address

WASHINGTON — As Bill Clinton struggles with his draft history and President Bush his tax promises, they might look back wistfully at something that happened 40 years ago last week. Richard M. Nixon, in much worse trouble, talked his way out with a single TV appearance that became famous as the “Checkers” speech.

On Sept. 23, 1952, the newly minted vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party faced allegations that threatened to force him off the ballot and end his political career–the disclosure of an $18,000 fund set up for him by rich businessmen.

Nixon, a first-term senator from California, dealt with the crisis dramatically, gambling everything that the public could be won over to his side with a mixture of pathos and candor in a single speech.

He denied any impropriety in using the private fund. But that part is hardly remembered.

“One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don’t, they will probably be saying this about me, too,” Nixon told a television audience of 60 million. “We did get something, a gift, after the nomination.”

He explained it was a black-and-white cocker spaniel that 6-year-old Tricia Nixon had named Checkers. “I just want to say this, right now,” said Nixon, in a fight to stay on the ticket with Dwight D. Eisenhower, “regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”

The “Checkers” speech also included Nixon’s famous reference to wife Pat’s “Republican cloth coat” to point out that she didn’t wear mink. He ended it with a defiant vow not to quit. He urged listeners to tell the Republican National Committee “whether you think I should stay on or whether I should get off.”

The outpouring of sympathetic support cemented his spot on the ticket.

The fund had been set up by Dana Smith, a Los Angeles lawyer who had been finance chairman for Nixon’s successful 1950 race for the Senate. Smith intended it to pay for Nixon’s political travel, printing and mailing of speeches and clerical help, which would not be reimbursed by the Senate.

Once the existence of “the millionaire’s club” exploded in headlines, it ballooned and overshadowed everything else in the 1952 campaign. Eisenhower’s advisers urged the general to dump Nixon and find himself a new running mate.

Nixon got scant comfort from Eisenhower, who told him: “I have come to the conclusion that you are the one who has to decide what to do,” Nixon recalled, in his book “Six Crises.” “I think you ought to go on a nationwide television program and tell them everything there is to tell, everything you can remember since the day you entered public life. Tell them about any money you have received.”

To others, Eisenhower insisted that Nixon prove himself “clean as a hound’s tooth.”

The GOP and the Senatorial Congressional Campaign Committee pledged the $75,000 to buy a half-hour in prime time for Nixon’s speech, which was broadcast from the 750-seat El Capitan Theater in Los Angeles–the same hall where the “Colgate Comedy Hour” and “This Is Your Life” originated.

An hour before he left for the theater, came a call from Thomas E. Dewey, a two-time losing candidate for president and then a member of Eisenhower’s inner circle. He insisted that Nixon end his broadcast with his resignation–and even resignation from the Senate.

“If they want to find out they’d better listen to the broadcast,” Nixon shouted at Dewey. “and tell them I know something about politics too.”

Nixon went on the air in the empty theater. “Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to my personal use,” he said. “Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.”

He listed his assets and his debts, in detail, then said of his wife, “Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable cloth coat. And I always tell her that she’d look good in anything.”

The next day, Nixon flew to Wheeling, W.Va., to meet with Eisenhower. Just as he was about to leave the plane, Eisenhower came up the steps.

“You didn’t have to come down here to meet me,” said Nixon.

“You’re my boy,” said the general. And Nixon wept.

Pope Leo delivered a landmark address to Spain’s parliament, warning that the world is facing a profound spiritual, cultural, and political crisis marked by escalating conflicts, deepening polarization, and growing disregard for human rights.

The speech, the first by a pope before the Spanish legislature, formed a central part of his week long visit to Spain. Coming amid renewed hostilities between Israel and Iran and ongoing debates over migration and European security, the address reflected the Vatican’s increasing engagement with major geopolitical and humanitarian issues.

Leo used the occasion to reiterate long standing Catholic concerns regarding war, social fragmentation, migration, and the ethical implications of technological development. He also addressed the relationship between religion and public life, defending religious freedom and the confidentiality of confession.

Key Themes

Peace Over Militarisation

A central theme of the pope’s address was opposition to the growing militarisation of international politics. He argued that military force may suppress conflict temporarily but cannot create lasting peace.

His remarks came as European governments continue increasing defence expenditures in response to heightened security concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and broader geopolitical instability. The pope warned that excessive reliance on military solutions risks deepening rather than resolving global tensions.

Migration and Human Dignity

Leo devoted significant attention to migration, describing inadequate responses to displaced populations as a challenge to the ethical foundations of the international order.

He urged governments to move beyond border management policies and address the underlying drivers of migration, including conflict, poverty, and climate change. His comments coincided with plans to meet migrants in Spain’s Canary Islands, a major entry point for migrants attempting to reach Europe from Africa.

The pontiff framed migration as both a humanitarian and moral issue, arguing that the treatment of vulnerable populations serves as a measure of a nation’s moral character.

Artificial Intelligence and Ethics

The pope also expanded on concerns he has raised previously regarding artificial intelligence. He called for stronger ethical oversight of emerging technologies, particularly their application in military contexts.

As governments and defence industries increasingly integrate AI into weapons systems and military planning, Leo argued that technological progress must remain subject to moral and humanitarian considerations.

Religion in Public Life

Another notable aspect of the speech was the pope’s defence of religious participation in public affairs. He argued that faith should not be excluded from public discourse and stressed the importance of protecting religious freedoms.

Leo also defended the confidentiality of confession, a topic that has generated debate in several countries considering legal requirements for clergy to report abuse disclosed during confessions.

Why It Matters

The speech signals a more assertive Vatican engagement with global political debates at a time of mounting international instability.

Unlike purely theological addresses, Leo’s remarks directly addressed issues shaping contemporary international relations, including war, migration, technological governance, and democratic cohesion. His intervention places the Catholic Church within broader discussions regarding the future direction of global governance and international cooperation.

The address also highlights the Vatican’s growing concern that rising geopolitical competition, nationalism, and social polarization are weakening international institutions and undermining collective approaches to global challenges.

Stakeholders

The Vatican

• Seeking to shape global debates on peace, migration, ethics, and human rights.

European Governments

• Balancing security concerns with humanitarian responsibilities and social cohesion.

Migrants and Refugees

• Directly affected by immigration policies and international responses to displacement.

Technology Sector

• Facing increasing scrutiny over the ethical implications of artificial intelligence.

Religious Communities

• Monitoring debates surrounding religious freedom and the role of faith in public life.

Human Rights Organisations

• Engaged in discussions regarding migration, conflict resolution, and protections for vulnerable populations.

Strategic Implications

The address reflects the Vatican’s effort to position itself as a moral counterweight to rising geopolitical competition and militarisation. By linking war, migration, technology, and social division within a single framework, the pope presented these issues as interconnected symptoms of a broader crisis affecting the international order.

His criticism of increased military spending places the Vatican at odds with many Western governments currently prioritising defence expansion. At the same time, his focus on migration challenges increasingly restrictive immigration policies adopted across Europe.

The pope’s intervention on artificial intelligence also signals that ethical governance of emerging technologies may become a more prominent area of Vatican diplomacy in the coming years.

Analysis

Pope Leo’s address represents one of the clearest articulations yet of his vision for the Church’s role in contemporary global affairs. Rather than limiting his remarks to spiritual concerns, he framed international conflict, migration pressures, technological change, and democratic fragmentation as interconnected challenges requiring moral as well as political responses.

The speech suggests a papacy willing to engage directly with policy debates at a time when many governments are prioritising security, strategic competition, and economic interests. While the Vatican lacks conventional political power, its ability to shape public discourse and influence ethical debates remains significant.

By positioning peace, human dignity, and ethical governance at the centre of his message, Leo is seeking to reassert the relevance of moral leadership in an increasingly fragmented international environment. Whether governments embrace those arguments remains uncertain, but the address signals that the Vatican intends to remain an active participant in debates over the future of the global order.

With information from Reuters.

Caitlin Clark says everybody making a big deal about a heated moment on the bench between her and Indiana Fever head coach Stephanie White has gotten it “blatantly wrong.”

“I know there’s a camera on me … but there’s a lot of people out there in the media or on TV that think they know a lot of things, and they’re just blatantly wrong,” the star point guard said on Monday. “It’s just another example of what everybody … want[s] to blow up and make something that is just … not in reality.”

Clark was addressing a moment that occurred during the Fever’s 100-84 loss to the Portland Fire on Saturday. The viral footage appears to show Clark and White having a heated exchange while the team is huddled on the bench. White then subs Clark out for Raven Johnson, having her take Clark’s seat, as they presumably continue to discuss their next play. Kelsey Mitchell and Makayla Timpson appear to try to calm Clark, who can be seen shaking her head while standing behind her coach.

As with many moments involving the 2024 WNBA Rookie of the Year, video capturing the exchange was widely circulated and discussed among fans and pundits online and on TV.

Clark dismissed the moment as just “two people being competitive, two people that really want to win” and pushed back against it being described as “a blow up.”

“I ride for Steph, I ride for these girls. Steph has my back more than anybody,” the two-time All Star said. “Nobody in … our locker room, or Steph, or our coaching staff, thought twice about it.”

Clark’s teammate Lexie Hull was also asked about the moment on Monday during an appearance on Yahoo Sports Daily, and the Fever guard indicated it wasn’t even a blip on the team’s radar.

“That’s part of the game,” Hull said after mentioning the team had been in some foul trouble. “There’s frustrations that rise, and decisions have to be made, and ultimately, this wasn’t something that carried on. This is, in the moment, something that happened, and not something that is talked about now in our locker room or talked about even later on in the game.”

White echoed her players’ sentiments Monday, saying the footage just captured her coaching.

“I was challenging a player,” White said. “It’s coaching. … My relationship with Caitlin is great. … She wants to be coached. I want her to help me be a better coach. We’re both competitive, we’re both stubborn, we’re more alike than different. Hopefully we continue to bring the best out of each other.”

White attributed the attention to Clark’s popularity and how “everything that she does gets clicks.” She also pushed back against attempts to frame these moments as “tense.”

“It’s not a new thing,” White said. “It happens in every sport … and it’s not a story.”

Clark, the 2024 No. 1 draft pick, first gained buzz for her three-point shooting during her college years at Iowa. While her popularity has carried over into her WNBA career, she has more recently been increasingly scrutinized for her demeanor and perceived disrespect toward coaches and officials rather than for her play. Her injury-plagued 2025 campaign and the Fever’s less-than-stellar start to the 2026 season haven’t helped. The Fever are currently 4-4 and ninth in the WNBA standings. The team went 20-20 in the regular season during Clark’s rookie campaign and 24-20 in 2025 (Clark played just 13 games).

“There’s immense amount of pressure, and sometimes that pressure can get you and frustrate you in different ways,” said Clark. “I want to win. This team wants to win, and I’m the point guard, so it’s on me to help this team and this franchise win.”

Watchdog instructs social media giant to strengthen moderation following circulation of ‘grossly offensive’ content.

Malaysia’s internet watchdog has ordered TikTok to take action against “offensive and defamatory” content about the country’s monarchy.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) said on Thursday that it had instructed the video-sharing platform to take “immediate remedial measures” in response to an account purporting to be linked to King Sultan Ibrahim.

The MCMC said its order requires the social media company to strengthen its moderation policies and provide a “formal explanation” for its failure to block the “grossly offensive, false, menacing and insulting” content, including AI-generated videos and manipulated images.

The regulator said it takes a “serious view” of online platforms being used to disseminate content that is false or “detrimental to public order”, particularly as it relates to the monarchy.

It added that it issued the order after finding TikTok’s response to previous notifications to be “unsatisfactory”.

TikTok, founded by Chinese tech company ByteDance, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“MCMC will continue to take firm and proportionate action where necessary to ensure digital platforms operating in Malaysia uphold their responsibilities in maintaining a safe, secure and respectful online environment,” the watchdog said in a statement.

Malaysia, a constitutional monarchy, penalises speech deemed to inspire “hatred or contempt” against the royal family under a sedition law passed in 1948.

The watchdog’s order against TikTok is the latest move by authorities in the Southeast Asian country to regulate social media platforms.

In January, the MCMC briefly blocked access to the AI assistant Grok amid a global backlash over its use to create sexually explicit images of people without their consent.

Malaysia’s government is also currently preparing to enforce legislation passed last year to prohibit social media use by under-16s, following similar moves by countries including Australia, Indonesia and France.

Iran’s presence at the tournament has been shrouded in uncertainty since the US and Israel launched a war on the country in February.

Iran’s football federation has said the men’s national team will take part in the 2026 World Cup that begins in June, but demanded that joint hosts the United States, Mexico and Canada agree to its conditions amid the Middle East war.

The call on Saturday comes after Canada refused entry to the federation’s chief last month before the FIFA Congress because of his alleged links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the ideological arm of Iran’s military, which it designated as a “terrorist group” in 2024.

Iran’s presence at the tournament, which will take place between June 11 and July 19, has been shrouded in uncertainty since the US and Israel launched a war on the Middle East country in February.

“We will definitely participate in the 2026 World Cup, but the hosts must take our concerns into account,” the Iranian federation said on its official website.

“We will participate in the World Cup tournament, but without any retreat from our beliefs, culture, and convictions.”

The Iranian football federation (FFIRI) President Mehdi Taj told state TV on Friday that Tehran has 10 conditions for attending the global spectacle, seeking assurances over the country’s treatment.

The conditions include visas being granted and respect for the national team staff, the team’s flag and its national anthem during the tournament, as well as demands for high security at airports, hotels and routes to the stadiums where they will play.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has insisted that Iran’s footballers would be welcome at the tournament.

But he warned that the US may yet bar entry to members of the Iranian delegation with ties to the IRGC, which it also designates as a terrorist organisation.

“All players and technical staff, especially those who have served their military service in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC, such as Mehdi Taremi and Ehsan Hajsafi, should be granted visas without any problems,” said Iranian football chief Taj.

FIFA chief Gianni Infantino has reiterated that Iran will play their World Cup games in the US as scheduled.

Iran, who are due to be based in Tucson, Arizona, during the World Cup, face New Zealand, Belgium and Egypt in Group G.

The Iranians open their World Cup campaign against New Zealand in Los Angeles on June 15.

“No external power can deprive Iran of its participation in a cup to which it has qualified with merit,” the Iranian federation said on Saturday.

SACRAMENTO — The debate over immigration issues has reached a fever pitch nationwide, and Angelica Salas said it’s putting her employees at risk.

Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said her staff experiences harassment and death threats.

“They ask themselves, what if someone who disagrees with our work can find where I live, will my family be safe?” Salas said, addressing state lawmakers at a recent legislative hearing.”People begin to self-censor; they step away from their work and some leave the field entirely.”

Salas was speaking in support of Assembly Bill 2624, which would provide privacy protections for those facing harassment for working or volunteering with organizations that offer legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants. The bill would create an address confidentiality program, like the one already offered to reproductive healthcare workers, and prohibit people and businesses from selling or posting images or personal information about the protected individuals on the internet.

The measure has drawn ire from Republicans, who argue it could have a chilling effect on free speech and the media. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and said it would prevent right-wing social media influencers like Shirley from conducting immigrant-related investigations in California.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who authored the legislation, said the proposed law would help keep people safe — but several 1st Amendment experts this week told The Times the bill could have unintended consequences.

“There could be grounds for concern,” said Jason Shepard, a media law and communications professor at California State Fullerton. “It reflects a legitimate and important state interest in protecting people from harassment and threats. But at the same time, this bill punishes the publication of information.”

The legislation defines “personal information” as anything that identifies, describes or relates to the protected individuals, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, physical descriptions, driver’s licenses, financial information, license plate numbers and places of employment.

Shepard said the potential new law could be applied unevenly, and the language could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

Given the polarized political environment, Shepard said the legislation also could prompt other groups to request similar protections, as those working in a range of professions are facing increasingly heated rhetoric or attacks.

“This is not unique to people who are working in immigration support services; this really could apply to anybody engaged in public debate today,” he said.

Carolyn Iodice, the policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE, said the organization has noted an uptick in laws nationwide implementing privacy protections for those in certain professions.

She pointed to a statute enacted a few years ago in New Jersey that protects the addresses of judges, prosecutors and police officers. The law was used in 2023 to block an editor with New Brunswick Today from publishing an article about the police chief living two hours outside of the city.

“It was obviously newsworthy, but this officer was able to wield the law against this journalist, and that is the kind of thing we are worried about,” Iodice said. “When you think about handing what could be a huge number of people the ability to just block anything from being posted about them online — it could easily be abused.”

David Loy, the legal director for the nonpartisan First Amendment Coalition, said the measure would censor the free speech of all citizens, not just those who defamed or threatened immigrant aid workers.

“Someone might have a legitimate dispute with them and wants to refer to it online,” he said. “But they could then basically silence [that person] from referring to them on a Yelp review or Facebook posts that has nothing to do with threatening them — and that is going way beyond the narrow exceptions of the 1st Amendment.”

Loy said the coalition reached out to Bonta’s office and hopes to help tweak the bill.

Meanwhile, the legislation continues to face scrutiny from Republicans.

“We exposed CA Democrats for the ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Act that silences citizen journalists who expose their fraud and corruption,” DiMaio wrote this week on social media.

Shirley released a viral video last year alleging fraud in Somali-run immigrant daycare centers in Minneapolis. He recently shared videos of himself in Sacramento confronting Democrats who support Bonta’s bill.

“The enemy is truly within,” Shirley wrote on Instagram. “When our politicians would rather protect fraudsters and illegal migrants, it’s time for us to stand up or face mass oppression from the traitors.”

Bonta dismissed the assertion that the bill is intended to deter journalists, stating in a news release that “right-wing agitators” and “ineffective legislators” were intentionally spreading misinformation.

Bonta spokesperson Daniel McGreevy said the bill has a straightforward goal of protecting immigrant service providers. He said the office is working to refine the legislation to address concerns and welcomes good-faith dialogue.

The bill is progressing through the state Legislature and most recently was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

President Lee Jae Myung on Friday pledged unwavering commitment to workplace safety in his address to mark Labor Day at Cheong Wa Dae.

“I will neither compromise nor make concessions on workplace safety,” he said, vowing to build a “normal” country where no worker ever has to risk their life at work.

“Safeguarding workers is the most basic responsibility of any nation and any business,” he said.

The president also pushed back against the notion that worker welfare and business growth are incompatible, stressing the two are mutually dependent.

“We can only move forward by breaking free from the outdated thinking that being pro-business means being anti-worker,” he said. “Growth has a future only when labor stands behind it” he said.

Amid growing concerns that artificial intelligence (AI) threatens jobs, the president sought to reassure the public that the government prioritizes people over productivity.

“As technologies advance, the prevailing view is that machines powered by artificial intelligence will largely replace human labor,” he said. “But it is not right to ask workers to sacrifice themselves in the name of productivity,” he said, adding that growth that leaves workers behind is not growth at all.

Lee called workers “the backbone of our economy,” who keep things running on the ground and drive the spending that fuels growth.

It marked the first time a Labor Day event has been held at Cheong Wa Dae. The event brought together some 130 participants, including key figures from labor, management and government, as well as workers from diverse occupations, to mark the occasion.

It also marked the first time two major umbrella labor unions — the Federation of Korean Trade Unions and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions — that are said to hold different political views both took part in such an event.

South Korea had initially observed Labor Day on May 1 before it was renamed “Workers’ Day” in 1963. The government restored the name to Labor Day last year and designated it as a national holiday earlier this year, allowing all workers to take the day off.

In celebration of Labor Day, a variety of events took place across the country, highlighting the value of work and its role in improving quality of life and driving economic growth.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

“From the depths of the Atlantic to the disastrously melting ice-caps of the Arctic, the commitment and expertise of the United States Armed Forces and its allies lie at the heart of Nato, pledged to each other’s defence, protecting our citizens and interests, keeping North Americans and Europeans safe from our common adversaries,” he said.

WASHINGTON — King Charles III will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, becoming the second British monarch in history to do so as the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of its independence from England.

The king’s address, the centerpiece of a four-day state visit, comes at a moment of unusual strain between Washington and London. President Trump has repeatedly clashed with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the United States’ war with Iran, derided the British government’s refusal to commit forces to the conflict and even mocked the Royal Navy’s battleships as “toys.”

At a welcome ceremony for the king and Queen Camilla at the White House, Trump struck a more appreciative tone, describing the relationship between the two nations as a centuries-old “cherished bond.”

“Long before Americans had a nation or a Constitution, we first had a culture, a character and a creed,” the president said. “Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts — moral courage — and it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea.”

Trump said that some may think it is “ironic” to honor the British king during celebrations of America’s independence, but argued the tribute “could not be more appropriate.”

“Americans have had no closer friends than the British,” Trump said. “We share the same root. We speak the same language. We hold the same values. And together, our warriors have defended the same extraordinary civilization under twin banners of red, white and blue.”

Trump said he will not be attending the king’s remarks at the Capitol due to security protocols, but said he planned to watch from afar. He did not elaborate on any security concerns, but the decision comes in the aftermath of a shooting at the White House correspondents’ dinner in which authorities said Trump was a likely target.

Following the welcome ceremony, the king joined Trump in the Oval Office for a closed-door bilateral meeting.

The president appeared to be enjoying the visit. He told the crowd at the White House that his late mother “loved” the royal family and watched their events on television. The president even joked his mother had a “crush” on the king when he was younger.

“I wonder what’s she’s thinking right now,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Trump posted on Truth Social that he planned to raise with the king and queen a media report suggesting his family roots may be tied to the royal family, a prospect he appeared to find amusing.

“I’ve always wanted to live in Buckingham Palace!!!” the president said in the post.

The king is scheduled to address Congress at 3 p.m. EDT. He is expected to delivered prepared remarks about the two nations’ shared history and their enduring diplomatic ties, while offering measured acknowledgment to the tensions defining the current moment.

The only precedent for an address by a British monarch was 35 years ago, when Queen Elizabeth II addressed a joint session of Congress in 1991. The timing of her address came after the end of the Gulf War.

How the king will address the current geopolitical tensions, including the Iran war and Trump’s threats to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, remains to be seen.

But hanging over the king’s visit is the shadow of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), one of the most vocal lawmakers pushing for the release of the Epstein files, last month requested that the king privately meet with some of the women who were sexually abused by the late financier.

The request was made in a letter to Buckingham Palace. In it, Khanna noted that the Epstein scandal extended to Britain, where the king’s brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was tied to the alleged misconduct.

In February, the former Prince Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office related to his links to Epstein, marking the first time in nearly four centuries that a senior British royal was criminally apprehended.

But the king declined to meet directly with the survivors, Khanna said in an MS NOW interview on Tuesday morning. The California Democrat said he expects the king to address the issue during his remarks to Congress.