last year has resulted in the ousters of dozens of agents, either because of their involvement in investigations related to Trump or because they were perceived as insufficiently loyal to the Republican president’s agenda.

The lawsuit in federal court in Washington was technically filed on behalf of just three agents but may have much broader implications given that its request for class-action status could open the door for agents fired since the start of the Trump administration to get their jobs back.

The three agents — Michelle Ball, Jamie Garman and Blaire Toleman — were fired last October and November in what they say was a “retribution campaign” targeting them for their work on the investigation into Trump. The agents had between eight and 14 years of “exemplary and unblemished” service in the FBI and expected to spend the remainder of their careers at the bureau but were abruptly fired without cause and without being given a chance to respond, the lawsuit says.

“Serving the American people as FBI agents was the highest honor of our lives,” they said in a statement. “We took an oath to uphold the Constitution, followed the facts wherever they led and never compromised our integrity. Our removal from federal service — without due process and based on a false perception of political bias — is a profound injustice that raises serious concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement.”

Trump’s indictment

The investigation the agents worked on culminated in a 2023 indictment from special counsel Jack Smith that accused Trump of illegally scheming to undo the results of the presidential election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Smith ultimately abandoned that case, along with a separate one accusing Trump of illegally retaining classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., after Trump won back the White House in 2024, citing Justice Department legal opinions that prohibit the federal indictments of sitting presidents.

The lawsuit notes that the firings followed the release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of documents about the election investigation — known as Arctic Frost — that he said had come from within the FBI. Those records included files showing that Smith’s team had subpoenaed several days of phone records of some Republican lawmakers, an investigative step that angered Trump allies inside Congress.

The complaint names as defendants Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, accusing them of having orchestrated the firings despite being “personally embroiled” either as witnesses or attorneys in some of the legal troubles Trump has faced.

Patel, for instance, was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury investigating Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and had his phone records subpoenaed, while Bondi was part of the legal team that represented Trump at his first impeachment trial, which resulted in his acquittal.

“And now, by virtue of presidential appointment to the pinnacle of federal law enforcement, Defendants are abusing their positions to claim victories that eluded them on the merits,” the lawsuit states.

Spokespeople for the FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. Patel and Bondi have said the fired agents and prosecutors who worked on Smith’s team were responsible for weaponizing federal law enforcement, a claim that was also asserted in their termination letters but that the plaintiffs call defamatory and baseless.

Fired agents call for ‘fundamental constitutional protections’

Dan Eisenberg, a lawyer for the agents, said in a statement that his clients were fired without any investigation, notice of charges or chance to be heard.

“This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm fundamental constitutional protections for FBI employees, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear or favor. We all benefit when law enforcement officers’ only loyalty is to facts and the truth,” said Eisenberg, who is with the firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel.

The lawsuit asks for the agents to be reinstated to their positions and for a court declaration affirming that their rights had been violated. It also seeks to represent a class of at least 50 agents who have been terminated since Jan. 20, 2025, or will be. Those agents also stand to recover their jobs in the event the case is successful and the requested class-action status is granted.

Others have been fired too

Other fired employees who have sued include agents who were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest in 2020; an agent trainee who displayed an LGBTQ+ flag at his workspace; and a group of senior officials, including the former acting director of the FBI, who were terminated last summer.

The firings have continued, with Patel last month pushing out a group of agents in the Washington field office who had been involved in investigating Trump’s hoarding of classified documents. Trump has insisted he was entitled to keep the documents when he left the White House and has claimed without evidence that he had declassified them.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Kenyan distance runner Albert Korir has admitted to doping, prompting officials on Monday to ban him for five years.

Long a fixture at the New York Marathon, Korir tested positive for a blood-boosting substance in three separate samples taken in October while he was training to run in the New York Marathon on Nov. 2. He finished third in the race.

A verdict issued by the Athletics Integrity Unit said that Korir’s results since October will be disqualified, including that third-place finish in New York.

The three positive results provide “clear evidence of the athlete’s use of a prohibited substance on multiple occasions which is expressly identified in the definition of aggravating circumstances,” the verdict stated.

The punishment was reduced by one year because Korir, 32, admitted to taking a banned substance without requesting a hearing. He is banned until January 2031.

Korir will keep his 2021 New York Marathon title. He also was runner-up in 2019 and 2023, and finished third in 2024 in addition to 2025. His other first-place finishes came in the 2019 Houston Marathon, the 2017 Vienna Street Race and the 2019 and 2025 Ottawa Race Weekend.

Korir tested positive for Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator (CERA), a long-acting agent that stimulates red blood cell production much like the banned substance EPO. It is used legally to treat anemia associated with chronic kidney disease and typically is administered once every two to three weeks.

The World Anti-Doping Agency said in October that Kenya had made “significant” progress in tackling doping but the country remains on probation while it seeks to improve its monitoring.

The action by WADA occurred after Kenyan runner Ruth Chepngetich, the world marathon record holder, was banned for three years after admitting the use of Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), a banned diuretic used as a masking agent.

Many of Spain’s major airports are set to be hit by strike action this week.

UK tourists hoping to travel to Spain for Easter sunshine should be aware that workers are set to strike at several of the country’s biggest airports.

The strikes affect ground-handling services at the airports of Barcelona, Madrid, Alicante, Palma, Ibiza, Málaga, the Canaries and more and the first of the action is set to start on Monday. The strikes are by Groundforce and Menzies workers and are a result of salary disagreements.

The Groundforce strikes had been due to start on Friday but they were delayed. However, it is believed they will now start on Monday, take place at set times of day in the mornings, afternoons and nights and continue indefinitely. Majorca Daily Bulletin reports that “there is as yet no indication as to whether there will be further suspensions of strike action”.

Menzies workers were due to have gone on strike this Saturday and Sunday. That was also suspended but 24-hour strikes from April 2 to 6 have not been called off.

Groundforce operates at Madrid-Barajas, Barcelona-El Prat, Palma de Mallorca, Alicante, Málaga, Gran Canaria, Valencia, Ibiza, Bilbao, Lanzarote and Fuerteventura. Menzies operates at Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca, Málaga, Alicante, Gran Canaria, Tenerife South and Tenerife North.

The Traveler website reports that “travellers heading to Spain over Easter face a challenging season, as walkouts by airport ground staff threaten queues, baggage delays and potential timetable disruption at some of the country’s busiest hubs”. It added that “reports indicate that the stoppages are partial rather than full shutdowns, typically concentrated in several time bands during mornings, midday and late evenings. This pattern mirrors earlier labour disputes at Madrid, where limited ground handling strikes created bottlenecks at baggage reclaim and during boarding, while flights continued to operate under minimum service rules.”

It added: “For most holidaymakers, the most visible impact of the strikes is likely to be queues and slower processing rather than mass cancellations.”

Travel and Tour World, a B2B travel publisher, says travellers “are being urged to check their flight status regularly and stay updated on the latest developments”.

Strikes not the only problem

The strike action coincides with the ongoing rollout of the EU’s new Entry/Exit System (EES) which could cause further delays. Under this system, which has been rolling out since October and is expected to be fully operational by April 10, all travellers from the UK and other non-EU countries have to be photographed and fingerprinted at EU airports and border points.

The Telegraph reports that the Home Office and travel organisations “are advising holidaymakers to allow extra time to arrive at their destinations on both entry and exit because of predicted queues of two to four hours at busier airports”. It adds: “Delays at airports on return journeys have already led to some holidaymakers missing their planes home, even though they arrived within the required two-hour limit.”

It reported how Tenerife airport has already seen “acute delays” with one recent traveller saying on Facebook that she had spent three hours queuing in passport control, writing: “Our flight left with 15 passengers on and ditched the rest of us here in Tenerife to fend for ourselves.”

Another traveller said she had been astonished to arrive at her airport departure gate in Paris recently to find a long queue. She said: “I had entirely forgotten about the additional security checks. Only one kiosk was open, with a queue of at least 30 people, and the clock was ticking down to our flight’s departure. As we stood there, another 40 individuals joined the queue behind us, yet still, only one kiosk was operational.

“The process was painfully slow. The queue barely seemed to budge, and more people continued to join behind us. From the snippets of conversations I caught, everyone appeared as taken aback – and stressed – as I was.

“Fortunately, my partner and I had started relatively close to the front, so we managed to reach the gate just in time. As for the people behind us, I have no clue.”

GRAPEVINE, Texas — A generational divide over the Iran war surfaced between older attendees and their political heirs at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, as the group’s leaders pleaded for unity in a challenging midterm election year for Republicans.

Younger conservatives at CPAC, which concluded Saturday, spoke of disappointment and even betrayal over President Trump’s war against Iran, saying in interviews with the Associated Press that the president’s actions run counter to his many pledges to oppose foreign entanglements.

Meanwhile, older conservatives were looking past Trump’s campaign criticism of military action to achieve regime change, arguing that the war in Iran is a pragmatic act necessitated by threats to the United States.

The bright dividing line emerged in conversations with a dozen participants on either end of the age spectrum who gathered this week for the annual meeting of conservatives, being held outside Dallas. That split could reflect flagging enthusiasm for Trump among some younger voters, a potentially troubling sign for Republicans heading into midterm elections and for the conservative movement as it looks beyond Trump’s tenure.

“We did not want to see more wars. We wanted actual America-first policies, and Trump was very explicit about that,” said Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty. “It does feel like a betrayal, for sure.”

Worries about sending troops to Iran

Williams, from Austin, Texas, said he worries about his friends in the military, especially his Air Force officer brother. More broadly, he sees the war as an unnecessary disruption to the stability in the Middle East that could have long-term negative effects on the U.S. economy.

“Trump’s rhetoric was very important for people of my generation,” Williams said.

Auburn University sophomore Sean O’Brien’s support for Trump has slipped, especially with his talk of sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. “I’m not happy,” he said.

Sending troops into Iran, he said, “would be full betrayal.”

With at least 1,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division deploying in the Middle East, O’Brien said, “That’s what keeps me up at night.”

Older attendees’ views

Older CPAC participants were far more supportive of the war effort, describing Trump as wisely responsive to what they described as the threat Iran posed. Several suggested that Trump did not initiate the war, but that Iran had decades ago.

“I don’t believe he started a new war. He was acting in response to a 40-year-old war by Iran,” said 70-year-old retired defense contractor Joe Ropar of McKinney, Texas. “How long were we supposed to wait? I think he did what he had to do when he had to do it.

“Do nothing? I’m not on board with that,” Ropar said.

Echoing a common theme from older participants, Kelle Phillips said Trump’s decision was a pragmatic reaction to a real threat that overrules the best hopes of campaign rhetoric.

“You campaign on what you want to do and then the world’s dynamics happen,” said Phillips, a 61-year-old author and religious instructor from Frisco, Texas. “I think the difference is if you have someone in the Iranian regime who wants to destroy America, you can’t reason with them.”

Trump’s goals in Iran, James Scharre believes, are short-term and not a concern for those adverse to a long slog overseas.

Scharre, 61, also interprets Trump’s steadfast campaign opposition to regime change as a preference, not an ironclad promise.

“I think he said he was against it,” he said. “Trump is a wise leader. He does what works. And I’m for it.”

High-profile conservatives also split

Cracks in the conservative coalition began appearing early in the war, led by influential opinion leaders like podcaster Tucker Carlson, a staunch opponent of the Iran war.

Joe Kent recently quit his post as Trump’s director of the Center for Counterterrorism at the Department of Homeland Security, saying in his departure statement that “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran” and that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

Right-wing podcaster Stephen K. Bannon, a longtime Trump advisor and former White House aide who is expected to speak at CPAC, has worried aloud that a protracted Mideast military engagement would cost Republicans support by pushing some conservatives to sit out the November midterms.

This comes at a time when Republicans’ hold on the U.S. House is in jeopardy and the GOP’s thin Senate majority is not as secure as it appeared just a few months ago.

A recent survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that while Trump’s approval rating is low but holding steady, the conflict could be turning into a major political liability for his administration. About 59% of Americans say U.S. military action in Iran has been excessive, the poll found.

Calls for unity

CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp acknowledged conservatives were divided over Iran and said the convention’s annual straw poll will include a question about it. The results were to be released later Saturday.

“Any consensus is still to be determined. I think people trust President Trump, so I don’t think there’s been any shaking of his support,” Schlapp told the AP. “But I think underneath there’s concern about where does this lead.”

Tiffany Krieger, a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Pittsburgh, said her onetime level-10 support for Trump has dipped to 5 over the war.

“It seems like the love for him is plateauing. We see our party splitting apart and we’re supposed to be united,” said Krieger, of Harrisburg, Pa. “I think this issue with the war has put a line through the conservative movement.”

Almost if addressing Krieger directly, Mercedes Schlapp, senior fellow for the CPAC foundation, opened Thursday’s session of the conference in Texas with a direct appeal.

“We cannot divide from within,” she told an audience of hundreds from the stage at the convention center. Referring to political opponents, she added: “Let’s stay united. They want us divided.”

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

Arrests come days after force announced U-turn, saying that despite High Court ruling, ‘terror’ ban remains in place.

London’s Metropolitan Police have arrested 18 supporters of Palestine Action, days after the force promised to resume arrests in a reversal of policy.

The protesters had sat on the steps of New Scotland Yard, the Met’s headquarters, on Saturday, holding signs that read: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Officers made the arrests under “terrorism” legislation.

Following the High Court’s ruling in February that banning Palestine Action as a “terrorist group” was unlawful, the force had said it would adopt a “proportionate approach” and stop arresting the group’s supporters and focus instead on gathering evidence.

But on Wednesday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harman said that since any “impact of that judgement will not take effect until the government’s appeal has been considered, which could take many months”, it would resume arrests. “We must enforce the law as it is at the time, not as it might be at a future date,” he said.

As she was led away by two officers on Saturday, one woman, in footage posted to social media, can be heard saying: “I’m being arrested for holding a cardboard sign, whereas our government feels the need to sell weapons and use our airbases to commit genocide in Palestine.”

Critics say the Met’s U-turn defies the court ruling.

Palestine Action is a direct action campaign group which has targeted weapons manufacturers linked to Israel and an RAF base.

The government proscribed it as a “terrorist organisation” in July 2025, placing it alongside groups including al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The High Court called the move “disproportionate” and in breach of freedom of expression.

The government was granted a stay pending an appeal, meaning the ban technically remains in force.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who said she would fight the High Court ruling in the Court of Appeal, said in February that supporting Palestine Action was not the same as supporting the Palestinian cause.

Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring has since ordered that hundreds of related prosecutions be paused until after that appeal is heard.

Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested for holding signs in support of the group, contributing to a 660 percent rise in UK “terrorism” arrests in the year to September 2025, Defend Our Juries said.

On the day of the High Court ruling, about 150 people held the same placards outside the court and not a single person was arrested.

The scale of the crackdown has drawn sharp international criticism, including from the UN.

When the ban was first imposed, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk said it appeared “disproportionate and unnecessary”, warning it risked criminalising the legitimate exercise of free expression.

In January, US Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers told the news platform Semafor that “censoring that speech does more harm than good”.

Amnesty International, which intervened in the court case, said thousands had been “arrested for something that should never have been a crime.”

Eight activists linked to the group staged a lengthy hunger strike in prison, with four held on remand for 15 months before being bailed in February. Four others remain imprisoned.

Earlier this week, Al Jazeera reported that released detainees are now pursuing legal action against the prisons over alleged mistreatment.

Defend Our Juries has called a mass sign-holding event, titled Everyone Day, at Trafalgar Square on April 11, as the government’s appeal heads to court.

Saturday’s arrests took place as the rest of the city was filled with demonstrators who came out to march against the far right.

Protesters in Yemen took to the streets to voice support for Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon amid ongoing US and Israeli attacks. Houthi representatives expressed their readiness to intervene militarily.

WASHINGTON — The Senate early Friday morning approved Homeland Security funds to pay Transportation Security Administration agents and most other agencies, but not the immigration enforcement operations at the heart of the budget impasse that has jammed airports, disrupted travel and imposed financial hardship on workers.

The deal, which the Senate approved unanimously without a roll call, next goes to the House, which is expected to consider it Friday.

“We can get at least a lot of the government opened up again and then we’ll go from there,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. “Obviously, we’ll still have some work ahead of us.”

With pressure mounting to resolve the 42-day stalemate over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the endgame emerged in the final hours before TSA workers miss another paycheck Friday. President Donald Trump said he would sign an order to immediately pay the TSA agents, saying he wanted to quickly stop the “Chaos at the Airports.” The deal did not include any of the restraints Democrats have demanded as they sought to rein in Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the outcome could have been reached weeks ago, and vowed that his party would continue fighting to ensure Trump’s “rogue” immigration operation “does not get more funding without serious reform.”

What’s in and out of the funding package

Senators worked through the night on the deal that would fund much of the rest of the department, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard and TSA, but without funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Customs was funded, but Border Protection was not.

The package puts no new limits on immigration enforcement, which has remained largely uninterrupted by the shutdown. The GOP’s big tax cuts bill that Trump signed into law last year funneled billions in extra funds to DHS, including $75 billion for ICE operations, ensuring the immigration officers are still being paid despite the lapse.

Next steps in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., holds a slim majority, are uncertain. Passage will almost certainly require bipartisan support, as lawmakers on the left and right flanks revolt.

Conservative Republicans have panned their own party’s proposals, demanding full funding for immigration operations. Many have vowed to ensure ICE has the resources it needs in the next budget package to carry out Trump’s agenda.

“We will fully fund ICE. That is what this fight is about,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said as he tried to offer legislation to fund the agency. “The border is closing. The next task is deportation.”

On-again, off-again talks collapsed

Earlier Thursday, Thune announced he had given a “last and final” offer to the Democrats. But as the day dragged on, action stalled out.

Democrats argued the GOP proposals have not gone far enough at putting guardrails on officers from ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and other federal agencies who are engaged in the immigration sweeps, particularly after the deaths of two Americans protesting the actions in Minneapolis.

They want federal agents to wear identification, remove their face masks and refrain from conducting raids around schools, churches or other sensitive places. Democrats have also pushed for an end of administrative warrants, insisting that judges sign off before agents search people’s homes or private spaces — something new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said he is open to considering.

Trump had largely left the issue to Congress, but warned he was ready to take action, threatening to send the National Guard to airports in addition to his deployment of ICE agents who are now checking travelers’ IDs.

The White House had floated the extraordinary move of invoking a national emergency to pay the TSA agents, a politically and legally fraught approach. Instead, Trump’s order would pay TSA agents using money from his 2025 tax bill, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly.

If the Senate package is approved by the House and signed it into law, the action Trump announced to pay TSA agents may be temporary or unneeded.

Airport lines grow as TSA workers endure hardships

The funding shutdown has resulted in travel delays and even warnings of airport closures as TSA workers missing paychecks stop coming to work.

Multiple airports are experiencing greater than 40% callout rates of TSA workers and nearly 500 of the agency’s nearly 50,000 transportation security officers have quit during the shutdown. Nationwide on Wednesday, more than 11% of the TSA employees on the schedule missed work, according to DHS. That is more than 3,120 callouts.

Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the union is grateful the TSA workers will be paid, but said Congress must stay in session to pass a deal “that funds DHS, pays all DHS workers, and keeps these vital agencies running.”

At George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Melissa Gates said she would not make her flight to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, after waiting more than 2½ hours and still not reaching the security checkpoint. She said no other flights were available until Friday.

“I should have just driven, right?” Gates said. “Five hours would have been hilarious next to this.”

Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti, Kevin Freking, Rebecca Santana, Collin Binkley and Ben Finley in Washington, Lekan Oyekanmi in Houston, Wyatte Grantham-Philips in New York, Rio Yamat in Las Vegas, Russ Bynum in Savannah, Georgia, and Gabriela Aoun Angueira in San Diego contributed to this report.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Most Americans believe recent U.S. military action against Iran has gone too far, and many are worried about affording gasoline, according to a new AP-NORC poll.

As the war launched by the U.S. and Israel continues in its fourth week, the survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that while President Trump’s approval rating is holding steady, the conflict could be swiftly turning into a major political liability for his Republican administration.

While Trump is deploying more warships and troops to the Middle East, about 59% of Americans say U.S. military action in Iran has been excessive.

Meanwhile, 45% are “extremely” or “very” concerned about being able to afford gas in the next few months, up from 30% in an AP-NORC poll conducted shortly after Trump won reelection with promises that he would improve the economy and lower the cost of living.

There is significant support for at least one of the president’s objectives, which is preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. About two-thirds of Americans say that should be an “extremely” or “very” important foreign policy goal for the U.S. However, they are just as likely to say it’s important to keep U.S. oil and gas prices from rising — a juxtaposition that could be difficult for the White House to manage.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults continue to approve of Trump’s performance as president, which is unchanged from last month. His approval on foreign policy, while slightly lower than his overall approval, also largely held steady.

Trump has left unclear his next steps on Iran. Despite escalating threats, he’s also suggested diplomatic talks could resolve the fighting. Americans remain broadly apprehensive about Trump’s ability to make the right decisions on the use of military force outside the U.S., and they mostly oppose more aggressive steps, such as deploying ground forces.

Republicans and Democrats prioritize keeping gas prices low

Keeping the price at the pump down is the rare goal that unites Americans in both major political parties.

About three-quarters of Republicans and about two-thirds of Democrats say it’s highly important to prevent U.S. oil and gas prices from going up.

However, concern about the current situation isn’t evenly felt. Only about 3 in 10 Republicans said they’re “extremely” or “very” worried about affording gas in the next few months, as opposed to about 6 in 10 Democrats.

Trump’s focus on Iran’s nuclear program also appears more compelling to Republicans than to Democrats. About two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. should prioritize keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but about 8 in 10 Republicans say this is at least “very” important, compared with about half of Democrats.

The war has exacerbated political debates over the role that Israel should play in U.S. foreign policy, especially since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a leading voice for attacking Iran. Only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults say preventing Iran from threatening Israel should be a high priority.

Toppling Iran’s leaders is viewed as slightly less important. Only about 3 in 10 say it’s at least “very” important for the U.S. to replace Iran’s government with one that’s friendlier to U.S. interests.

Most Americans say U.S. action has gone too far in Iran

As Trump provides mixed messages on whether the Iran war will end soon, about 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents say the Iran attacks have “gone too far.”

Republicans are more divided. About half of Republicans say the U.S. military action has been “about right,” but relatively few want to see it go further. Only about 2 in 10 Republicans say the U.S. military action has not gone far enough, while about one-quarter say it’s gone too far.

Recent AP-NORC polling has found that about 6 in 10 Americans say Trump has “gone too far” on a range of issues, including his approach to tariffs and presidential power. That number, which is broadly reflective of his overall approval, signals that while Trump’s actions in Iran are unpopular, it’s still comparable to other controversial moves he’s taken as president.

Further entrenching the U.S. in the war could change that, depending on what happens next. About 6 in 10 Americans “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose deploying U.S. troops on the ground to fight Iran, including about 8 in 10 Democrats and roughly half of Republicans. Just under half of Americans oppose airstrikes targeting Iranian leaders and airstrikes against military targets in Iran, while about 3 in 10 are in favor and about 3 in 10 don’t have an opinion.

Many Americans distrust Trump on use of military force abroad

About half of U.S. adults have “only a little” trust or “none at all” in Trump when it comes to making the right decisions about the use of military force outside the U.S., in line with an AP-NORC poll from February.

About 34% of U.S. adults approve of the way Trump is handling foreign policy, similar to 36% in February. That measure has been consistent in recent months despite a cascade of actions, including confrontations over Greenland and an attack on Venezuela, that have generated controversy at home and abroad.

It’s also very similar to Trump’s approval on Iran in the new poll, which found that 35% of Americans have a positive view of his handling of that issue.

Sanders and Catalini write for the Associated Press. The AP-NORC poll of 1,150 adults was conducted March 19-23 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Riz Ahmed has created and stars in a marvelous new series, “Bait,” premiering Wednesday on Prime Video. There are no worms in it, though viral video plays a part, and fame — the pursuit of which is a subject — is a lure.

But what’s in a name? A comedy by any other name would be as funny — if it was funny, and this one very much is, in a way that’s crazy and serious and human, built around a character in crisis who refuses to believe his life is out of control and is so invested in putting up a front that he’s begun to believe his own lies. Almost. It’s a series in which hallucinations, dreams, magical realism and memories, which punctuate and interfere with the “normal” business of the story, all amount the same thing, and in which the style of the filming shifts with the action.

Ahmad plays Shah Latif, a British Pakistani actor, who, owing to the exertions of his faithful, often frustrated agent, Felicia (Weruche Opia), is improbably auditioning to be the next James Bond. But he repeatedly forgets his line when his scene partner, a girl with a gun, asks, “Tell me, when it’s just you all alone, how do you live with yourself? Do you even know who you are?” establishing a theme. (The line he can’t recall: “I don’t live with myself, I live with whoever you need me to be.” Spies and actors!)

Leaving the audition, he contrives to be photographed by one of the paparazzi lurking outside, sniffing for a Bond scoop; his picture is published, which creates a stir and some racist blowback, culminating in a package thrown through the front window of his parents’ home. (It is not a window that opens.) What’s inside the package I’ll leave for you to discover, but it will play a part through the rest of the show.

The recurring question of who will be the next James Bond generates a lot of pop cultural heat in our world; just type “next James Bond” into your search engine of choice. At one point, you may recall, Idris Elba was regularly bruited as a potential 007, which occasioned enough anti-Black reaction that he officially took himself out of the unofficial running. It may have been on Ahmed’s mind here — Shah claims high purpose for his Bondean aspirations, that he wants “to show them that this too is what British looks like.”

On the one hand, Shah has had enough of a career to have been made into a “limited edition collectible action figure,” starred in a well-regarded but underseen small film, played “the translator in ‘Homeland’ series seven” and earned a rising star award from some French festival; on the other, he is, professionally speaking, no Idris Elba — not a nobody, but not too many rungs above it. (He’s not Dev Patel, either, with whom he’s repeatedly confused.)

At the top of the second episode, Shah is seemingly being interviewed on a podcast, “Sir Chatwick Stewart, with me, Sir Patrick Stewart” — played by the man himself, whom we hear but never see — about his ambitions, though it’s soon clear that Stewart is a mental projection, an inner critic and inquisitor. He’ll stick around through the series, offering barbed commentary and something like support: “If I humiliate you, it’s to save you from the bigger humiliation of remaining as you are.”

As a protagonist continually getting in his own way, Shah is a classic sort of comic character. He creates opportunities only to squander them; finds himself voiceless after forcing himself onstage at a black-tie gala or in an underground club (he was once a politically provocative MC). After a newsworthy mishap, his agent advises him to lie low, which is impossible for him to do; there is no itch he won’t scratch, and no good advice he’ll actually follow. Apart from a rival actor (Himesh Patel) he’s a protagonist without antagonists, excepting himself. He’s insufficiently grateful to the people he owes, and insufficiently apologetic to those he’s wronged.

Shah’s self-involvement will be challenged by ex-girlfriend Yasmin (Ritu Arya), encountered first by accident, then sought out — a writer, she has published an op-ed headlined, “No, Shah Latif, We Don’t Need a Brown Bond” — in which she accuses him of “exchanging his political art for vanilla distraction.” His family, whom he neglects to visit for months, includes warm-hearted cousin Zulfi (Guz Khan), who has started a Muslim ride share company; a no-nonsense sister (Aasiya Shah) — the name of her character is rendered as “Q” on IMDb and elsewhere, but in the series itself she’s called Ainy — doting mother Tahira (Sheeba Chaddha); and his skeptical father, Parvez (Sajid Hasan), who has not been keeping his doctor appointments and asks Shah, “What do you even do? I watch TV all day — you’re never on it.”

Appropriate to a character who lives for being onscreen, “Bait” plays with the language of film — gritty procedural, a burst of Bollywood, romantic comedy — though not necessarily to the usual ends. Frame-filling titles identify the London neighborhoods where the action takes place — Wembley, Kentish Town, Brick Lane, Ladbroke Grove — as Paris, Moscow and Mexico City might appear in an international thriller. The series is at once satirical and celebratory; “Bait” feels abundant, both in its presentation of a culture, which has the ring of documentary truth, and as a beautifully realized work of art.

Bond can wait.