Americans

WASHINGTON — Democrats are making a growing effort to adopt a pragmatic focus as they campaign on affordability in the midterms, as some within the party push for moving away from ideological arguments.

Across the country, Democratic candidates are trying to win over voters by talking about real-life scenarios, framing other platform issues in economic terms and, strategists say, aiming to shift a perception that Democrats deal in the abstract.

They see an opening created by voters’ focus on the economy and their ability as the party not in power to leverage affordability as the key midterms issue as Trump’s economic approval remains low. Trump has dismissed the issue, calling affordability a “hoax” by Democrats while also promising economic improvements.

“There has been a learning process in being able to take what Trump and the Republicans are doing and make sure that [candidates] are coming back to the real-world economic implications of whatever that might be,” Democratic strategist Alex Jacquez, who served in the Biden White House. “That’s where maybe [Democrats] haven’t always, in the recent past, made the full connection all the way through.”

Now, “the moment is ripe,” he suggested, for the party to shift its image.

The Democrats’ concentration on affordability and the economy has defined their midterm messaging, playing off elevated inflation, the effects of Trump’s tariffs and high gas prices caused by the war in Iran. The party is attempting to capture enough swing voters to win a House majority in November, and some believe the Senate could also be within reach.

Polling shows pessimism about the economy has increased among all Americans and most believe the country is in an affordability crisis. Americans most frequently mention government leadership and economic issues as the country’s most important problems in Gallup polling.

Voters also increasingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, including working-class white voters who make up a key part of his base. In an NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll last month, Americans gave the president his lowest-ever approval rating on the economy at 33%.

Speaking in Pennsylvania on Thursday, Trump said of affordability: “That’s a fake word that they use. They caused the affordability problem. It’s called high prices.”

Rep. Adam Gray, a Democrat who represents a purple Central Valley district and is a member of the center-left Blue Dog Coalition in Congress, said he believes voters have grown frustrated by the failure of Washington lawmakers to pay attention to what the people want out from government.

He pointed to Central Valley growers whose business has been affected, he said, by the rising price of fuel and fertilizer, the squeeze on the labor market caused by immigration enforcement and changes to federal programs.

“How regular people experience politics, it’s not the kind of ideological debates we have in Washington,” Gray said. “It’s the experience of doing something, whether that’s shopping for groceries or going to the lake to go boating with your family and realizing the price of gas is through the roof or the road to the lake is in disrepair.”

At a time when Democrats have debated how to embrace a party identity beyond opposing Trump and intra-party fights between progressive and moderate candidates have drawn attention, some believe the “practical” tactic may offer one key to the party’s path forward.

In Texas, Democratic candidates are pointing to the impact of data centers on water supply or the consequences of the state’s abortion ban, said Matt Angle, director of Lone Star Project, a political research organization that works to help get Democrats elected.

“The fact that Corpus Christi is running out of water … [or] you have women who have died because they were denied abortion services,” Angle said. “It’s very important that those things not be talked about in ideological terms but in practical terms. I think Democrats are doing a better job of that than ever before.”

“Real life is happening on the ground,” Angle added. “I think Democrats see that.”

Republicans pursued a similar strategy successfully in 2024, and their attacks on Democrats for focusing on cultural issues may have been successful in pushing Democrats away from that messaging, said Republican strategist Brittany Martinez.

“They have made it clear that’s the direction in which they’re trying to go,” she said of Democrats. “I also think you have outliers of the party that sometimes suck all the oxygen out of the room and maybe derail that message.”

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said Democrats’ economic record, including in California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, demonstrates a failure to prioritize working families.

“It’s laughable that Democrats are trying to make kitchen-table issues their brand,” he said. “It only proves their political brand is broken, while Californians continue living every day with the receipts from Democrats’ failed agenda.”

Republican National Committee Chair Joe Gruters said Thursday at a summit convened by the Washington-based news outlet the Hill that he was confident the party would retain the House and Senate and projected optimism about the economy.

“He’s going to bat for the American worker every single day,” Gruters said of Trump. “He’s going to continue to do everything he can to get the nose of the economy in this country up and to get prices down.”

But as Trump appears to prioritize other issues, Martinez said, Republicans are facing their own uphill battle to win over swing voters.

“When the president has mocked affordability, said it’s not a crisis, I don’t think that helps [Republicans],” Martinez said. “Democrats have an opportunity to capitalize on that right now.”

Both moderate and progressive Democrats see the moment as a chance to define what the party stands for beyond opposing Trump, and both have seized on real-life arguments, though the approaches differ.

Progressives have long framed a spectrum of issues in economic terms, said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for the progressive caucus Justice Democrats.

“That has always been the progressive economic playbook, and I think it’s about time that the other wings of the Democratic Party catch up to us,” Andrabi said.

That also means, he said, not backing away from other issues, such as abortion, foreign wars and healthcare.

“It has always been the right that has sought to divide our communities on these so-called culture war issues,” Andrabi said. “Our vision forward should be one that includes everyone… That does not mean simply ignoring some people’s most urgent crises to focus on something else, because these are interconnected.”

Climate advocates, for instance, are “effectively connecting” climate to top midterm issues, including including gas and utility costs, AI data centers and the Iran war, said Jamie Henn, executive director of nonprofit communications lab Fossil Fuel Media, and have encouraged Democratic candidates to do the same.

“Climate, like many issues, doesn’t win itself on its own merits. It’s in the ways that you talk about it and connect it to kitchen-table issues,” Henn said. “Do it in the right way – it’s not a science lecture on global warming, it’s a story about how clean energy can reduce your bills.”

Still, getting more candidates to pick up those messages can be a steep climb, he said. Advocates in some spaces, including climate, have worried about their issues being sidelined.

“There are Democrats that could be threading this needle who aren’t,” Henn said. “We know the issues that climate needs to be connected to, but [politicians] need… to do a better job to clearly articulate the messages.”

MEXICO CITY — Argentina may be the last Latin American team standing in the World Cup, but don’t expect many fans in Mexico to be cheering for La Albiceleste — the lads sporting the classic white and blue stripes.

“There’s no way I want the Argentines to win,” said Roberto García, 55, who owns a clothing shop in the Mexican capital. “How can one sympathize with a team that has such a supremacist, racist discourse?”

The Argentine squad — reigning world champions led by seemingly ageless superstar Lionel Messi — faces off Wednesday in a semifinal match against England. Argentina is seeking its fourth World Cup, which would put it in a second-place tie for global titles with Germany and Italy, trailing only Brazil and its five cups.

But Argentina’s performance in the 2026 World Cup has again put the spotlight on a contentious fact of life in world soccer: The current of disdain that the Argentine side has long inspired among a certain segment of Latin American fans, especially those in Mexico.

Reynaldo Flores Jr., 10, center, reacts during the final minutes of a round of 16 knockout match between Mexico and England during a World Cup watch party at Chapter One in Santa Ana on July 5.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

A combination of factors are to blame: Mexico’s repeated World Cup losses to Argentina, a series of questionable refereeing decisions seeming to favor Argentina, Messi’s massive media presence and ongoing discourse on social media — where legitimate analysis coexists with passionate opinions and misinformation.

Deeper cultural resentments are also a factor. Many in the region have long complained that Argentines, many of whom have predominantly European ancestry, think they’re better than the rest of Latin America.

Critics say that Eurocentric superiority complex was on display this summer when Argentine journalist Eduardo Feinmann declared on air, after Mexico was eliminated in a close match with England: “I detest Mexicans, I detest them with my soul. … The envy they feel for us, not only in football but in everything.”

Feinmann’s comments sparked such widespread ire that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum weighed in, calling his remarks “appalling.”

Later, Feinmann said his words were not directed at the Mexican people — while musing that Sheinbaum had bigger things to worry about, like combating narco-trafficking, violence and corruption.

The World Cup by its nature stokes nationalism, and the deployment of stereotypes and even outright racism has long been a feature of the tournament. Last week, for example, a former Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, sparked outrage when he said that the French national soccer team, which includes members with African immigrant backgrounds, “does not have any French players.”

At two Argentina matches during this year’s tournament, fans from the country were recorded hurling racist slurs at an African American streamer. Online critics were quick to dredge up comments by a former Argentinian leader as proof of the country’s bias. “The Mexicans came from the Indians, the Brazilians came from the jungle, but we Argentines came from the ships … from Europe,” former Argentine President Alberto Fernández said in 2021.

A boy wearing an Argentina jersey waves American flags as fireworks explode during the annual Independence Day Celebration in the predominantly Latino community of Lynwood on July 3.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

Many Argentines say they, too, are appalled by such comments. “We reject it completely,” said actress Karenina Ivankovic, 37. “But you’ll find rude people everywhere.”

She moved from her native Argentina to Mexico City 13 years ago, and said she is shocked by the wave of “xenophobia” directed at her countrymen during this year’s tournament.

People have sent her nasty messages online, and strangers have stopped her on the street to tell her they hope Argentina loses. And she said several Argentine friends were physically attacked at a festival in Mexico City organized by FIFA, soccer’s world governing body.

People love Argentine music, Ivankovic said. They love Argentine beef.

“But during the World Cup,” she said, “they hate us.”

She thinks that may in part be because of how serious Argentines take their fútbol.

“Argentina lives in crisis,” she said. “Economic crisis, political crisis. Soccer is something that unites us. We say there’s no better hug than after Argentina has scored a goal.”

But at the end of the day, she said, people need to relax and remember that what’s at stake is just a tournament trophy.

“It’s become very political and personal,” she said. “But it’s just a game.”

Even some fans in Mexico express remorse about the wave of anti-Argentine sentiment — much of which has been playing out, sometimes crudely, online.

“It’s too bad that all this hate directed at the Argentines doesn’t allow us to appreciate that they have the best player in the world, Messi,” said Carlos Romero Díaz, 37, a car salesman here who was rooting for the South Americans. “Yes, Argentina generates a lot of anger, but at the end of the day, they score goals and win games.”

While Mexico has never won a World Cup, Mexico City’s iconic Estadio Azteca has been the site of some of Argentina’s greatest soccer triumphs, notably its championship in the stirring 1986 World Cup.

Argentina player Diego Maradona outjumps England goalkeeper Peter Shilton to score with his “Hand of God” goal as England defenders Kenny Sansom (top), Gary Stevens (center) and Terry Fenwick look on during the 1986 FIFA World Cup at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City.

(Getty Images)

A quarterfinal match between Argentina and England featured two of soccer legend Diego Maradona’s greatest hits: the so-called “Goal of the Century,” by all accounts a masterpiece strike; and Maradona’s infamous “Hand of God” goal, an illegal hand-goal that was allowed to stand because no referee saw the infraction.

But Mexico’s losses to Argentina have left a strong mark too. No other team has eliminated Mexico as many times in a World Cup.

After Argentina defeated Mexico 2-0 during group play in the 2022 World Cup, a video from inside the Argentine locker room began circulating, showing Messi — who scored one of the goals — taking off a soccer boot while a Mexican jersey lay on the floor.

Mexican boxer Saúl “Canelo” Álvarez interpreted the scene as the Argentine captain deliberately kicking the jersey and accused him of disrespecting Mexico — an allegation that Messi denied.

Years later, Messi acknowledged that the incident had altered the perception some Mexican fans had of him.

“I’ve always felt very loved by the people of Mexico. I’ve never disrespected anyone,” he said during an interview with “Simplemente Fútbol.”

Although Mexico is at the center of much of the debate, critical sentiment toward Argentina has taken hold among fans from other Latin American countries.

Social media has been flooded with posts from users in Colombia, Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador and Peru questioning refereeing decisions or expressing disapproval of Argentina, while messages mocking rival teams also proliferated from Argentine accounts.

As Argentina continues its quest for another World Cup title, the debate over whether it has simply been the best team in the tournament or also the one most favored by circumstances will continue to dominate soccer conversation in Latin America.

Staff writers Linthicum and El Reda reported from Mexico City and McDonnell from Boston. Special correspondent Sánchez Vidal reported from Mexico City and special correspondent Andrés D’Alessandro from Buenos Aires.

The US is set to have some of the most expensive elections in history. The US Supreme Court says political spending is equal to free speech, and therefore cannot be restricted, but as one expert told Al Jazeera’s ‘This is America’, if there’s a speed limit for cars, there can be a spending limit on politics.

WASHINGTON — The Senate unanimously approved a measure Tuesday that would make daylight saving time permanent across the United States next year.

The bipartisan bill, named the Sunshine Protection Act, would ensure Americans would no longer have to change their clocks twice a year. But the bill still needs approval from the House, and the signature of President Biden, to become law.

“No more switching clocks, more daylight hours to spend outside after school and after work, and more smiles — that is what we get with permanent daylight saving time,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the original co-sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement.

Markey was joined on the chamber floor by senators from both parties as they made the case for how making daylight saving time permanent would have positive effects on public health and the economy and even cut energy consumption.

“Changing the clock twice a year is outdated and unnecessary,”said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.).

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Americans want more sunshine and less depression — people in this country, all the way from Seattle to Miami, want the Sunshine Protection Act,” added Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Nearly a dozen states across the U.S. have already standardized daylight saving time.

Daylight saving time is defined as a period between spring and fall when clocks in most parts of the country are set one hour ahead of standard time. Americans last changed their clocks on Sunday. Standard time lasts for roughly four months in most of the country.

Members of Congress have long been interested in the potential benefits and costs of daylight saving time since it was first adopted as a wartime measure in 1942. The proposal will now go to the House, where the Energy and Commerce Committee had a hearing to discuss possible legislation last week.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the chairman of the committee, agreed in his opening statement at the hearing that it is “time we stop changing our clocks.” But he said he was undecided about whether daylight saving time or standard time is the way to go.

Markey said Tuesday: “Now, I call on my colleagues in the House of Representatives to lighten up and swiftly pass the Sunshine Protection Act.”

A proposal to make daylight saving time the year-round default nationwide is once again coming before Congress.

And, as in the past in both California and nationally, proponents and opponents of the switch cite the potential effects (good or bad) on health, business and agriculture as reasons to support or oppose the plan.

The House is expected to vote on the Sunshine Protection Act this week, according to the office of Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), the bill’s author.

The Senate version of the bill, SB 29, is sponsored by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). In a statement last year he said, “More daylight after work means more business and more active, safer California communities.”

Most of the U.S. went on daylight saving time in the spring, moving clocks one hour ahead of standard time. The bill would end the “fall back” to standard time that typically takes place in November. The change would mean darker mornings and later sunsets. President Trump has indicated that he supports the plan.

It won’t be the first time the debate over timekeeping has made its way to Capitol Hill. In 2022, a bill to make daylight saving time permanent was approved by the Senate, but the effort stalled in the House.

“It’s clear that year-round daylight saving time is a popular, commonsense reform that will improve everyday life for millions of Americans,” Buchanan said in a statement to The Times. “Passing my bipartisan Sunshine Protection Act will bring us one step closer to ending the outdated and unpopular practice of changing our clocks twice a year.”

Areas that already do not observe daylight saving time would be able to stay on permanent standard time, according to the bill text. For example, Arizona and Hawaii do not move their clocks forward or backward.

Lawmakers in California and other states could opt out making daylight saving time permanent, but would need to decide before the law takes effect, Josh Gregory, a senior advisor to Buchanan, said in an email.

The effort has drawn support from both sides of the aisle. In California, Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) are cosponsors of H.R. 139.

The proposal also has bipartisan opposition.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has also been a vocal opponent of permanent daylight saving time. In a speech last year, Cotton argued that while year-round daylight saving time might benefit some activities and areas — such as golfing in Florida and Alabama — residents of northern states and on the western sides of time zones might not see the sun rise until 9 a.m. in the winter.

Cotton raised concerns that students would need to walk to school in the dark and risk being struck by drivers, as was the case in 1974 when the U.S. briefly adopted year-round daylight saving time to combat an energy crisis.

“The darkness of permanent daylight saving time would be especially harmful for schoolchildren and working Americans,” Cotton said.

Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-San Pedro) told The Times in a statement that she plans to vote against the bill because “medical experts have warned that permanent daylight saving time is bad for our health.”

She supports a different proposal, the Sunshine for Our Kids Act, which seeks to make permanent standard time the default nationwide but gives states the option to opt out. The bill, HR 9638, has been endorsed by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

Stanford professor Jamie Zeitzer, a physiologist who studies circadian cycles and how humans respond to light, supports ending the twice-a-year time changes.

The “spring forward” shift results in a loss of sleep and has been associated with a number of negative health effects, he said. The spring clock change has also been linked to more car accidents and cardiovascular incidents, he added.

Zeitzer’s research found that the darker mornings and brighter evenings of permanent daylight saving time weaken the circadian clock for many people.

“The abundance of biological evidence is clear that permanent standard time is a better solution,” Zeitzer said. “When you have a more robust light signal early in the morning, that will help keep your internal circadian system synchronized to the day.”

A 2025 AP-NORC survey found that the current system of changing the clocks twice a year is unpopular. According to the poll of nearly 1,300 U.S. adults, only 12% of respondents favored the current system, while 47% were opposed and 40% were neutral.

In the business world, there’s no consensus on making daylight saving time permanent. Many chambers of commerce and businesses that want to lure customers later in the day generally support it, while agricultural interests and some industries oppose it.

As for making standard time permanent, that faces opposition too. Among the opponents: golf course owners.

Jay Karen, the chief executive officer of the National Golf Course Owners Assn., testified at a congressional hearing in November that losing extra evening daylight could cost the industry $1.6 billion in green fees alone because so many Americans tend to golf in the afternoon or evening.

Buchanan’s office said in a statement that the “well-documented benefits of having more sunshine later in the day after school and after work will be beneficial for millions of Americans’ health and well-being.”

There have been previous attempts to put an end to the twice-annual clock adjustments in California.

In 2018, California voters approved Proposition 7, which was supposed to give the Legislature the authority to impose year-round daylight saving time — but only if the federal government allowed states to do so. It has not yet led to any meaningful change.

Earlier this year, state Sen. Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) introduced SB 1197, which seeks to “ditch the switch” by moving the state to permanent standard time.

A spokesperson for Niello’s office said that because his previous efforts failed to gain traction, his current proposal includes a provision requiring California to conform if the federal government adopts permanent daylight saving time.

U.S. forward Christian Pulisic heads to the locker room at halftime during the loss to Belgium.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

More Americans are playing for bigger clubs and having more success in Europe than ever before, but that pipeline has yet to produce a true superstar. Many of the teams that have had success in this tournament have at least one player — Mbappé, Haaland, Lionel Messi, Harry Kane — who can change the game on their own.

The U.S. doesn’t have anyone who would be sure to start on any of the World Cup semifinalists and until it does, closing the gap will be difficult.

“We are USA and [we’re] competing against Belgium, Portugal,” Pochettino said last March. “I think for sure Belgium and Portugal have [players] in the top 100. We don’t.”

He is right. When the Guardian published its annual list of the world’s top players last winter, Christian Pulisic, the top American, didn’t make the top 100. And he didn’t play a full game in this tournament, missing one to injury, leaving three early and entering another as a late second-half substitute. He played just 223 minutes — 19 more than Ricardo Pepi — and finished with one assist.

Landon Donovan was arguably the closest thing to a game-changing player the U.S. had, so it’s no surprise he scored key goals in the team’s most important World Cup games in the last 32 years: one against Algeria in stoppage time in 2010 that allowed the Americans to finish atop their group for the first time since 1930, and another against Mexico in the round of 16 in 2002, sending the team to the quarterfinals for the only time.

If those are structural things that have long held U.S. Soccer back, there also were issues specific to this team, a supposed Golden Generation whose core was formed in the wake of the failure to qualify for the 2018 World Cup.

The talent was undeniable, which led to great expectations. But what has this generation accomplished? Two round-of-16 exits in the World Cup, one Gold Cup title in the last four tournaments — the team’s worst stretch this century — a fourth-place finish in the last Nations League and a group-stage departure in the last Copa América.

Impressive wins over Paraguay and Australia to start the World Cup gave the Golden Generation a bit of a shine and suggested progress. But when the Americans met a top-10 team in Belgium, the matchup proved a mismatch.

“We want to have higher hopes,” Pulisic said. “We want to be able to go and compete with some of the best in the world. We just still have that next step to climb.”

Against Belgium, that step looked as steep as Mt. Everest.

SEATTLE — Is everybody happy now? You good, Mr. President?

Put our boys in a blender, President Trump did, with those phone calls to FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Messed with their mojo by politicking to get American striker Folarin Balogun’s red card rescinded.

We’ll have to check VAR, but it might be the first time Trump succeeded at having a decision overturned.

Probably because this time what he sought to overturn — discipline stemming from Balogun’s accidental contact in the United States’ victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina — actually was unjust. Balogun should not have received a red card.

The problem is, having our President butt in here was a joke. Unfunny and out of bounds, offsides, an own goal — all of the things.

It put the U.S. team at the center of a geopolitical maelstrom, which is exactly what they did not need in the hours before the biggest match of their lives and the biggest match in the history of the U.S. men’s soccer program.

Some 40 or 50 million viewers were expected to tune in; how many of them watched for the first time? And what sort of impression did Monday’s 4-1 blunder-filled meltdown against Belgium make? That we stink at soccer — still?

If you were one of them, please, believe your soccer-fan friends when they tell you the Americans played much better in previous matches.

But so much for a magical run. On their home turf, the Americans pulled up lame before the finish line (aka, for the U.S. team’s purposes, its first quarterfinals since 2002).

To their credit, after the debacle, members of the U.S. team didn’t complain about anything being rigged. They didn’t use the distraction as an excuse. And they didn’t point fingers at anyone — anyone at all.

U.S. striker Folarin Balogun (20) walks to the locker room at halftime against Belgium in the World Cup on Monday at Lumen Field in Seattle.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We’re playing on home soil,” defender Chris Richards said. “So the only pressure we put on ourselves is to perform for our country, and ultimately didn’t feel the way we wanted to today. But I don’t think the antics of the last 24 hours had anything to do with it.”

No, they said the “debate,” or “outside noise” or “political manipulation” — as Tim Ream, Alex Freeman and coach Mauricio Pochettino described what others are calling “Balogate” — were not to blame for the gut-punch that answered the question: Why not us?

Because the U.S. is not yet good enough to beat the world’s great teams. Especially not when their pregame preparation includes having to try to block out an international uproar.

To have any hope against the Belgians in the round of 16 — a matchup between FIFA’s Nos. 9- and 17-ranked sides — the Americans needed to be going full-tilt, to be focused and ferocious and probably also a little bit lucky.

Instead, they looked shook, rattled. And they got rolled.

They were the worst version of themselves at the worst time, which was so weird from a team that had been on its front foot from the first whistle against Paraguay.

Not Monday. Against Belgium, they were on their heels from the outset. Heavy touches, slow afoot, playing like they had the weight of the World Cup on their shoulders.

And all that White House maddening meddling — for what?

Balogun started and played most of the match, but it could just as well have been reserve striker Ricardo Pepi. Or you or me, Balogun was that ineffective.

His play of the day came postmatch, when he approached Belgian coach Rudi Garcia and the two had a respectful exchange. A real diplomat, that Brooklyn-born, Britain-raised American by birthright.

This loss was a real team effort, of course. Christian Pulisic came off in the 59th minute after twisting his right ankle — leaving this World Cup without a goal in the four matches he appeared.

Matt Freese, the Harvard-educated starting goalkeeper, had a brain cramp of epic proportions when he stepped outside of the box and failed to corral a ball. Belgium’s Charles De Ketelaere kicked it loose and set up Hans Vanaken, whose shot traveled behind Ream for an easy score that made it 3-1 in the 57th minute.

There was a lot of poor decision-making with this match, on and off the pitch.

In the end, Trump’s appeal to Infantino did more harm than good. But what if some good could come from it?

Hey, FIFA, what about giving teams a process to appeal cards, like our American athletes in the NBA, NFL and MLB have?

Offering a suggestion box wouldn’t be opening Pandora’s box, not if it were a transparent and regular part of the game that would, hopefully, offer increasingly fair outcomes in a tournament where every match is so monumental — as our President recognized, much too enthusiastically.

U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino waves to the crown after a 4-1 loss to Belgium at the World Cup on Monday.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Progressive Democratic politicians who refuse to take donations from pro-Israel groups have won several party primary elections across the United States.

Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern tells host Steve Clemons that the left is rising because Americans “want more from Democrats”.

“Right now, we’re doing a lot of bad things all around the world, and people need to protest,” McGovern says. On US policy ranging from Cuba to Israel, he argues that Congress has become “just a rubber stamp on whatever this president wants to do”.

“We need to fight for the soul of this country,” McGovern adds.

Happy Birthday, America!

You turned 250 on Saturday and, honestly, you don’t look a day over 249. (Ha ha.)

Seriously, it’s perfectly understandable why there’s more gray on your scalp and deeper worry lines on your face. This last year has been another challenging one, to say the least. (And we thought the one cataloged 12 months ago in this space was rough.)

The country is caught up in an unpopular, on-again, off-again war with Iran that was recklessly launched by President Trump with far more swagger than foresight. In an utterly predictable move, Iran choked off the the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway for the world’s oil, sending gasoline prices skyrocketing. Though they’ve fallen since the announcement of a shaky ceasefire agreement, the cost of filling up is still significantly higher than a year ago.

Of course, costlier oil means virtually everything else has become more expensive. Trump was reelected in good part because he vowed to tame inflation on his very first day in office. Instead, it’s reached a three-year high.

The ground beef served up at many July 4 cookouts costs 75 cents a pound more than it did a year ago. A package of hamburger buns is up 15 cents. The price of hot dogs and other picnic staples have also increased, along with just about every other item at the grocery store.

Chew that over with your corn on the cob. (Up roughly 2.5% from July 2025.)

Meanwhile, Trump enriched himself to the tune of $2.2 billion during his first year in office alone. Treating the U.S. treasury like his personal cash cow, the president has lavished hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on vanity projects such as a personally kitted out Air Force One — a “gift” from Qatar that Trump plans to keep after retirement — and a gilded White House ballroom, rising where the demolished East Wing used to stand. Plans are underway for a grand, marble arch in Washington celebrating, well, you know who.

At the same time, Trump has squandered money and resources pursuing political vendettas, persecution of his enemies and fruitless investigations like the one probing “theft” of the 2020 election and “vandalism” at the algae-clogged Reflecting Pool he promised and failed to rehab.

All this while millions of Americans have lost healthcare coverage and/or federal food assistance, all thanks to the One Big Billionaire Bounty bill that Trump signed into law a year ago.

It’s all a bit unnerving isn’t it, America? You’re on edge in a way you haven’t been in at least a generation.

In Minnesota, in the dead of winter, two of your citizens were gunned down by federal officers as they engaged in that most American of exercises, registering dissent against the policies of their government. From sea to shining sea, innocent Americans have been arrested — and sometimes shipped abroad — and immigrant communities cower in fear of federal agents who often seem bent more on meeting deportation quotas than meting out justice.

You’re divided, America, in ways no one alive has ever seen.

It starts at the very top. Trump acts as though he’s president of a favored rump group — his political supporters — rather than the nation as a whole. He’s used your 250th birthday not to celebrate those many grand and glorious things that hold us together as Americans but to bask in the tanning-bed glow of his immeasurable self-regard.

But, heck, if it’s any consolation on this star-spangled holiday weekend, the country has been through worse. Much worse. And you, America, have not only survived but in many ways grown stronger by surmounting obstacles, facing down your flaws and overcoming some knee-buckling, soul-crushing challenges.

Slavery. Civil war. Racist exclusionary laws. Genocide against indigenous peoples. Two worldwide conflicts. Depression. Financial crises. And too many deadly natural disasters — fire, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes — to enumerate.

Your treatment of some Americans, it should be said, hasn’t always been fair and just. It still isn’t.

People are despairing over the Supreme Court and its genuflecting deference to the president. The justices of its conservative majority have done just about everything short of handing Trump a crown and scepter to reign as a virtually untouchable, imperial president.

But it’s worth noting that earlier court majorities held that Black Americans — “beings of an inferior order,” in the words of the wretched Dred Scott decision — could be denied citizenship, that racial segregation was constitutional and that compulsory sterilization based on eugenics was perfectly fine from a legal standpoint.

That ugly, sordid history won’t necessarily make anyone feel better about the current state of affairs, nor should it. But it does offer some perspective and, with it, hope.

This weekend is best celebrated honoring the country’s many good things and the bright, shining place that America aspires to be, with liberty and justice for all. So chin up! Have another slice of birthday cake, America, and don’t worry about the calories — you really do look terrific for 250!

Going forward it’s up to us, your citizens, to keep working toward that more perfect union mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution. Whatever ails you, America, the remedy resides with we the people and the power we hold, particularly at the ballot box.

Unhappy with the wrecking crew that’s heedlessly chain-sawed federal programs and allowed Trump to money-grub with both fists, defile the White House and undermine our rule of law? Send a message and vote ‘em out, starting in November’s midterm election. And bear in mind the damage that’s been wrought come the 2028 presidential race.

Don’t stop believing that, as dark and difficult as things may seem right now, better days lie ahead.

That undimmed and abiding faith is what makes America great.

US President Donald Trump has praised the US as the ‘greatest force for peace and justice on Earth’, in a speech marking the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding. Trump’s speech and the main celebrations were delayed by several hours by extreme thunderstorms.

Chase Iron Eyes drops everything following Renee Good’s killing by ICE to join protests on the streets of Minneapolis. Chase, a resident of the Pine Ridge reservation, is a lawyer whose life and work are shaped by generations of Native American resistance.

With 3,000 federal agents deployed to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area as part of Operation Metro Surge, Chase sees the impact of the crackdown for himself. When ICE begins targeting Native Americans in Minnesota, he works to move street-level resistance into the courtroom.

Chase, alongside other human rights lawyers, mounts a legal challenge and pursues class-action lawsuits against ICE and the Department of Homeland Security.

Native Americans Resisting ICE is a documentary film by Joi Lee and Ed Ou.

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Folarin Balogun was still learning to walk the last time the U.S. won a knockout round game in a World Cup. On Wednesday, he helped lead the Americans to another with his goal in the waning seconds of the first half, sparking a 2-0 win over Bosnia and Herzegovina that sends the team on to the round of 16 of this summer’s tournament.

The other goal came from Malik Tillman in the 82nd minute. The Americans have scored multiple goals in every game of the tournament for the first time ever, also setting a national record with 10 goals overall in the tournament.

The U.S. will face Belgium in the next round Monday in Seattle. Belgium advanced with a 3-2 win over Senegal in extra time.

Balogun wasn’t around to see the finish though, drawing a straight red card for stomping on the right ankle of Bosnian center back Tarik Muharemovic in the 61st minute, a foul Brazilian referee Raphael Claus confirmed via a video review. That forced the Americans to see Wednesday’s game out with just 10 players.

“For me, never is this red card,” U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino said. “Watching after on TV, never was [it] intention[al] to step up on the player. That was a normal action in football that happened by accident.

“That is why for me it’s never a red card.”

Claus disagreed, which could prove costly against Belgium because the card comes with a one-game suspension the U.S. cannot appeal.

“It’s just so unfortunate, honestly,” teammate Christian Pulisic said. “Looking back at it, it just seems, it seems so harsh. I just told him he’s done so much for us, and now we got his back. So that’s it.”

Balogun put the U.S. in front to stay just before the intermission. The sequence started with Bosnian defender Stjepan Radeljic sliding in front of a Tillman pass, deflecting it forward toward Muharemovic. But Muharemovic got his feet crossed, allowing the ball to carom to Balogun who did the rest, sweeping the ball into the net with his left boot from about 15 feet.

The goal was Balogun’s third of the tournament, tying him with Landon Donovan (2010) for most by an American in a single World Cup since 1930. The lead was the Americans’ first at halftime in a World Cup knockout game since 2002, when they beat Mexico in the round of 16.

Folarin Balogun and Bosnia-Herzegovina defender Amar Dedic in action during the first half.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

It looked to be a precarious lead when Muharemovic crumpled to the ground with about 30 minutes in regulation time. Claus did not show a card but after the VAR official suggested he take a look at a slow-motion replay, he came away from the monitor and reached for the red, making Balogun the first American to get a red card and score a goal in the same World Cup game.

“I think it’s a yellow card,” midfielder Tyler Adams said. “I think when you slow everything down, it’s only going to look worse.”

A few minutes after Balogun left, the game paused for the second-half hydration break, which proved to be a lucky break for the U.S. Tillman had his right foot stomped on early in the half, ripping his boot and leaving his foot bloodied. The break came him a chance to change shoes.

In the 82^nd minute, he swung that new right shoe at a free kick from the top of the box, bending it off the gloved right hand of Bosnian keeper Nikola Vasilj and in the net. That brought another first, according to OptaJack, which said Tillman was the first U.S. player to score on a direct free kick in a competitive match since Jozy Altidore in 2017 Gold Cup final.

“I’ve been dreaming about this game. I’ve been dreaming about maybe taking a free kick and scoring a free kick,” said Tillman, who practices set pieces endlessly after training sessions. “And then it actually came true.”

Until Wednesday, the U.S. hadn’t beaten a European team in 13 tries, a slump that included draws with Wales and England in the 2022 World Cup and six losses in as many games under Pochettino.

The last UEFA country it did beat? Bosnia and Herzegovina, in December 2021.

“Details decided the game,” Vasilj said.

After the red card “we started controlling the game,” he continued “and they canceled that with the second goal. We had our moments and you could feel something was coming. The only thing missing was the goal.”

Staff writer Mirjam Swanson contributed to this report.

“The World Cup is ruining my life,” a neighbor recently said with a laugh. “I’m supposed to be working; instead I’m watching World Cup. I’m supposed to be doing chores; instead I am watching World Cup.”

I laughed in guilty recognition. We had met on the street by chance while I was walking the dog. Having just spent the last two hours watching, then celebrating Lionel Messi’s hat trick during Argentina’s first-game victory over Algeria, I had less than an hour to get back in time to watch Austria play Jordan.

That was on Day 6, and it’s only gotten worse. If I had to calculate my own ratio of work done to soccer watched … well, as I am not a sports reporter, I don’t think my editor would be thrilled. (Though I’m sure she appreciated the England/Congo updates I provided as I finished this piece.)

Like millions worldwide, my family and I have been deeply, and in our case, weirdly, engrossed in this year’s games. “Weirdly” because we do not follow men’s soccer. The World Cup is different, of course — going in, I figured I would check out the U.S., keep an eye on Messi, then tune into the final few games. Perhaps my husband would join (but only if he at least pretended to understand the offside rule), but with our two oldest children out of the house, it is, with the exception of the Super Bowl, unheard of for our family to concurrently view any sporting event in real time.

Until this World Cup. I’m not quite sure how it happened, but suddenly we’ve got game times written onto our calendar. Entire days have been spent in front of the TV with at least one child and the others watching from their homes, our family texts studded with “are you watching…?,” “did you just see that?” and, of course, “OMG MESSI!”

(I would attempt to calculate my recent ratio of chores done to Messi videos watched if I weren’t legitimately concerned that my family would have me committed.)

The fact that my son and his girlfriend live in Kansas City certainly helped spark our newfound fascination. Yes, Los Angeles is also a host city, but L.A. hosts so many things; inevitably we were mostly concerned about what it would do to the traffic. KC, on the other hand, is the smallest and most unlikely of the host cities, and over the last few years we have seen — on visits and through my son’s accounts — all the construction, effort and can-do spirit that has gone into preparing for the event.

We were thrilled when it was announced that Argentina, England, the Netherlands and Algeria would be based in or near KC. We wanted the city to shine, and it has — from nearby Lawrence’s enthusiastic adoption of Algeria to Messi’s historic hat trick at Kansas City Stadium.

Team USA defender Mark McKenzie, left, and Turkey midfielder Baris Alper Yilmaz in the World Cup match at Los Angeles Stadium on June 25.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

But it’s more than vicarious Midwestern pride. When our older daughter began texting out missives from the earliest games and our son sent pictures of fans streaming into Kansas City Stadium, we started watching as a way to stay connected.

First, as a family, and then to our country and the rest of world.

The games have been inevitably exciting, especially as now that they’re in the knockout round, but the overall sensation was unexpected relief, a soul-soothing balm.

At a time when the news cycle seems to serve up nothing but conflict, crisis and woe, the World Cup offers shelter, a truly international event in which conflict is defined by long-term sports rivalries and questionable referee decisions.

We want our national or preferred teams to win, of course, but no matter the outcome, it’s impossible not to be thrilled by the sight of phenomenal play, underdog tenacity and so many adoring and enthusiastic fans.

Soccer is called the beautiful game for many reasons, and hours/days/weeks of sustained beauty is impossible to resist. Even social media has surrendered to spectacular highlights along with tales of Japan supporters cleaning up stadiums, fans of the victorious consoling fans of the defeated and Europeans discovering the glories of free refills and ranch dressing.

None of this changes the realities we face in America and the rest of the world. Grocery and gas prices remain catastrophically high; Iran continues to contradict U.S. claims of diplomatic resolution to an unpopular war. The unnecessarily revamped reflecting pool in Washington remains a swamp of algae and tourist arrests, as the semiquincentennial struggles under the weight of our president’s self-centered hubris.

But for a few blessed weeks, the World Cup offers inspiration, escape and cultural healing.

It has also, thus far, escaped President Trump’s so often internationally insulting social-media notice and more importantly, his presence. Historically, the leaders of host countries attend the opening match; Trump has, apparently, been too busy (including planning and attending the UFC Freedom 250 cage match recently held on the South Lawn.)

Given his tendency to suck the oxygen out of any room (like his recent reception at Game 3 of the NBA Finals in New York), it’s definitely for the best. If nothing else, the World Cup has given us a chance to take a break from politics and talk instead about Messi, France’s Kylian Mbappé, England’s Harry Kane and all the amazing goalkeepers, including Cape Verde’s now-iconic Vozinha.

Never before have I so understood the therapeutic power of sport.

Who wouldn’t want to at least take a break from rising measles cases, the latest federal or Supreme Court decisions and primary tea-leaf readings to lose themselves in a game where exquisitely patient passing suddenly bursts into spectacular feats of speed and footwork? Where a well-defended ball can suddenly become a goal with a nearly undetectable flick of a foot, or a perfectly placed shot blocked by a goalie’s incredible ability to launch into space? Where an outcome that seems assured can be overturned in the final minutes to the collective roar of an international cast of thousands?

Vozinha of Cape Verde makes a save during the World Cup match between Spain and Cape Verde at Atlanta Stadium on June 15.

(Justin Setterfield / Getty Images)

Like many Americans, I have been occasionally embarrassed by the World Cup’s exposure of my world-geography ignorance — I know where Bosnia and Herzegovina lies on a map, but until recently, I couldn’t place Cape Verde, Curacao or, if I’m being completely honest, Cote d’Ivoire.

Isn’t it wonderful, though, to have a reason to reacquaint yourself with a world map that isn’t related to war, natural or man-made disaster or economic and political tension? The current U.S. administration may seem to be at odds with just about everyone, but visiting World Cup fans are here to remind us of all we share, beneath our crazy wigs and face paint, our cheers, groans and chants.

And we, as hosts, have shown them that America is so much more than the sum of our current government’s policies and posturing.

Watching all this happen, in real time, has been magical, miraculous and magnetic.

Not every moment, of course. Various visa issues created unnecessary and embarrassing drama; high ticket prices and transportation issues were blamed for empty seats at some of the early games. Members of the Iranian team and its coaching staff criticized the way they were treated (though the team left a handwritten note in the dressing room of Los Angeles Stadium, thanking L.A. for its hospitality). The controversial hydration breaks, and the extra commercials they accommodate, can be irritating (though when it’s close to 100 degrees in many stadiums, quite necessary). And though it didn’t matter in terms of standing, watching the U.S. lose to Turkey wasn’t much fun for American fans (though the Turkish exuberance was pretty infectious).

Overall, the 2026 World Cup has done exactly what it was supposed to do: create, in this country, a stage for the finest teams and players in the world’s most popular sport and, more important, carve out five weeks in which we can all spend a few hours removed from the political and cultural divisiveness that threatens to define us.

It’s space in which we can cheer, gasp and leap out of seats along with our families, friends and all the millions we will never meet but to whom we are connected all the same.

Now if you’ll excuse me, the next game is about to start.

America 250” is no “Spirit of ‘76.”

For those of us who remember the bicentennial, the semiquincentennial is a complete and utter dud. Many fine festivities will take place on and around July 4, but compared with the years-long nationwide celebration that marked this country’s 200th anniversary, 250 feels like a nonevent.

Perhaps it was inevitable. Semiquincentennial (meaning half of a 500-year anniversary) certainly doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily as bicentennial and our current president isn’t making it any catchier. Mostly because he seems to think 250 is the new 80 (the birthday President Trump recently marked with his UFC Freedom 250 cage match on the White House lawn).

As many have noted, Trump’s method of honoring this country’s birthday involves making it all about him by demolishing parts of the White House (to install a new bunker-like ballroom), attempting to set up a $1.8-billion slush fund for pardoned Jan. 6 rioters, seeking to build a triumphal arch that a majority of Americans oppose and trying to slap his name and/or image on any surface he can think of (including a proposed $250 bill). No wonder so many artists have dropped out of the concert series planned for the Great American State Fair in Washington, D.C.

To be fair, the federal government’s involvement in bicentennial planning also got bogged down with political and personal hubris. The national commission, originally created by President Lyndon B. Johnson, was reformed under President Richard Nixon. Plagued by criticism and scandal, it was eventually dissolved by Congress and replaced by a new commission that decided to mostly fund community celebrations.

There was much hand-wringing over missed opportunities at the time, but for more than a year, state and local governments staged reenactments, parades and patriotic events all over the country while the commercial sector star-spangled the crap out of everything: T-shirts, bell-bottoms and bathing suits; curtains, bedspreads and throw rugs; dishware, glassware and Tupperware.

The Declaration of Independence appeared on highball glasses, tea towels and collectible plates. Beginning in 1974, CBS ran mini-history lessons called “Bicentennial Minutes,” which were then sent up on shows as diverse as “Hee Haw” and “Maude.” George Washington and other Founding Fathers graced Pez dispensers, coasters and the cover of Mad Magazine. There was a bicentennial Barbie and a colonial Campbell’s Soup doll. McDonald’s sold red, white and blue milkshakes, Burger King offered a flag-bedecked series of glass tumblers, Disney characters wore tricorn hats for a line of park merchandise.

Some called it the “buy-centennial” but for a kid who daily rocked Stars and Stripes sneakers, and, thanks to a year’s worth of American-history-themed “Schoolhouse Rock!,” could, and would, sing the preamble to the Constitution or the anthem “No More Kings” at the drop of a hat, it was great fun.

Now, of course, “No More Kings” is an anti-Trump protest theme, and the right has so co-opted patriotism that wearing a flag-emblazoned T-shirt can feel somehow partisan. American history itself has become a bone of contention, with the left accusing the right of whitewashing this country’s inarguable sins — Native American displacement, slavery, gender inequality and racist policies — while the right insists that the left is obsessed with undermining our nation’s power and legacy by “woke”-shaming it.

The only thing each end of our divided political spectrum can agree on is that democracy is under mortal threat from the other.

That’s one good reason to feel less than festive, and there are plenty of others, including increased political violence, the war in Iran, tariffs, surging gas prices, civil rights rollbacks, Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics, artificial intelligence’s threat to jobs, the resurgence of measles, the rising cost of just about everything and the fact that some critics are claiming that Steven Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day” is less full of wonder than “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.”

But things weren’t so great heading into the bicentennial either. I was 12 at the time, born nine months after Alabama Gov. George Wallace gave his infamous “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” speech and less than two months before President Kennedy was assassinated. I hadn’t been alive a year when civil rights activists James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered in Mississippi by members of the Ku Klux Klan and hadn’t turned 5 when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and then-Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were also assassinated.

Sure, it was that now-wistfully remembered time when kids went out in the morning and played, mostly unmonitored, until nightfall (with the inevitable trips to the doctor for stitches and tetanus shots for those wounds too obvious to hide from parents). But by the time the bicentennial rolled around, my life had played out against the backdrop of civil unrest and the Vietnam War, both spilling from our black-and-white television almost nightly.

I was 9 when Wallace, then a presidential candidate, was shot and 10 when I learned what OPEC and gas siphoning meant as my family spent hours in an un-air-conditioned car, inching toward the gas pump after the 1973 “Yom Kippur” Arab-Israeli War resulted in oil shortages.

That same year, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned from office, pleading “no contest” to charges of tax evasion but avoiding prosecution for charges of bribery and criminal conspiracy, and Nixon appointed House Minority Leader Gerald Ford (R-Mich.) to Agnew’s place. In 1974, Nixon, faced with impeachment for his part in the Watergate scandal, became the first president in U.S. history to resign.

The bicentennial’s tall ships festivals, fife and drum parades and Old Glory consumer fest occurred in a country reeling from more than a decade of history-changing assassinations, civil unrest, economic anxiety and high-level political corruption (not to mention a collective fear of the ocean brought on by the 1975 release of Spielberg’s “Jaws”). Democracy was celebrated under Ford, the first, and thus far only, president to come to office through the provisions of the 25th Amendment rather than a national election.

A president who, after being regularly and ruthlessly lampooned by comedian Chevy Chase on the nascent “Saturday Night Live,” reacted by becoming friends with Chase instead of, you know, forcing the network to fire him.

If the bicentennial roiled with some of the same tensions Americans feel today, it did benefit from a cultural cohesion that no longer exists. The year 1976 saw the founding of Apple and the introduction of VHS tapes, but the national audience was still very much a reality. Back then, you couldn’t escape the songs of the summer — “Silly Love Songs” (Wings), “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart” (Elton John and Kiki Dee) and “Afternoon Delight” (Starland Vocal Band) — any more than you could miss those “Bicentennial Minutes.” We all listened to the radio, watched TV, went to the movies and bought books, and our preferences revealed the country’s desire for both comfort and change.

On the bestseller lists, Agatha Christie’s final Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple books marked the end of an era, toggling in the No. 1 spot with the political turbulence of Gore Vidal’s “1876” and Leon Uris’ “Trinity.” “Rocky” beat “All the President’s Men,” “Taxi Driver,” “Network,” “Marathon Man” and “The Omen” at the box office and, later, in the best picture Oscar race.

On television, Americans sought the nostalgic comfort food of “Happy Days,” “The Waltons” and “Little House on the Prairie” amid the more pointed social comedies of “All in the Family,” “The Jeffersons” and “MASH,” all of which had nightly averages of 20 million or more viewers.

In today’s cultural landscape, defined by social media bubbles, streaming services and Spotify libraries, the gap between mass audience and cultural significance is much wider than it was 50 years ago (“The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” may be the highest-grossing movie of the year, but it’s hard to imagine it winning best picture) and mass audience has become a relative term for pretty much everything that is not the Super Bowl.

Even so, we too find ourselves rooting for the little guy (“Project Hail Mary”) and reaching into the past for inspiration (a new “Little House on the Prairie” debuts next week on Netflix) even as we contemplate the future of tech (“The Six Billion Dollar Man” has become every computer genius who can leap a firewall).

I don’t know what it was like to be an adult in 1976, but I remember my parents fretting over the grocery budget, nixing travel plans because of the price of gas and worrying about the future of a country that seemed so irreparably divided. To paraphrase the Diana Ross hit of the time, did we know where we were going to? Not at all. The bicentennial occurred during an election year, with all the partisan denunciations that entails (though when Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Ford, no one thought of contesting the results).

Even so, most Americans were still ready to party, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of a long-shot revolution that resulted in the United States of America.

So does it stink that the semiquincentennial has been such a flop? Yes, it does. But, as is written in its very singable preamble, the Constitution was written “in order to form a more perfect union.” Not “perfect,” but “more perfect.” As in better.

Even in the most troubled times, the cornerstone of our democracy is the understanding that we will always need to do better and there is a living document that allows us to do so.

And 250 years’ worth of that is definitely worth celebrating.

DETROIT — Jerry Esters proudly displays the American flag each day on his Detroit home. A few miles away, Yvonne Pistochini says there is no scenario under which she would allow the Stars and Stripes to cast its shadow where she lives.

Both are Black.

For Esters, the flag represents the opportunities that allowed the great-great-grandson of slaves to find success and flourish. Pistochini, 79, simply says the America identified by the flag is not the same country she saw growing up.

Americans’ views of “Old Glory” are divided by politics, age and race, according to a new survey conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday celebration.

Republicans and older, white adults are especially likely to say they fly the American flag, while younger Democrats and Black adults are more likely to say they don’t fly it. Views of the flag — and whether it’s a unifying or divisive symbol — track with other deep divisions among Americans, who see their country’s history and accomplishments very differently.

“A lot of Black Americans see the flag as a symbol of both inclusion and exclusion,” said Matthew Delmont, professor of American history at Dartmouth College. “Black Americans, more so than white Americans, also understand the flag can be used to justify a version of patriotism that is rooted in exclusion, with the flag being used to say ‘you don’t belong here.’”

The survey of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20. It suggests that older white Americans, especially Republicans, are more likely to see the flag as unifying.

About half of U.S. adults said they display the flag at home throughout most of the year, or during holidays. About 7 in 10 Republicans and about 6 in 10 Americans ages 60 and older fly the flag at least during holidays.

About 6 in 10 Democrats and independents, on the other hand, say they “never” fly the U.S. flag. That includes the vast majority, 75%, of Democrats under 45.

Opportunities worth fighting for

Esters, a 64-year-old retired clay sculptor for a Detroit automaker, flies three American flags at his Sherwood Forest home on the city’s west side.

“When these homes were built, Black men like me, my mother and my family … we couldn’t even buy these homes,” he said. “To me, that’s one reason I fly the flag. We went through a lot to be able to own nice homes, and this is what we fought for.”

The other reason is Moriah Martin, Esters’ great-great-grandmother, who was born into slavery.

“I’m kind of living out her dreams — what I did for a living, having a business, having a nice home,” he said. “I think that’s the American way, but we got to fight for it and we, as Blacks, fought for it.”

He’s in the minority among Black adults, according to the survey, which found that only about 3 in 10 Black adults say they ever display the American flag, compared with about half of white and Hispanic adults.

Pistochini says current divisions over political leanings and perspectives, and inequality of opportunities for the poor and people of color are not what she believes the flag should stand for. People confuse flying it with being patriotic, she added.

“Just because you fly a flag doesn’t make you a patriot,” Pistochini said. “If there was patriotism, we would not have all this. We can’t look at (what’s going on) and say this is America.”

For country and freedom

Ben Gaskins, chair of political science at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon, says the flag is an important symbol of patriotism for many Americans.

“It is those who are older people, who are white and people who are more conservative,” Gaskins said. “They take it as more central to their identity.”

Nancy Hansen, a 73-year-old retired Customs and Border Protection clerk in Culvertson, Montana, believes “you have to be for the country, no matter what” and that the flag means “freedom.”

“Freedom to live where we want to live, travel where we want to travel, raise our kids where we want to raise our kids,” said Hansen, who is white and identifies as Republican.

Each year around July 4, the American Legion posts flags outside businesses and homes in Culvertson, including Hansen’s home.

Linda and Greg Cunningham also equate the flag with freedom.

The white, conservative Pontiac, Michigan, couple are going all out this summer. The exterior of their home northwest of Detroit is awash in red, white and blue. The flag sits atop a flagpole just feet from their door.

“It’s no political thing, at all,” said Linda Cunningham, 63. “It’s our freedom. I love the American flag. I love the whole concept of it. I love America. I know there’s so much going on in the world, right now, and I know everyone has their own views, and I’m just sad that politics have to be brought into the flag.”

Flag as a ‘painful reminder’

Of those who took the survey, 47% see the flag as a “more unifying” symbol. About 16% call it a “more divisive” icon, while 36% say it’s neither divisive nor unifying.

Only 22% of Black adults see the flag as a unifying symbol, compared with 55% of white adults and 42% of Hispanic adults.

“It’s a painful symbol. It’s a reminder of what we could be and how it’s failed to live up to that for Black people, for Indigenous people and people of color,” said Allison Wiltz, a Black author and founder of Writers and Editors of Color.

Paul Walthour, 71, occasionally flies the flag outside his Minneapolis-area home on special occasions and some holidays. Walthour says that when he’s away from home and at his cabin, the flag goes up each morning and is taken down at the end of the day.

“This is antiquated, perhaps,” said Walthour, who is white and a retired advertising agency creative director. “I feel it’s a symbol that you’re proud to be an American.”

“Unfortunately, I kind of think it’s kind of a symbol of dividing more than uniting,” added Walthour, who identifies as a Democrat. “The people who fly it on the far right have one kind of feeling about it, and the people who fly it on the left have a different kind of feeling about it.”

The AP-NORC poll of 2,596 adults was conducted April 16-20 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 2.6 percentage points.

Williams, Sanders and Parwani write for the Associated Press. Sanders and Parwani reported from Washington.

For the next five years, the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated it will not require public water utilities to test for microplastics or pharmaceuticals in drinking water, according to a proposed rule published in the Federal Register.

On Friday, the EPA submitted a list of chemicals it plans to test for under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, a mandatory testing program used to collect information about concerning chemicals in drinking water that could be harming human health. It did not include microplastics or pharmaceuticals.

The omissions come after announcements by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin earlier this year that his agency was designating microplastics and pharmaceuticals priority contaminants for testing.

“This is a direct response to the concern of millions of Americans who have long demanded answers about what they and their families are drinking every day,” he said at an April news conference with Health and Human Secretary Robert F. Kennedy at EPA headquarters.

Zeldin’s announcement was seen at the time as a move to placate the increasingly disgruntled Make America Healthy Again contingent of Trump supporters.

Now the agency says it has no validated or standardized method to test for the plastic particles in drinking water, and wouldn’t be able to develop one before December, when testing is required to begin.

Among the 33 chemicals the EPA will require water utilities to test for are seven PFAS, or forever chemicals, and three pesticide residues.

It will be five years before the EPA proposes another list.

The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.

The agency noted in its proposed rule that it will collaborate with other federal agencies to “evaluate risks and exposures” of microplastics for future monitoring.

Environmentalists reacted with frustration and resignation. They pointed out that the European Union has developed methods to test for the tiny plastic particles, which have been found in people’s blood, brains and lung tissue. California has one in the works.

“The California water board has spent a lot of time and money on how to measure in drinking water,” said Judith Enck, a former EPA regional administrator and president of the anti-plastic environmental group Beyond Plastics “EPA should give them a call.”

California was required by a 2018 state law to establish a protocol for local water utilities to test for the particles in drinking water. The state has not yet begun reporting its results, but protocols were established in 2021. Blair Robertson, a spokesman for the State Water Resources Control Board, said it’s not “a fully validated, end-to-end regulatory method” yet.

At the April meeting, Zeldin announced that he would place microplastics on what is known as the Contaminant Candidate List, which acts as a preliminary “watch list” of unregulated, priority contaminants in drinking water. Like the mandatory monitoring list, it is updated only every five years. The most recent list was published on April 2 — the day he made his announcement.

“Americans have been ignored as they sound the alarm about plastics in their drinking water,” Zeldin said at the April announcement. “That ends today by placing microplastics on the contaminant candidate list for the first time ever. EPA will follow the science, will pursue answers and will hold ourselves to the highest standards to protect the health of Americans.”

There appears to be no clear association between these two lists, although the contaminant list is supposed to inform the monitoring list. Seventy-five chemicals and four chemical groups (microplastics, pharmaceuticals, PFAS chemicals, and disinfection byproducts) were listed on the 2026 contaminant list. Only seven of those chemicals were also on the proposed monitoring list (as well as seven PFAS chemicals).

When Zeldin announced microplastics as “‘a priority contaminant for regulation,’ and called it ‘a historic action on microplastics,’ he made it seem like the administration was going to take microplastics seriously,” said Mary Grant, water policy director for the environmental group Food & Water Watch.

“By not including them, they made it clear they don’t actually have plans to immediately address this crisis by getting the real-world monitoring data that we need right now to really start correcting ourselves,” she said.

Craig Davis, senior director of plastics chemistry at the American Chemistry Council — the nation’s largest trade group for chemical companies — said that while his organization supports microplastic research, it also agrees with the EPA’s decision not to include them in the monitoring list.

“National drinking water monitoring should be based on validated, standardized methods that can produce reliable and comparable data,” said Davis in a statement. He said “limited” national monitoring resources should be focused where data can produce “actionable public health information.”

The public has 60 days to comment once the plan is published in the Federal Register.

WASHINGTON — A spectacular economic upturn is on its way, President Trump promised Americans last week, galvanized in part by a deal brokered this month to end his war with Iran.

“Very soon you’ll be at $2.50 a gallon for gasoline,” Trump told a crowd Wednesday night on the National Mall. The next year, he said, “is set for an economic boom the likes of which no nation has ever seen before.”

Economists are skeptical. The effects of the war and other factors driving inflation are likely to stick around for months, experts say, presenting an ongoing challenge to American households — and to Trump’s party as it seeks to retain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Yesenia De La Torre, 24, from Culver City pumps gas at the Chevron gas station on Sawtelle Boulevard and Culver Boulevard on June 15. Despite an agreement announced Sunday to end the Iran war and open the Strait of Hormuz, high oil, gasoline prices and energy supply problems won’t be solved overnight.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The war’s end will not create “a complete snap-back,” said Patrick Harker, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

“Markets are still cautious, and the infrastructure that’s been destroyed [in the Middle East] is going to take a while to re-create,” Harker said. “Inflation’s going to stay elevated for a while.”

Oil prices were dropping last week — falling to their prewar level Friday — and average gas prices fell by 7 cents per gallon over a week ago. But it will take significant time for oil shipping to ramp up through the Strait of Hormuz, infrastructure to be rebuilt and gas prices to drop, said Michael Negron, senior fellow for economic opportunity at the Center for American Progress.

“I would expect there to be a continued inching downward,” Negron said, but “we’re not going to just go back within weeks to $2.90 per gallon.”

That means the prices of gas and of other essentials aren’t likely to improve dramatically before the midterms, in which affordability has become a driving issue. It could heighten challenges for Republicans, who are defending their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, as Democrats seek to leverage the issue to gain ground.

Positive messaging about the economy from Trump and other officials “doesn’t really resonate” with Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, said Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research and Action Center, a national anti-hunger advocacy organization.

“When you’re still making the same amount of money but there’s less for you to be able to pay [for] your basic needs — gas is more expensive, food is more expensive — it doesn’t really add up,” she said.

A fruit stand on West 7th Street sells bananas for $2 per bunch.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

Americans question the costs

The Iran war has cost the average American household between $775 and $1,300 so far in fuel and taxpayer costs, according to an analysis by Roger Pielke, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The national average gas price sat at $3.90 on Friday, according to AAA, and California’s average was $5.48 per gallon, down 13 cents from a week earlier.

The increase in oil prices has also affected diesel and fertilizer prices, creating a ripple effect through several sectors, including agriculture. Consumer prices rose 4.1% in May from a year earlier, putting the inflation gauge at a three-year high.

Trump has leaned on a bullish message about the economy, but he has largely dismissed Americans’ worries about affordability, calling it a “fake word” and a “hoax.” Last week, he undermined the first major progress by Congress on the issue, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill after both chambers passed it.

President Donald Trump closes his eyes as Dr. Ben Carson, left, speaks during an event with the White House Religious Liberty Commission in the Oval Office on Friday.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating on the economy dropped to 33% last week in an NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll — his lowest ever for that poll and 3 points below former President Biden’s worst reading on the question during his term.

Nearly four-fifths of respondents said that gas prices present some sort of strain, with 34% categorizing it as a major strain and 44% calling it a minor strain. Half of respondents who said they were not vacationing this summer said cost was the reason.

And only 23% of Americans say the war was worth the costs, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted days after the Trump administration announced the framework agreement to end the conflict earlier this month.

“People [are] just feeling like they’re getting left behind,” Harker said. “That’s a very real, palpable feeling when you go out and talk to people. They’re worried.”

The president and his party need a midterms message that “real economic change” is coming, said Brian Reisinger, a rural policy analyst in Wisconsin and a former GOP strategist.

“It has to be substance behind the sell,” Reisinger said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate policy luncheons at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. Thune spoke on a meeting with President Trump on the Iran deal.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

U.S.-Iran talks on shaky ground

Trump’s boosters have hailed the Iran deal as a victory for the president. And Trump has justified the shock to gas prices as “worth it not to have a nuclear weapon” in Iran, though the war has not achieved the president’s stated aims, which included the elimination of its nuclear program.

“President Trump was clear all along that there would be short-term, temporary disruptions to energy markets, and that oil and gas prices will quickly fall as soon as the Iran situation is resolved,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said Friday.

How rapidly the conflict will be resolved is not yet clear. The U.S.-Iran negotiations were on shaky ground by week’s end, with each country offering diametrically opposed messaging on the status of key points of negotiation.

Analysts say much of the increase in traffic through the strait has been driven by the return of Iranian oil to global markets. Trump agreed in the controversial deal with Iran to lift sanctions on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to resume trading its most valuable export and breaking with decades of U.S. policy.

The unpredictability of the talks is another factor keeping energy companies, shippers and insurers cautious for now, Negron said.

“Everything is to be negotiated in the next nearly two months,” he said. “It is natural to expect there to be additional risk priced into each barrel of oil, into the insurance people are paying, just because of the volatility and uncertainty of where we are.”

Through the first two games of this summer’s World Cup, the U.S. was about as perfect as a team could be. It won both games, never trailed, gave up just a goal and won its group handily, playing with a verve and confidence that erased all the doubts that had shadowed it coming in.

Then came Thursday.

With Mauricio Pochettino making a record nine changes to a lineup that had given the U.S. its most successful start to a World Cup in 96 years, the B team that closed the group stage at SoFi Stadium with a 3-2 loss to Turkey served to remind everyone how flawed this group can be.

The backline was porous, goalie Matt Turner gave up goals on the first two shots he faced and with the exception of midfielder Sebastian Berhalter, who had a goal and an assist, none of the starters really distinguished themselves. Whether any of that matters won’t be known until the U.S. next takes the field in the knockout rounds, facing Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday in Santa Clara, Calif.

For Pochettino, whose contempt for convention has been a hallmark of his team’s World Cup run, clearing his bench and getting a U.S.-record 23 players on the field in the group stage was more more important than the result.

“The objective was to finish first and we are first,” he said. “Now it is the next stage and it is going to be a final. And we are ready. We are much better than before that game because we had players now with 90 minutes in their legs and performing and ready to help if we need from the beginning or from the bench. It’s all positive.”

Maybe. Sure, Christian Pulisic, who hadn’t played since the first half of the first game, got back on the field and looked good in a 32-minute cameo. But other than that the game was meaningless since the Americans had already won the group and qualified for the next round while Turkey was going home no matter the result.

The U.S. came in riding a huge wave of momentum, though, and that’s gone now, erased on Kaan Ayhan’s goal on the last touch of the game.

Does that matter?

“No,” captain Tim Ream said with conviction. “You just turn the page.”

The experience the role players got, he said, is more important than the final score.

“When we say it didn’t mean anything, it’s still a meaningful game, right? It’s a World Cup game,” he said. “So it gives everybody a taste of what life will be like if they are called upon and have to contribute.”

Midfielder Tyler Adams wasn’t so sure.

“I don’t know what it’s going to do,” he said. “I can’t predict the future. I don’t have an eight ball in front of me. We’ll see what happens.”

What Adams can say with certainty, however, is that in the future the U.S. will have no room for error. The games are all elimination matches now and 13 players on the U.S. roster, including Adams, have experienced that first hand, having lost in the round of 16 four years ago in Qatar.

Turner said it’s up to those veterans to impart that wisdom on the 13 who are playing in their first World Cup.

“You need to really take care of the boxes when it comes to knockout round. That’s the biggest lesson that we learned,” said Turner, who started all four games in the last World Cup. “It’s not necessarily how beautiful a style you play. The chances you create is important, [but] the way you defend your box is more important.

“Those games are going to be decided by one goal, they’re going to be narrow, and we’re going to have to be compact and be together, defensively, offensively, and take the chances when they come.”

The U.S. did little of that Thursday.

After a Berhalter corner set up Trusty for the first goal in the third minute, Turkey’s Arda Guler, a Real Madrid midfielder, tied the score seven minutes later, splitting a pair of U.S. defenders and running onto a pass from Kenan Yildiz in the center of the box, then lifting a shot over Turner.

Orkun Kokcu handed the U.S. its first deficit of the tournament when he found another big hole in the U.S. defense, redirecting a cross from Eren Elmali in from the center of the box to give Turkey a 2-1 lead.

Berhalter tied the score again four minutes into the second half, latching onto a loose ball at the top of the penalty area and one-hopping a right-footed shot just inside the near post. The game stayed that way until Ayhan, who came on with two minutes left in regulation, slid between two U.S. defenders to knock in the game-winner eight minutes into stoppage time.

For Berhalter, one of a record 21 Americans to get a start in this World Cup, Pochettino’s decision to clear his bench was not only a reward, it was preparation for what’s to come.

“It’s every little kid’s dream, across the United States of America, to play in a home World Cup. Just in a World Cup in general,” he said. “People made their debuts today, so congratulations everyone. This is what everybody looks forward to.”

More important, he added, “we know everyone’s ready to step up at any moment.”

Which is good because history suggests the road ahead is about the get a lot more challenging. The loss to Turkey was the Americans’ 10^th straight to a UEFA team, running their winless streak against European opponents to 13 in a row.

Guess which continent Bosnia and Herzegovina, who the U.S. faces next, is from?

Sports editor Iliana Limón Romero contributed to this story.

A bowl of lemons sits on a table in the conference room Mauricio Pochettino has turned into an office at the U.S. men’s soccer team’s beachfront resort in south Orange County. The citrus fruit, the coach believes, has the spiritual ability to absorb negative energy. On the corner of another table, the flame from a candle flickers.

“I like candles,” says Pochettino, who believes they release therapeutic fragrances and create a calming environment.

But it is the massive, blood-red mural covering the entire south side of the room that truly reveals what Pochettino believes. In the center of the wall, just behind the coach’s desk, white block letters spell out “Why Not” above a script “U.S.,” which, despite the periods, is meant to be read as “us.”

Pochettino has turned the question in a mantra for a World Cup team that has answered it with two wins in as many games and has a chance to win a third match in the tournament for the first time when it meets Turkey at SoFi Stadium on Thursday.

The idea came to him during a team meeting last November when he sensed his players had doubts about their upcoming World Cup run. So Pochettino turned those doubts into a question. If South Korea could come from nowhere and make the semifinals of the 2002 World Cup, and if Morocco could do the same four years ago in Qatar, why not the U.S.?

Why not us?

“Hey, come on, guys, are you listening to me?” Pochettino said he asked the group. “We need to believe.”

Before he could convince his players, however, he had to convince himself. And that might have been the hardest part.

The 54-year-old Pochettino is a benevolent Svengali with a whistle; Ted Lasso with an Argentine accent. Belief isn’t so much a concept for him as it is a way of life. But when he and his coaching staff took over the U.S. team in the fall of 2024, following its disastrous performance in the Copa América, he said he inherited a demoralized, dispirited group.

“We received a big bang,” Pochettino said, mimicking a punch to the face. “We were knock[ed] out for a while.”

“We were so naive,” he continued. “The situation was way worse than we really believed.”

Pochettino refused to change the system that has brought him success at European clubs Tottenham, Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea. So he set out to change the players instead. That would take time, something he had very little of since he took over with the World Cup just 20 months away.

“It’s difficult to analyze the process, you know,” Pochettino said during an informal, 40-minute discussion at his team’s Dana Point hotel, the sun setting over the ocean through the open patio doors of his office.

“When you put the seed on the soil, [the] first seed, you don’t see nothing. Then you start to grow the tree. It was difficult to explain the plant because it’s not easy.”

The seed Pochettino planted with the national team took time to sprout. He lost five of his first 10 games, including a disastrous four-game stretch that included Nations League losses to Panama and Canada in the spring of 2025. The team’s supporters revolted, but Pochettino rejoiced.

“What happened, that was [a] good crash,” he said. “When we detect all the problems, we go for the solution. And we knew that the solution will arrive. The object is to challenge people.”

U.S. men’s soccer coach Mauricio Pochettino during the second half of his team’s World Cup match vs. Paraguay at SoFi Stadium.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

So he stayed the course.

“That was the process. Now is not a coincidence,” he said of the team’s success.

Pochettino has long believed that building a roster isn’t about picking the best players, but picking the right players. Players who fit his tactical approach, players who get along with one another, players who contribute to the team chemistry.

For him, the human connection, human respect is as important — if not more important — than the ability to dribble through tight spaces. And those traits are particularly important in a World Cup since the team will spend every day together for six weeks or more.

Although Pochettino’s team includes 13 holdovers from the 2022 World Cup roster, it also includes five players who made their national team debuts in the last 18 months.

Sometimes, he concluded, it is easier to simply change the player than it is to change what the player thinks or believes. And the newbies have totally bought in.

“We’re all in total belief. We’re all totally supportive and have faith in the process that he’s been outlining,” said goalkeeper Matt Freese, who made his first appearance for the national team more than 12 months ago and now is starting in a World Cup. “Our task was to keep believing, keep working hard and keep trusting. And we did that. We fully bought into the process.”

That process has made Pochettino the first U.S. coach to win a group stage in 16 years while his two victories in as many games match Bruce Arena, the most successful World Cup coach in U.S. history, who managed eight games over two tournaments.

The lemons and candles Pochettino keeps in his office are manifestations of energia universal or universal energy, a foundational concept common to many Eastern philosophies that believe a fundamental life force connects all things. Pochettino said he has long felt this connection and it has been a foundational part of his coaching.

But it doesn’t stop with the candles and citrus fruit. Pochettino also has filled the mural behind his desk with inspirational sayings.

“The talent has brought us here, but it is heart, effort and unity that will make us unforgettable,” one reads.

“If I dream of touching the moon, maybe I can get close to it. If I only dream of getting close, I’ll stay on Earth,” another says.

Each ends with the coach’s initials, similar to the way a painter signs his portraits.

Pochettino’s faith in the power of fruit and candles and his penchant for penning aphorisms hasn’t taken away from the ferociousness of his approach to soccer. Many players say the training sessions under Pochettino — which are intricate, focused and highly physical — are frequently more intense than the games. But most also are punctuated with laughter.

“Training is still very competitive, it’s very intense,” said midfielder Max Arfsten, who made his national team debut under Pochettino last year. “That’s the culture that the coaches created. Everyone’s still trying to prove something.”

Although Pochettino has spent his life in Argentina and Europe and still splits his time between houses in Barcelona and London, flying to the U.S. for matches and training camps, he’s been a quick study in this country’s culture and quirks.

“One of the things that we really like, and we learn from you, is in the way that you approach life. It’s more casual than formal,” said the coach, whose English is still a work in progress. “People are very approachable and make you feel comfortable. That, for me, was a massive surprise. You always want to welcome people.

“Even the music, even the food. People say ‘no, Americans have crazy food.’ Yes, you have crazy food. But also you have Whole Foods. In Europe, you don’t have a Whole Foods.”

And Pochettino has adopted it all. He’s become a big fan of country artist Lainey Wilson, went to hear Teddy Swims, a uniquely American genre-blending singer, last winter in New York, and is learning the words to John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads,” the unofficial victory anthem of the World Cup team.

Perhaps more important, at times he’s taken his lemons and his candles and pushed them aside, replacing them with another distinctly American trait: the in-your-face confidence to will yourself to victory from the most hopeless situations.

It’s how Americans won at Valley Forge even before they were Americans and how they won on the beaches of Normandy when the concept of America was threatened. It’s how Americans went to the moon and invented the internet.

And it’s how Pochettino’s team has remained perfect two games into the World Cup.

“We’re American. We don’t take s—,” midfielder Sebastian Berhalter said Pochettino told the team during one meeting. “Even though he’s Argentinian, he has that mindset of, ‘Look, this is what we do. This is who we are. This is what America’s about.’ Even from an outside perspective, he showed us Americans what we’re about.

“He really drills that into us.”

For decades Americans have measured World Cup success in advancing beyond the group stage. Pochettino entered this summer’s tournament predicting a run to the semifinals, runs like South Korea and Morocco made.

“When people believe in each other, impossible dreams become possible,” reads another message the coach has scratched onto the wall of his office.

Why not us?

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Wednesday he would not sign the landmark housing bill Congress passed this week as scheduled, in a striking decision to jeopardize a rare bipartisan success in order to demand that lawmakers pass voter ID legislation.

It escalated tension between Trump and Senate Republicans, which had already neared a breaking point this week over the proof-of-citizenship bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act. GOP leaders have told Trump the bill does not have the votes to pass.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote online.

The president’s willingness to threaten a bill that he could have framed as a win on affordability ahead of the midterm elections is a remarkable gamble as Republicans fight to keep House control.

The reversal also underscored Trump’s fixation on asserting some federal control over elections processes and his apparent indifference to the cost-of-living issues that voters are most focused on. He has repeatedly dismissed affordability as a “fake” concept, and inaccurately claimed on Sunday that the U.S. has the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.”

Last week, polls from NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll and Fox News poll showed record dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans and Trump’s support slipping among key demographics. Trump also lashed out about that on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, writing without evidence: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

The housing bill, which passed with overwhelming support in the House on Tuesday evening and the Senate on Monday, aims to boost housing supply. It is the most significant legislation Congress has passed on housing in more than 30 years, and it contains a host of provisions aimed at removing regulatory barriers, improving federal programs and incentivizing new building.

As president, Trump has 10 days to sign or veto bills after they are presented. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated to reporters Wednesday that a signing could still be on the table, saying he had spoken to Trump about “delaying” the housing bill before the president announced the cancellation.

Johnson said he had promised an effort to advance the SAVE America Act.

“He decided — I didn’t announce it, I wanted him to announce it — but we’re delaying this,” Johnson said. “As you know, he has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a little bit more of that window of time and we’re gonna go through this together.”

Bill Owens, chairman of the National Assn. of Home Builders, telegraphed hope that the legislation would be signed at some point.

“Although there was no bill signing today, we are confident the 21st Century Road to Housing Act will eventually become law,” said Owens, a home builder and remodeler from Worthington, Ohio.

Democrats were shocked, angry and confused when they found out about the cancellation Wednesday morning, according to a source within the House Committee on Financial Services, which led the legislation.

Lawmakers believed the bill was a done deal and are now scrambling, the person said. A stage for the bill signing had already been set up in the Capitol when Trump posted online. The night before, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had posted on X: “Tomorrow’s historic bill signing is another promise made, promise kept.”

Frustration with the president has been steadily mounting among Senate Republicans for more than a month, triggered by a host of issues including Trump’s endorsement of Republican primary challengers to sitting lawmakers. On Tuesday, four Republican senators joined with Democrats to approve a war powers resolution seeking to block U.S. military action in Iran.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has told Trump the SAVE America Act doesn’t have enough support to pass, the Associated Press reported this week.

The legislation would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security. Voting rights advocates say it would create unnecessary barriers to voting for citizens.

The effort is rooted in Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud and cheating by Democrats. He has said the bill would “guarantee” the midterms for Republicans.

Trump has previously called for the federal government to “nationalize” elections and “take over” voting in some states. He renewed accusations against Democrats of cheating in California this month.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said Trump was holding the bill hostage in a bid “to control California’s elections.”

“The stage was set both physically and metaphorically for the president to sign a historic housing bill for the American people,” said Sherman, who contributed a provision to the housing bill that would help disabled veterans get rental assistance. “Trump must put his ego aside and put the American people first and sign this bill into law.”

Less than an hour before Trump posted online that he had canceled the bill signing, he labeled the legislation “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill” in a Truth Social post, and railed about the SAVE America Act.

“That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about. Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF,” Trump wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was one of the four bipartisan lawmakers leading the deal across the two chambers, said Wednesday morning on CNBC that Trump’s reversal “doesn’t make any sense.”

“It’s a complete indifference to the cost squeeze on American families and to genuine efforts to do something about it,” Warren said. “He could be over here claiming a victory lap and instead he’s saying no, no, he doesn’t want anything to do with it.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ruled that a recently revamped version of a federal tool central to the Trump administration’s election integrity strategy is unlawful and can no longer be used.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan sided with advocacy groups that argued the recent upgrades to the program, called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from voter rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in an order explaining the decision. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

She said Congress had expressly prohibited the government from centralizing Americans’ personal identifying information and that the federal agencies that created the SAVE program “knew that the database violates those statutory protections.”

The decision is a major legal setback for President Trump in his efforts to use federal agencies to encourage a nationwide crackdown on noncitizens illegally on state voter rolls. The modified SAVE system, which critics had referred to as an unlawful centralized federal database of voter information, had been a key pillar of the second election executive order the Republican president signed earlier this year. The ruling leaves its future uncertain.

“It’s amazing how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist,” James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, said of the ruling in a social media post.

The department referred to his post as its comment on the ruling. The Department of Justice did not immediately return a request for comment.

The SAVE program was created under an immigration law mandating that Homeland Security help federal, state and local agencies prevent government benefits from going to noncitizens. At least 25 states used it to check their voter rolls since April 2025, after the Trump administration significantly expanded its search abilities. Since then, at least 67 million registrations have been scanned through the program, but critics worry it could end up purging valid voters from the rolls.

The plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and five unnamed U.S. citizens, had alleged the revamped SAVE program violated Americans’ privacy and voting rights. The groups also alleged the Trump administration violated federal privacy laws by ignoring transparency requirements about the changes to the system.

“The agencies were scrambling to comply with an Executive Order aimed at reshaping federal elections, which directed them to create a system for mass voter verification,” the judge wrote. “So they haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable.”

Plaintiffs attorney Nikhel Sus told the court during the October hearing that naturalized citizens face a greater risk of unlawfully being purged from voter rolls.

“They are uniquely vulnerable to errors in the database,” said Sus, an attorney for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Sus said Monday he sees Sooknanan’s ruling as an “across the board victory” and noted the plaintiffs were pleased the judge’s ruling reinforced their argument that the federal government doesn’t have implied authority to freely share sensitive data across agencies.

Swenson and Hussein write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said he is exploring ways to ensure Americans benefit directly from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence, raising the possibility of the government acquiring stakes in leading AI companies. The idea comes as firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic pursue valuations that could make them among the most valuable companies in the world, fueling debate over whether the public should share in the wealth generated by AI technologies.

Why the Idea Is Gaining Attention

The AI boom is expected to create enormous wealth for technology companies, investors and founders. Policymakers and advocates argue that because AI development relies heavily on public infrastructure, government research and vast amounts of publicly generated data, ordinary citizens should receive some of the financial benefits.

The debate has intensified as major AI developers seek billions of dollars to build data centers, chip infrastructure and advanced computing systems.

Option One: Taxing AI Companies Through Equity

One proposal would require AI companies to pay part of their taxes in shares rather than cash.

Under this approach, the government would gradually accumulate ownership stakes in AI firms without directly investing taxpayer money. Supporters argue that it would allow the public to benefit from future growth while avoiding large government expenditures.

Some advocates have gone further, proposing substantial government ownership stakes and board representation to give the public a direct voice in how AI companies operate.

Option Two: Equity in Exchange for Government Support

Another model would involve the government receiving equity stakes in return for financial assistance or incentives.

This approach mirrors previous arrangements in strategic industries where federal funding was provided in exchange for ownership interests. Given the enormous capital requirements of AI infrastructure, government funding could potentially become a source of financing for companies building advanced computing facilities, semiconductor plants and other critical projects.

Supporters argue this would allow taxpayers to benefit if publicly supported companies become highly profitable.

Critics contend that such arrangements could blur the line between regulation and investment, potentially creating conflicts between public policy goals and financial interests.

Option Three: Public Wealth Funds and Citizen Dividends

A third proposal focuses less on government ownership and more on distributing AI-generated wealth directly to citizens.

Under this model, revenue generated through AI-related taxes or investments would flow into a public wealth fund, which would then distribute dividends to Americans.

The concept resembles Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which uses energy revenues to provide annual payments to residents. Advocates argue a similar system could ensure that AI-driven economic gains are shared more broadly across society rather than concentrated among a small number of technology firms and investors.

Some AI companies have expressed interest in versions of this idea, including proposals for digital dividends funded by taxes on the sector.

Why AI Companies Matter

The debate carries major financial implications because leading AI developers are becoming increasingly valuable.

OpenAI and Anthropic have both reportedly taken steps toward potential public listings, while companies across the sector are raising unprecedented sums to fund AI expansion. Some analysts believe the industry could generate trillions of dollars in economic value over the coming decade.

As a result, even relatively small government stakes could potentially produce significant long-term returns.

Challenges and Obstacles

Any effort to give the government ownership in AI companies would face significant legal, political and economic hurdles.

Questions remain over:

• How ownership stakes would be valued
• Whether companies would voluntarily participate
• The impact on private investment
• Potential conflicts of interest for regulators
• How revenues would be distributed to citizens

There is also likely to be strong opposition from free-market advocates who argue that government ownership could discourage innovation and distort competition.

What Happens Next

Trump has not outlined a specific mechanism for acquiring stakes in AI companies, and no formal proposal has been introduced.

However, the discussion highlights a growing debate over who should benefit from the AI revolution and whether existing economic structures are sufficient to distribute the gains from one of the most transformative technologies in modern history.

Analysis

The significance of Trump’s proposal lies less in whether the government ultimately acquires stakes in AI firms and more in what it signals about the future political debate surrounding artificial intelligence. As AI companies approach trillion-dollar valuations, pressure is likely to grow for policymakers to ensure that the economic gains extend beyond investors and technology executives.

The discussion mirrors earlier debates over natural resources, where governments sought ways to ensure that public assets generated public benefits. In this case, supporters argue that AI is built on public research, public infrastructure and publicly generated data, creating a rationale for broader wealth sharing.

At the same time, the proposal raises fundamental questions about the relationship between government and the private sector. Direct ownership stakes could provide taxpayers with financial upside, but they could also create tensions between the government’s role as regulator and its role as investor.

The debate is likely to become more prominent as AI companies grow larger, seek additional funding and exert greater influence over economic growth, employment and national competitiveness. Whether through equity ownership, taxation or public wealth funds, the central political question is increasingly becoming not whether AI will generate enormous wealth, but who will ultimately receive it.

With information from Reuters.