change

Venezuela has long been a country of dilemmas, defined less by decisions than by the consequences of postponing them. For more than two decades, its politics have revolved around choices with no clean exits: negotiate or resist, reconcile or repress, participate or abstain, sanction or relieve. None of these debates ever really end, they just get deferred.

The last few days have reinforced that pattern. There have been signals, rumors, half-measures, and a noticeable effort to avoid clear moves. If the Maduro era ended with spectacle, what followed has been quieter and harder to read. Not resolution, but something closer to managed uncertainty.

Those dilemmas do not look the same from every vantage point. They look one way from inside the arrangement now led by Delcy Rodríguez, another from an opposition that gained recognition but little control, and another still from Washington, where the Trump administration is trying to recalibrate pressure without fully owning the consequences. The common thread is simple enough. Everyone wants leverage, but no one has very much of it.

A managed opening under Delcy ?

For Delcy Rodríguez, the central question is not whether to open the economy, but how far she can go without touching the political core of the system. Economic normalization is safer terrain. It can be adjusted, slowed, or reversed. It reassures business actors, eases currency pressure, and creates the impression of movement without challenging the security apparatus that ultimately sustains power.

Nothing announced in the arrangements with the United States alters the centrally planned nature of the regime. At most, they shift the locus of external influence, moving it from Beijing to Washington, without changing who makes the decisions at home.

As stability is increasingly purchased through economic relief and diplomatic accommodation, rather than fear alone, Cabello’s role becomes less structural and more transactional.

Rodríguez and her brother Jorge may believe that selective compliance with Washington strengthens their hand against the opposition. Releasing a handful of high-profile political prisoners could be presented as progress, while house arrest can be easily revoked. But that calculation only goes so far. Colectivos are still active, police checkpoints remain, and the revolving-door logic of repression has not disappeared, it has simply become less strident.

Political reform is a different problem. Whatever broader strategy is being attempted, removing figures like Diosdado Cabello or Vladimir Padrino López too early would be costly. Their role is not symbolic. It is structural. They sit at the intersection of civilian authority and coercive power. Moving against them risks fragmentation and instability, outcomes no “transitional” figure wants to test.

The result is familiar. Economic flexibility paired with political stasis. Markets are easier to manage than men with guns. The opening exists, but it remains narrow.

Diosdado Cabello and the logic of repression

Diosdado Cabello remains central to that arrangement. He is still a key pillar of the repressive structure and an enforcer of internal discipline. Without figures like him, maintaining order during any attempt at reshuffling would be far more difficult.

That same visibility, however, makes him vulnerable. As the government looks outward, seeking normalization and legitimacy, Cabello’s profile becomes a liability. He is an obvious candidate for scapegoating or bargaining, a way to signal change without altering the underlying balance of power.

For now, collaboration makes sense. A premature break would require fractures within the elite and firm backing from the security forces, conditions that do not yet seem to exist, and he would be crazy not to explore. But waiting has its own risks. Each step toward economic normalization changes the political economy of repression. As stability is increasingly purchased through economic relief and diplomatic accommodation, rather than fear alone, Cabello’s role becomes less structural and more transactional. Still powerful, but easier to sideline, trade, or sacrifice when the balance shifts.

His dilemma is less about ambition than risk and timing. Wait too long and become expendable. Move too soon and stand alone.

An opposition without leverage

If the government’s problem is how much to concede, the opposition’s is how to act when it cannot force concessions at all.

The old debate about whether to participate in elections has faded, at least for now. The more pressing question is how to push for outcomes without alienating the Trump administration, while also avoiding being sidelined from a process largely run by others.

This is a less comfortable position than the clarity of boycott politics. The opposition retains international recognition and moral legitimacy, but little control over sequencing, guarantees, or enforcement. Its leverage is mostly external, and even that is constrained by how limited Venezuelan political capital has become in the United States.

For the opposition, every week of managed calm narrows the space in which democratic demands can still be enforced rather than negotiated away.

María Corina Machado’s influence depends in part on US backing, and that backing is not unconditional. Public confrontations, whether in Washington or Caracas, would likely benefit the Rodríguez camp, which has positioned itself as cooperative and pragmatic. An opposition better at public gestures than quiet lobbying now relies on a shrinking circle of intermediaries with access to decision-makers.

Migration fatigue, shifting priorities, and domestic politics in the United States all limit how long Venezuela can command attention. As the adage goes “no one is ever out with Trump” but at this point Zelenky’s position after his first visit to the White House probably seems enviable to Machado and Gonzalez right now.

Washington’s shrinking margin for error

For the Trump administration, Venezuela has become a problem of rising cost and narrowing options. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and conditional engagement are still on the table, but their effectiveness has been weakened by the political fallout from the operation to arrest Nicolás Maduro.

The Senate’s advance of a War Powers resolution signals discomfort with further unilateral action. Even if ultimately blocked, it exposes real limits. In an election year, threats of escalation carry less weight when Congress is signaling restraint.

Energy policy only adds to the tension. A push to keep oil prices below $50 makes Venezuelan crude less appealing to US firms, even with better terms. Heavy oil requires investment and time, and neither is attractive if companies fear policy reversals. At a moment when the administration is already paying a political price for its actions, the economic upside looks increasingly thin.

For now, the country sits between openings that do not transform and pressures that do not resolve.

Pressure also brings secondary effects. Migration, regional instability, and bureaucratic strain all factor into the calculation. Reopening the US embassy in Caracas reflects this shift. It lowers the temperature, but it also makes the threat of renewed escalation harder to sell.

The trap of managed drift

What this produces is not paralysis, but a carefully managed drift. It is quiet enough to be mistaken for stability. But the drift feels bloodless, and its costs are being deferred, accumulated, and quietly transferred. Venezuelan democracy is the one paying them.

Delcy Rodríguez can offer economic relief without altering the political core of the system. Washington can sustain pressure without fully committing to escalation. Even the opposition, trapped in its weakest position in years, can remain present without being decisive. In a configuration where no one secures what they want, everyone convinces themselves they have avoided catastrophe.

That is the danger. Drift rewards those who can wait, those who control force, those who can absorb time. It punishes those whose leverage depends on urgency, legitimacy, and momentum. For the opposition, every week of managed calm narrows the space in which democratic demands can still be enforced rather than negotiated away.

Venezuela has lived through this logic before. What makes the current moment distinct is not the structure of the dilemmas, but their accumulation. Each unresolved choice makes the next one harder. Each postponement raises the political price of action while lowering the expectations attached to it.

For now, the country sits between openings that do not transform and pressures that do not resolve. Not because options are exhausted, but because every option carries a cost someone else is being asked to bear. And in this version of stability, it is not the regime, nor Washington, that pays first. It is the possibility of Venezuelan democracy itself.

Months after the devastating Palisades fire, the head of the Los Angeles Fire Commission inquired about the Fire Department’s long-awaited after-action report.

Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva said that a “working draft” had been sent to Mayor Karen Bass’ office, Genethia Hudley Hayes told The Times on Tuesday.

In the conversation, which took place in mid-August or later, Villanueva said that the mayor’s office had asked for “refinements,” but he did not say what they were, according to Hudley Hayes.

Hudley Hayes, who was appointed by Bass in June 2023 to serve on the five-member commission that provides civilian oversight of the LAFD, said that in her long career in civic roles, she had learned that words like “refinements” could mean troubling changes to a government report, made for the purpose of hiding facts.

Earlier Tuesday, Fire Chief Jaime Moore, responding to the findings of a Times investigation, acknowledged that the after-action report had been edited to soften criticism of the LAFD leadership’s handling of the Palisades fire.

The Times had previously reported that Hudley Hayes was concerned enough about possible edits that she sought advice from a deputy city attorney.

But Hudley Hayes’ remarks Tuesday were her first public statements that her concerns stemmed from what she understood to be the mayor’s office’s possible intent to influence the report, which was supposed to lay out what went wrong in fighting the Palisades fire and how to prevent the mistakes from happening again.

Hudley Hayes said that after reviewing an early draft of the after-action report, as well as the final document released by the LAFD on Oct. 8, she was satisfied that “material findings” were not altered.

But her account raises questions about the mayor’s role in revisions to the report that, as Moore conceded Tuesday, downplayed the city’s failures in preparing for and responding to the fire, which killed 12 people and leveled much of the Palisades and surrounding areas.

On Tuesday, Bass’ office did not immediately explain what the refinements were. A spokesperson previously said that the office did not demand changes to the drafts and only asked the LAFD to confirm the accuracy of items such as how the weather and the department’s budget factored into the disaster.

“The report was written and edited by the Fire Department,” the spokesperson, Clara Karger, said in an email last month. “We did not red-line, review every page or review every draft of the report.”

The Times obtained and analyzed seven drafts of the report and identified deletions and revisions. The most significant changes in the various iterations of the report involved the LAFD’s deployment decisions before the fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire.

In one instance, LAFD officials removed language saying that the decision not to fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days. Instead, the final report said that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

Moore, who replaced Villanueva in November, admitted that the report was watered down to shield top brass from scrutiny.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore said at a Fire Commission meeting Tuesday. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief. And I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief.”

The LAFD did not respond to a query about who ordered the changes to the report. Villanueva also did not respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

Hudley Hayes said she reached out to Villanueva around Aug. 21, when The Times published a story quoting a colleague on the Fire Commission, Sharon Delugach, expressing a desire to see the after-action report.

“It occurred to me then that she was correct. We hadn’t seen one — it was taking a long time,” Hudley Hayes said. “That’s the point I called interim Chief Villanueva.”

Meanwhile, the author of the report, Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, had emailed a PDF of his report to Villanueva in early August, asking the chief to select a couple of people to provide edits so he could make the changes in his Word document.

The following week, Cook emailed the chief his final draft.

“Thank you for all your hard work,” Villanueva responded. “I’ll let you know how we’re going to move forward.”

Over the next two months, the report went through a series of edits — behind closed doors and without Cook’s involvement, as The Times disclosed last month.

On Oct. 8, the same day the report was released, Cook emailed Villanueva, declining to endorse the public version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

“Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” Cook wrote in the email obtained by The Times. “The document has undergone substantial modifications and contains significant deletions of information that, in some instances, alter the conclusions originally presented.”

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows that the LAFD formed a “crisis management workgroup” to deal with concerns about how the after-action report would be received.

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Assistant Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Hudley Hayes, who previously served on the L.A. Unified school board, said she did not think “there was any critical material removed” from the final report.

She said she noticed only small differences, such as “mistakes” being changed to “challenges,” and the removal of firefighters’ names.

She added that she does not know who ordered the changes disclosed by The Times — and despite her oversight role, is “not particularly” interested in finding out.

“Our job is to take the report that we have in front of us. Our job is to make sure those recommendations that came to us from a public report are taken care of,” she said. “You’re asking me political questions.”

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Los Angeles Fire Chief Jaime Moore admitted Tuesday that his department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire was watered down to shield top brass from scrutiny.

Moore’s admission comes more than two weeks after The Times found that the report was edited to downplay the failures of city and Los Angeles Fire Department leaders in preparing for and fighting the Jan. 7, 2025, fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.

“It is now clear that multiple drafts were edited to soften language and reduce explicit criticism of department leadership in that final report,” Moore said Tuesday during remarks before the city’s Board of Fire Commissioners. “This editing occurred prior to my appointment as fire chief. And I can assure you that nothing of this sort will ever again happen while I am fire chief.”

Moore, who was appointed fire chief in November, did not say who was responsible for the changes to the report.

The report’s author, LAFD Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse it because of substantial deletions that altered his findings. Cook said in an Oct. 8 email to then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva and other LAFD officials that the edited version was “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Mayor Karen Bass’ office has said that the LAFD wrote and edited the report, and that the mayor did not demand changes.

On Tuesday, Clara Karger, a spokesperson for Bass said: “Mayor Bass fully respects and supports what the Chief said today, and she looks forward to seeing his leadership make the change that is needed within the department. Chief Moore is a courageous leader with strong integrity who continues to show his deep commitment to the people of Los Angeles and to the brave firefighters who serve our city every day.”

Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Moore’s remarks, on the eve of the first anniversary of the Palisades fire, were the strongest admission yet of missteps by LAFD leaders. They amounted to an about-face for a chief who in November critiqued the media following a Times report that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the area of a New Year’s Day fire even though they had complained that the ground was still smoldering. That fire, the Lachman fire, later reignited into the Palisades fire.

“This is about learning and not assigning blame,” said Fire Commissioner Sharon Delugach, who praised the chief for his comments.

The most significant changes, The Times found in its analysis of seven drafts of the report, involved top LAFD officials’ decision not to fully staff up and pre-deploy available firefighters ahead of the ferocious winds.

An initial draft said the decision “did not align” with policy, while the final version said the number of companies pre-deployed “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

A section on “failures” was renamed “primary challenges,” and an item saying that crews and leaders had violated national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter deaths and injuries was scratched.

Another passage that was deleted said that some crews waited more than an hour for an assignment on Jan. 7, 2025.

The department made other changes that seemed intended to make the report seem less negative. In one draft, there was a suggestion to change the cover image from a photo of palm trees on fire to a more “positive” image, such as “firefighters on the frontline.” The final report displays the LAFD seal on its cover.

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows concern over how the after-action report would be received, with the LAFD forming a “crisis management workgroup.”

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Assistant Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Maryam Zar, a Palisades resident who runs the Palisades Recovery Coalition, said that “when news came out that this report had been doctored to save face, it didn’t take much for [Palisades residents] to believe that was true.”

It was easy for Moore to admit the faults of previous LAFD administrations, she said.

“He’s not going to take any heat. It wasn’t him,” she said. “He’s not the fire chief who really should have stood up and said, ‘I didn’t do what I should have.’”

The after-action report has been widely criticized for failing to examine the New Year’s Day fire that later reignited into the Palisades fire. Bass has ordered the LAFD to commission an independent investigation into its missteps in putting out the earlier fire.

On Tuesday, Moore said the city failed to adequately ensure that the New Year’s Day fire was fully snuffed out.

He said that LAFD officials “genuinely believed the fire was fully extinguished.”

“That was based on the information, conditions, and procedures in place at that moment. That belief guided the operational decision-making that was made,” he said. “However, the outcome has made it incredibly clear that our mop-up and verification process needed to be stronger.”

“We have to own that, and I do,” he added.

Molly-Mae Hague and Tommy Fury’s relationship is once again under the spotlight in the new episodes of her Prime Video documentary after the couple decided to give their romance another go

The new Molly-Mae Hague documentary series will focus on her moving back in with Tommy Fury as she tells fans: “My life’s gonna change, everything’s gonna be different.”

The trailer for the final part of the second series of Molly-Mae: Behind It All dropped online tonight ahead of the launch on Prime Video on January 16. It initially shows how Molly’s sister Zoe has moved in with her to help her with childcare and growing her business Maebe.

But also in the 80 second clip, Molly is shown trying to gain self confidence ahead of moving back in with Tommy. She tells the cameras: “I am very proud of me and Tommy for working through things. It’s just gonna bring us even closer as a family.”

As the trailer shows a removal van she adds: “I’m closing the door and leaving behind such an incredible chapter of my life. It’s very bittersweet. It’s also just that fear of not knowing what to round the corner. So just a few things going on.”

Molly-Mae is engaged to Tommy after the couple met on Love Island in 2019. They became the most famous and celebrated romance from the ITV series. But after they got engaged and had their daughter Bambi together, they split in August 2024 amidst rumours Tommy had cheated, something he has always denied.

In the first series of the Prime Video documentary released a year ago, things had been very different and Molly-Mae and Tommy were not together and living apart. Tommy only featured on the phone and not in scenes on screen.

At that time on screen she said: “The last couple of months have been like the worst couple of months of my life. The feeling of a break up, it’s like a physical pain, like your heart actually hurts. For everyone else, it’s news, a bit of gossip. But for us, it’s real life. Your whole world just feels like it’s over.

“You don’t see a light at the end of the tunnel. I’m dealing with the falling apart of our relationship.” But in a look toward what ended up happening in the future she also told the cameras her love for Tommy “didn’t disappear overnight” after they were spotted kissing at a party on New Year’s Eve to see in the year 2025.

Some of the problems at the time had been blamed on alcohol. Molly said back then: “There were exterior issues going on for him that were causing our relationship to have problems. It was drinking isn’t it?

“I never, ever wanted to be with someone that drank, because my mum had a period of time in her life where she struggled because her marriage of 25 years had just ended, and she turned to drink, probably more than she should have.

“I was only about 14,15 when that happened, and I saw my mum in some like states, going through a really, like vulnerable time. So I have never, ever, ever been around it in a positive light.

“Tommy wanted to have a family life, but then also have the life of a 25-year-old boy with no responsibilities. And the two don’t go hand in hand. He’s never had an alcohol problem. It’s just that alcohol caused problems for us. It got to a point where I wasn’t really looking forward to anything, because alcohol affected it so much.”

In the new trailer Tommy is shown with Bambi in a clear sign they are back together as a family. They have recently all been to the Maldives and posted photos showing them all together on social media.

Molly-Mae: Behind It All Series 2 Part 2 (Episodes 4-6) will launch on 16th January 2026.

Like this s tory? F or more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Lauren Burnison’s life has changed significantly since she quit drinking in 2016. Now the Perthshire, Scotland mum runs alcohol-free travel company We Love Lucid

While many of us will be feeling the excesses of Christmas and New Year’s, fewer will have taken things as far as Lauren Burnison did back when she was drinking.

After growing up in Belfast in the grips of the Troubles, where a “blanket of fear” hung over everything, Lauren “bounded headlong into a void of self-loathing and addiction”. She left home and moved to Edinburgh and Buenos Aires during her years of “chaos”.

On New Year’s Eve 2002, things came to a heady, violent peak when her “testosterone-fuelled gang of twenty-something-year-old” pals clashed with some strangers on a booze-fueled bender on the streets of Argentina.

Today, things could not be more different for Lauren.

READ MORE: Seven ‘red list’ destinations Brits should not travel to in 2026READ MORE: Canary Islands among holiday destinations placed on ‘no travel’ list for 2026

Having long left Argentina behind, the 41-year-old quit alcohol in 2016 and embarked on an epic world trip. “I’d done a lot of travelling in the past, but this time it was different. This time, I was seeing life through the clear lens of lucidity,” she explained.

“Towards the end of my trip, I stumbled across a quaint little Andalusian town called Ronda, in southern Spain. It was there that I was inspired to create alcohol-free travel experiences.”

Over the past decade, Lauren has been channelling this newfound lust for life into We Love Lucid – a company that organises teetotal group trips, which claims to be the UK’s first alcohol-free travel company.

“Our trips are geared towards sober solo travellers who are looking for a new challenge and who want to connect with others like them. The focus is on connection and creating new and unforgettable experiences that don’t revolve around booze,” she explains.

Going booze-free has also changed Lauren’s family holidays.

“I recently embarked on a two-month road trip in Spain and Portugal with my four-year-old daughter. My motivation for the trip was partly to escape the dark Scottish winter, but it’s also an opportunity to expand our horizons and do something that challenges us,” the Perthshire woman explained.

“What I’m enjoying most about the trip is spending the majority of our time outdoors. It’s a brilliant tonic for mental health, and something I want to do more of when we get back to the UK. We prepare our meals outside and we eat outside under the stars. My daughter spends her days playing with other children and animals while I get on with the basic chores of cooking and washing, along with writing and making driftwood art. Sometimes, we head out to explore the local surroundings. Last week we visited the remains of an ancient Roman city in Extremadura, Spain. It was fascinating!

“The best days are the ones we haven’t planned, like an impromptu trip to the beach. We’re especially looking forward to the Big Wave surfing competition in Nazaré, where surfers tackle waves up to 100ft high.”

Had the single mum still been drinking, such a trip would “be almost impossible”, in part due to the hangovers, Lauren says. Not drinking has also freed up cash to spend exploring the world.

“There’s so much to do. We meet a lot of different people on the trip, and many ask why I don’t drink, so the topic comes up quite a lot. In fact, it has led to some interesting conversations and friendships. This year, I will celebrate ten years of sobriety, which is hard to believe sometimes. My sobriety is my biggest priority in life. Without it I wouldn’t be doing any of this.”

While plans for the coming year aren’t yet finalised, 2026 promises to be a big one for We Love Lucid. They will likely include a group climb up Mount Toubkal in Morocco, and a women’s-only journey along the Portuguese section of the Camino de Santiago, to raise funds for the She Recovers Foundation.

You can follow Lauren’s travels on her Substack and find out more about We Love Lucid on her website.

In less than 24 hours, the US bombed Venezuela, brazenly abducted President Nicolas Maduro and his wife from their compound in Caracas and whisked them to a detention centre in New York. Here’s how regime change unfolded overnight.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday weakened one of the nation’s most aggressive efforts to combat climate change, releasing new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that handed a victory to the oil and gas industry.

The new rule, from the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department, will almost immediately be plunged into litigation as environmental groups and states with stricter standards, led by California, plan to challenge it.

“We intend to make sure the backsliding doesn’t reach California’s doorstep,” California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Tuesday in announcing the state’s plan to go to court to defend its tougher standards.

If the administration’s policy survives those fights, it would spare automakers from having to meet ambitious gas mileage and emissions requirements put in place in 2012 under President Obama. It is among the biggest steps the administration has taken to reverse an existing environmental policy.

The final rule is a dialed-down version of the one the administration originally planned. Instead of proposing zero improvements in fuel efficiency in coming years, it would require automakers to increase fuel economy across their fleets by 1.5% a year, with a goal of achieving an average of about 40 miles per gallon by 2026. That’s still a major departure from current rules, which mandate annual increases of 5%, reaching an average of 54 mpg by 2025.

Nearly 900 million more tons of carbon dioxide are expected to be released under the new rule than under the Obama-era standards, a result of less efficient cars burning an additional 78 billion gallons of fuel.

“We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to correct the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. The administration’s plan, he said, “strikes the right regulatory balance that protects our environment and sets reasonable targets for the auto industry.”

Environmentalists and public health advocates said the change would likely contribute to thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks. They criticized the decision to make the new standards final in the midst of a global pandemic, arguing that the rollback would damage public health at a time when thousands of people are gravely ill and the nation’s economy is in tatters.

But after repeatedly postponing the release of the new rule as it scrambled to justify the change, the administration faced deadlines that may have forced its hand.

For one, the longer the government delayed the new rule, the less effect it would have. Although Trump had initially announced that the new standards would affect vehicles in model year 2020, those cars were built under the Obama-era stringent fuel efficiency standards and are already on the road.

Unless the administration finalized its rollback by April 1, it was in danger of missing the deadline to apply the new standards to the 2022 model year.

Additionally, under the Congressional Review Act, new rules issued after May 19 could be invalidated by the next Congress.

The new standards will apply nationwide. Although California has historically set its own tougher car pollution rules, the Trump administration last year moved to strip the state of that authority. California and many of the other states that have adopted its clean-car standards have sued the administration over this change, and that issue likely won’t be resolved until next year at the earliest.

Just hours after the administration unveiled the final rule Tuesday, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, disclosed that Volvo was in talks with the state to reach a voluntary emissions agreement. Four other automakers — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW — have already made a deal with the state that would preserve emissions standards that are not as tough as the Obama standards, but are significantly more ambitious than Trump’s proposal.

The change in fuel-economy standards has been in development since the early days of the administration, when two lobbying groups representing automakers asked then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to relax the Obama-era standards.

The administration’s original proposal would have frozen fuel-economy standards at this year’s levels. That met a furious response from officials in California and several other states as well as unexpected resistance from some auto companies, which worried the administration was going overboard and dragging them into years of court battles with states.

Karl Brauer, an analyst for the research firm Cox Automotive, said that Trump’s rule had put automakers in an impossible position. If they opposed the rollback, their investors would be unhappy. If they endorsed it, they would be branded as anti-environment.

The rollback will likely make it easier to sell cars by making them cheaper, he said, but automakers are concerned it may not survive legal scrutiny or the next election.

“I think automakers will feel a lot of uncertainty until Nov. 3,” Brauer said.

“The auto industry has consistently called for year-over-year increases in fuel efficiency,” said John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of the world’s largest car companies. “Looking to the future, we need policies that support a customer-friendly shift toward these electrified and other highly efficient technologies.”

Trump has boasted that his plan would save lives, improve the economy and lower the cost of new cars.

In a phone call with reporters on Tuesday, senior EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration officials said their analysis showed that lowering the cost of a new car would allow more Americans to replace aging vehicles with newer, safer ones. That turnover in the nation’s fleet would prevent more than 3,300 traffic fatalities, according to the government’s projections, as well as 46,000 post-crash injuries.

They also emphasized the rollback’s estimated cost savings for automakers — as much as $100 billion over the lifetime of the vehicles built under the new rule.

But while administration officials said the change would help drivers and the environment, the government’s analysis was not as optimistic.

Its estimates showed that while loosening fuel-economy standards could shave about $1,000 off the price of a new car, drivers would have to buy more gas than they would have under the current rule.

David Friedman, vice president of advocacy for Consumer Reports, said his group’s projections show that each vehicle sold under the Trump rule will cost its owner on average $2,100 more, even if gas prices continue to fall.

Automakers and their suppliers could also suffer. The government’s analysis shows that American car companies could experience a loss of thousands of jobs by making dirtier cars that would be locked out of many overseas markets.

The change is also expected to result in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions, which trap the sun’s heat, worsening the effects of climate change. Hotter temperatures contribute to more smog, which can damage the lungs and cause other serious health problems.

“Of all the bad things President Trump has done to the environment, this is the worst,” said Dan Becker, head of the Safe Climate Campaign, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group. “He is rolling back the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight global warming, cut oil use and save money at the pump.”

In a February report to Wheeler, the agency’s science advisory board warned that the technical analysis underpinning the government’s draft proposal was so flawed that it had possibly led the EPA to the wrong conclusion.

“In other words,” the board wrote, “the standards in the 2012 rule might provide a better outcome for society than the proposed revision.”

Phillips reported from Washington and Mitchell from Los Angeles.

As we enter 2026, one truth is impossible to ignore: children around the world are facing their greatest levels of need in modern history – just as the humanitarian system meant to protect them and their futures is battling some of its biggest challenges in decades.

The events of 2025 marked a dramatic rupture in global humanitarian and development efforts. When the United States abruptly halted foreign aid in January, billions of dollars vanished overnight. Critical programmes were suspended, offices closed, and millions suddenly lost access to food, healthcare, education, and protection. Overnight, lifelines that communities had depended on for decades were thrown into jeopardy – and children, as always, paid the highest price.

For international NGOs, the shock was immediate and severe. At Save the Children, we were forced to take some of the toughest decisions in our 106-year history. We had to close country offices, cut thousands of staff positions, and wind down life-saving operations. We estimated that about 11.5 million people – including 6.7 million children – would feel the immediate impacts of these cuts, while many more would be impacted in the longer term.

The aid cuts came at a time when children globally were already facing major challenges, from conflict to displacement, to climate change, with decades of progress at risk of being reversed.

The facts are startling. In 2025, one in every five children was living in an active conflict zone where children are being killed, maimed, sexually assaulted and abducted in record numbers. About 50 million children globally are displaced from their homes. Nearly half the world’s children – about 1.12 billion – cannot afford a balanced diet, and some 272 million were out of school.

These numbers point to a global failure. Behind each statistic is a child whose childhood is being cut short, a childhood defined by fear, hunger and lost potential.

For children, the collapse of aid was not an abstract budgetary decision, but it was deeply personal.  Health clinics closed, classrooms closed, and protection services disappeared just as violence, climate shocks and displacement intensified. Years of hard-won progress in child survival, education and rights were suddenly at risk of being undone, leaving millions of children more vulnerable to hunger, exploitation and violence.

The crisis also revealed the fragility of the global aid system itself. When humanitarian support is concentrated among a handful of government donors, sudden political shifts reverberate directly through children’s lives. The events of 2025 showed how quickly international commitments can unravel – and how devastating that can be for the youngest and least protected.

Yet amid this turmoil, something extraordinary happened.

In many places, families, teachers, health workers and local organisations found ways to keep learning going, to provide care, and to create spaces where children could still play, heal and feel safe. These efforts underscored a simple truth: Responses are strongest when they are rooted close to children themselves.

There were also moments of progress. In a year marked by pushback against human rights, important legal reforms advanced children’s protection – from a ban on corporal punishment in Thailand, to the criminalisation of child marriage and the passing of a digital protection law in Bolivia. These gains reminded us that change is possible even in difficult times, when children’s rights are put at the centre of public debate and policy.

Out of the shocks of 2025 has come a moment of reckoning and an opportunity: to adapt, to innovate, towards approaches that are more sustainable, more locally led and more accountable to the people they are meant to serve. For children, this shift is critical. Decisions made closer to communities are more likely to reflect children’s real needs and aspirations.

This period of reinvention has also revived difficult questions that can no longer be postponed. How can life-saving assistance be insulated from political volatility? How can funding be diversified so that children are not abandoned when a single donor withdraws? And how can children and young people meaningfully participate in decisions that shape their futures?

Innovation alone will not save children, but it can help. When digital tools, data and community-led design are used responsibly, they can improve access, accountability and trust. Used poorly, they risk deepening inequalities. The challenge is not technological — it is political and ethical.

Children do not stop wanting to learn, play or dream because bombs fall or aid dries up. In camps, cities and ruined neighbourhoods, they organise, speak out and imagine futures that adults have failed to secure for them. They remind us why our work – and our ability to adapt – matters so profoundly.

In Gaza this year, I witnessed the horrors that children are living through daily, with the war now raging for more than two years and most of the Strip covered in rubble. I saw children facing malnutrition at our healthcare clinics and heard how some now wish to die to join their parents in heaven. No child should ever be living under such terror that death is preferable. They are children, and their voices need to be heard.

If 2025 exposed the failures of the old aid model, 2026 must become a turning point. A different choice is possible — one that builds systems resilient to political shocks, grounded in local leadership and accountable to the children they claim to serve. The challenge now is to reshape our systems so that, no matter how the world changes, we can put children first, always, everywhere.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

HONOLULU — A federal judge’s ruling clears the way for Hawaii to include cruise ship passengers in a new tourist tax to help cope with climate change, a levy set to go into effect at the start of 2026.

U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake on Tuesday denied a request seeking to stop officials from enforcing the new law on cruises.

In the nation’s first such levy to help cope with a warming planet, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed legislation in May that raises tax revenue to deal with eroding shorelines, wildfires and other climate problems. Officials estimate the tax will generate nearly $100 million annually.

The levy increases rates on hotel room and vacation rental stays but also imposes a new 11% tax on the gross fares paid by a cruise ship’s passengers, starting next year, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports.

Cruise Lines International Assn. challenged the tax in a lawsuit, along with a Honolulu company that provides supplies and provisions to cruise ships and tour businesses out of Kauai and the Big Island that rely on cruise ship passengers. Among their arguments is that the new law violates the Constitution by taxing cruise ships for the privilege of entering Hawaii ports.

Plaintiff lawyers also argued that the tax would hurt tourism by making cruises more expensive. The lawsuit notes the law authorizes counties to collect an additional 3% surcharge, bringing the total to 14% of prorated fares.

“Cruise tourism generates nearly $1 billion in total economic impact for Hawai‘i and supports thousands of local jobs, and we remain focused on ensuring that success continues on a lawful, sustainable foundation,” association spokesperson Jim McCarthy said in a statement.

According to court records, plaintiffs will appeal. They asked the judge to grant an injunction pending an appeal and requested a ruling by Saturday afternoon, given that the law takes effect Jan. 1.

Hawaii will continue to defend the law, which requires cruise operators to pay their share of transient accommodation tax to address climate change threats to the state, state Atty. Gen. Anne Lopez said in a statement.

The U.S. government intervened in the case, calling the tax a “scheme to extort American citizens and businesses solely to benefit Hawaii” in conflict with federal law.

Kelleher writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — A planned Christmas Eve jazz concert at the Kennedy Center, a holiday tradition dating back more than 20 years, has been canceled. The show’s host, musician Chuck Redd, says that he called off the performance in the wake of the White House announcing last week that President Trump’s name would be added to the facility.

As of Friday, the building’s facade reads The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. According to the White House, the president’s handpicked board approved the decision, which scholars have said violates the law. Trump had been suggesting for months he was open to changing the center’s name.

“When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert,” Redd told the Associated Press in an email Wednesday. Redd, a drummer and vibraphone player who has toured with everyone from Dizzy Gillespie to Ray Brown, has been presiding over holiday “Jazz Jams” at the Kennedy Center since 2006, succeeding bassist William “Keter” Betts.

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to email seeking comment. The center’s website lists the show as canceled.

President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and Congress passed a law the following year naming the center as a living memorial to him. Kennedy niece Kerry Kennedy has vowed to remove Trump’s name from the building once he leaves office and former House historian Ray Smock is among those who say any changes would have to be approved by Congress.

The law explicitly prohibits the board of trustees from making the center into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person’s name on the building’s exterior.

Trump, a Republican, has been deeply involved with the center named for an iconic Democrat after mostly ignoring it during his first term. He has forced out its leadership, overhauled the board while arranging for himself to head it and hosted this year’s Kennedy Center honors, breaking a long tradition of presidents mostly serving as spectators. The changes at the Kennedy Center are part of the president’s larger mission to fight “woke” culture at federal cultural institutions.

Numerous artists have called off Kennedy Center performances since Trump returned to office, including Issa Rae and Peter Wolf. Lin-Manuel Miranda canceled a planned production of “Hamilton.”

Italie writes for the Associated Press.

Caracas, December 23, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US President Donald Trump made new regime change threats against Venezuela and President Nicolás Maduro.

In a Monday press conference, Trump answered “probably” when asked if Washington intended to oust the Venezuelan leader but said it was up to Maduro to leave power.

“That’s up to him what he wants to do. I think it’d be smart for him to do that. But again, we’re gonna find out,” the US president told reporters in Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

Trump went on to warn the Venezuelan president not to “play tough.” “If he plays tough, it’ll be the last time he’s ever able to play tough,” he said.

The US president also said that land strikes against alleged drug cartels would start soon. He has issued such a threat on repeated occasions since September. He likewise repeated past unfounded claims that Venezuela sent “millions of people” to the US, many of them prisoners and mental patients.

Trump’s escalated rhetoric against Caracas followed ramped-up efforts to enforce a naval blockade and paralyze Venezuelan oil exports. On Saturday, the US Coast Guard boarded and seized the Centuries tanker east of Barbados in the Caribbean Sea.

The Panama-flagged ship had recently loaded a reported 1.8 million barrels of Merey crude at José terminal in eastern Venezuela for delivery in China. According to maritime vessel sources, the tanker is owned by a Hong Kong company and had transported Venezuelan oil several times in recent years. 

The takeover operation was led by the US Coast Guard, with White House officials sharing footage of the boarding on social media.

The Centuries’ seizure followed a similar operation targeting the Skipper tanker on December 10. However, unlike the Skipper, the Centuries was not blacklisted by the US Treasury Department. 

US officials referred to the tanker as transporting “sanctioned oil.” Analysts argued that the ambiguous definition is meant to allow US authorities to go after any vessel moving Venezuelan crude in an effort to drive shipping companies away from the Caribbean nation’s oil sector.

The White House’s threats and vessel seizures have already led several tankers to reverse course while en route to Venezuela, with customers reportedly demanding greater oil discounts in Venezuelan crude purchases. The South American oil industry might soon be forced to cut back production if it runs out of storage space.

On Sunday, US forces attempted to board a third tanker, the Guyana-flagged Bella 1 that was headed to Venezuela to load oil. However, the ship’s captain allegedly refused to allow the US Coast Guard’s boarding and turned the vessel back toward the Atlantic Ocean. According to reports, US forces continue to pursue the Bella 1.

Trump announced a naval blockade while demanding that Venezuela return “oil, land and other assets” that were “stolen,” in reference to nationalizations in past decades. Foreign corporations that saw their assets expropriated either agreed to compensation or pursued international arbitration.

The tanker seizures, alongside renewed sanctions targeting the Venezuelan oil industry, came amid a massive US military deployment in the Caribbean on the edge of Venezuelan territory. The build-up was originally declared as an anti-narcotics mission before Washington shifted the discourse toward oil and regime-change.

China and Russia express support

The Venezuelan government has condemned the US military threats and attacks against the oil industry. In a communique issued on Saturday, Caracas decried the second tanker seizure as a “serious act of piracy” and vowed to denounce it before multilateral bodies.

In recent days, the Maduro government received backing from China and Russia, two of its most important allies.

In a Monday press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian criticized the tanker seizures as violations of international law and stated Beijing’s opposition to “unilateral and illegal actions.” The official urged a response from the international community.

Likewise on Monday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil held a phone call with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. According to Gil, Moscow’s top diplomat reiterated support for Venezuela in the face of “US hostilities.”

The UN Security Council is scheduled to meet on Tuesday afternoon at Venezuela’s request to address the most recent US escalations.

The author of the Los Angeles Fire Department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire declined to endorse it because of substantial deletions that altered his findings, calling the edited version “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook emailed then-interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva and other LAFD officials with the subject line “Palisades AARR Non-Endorsement,” about an hour after the highly anticipated report was made public Oct. 8.

“Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” Cook wrote in the email obtained by The Times. “The document has undergone substantial modifications and contains significant deletions of information that, in some instances, alter the conclusions originally presented.”

Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook complained to former interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva about deletions and revisions in the Palisades fire after-action report.

(L.A. City Mayor’s Office)

He continued, “While I fully understand the need to address potential liability concerns and to modify certain sections in consultation with the City Attorney to mitigate litigation risks, the current version appears highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards. I strongly urge you to reconsider publishing the report as it stands.”

In the email, Cook also raised concerns that the LAFD’s final report would be at odds with a report on the January wildfires commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, which has yet to be released.

“I am concerned that substantial disparities may exist between the two reports,” Cook wrote.

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement Tuesday, “The Governor commissioned an independent review by the world’s leading fire safety experts to ensure the public receives a complete, accurate, and unvarnished accounting of the events leading up to the Palisades fire and how responding agencies carried out their response.”

Cook — who emails show provided a final draft of the after-action report to Villanueva in August — has declined to comment. Attempts to reach Villanueva were unsuccessful.

The LAFD has refused to answer questions from The Times about the deletions and revisions. Mayor Karen Bass’ office said the LAFD wrote and edited the report, and that the mayor did not demand changes.

On Sunday, The Times reported that Cook was upset about the changes to the report. The previous day, The Times had disclosed the watering down of the after-action report after analyzing seven drafts obtained through a public records request. The most significant changes involved the LAFD’s failure to order firefighters to stay on duty for an additional shift and to fully pre-deploy engines in high-risk areas before the Jan. 7 fire, as the wind warnings became increasingly dire. It’s unclear who exactly directed the revisions.

Cook’s Oct. 8 email laying out his concerns in stark language adds to the growing evidence that city and LAFD officials attempted to burnish the LAFD’s image in a report that should have been an honest assessment of the department’s failings in preparing for and fighting the fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. The goal of such a report is to prevent similar mistakes.

Cook’s email reached Bass’ office in mid-November, according to Bass spokesperson Clara Karger.

Karger said last week that “the Mayor has inquired with Chief Moore about the concerns,” referring to Jaime Moore, who became LAFD chief last month.

The Times submitted a public records request last month for all of the mayor’s emails about the after-action report, a request that the city has not yet fulfilled. Bass’ office provided Cook’s email to The Times on Tuesday.

The city had withheld Cook’s email from its response to a separate records request filed by an unknown party in October. Almost 180 of Cook’s emails were posted on the city’s records portal on Dec. 9, but the one that expressed his concerns about the report was missing. That email was only posted on the portal Tuesday, after The Times asked about it.

The LAFD did not respond to a Times query about why the email was not released with Cook’s other emails. Bass’s office also did not respond to a query about Cook’s concerns and the fact that they were withheld from the public.

Gene Cameron, who lived in the Palisades for 50 years before his home burned down in the Jan. 7 fire, was disturbed by the LAFD’s revisions, which he said amounted to a cover up.

“I appreciate his bravery to stand up against these unprofessional immoral edits,” he said of Cook, adding that the point of the report is not to assign blame, but to prevent future mistakes. “It’s just to establish a set of rules, procedures and guidelines so that this doesn’t happen again.”

City Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the Palisades, said in a statement Tuesday that the city can’t fix systemic failures or rebuild public trust without full transparency.

“I’ve said from the beginning that LAFD should not be investigating itself. After a disaster of this magnitude, the public deserves a full, unfiltered accounting of what went wrong and why — and my independent after-action report will provide exactly that,” she said, referring to a report she requested that the City Council approved and funded earlier this year, though it hasn’t been completed.

Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment. She previously told The Times that she heard rumors that the author of the report was unhappy, but that she did not look into the matter.

A July email thread reviewed by The Times shows concern over how the after-action report would be received, with the LAFD forming a “crisis management workgroup.”

“The primary goal of this workgroup is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report,” LAFD Asst. Chief Kairi Brown wrote in an email to eight other people.

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Cook was not included on that email thread. It’s unclear how much of a role, if any, that group had on the revisions.

The after-action report has been widely criticized for failing to examine a New Year’s Day fire that later reignited into the Palisades fire. Bass has ordered the LAFD to commission an independent investigation into its missteps in putting out the earlier fire.

One edit to the after-action report involved language stating that the decision to not fully staff up and pre-deploy all available crews and engines ahead of the extreme wind forecast “did not align” with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days.

The final report did not include that language, saying instead that the number of engine companies rolled out ahead of the fire “went above and beyond the standard LAFD pre-deployment matrix.”

A section on “failures” was renamed “primary challenges,” and an item saying that crews and leaders had violated national guidelines on how to avoid firefighter deaths and injuries was scratched.

Another passage that was deleted said that some crews waited more than an hour for an assignment the day of the fire.

Two drafts contain notes typed in the margins with suggestions that seemed intended to soften the report’s effect and make the Fire Department look good. One note proposed replacing the image on the cover page — which showed palm trees on fire against an orange sky — with a “positive” one, such as “firefighters on the frontline.” The final report’s cover displays the LAFD seal.

The final version listed only 42 items in the section on recommendations and lessons learned, while the first version reviewed by The Times listed 74.

Dec. 22 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s Ministry of Unification said Monday it has never reported to President Lee Jae-myung on reviewing constitutional amendments tied to a “peaceful two-state” approach as a way to bring North Korea to negotiations.

Unification Ministry spokesperson Yoon Min-ho said at a regular briefing that claims the ministry suggested reviewing constitutional changes during a closed-door work report on Friday were “completely false.”

“Reports saying that the ministry proposed reviewing constitutional amendments to draw North Korea into dialogue are untrue,” Yoon said. He added that the ministry neither raised nor examined such an issue during the briefing.

Earlier Monday, a media report said President Lee took a negative view of a purported ministry suggestion to review changes to Article 3 of the Constitution, which defines the territory of the Republic of Korea as the entire Korean Peninsula, in order to engage Pyongyang.

Yoon reiterated that no such proposal was made and said the ministry has not reviewed the matter.

He also said discussions with the U.S. Embassy on North Korea policy are expected to begin early next year. Preparations are also underway to set a schedule for regular vice-ministerial-level communication with the Foreign Ministry, he said.

On the issue of public access to North Korean media, Yoon said the ministry’s interpretation is that simply viewing North Korean outlets such as Rodong Sinmun does not violate the National Security Act.

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

KHLOÉ Kardashian has dropped some hot tea about changes to the family’s infamous Christmas Eve Party. 

The Good American co-founder spoke on her podcast, Khloé in Wonder Land, that the venue for the lavish affair might move, but the budget won’t.

“We all equally split the cost of the party,” Khloé said in the podcast. “Because it’s a family [thing].” 

She also admitted that the famed Kardashian-Jenner family’s iconic Christmas Eve party is getting ready for some significant changes this year. 

Momager extraordinaire, Kris Jenner, who spoke as a guest on the podcast, verified the changes to the party she has been hosting since 1978. 

“It gets really crazy,” Kris stated. “I think one of the most fun things, too, is to be able to share things with our friends. We’ve always been able to give out some amazing gifts at the end of the party.” 

kan’t keep up

Kim Kardashian reveals more than TWENTY Christmas trees at $60m LA mansion

RING THE ALARM

Kim slammed for allowing North, 12, to get more ‘dangerous’ face piercings

While the glam vibes might stay the same, the annual A-list Hollywood party is going to look very different. 

As the family prepares to create another unforgettable evening, the exciting news is that Kendall Jenner will be stepping into the hosting role this year at her stunning Beverly Hills mansion. 

This is the second year Kendall has taken on the role of host. 

Last year, she had a “smaller” cozy affair at her, chock-full of her 818 Tequila.  The new role as hostess comes with its own delightful challenges, especially since the family’s other homes are currently being renovated.  

“It’s pretty much the usual,” she recently told People magazine. “Last year, we did a smaller Christmas Eve party, and it was super lovely. Usually, they’re kind of these blowouts for the last, like, since I was born. But we’re doing a smaller one again this year, and I’m really happy about it.” 

Kris created this tradition in the 1970s as a joyful occasion for family and friends, and it naturally grew as the family expanded. 

The early 2000s marked a significant transition for the party, as it really took off following Kris’s marriage to Caitlyn Jenner. 

The event gained prominence, particularly with the success of the Keeping Up With The Kardashians reality show, which launched in 2007.

As time went on, Kris graciously passed the baton to her talented daughters. 

The party has been hosted at various times by Kim, Kourtney, Khloé, Kendall, and Kylie, with each of them bringing their unique flair and creativity to the festivities.

“Christmas is our World Cup,” Khloe said in a video posted to Instagram.

The video had the caption “Merry Kristmas!!! Come celebrate the holidays with us in Wonder Land.”

Fans are surely reminiscing about the fabulous past celebrations, beautifully documented in social media posts that have showcased glamorous outfits and exquisite decorations. 

One fan wrote, “Kris is the Christmas queen.”

Another follower wrote, “Kris should have her own wrapping paper line.”

“We’re cool with being ‘random people’ at the party, just saying,” a third fan pleaded.

This year’s changes promise to infuse fresh energy into their beloved holiday traditions, and we can’t wait to see what the Kardashian-Jenners have in store.

SALT LAKE CITY — When Brice Sensabaugh drilled a wide-open three pointer in the third quarter, Lakers coach JJ Redick quickly called a timeout and began to gesture with both hands toward his players, clearly showing his displeasure with their defense.

The Lakers responded.

They especially picked up their defensive intensity for an important spurt in the fourth quarter, slowing down the Utah Jazz and in the process the Lakers’ offense took off, the two converging at the right time to push them to a 143-135 win Thursday night at the Delta Center.

The Lakers gave up 41 points in the first quarter and a season-high 78 at the half. They allowed 57 points in the second half and put the Jazz away by scoring 41 points in the fourth quarter.

“Obviously we know this Utah team can score points at a very high rate, but it was very imperative that we got stops,” said LeBron James, who had another productive night with 28 points, 10 assists and seven rebounds. “We had to get stops to start that fourth and then it allowed our offense to click.”

But even with the Lakers building a 12-point lead in the fourth, the Jazz continued to put stress on L.A.’s defense, getting within four points late in the game.

The Lakers’ Lebron James dunks over the Jazz’s Kyle Filipowski at Delta Center Thursday night in Salt Lake City, Utah.

(Alex Goodlett / Getty Images)

The Lakers had answers every time, keeping the game in their hands behind Luka Doncic’s triple-double — 45 points, 14 assists and 11 rebounds.

His 45-point triple-double and five steals made Doncic just the second player in NBA history to accomplish that feat since steals became official in 1973-74. Detroit Cade Cunningham (46 points, 12 rebounds, 11 assists, five steals) is the other player to do so, producing that against the Wizards on Nov. 2025 in overtime.

Doncic was 14-for-28 from the field, four-for-12 from three-point range and had just one turnover in 39 minutes and 33 seconds of play.

Doncic also was the first Laker to have a 40-point triple-double since Magic Johnson in 1981.

“I think, honestly, I could do so much more,” Doncic said. “But I think that one turnover is the best stat-wise on this stat sheet. So, we had seven turnovers, which is impressive for us and we won the game. And again, that’s what matters. But I think we locked in a lot in the second half. We did a great job.”

The Lakers got a scare when James went down holding his left knee after a collision with Utah’s Walter Clayton Jr.

James was dribbling the basketball near the three-point arc when Clayton went for a steal, but instead his knee hit the inside of James’ knee, knocking the Laker to the floor with 7:52 left in the second quarter.

James eventually got up and continued to play, taking a rest with 4:53 left in the half.

James described what happened on the play.

“Just a little bolt to the knee, like a sharp pain to the knee,” James said. “Got kneed on the the inside, like the medial side of the knee. And just kind of wanted to take my time a little bit as it calmed down or whatever the case may be. Or hoping it calmed down. Told Mike (Mancias) my trainer, I said, ‘We dodged a bullet there.’ ”

The Lakers were already without starters Austin Reaves (left calf strain) and Deandre Ayton (left elbow soreness), but then they added key role player Gabe Vincent (lower back tightness) to the injury list, leaving them without three main players entering the game at Utah. Vincent will be reevaluated in a week.

Lakers guard Luka Doncic celebrates after making a play during the second half of a win over the Jazz Thursday night at Delta Center in Salt Lake City.

(Alex Goodlett / Getty Images)

Jaxson Hayes started at center in place of Ayton and Smart started at guard for Reaves.

Injuries also hit the Jazz, as star forward Lauri Markkanen, the ninth-highest scorer (27.8) in the NBA this season, was out because of a right groin injury.

Smart had 17 points, which included him going three-for-four from three-point range in the fourth quarter.

Hayes had 16 points, making all seven of his field goals.

Redick talked to his team at halftime about their poor defensive effort and he did again in the third quarter during that timeout.

His message was simple.

“The players gotta go out and do it,”: Redick said. “So it’s not, I don’t know if it sparked ‘em or not, and I just know that after that they were better.”

He spoke of the importance of athletics to the institution, of the way they bring people together and showcase excellence.

The remarks weren’t nearly as remarkable as the person doing the speaking.

UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk.

In recent years, the school’s chancellors had distanced themselves from athletics as if they were a distasteful part of the job. Gene Block would show up at the occasional football or basketball game but never granted interview requests or spoke at coaches’ introductions. He did once attach his name to a statement that misspelled the last name of newly hired football coach Rick Neuheisel.

It’s believed that the last UCLA chancellor to speak at a coach’s introduction was Albert Carnesale in 2003 upon the hiring of Karl Dorrell.

All of which makes Frenk’s appearance, not to mention his speaking for nearly five minutes Tuesday inside a Luskin Center ballroom, all the more extraordinary. Frenk was there to welcome Bob Chesney, the new football coach who has quickly galvanized a long-suffering fan base with his passion and willingness to immediately poke rival USC by proclaiming that UCLA would soon become “the school in town.”

Frenk had UCLA fans at hello.

What he said next was even more encouraging.

“Athletics are the front porch of the university, one of the most visible signals of what we stand for,” Frenk said. “Athletics connect us across generations and geographies with students and alumni, friends as well as strangers. These things are extremely important and help build community and all of that is coming true at UCLA.”

There was also a reference to one word — alignment — that athletic director Martin Jarmond and Chesney would later echo in their remarks.

“Winning in college football requires a unified approach across all of the university — university leadership and athletics are aligned and committed to doing the right things to build a winning program,” Frenk said.

Jarmond suggested that Frenk was willing to help in a way that his predecessor was not — a slightly curious idea given Block’s willingness to support the move to the Big Ten Conference and approve Jarmond’s contract extension, but it seemed that Jarmond’s larger point was about increased institutional support for the football program under the new chancellor.

“What I’m excited and really enthused about,” Jarmond said, “is we have alignment in a way that we have not had in the past. We have a great chancellor in Chancellor Frenk that understands the importance of athletics, bringing communities together, engaging alumni, wanting our student-athletes to be successful and understanding the commitment it takes at the university level for a football program to be competitive. We have investment now, and we have leadership and vision. I don’t always feel we’ve had all of those together.”

Without question, Frenk’s early visibility has already set a new, welcome tone from inside Murphy Hall.

His comments were heartening for anyone who cares about UCLA athletics because they show he’s not only paying attention but also willing to do his part — one that’s essential — to support the operation.

Suggestion box

Mick Cronin

(Jessie Alcheh / Associated Press)

It probably shouldn’t take a public-records request to find out that a high-profile UCLA coach — who at the time was the state of California’s second-highest paid public employee behind since-fired Cal football coach Justin Wilcox — received a new contract seven months earlier.

But that’s the reality of the situation after a Times records request led to the disclosure of Mick Cronin’s new deal that will pay the Bruins men’s basketball coach $4.5 million a year as part of a contract running through the end of the 2029-30 season.

The reasoning given for the lack of disclosure was the fiscal situation facing the school at the time, including the prospect of federal funding cuts.

Appearances are important, yes. But so are integrity and transparency.

This is the second time in the last two years that UCLA has signed one of its biggest figures inside the athletic department to a new deal while staying mum. Jarmond’s contract extension was signed in the spring of 2024 and not announced until the following November — after the football team had won three consecutive games, alleviating a significant amount of pressure that Jarmond was facing for the hiring of football coach DeShaun Foster.

The bottom line is this: UCLA is a public institution that should pride itself on accountability, and if you aren’t willing to openly divulge any significant move that you make, then maybe you shouldn’t be making it.

Chesney moves

While the transfer portal doesn’t open until Jan. 2, Chesney provided some early insight into his possible approach in rebuilding his first UCLA roster.

Upon his arrival at James Madison, Chesney said he had a center, guard and a punter come back from the previous team and added roughly 60 players in the transfer portal to help the Dukes win their first bowl game in the history of the school. The next year, the Dukes added about 50 players through the transfer portal and made the College Football Playoff.

What might that mean for his work with the Bruins?

“That will have to be determined by our team when we get that fully assembled and moving forward next year,” Chesney said. “But then whatever our expectations are is where we build our standards and then the day-to-day process. But I see zero reason why, you know, we cannot be competing, cannot be competing for a championship.”

Chesney has begun to assemble his staff, reportedly agreeing to bring James Madison offensive coordinator Dean Kennedy with him and hiring Florida State general manager Darrick Yray in an identical post with the Bruins as part of his efforts to bring in staffers with West Coast ties.

Yray had spent seven seasons in a variety of roles at Oregon State, rising to the role of director of player personnel. Before that, Yray had worked for four seasons as an offensive assistant and three as assistant director of football operations at Fresno State, his alma mater.

Basketball blues?

Cronin’s teams usually get better over the course of the season, even in down years. So it would be folly to foretell of a lost season for the Bruins in mid-December.

But the big question facing UCLA (7-3) at this pivotal point is whether this season has any upside beyond being a bubble team that loses in the first or second round of the NCAA tournament.

As currently constructed, UCLA has so many issues that it’s hard to imagine a different outcome.

A tentative Donovan Dent has not been much of an upgrade over a tentative Dylan Andrews at point guard. Eric Dailey Jr. takes too many jumpers while drifting in and out of games. Tyler Bilodeau can really score but continues to be somewhat limited defensively despite his best efforts. The thought of what the departed Aday Mara and William Kyle III aren’t doing for this team in the post haunts Bruins fans on a daily basis.

What’s far more worrisome is that the talent level isn’t elite — can you really foresee anyone on this roster forging a long NBA career? — and a coach known for defense doesn’t have enough athletic, relentless players to construct a good defense.

Local high school recruiting has all but dried up and Cronin made another reference to needing more money to bring in players after donors shelled out a massive amount last spring to land Dent.

None of it portends an encouraging trajectory for a coach in his seventh season. Cronin is a developmental coach whose finest seasons came with players who were in his program for multiple years. With free agency now the only constant in the college game, it might be time for Cronin to develop a new plan for success.

Opinion time

How does the rest of the men’s basketball season play out for the Bruins?

Everything comes together and the team makes a deep NCAA tournament run
The team plays better before another early tournament exit
The bubble is burst and the team misses the tournament

Click here to vote in our survey.

Poll results

We asked, “What is your level of happiness with the Bob Chesney hire?”

After 1,340 votes, the results:

Ecstatic, couldn’t be happier, 64.7%
Guardedly optimistic, 30.3%
In wait-and-see mode, 4.1%
This is the best they could do? 0.9%

In case you missed it

UCLA gymnasts upbeat about upcoming year after strong offseason workouts

‘I’m where I want to be.’ UCLA’s Mick Cronin got a new five-year contract this summer

UCLA’s defense wilts and a key signature win slips away during loss to Gonzaga

UCLA’s Donovan Dent could be rounding into form just in time for Gonzaga showdown

‘I want to do my part.’ How Dave Roberts helped UCLA land new coach Bob Chesney

Here’s the reason Troy Aikman didn’t get thanked by that UCLA football player

Hernández: UCLA football coach Bob Chesney and the Bruins share why they believe he will win

‘We can win here.’ Bob Chesney gives a bold vision for success as UCLA’s coach

Have something Bruin?

Do you have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future UCLA newsletter? Email me at ben.bolch@latimes.com, and follow me on X @latbbolch. To order an autographed copy of my book, “100 Things UCLA Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die,” send me an email. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.