commission

The dismissals leave the federal election body vacant as Trump presses for broader changes to US voting rules.

President Donald Trump has removed the last remaining members of an independent federal commission that helps support United States elections, leaving the bipartisan body with no sitting commissioners.

The White House confirmed the news on Friday, with only months to spare before November’s midterm elections.

“The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections,” the White House said in a statement.

It added that the administration had been “working across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse” in the run-up to the midterms.

The decision concerns the Election Assistance Commission (ECA), an independence office created by Congress in 2002 to support state and local election officials. Among its duties are creating non-binding election guidelines, certifying voting systems and maintaining the national mail voter registration form.

Four commissioners typically helm the agency. But on Thursday, the two Democratic appointees — Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland — were fired by email, according to the news agency Reuters.

The lone remaining Republican, Christy McCormick, resigned. A fourth commissioner, Republican appointee Donald Palmer, had already left in April.

The commission is required by law to be made up evenly of Democrats and Republicans, and it was put in place to help after the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Trump’s decision to fire the remaining commissioners has further raised concerns that he may seek to intervene in the upcoming midterm elections, which will decide control of Congress for the rest of his term.

Under the US Constitution, election administration is the responsibility of the state, not the federal government.

The Election Assistance Commission had previously declined to implement part of Trump’s March 2025 executive order that called upon it to require proof of citizenship on the national mail voter registration form.

A federal judge later blocked that part of that executive order, ruling the president had exceeded his authority. Trump has appealed the ruling.

Voters are already required to affirm their citizenship before voting, as non-citizen voting is illegal in the US. Instances of non-citizen voting are rare.

The firings are the latest in a broader effort by the president to reshape how elections are conducted.

The Trump administration has pushed to tighten vote-by-mail rules and threatened to withhold some federal funding from states that refuse to adopt new election requirements. Many of those efforts have been challenged in court.

Earlier this week, the administration also sent out letters warning election officials that they could face prosecution if they fail to remove noncitizens from voter rolls.

Trump has defended the actions as necessary to protect election integrity. He has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 election was the result of fraud, a claim not backed by evidence.

The latest firings come after the US Supreme Court last month expanded the president’s power to fire members of independent agencies, even without cause.

The court ruled six to three in Trump’s favour, arguing that “neither Congress nor the courts may saddle” the president with executive-branch leaders he does not approve of.

The president is allowed by law to appoint replacements to the commission. It is not yet clear whether Trump plans to nominate replacements or leave the seats vacant.

WASHINGTON — President Trump dismissed all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission this week, his latest move to assert control over national elections in the final months before midterm voting.

The White House defended the move as justified by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision handing the president greater authority to reshape independent government agencies, including by replacing appointed leaders.

Democrats and some independent elections experts blasted it as politically motivated, counter to the interests of voters and foolhardy with the November election so close.

“Purging commissioners just months before the midterm elections and further gutting support for our state and local elections officials is a blatant part of his plan to politicize our elections and enable more unlawful and dangerous election interference,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections.

Padilla alleged the dismissals are an attempt by Trump “to dismantle yet another independent guardrail of our democracy designed to keep elections fair and secure.”

A White House official framed the dismissals in starkly different terms, saying the departing commissioners were “not totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted.” It did not say when the president planned to appoint new commissioners.

The four-member commission was created by Congress in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act to help states improve their voting systems and voter access. By law, no more than two commissioners may belong to the same political party.

Historically, it has provided voluntary guidance and best practices for voting systems, and served as a sort of clearinghouse for election performance around the country — so that states and localities can learn from each other.

Since 2018, the panel has also disbursed more than $1 billion in election security grants, according to a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center. Those grants are then used to protect IT systems from foreign and domestic cyberattacks, update voting systems, ensure the accuracy of voter rolls and protect the integrity of ballots after they are cast.

Without leadership, the panel cannot take any official action until new members are nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

Benjamin W. Hovland, one of the Democratic commissioners removed by Trump, told NBC News that taking away a key federal agency designed to help state and local election administrators will have a negative effect on already strained elections officials.

“When you’re asking more and more of people without giving them the necessary resources, you know, mistakes happen,” he said.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, in a statement to The Times, said Trump was “injecting unnecessary chaos, confusion and instability into the very systems that Americans rely on to make their voices heard,” but that California “will not be intimidated or deterred” from maintaining elections “in which everyone can fairly and securely participate.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said on X that “Newsom’s election protection efforts become more important by the day” — a reference to his recent push for state legislation that would make it a felony in California for anyone to seize ballots before a vote has been certified.

Newsom had said Thursday that Trump’s efforts to seize control over elections represented a “five-alarm fire” that must be confronted.

“We will lose this country unless we are vigilant about what’s going on in terms of election security,” he said.

Trump’s dismantling of the commission comes as he wages a much broader campaign to rewrite voting rules. He has sought to place new restrictions on mail ballots, to enhance voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements for voters, to subject state voter rolls to federal oversight and purges, and to assert federal control over how and whether the U.S. Postal Service delivers mail ballots.

Much of that agenda, pushed through executive orders and other administrative actions, has been stymied by the courts, while stalling out in Congress, where it lacks support.

Whether Trump’s move to dismantle and reconstitute the commission will prove an effective path to instituting his election agenda — or will face its own court challenges — remains unclear, experts said.

Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, wrote that Trump could try to illegally direct the commission to “do his bidding” by amending the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship.

“If he tries anything like this, it will be high profile and very important litigation that will end up at the Supreme Court on the emergency docket over the summer,” Hasen wrote.

Michael Waldman, president and chief executive of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said in a statement that Trump’s terminations were “deeply concerning” in light of his “relentless efforts to try to interfere in elections.”

But he also said that the “guardrails” Congress put on the commission remain intact, require it to be made up of a bipartisan group and preclude Trump from directing it to enforce his voting agenda.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Trump’s firing of the commissioners was part of a broader effort by the president to “sow distrust in our voting system so he can contest the results if they are not to his liking.”

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the very name of the commission makes it clear that it was “designed to assist states and localities, not dictate what states and localities must do” with elections. She said California has “the most robust standards” for elections in the country, which won’t change with the removal of the commissioners.

Still, she said word of the firings rocketed around a conference of county elections officials in San Diego on Thursday — with some wondering whether the dismissals would threaten federal funding for election administration moving forward, and others lamenting the loss of the current commissioners’ deep experience.

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said in a statement to The Times that “any sudden change to the support structure for elections in the middle of an election cycle is concerning,” but that California “has a strong local and state foundation for election administration and voting systems support, and that will minimize any potential disruption caused by this action.”

In recent months, Trump has leveraged federal agencies to overhaul the nation’s voting rules in ways no previous president has attempted. He has repeatedly pressured Republican lawmakers to pass a federal law that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, show identification when casting a ballot and force states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security.

Republican leaders have said the proposed SAVE America Act does not have enough votes to pass in the Senate. The GOP resistance has angered Trump, who on Friday said he was refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill in protest.

The housing bill, which Trump called a “yawn” this month, would become law at midnight Friday without Trump’s signature.

President Trump has ousted members of a bipartisan federal election commission that resisted his efforts to require would-be voters to document their U.S. citizenship before registering.

The White House on Friday confirmed the executive action against members of the Election Assistance Commission, which distributes federal grants to states, oversees the testing of voting systems and maintains the national voter registration forms.

It’s the latest move in the Republican president’s effort to expand White House influence over how U.S. elections are conducted and comes after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave the president new personnel authority to fire members of independent agency boards.

“The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted. The Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so,” said a White House statement to AP.

The president removed the commission’s two Democratic members, Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland. The panel’s Republican member, Christy McCormick resigned. Former Republican commissioner Donald Palmer already had left his post voluntarily earlier this year.

The changes were first reported by VoteBeat, a news outlet that covers elections and voting across the U.S.

While the White House statement did not offer a specific reason for Trump’s action, the commission has previously declined to change the national voter registration form to require documentation of an applicant’s U.S. citizenship, as Trump’s urged in a sweeping March 2025 executive order on U.S. elections. A federal judge blocked the order, ruling it exceeds the president’s authority since the U.S. Constitution grants authority over elections management and oversight to Congress and the states. The administration has indicated it will appeal.

It was not clear whether Trump planned to nominate new members immediately or leave the positions vacant — a move that, months ahead of midterm elections, could prevent the agency from distributing new grants to state or local elections offices and, at the least, complicate its role in overseeing testing and certification of voting systems around the country.

“The Administration from the start has been working across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse, and investing in a strong infrastructure to sustain that mission especially in the midterm elections,” the White House said.

Congress created the four-member commission as part of the Help America Vote Act, a bipartisan law signed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2002. The act requires the commission to include two Democrats and two Republicans, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Hicks and McCormick were appointed by President Barack Obama. Trump appointed Hovland during his first presidency.

According to VoteBeat, Hicks and Hovland were notified of their removal by an email signed by Morgan DeWitt Snow, the deputy director of presidential personnel in the Executive Office of the President.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

July 10 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has reportedly fired the three remaining members of an independent, bipartisan commission that helps states administer elections, intensifying Democratic concerns that he is trying to interfere in November’s midterm elections.

Trump fired the Election Assistance Commission’s two Democrats, Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks, while allowing its Republican commissioner, Christy McCormick, to resign on Thursday, according to The New York Times, NPR and ProPublica, which was the first to report on the development.

With the exit of the three commissioners, the commission has no sitting members. Republican Commissioner Donald Palmer resigned in late April.

The EAC was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in response to issues surrounding the 2000 election. Its mission is to improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The midterm elections have loomed large over Trump’s second term. He has repeatedly warned that Democratic impeachment proceedings and investigations would follow Republicans losing the House, which they hold by a narrow 218-212 majority.

Trump has sought to influence the outcome by pushing Republican-led states to conduct unorthodox mid-decade redistricting to create additional GOP-favored seats, setting off a redistricting fight with Democrats. The president, who wrongly maintains that the 2020 election was stolen from him, has also repeatedly voiced skepticism over the integrity of U.S. elections, pushing legislation to impose stringent voting restrictions that critics say would disenfranchise voters.

Democrats and critics have been warning that Trump is trying to undermine the upcoming midterm elections and create a pretext for his administration to intervene. They say the hollowing out of the EAC removes election expertise and oversight from the process.

“Firing every remaining member of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission months before the midterms is a brazen attempt to seize control of our elections before a single vote is cast,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

“He is gutting the independent agency that certifies voting systems and helps election officials run secure elections.”

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, and Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, called the firings illegal.

“Trump continues to double down on his efforts to erode trust in our elections, undermine independent oversight and further his administration’s attempt to ‘take over’ elections,” the Democratic pair said in a statement, referencing Trump’s repeated calls for Republicans to “take over” the election process.

“Americans deserve elections that are safe, secure and run free from political interference — not overseen by partisan loyalists and election deniers beholden to Trump.”

Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, described the ousting as “deeply concerning” given “Trump’s relentless efforts to interfere in elections.”

“Until bipartisan replacements are confirmed, the agency cannot lawfully make any decisions that affect how Americans vote,” he warned in a statement.

Published on
09/07/2026 – 13:31 GMT+2

In a draft regulation obtained by Euronews and due to be presented in September, the European Commission plans to tighten access to the EU market by allowing public authorities to exclude foreign companies that present risks of interference from public procurement.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The draft proposal comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions, with concerns over data leaks from sensitive public services to Beijing and Washington and as well as the weaponisation of the EU’s dependence on rare earths and technology products from China.

The draft document proposes that “public buyers shall take appropriate measures, where relevant at any stage of the procurement procedure, from planning and market consultation to contract award and execution, to ensure the protection of the security and public safety interests of the Union.”

The document adds that risks to security or public safety in a public contract may arise from firms whose “ownership, control, or financing structure” bears “risks of undue interference or influence over it,” as well as companies whose “exposure to third-country legislation […] may compel disclosure of sensitive information or interference with contract performance.”

Finally, public buyers would be allowed to introduce a European preference in public procurement, although the draft regulation would not make it compulsory.

Such provisions could confirm the EU’s protectionist shift towards a “Made in Europe” strategy, which the EU executive already proposed last March for strategic sectors such as clean technologies, the automotive industry and energy-intensive industries.

The risks of foreign interference and data transfer have become more acute in recent years, with the US and China both adopting legislation allowing them to request that companies under their jurisdiction transfer data stored in the EU.

Some European governments are already taking steps to mitigate these risks. In April, the French government ended its contract with Microsoft to protect French health data, and in June, it replaced US tech company Palantir with French company ChapsVision for the processing of sensitive information held by the the country’s domestic intelligence service, the Directorate General for Internal Security.

Over the last few years, several EU countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Denmark, have also cancelled or denied public contracts to the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei over security concerns.

The draft regulation also seeks to protect “critical infrastructure, critical supply chains, critical technologies or essential services, resilience against physical, cyber, or hybrid threats, and prevention and protection against risks of their disruption including due to harmful strategic dependencies on third-country suppliers.”

Last year, China cut off the EU from exports of rare earth minerals, which are essential for green technologies and the defence sector. It also stopped the Dutch-based Nexperia, owned by China’s Wingtech, from importing Chinese chips essential to the EU’s car industry.

Walt Disney Co.’s ABC network has stepped up its defense of “The View” amid its battle with Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who has targeted the network’s programming and its hiring policies.

At issue is whether “The View” still qualifies for an exception to FCC rules that require broadcasters to provide equal air time for opponents of various political candidates.

Carr has called the daytime talk show “overtly political.”

Late Monday, ABC filed documents with the FCC to support its request for a declaratory ruling that “The View” is indeed a bona fide news interview program entitled to the equal-time rule exemption that covers newscasts, political debates and documentaries.

The show was granted the exception in 2002.

“Today, the program in the Commission’s sights is The View,” ABC said in this week’s filing. “The principle in the balance is far larger: whether a federal regulator may override a broadcaster’s editorial judgment about whom to interview — a judgment the Constitution commits to broadcasters and their audiences, not to the state.”

Since the FCC opened its inquiry in late May, the agency has received more than 77,000 public comments — most in support of the long-running daytime talk show.

“While ABC insists that ‘The View’ is a ‘bona fide news program’ under the law, ABC should focus on complying with its public interest obligations, rather than misleading the public about them,” an FCC spokesperson said in a statement sent to The Times.

Separately, the FCC also took the unusual step of calling in the licenses of eight Disney-owned television stations for early review. The move — widely interpreted as an effort to chill the Disney network’s speech — came a day after President Trump demanded that ABC fire its late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

Losing the licenses for its stations, including KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles, would be a significant blow to the Disney-owned network.

Some conservatives, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have suggested the FCC actions are an overreach while others have encouraged the agency to come down hard on Disney.

“The Commission can take this opportunity to address multiple pending complaints against ABC related to its programming,” conservative lawyer Daniel Suhr, head of the Center for American Rights, wrote in his 65-page petition in support of revoking Disney’s licenses.

“The View,” which features Trump critics Whoopi Goldberg, Sunny Hostin, Joy Behar and Ana Navarro, helps make a case that Disney is running a partisan network, Suhr alleged in his documents.

“Democrats are featured on The View at an insanely high ratio compared to Republicans,” Suhr wrote, noting that at least a third of the show’s 348 guests in 2025 were liberals — including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). Meanwhile, two prominent conservatives, former Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and actor Cheryl Hines, the wife of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., were featured last year.

Since Carr opened the review, the ABC show has avoided conversations with political candidates in competitive races leading up to this year’s pivotal midterm elections.

The show has continued its tradition of hosting politicians, though, including a highly rated interview last month with a Carr ally — Vice President JD Vance.

ABC has asked the FCC for a declaratory ruling on the status of “The View.” The network maintains that “The View” books politicians based on newsworthiness and not partisanship.

The network has run on-air spots urging its viewers to support the program by filing comments with the FCC.

“Big fan of the show. Hope my vote counts,” wrote one viewer, Wilson Vélez, in a comment filed with the FCC on Monday.

Another viewer, Patricia Pomeroy, wrote: “Freedom of speech, Freedom of speech, Freedom of speech.”

ABC’s filing noted that the program has kept the same format and focus on topical news events since its inception.

“What has changed is not the program but the political climate around it,” ABC said in the petition.

Disney’s filing, signed by attorney Paul Clement, commended the “robust response” from the public, saying the outpouring “represents laudable civic engagement of the kind the Commission should welcome given its statutory obligation to make decisions based on the public interest.”

A century and a half ago, Richard Wagner was running out of cash as he was preparing to stage his four momentous nights of opera known as the “Ring Cycle” when he got a message from the Women’s Centennial Executive Committee in Philadelphia. It offered him a princely $5,000 (around $150,000 today) to write a triumphant 12-minute orchestral score to open the Centennial Exposition in Fairmont Park celebrating the 100^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

On May 10, 1876, Theodore Thomas, perhaps America’s most famous conductor at the time (he would go on to head the New York Philharmonic and help found the Chicago Symphony), led the premiere of Wagner’s “Grosse Festmarsch” with a 150-member orchestra, its brass and percussion so impressive that the addition of cannon fire Wagner suggested was not needed. The crowd was said to number well over 100,000. President Ulysses S. Grant attended and invited Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil to join him along with members of Congress and Supreme Court justices for what remains a unique Declaration of Independence spectacle and debacle.

The “Centennial March,” as it came to be known, turned out to be dreck. Even Wagner, who carelessly tossed it off in a couple of weeks, said the best thing about the score was the fee, which he had demanded to be paid in gold. But what sounds like something AI might come up with if asked to write a pompous march in the style of Wagner began the American obsession with celebrating the Declaration of Independence, the words and deeds of our presidents, our very democracy with the assist of the symphony orchestra and opera.

One hundred years later, the country was awash with federal, state, city and philanthropic funding for a music-happy bicentennial of exceptional ambition. “With millions available in hand and more money to come,” Time Magazine wrote in 1975, “the Bicentennial is the biggest bonanza for the American composer since Hollywood discovered the musical.”

And so it was. The centerpiece was the National Endowment for the Arts Bicentennial Orchestra Commissioning Project. That funded America’s six top orchestras to each commission a major work that all six would play. In addition, the NEA offered further support to 34 American orchestras for dozens more new scores.

Everyone got into the act. The New York State Council of the Arts alone sponsored 68 commissions. Orchestras everywhere came up with striking projects. The Pittsburgh Symphony, for instance, premiered L.A. composer John LaMontaine’s opera/oratorio “Be Glad Then America” that featured the folk singer Odetta as the Muse of Liberty and enlisted ROTC students to reenact the Battle of Lexington overhead the orchestra.

The National Symphony commissioned symphonies from Roy Harris and William Schuman as well as Alan Hovhaness’ “Ode to Freedom,” a lovely short violin concerto written for Yehudi Menuhin. The list goes on.

We are obviously not seeing or hearing much like that in a semiquincentennial year when our government’s green gets the most attention for promoting algae. Even so, the NEA does indeed have an “America250” project (though it does little to publicize it, let alone fund it on the scale of 50 years ago) that is promoting more than 50 artworks. In music, they range from the Montgomery Symphony’s premiere in February of Nkeiru Okoye’s oratorio “A Time for Jubilee,” commemorating the 60^th anniversary of the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights marches, to a New West Symphony premiere last weekend of Michael Christie’s “A Ronald Reagan Portrait” at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

The major East Coast orchestras are paying some attention. The New York Philharmonic premiered David Lang’s luminous “the wealth of nations.” The National Symphony got the most attention in its attempt to commission Philip Glass’ “Lincoln” Symphony, which the composer pulled in opposition to an un-Lincoln-like presidential takeover of the Kennedy Center. Glass then gave the rights to the Boston Symphony for a July 5 first performance.

The National Symphony did pull off the premiere of Peter Boyer’s “American Mosaic,” and it was to the Altadena composer that Philadelphia, this time around, entrusted its Declaration of Independence commemoration. Boyer’s multimedia oratorio, “A Hundred Years On,” was given its premiere by the Philadelphia Orchestra last month at the orchestra’s outdoor summer home, the Mann Center.

Upcoming will be a few repeat performances. Next month, “the wealth of nations” lands at the Aspen Festival, as does the “Lincoln” Symphony at the Cabrillo festival (with an L.A. Phil performance next season). “American Mosaic,” of which the Pacific Symphony was a co-commissioner, had its West Coast premiere in Costa Mesa last month and was scheduled to be performed at the Hollywood Bowl by the National Symphony in August, but that has now been replaced by Dvorak’s commonplace “New World Symphony.”

None of this comes close to comparing with the attempted civic zest of 1976. The NEA made it a matter of admirable policy that commissioned new works get multiple performances. Yet despite several of these being substantial works by some of our most noted and venturesome composers, few bicentennial commissions have survived. Even odder is that many of the composers did not necessarily feel compelled to explore nationalist themes. For them, American liberty implied freedom to simply write the kind of music they cared about.

The six works for the six orchestras were David del Tredici’s irresistibly over-the-top “Final Alice” (Chicago Symphony), Elliott Carter’s arrestingly impenetrable-on-first-hearing “Symphony for Three Orchestras” (New York Philharmonic), John Cage’s irrepressibly come-what-may “Renga” (Boston Symphony), Morton Subotnick’s brilliant electronic-landscaped “Before the Butterfly” (Los Angeles Philharmonic), Leslie Bassett’s introspective “Echoes From an Invisible World” and Jacob Druckman’s abstract-modernist “Chiaroscuro” (Cleveland Orchestra).

No orchestra has brought back its commission over the last half century, and only Chicago and New York recorded their commissions. No recording at all exists of L.A.’s, although Subotnick’s inventive uses of electronic music with a standard symphony orchestra went on to have considerable influence. None of these works, it appears, are likely to be heard anywhere in America this year, with one sort-of exception.

An explanation for that may be that, while 1976 was a fraught time for America — the country was recovering from the Vietnam War, we had a president and vice president who were not elected, there was runaway inflation, etc. — the music of the time represented optimism. Many works around the country explored new electronic music technology. It was the year Glass wrote “Einstein on the Beach” and Steve Reich created “Music for 18 Musicians” — the composers’ first masterpieces — demonstrating that Minimalism mattered.

That sense of liberation is clearly behind Del Tredici’s “Final Alice,” an hourlong romp around the ending of “Alice in Wonderland” for superhuman soprano and orchestra. It is so obsessively and addictively wild that its tamest moments sound like Richard Strauss on LSD. It does have a cult following although performances are few and far between.

Cage’s score is an abstract work based on the Japanese form of collective poetry known as renga, in which each poet attempts to write a line that is as distant as possible in meaning from the preceding line. Cage translates that to an independence of instrumental parts. While “Renga” can be performed alone Cage further suggests it be played along with an actual bicentennial work he wrote separately, “Apartment House 1776.” That is what Boston and the other orchestras did.

Indeed, “Apartment House” got the lion’s share of bicentennial attention and ridicule. When Zubin Mehta conducted it at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, the L.A. Philharmonic did not take it seriously and many walked out on it.

The work features four vocal soloists who represent Native American, Sephardic, African American and Protestant religious traditions, along with instrumental music based on early American hymn tunes. Everything is cut up and put together through chance operations into what Cage called a Musicircus. Under the circumstances “Renga” was hardly noticed, although two decades later, “Renga” came into its own when Michael Tilson Thomas famously conducted it with the San Francisco Symphony and the surviving members of the Grateful Dead.

Still the idea that “Apartment House” need not stand alone, that our traditions and those of long-ago Japan belong together, represented for Cage a future for America. We need not act like a superpower, he noted, but merely be one nation, no more and no less, among many.

We are obviously not that nation. A half-century later, “Apartment House” tends to exist mainly in its own right. An excellent London new music ensemble calls itself Apartment House. Detroit Opera recently staged it with a 2026 need to give the singers the opportunity to select their own music rather than reflect on our heritage. If American music in 1976 represented a collective, inquisitive, inventive American spirit of discovery, the semiquincentennial in the age of social media has become more about the individual identity.

As a sign of how we think about ourselves, the Los Angeles Philharmonic begins its Hollywood Bowl season five days after the 4^th with a program of American music conducted by Thomas Wilkins that opens with Valery Coleman’s “Fanfare for Uncommon Times,” which was written five years ago.

But for now, the work that stands out is Lang’s “the wealth of nations.” It balances harsh thoughts of how the promise of capitalism has failed society and how racism remains with music of stunning beauty and glory, to gently but forcefully show us, in our age of American dissatisfaction, the direction in which we might go to make us proud again. It needs many performances.

Caracas, June 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has created a Presidential Commission for the Assessment of Housing and Infrastructure Habitability following the 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes that struck the country on June 24.

The commission, chaired by structural engineer Francisco Garcés, began its work on Monday, June 29, in the states of La Guaira and Miranda, as well as in Caracas, carrying out scientific and technical evaluations of buildings, bridges, overpasses, and road infrastructure.

The inspections will deliver a traffic light-style assessment system developed by the Venezuelan Seismological Research Foundation (FUNVISIS) and the Central University of Venezuela (UCV) to classify the level of structural damage through a rating system that is easily understood by the public.

“We have created a traffic light system to determine whether a building is habitable, using the colors green, yellow, and red, so that this commission on housing and infrastructure can decide whether a home is safe to continue occupying,” Rodríguez said during a televised broadcast on Monday.

Under the system, green identifies homes that are structurally stable and safe for occupancy without significant risk. Yellow indicates buildings with moderate or partial damage that require repairs before they can be safely reoccupied, while red designates structures that have suffered total loss or critical structural damage.

“We have found buildings whose structural systems—beams, columns, and frame structures—have not sustained significant damage. However, the masonry has been severely affected. This means these buildings are repairable but cannot be inhabited until damaged walls and enclosure elements are removed and rebuilt,” Garcés explained to Venezuelan media.

The commission brings together specialists from the Ministry of Habitat and Housing, the Ministry of Public Works, the Venezuelan College of Engineers, the Venezuelan Chamber of Construction, Funvisis, and the Engineering Corps of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces.

It is also supported by several academic institutions and will coordinate efforts with governors’ and mayors’ offices from the hardest-hit regions.

“We have deployed several teams of engineers specialized in structural engineering,” Garcés added. “After receiving training in the use of the damage assessment forms, they are able to determine the condition of a structure and recommend the appropriate course of action.”

The acting government has also launched training programs so that professors, graduates, and senior engineering students with the required technical background can join the inspection teams. Authorities say the initiative likewise aims to address public fears among residents who remain hesitant to return to their homes.

Rodríguez additionally announced plans to build thousands of new homes by the end of the year.

According to official figures, the earthquakes have left 189 buildings completely destroyed as well as 585 structures with severe damage or partial collapse. There have been 38 hospitals and 44 shopping malls affected, and 1,645 additional structures, mainly bridges and roads, have sustained damage.

Multiple corporate media outlets have launched claims that the buildings from Venezuela’s Great Housing Mission (GMVV) were especially damaged by the earthquake. However, analysis from open-source tracking of damaged buildings has shown that only a very small percentage of affected structures belong to the housing mission. Former President Hugo Chávez launched the massive program in 2011 to provide housing at next-to-no cost for working-class families.

So far, Venezuelan authorities have reported 1,943 dead, 10,571 injured, and over 15,000 displaced families as a result of the double earthquake. The disaster has seen emergency teams arrive from 27 countries to assist in search-and-rescue operations. For its part, the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has deployed multiple military assets and is managing operations at Simón Bolívar International Airport, the South American country’s main air hub.

Alongside the disaster in Venezuela’s northern central region, the Caribbean nation has been struck by further emergencies in recent days. Torrential rains caused rivers to overflow in western Portuguesa state, leaving an initial toll of 100 displaced families. Further west, firefighters have been working to bring forest fires under control since last Friday.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump new power to fire the heads of most independent agencies created by Congress — but not the Federal Reserve.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced two opinions, one of which bolstered the president’s power as the chief executive and a second which said this authority did not extend to the Federal Reserve board.

The first was a 6-3 decision that had the support of five conservatives, while the second had a 5-4 majority that included the three liberals.

Roberts, a former White House lawyer, has long been skeptical of independent agencies whose officials may wield regulatory power in conflict with the views of the president.

Since the 1880s, however, Congress has at times created independent agencies led by a bipartisan board of experts. In 1935, a unanimous Supreme Court had upheld these multi-member boards and commissions.

But Roberts and the court overturned that precedent and declared it conflicts with the executive power of the president.

“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President,” he wrote. “To discharg[e] the duties of his trust, the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. … Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The decision upholds Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg / Getty Images)

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the ruling “distorts the structure of government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before. It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him.”

Under what has been dubbed the “unitary executive” theory, the court’s conservatives believe the president’s executive power in Article II of the Constitution overrides Congress’power in Article I to write the laws and structure the government.

The departments and agencies of the federal government exist only because Congress created them by law.

But in the second opinion, the court blocked Trump’s bid to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, an appointee of President Biden.

Roberts said the central bank dates back to the nation’s founding, and Congress created the Federal Reserve Board in line with “our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”

Trump tried to fire Lisa Cook in a social media post, he said.

But “the Federal Reserve’s Governors do not serve at the President’s pleasure — they instead serve staggered 14-year terms, and may be removed only ‘for cause’,” he wrote.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast a crucial vote to support the Fed’s independence. He said he joined the majority because it “confirms the longstanding historical practice and understanding that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency whose Governors enjoy for-cause removal protection consistent with Article II of the Constitution.”

The court did not finally decide on Cook’s case, except to say she deserved due process of law. She could not be fired without a hearing and evidence, the court said.

The setback for independent agencies came as no surprise, however.

Even prior to Trump’s election, Roberts has insisted agency officials must be accountable and under the control of the president.

Last year, the justices blocked lower court rulings that would have reinstated agency officials who were fired by Trump.

For most of American history, however, it had been understood that Congress had the power to structure the government and to create semi-independent agencies to carry out specific tasks like regulating railroad rates or the money supply.

These agencies and commissions were led by a bipartisan board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term. They could be fired only for cause, not because of a political disagreement with the president.

The Supreme Court upheld these multi-member commissions in 1935 on the grounds their work was more legislative and judicial than simply enforcing the law.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards wield executive authority and are therefore, subject to direct control by the president.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies.

The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

A new commission made up of legislators, public defenders, academics and advocates seeks to push California — one of just two states that don’t pay for basic public defense — to begin providing resources and enforcing minimum standards for county public defender systems.

The California Independent Commission on Public Defense includes three assemblymembers and two senators — among them Jesse Arreguín and Nick Schultz, chairs of the Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees — as well as chief public defenders from several counties, retired judges, the directors of criminal justice nonprofits, and the heads of organizations representing thousands of defense attorneys in the state.

“We have discussed the problem of our public defense system for years,” said Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank and former prosecutor who has sponsored legislation to improve public defense.

The goal is to “move past discussion and study, and come up with an actionable road map of what we need to do to really build out the robust public defense infrastructure that Californians are rightfully entitled to,” he said.

The commissioners plan to develop a five-year plan to phase in state funding, along with enforceable standards like caseload limits and access to defense investigators.

A CalMatters investigation last year found that criminal defendants across the state are routinely convicted without anyone investigating the charges against them, significantly increasing the likelihood of wrongful convictions. Many California counties do not employ a single defense investigator who can interview witnesses, review police reports, visit crime scenes and retrieve video surveillance footage. CalMatters also found that lawyers in some rural counties are handling caseloads that far exceed even the most permissive standards, making them less likely than other defense attorneys to challenge the prosecution’s evidence in legal motions and take their cases to trial.

But the state has resisted stepping in. After a proposed bill that would have created an official state commission to address the issue was abandoned, two advocacy groups, the Wren Collective and UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law and Justice Center, decided to form an independent commission and began assembling participants who could develop and act on reforms. These types of commissions, which have facilitated significant improvements in other states’ public defender systems, are usually established by the governor.

“It became clear that this was an issue that was not a high priority for Sacramento, especially during a budget crisis,” said Chesa Boudin, the Berkeley center’s founding director and a former San Francisco district attorney. It also became clear, Boudin said, that “there was a tremendous gap between what experts understood to be the crisis and the public perception of California government as a kind of progressive leader in the country.”

In the decades since the U.S. Supreme Court established the right to an attorney in state court criminal proceedings, California has saddled its counties with the responsibility of providing lawyers to poor people accused of crimes. Many of those counties have opted for the cheapest path: paying private lawyers and firms a flat fee to represent indigent defendants, regardless of how many cases they handle or how much time they spend on each case.

“You’ve got some offices that have an incredibly high caliber of representation that they can provide, and you have other offices that are doing these flat-fee contracts where the quality has been documented to be pretty bad,” said Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

Primus is the only member of the new commission from outside of California. She was asked to join because of her extensive research and writing about the structure of indigent defense.

An indigent defense commission in Michigan, which was formed by the legislature in 2013, has led to significant reforms and a substantial influx in state funding.

The California commission’s work, Primus said, can serve “as a catalyst for political actors to do the right thing and start to fund and improve indigent defense delivery, or as fodder for lawsuits that then can try to get the judiciary to push the political actors to do what is necessary to provide for effective representation.”

The commission is scheduled to hold its first in-person meeting, which will be open to the public, in Berkeley in October, with additional meetings planned for Los Angeles, the Central Valley and Northern California over the next 12 months. Commissioners say they will work in subcommittees in between these quarterly sessions to develop a concrete fiscal plan for the state, draft legislative language, and establish minimum standards for how counties should structure their public defender offices, compensate their attorneys, provide access to experts, and report on their work.

Anat Rubin writes for CalMatters.

In a few days, Los Angeles voters will be casting ballots for city attorney — and in a few months, they could be voting to sharply diminish the city attorney’s authority.

The city’s Charter Reform Commission has proposed splitting the city attorney’s office into two parts — an elected city prosecutor, charged with handling criminal misdemeanors, and a mayor-appointed and City Council-confirmed city attorney who would represent the city in civil cases and advise the mayor, city council and city departments.

The City Council is reviewing the recommendation as part of sweeping changes to city government, including expanding the council from 15 to 25 seats, which could go before voters in the Nov. 3 general election.

The proposed changes to the city attorney’ office, however, come in the midst of a heated primary campaign, where incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto is up against three challengers, including a state deputy attorney general and a deputy district attorney.

Both of those challengers say plans to bifurcate the city attorney’s office are rooted in longstanding conflicts between Feldstein Soto and the City Council.

Council members have expressed frustration over her handling of rising costs from an outside law firm, where the payout amount has grown to nearly $7.5 million — with some attorneys billing the city roughly $1,300 an hour.

And last year, City Council took a 12-0 vote to direct Feldstein Soto to withdraw an effort to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

“When I first heard about this idea, I thought it was probably the greatest indictment of the current city attorney that I’ve heard yet,” said John McKinney, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who is running for city attorney in Tuesday’s primary.

McKinney opposes the bifurcation, saying it will cause overlap and confusion. “If she was doing a good job … we wouldn’t even be having this discussion,” he said.

Marissa Roy, another candidate in the race, hasn’t taken a position on bifurcation but said Feldstein Soto’s actions triggered the proposed change.

“The only reason that bifurcation, or splitting the city attorney’s office, is even going to be going before voters is because we’ve had an incumbent city attorney who has gone so rogue to politicize the role,” said Roy, a deputy state attorney general.

Roy said accused Feldstein Soto of inappropriately blocking an affordable housing project in Venice. And in her office’s role of drafting ordinance language, Roy said, Feldstein Soto has returned to city council ordinance language that isn’t “faithful to the intent of the drafter.”

Feldstein Soto said the proposal to bifurcate the office has nothing to do with her performance.

“This issue comes up every single time charter reform comes up,” Feldstein Soto said. “To me this is all political opportunism.”

Feldstein Soto has opposed the split, and former city attorneys have also come out against it, saying an appointed position threatens the independence of the city attorney’s office, takes away from voters the right to elect a city attorney and could cost taxpayers money in order to split the office.

In a March letter to the Charter Reform Commission, Feldstein Soto said an attorney “serving at the pleasure” of the mayor and city council would face an “innate, human pressure to harmonize legal advice with the political goals of the appointing officials.”

“I have been able to provide honest, accurate legal advice to the Mayor, City Council, Controller and departments — even when that advice is unwelcome — precisely because I am an independently elected officeholder with an ultimate duty to the public,” she wrote. “An appointed City Attorney, serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, faces enormous political pressure on all of these issues, behind closed doors, cloaked in privilege without an independent voice.”

Burt Pines, a former city attorney who served from 1973 to 1981, deeply opposes the bifurcation proposal, citing the threat to independence as the largest issue at stake. As city attorney, he said, he was empowered to tell city officials when a proposed action was unlawful and refuse to support it.

“You want to be able to call the shots as you see them, true to the law,” Pines said in an interview.

Advocates say other cities have bifurcated offices, and splitting it could reduce conflict and provide a clear delineation of roles.

After consulting with experts and good governance groups, the commission agreed the benefits of bifurcation outweighed the negatives, and it passed unanimously by the commission.

“It was easy to get consensus on this,” said Raymond Meza, chair of the commission. The commission’s proposal calls for the city attorney to be nominated by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council.

In its report, the commission said that “the current structure creates conflicts when the same office advises the city and prosecutes cases. Separation provides clearer roles, reduces conflicts, and allows each function to be performed effectively.”

Other cities have different models for the city attorney’s office: Long Beach has a similar model with bifurcated duties, while New York City has legal representation split up several ways. The San Francisco City Attorney provides legal representation for the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office handles criminal cases in the city and county.

Mike Bonin, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute, said he has seen the question of splitting the office come up with at least three different city attorneys to varying degrees.

“Given that the city attorney is an elected position, there’s always going to be somebody who doesn’t like them,” Bonin, a former city council member, said. “You need to divorce the question from the occupant and focus on the role — the charter is not about a particular person, the charter is about the function of the office.”

“Serious mismanagement” at a charity set up to help former and current professional footballers put funds at risk, a Charity Commission inquiry has found.

The inquiry was launched in 2019 because the Commission had “serious concerns” about how the Professional Footballers’ Association Charity – now called the Players Foundation – was being run.

It has now published a highly critical report which details a series of failings.

They include £1.9m of funds from the Football Association being transferred from the charity’s bank account to the Professional Footballers’ Association, the players’ union, “without a clear explanation”.

The charity also paid about 80% of the union’s operating costs – around £6m annually, including £5m on salaries. “Multiple trustees” – including former chief executive Gordon Taylor – held salaried senior PFA roles, creating a conflict of interest.

Funding a trade union is not considered a charitable purpose in law, the regulator said.

The charity also owned properties in Manchester in London which the union occupied rent-free. That cost the charity more than £627,000 when interest was added, the Commission said.

The £1.9m and unpaid rent were returned following the Commission’s intervention.

The charity received an official warning from the regulator in September 2022 “for mismanagement that had taken place from its incorporation in 2013 to the beginning of 2019”.

A trustee, Darren Wilson – who was the PFA’s director of finance – was disqualified from being a trustee or holding a senior management position in a charity for four years.

“Remedial actions have now been implemented at the charity, including proper separation from the union, appointment of new trustees, and establishment of a distinct identity for the charity,” the Charity Commission said.

“It has also adopted a new funding model, after the Football Association and Premier League stopped funding of the charity upon its separation from the union.”

One member calls for a Presidential Medal of Freedom for a baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Another calls for court interventions by the Department of Justice on behalf of Amish parents fighting New York vaccine requirements and Catholic nuns challenging that state’s requirement that they accommodate hospice patients’ gender identities.

And the chair of the Religious Liberty Commission is calling for a federal hotline with this automated recording: “There is no separation of church and state.”

These are just some of the recommendations that members of the advisory panel formed by President Trump last year want to see included in the commission’s final report.

That report is still in the works, but commissioners had an opportunity to describe their wish lists during their most recent meeting in April. There was little dissent as the commissioners, most drawn from Trump’s base of conservative Christian supporters, covered the items they want in the report.

Their ideas reflect the prevailing perspectives on the definition of religious liberty among many conservative Catholic and evangelical activists: increasing avenues for religious expression in public schools, expanding opportunities for faith-based organizations to receive public money, and allowing for religious-based exemptions in areas ranging from labor law to classroom lessons to healthcare mandates.

Such views have also been reflected in Supreme Court decisions issued in recent years by its conservative majority.

Commission’s views criticized

Critics of the commission say it embodies a one-sided perspective of Trump’s supporters and is threatening a well-established constitutional separation of church and state.

A lawsuit by a progressive interreligious coalition argues that the commission fails to comply with federal law requiring advisory panels to feature diverse members and viewpoints.

The lawsuit echoes criticism that most commissioners are conservative Christian clerics and commentators; one is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. The coalition says members have asserted that America is specifically a Judeo-Christian or Christian nation and notes that most commission meetings took place at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, an institution with Christian leadership.

The Republican administration is asking a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit. The government is citing legal technicalities and contending that the law does not define how a commission should be fairly balanced or whose viewpoints should be represented.

Another entity created by Trump — the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias — issued a report saying Christians faced discrimination under the administration of President Biden in areas such as education, tax law and prosecution of antiabortion protesters. Progressive groups said that report failed to document systemic discrimination, focused on causes favored by conservative Christians and amounted to advocacy rather than an investigation.

In a further interlocking of Trump-related initiatives, several members of the Religious Liberty Commission are scheduled to take part in a May 17 prayer event marking the country’s upcoming 250th birthday. Several also participated in a recent Bible-reading marathon staged largely at the Museum of the Bible.

Harmony and tension

The commission has mostly featured agreement among members, with one dramatic exception. One commissioner, Carrie Prejean Boller, was ousted in February after a contentious hearing on antisemitism.

Commission Chair Dan Patrick said Prejean Boller sought to “hijack” the hearing, in which she had sharp exchanges with witnesses about the definition of antisemitism and defended commentator Candace Owens, denying her record of antisemitic statements. Prejean Boller, a Catholic, contended that she was wrongly ousted for expressing her beliefs.

In other hearings, witnesses described how they defied workplace regulations that they said conflicted with their conservative religious values on gender, abortion, COVID-19 vaccines and more. Some said they were prevented, at least temporarily, from displaying a religious symbol at work or trying to sing a Christian song at a school talent show.

At the hearing devoted to antisemitism, Jewish witnesses spoke of being harassed and threatened at campus pro-Palestinian protests against Israel. The commission has also heard from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other witnesses.

Even so, critics said the commission mostly focused on conservative Christian and right-leaning political grievances.

The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, president of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, one of the groups suing over the commission’s composition, said the panel’s omissions are as significant as what it focuses on.

He said the commission has failed adequately to address such issues as anti-Muslim efforts in Texas and elsewhere, and also the rise of antisemitism on the right, not just the left.

Separation of church and state

Raushenbush said he is especially worried about the commission chair’s challenging the very notion of church-state separation.

Patrick, a Republican who is the Texas lieutenant governor, repeatedly denounced a concept that is embedded in Supreme Court precedent.

“We need to say there is no separation of church and state,” Patrick said at the April meeting. “That’s a lie.” He suggested printing “a million bumper stickers” to that effect.

No one at the commission meeting disagreed.

Trump made similar comments at a prayer event at the White House in 2025. “They say separation between church and state,” he said. “I said, all right, let’s forget about that for one time.”

While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, 20th century decisions by the Supreme Court cited Thomas Jefferson’s description of the 1st Amendment as creating “a wall of separation between church and state.” The court applied the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any church “establishment” to the states in addition to the federal government, citing the 14th Amendment’s ban on states denying citizens’ rights.

Courts have since wrestled with how to balance freedom of religion and freedom from government-sponsored religion.

Schools, vaccines and workplaces

Patrick has advocated for prayer and Ten Commandments postings in public schools.

“I don’t have any malice towards anyone that doesn’t believe in any type of faith,” Patrick told fellow commissioners. “That’s fine. That’s what America is about. But these organizations that are pushed by some ideology and pushed by someone’s bank account who wants to remove God from our country? We need to push back.”

On other issues, various commissioners called for requiring schools and workplaces to post notices of the rights of religious expression and exemptions.

Some called for restoring full pay and pension benefits for military service members who were discharged for refusing COVID-19 vaccines.

Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester, Minn., called for allowing religious groups such as Catholic Charities to receive federal money without compromising on traditional church teachings about the family.

He also said Catholic immigrants in detention should have humane treatment and access to sacraments and that immigration agents should not disrupt worship services in enforcement actions. The administration last year eliminated a policy against immigration enforcement in sanctuaries, which other religious leaders said should not occur at any time.

Kelly Shackelford, president and chief executive officer of the legal organization First Liberty Institute, called for new requirements that governments pay all legal bills if they lose a religious liberty case. He said many individuals lack the money to challenge the government in court.

“That would be a huge shifting of power in favor of citizens,” he said.

Smith writes for the Associated Press.

Walt Disney Co.’s ABC is forcefully resisting Federal Communications Commission efforts to soften the network’s programming, accusing the federal agency of an overreach that violates 1st Amendment freedoms.

Last week, the FCC took the unusual step of calling in the licenses of eight Disney-owned television stations for early review. The move — widely interpreted as an effort to chill the network’s speech — came a day after President Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

The FCC separately has taken aim at ABC’s daytime discussion show, “The View,” which delves deeply into politics.

The FCC has questioned whether the show, which prominently features Trump critics Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, could continue toclaim an exemption to rules that require broadcasters to provide equal time for opponents of political candidates.

In its filing this week with the FCC, Disney’s Houston television station raised the stakes in the dispute over “The View,” calling the commission’s actions “unprecedented” and “beyond the Commission’s authority.” The ABC station’s petition for a declaratory ruling said “The View,” has long qualified as a “bona fide” news interview program with freedom to conduct interviews of legally qualified political candidates.

“The Commission’s actions threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to The View and more broadly,” the Houston station KTRK-TV said in the filing.

The network’s firm stance sets up a clash with the Trump administration, including the president’s hand-picked FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has made no secret of his disdain for Kimmel and other ABC programming. Earlier this year, Carr announced that decades-old exemptions from the so-called “equal time rule” for news programs, including “The View,” were no longer valid.

ABC’s strenuous arguments mark a departure for the Disney-owned outlet.

In December 2024, a month after Trump was elected to a second term, the network quickly settled a lawsuit over statements made by news anchor George Stephanopoulos that Trump found offensive. ABC agreed to pay Trump $15 million to end his legal fight — sparking an outcry among free speech advocates, who accused the network of caving on a case it could have won.

“Some may dislike certain—or even most—of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows,” the station said in its filing. “Such dislike, however, cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views. The government does not get to decide ‘what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’”

The station noted that, while the FCC has questioned the exemption for “The View,” which dates back to 2002, the FCC hasn’t showed interest in regulating programs on other networks, “including the many voices — conservative and liberal — on broadcast radio.”

“The danger is that the government will simply decide which perspectives to regulate and which to leave undisturbed,” ABC said.

On April 28, Carr called for a review of Disney’s broadcast licenses two years before any of them were set to expire, citing the agency’s year-old inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

One judge claims his colleagues have adopted a “gangster mentality” in order to shut him up.

Another compared the state board accusing him of serious misconduct to “the Russian mafia.”

Judicial elections are usually sleepy affairs, subject to little political fanfare or interest. But two battles on the June ballot in Los Angeles have raised the temperature this campaign season and invited questions about the lengths members of the insular local bench will go to protect their own.

Lawyers who aspire to become judge often run for open seats. The challengers in these races, however, say they specifically targeted incumbents they believe are unfit for the office, which carries an annual salary of more than $244,000.

One of the contests could unseat 84-year-old Judge Robert Draper, who is seeking reelection despite having spent the last three years relegated to a room at the Santa Monica courthouse without a computer or caseload, which two other judges described to The Times as a “closet.”

In 2023, then-Presiding Justice Samantha Jessner said Draper was “unable to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a judge” due to deteriorating mental and physical health, according to a letter she sent to the state’s Commission on Judicial Performance.

Draper denied all wrongdoing in an interview with The Times, and said that although he has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, he remains fit for the bench. He has also been accused of sexual harassment and making improper and biased comments by the judicial commission. He is contesting those claims. A hearing that could result in his removal began Monday and is expected to last into early May.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Thompson at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The other incumbent fighting to save his seat is Judge Pat Connolly, 61, a former prosecutor who has drawn support from several other sitting L.A. County judges. But his opponent, Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Thompson, has called Connolly a “rogue judge” who needs to be replaced.

Connolly has been disciplined multiple times in his 18-year judicial tenure for improper comments toward litigants and, in one case, exhibiting bias against a defense attorney against whom he was weighing contempt charges, according to state judicial commission records.

Thompson, who gained notoriety for his role winning a rape conviction against Harvey Weinstein, purchased the rights to the domain name “patconnolly4judge.com,” which now redirects to one of the commission’s admonishments of Connolly.

“What I see is a man who repeatedly prioritizes his own goodwill over that of the community and the public he is serving … a man who has been repeatedly disciplined for prioritizing his own interests,” said Thompson, who has been endorsed by the L.A. County Democratic Party.

In a bizarre turn, the race was linked to the recent shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner after conservative influencers posted a picture of a Thompson campaign sign on the Torrance lawn of the suspected gunman, Cole Tomas Allen.

Thompson lives next door to the Allen family and described the suspect’s parents as great neighbors. He said he didn’t know their son and dismissed “internet trolls” for trying to tie his campaign to political violence.

This year’s election has sparked conversations about the unwavering support incumbent judges seem to enjoy among their colleagues.

Despite the concerns about Draper’s health, a political action committee run by fellow judges gave $72,500 to his campaign, state election finance records show. The PAC gave the same amount to Connolly.

Judge Maria Lucy Armendariz, who oversees the PAC, did not return a call seeking comment.

“The PAC has some explaining to do here. Why is there this show of support for someone who is facing so many challenges?” asked Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches at Loyola Law School. “It doesn’t reflect well on the bench.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Tal Khan Valbuena at Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Draper’s opponent is Deputy Dist. Atty. Tal Khan Valbuena, a refugee from Pakistan who works in the Hollywood mental health court. Khan Valbuena believes his lived experience as a gay Muslim who has faced bigotry will bring a compassionate perspective to a bench some complain is overrun with old-school tough-on-crime prosecutors.

But he also expressed concern about Draper’s mental decline after meeting him for lunch earlier this year.

“His honor had exemplified disorganized thought behavior, tangential thought … things I see on a day-to-day basis [in mental health court],” Khan Valbuena said, while acknowledging that he is not a doctor.

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. issued its ratings for every judicial candidate last week. Connolly graded best among the judges in the contentious races, described as “well qualified.” Thompson and Khan Valubena were rated as “qualified.” Draper was one of only three candidates labeled “unqualified.”

In 2022, Judge Eric Taylor said he noticed a sharp change in Draper’s behavior that included sending “abusive” and “incoherent” e-mails to colleagues that contained racist and profane language, according to a letter Taylor sent to the state judicial commission.

“He has demonstrated a flagging handle on reality,” Taylor wrote.

Draper was accused of sexual harassment, making racist remarks and callous behavior all over the course of one hearing. According to the state judicial complaint and testimony at Draper’s removal hearing on Monday, the judge allegedly stroked a female lawyer’s hair after going on a tangent to a Black attorney about “Black history, Black football players, the Civil Rights Act, and the Black Lives Matter movement,” even though the case had nothing to do with those issues.

Judge Robert Draper outside the Ronald Reagan Federal Building in Los Angeles.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Later in chambers that same day, he made crude remarks to a group of female attorneys while reflecting on his time as a civil attorney, recalling how male lawyers would deride female secretaries, insisting they learn to “f— better than they could type,” according to testimony given by attorney Janice Brown at Draper’s hearing.

Brown told the review panel that Draper’s behavior left her “aghast” and “perplexed.”

Draper denied much of what was in the complaint. He says that he never touched a lawyer’s hair, and that the comments about Black culture were meant to express his pride at racial progress in America. He criticized the Commission on Judicial Performance.

“This is like the Russian mafia, it’s like Germany,” he said. “There’s no due process for any judge.”

Draper’s attorney, Ashley Posner, said his client would routinely walk up seven flights of stairs when he was assigned to the downtown Stanley Mosk courthouse and remains sharp.

“Things were set up to portray him in the worst light possible … he’s been portrayed as a bigot. He’s been portrayed as doddering and demented, which couldn’t be further from the truth,” Posner said.

In court on Monday, Posner suggested the complaint was part of a broader campaign to force Draper to retire and accused the L.A. County Superior Court’s leadership of ageism. A court spokesperson said they could not comment on personnel matters.

The race between Connolly and Thompson has also focused heavily on alleged misconduct.

Connolly’s past admonishments by the state commission include complaints that he yelled at attorneys for appearing remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. The judge also told a recently acquitted defendant that he knew the man was guilty, records show.

“I don’t think it’s as much what I’ve said as how I have said it. I think that they have taken issue with the terms that I’ve used,” Connolly said, noting he has never been accused of ethical violations or moral impropriety.

L.A. County Superior Court Judge Pat Connolly at the Compton Courthouse.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

A legal expert raised questions in 2023 about the propriety of Connolly seeking to disqualify a fellow judge from ruling on a petition to resentence a convicted cop killer that Connolly had prosecuted in the late 2000s. The state commission is also currently reviewing two additional complaints against Connolly, according to e-mails seen by The Times. Connolly said he couldn’t comment on either situation.

In an interview with The Times, Connolly said he was surprised by the “venom” Thompson had injected into the race.

He said he sees himself as a fair jurist with a knack for finding creative solutions to cases that balance public safety and alternatives to incarceration. In 2022, court records show, he negotiated a plea deal for an NFL player facing prison time for weapons charges, ordering him to organize sports camps for underprivileged youth.

“I’m one of those who listens to both sides, who gives both sides the opportunity to voice their positions,” he said.

Connolly enjoys the support of many sitting judges and law enforcement leaders, including former Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley and the head of the court’s criminal division, Ricardo Ocampo.

Thompson says some of Connolly’s allies on the bench have come after his supporters.

When Thompson launched his campaign, he published an endorsement from L.A. County Superior Court Judge Scott Yang on his campaign website. Within weeks, Thompson said, Yang asked him to take the endorsement down, claiming he was being pressured by other judges.

Yang, who presides over a court in the Antelope Valley, said his colleagues on the bench exhibited a “gangster mentality” when they told him to withdraw his endorsement in a judicial election, according to a text message reviewed by The Times.

“They were going to target him. They were going to run at him. They were potentially going to make false disciplinary reports around him,” Thompson said.

Connolly was not accused of being involved in the alleged harassment and declined to discuss the matter. Yang did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A court spokesperson said they had not received any reports of threats made against Yang, but a law enforcement source said Yang told them he was harassed by fellow judges over his endorsement of Thompson. The source spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals from the bench.

The conflict has generated whispers among L.A. County judges, one of whom requested anonymity due to concerns of backlash for speaking publicly. Word of the threats against Yang, the judge said, left some fearing they too could face retribution for breaking ranks.

“It’s totally concerning,” the judge said. “How different is that than the deputy gangs?”

On China, the mood at the European Commission has shifted in recent months.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

China hawks are gaining ground inside both the Commission’s powerful Directorate-General for Trade and in the cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen, Euronews has learned, with drastic new measures being considered to counter what is seen as unfair competition.

The 27 EU commissioners are set to debate on their China strategy on 29 May, with one official saying, “It will be about acknowledging there is a problem and that something needs to be done.”

Tensions flared Monday after China’s Ministry of Commerce threatened retaliation against the EU over its Made in Europe legislation, which sets strict conditions on foreign direct investment.

An EU official told Euronews the Chinese were “playing games,” adding that the Commission’s priority remains engagement with Beijing through multiple channels set up in recent months.

However, Commission services are already working on new measures to address China’s economic threats, sources have confirmed. “We don’t see any move from the Chinese despite all the issues we have flagged with them, so there’s a reflection on whether we should do more,” one said.

Another source said the release of Germany’s trade deficit figures before Christmas marked a turning point for the Commission.

Data published last autumn by Germany Trade & Invest (GTAI) showed a record €87 billion German trade deficit with China — a wake-up call in Berlin, long focused on securing market access in China ahead of protecting domestic manufacturing.

China has since surged up the agenda for German industry, for the Bundestag — which has set up a dedicated committee — and for the Commission, whose German president has Berlin’s ear.

The EU has long grappled with cheap Chinese imports threatening its industry. Pressure intensified last year after the US slapped steep tariffs on Chinese goods, effectively shutting its market and pushing Beijing to reroute overcapacity in sectors like steel and chemicals toward Europe.

A recent report by the French High Commission for Strategy and Planning, a French government advisory body, warned that “the production cost gaps, as assessed by industry players [across Europe], have now reached levels incompatible with sustainable competition, averaging between 30% and 40%, and exceeding 60% in certain segments (industrial robotics, mechanical components).”

Under these conditions, how can the EU defend its market?

The bloc’s leverage is mainly limited to its 450 million-strong consumer base. Still, one source said it is “increasingly becoming mainstream” inside the Commission to warn Beijing that the EU market could close without rebalancing.

But the trade-offs are stark.

Chinese electric vehicles — hit with EU tariffs in October 2024 — highlight the dilemma. China depended equally on the US and EU markets for almost all its exports before Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. “It cannot easily diversify its EVs as it will not sell in Africa, nor in southeast Asia, where there’s no infrastructure,” another source said.

At the same time, Europe remains reliant on China imports in many of the same sectors where China depends on Europe. “Are we to close our market to lithium batteries from China? We cannot do this overnight,” the same source said. The same applies to solar panels, laptops and medical devices.

Commission explores anti-coercion tool

The EU has trade defence tools — including anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties — but they can take at least 18 months to deploy after a complaint is filed. Two sources said the Commission is working on new instruments, but by the time they bite, the damage may already be done.

A fourth source described an overcapacity instrument as still “premature.”

However, Commission services are also mulling the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), which allows the EU to deploy a wide range of measures — from tariffs to restrictions on public procurement or intellectual property — in response to economic pressure from third countries.

The tool, sometimes described as a “trade bazooka”, has never been used since its creation in 2023, but resurfaced after China weaponised rare earth exports in October 2025 during its trade standoff with the US by imposing strict export controls.

Exports resumed after Washington and Beijing agreed on a one-year truce, which also covers Europe. But that deal expires in October 2026, leaving uncertainty hanging over the EU.

Brussels wants the anti-coercion tool ready if needed.

Tensions could rise further after Beijing’s threats over the Industrial Accelerator Act — the Made in Europe legislation now debated by member states and MEPs — or over pressure linked to the Cybersecurity Act, which could phase out Chinese telecom operators from the EU market.

Securing member states’ backing

However, a qualified majority of EU countries is needed to activate the ACI, and member states remain split.

“It requires a political support higher than for the traditional anti-dumping or anti-subsidies duties which can only be rejected by a reversed majority of EU countries,” a source said.

Despite the wake-up call, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz struck a softer tone in March, floating a long-term trade deal with Beijing.

But in Brussels, that idea is off the table.

“There are a number of concerns and real challenges that the European Union has consistently expressed to China that we need to see them meaningfully address before we can even talk about any future agreements or anything like that,” the Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson, Olof Gill, said.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez — who has visited China four times in three years and secured major Chinese investment — backs closer ties with Beijing.

Meanwhile, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever urged a tougher line in an 18 March letter to von der Leyen.

“We have arrived at a point of no return in which we need to make difficult choices in the short term towards China to protect our industries, economies and the well-being of our citizens in the long term,” he wrote.

France, long a proponent of a hard line on China, shares that view.

Allyson Felix is attempting a comeback at age 40 that could give her a chance to add to her Olympic-record medal haul two years from now in Los Angeles.

Felix, a mother of two, told Time magazine she thought about coming back some four years after calling it quits and decided: “Let’s go after the thing. Let’s be vulnerable.”

“You know, at this age, I should probably be staying home and taking care of my kids, doing all that. And just, why not? Let’s flip it on its head,” she said.

Felix has won 11 Olympic medals — the most by any woman in track — and has a record 20 medals from world championships.

She is a seven-time Olympic champion, with six in the relays and her lone individual gold coming in the 200 meters at the 2012 London Games.

Before retiring in 2022, she became an outspoken advocate for athletes who become mothers and want to keep their careers going.

Felix, who landed a spot on the IOC Athletes’ Commission in retirement, has two kids — 7-year-old Camryn and 2-year old Trey.

She said she expects to start full-time training with her coach, Bobby Kersee, in October with the goal of competing in 2027. The Olympics will be in her hometown a year later.

“I totally get the person who sticks around too long and you’re like, ‘What are they doing?’” Felix said. “I know, at 40, I am not at my peak. I have no illusions about that. I’m very clear in what it is and what I want to see. And so I hope it’s seen that way.”

Caracas, April 23, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has established a commission to assess the “strategic” value of state-owned assets and their possible transfer to the private sector.

The Commission for the Evaluation of Public Assets held its first meeting on Wednesday. In a short televised message, Rodríguez said the commission had the purpose of bringing “agility and modernity” to the Venezuelan state.

The acting president announced that Venezuelan state assets would be divided into four categories: strategic ones to remain under state control, “strategic alliances” where the state retains ownership but management is turned over to the private sector in concession-type deals, “non-strategic” assets to be fully privatized; and assets to be liquidated or reincorporated elsewhere.

“The purpose of this commission is to elevate Venezuela’s productivity levels, so that the Venezuelan state can be robust and attend to the strategic aspects of the nation,” she said.

The commission includes Economic Sector Vice President Calixto Ortega, Finance Minister Anabel Pereira, Industry Minister Luis Villegas, State Solicitor Arianny Seijo, Communes Minister Ángel Prado, as well as Luis Pisella, former president of industry guild CONINDUSTRIA, representing the private sector.

Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez spearheaded a nationalization campaign in the 2000s to impose state control of key economic areas such as oil, electricity, telecoms, banking, and the heavy industries.

In recent years, with the economy heavily targeted by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government expanded “strategic alliances” with the private sector, particularly in the Venezuelan countryside. However, campesino organizations have denounced that the private takeover of companies that formerly supplied seeds, inputs, and tractors has significantly raised costs for small-scale producers. Strategic alliances in sugar mills have also drawn complaints of companies defrauding sugar cane growers.

The Cisneros Group, one of Venezuela’s largest private sector conglomerates, has recently announced plans to raise over $1 billion in funds ahead of potential sell-offs of state assets.

Elias Ferrer Breda, financial analyst and director of Orinoco Research, told Venezuelanalysis that he foresees privatizations in basic industries such as steel and cement.

“In my view, we will see virtually all the industries that are running at low capacity and without turning profits privatized,” he predicted. “We are talking about industries like steel and cement, but also other sectors like hotels or agricultural land.”

Ferrer affirmed that state companies currently under strategic alliances, such as sugar mills or Ferrominera Orinoco, an iron-ore complex presently managed by India’s Jindal Steel, could continue under similar deals as opposed to being sold outright.

“Where investors have mostly expressed an interest is in extractive industries: oil and mining,” he added. Ferrer additionally claimed that US “strategic and business interests” are likely to pursue control over Venezuelan critical mineral reserves, which are not presently certified.

Rodríguez had unveiled the commission to evaluate state assets in an April 9 presidential address. The acting leader also set in motion efforts to reform Venezuela’s labor, tax, and pension legislation. The Venezuelan National Assembly has recently approved pro-business overhauls of the country’s hydrocarbon and mining laws.

Caracas reestablished dealings with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank on April 16. On Wednesday, Rodríguez disclosed a conversation with IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva and stated Caracas’ priority in unblocking around US $5 billion worth of Special Drawing Rights to improve public services such as electricity and water supply.

For her part, Georgieva acknowledged a “very valuable and productive call” and that the next steps include IMF “policy advice and capacity development.”

Venezuelan leaders have vowed that there are no plans to incur IMF debt. However, the Caribbean nation could soon face pressure from creditors looking to collect on a massive external debt, with unpaid loans, defaulted bonds, and international arbitration awards totaling as much as $170 billion with accrued interest.

On April 16, the so-called Venezuelan Creditor Committee held talks with US officials amid efforts to secure a license to engage in debt negotiations with Caracas. The committee includes Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC, Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Greylock Capital Management, and others.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has seized control of Venezuelan oil revenues while issuing licenses to grant Western corporations favorable access to the Caribbean nation’s energy and mining sectors.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Published on 18/04/2026 – 22:58 GMT+2•Updated
23:06

A coalition of EU-based chemical producers of titanium dioxide – a strategic chemical used in green energy and aerospace – has lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging unfair foreign subsidies against leading Chinese producer LB Group, which is seeking to acquire a UK plant of British competitor Venator, Euronews has learned.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move follows the European Commission’s decision in January 2025 to impose anti-dumping duties on LB Group, a trade defence measure targeting low-priced imports into the EU.

Acquiring a production plant in the UK would allow the Chinese group to export its products to the European market duty-free under the EU-UK trade agreement, circumventing EU anti-dumping tariffs.

The EU chemical sector is under pressure from growing competition from Chinese rivals, which are flooding the market with overcapacity.

The alliance behind the complaint against LB Group includes several companies producing in the EU — US-based Tronox and Kronos, Czech Precheza and Slovenian Cinkarna — collectively accounting for about 90% of EU titanium dioxide production.

Enforcing the Foreign Subsidies Regulation outside the EU

Sources said the complaint was filed in December 2025, urging the European Commission to investigate the Chinese company over alleged unfair foreign subsidies used to finance the acquisition of Venator’s plant.

The EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation, adopted in 2022, allows the Commission to investigate non-EU companies to assess whether they benefit from distortive foreign subsidies to make acquisitions in the EU or take part in public procurement.

The tool was initially designed with China in mind, reflecting concerns over excessive state subsidies support for Chinese companies acquiring strategic EU assets or infrastructure. However, the regulation has not yet been applied outside the EU.

The plant targeted by LB Group is located in Greatham in northeast England, which left the EU in 2020 after Brexit. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is currently reviewing the deal and is expected to issue a decision in May.

If the European Commission opens an investigation under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, it could set a precedent and send a strong signal globally.

The move would come as the EU chemical industry loses market share in Europe.

According to Cefic, which represents the sector in Brussels, the bloc has lost around 9% of its production capacity since 2022, resulting in the loss of 20,000 direct jobs.